Reading mode: Light Dark

Mac Mini Upgraded

Go to last post
This has been an enjoyable thread to read through. It's a fairly simple decision for *most* people interested. Do you want MacOS and the small form factor? if yes, then you pay for it and deal with any perceived shortcomings. If not, take the money and spend it on a PC if you're willing to build it.

Honestly, if I were to buy one, I'd get the i7/8gb Ram/ 128gb SSD and drop in 8gb more ram, plug in a 1tb+ SSD via USB, and call it a day.
 
Brian P Smith said:
This has been an enjoyable thread to read through. It's a fairly simple decision for *most* people interested. Do you want MacOS and the small form factor? if yes, then you pay for it and deal with any perceived shortcomings. If not, take the money and spend it on a PC if you're willing to build it.

Honestly, if I were to buy one, I'd get the i7/8gb Ram/ 128gb SSD and drop in 8gb more ram, plug in a 1tb+ SSD via USB, and call it a day.
Click to expand...
I'd go for at least 256GB internal SSD. My OS, apps and basic data take up around 90GB, and that doesn't leave much for stuff on the desktop or macOS to page memory. But, yeah, putting working projects and Lightroom catalogs on an external SSD - even a "slow" 500MB/s 2.5" USB3 SSD - is a good cheap option. I tested the difference between having my catalogs and master image files on one vs. having them on my Mac Pro's much faster internal SSD, and the time to export a batch of JPEGs from adjusted RAWs was exactly the same.
 
Brian P Smith said:
This has been an enjoyable thread to read through. It's a fairly simple decision for *most* people interested. Do you want MacOS and the small form factor? if yes, then you pay for it and deal with any perceived shortcomings. If not, take the money and spend it on a PC if you're willing to build it.

Honestly, if I were to buy one, I'd get the i7/8gb Ram/ 128gb SSD and drop in 8gb more ram, plug in a 1tb+ SSD via USB, and call it a day.
Click to expand...
+1

Unless testing shows the i7 will throttle quite a bit under heavy loads, compared to the non-HT 6-core i5, in which case I'd prefer that one.
 
I'm currently shopping for a new computer. One of the appeals of the iMac line is it saves me the bother of shopping for a monitor. But this new Mini does appeal to me. So would anyone like to help a lazy person out by recommending a monitor? Between 22 & 27". Mostly photo work, little-to-no video and no gaming.
 
The (Mac Mini) i7-8700B has a max temperature of 100c whereas the regular i7-8700 has a max temperature of 71c. So that should help with throttling, I would guess.
 
Eric Nepean said:
Actually Apple has provided a very cheap model which is very scalable to a users needs.

If all one does is some surfing, emails, write a few documents, watch a few videos with one 4K monitor, the base model is quite useable.

RAM is user installable/upgradeable and so can be purchased inexpensively, when needed, from Crucial or Kingston as in the past.

A $200 upcharge for the 256GB SSD is not that expensive, and will satisfy most users who already have external drives. And this box has a lot of connectivity for external drives.

The UHD graphics can access up to 64GB of RAM, but it would be silly to provision for that much. It probabaly doesn't even need 2GB for two 4K monitors and no video, I note that the video card on my 2015 iMac usually uses between 1GB and 1.25GB for a 5K monitor and a UHD monitor. I can't remember seeing it over 1.6GB.

That it's expensive when fully loaded is not a surprise.
Click to expand...
Do you have an opinion of the suitability of this New mini for applications such as on1 Photo Raw 2019 that seem to use a lot of cpu? On1 recommends Intel Core i5, Xeon, or better.

I have a late 2015 iMac now but for the first time ever I am considering the new mini and a 5K monitor.

Thanks.
 
Marie Meyer said:
I'm currently shopping for a new computer. One of the appeals of the iMac line is it saves me the bother of shopping for a monitor. But this new Mini does appeal to me. So would anyone like to help a lazy person out by recommending a monitor? Between 22 & 27". Mostly photo work, little-to-no video and no gaming.
Click to expand...
For some of us (like me) picking a monitor that you will spend so much time looking at is an important decision. I personally don't find the iMac monitors to be right for me. I don't like the height from the desktop, the reflective finish, or the lack of ability to remove the CPU. I use a wide gamut NEC 27" Spectraview, which is very popular with photographers. Or you could run a high def (4K or 5K) monitor from various sources (or both!).
 
They've got some pretty inexpensive models now that include the calibration software and hardware.
 
