Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Buying Tips and Advice

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 10, 2013, 08:44 AM   #26
rabidz7
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by piatti View Post
Isn't that kind of old? Is it still powerful?
They benchmark between 2009 and 2010 17" MBPs.

16GB of known working RAM (possibly more)
Up to 6HDDs with PCIe SATA card.
Runs brand new releases of Debian linux with tons of software, and can boot into OS X 10.5
G5s are completely upgradable and more fun to have than mac minis.
rabidz7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2013, 11:02 AM   #27
AdrianK
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by piatti View Post
Isn't that kind of old? Is it still powerful?
Just in case you don't know why that's not a great idea:
  • Liquid cooled G5s have unreliable pumps, they are known to leak
  • They can only run up to 10.5. No more security updates, no new software for OS X will run on them. No windows support (in before someone suggests emulation).
  • The "install Linux" argument is stupid, they have worse hardware support in Linux than cheaper x86 boxes.
  • They can run the amount of RAM as the current mac mini, just slower and more expensive because it's DDR2.
  • Only have two SATA-I drive bays.

They're cheap for a reason, and that's because they're hobbyist machines. It's annoying that people are recommending them without making this clear because eventually someone will end up wasting their time and money.
__________________
Hack Pro Mini | Core i3 4130 | GTX 780 | 8GB 1333MHz | 840 EVO 120GB | OS X 10.9.1 / Windows 8 | White Bitfenix Prodigy
AdrianK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2013, 01:08 PM   #28
Giuly
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: That depends whether you ask for timezone, state of mind or GPS coordinates.
A fountain pen and a notepad.

If you need and iMac, you need an iMac. Otherwise, you need a Mac Mini or MacBook Pro along with a 27" display.
Giuly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2013, 03:56 PM   #29
leftywamumonkey
macrumors 6502a
 
leftywamumonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: California
I ordered an ASUS PA248Q and it has a PPI of ~94, so I'll see how that goes.
Hopefully going down from 109 PPI (or 226 for that matter) won't be too big of a problem.
__________________
Bring the Mac Pro back!
leftywamumonkey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 01:47 AM   #30
COrocket
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by piatti View Post
If you put 32 GB of RAM on the iMac would it be still slower than the Mac Mini?
That poster was referring to CPU speed. Here is the 3.2 Ghz i5 processor out of the $1999 27" iMac http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...70+%40+3.20GHz scores 6603

The 2.3 quad mini http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...QM+%40+2.30GHz scores 7314. Upgrade to the 2.6 and you get another 1000 on top of that.

You would have to spend another $200 on top of the $1999 27" imac and max out the processor to top the mini in CPU power. However the iMac has way better graphics. It depends on what you use the machine for. 16GB of ram is plenty for most people.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini - i7 Quad Core 2.3 GHz - 16GB RAM - 128 GB SSD - (2) Dell S2340M
COrocket is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 07:53 PM   #31
traumuhhtize
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
The Mini is a good alternative, you just won't have a dedicated graphics card.
__________________
GA-Z87X-UD3H, 4670k @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB, DC2OC GTX 760 | Dell S2440L | Poker II | iPhone 5
traumuhhtize is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 09:02 AM   #32
piatti
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
piatti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Does the iMac have way better graphics because of its dedicated graphics card? Would that be good for photos and movies?
piatti is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 09:12 AM   #33
simsaladimbamba
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: located
Quote:
Originally Posted by piatti View Post
Does the iMac have way better graphics because of its dedicated graphics card? Would that be good for photos and movies?
The dedicated GPU will not help that much with playing movies or viewing and editing photos, it is still a CPU dependant process.
simsaladimbamba is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 09:25 PM   #34
COrocket
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by piatti View Post
Does the iMac have way better graphics because of its dedicated graphics card? Would that be good for photos and movies?
It does not take much graphics power to watch movies. I've watched 1080p content on my mini and it was fine. People have used older minis as HTPC's. It helps having fast storage when viewing/editing photo libraries. Dedicated GPUs are good for things like gaming and heavy duty video editing.

But yes, to answer your question, dedicated GPUs are much more powerful than the integrated graphics in the mini.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini - i7 Quad Core 2.3 GHz - 16GB RAM - 128 GB SSD - (2) Dell S2340M
COrocket is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Buying Tips and Advice

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheap alternative to HD 2600 XT for my '08 Pro? forgetcolor Mac Pro 4 Nov 27, 2013 03:42 AM
Cheap alternative to the 30-Pin/Lightning adapter darngooddesign iPhone Accessories 11 Oct 15, 2012 09:11 AM
Cheap alternative to the usb superdrive? theRAMman Mac Peripherals 7 Sep 9, 2012 06:49 PM
iMac alternative from Samsung - How about it? rvinther iMac 48 Sep 1, 2012 10:33 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC