I am ordering the Mac mini and I am wondering should I spend the $100 of the 2.6ghz i7. My uses are just minecraft, web surfing and homwork.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the 2.6GHz processor worth the $100
- Thread starter Ngorkes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have the 2.3 model and I'm very happy with it. Its plenty fast enough for me and I use it for HD video editing. In a few years time when it starts becoming out of date I don't see that another .3 on the processor speed will make me want to keep it longer. Save your money and buy 16GB of RAM with it.
Yeah, really no point "future proofing" computers since in 2 years, the base version of the newer CPU will be 2 to 4 times faster than what you have now.
If you need the extra processing power, get RAM and SSD. If you max that out on a regular basis, upgrade the CPU. Otherwise, 2.3 should be plenty enough for you, especially if your current, older computer can do what you ask it to do.
If you need the extra processing power, get RAM and SSD. If you max that out on a regular basis, upgrade the CPU. Otherwise, 2.3 should be plenty enough for you, especially if your current, older computer can do what you ask it to do.
Don't know how you're doing hd editing when I just took my Mac mini back today. Screen tearing and flickering was very bad, also compared to my 2011 iMac the graphics card is not even half as fast.
For certain plugins you need a graphics card and the Mac mini while having an excellent cpu is being bottlenecked by it's gpu.
What program are you using for your editing? I am thinking about getting a mini and I would hate to see it unable to work on something.
The problem seems to be related to the HDMI connection with the Mac mini. I would wait till a update is made or go with a mac that has a graphics card
peace
What about the HD4000 and the faster processor?
Since the mini now uses the integrated GPU, instead of a discrete GPU, wouldn't the extra MHZ also have an effect on video/graphics output? It would seem to be the case, but maybe its running on a separate cycle?
Since the mini now uses the integrated GPU, instead of a discrete GPU, wouldn't the extra MHZ also have an effect on video/graphics output? It would seem to be the case, but maybe its running on a separate cycle?
Hi there,
I have a 6-core Mac Pro (3.33GHz) with 24GB RAM, and I get some tearing when playing back on regular computer monitors. From what I understand, the only way to avoid this is to get a much more expensive (than my Dell Ultrasharp) HD display...
But I'm glad I happened on this thread, because I'd like people's advice.
I have to do some editing out-of-office, and can't lug my Mac Pro and external eSATA enclosures around.
I was wondering if the $799 Mac mini might be a good bet. But then, it would seem to me, if I want to be able to take a drive or two (from the 5-bay eSATA enclosure in my office) on the road with me, I'd have to get:
1. a Thunderbolt-eSATA adapter
and
2. a second (small, say, 2-bay) eSATA enclosure
to take with me. (the editing projects I'd take with me would be small ones, that might just require one of the 1TB drives in my enclosure... the one with my Avid MediaFiles for the project in question).
If I go for the $999 server-model Mac mini instead, which comes with two internal hard drives from what I understand, could I simplify things, and save money as well?
Before I leave for my office, I'd simply copy the 1TB ATA drive in my eSATA enclosure (the one with all my Avid MediaFiles on it) to the second of the two drives in the Mac mini...
Then (to get back to the subject of displays), I'd just need an inexpensive 23" display or two (I don't care that much about the tearing, because it's not there in the final product), and the $999 Mac mini (with some extra RAM I guess).
Any advice re this?
thanks,
malch
Malch, cheapest storage solution for your on-the-road Mac Mini would be a 1TB USB 3.0 drive; you could also try getting away with just the Fusion drive, which gives you 1.1TB of internal storage but since most of your data would end up on the 5400RPM drive it may not be as fast as one would like for editing. I'd recommend getting the fusion drive either way however, as the SSD portion makes the system insanely fast; you could give working from the internal drive a shot before dropping money on an external USB 3 drive as well.
It's funny, we have the exact same work configuration: a Mac Pro 3.33Ghz six-core Xeon workstation with 24GB of RAM. Mine has an SSD boot and scratch volume and the ATI Radeon HD 5870 graphics card and is used primarily for After Effects. I just bought the 2.6Ghz Quad-Core i7 Mini with Fusion drive and 16GB RAM for my home computer, where I primarily use it for Aperture. But out of morbid curiosity I wanted to test how the Mini held up to the Pro in After Effects render time. I queued up an identical animation sequence on both machines, and the results surprised me: the Mac Pro took 4hrs, 32min. The Mini? 3hrs, 25min. Needless to say, I am extremely happy with my $1,237 purchase
To answer the original poster's question, if you're doing processor intensive tasks that take hours then yes I believe the $99 processor upgrade is money well spent. For me, it was nice to know my Mini would be as fast as the most expensive MacBook Pro Apple has to offer.
It's funny, we have the exact same work configuration: a Mac Pro 3.33Ghz six-core Xeon workstation with 24GB of RAM. Mine has an SSD boot and scratch volume and the ATI Radeon HD 5870 graphics card and is used primarily for After Effects. I just bought the 2.6Ghz Quad-Core i7 Mini with Fusion drive and 16GB RAM for my home computer, where I primarily use it for Aperture. But out of morbid curiosity I wanted to test how the Mini held up to the Pro in After Effects render time. I queued up an identical animation sequence on both machines, and the results surprised me: the Mac Pro took 4hrs, 32min. The Mini? 3hrs, 25min. Needless to say, I am extremely happy with my $1,237 purchase
To answer the original poster's question, if you're doing processor intensive tasks that take hours then yes I believe the $99 processor upgrade is money well spent. For me, it was nice to know my Mini would be as fast as the most expensive MacBook Pro Apple has to offer.
I want this computer to last 5-6 years. So I'm going to spend the money on 16gb of ram and a fusion drive.
