capsule review

Mac mini (Early 2009)

Page 2 of 2

Performance

The Mac mini has never been about performance; rather, it’s an affordable computer with a good array of features in a tiny package. (Apple told us the mini is designed to be the most affordable way to get a computer with Mac OS X and iLife.) The latest models don’t change that: While our benchmark testing shows a notable jump in Speedmark scores since the August 2007 Mac mini models, individual tasks that aren’t graphics-intensive show more modest gains. This makes sense, as the mini’s processor speed hasn’t increased at all for the $799 model, and by only 0.17GHz for the $599 mini. Rather, most gains in non-graphics-intensive tasks are the result of newer processor architecture and faster bus and memory speeds.

New Mac minis Speedmark scores

Longer bars are better. Blue bars in italics represent reference systems. Macworld Lab testing by James Galbraith, Chris Holt, and Helen Williamson.

Larger gains over the previous models are found in tests of hard-drive performance. For example, in our Finder Unzip Archive test, which is largely dependent on the performance of the hard drive, the new models are 17 and 35 percent faster than the previous top-of-the-line mini. Interestingly, the difference in Finder performance between the two new models—the $799 mini is 22 percent faster—is largely a result of the top-end mini’s hard drive outperforming the one in the $599 model. (Although both new minis use 5,400 rpm drives, there are other factors that affect drive speed. For example, the 120GB drive is a single-platter model, whereas the 320GB drive is a dual-platter.)

Still, it’s worth noting that the relatively slow laptop drives used in the mini line remain among its limiting factors compared to a traditional desktop Mac. In fact, when we ran the same Finder tests on the $599 Mac mini while booted from a FireWire 800 drive, the results were notably better than with either stock mini; for example, our Finder Unzip Archive test came in at just 1:01 (compared to 1:19 and 1:41 for the two minis booted from their stock drives).

It’s in the graphics department that the new models really shine—at least compared to older Mac minis. Thanks to the GeForce 9400M GPU, the new $799 mini’s performance (measured in frames per second) was seven times that of its predecessor in our Quake 4 test, 39.1 versus 5.6. Similarly, in our Unreal Tournament 2004 test, the new mini’s framerate (63.0) was nearly three times that of its predecessor’s (21.9). Perhaps most telling, the new mini was able to generate 35.6 frames per second in Call of Duty 4; the previous mini couldn’t even run the game. (When equipped with comparable RAM [2GB] the $599 mini produced similar results; with the stock 1GB RAM, performance was reduced by roughly 17 percent in the same tests.)

Benchmarks aside, the new mini is also a decent performer in real-world testing. I played the first few levels of Call of Duty 4 on the $799 mini, using the game’s automatically configured (“Optimal System Settings”) graphics settings. While those settings obviously provided lower-quality visuals than you’d get with the newest iMac or Mac Pro, and the frame rates wouldn’t satisfy hardcore gamers, the graphics looked good and the game was more than playable, bogging down a bit only in the heaviest firefights. I also imported a number of 720p video clips into iMovie ‘09 and was able to use all of iMovie ‘09’s features with reasonable performance. Finally, I was able to run multiple Microsoft Office programs along with Safari without problems.

Unfortunately, the $599 model’s paltry 1GB of RAM can hamper its performance considerably, even if you mainly use your computer for Web browsing, e-mail, and an office suite such as Microsoft Office or Apple’s iWork. (And the $599 model’s slower hard drive makes it that much more painful, compared to other desktop Macs, to get into heavy virtual-memory disk swapping.) Using iMovie, I was able to get similar performance to that of the $799 model only if I quit all other programs first. And Call of Duty 4’s overall performance was considerably degraded: the automatically-configured settings provided lower-quality video, and I experienced frustratingly frequent stutters and pauses.

Mac mini benchmarks

Speedmark 5 Adobe
Photoshop
CS3
Cinema 4D
XL 10.5
Compressor iMovie HD iTunes 7.7 Quake 4 Finder Finder
OVERALL SCORE SUITE RENDER MPEG ENCODE AGED EFFECT MP3 ENCODE FRAME RATE ZIP ARCHIVE UNZIP ARCHIVE
Mac mini 2GHz Core 2 Duo
320GB Drive
202 1:08 1:04 2:07 0:57 1:13 39.1 5:31 1:19
Mac mini 2GHz Core 2 Duo
120GB Drive
189 1:15 1:04 2:07 0:58 1:14 38.7 5:45 1:41
Mac mini 2GHz Core 2 Duo
(Aug. 2007)
167 1:22 1:07 2:25 0:57 1:09 5.6 5:30 2:02
Mac mini 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo
(Aug. 2007)
154 1:27 1:13 2:40 1:07 1:21 5.6 5:58 2:06
MacBook 2GHz Core 2 Duo
(White, Current)
186 1:14 1:03 2:08 0:58 1:13 30.1 5:35 1:34
>Better <Better <Better <Better <Better <Better >Better <Better <Better

Best results in bold. Reference systems in italics.

Speedmark 5 scores are relative to those of a 1.5GHz Core Solo Mac mini, which is assigned a score of 100. Adobe Photoshop, Cinema 4D XL, iMovie, iTunes, and Finder scores are in minutes:seconds. All systems were running Mac OS X 10.5.6 with 2GB of RAM. The Photoshop Suite test is a set of 14 scripted tasks using a 50MB file. Photoshop’s memory was set to 70 percent and History was set to Minimum. We recorded how long it took to render a scene in Cinema 4D XL. We used Compressor to encode a 6minute:26second DV file using the DVD: Fastest Encode 120 minutes - 4:3 setting. In iMovie, we applied the Aged Film Effect from the Video FX. menu to a one minute movie. We converted 45 minutes of AAC audio files to MP3 using iTunes’ High Quality setting. We used Quake's average-frames-per-second score; we tested at a resolution of 1,024 by 768 pixels at the Maximum setting with both audio and graphics enabled. We duplicated a 1GB folder, created a Zip archive in the Finder from the two 1GB files and then Unzipped it.To compare Speedmark 5 scores for various Mac systems, visit our Mac Hardware Guide.—MACWORLD LAB TESTING BY JAMES GALBRAITH, CHRIS HOLT, AND HELEN WILLIAMSON.

Which to get?

While the Mac mini’s tiny size has many advantages over larger computers, this design also makes it the most difficult Mac to upgrade. Unless you’re skilled with putty knives and spudgers, and comfortable forcing little plastic and metal pieces to do things they don’t appear to be willing to do, the mini isn’t a machine you’ll want to take apart. (Apple’s policy has always been that as long as you don’t break anything in the process, you’re free to upgrade your Mac mini yourself. The company confirmed to Macworld that this is still the case.)

And there’s the rub with the Mac mini: The otherwise-attractive $599 model offers a meager 1GB of RAM and only 120GB of hard-drive space—disappointing specs for a computer that’s more than capable of handling movie and photo editing using the included iLife suite. Opting for the $799 model alleviates these issues to some degree, giving you 2GB of RAM and a 320GB hard drive, but these are its only improvements, and they’re ones that would cost you less than $100 if you installed them yourself. Yet by making the Mac mini so difficult to upgrade, Apple has ensured that many users will pay the $799 mini’s $200 premium.

Thankfully, Apple will upgrade the $599 mini to 2GB RAM for only $50, a fair price considering that Apple performs (and warrants) the installation. And the new mini’s plentiful expansion ports mean you can always add more external storage. In fact, as noted above, by adding (and booting from) an external FireWire drive, the $599 mini’s performance can surpass that of either stock model. With 750GB and 1TB FireWire 800 drives available for under $150 these days, unless you’re using your mini in a location where you can’t have an external drive attached, you’ll get far more value for your money going this route.

Macworld’s buying advice

The new Mac mini models provide the most significant upgrades to the line yet, offering slightly better CPU performance, considerably improved video capabilities, increased expandability, and better wireless technology. The result is that for the first time, the Mac mini is a computer that’s truly capable of handling the iLife suite. More than ever, it’s an appealing computer for those who already have a display, keyboard, and mouse, or those looking to build a Mac system on the smallest budget (or in the smallest space). It’s also a good upgrade for owners of the PowerPC and first-generation Intel Mac minis. On the other hand, if you purchased a Mac mini in 2007, the new models are compelling upgrades only for those who want to play games or perform other graphics-card-intensive tasks.

Between the two models, it’s tough to justify the additional cost of the $799 mini. Those willing and able to perform their own upgrades should do so. Otherwise you should consider purchasing the $599 model with Apple’s 2GB RAM upgrade and then attaching an external drive; you’ll get more storage for your money, and if you go the FireWire route, you can actually get better performance than that of even the the $799 mini.

[Dan Frakes is a Macworld senior editor.]

Update 3/13/09, 10:15pm: Corrected comment about the hard drives in previous Mac minis; recent models were also SATA.

To comment on this article and other Macworld content, visit our Facebook page or our Twitter feed.
At a Glance
| 1 2 Page 2
Notice to our Readers
We're now using social media to take your comments and feedback. Learn more about this here.