Mac Mini Core i7 3.2 GHz Late 2018

Forums Benchmark Discussion Mac Mini Core i7 3.2 GHz Late 2018

This topic contains 10 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Ben Gunawi 6 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
  • #1346


    There’s a Mac Mini Core i7 3.2 GHz Late 2018 in the benchmark with a score of 221 tracks. It’s pretty much at the top of the benchmark, in green. How realistic is that? Does anyone else have this Mac?

    I don’t want to delete the result yet, but I may if we find out other people who have this Mac have a much lower score.



    I’m the person reported 221 tracks.
    I was surprised with the result, too. So, little bit suspicious about project/global preference.

    My test environment was,
    Mac: late 2018 Mac mini core i7 3.2GHz, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
    Audio interface: Audient ID4
    Sampling rate: 44.1kHz
    IO buffer size: 256
    processing threads: 12
    process buffer size: large
    multithreading: playback & live tracks
    summing: high precision(64bit)
    rewire behavior: off

    tested with ‘looping bar 1 & 2’, and ‘looping bar 2 only’. There was no difference.

    Today, after the reading the Admin’s comment, I just tested with 64 IO buffer.
    I could reach even 235 tracks.

    Am I doing something wrong?
    I don’t want to corrupt the benchmark table.



    First, thanks for reporting this back. 🙂

    It looks like there’s other people who had similar issues:

    Apparently some IRs were missing in that case, thus the person was able to reach a very high score. I think the problem is the project file of the benchmark test. Where did you download the test? The one that can be downloaded here is the original benchmark test and I believe it is dated by now, because some IRs are apparently not downloaded by default in Logic Pro X, hence, not everyone can run the test the same way.

    Someone has found a new test on this site here:

    There’s a discussion about a new test here:

    I sent a message to the person on LogicProHelp if I can use their test, but haven’t received an answer yet.

    The thing is, the test must be compatible with all new versions of Logic Pro, but shouldn’t make all the previous test results obsolete. If we end up with ten different benchmark tests, the comparison is impossible. So I believe the new test should not be too heavily modified, it should just correct the bugs from the old test with the most minimalistic approach. I don’t know if the LogicProHelp test does that, but maybe someone else can give their input if that test is suited fo replacement or not. 🙂



    @amuckrunner, I think I fixed the test. 🙂

    Can you try this out for me? Download the test here and tell us your score!



    Dear Admin,
    I just tested with the new project file before going to bed.
    The result is 225 tracks with 256 buffer size.

    About the IR thing, I just skimmed the threads you linked and please note that I’m very new to the Logic Pro x and I play guitar. that is I have no knowledge on EXS24, sampler stuff.

    To my knowledge, only ‘space designer’ plugin uses IR. And I found that the Space designer loads “0.8s_boom room”. Bypassing the space designer audibly removes reverb. So, the results seems to be correct.

    I think that the result is quite aligned with geekbench’s multicore score.

    I hope it’s correct as I just bought this machine and it’s my first desktop mac. 🙂

    P.S. Sorry for my poor English.



    Don’t worry for your English, it’s at least as good as mine. 🙂

    I’m actually surprised about how powerful that Mac Mini is. I hadn’t seen it has scored so high on Geekbench. I guess your score is real!

    But did you bypass the Space Designer finally or not? And did you get any messages that some IRs (or other files) could not be found?



    Thanks for the updated benchmark.

    More detailed procedure of testing is as follows.

    * The effect of the Space designer is tested only for a single track and reverted to ‘on’ state in testing.
    * No warning or error message in loading the project other than ‘error initializing core MIDI’. I don’t think the core MIDI stuff affects the test result. I want to resolve the core MIDI error, though.
    * Buffer size varied from 64 to 256. There was no significant difference in crackling threshold(220~230 tracks).
    * CPU utilization shown in Mac’s monitoring reaches around 78%.
    * # of Processing threads: 12 (due to 6 cores)
    * process buffer size: large.
    * other settings are same as mentioned above.(Audient ID4, multithreading, summing, rewire behavior, etc.)

    * At the maximum # of tracks, activating the other windows(e.g. Safari, monitor) instantly introduces stop playing and system overrun message in LPX. So I think that the measured # tracks truly reached the maximum possible.

    Thanks for this benchmark and your help.

    Although this debugging/discussion was initiated by suspicion, there are take-aways for both you and me.
    For you, perfecting benchmark’s compatibility.
    For me, justifying the huge price of Mini. It is so expensive.


    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by amuckrunner.


    I honestly can’t say if the core midi error affects the result or not, but other than that it looks good! Your Mac Mini is a beast. We haven’t had any Mac Minis so high in the benchmark. iMacs started to catch up Mac Pros, but now even Mac Minis overtake them. 🙂

    You’re welcome for the test!



    Wow, I am really surprised to see these results! I could only get 135 tracks on my 6-core i5 3 GHz. Clearly, the hyperthreading of the i7 makes a massive difference in Logic X, much bigger than Geekbench 4 would suggest. Aagh, I want an i7 now haha!



    Haha same here. I’m actually trying to sell my 12-core cMP to get this Mac Mini.


    Ben Gunawi

    Hi, does @amuckrunner ‘s audio interface could make any different?

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.