Mac Mini Performance

dmanthree

Forum Pro
Messages
12,105
Solutions
1
Reaction score
8,168
Location
(USA), MA, US
I'm in the market for a new PC and will be switching to the Mac. Has anyone out there run PS on the new Mini? If so, how is the performance? I'm interested in the i7 version.

I'm skeptical since it's really a closed system and once you get it, you're stuck at that level forever.
 
I'm in the market for a new PC and will be switching to the Mac. Has anyone out there run PS on the new Mini? If so, how is the performance? I'm interested in the i7 version.
It works quite well, especially if you get it with an SSD.
I'm skeptical since it's really a closed system and once you get it, you're stuck at that level forever.
Max it out when you buy it.
 
I'm in the market for a new PC and will be switching to the Mac. Has anyone out there run PS on the new Mini? If so, how is the performance? I'm interested in the i7 version.
It works quite well, especially if you get it with an SSD.
I'm skeptical since it's really a closed system and once you get it, you're stuck at that level forever.
Max it out when you buy it.
Agreed. Are you running PS on it? Does the lower multi-core performance affect PS? I'm not doing anything extraordinary and see no need to get anything more than a high-end Mini (I think...).
 
I just picked up the 2014 Mac Mini with the 2.6ghz i5, 8gb RAM and the standard 1tb hard drive a couple of weeks ago. Been running Photoshop CC with various Topaz and Nik plugins with no issues. Much faster than my old Windows 7 machine. I wanted to go for a more loaded mini but just couldn't justify the cost. If you can swing the i7 with an even faster HD, I would think you will be very happy with it. This is my first Mac and so far I am loving it!
 
FYI, the mid-range Mini (2.6 GHz, 1 TB, 8 GB) is $100 off at MicroCenter ($599) and the Apple Refurbished Store (via apple.com) was full of fresh Mac Mini refurbs a few days ago. EDIT: they're ALL gone now!

It should be fine. And you'll never be stuck, the way used prices hold up for Mac Mini's.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the market for a new PC and will be switching to the Mac. Has anyone out there run PS on the new Mini? If so, how is the performance? I'm interested in the i7 version.

I'm skeptical since it's really a closed system and once you get it, you're stuck at that level forever.
Not such thing really as a "closed system" since even if you built your own PC you would eventually get to a point where most of it would need to be replaced. You'd have basically have a cheap power supply and a cheap case. The only area that is now, unfortunately, really closed is being able to upgrade RAM after purchase. If you want to maximize your mini's life then you must max out its RAM at purchase.

The performance with Photoshop is just fine. Outside of the newly non-upgradeable RAM after purchase, the mini is a nice and powerful little computer that like any other Mac holds much of its value years later. You may even want to consider the previous model at a cheaper price and with upgradeable RAM. It's also easier to add a second drive.
 
I'm in the market for a new PC and will be switching to the Mac. Has anyone out there run PS on the new Mini? If so, how is the performance? I'm interested in the i7 version.
It works quite well, especially if you get it with an SSD.
I'm skeptical since it's really a closed system and once you get it, you're stuck at that level forever.
Max it out when you buy it.
Agreed. Are you running PS on it? Does the lower multi-core performance affect PS? I'm not doing anything extraordinary and see no need to get anything more than a high-end Mini (I think...).
 
I bought a 2012 type Mini no long before it was replaced by the 2014 type.

My photo tool is DxO OpticsPro which hogs the memory just as most other softs.

I think for photos applications you need to put the maximum RAM you can, 16 GB. That's what I did and yet it's constantly at 99%.

I keep Activity Monitor (in the Applications>Utilities folder) constantly running. I downloaded Dr. Cleaner from the Apple Store. It has a Memory tool installed in the menu bar displaying the currently used memory and when necessary you launch a memory cleaning.

Memory leak is a big issue to me with OS X, even though it improved since Leopard.

What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.

The Mini format (I call the Minus) is probably perfect as household gadget but it doesn't suit the needs for more demanding applications.

Nick
 
I bought a 2012 type Mini no long before it was replaced by the 2014 type.

My photo tool is DxO OpticsPro which hogs the memory just as most other softs.

I think for photos applications you need to put the maximum RAM you can, 16 GB. That's what I did and yet it's constantly at 99%.
What version of OS X?
I keep Activity Monitor (in the Applications>Utilities folder) constantly running. I downloaded Dr. Cleaner from the Apple Store. It has a Memory tool installed in the menu bar displaying the currently used memory and when necessary you launch a memory cleaning.

Memory leak is a big issue to me with OS X, even though it improved since Leopard.
I've had no issues with my iMacs on all versions of OS X since my first Mac in 2008, although I am not using Yosemite.
What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Your mini is easy to open and to add 2 drives and RAM.
The Mini format (I call the Minus) is probably perfect as household gadget but it doesn't suit the needs for more demanding applications.
 
Using Mac mini 2012 type, 16 ram and fusion drive, runs Lightroom, Photoshop, plus ridiculous array of plugins simultaneously and very fast. Have about 75,000 photos in LR stored on thunderbolt external, accesses instantly. If you get one, max it out. They don't upgrade easily like macs used to.
 
What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Your mini is easy to open and to add 2 drives and RAM.
Maybe his Mini.

Over the years, the Mac Mini went from one non-user-serviceable RAM slot to two very-easy-access RAM slots (2012 model). Then, for the 2014 models, Apple went and soldered in the RAM!

Apple wants $100 per 4 GB for order-time upgrades. You can't get upgrades from anyone else, but for comparison, Crucial wants $34 per 4 GB for RAM that is compatible with a 2012 Mac Mini. So if you are maxing out a high-end 2014 Mini, the Apple RAM tax will be about $132 ($200 - $68).The change to soldered RAM would be a lot easier to stomach if Apple had upgraded the Mini's RAM capacity to 32 GB and had made their RAM prices more competitive. Then an upgrade from 8 GB to 32 GB might run you about $205 (fully competitive) to $300 (small Apple tax). (It is hard to believe that the 2014 Mini actually needed the space freed up by elimination of the RAM slots and modules, so why not put it to use helping to stuff in more RAM?)
 
Using Mac mini 2012 type, 16 ram and fusion drive, runs Lightroom, Photoshop, plus ridiculous array of plugins simultaneously and very fast. Have about 75,000 photos in LR stored on thunderbolt external, accesses instantly. If you get one, max it out. They don't upgrade easily like macs used to.
I have the same set up, with an i7 2.6 processor and can't think of any program that runs slow. ( I don't do video )
 
What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Your mini is easy to open and to add 2 drives and RAM.
Maybe his Mini.
Yes, I said "your mini." ;)
Over the years, the Mac Mini went from one non-user-serviceable RAM slot to two very-easy-access RAM slots (2012 model). Then, for the 2014 models, Apple went and soldered in the RAM!
Yep. Unfortunate. Putting in two drives got harder too.
Apple wants $100 per 4 GB for order-time upgrades. You can't get upgrades from anyone else, but for comparison, Crucial wants $34 per 4 GB for RAM that is compatible with a 2012 Mac Mini. So if you are maxing out a high-end 2014 Mini, the Apple RAM tax will be about $132 ($200 - $68).The change to soldered RAM would be a lot easier to stomach if Apple had upgraded the Mini's RAM capacity to 32 GB and had made their RAM prices more competitive. Then an upgrade from 8 GB to 32 GB might run you about $205 (fully competitive) to $300 (small Apple tax). (It is hard to believe that the 2014 Mini actually needed the space freed up by elimination of the RAM slots and modules, so why not put it to use helping to stuff in more RAM?)
Maybe the motherboards couldn't support the extra RAM?
 
I bought a 2012 type Mini no long before it was replaced by the 2014 type.

My photo tool is DxO OpticsPro which hogs the memory just as most other softs.

I think for photos applications you need to put the maximum RAM you can, 16 GB. That's what I did and yet it's constantly at 99%.

I keep Activity Monitor (in the Applications>Utilities folder) constantly running. I downloaded Dr. Cleaner from the Apple Store. It has a Memory tool installed in the menu bar displaying the currently used memory and when necessary you launch a memory cleaning.

Memory leak is a big issue to me with OS X, even though it improved since Leopard.

What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Agreed, and I've complained about that in the past, but Apple seems to be deaf to their users.
The Mini format (I call the Minus) is probably perfect as household gadget but it doesn't suit the needs for more demanding applications.

Nick
 
When I upgraded the RAM on my former iMac 24”, Snow Leopard, from 4 to 8 GB I saw hardly any difference. Applications as well as the System would unabashedly spread in the memory and clog the 8 GB just as they did with the 4 GB (checked in Activity Monitor).
I installed 16 GB on my new Mini, with Mavericks, and it's basically the same thing with practically the same number of open applications. Mavericks loads dozens of utilities one wonders what they are really for. Many applications, like Firefox, don't free the memory they don't use anymore when you close windows. DxO OpticsPro does the same. kernel_task is currently occupying 2.37 GB. It's regularly 4GB and sometimes 8GB.
My feeling is that when applications and the OS see free memory they just rush on it. As a result some applications are slowed and sometimes crash, freeze or won't start.
One solution is to quit applications you don't use but you have to restart them later and it's cumbersome.

