Top end Mac Mini vs bottom end iMac

The 24" screen in the iMac blows away PC displays that are not of pro caliber. So basically the Mini + 24" ACD clocks in at about the same price as the 24" iMac.

But with the 24" iMac you also get;

Much faster CPU
Larger/faster hard drive
double the RAM

I debated the same thing myself, and have opted for the Mini which I will use with my current display.

My plan though would be to upgrade to a faster Mac after Snow Leopard comes out, if I decide to continue the whole OS X affair.

I opted for the Mini because I can open it and change things, at least the hard and the optical drive while I don't dare to disassemble an iMac...

Apple ACD > 24" iMac display.

The difference between the 20" and 24" iMac displays are quite great, as well as the maximum resolution.

I can't say about after the latest update, however. I'm not sure if Apple improved the screen quality in the 20" iMacs (my guess is no).

My mini has just landed 2.0 120GbHD 4GBRAM, I'm very happy , very quiet, actually it's silent 'cept for the superdrive noise..great machine shame the HD is only 120Gb though, I could upgrade it but thiink 'll just get some external space instead and upgrade the Mini to SSD when the prices drop to what I'd like to pay...in approx 2 years

I had a screen so didn't see the point in buying another..If your into photoshop and the like I expect your screen is good?..I was reading that the smaller iMacs have TN panels and the larger ones use s-ips or something?? .. sounds like something to do with Volvo that< (cannot remember the correct name just now!),.......anyway, have a search around this place for iMac screen info, There is a 10-15% speed difference between the two processors,........ I'll link the thread which explains all this in an edit .BUT do you really need to spend te extra £$£ for that much speed? .What I mean is, will that slight speed increase make you more money or be a massive bonus in your life ?, personally the Mini is plenty fast, graphics are plenty good enough for photoshop and finalcut etc...just takes a little bit longer rendering. I'd say save your £$£$ and get a 2.0 Mini, but it all depends on your needs...

Edit* lots of good info in the two threads below, namely people discussing pros/cons of purchasing either the Mini or iMac,
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/664400/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/660759/


hope this helps,
ViVa la Mini

Why be tethered for life to a display with the iMac? Buy the high end mini and choose your own monitor. Mac Mini 2.26 with 4gb RAM should be plenty for almost all needs.

Trinity said:

I opted for the Mini because I can open it and change things, at least the hard and the optical drive while I don't dare to disassemble an iMac...

Click to expand...

Honestly I've done both....

I've opened my iMac, Mac Mini, and non-unibody MBP.

I would say that the difficulty levels are actually on par with each other. The Mini has a lot of small cramped areas and you have to "pry" it open which didn't make me feel so good. The iMac though has a lot of screws.

Really if your willing to take apart a mini then there is no reason why you couldn't take apart a iMac.

The MBP was by far the hardest, because it's small and there is a lot of screws.

EDIT: to the OP, I'd go for the iMac because you do get more power, and if you already have another display, you can always connect it to you iMac for dual displays.

Salavat23 said:

Apple ACD > 24" iMac display.

Click to expand...

There's a variety of opinion on that. Some reviewers have indicated that the two displays are directly on par with each other.

Others have actually given the nod to the iMac display. Apparently the CFL back lighting in the iMac gives slightly better performance than the LED back lighting in the ACD.

jmpage2 said:

There's a variety of opinion on that. Some reviewers have indicated that the two displays are directly on par with each other.

Others have actually given the nod to the iMac display. Apparently the CFL back lighting in the iMac gives slightly better performance than the LED back lighting in the ACD.

Click to expand...

This may be irrelevant because it may be compare apples to oranges but my iMac (previous gen 2.8) has a brighter screen then my LED backlit SR MBP.

Obviously the iMac display is of superior quality and performance overall, I'm just comparing screen brightness.

minusten said:

Thanks to all who've responded, I think most of my queries have been answered. However, one that seems to have slipped through the net: can anyone tell me what difference will the L2 cache make? The iMac has 6mb (twice as much as the Mini) so is this significant?

Have Apple given the Mini less to keep it intentionally low-end or would you think there's a space issue with fitting any more in?

Also, how much of an advantage would the dedicated graphics cards (in the higher end iMacs) be?

Click to expand...

http://******.com/?q=does+L2+Cache+increase+performance?


(sorry, could not help it)