New iMac or Mac Mini?

[bbucy]

I too really like the Mini and the idea of a separate display and ability to upgrade components. But, I'm back looking at the iMacs, it just seems like Apple dumbs down the Mini in too many key areas... Mini could be a really great platform if Apple wanted it to be.

- HD 4000 only VS. HD4000 + discrete graphics
- Mobile CPUs VS. Desktop CPUs (granted the Mini-mid has i7 mobile VS iMacs i5 Desktop)
- 5400rpm 1TB Drive VS. 7200rpm 1TB Drive

Oh, and thought about seeing what I could get on a trade for my existing iMac... Sure do wish I could just upgrade the guts.

Apple iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz 24" Al (2007-08)(MA878LL/A)
Estimate provided by PowerON:
$232.20

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by bbucy

I too really like the Mini and the idea of a separate display and ability to upgrade components. But, I'm back looking at the iMacs, it just seems like Apple dumbs down the Mini in too many key areas... Mini could be a really great platform if Apple wanted it to be.

- HD 4000 only VS. HD4000 + discrete graphics
- Mobile CPUs VS. Desktop CPUs (granted the Mini-mid has i7 mobile VS iMacs i5 Desktop)
- 5400rpm 1TB Drive VS. 7200rpm 1TB Drive

Oh, and thought about seeing what I could get on a trade for my existing iMac... Sure do wish I could just upgrade the guts.

On the desktops the HD 4000 is turned off, so you see no benefit to it being there, let alone any real evidence (in OS X, at least) of it even being there at all. Also, it's worth noting that Intel doesn't make a mobile quad-core Core i5. Really the mobile quad-core Core i7 processors that have 6MB of Cache instead of 8MB are essentially what the mobile quad-core Core i5 would've been if it had existed, this explains the $250 bump in price from the 2.6GHz i7 to the 2.7GHz in both the retina and non-retina 15" MacBook Pro models. So, really, you're comparing mobile Core i5 to desktop Core i5. Also, if you're talking about the 21.5" iMac, that machine is also using a 5400RPM 2.5" drive, just like the Mac mini; blame it on Apple's never-ending quest for needlessly thinner products. Your 7200RPM 3.5" desktop drives don't come into play until you get into 27" iMac territory. So, really, the disparity isn't all that bad. You have the 27" iMac on one end, the starkly different Mac mini on the other, and a 21.5" iMac that now sort of serves as a middle ground between the two. I agree, the Mac mini should've gotten a discrete GPU like it had in the high-end 2011 model; that was nice and it shouldn't have gone away. That being said, unless you game or do video editing, the Intel HD 4000 is far better than any IGP has ever been inside of a Mac.

[bbucy]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

On the desktops the HD 4000 is turned off, so you see no benefit to it being there, let alone any real evidence (in OS X, at least) of it even being there at all.

No facts on the iMacs having HD4000, just basing that on the Verge article, the general rule for the 2012 MacBooks have been to have primary and secondary GPU, and the fact that my current iMac does not support Airplay mirroring due to not having integrated graphics and Apple using Intel QuickSync to provide Airplay mirroring based on this article.

As for the processor, really comparing the $799 Mini (2.3Ghz i7) with the $1799 iMac (2.9Ghz i5) which I really am fine with that difference just another difference that asks the question "does it really have to be different", would really like to have an i7 desktop in the Mini.

In my mind, that $799 Mini should not be considered the bottom of the Apple lineup just because it's a Mini; rather on equal ground with the 27" iMac. Add a $999 Thunderbolt display and you have what should be a $1799 iMac, just in a different form factor. At least that is what my optimum Mac would be, the $1799 iMac where the display and guts are separate.

Plus, I hate the "if your not a gamer" argument the HD 4000 is just fine. I've heard this in many posts. I'm paying good money, who knows what I might want to do in a couple of years. Might not be a gamer, but I do a lot of photography and video editing; plus, the gaming makers might decide they are getting bored with the wizard-and-dragons, mortal combat games and make a good Star Trek flight simulator game that I might enjoy playing Not to mention, I don't want to be in a position down the road; oh you don't have discrete graphics, that feature isn't supported..