To me there are applications that have a responsible citizen's behavior, they take the RAM space they need and then roll it back when they don't use it anymore. Same thing on the HD with their caches, their hidden files and so on.
Other apps are careless and selfish, they take as much space as they can find and never free it. OS X is one of them.

I think it should the OS responsibility to enforce some kind of policy.

It doesn't so we have to do it in its place.

***

Do we need to talk about what's easy on a computer?

My first big thing after my Mac 512 was a Mac IIcx in 1989. You didn't even need a screwdriver to pop up the top and you exposed all the guts of the beast. There was 3 NuBus slots, one being used by the GPU. OK there wasn't any extension card on the market at that time. ;-) There was 8 RAM slots with four already used ones, so you could add memory, not replace the existing one… which was 4 MG (1)!

Later I had a Power Mac G4. One side was a door with just a nob to open it. I had also an aluminum Power Mac G5.

Whatever you needed to do with these machines, between the moment you shut down the Mac and the moment you restarted it, without unplugging anything, it took at most 5 minutes, like on a PC… That's what I call easy. If takes any longer and if you need to download and print a how-to from iFixIt then it's not easy.

Nick

1) Yes megabytes! At that time 1 MB modules were ~$200 a pop. A year later for that price I could get the four. I still own it.
 
What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Agreed, and I've complained about that in the past, but Apple seems to be deaf to their users.
Don't tell me you discovered that all by yourself! ;-) I can't believe it!

Nick
 
What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Agreed, and I've complained about that in the past, but Apple seems to be deaf to their users.
They're not deaf at all. Most users never upgrade. Why pay for slots or upgradability when it will never be used? There's little point in that. Apple used to sell minitowers but they didn't sell all that well.
 
When I upgraded the RAM on my former iMac 24”, Snow Leopard, from 4 to 8 GB I saw hardly any difference. Applications as well as the System would unabashedly spread in the memory and clog the 8 GB just as they did with the 4 GB (checked in Activity Monitor).
If you install more memory, it will get used. That's the whole point. That's not clogging. That's using what's available.
I installed 16 GB on my new Mini, with Mavericks, and it's basically the same thing with practically the same number of open applications. Mavericks loads dozens of utilities one wonders what they are really for. Many applications, like Firefox, don't free the memory they don't use anymore when you close windows. DxO OpticsPro does the same. kernel_task is currently occupying 2.37 GB. It's regularly 4GB and sometimes 8GB.
My feeling is that when applications and the OS see free memory they just rush on it. As a result some applications are slowed and sometimes crash, freeze or won't start.
Apps that crash have bugs and likely not a memory issue.
One solution is to quit applications you don't use but you have to restart them later and it's cumbersome.
Not normally needed.
To me there are applications that have a responsible citizen's behavior, they take the RAM space they need and then roll it back when they don't use it anymore. Same thing on the HD with their caches, their hidden files and so on.
Other apps are careless and selfish, they take as much space as they can find and never free it. OS X is one of them.
OS X and apps release memory they no longer need, but that doesn't mean the released memory becomes free memory. Free memory is wasted memory. You want as little free memory as possible. Released memory is inactive, and if another app needs memory, it will immediately be reallocated.
 
What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Agreed, and I've complained about that in the past, but Apple seems to be deaf to their users.
Don't tell me you discovered that all by yourself! ;-) I can't believe it!
I can only assume that I'm the only one who has ever asked for that. Otherwise Apple would have it on the market, right?

BTW, decent expression of sarcasm. :-P
 
What's missing in the Apple range of products is an 'affordable' tower that you can open easily, add stuff like SSD, GPU, RAM and so on.
Agreed, and I've complained about that in the past, but Apple seems to be deaf to their users.
They're not deaf at all. Most users never upgrade. Why pay for slots or upgradability when it will never be used? There's little point in that. Apple used to sell minitowers but they didn't sell all that well.

I find it hard to believe that a headless Mac that's in between the Pro and Mini wouldn't sell. Mac towers of the past didn't sell because they weren't that good. But a Mac "Midi" with upgradable components, not necessarily slots (like anyone uses them anymore...) would be very desirable. How about a PC in the Pro form factor that uses the iMac guts? Not everyone needs all the video processing power. Or Xeons.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top