Malch,
Though there are many mini solutions available that will work, your out of office work scenario seems better solved with a 2012 Macbook pro (or even a 2011) and a Thunderbolt/esata/USB3 external drive. More $$ (maybe) but certainly smaller and easier to carry.
My 2 cents....
Though there are many mini solutions available that will work, your out of office work scenario seems better solved with a 2012 Macbook pro (or even a 2011) and a Thunderbolt/esata/USB3 external drive. More $$ (maybe) but certainly smaller and easier to carry.
My 2 cents....
6 years $100 more for the CPU doesn't seem like that waste of money imo (That's just $1.4 per mont)
It you really want it to last that much, put the Fussion and the CPU and upgrade the RAM yourself.
thanks Cory and propower, for your advice.
In response: propowerthe MBP would be better, I agree, and would be more versatile as well, but it's just too much money for me (even when I factor in your 2 cents!).
Corythose crunch numbers are pretty amazing. Thanks for reminding me that the internal drive(s) in a Mac mini are just 5400. Not good for video editing. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of an external eSATA enclosure (I have 5-bay FirmTek enclosures for my Mac Pro, but for travelling, I'd get a 2-bay model). This way I could just bring along the same SATA drive that I'm using in my office, so that when I'm editing out-of-office, I'm up to date and up to speed, on the same external drive. Do you know what I mean?
The $200 downside is that I have to get a Thunderbolt-eSATA adapter (LaCie makes one that they sell at Apple stores), andback to propower's pointI'm now having to cart around more stuff.
But even if I shelled out a lot more money for a nice new MBP, I'd still have to get this adapter... right?
Anyway, I was in a store that sells only Apple stuff this afternoon, and the salesman said he thinks the Achilles heel in my plan is the Mac mini's graphics card.
Question for those of you who know about this sort of thing: would the Mac mini be able to power two 24" Dell ultrasharps?
Thanks again,
malch
In response: propowerthe MBP would be better, I agree, and would be more versatile as well, but it's just too much money for me (even when I factor in your 2 cents!).
Corythose crunch numbers are pretty amazing. Thanks for reminding me that the internal drive(s) in a Mac mini are just 5400. Not good for video editing. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of an external eSATA enclosure (I have 5-bay FirmTek enclosures for my Mac Pro, but for travelling, I'd get a 2-bay model). This way I could just bring along the same SATA drive that I'm using in my office, so that when I'm editing out-of-office, I'm up to date and up to speed, on the same external drive. Do you know what I mean?
The $200 downside is that I have to get a Thunderbolt-eSATA adapter (LaCie makes one that they sell at Apple stores), andback to propower's pointI'm now having to cart around more stuff.
But even if I shelled out a lot more money for a nice new MBP, I'd still have to get this adapter... right?
Anyway, I was in a store that sells only Apple stuff this afternoon, and the salesman said he thinks the Achilles heel in my plan is the Mac mini's graphics card.
Question for those of you who know about this sort of thing: would the Mac mini be able to power two 24" Dell ultrasharps?
Thanks again,
malch
This is always some of the worst advice people give on these forums. How would inceasing the overall speed by maybe 10% really make a difference 3 years later? For example my base MacBook Pro 2009 came with a 2.26ghz core2duo or I could have upgraded it to a 2.53ghz core2duo. Guess what? 3 years later neither of them could hold a candle to even the dual core i5 in the base mini. What my point? Neither will be much better than the other in 3 years because we will be 3 processor families more advanced which will put ANY processor of today to shame....
How did you get 25%? I get around 18% difference from the cpubenchmark tests, but geekbench tests are about 10%.
Stats not in OSX means not applicable. 10% I geek each in OSX and 13% in straight up
Clock speed. Even if you want to go with 25%, then compare a core2duo 2.0ghz to 2.53ghz. Neither are "good" processors by today's standards are they? They were pretty standard in 2009 were grey not? Either way they will not future proof you if you upgrade and neither processor will be "good" in 3 years. I stand by my comments.
If you need max power them spend the 100, but don't do it because in 3 years you think it will make your computer any more relevant!
Edit: 8566 / 7269 = 117.8%
17.8 does not equal 25.... Is that some kind of new math!?!?
I got the number from the other poster, lol
Ohhh. A benchmark no run in OSX isn't applicable? OK then…
Of course they are good. Pretty good. They're not high end anymore, but they're still good. I had a 2010 Mini with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and it was doing pretty fine. Yes, I prefer 1 minute and 37 seconds of encoding (2012 Mini) than 7 minutes and 45 seconds (2010 Mini), but that just means the 2012 is better.
That 2010 Mini was still a good machine. There are now better ones, but that doesn't make that one a bad machine. Not at all. And if instead of the 2.4GHz I would've got the 2.6GHz one, it would be less away from actual machines. Not a lot? Probably, but still a little bit.
As I usually upgrade my computer every 2 years, I didn't think it wasn't worth it. If the OP plans to keep it 3+ years (4, 5, 6 that is) YES, I'd do it. You wouldn't? Fine with me, but AFAIK he didn't just ask for your opinion.
Yes, new math. Calculated in the world of Pandora.
So what you are saying is that you blindly regergatate what you read on Internet forums without doing some basic checking....
And my point was that no core2duo is a good processor anymore stands. Can they do basic functions? Sure. But they aren't good processors. You aren't going to go out and buy one anymore would you?
Following your logic, a 2008 Audi A4 isn't a good car because you are not gonna buy one at any Audi retailer, right?
Whatever man. If you do really think a Core2Duo is a bad processor, I'm not the one who's gonna try to make you understand that's not true.
Cars and computers are completely different. Cars don't gain speed increases at the rate of 25% per year.... Further most computers from 2008 would be relegated to basic tasks (or even junked) for most people, where as a car with normal mileage would be a normal daily driver. Your analogy fails.