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by bbucy

No facts on the iMacs having HD4000, just basing that on the Verge article, the general rule for the 2012 MacBooks have been to have primary and secondary GPU, and the fact that my current iMac does not support Airplay mirroring due to not having integrated graphics and Apple using Intel QuickSync to provide Airplay mirroring based on this article.

All Ivy Bridge Processors, save for the lower end ones carry the Intel HD 4000. The lower-end ones carry the Intel HD 2500. Though, I'm fairly sure that the four CPU models used in the iMacs all have the Intel HD 4000. It's definitely there, but it's turned off.

Originally Posted by bbucy

As for the processor, really comparing the $799 Mini (2.3Ghz i7) with the $1799 iMac (2.9Ghz i5) which I really am fine with that difference just another difference that asks the question "does it really have to be different", would really like to have an i7 desktop in the Mini.

The Mac mini was designed to be small enough to require laptop CPUs. I have no idea why that was so important, but it was. Given that, I'm sure everyone would love to see Apple make a lower-end desktop that can brandish a desktop Core i7. Unfortunately, Apple's answer to that is the iMac.

Originally Posted by bbucy

In my mind, that $799 Mini should not be considered the bottom of the Apple lineup just because it's a Mini; rather on equal ground with the 27" iMac. Add a $999 Thunderbolt display and you have what should be a $1799 iMac, just in a different form factor. At least that is what my optimum Mac would be, the $1799 iMac where the display and guts are separate.

Really, what would be better would be 27" iMac parts in a small, but larger than mini form-factor box that you could attach a VESA mount to and mount the Thunderbolt display to. That would be perfect; plus it would allow for the kind of easy expansion and access that iMacs haven't had in years.

Originally Posted by bbucy

Plus, I hate the "if your not a gamer" argument the HD 4000 is just fine. I've heard this in many posts. I'm paying good money, who knows what I might want to do in a couple of years. Might not be a gamer, but I do a lot of photography and video editing; plus, the gaming makers might decide they are getting bored with the wizard-and-dragons, mortal combat games and make a good Star Trek flight simulator game that I might enjoy playing Not to mention, I don't want to be in a position down the road; oh you don't have discrete graphics, that feature isn't supported..

This problem is typically solved by buying a machine that has discrete graphics. Really, with my last Mac (Mac mini Server Mid 2010), the lack of discrete graphics wasn't an issue given that its integrated graphics was faster than the dedicated graphics I had before. Though, it is limiting if the machine is one's primary computer; though I'm a jack of all trades when it comes to the things I use my computer for. A lot of people don't use their computer for gaming, 3D-rendering/CAD work, or video editing, and that's pretty much the only thing one needs a discrete GPU for these days.

[ceraz]

Originally Posted by ihuman:D

It (most likely) won't be soldered and the mini's CPU is soldered .

Thanks for the mini's CPU being soldered ... IMHO another overall negative for the 2012 lineup

[ihuman:D]

Originally Posted by ceraz

Thanks for the mini's CPU being soldered ... IMHO another overall negative for the 2012 lineup

Along with no discrete graphics on them either .

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by ceraz

Thanks for the mini's CPU being soldered ... IMHO another overall negative for the 2012 lineup

The CPU has been soldered since the Mid 2010 generation at the absolute latest. This is nothing new.

Originally Posted by ihuman:D

Along with no discrete graphics on them either .

Except for the PowerPC G4 Mac minis and the high-end version of the Mid 2011 Mac mini, they've never had discrete graphics. This is also nothing new. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck any less, but it's not even remotely unique to this current generation.

[jpa66]

SO I looked at the new mini macs at the Apple store yesterday, and they told me that you couldn't the new mini with the fusion drive, which I was almost certain that I read you could. Well, it appears that you can, but I was wondering how difficult would it be to install as SSD in the mini. I did ask at the store, and they said that it could be done. Would it be better to get an internal drive versus an external one? How difficult would it be to install?

Obviously, I'm leaning towards the Mini ( probably will end up getting one ). I don't play any games, and the graphics are thus not terribly important to me.

[StevenT42]

Originally Posted by jpa66

SO I looked at the new mini macs at the Apple store yesterday, and they told me that you couldn't the new mini with the fusion drive, which I was almost certain that I read you could. Well, it appears that you can, but I was wondering how difficult would it be to install as SSD in the mini. I did ask at the store, and they said that it could be done. Would it be better to get an internal drive versus an external one? How difficult would it be to install?

Obviously, I'm leaning towards the Mini ( probably will end up getting one ). I don't play any games, and the graphics are thus not terribly important to me.

The Mac mini with Fusion Drive is only available online as a build-to-order option (at least, I am pretty sure of this...someone please correct me if you can go to an Apple Store and buy one). DIY Fusion Drives are a frequent topic of discussion here on the Mac mini sub forum, but no one knows for certain if the hooks that seem to allow DIY will be there in the future.

[bbucy]

Originally Posted by jpa66

SO I was wondering how difficult would it be to install as SSD in the mini.

Here is a link to ifixit.com which has a video/kit on adding a drive to the mac mini. Of course, this is a do it yourself method (e.g. most likely will void your warranty if you mess up).

http://www.ifixit.com/Apple-Parts/Ma...-Kit/IF171-005

Discussion thread talking about building your own fusion drive. Personnally, I would just go with the build-to-order fusion option; everything setup and ready to go. Unless, you want more than a 128GB drive then you would have to go the DIY route.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1482786

[Icaras]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

The CPU has been soldered since the Mid 2010 generation at the absolute latest. This is nothing new.



Except for the PowerPC G4 Mac minis and the high-end version of the Mid 2011 Mac mini, they've never had discrete graphics. This is also nothing new. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck any less, but it's not even remotely unique to this current generation.

Yea. The CPU has always been this way. This design of the mini is actually the most upgradeable in fact. The PPC minis didn't even have the latch at the bottom to upgrade memory.

But the removal of discreet graphics does truly suck though. Not sure why Apple went backwards with that?

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by StevenT42

The Mac mini with Fusion Drive is only available online as a build-to-order option (at least, I am pretty sure of this...someone please correct me if you can go to an Apple Store and buy one). DIY Fusion Drives are a frequent topic of discussion here on the Mac mini sub forum, but no one knows for certain if the hooks that seem to allow DIY will be there in the future.

Yeah, the ability to do a DIY Fusion Drive does exist and it was a front page article on here at one point. Really, Apple awoke one of the features of its "Core Storage" framework (that they originally introduced in Lion) in version 10.8.2 of Mountain Lion. It's a special means of formatting the two drives as a single volume. You need to be booted from some form of 10.8.2 recovery drive or install DVD/USB drive in order to do it to a boot drive; presumably on a volume running 10.8.2 or newer, you can use Disk Utility to make a Fusion Drive that isn't a boot volume.

Originally Posted by jpa66

SO I looked at the new mini macs at the Apple store yesterday, and they told me that you couldn't the new mini with the fusion drive, which I was almost certain that I read you could. Well, it appears that you can, but I was wondering how difficult would it be to install as SSD in the mini. I did ask at the store, and they said that it could be done. Would it be better to get an internal drive versus an external one? How difficult would it be to install?

Obviously, I'm leaning towards the Mini ( probably will end up getting one ). I don't play any games, and the graphics are thus not terribly important to me.

The store probably thought you were referring to the low-end model, which you can't configure with the Fusion Drive (it's limited to only the high-end non-server model). But you definitely can custom configure the higher-end model with it. As for installing an SSD, it's not hard. It's not as easy as doing it in a non-retina MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro, but it's easier than doing it in an iMac, for sure.

[fhall1]

Originally Posted by Icaras

But the removal of discreet graphics does truly suck though. Not sure why Apple went backwards with that?

Cheaper to build and less software driver worries for starters.

[bbucy]

Originally Posted by Icaras

But the removal of discreet graphics does truly suck though. Not sure why Apple went backwards with that?

I'm thinking given Haswell graphics is expected to be this major leap forward in "integrated GPU" technology, and Haswell is their anticipated next step, that they decided to go ahead and start early VS spending additional design man hours in determining how to keep the discrete CPU.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...-to-nvidia-amd

the company has stated that the new GT3 configuration offers “up to 2x” the performance of Ivy Bridge’s HD 4000 graphics.

[tears2040]

Sad day for me......

I just bought a new Mac mini and when running 1080p HD video there is screen tearing.....

I tried this on 3 different displays + with original 4gb ram and aftermarket bought 16gb ram. Now here is some more disappointing news.

The hard drive in my 2011 21.5" imac reads and writes faster.
Also the graphics card is 3x faster

I ran test and this really made me feel horrible.

The positive side of the Mac mini 2.6 i7 was the cpu was faster and the ram slightly faster. The CPU was a lot better though but the slow hard drive is a bottle neck. Sure that can be corrected with a ssd but the graphics card being 3x slower really suffers when doing hd content.

I also love the fact that the mini has a hdmi port as well as firewire 800, but now I can see I'm either have to get a new iMac or just buy a top of the line 2011 model.......

Don't buy a Mac mini, the graphics card is really bad when compared to dedicated graphics card. I can;t believe my 2011 iMac is 3x faster in the graphics department.............

[Overg]

Originally Posted by tears2040

Sad day for me......

I just bought a new Mac mini and when running 1080p HD video there is screen tearing.....

I tried this on 3 different displays + with original 4gb ram and aftermarket bought 16gb ram. Now here is some more disappointing news.

The hard drive in my 2011 21.5" imac reads and writes faster.
Also the graphics card is 3x faster

I ran test and this really made me feel horrible.

The positive side of the Mac mini 2.6 i7 was the cpu was faster and the ram slightly faster. The CPU was a lot better though but the slow hard drive is a bottle neck. Sure that can be corrected with a ssd but the graphics card being 3x slower really suffers when doing hd content.

I also love the fact that the mini has a hdmi port as well as firewire 800, but now I can see I'm either have to get a new iMac or just buy a top of the line 2011 model.......

Don't buy a Mac mini, the graphics card is really bad when compared to dedicated graphics card. I can;t believe my 2011 iMac is 3x faster in the graphics department.............

Interesting post.
Lets understand a little more what is going on here.
You have the new Mac mini? What model? The 799?
I thought of buying one my self , not sure I can relay on iMac. The more I dig in the Internet the more I see that iMac is not a reliable machine, beautiful yes, reliable no.
I also thinking on the Mac mini.. Not sure though.
But your post raise some concerns.
If it was fusion drive with 16g memory, would the tests results would e different?

[slayerizer]

Originally Posted by jpa66

OK, first-time post. I've used this site many times in the past to help me through my iMac-related questions. I'm not very knowledgeable about computers at all, but I do know the basics. I've been needing to buy a new computer for awhile now. I currently have an iMac G5 from 2004 ( yes, you heard it right: 2004 ). Obviously, I need a newer one, since I can't run a lot of programs on mine currently ( I get by for work by using my wife's pc ).

If I knew enough about computers ( and wasn't afraid that I'd lose all of the data on mine ), I'd swap out a different hard drive for my current iMac. The reason that I haven't gotten a newer iMac yet is because I prefer the non-glare screen of my current iMac to the reflective ones of the the machines that came after it. I've also been waiting for an all-around upgrade, which I thought would have come around this time last year. I would like an optical drive, but I realize that the Mini doesn't have one either.

Anyway, I'm torn between getting an iMac or a Mac Mini. I'd like the opportunity to add more memory to it on my own, so I'd have to get the 27". However, I don't need nor like that size screen, and the amount of money that it costs is too much ( IMO ). I only use my Mac for surfing the internet and working in Photoshop ( I'd say that I have a moderate amount of photos ), and also some scanning/storing of art images. I also need something that runs Windows ( my office only uses Windows, big surprise there ).

So, to make a long story short, would I be better off getting a Mac Mini or the new iMac? I have researched a lot of the pro's and con's of this, but wanted peoples' opinions now that the new products are out.

Thanks,
JP

I would suggest the mini.The i7 (the version in the middle) version scores as high as last year's imac on the geekbench suite.

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2011...arks-mid-2011/

Mobile vs desktop processors.
The mini use a mobile processor which is not handicapped in any kind of way (http://ark.intel.com/products/64891)

this is a quad core with hyper threading (8 v-cores).

The main difference is power consumption, this cpu is clocked at 2.6ghz and can turbo boost to 3.6. The desktop processor in the 27" imac is clocked at 3.2 and turbo boost to 3.6.

It's not really an issue, it only tells you that when you're not fully utilizing your computer, the processor will run slower to save energy.


Mini On board video adapter (hd4000)
yes it's not a discrete card.. It's still not that bad. In some areas it's faster than last year card, some areas it's worst. At least it supports newer graphics extensions.

If you max out the mini at 16g of ram, it will allocated 768meg to the video card.This is one of the reason to get 16gig (even if you think you don't need it).


Hard disk
people go crazy about 5400 rpm for no reason. I have a 7200rpm in my imac benching 89/mbps.. the mini's drive give results around 120-130.. which is a lot better than my 7200rpm drive.

It's all related to density. Even if it spins slower, when it reads, it get more information which negated the slow speed.

The door is still open to get an external or internal SSD.

But why complain, it's still way faster than my drive.

[tears2040]

Originally Posted by Overg

Interesting post.
Lets understand a little more what is going on here.
You have the new Mac mini? What model? The 799?
I thought of buying one my self , not sure I can relay on iMac. The more I dig in the Internet the more I see that iMac is not a reliable machine, beautiful yes, reliable no.
I also thinking on the Mac mini.. Not sure though.
But your post raise some concerns.
If it was fusion drive with 16g memory, would the tests results would e different?

I bought the upgraded 2.6 i7 model. From what I am reading it seems to be a problem with HDMI connection causing screen flickering and blackouts. Even if they do update it via firmware it still will not change the fact that the integrated graphics is not good.

The 2011 base model iMac scored 3x faster in novabench tests. I mean that to me is BEYOND un acceptable. Not a little bit or even twice as fast but 3 TIMES faster than the HD4000 then there's a problem.

I will be returning my Mac mini today. I really really like the design of it and everything about it, Heck it Geekbenched almost 12000 compared to my 7500 iMac, but I shoot and edit hd videos and as of now the Mac mini has problems displaying the footage correctly which is due to the HD4000 graphics card.

I Hope new iMac comes next week so I can purchase. I'm really in need of a faster cpu as I do a lot of compressing and converting of 1080p and 4-5k video files.

[bbucy]

Benefit of both the iMac and Mini, but I think I would absolutely get a fusion drive and/or DIY fusion drive.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/...eadwrite-times

A plus for the iMac is it has 7200rpm vs 5400rpm drive available, although not sure the 7200rpm drive would have any additional benefit in a DIY fusion setup (e.g. assuming the Apple Fusion option is a 5400rpm HDD regardless of Mini or iMac).

[tears2040]

Originally Posted by slayerizer

I would suggest the mini.The i7 (the version in the middle) version scores as high as last year's imac on the geekbench suite.

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2011...arks-mid-2011/

Mobile vs desktop processors.
The mini use a mobile processor which is not handicapped in any kind of way (http://ark.intel.com/products/64891)

this is a quad core with hyper threading (8 v-cores).

The main difference is power consumption, this cpu is clocked at 2.6ghz and can turbo boost to 3.6. The desktop processor in the 27" imac is clocked at 3.2 and turbo boost to 3.6.

It's not really an issue, it only tells you that when you're not fully utilizing your computer, the processor will run slower to save energy.


Mini On board video adapter (hd4000)
yes it's not a discrete card.. It's still not that bad. In some areas it's faster than last year card, some areas it's worst. At least it supports newer graphics extensions.

If you max out the mini at 16g of ram, it will allocated 768meg to the video card.This is one of the reason to get 16gig (even if you think you don't need it).


Hard disk
people go crazy about 5400 rpm for no reason. I have a 7200rpm in my imac benching 89/mbps.. the mini's drive give results around 120-130.. which is a lot better than my 7200rpm drive.

It's all related to density. Even if it spins slower, when it reads, it get more information which negated the slow speed.

The door is still open to get an external or internal SSD.

But why complain, it's still way faster than my drive.

I'm calling BS

I just tested and returned Mac Mini today with 2.6ghz i7. The Hard drive is around 85-89 mbps with the imac around 90-95.

Also for comparison the graphics card scored around 68 compared to my iMac 250+

Now the cpu was faster and the memory slightly faster, this is what gives an almost 3-4000+ geekbench score, but cpu is NOT everything. Especially when you need graphics
DONT BUY MAC MINI, I just returned mine today.

