-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Mac mini -- which one?
- Thread starter lovEU
- Start date
Thanks for all the answers. Although some of the responses have been helpful, I'm still not sure what to do actually.
Assumed that you max out RAM to 8 GB (and maybe to 16 GB in some time) and assumed you use the same hard disk set-up the question still remains: Does the mini’s speed profit more …
Assumed that you max out RAM to 8 GB (and maybe to 16 GB in some time) and assumed you use the same hard disk set-up the question still remains: Does the mini’s speed profit more …
- from a i7 quad-core (= 2 more cores) or
- from a higher processor speed (2.7 vs. 2.0 GHz) plus a separate graphic card (= Radeon HD 6630M vs. the integrated HD Graphics 3000 which means a performance penalty “as both the CPU and GPU have to access memory over the same bus” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA] ) …
- Photoshop CS5
- the raw convertor you’re using like LR3, Aperture or RPP
According to Wikipedia this seems to be correct ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA ):
"The Intel Graphics Media Accelerator, or GMA, is Intel's current line of integrated graphics processors built into various motherboard chipsets.
These integrated graphics products allow a computer to be built without a separate graphics card, which can reduce cost, power consumption and noise. They are commonly found on netbook, low-priced notebook and desktop computers as well as business computers, which do not need high levels of graphics capability. 90% of all PCs sold have integrated graphics.[1] They rely on the computer's main memory for storage, which imposes a performance penalty, as both the CPU and GPU have to access memory over the same bus."
I agree with you. Anyhow there is the possibility that for example the raw converter's task will speed up more by two added cores -- but I'm not deep enough into hardware to really know ...
--
regards, eric
Richard B.
Veteran Member
You might try the geekbench web site.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/
The test measures processing speed and they have hundreds of results for all type of Mac's posted. I don't think they test graphics speed, but I think this is mainly a factor for gaming where high refresh rates are important. It won't tell how well individual applications make use of four vs. two cores.
Their aggregate score for the Mac Mini quad was 8573 vs 6980 for the 2.7G dual. An approx. 23% performance boost for apps that use all four cores.
--
Richard B.
http://www.pbase.com/richard_b
http://browse.geekbench.ca/
The test measures processing speed and they have hundreds of results for all type of Mac's posted. I don't think they test graphics speed, but I think this is mainly a factor for gaming where high refresh rates are important. It won't tell how well individual applications make use of four vs. two cores.
Their aggregate score for the Mac Mini quad was 8573 vs 6980 for the 2.7G dual. An approx. 23% performance boost for apps that use all four cores.
--
Richard B.
http://www.pbase.com/richard_b
Aperture REALLY uses the Graphics card! A faster one REALLY helps Aperture! It does not make much of an impact with LR or Photoshop. The Processor is more important with these two. If you use Aperture, make sure you have the fastest Graphics you can get.
As I said before, you will LOVE the Mini! If it were me, I would get the Fastest Processor and Graphics you can get. You can always upgrade the RAM later, and get more storage with Thunderbold Hard drives! But, you can NOT upgrade the graphics or the processor.
Kevin
As I said before, you will LOVE the Mini! If it were me, I would get the Fastest Processor and Graphics you can get. You can always upgrade the RAM later, and get more storage with Thunderbold Hard drives! But, you can NOT upgrade the graphics or the processor.
Kevin
aman74
Senior Member
I'm sorry you're getting such poor advice in this thread. I suggest you head over to macrumors or some other forum more related to computers than this forum here.
With most software nowadays utilizing more cores and hyperthreading the server with a quad-core is going to smoke the dual-core despite a lower clock speed and inferior graphics card.
I can't believe the folks chiming in with all the utter nonsense. Why don't they just check out some benchmarks instead of making stuff up?
F
f8BeThereToo
Guest
I don't think that the advice has been poor in this thread. Until a Web site such as Arstechnica, Anantech and Barefeats compares the $799 to the $999 MacMini, we won't really know how the two options compare to each other when it comes to using apps preferred by photographers.
Of the three Web sites that I listed, Barefeats is the one most likely to provide speed tests that include both CPU and GPU data that will be of interest to photographers. Unfortunately, Barefeats is a one-man show and it doesn't receive loaners from Apple, so its testing is dependent on purchasing or borrowing Macs for review. I suggest e-mailing Barefeats to find out if he is planning on testing the new MacMinis. I would be surprised if he tests the server model since it has limited appeal for most people.