Marie Meyer said:
I'm currently shopping for a new computer. One of the appeals of the iMac line is it saves me the bother of shopping for a monitor. But this new Mini does appeal to me. So would anyone like to help a lazy person out by recommending a monitor? Between 22 & 27". Mostly photo work, little-to-no video and no gaming.
Click to expand...
I have considered this:

LG 27MD5KB-B UltraFine 27" 16:9 5K IPS Monitor

(I am not a display expert)
 
Rail2trail said:
lightandaprayer said:
What I am really saying is that Apple configured a base-model Mac Mini with memory and storage that is insufficient for personal computing
Click to expand...
It may be unsuitable for your usage but to generalize like this is just silly.
Click to expand...
I'll change my terminology to barely sufficient since the Mini is obviously usable at its base configuration. 8GB RAM and a 128GB SSD was a decent base model 4 years ago. People who do anything beyond very basic computing will need to upgrade the RAM and SSD. That's basically everybody on this forum. . .

The best idea I've read is the after-market RAM upgrade and 256GB SSD and then add a larger external SSD.
 
markam04 said:
The (Mac Mini) i7-8700B has a max temperature of 100c whereas the regular i7-8700 has a max temperature of 71c. So that should help with throttling, I would guess.
Click to expand...
Did you mean 8700k? I hadn't heard of an 8700B?
 
Really? I think this is comparable to what Apple is installing internally.

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-PM96...TF8&qid=1541106580&sr=8-6&keywords=128gb+nvme

Even $100 to bump from 128GB to 256 GB is ^&%*&(*&&%&^! And Apple isn't paying retail for the drives.

At least no 5400 RPM spinners.

That entry level model should have an i5 CPU, plain and simple. Then, I agree that it would do well for everyday consumer computing. It's going to make $1,100 or more to have something decent-just i5 and 8 GB RAM.
 
Last edited:
The specs look like what I see referenced as the 8700. I haven't seen the b designation. Is there any difference between the 8700b and 8700, or are they one and the same. That's kind of been the cpu I've thought was a good compromise of power consumption and processing power.
 
SkiHound said:
The specs look like what I see referenced as the 8700. I haven't seen the b designation. Is there any difference between the 8700b and 8700, or are they one and the same. That's kind of been the cpu I've thought was a good compromise of power consumption and processing power.
Click to expand...
The i7-8700 is a "Desktop" CPU. The i7-8700B is a "Mobile" one. Both have TDP = 65W, and a 100C junction temperature, so it's not clear what makes the 8700B "Mobile". The socket type and package size are different.

The i7-8700B has better video support on the HDMI port. Both can support 4096x2304 pixels, but the i7-8700B can do it at 30 Hz.

Other than that, Intel's comparison chart shows very minor differences. The i7-8700B is not an Intel vPro platform, and does not have Intel Stable Image Platform Program or Intel Boot Guard. Intel does not specify the maximum memory bandwidth for the i7-8700B, but the rest of the memory specifications are the same. And that's about it.

https://ark.intel.com/compare/126686,134905
 
How good is the integrated graphics? It sounds like this machine is ok for editing photographs but without a dedicated GPU / VRAM, 4k video might be a problem. What do you think?
 
strawbale said:
You seem to live in the wrong forum (Windows PC): MacBook Pros 13" (2016/17/18 models) using the forementioned Iris (Plus) 540/550/640/655/655 integrated GPUs ALL support 1o-bit color support on external monitors - just read the specs and user reports.
It could be differnt for this (UHD 630) iGPU, but it could also be that the specs sheet is 'just' incomplete, after all it doesn't mentions support for 'millions of colors' nor for 'billions of colors', like the do for all other MACs (AFAIK).
Click to expand...


Yes, you are right, apple did advertised their mbp 13" to be able to output billions of colors





Limited to single 5k or 2 UHD display
Limited to single 5k or 2 UHD display



If the display is higher than 4k and using 2 displays, it drops back to 8bit. I don't see windows pc doing that so this should be a unique apple thing. I'm not sure but this could be an indication of what Metal is capable of. Good news for everyone.
 
ArtAlt said:
How good is the integrated graphics? It sounds like this machine is ok for editing photographs but without a dedicated GPU / VRAM, 4k video might be a problem. What do you think?
Click to expand...
That's what I think. Which is why I was hoping for an announcement of an updated iMac last Tuesday. By the time I max out a 2017 iMac I might as well buy an iMac Pro. I hear the MacBook Pro will get a more powerful GPU in November which may be help with 4K video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top