[911scanner]

Originally Posted by tears2040

I'm calling BS

I just tested and returned Mac Mini today with 2.6ghz i7. The Hard drive is around 85-89 mbps with the imac around 90-95.

Also for comparison the graphics card scored around 68 compared to my iMac 250+

Now the cpu was faster and the memory slightly faster, this is what gives an almost 3-4000+ geekbench score, but cpu is NOT everything. Especially when you need graphics
DONT BUY MAC MINI, I just returned mine today.

Don't you think it would be more fair to say:

DON'T BUY A MAC MINI if you need it for intensive graphics processing in any way?

That would seem like a much more accurate statement.

[slickadam]

Originally Posted by slayerizer

I would suggest the mini.The i7 (the version in the middle) version scores as high as last year's imac on the geekbench suite.

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2011...arks-mid-2011/

Mobile vs desktop processors.
The mini use a mobile processor which is not handicapped in any kind of way (http://ark.intel.com/products/64891)

this is a quad core with hyper threading (8 v-cores).

The main difference is power consumption, this cpu is clocked at 2.6ghz and can turbo boost to 3.6. The desktop processor in the 27" imac is clocked at 3.2 and turbo boost to 3.6.

It's not really an issue, it only tells you that when you're not fully utilizing your computer, the processor will run slower to save energy.


Mini On board video adapter (hd4000)
yes it's not a discrete card.. It's still not that bad. In some areas it's faster than last year card, some areas it's worst. At least it supports newer graphics extensions.

If you max out the mini at 16g of ram, it will allocated 768meg to the video card.This is one of the reason to get 16gig (even if you think you don't need it).


Hard disk
people go crazy about 5400 rpm for no reason. I have a 7200rpm in my imac benching 89/mbps.. the mini's drive give results around 120-130.. which is a lot better than my 7200rpm drive.

It's all related to density. Even if it spins slower, when it reads, it get more information which negated the slow speed.

The door is still open to get an external or internal SSD.

But why complain, it's still way faster than my drive.

you don't need 16 gb ram to allocate 768 mb to the video card. my mini has "only" 8 gb ram, and it's already at 768mb.

[teohyc]

Originally Posted by tears2040

Mac mini has problems displaying the footage correctly which is due to the HD4000 graphics card.

Can you elaborate on what's incorrect?

[Pie Chips Salad]

Originally Posted by kthnxshwn

That's cool that you work there and stuff, but the Mac mini has literally 0 advantages over the iMac aside from its "portability."

Not true. Price. Ability to keep existing monitor.


No onboard graphics card and relies on Intel's integrated chip, has 2.6GHz max while the iMac starts at 2.7 for its cheapest model.

Um the 2.7 is a i5 and 2.6 is a multi threaded i7 so you bet your bollocks to a bar dance mini processor is better.

Relies on you buying an external monitor, and let's say you choose to get Apple's Thunderbolt Display - you've now paid, at most $1799 dollars for a subpar computer that has less valuable specs than the iMac and you've paid more than the third tier iMac would be by $200 while you've sacrificed really everything. You've lost the all-in-one machine, you've lost decent specs, you've completely given up on a useful graphics card, and, on top of that, you've somehow managed to pay more.

Some people don't need the graphics because they don't play games or edit videos. For music production the mini is actually perfect with audio in and out and Fw800 plus a serious multi thread cpu for logic and pro tools. Plus who th F really needs an overpriced thunderbolt you can only use with a mac. You can buy a sweet IPS or PLS panel for way less. That is if your not a complete momo.

Getting a Mac mini is stupid unless you can't afford an iMac or all you do is browse in Safari and waste your time commenting on foru...oh wait.

Haha you have been a member since 2008!

[tears2040]

Originally Posted by teohyc

Can you elaborate on what's incorrect?

I think you already reviewed it , didn't you......... Basically the poor gpu does not work correctly with Many filters I use and even during playback you get vertical tears in HD content.

After two days of testing I had to take it back as my 2011 iMac GPu is 3x faster and I even struggle with My iMac sometimes...... The Mac mini is unusable for me.