3 ms·

> The Beelink (and other mini-PC brands) offer comparable performance. [0] has the new (base!) M4 at 3859 (single) and 14837 (multi) whilst [1] has the Ultra 5

> The Beelink (and other mini-PC brands) offer comparable performance. [0] has the new (base!) M4 at 3859 (single) and 14837 (multi) whilst [1] has the Ultra 5 125H 4500 at ~2200 (single) and ~11500 (multi). "comparable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your sentence. [0] https://arstechnica.com/apple/2024/11/review-the-fastest-of-the-m4-macbook-pros-might-be-the-least-interesting-one/ https://arstechnica.com/apple/2024/11/review-the-fastest-of-... [1] https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=Ultra+5+125H https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=Ultra+5+125H

nl 2y ago
> new (base!) M4 at 3859 (single) and 14837 (multi) I think that's the M4 in the base iMac (8 core), which is different (and less powerful!) than the M4 in the base Mac Mini (10 core). The Beelink is 32Gb RAM + 1TB storage though. Like I said: the base Mac Mini is tough to beat!
GeekyBear 2y ago
A performance test between a Beelink flagship mini PC that was around $1000 and the Mac Mini was recently posted: > M4 Mac Mini vs Intel and AMD Flagships – It's Not Even Close https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Uuu046EE28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Uuu046EE28 There are even cheaper mini PCs you can buy that offer great bang for the buck for home users who just want to do web browsing and run Office, but the performance isn't at the same level, even if you spend a lot more.