The MacRumors forum http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146 is a good suggestion. If you are lucky there may be someone who has purchased both Minis and posted his/her impressions. There is at least one person at MacRumors who bought both an i5 and i7 MacBook Air and tested both machines. His review has helped me decide which MBA to buy.
Look, the choice is plain: sacrifice CPU or GPU capability. Based on the software that I use (Aperture, NX2 and minimal Photoshop), the $799 MacMini is the best buy for me. A quad core CPU would be nice, but it isn't essential. The $799 MacMini is going to be quite an upgrade from my 2.16GHz Code2Duo iMac with a NIVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 128MB of VRAM.
If you think that the modest speed increase is worth an extra $100, spring for the i7 CPU upgrade. Otherwise, spend your money on a RAM upgrade from OWC and get a nice monitor that will serve you for years. If a wide-gamut display is more to your liking, then go that route. I don't see the need for a wide-gamut monitor, so a very good sRGB display is going to save me some serious money, around $600.
When the MacMini is upgraded in the future you can sell the old Mini for a good price to offset the cost of the new Mac.
You can waste a lot of time worrying about relatively minor differences between the Macs that you are considering, or simply buy the best currently available Mac that meets your needs, enjoy the upgrade and spend your time doing something productive and fun... like taking pictures!
aman74
Senior Member
The results should be very close to the MBP's.
Besides, we have generations of CPU's information to go by as well. It's no leap of faith to know that an i7 guad destroys an i5 duo in most apps, especially PS, despite the GPU and a higher clock speed.
Not to mention people who have benchmarked them at home with findings exactly as predicted.
Besides, we have generations of CPU's information to go by as well. It's no leap of faith to know that an i7 guad destroys an i5 duo in most apps, especially PS, despite the GPU and a higher clock speed.
Not to mention people who have benchmarked them at home with findings exactly as predicted.
Photoshop CS5 actions benchmark (from Barefeats)
2.7 GHz (Dual-Core): 30.9 sec
2.3 GHz (Quad-Core): 21.4 sec
For the Mini it would be 2.7 GHz Dual versus 2.0 GHz Quad. Hence, the scores would be closer. If CPU speeds correlate perfectly with performance the 2.0 GHz Quad would finish this test in 24.6 sec. Anyhow, this a benchmark and it depends on your usage of Photoshop how close it would be to your reality at home. If only one or two cores are employed the 2.7 GHz Dual-Core is actually the faster CPU.
About the GPUs: Aperture uses Apples Core Image library and can thereby take advantage of the GPU. Intel GPUs, e.g. the HD3000, support Core Image and are pretty good for Aperture. Only games or video editing demand more powerful GPUs.
2.7 GHz (Dual-Core): 30.9 sec
2.3 GHz (Quad-Core): 21.4 sec
For the Mini it would be 2.7 GHz Dual versus 2.0 GHz Quad. Hence, the scores would be closer. If CPU speeds correlate perfectly with performance the 2.0 GHz Quad would finish this test in 24.6 sec. Anyhow, this a benchmark and it depends on your usage of Photoshop how close it would be to your reality at home. If only one or two cores are employed the 2.7 GHz Dual-Core is actually the faster CPU.
About the GPUs: Aperture uses Apples Core Image library and can thereby take advantage of the GPU. Intel GPUs, e.g. the HD3000, support Core Image and are pretty good for Aperture. Only games or video editing demand more powerful GPUs.
markdavisphotography
Well-known member
$986 with NAPP discount.... 2.7GHz i7 4GB RAM (upgrade to 8 GB is only $77.99 through OWC) totaling $1063.99. 
aman74
Senior Member
Stop making so much sense, they don't like that around here. They like to talk about how you much you need a discrete GPU, etc...
brianric
Veteran Member
I don't know where you are getting this $1,995 unless it is one expensive video cable, but I just spec one out for $1,198 minus the video cable.
I was a Windows user from 1987 to March 2011, and there's one thing the Mac mini has over your HP, and that is the Mac OS.
I was a Windows user from 1987 to March 2011, and there's one thing the Mac mini has over your HP, and that is the Mac OS.
Doug Frost
Leading Member
--
The gear is merely the means to an end, not the end itself.
The gear is merely the means to an end, not the end itself.
F
f8BeThereToo
Guest
This should clarify things a bit: http://barefeats.com/mini11_01.html
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum