INSIGHTS
The iTunes test used a max of 110% CPU (or one core) so the core frequency becomes important along with the ability to kick in Turbo Boost. That explains why the iMac 3.4GHz Quad-Core beats the Hex-Core 3.33GHz Mac Pro and the Dual-Core 2.7GHz Mac mini is only one second slower than the Mac Pro.
HandBrake tells a different story. It used 1200% CPU (or 12 cores) on the Mac Pro. That's why the Quad-Core (8 virtual cores) and Hex-Core (12 virtual cores) models of Mac leave the Dual-Core Macs in their dust. In other words, some "non-pro" apps perform best when there are plenty of cores to work with.
iMovie falls somewhere between the other two apps in intensity as it uses 370% CPU (or 4 cores) for our export exercise. That's why the Dual-Core Macs were not beaten as badly.
COST versus SPEED
One reader did a study of the cost/performance ratio. Using his own program that does 8 parallel threads of number crunching, he concluded that the Mac mini 2.3GHz Dual-Core i5 at $600 has the best bang for the buck -- though he assumes you already own a compatible display.
But a Mac mini may not get your most important tasks done in a reasonable amount of time. This issue requires a whole article unto itself. We've been using some new tools to measure the CPU load, memory load, GPU load, and video memory load of various consumer and pro apps. Hopefully once we publish those results, you can make an informed choice about which models and configurations of Mac can get the job done for you.
WHAT ABOUT THE QUAD-CORE MINI?
Some of you are asking us about that. We don't have access to the quad mini at the moment but if you do and want to run our tests, let us know so we can send you the test procedures and test files.
MORE TO COME
To be notified of new test results, subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter@barefeats. If you have a question, comment, or want to volunteer to do testing on your Mac,
.
