Is Aperture faster using discrete graphics?

Question

I'm considering a new Mac to replace my late 2006 MBP. Initially, I was debating with myself whether I should buy a new MacBook Pro, a Retina MBP, or wait for the new 27" iMac coming in December.
More recently, however, I've seen the 2012 Mac Minis, and they are benchmarking very similar numbers to the Retina MBP with the same processor.
But the big difference I see, is that the Mini only has the integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000, while all the other options have the integrated graphics, plus various flavors of nVidia GeForce grahics.
So, my question is, will Aperture be noticeably faster having (and using) the discrete grahics instead of having solely the integrated graphics?
I like to get the best performance for my money, but if the performance difference is only slight byt the dollar difference is large...

Answer 1

...more (The forum as is common just trashed a few paragraphs of writing that I decline to rewrite).
In summary, graphics are limiting to graphics processing so IMO we should buy strong discrete graphics boxes for heavy graphics apps because the OS, apps and camera file sizes are getting more demanding not less demanding of graphics support.
Personally I consider mobility essential and Aperture still fails to synch a laptop/desktop workflow, so I got rid of my MP/MBP setup for a strongest-graphics MBP.
CPU-only test results are at
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
but note that all 2012 cpus are strong. The Geekbench results linked do not measure application performance; graphics and RAM are what tend to be most limiting, not cpu.
From the BareFeats site previously linked to:
"BOTTOM LINE
The 'late 2012' Mac mini Quad-Core i7 is strong on CPU crunching but weak on graphics intensive tasks."
HTH
-Allen