Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 24, 2013, 03:33 PM   #1
troy14
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Mac Mini mid 2011 vs mini 2012 (yes, another thread sorry)

Hey everyone.

I know this subject has been beaten to death, but I am just wondering something.

I'm deciding between picking up the older midlevel mini 2011 with the dedicated AMD card with 256mb of DDR5 memory, and the new base 2012 with intel HD 4000. Both will be upgraded to either 8gb or 16gb of memory.

I have read tons of things saying they are both pretty much equal, but if the intel uses shared ram - would putting in 16gb (so it always has enough/max amount of shared ram possible) put it at an advantage over the AMD with only 256mb?

I can't really find any more or recent benchmarks comparing these two minis.
troy14 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2013, 03:37 PM   #2
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/Dorset/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
all I can add is my 2012 (with 16GB) thus has 768MB Available for video mem. This should give it the advantage in texture handling etc.

I dont play many games but can happily play MW3, World of Tanks and Skyrim at 1600x900 with nice enough looking graphics and smooth framerates.

Don't know how the AMD would handle those, but for me the USB3 and newer cpu tech was more important (the i7 2.3 screams along quicker than my old octamonster mac pro).
__________________
no mac for Bunny anymore

"Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most."
costabunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2013, 03:43 PM   #3
troy14
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by costabunny View Post
all I can add is my 2012 (with 16GB) thus has 768MB Available for video mem. This should give it the advantage in texture handling etc.

I dont play many games but can happily play MW3, World of Tanks and Skyrim at 1600x900 with nice enough looking graphics and smooth framerates.

Don't know how the AMD would handle those, but for me the USB3 and newer cpu tech was more important (the i7 2.3 screams along quicker than my old octamonster mac pro).
Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't be getting the quad core / i7 so it would probably be a little worse performance than what you're describing. USB3 I don't care or need, just trying to figure out which to buy.. such hard decisions
troy14 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2013, 04:02 PM   #4
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/Dorset/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
Quote:
Originally Posted by troy14 View Post
Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't be getting the quad core / i7 so it would probably be a little worse performance than what you're describing. USB3 I don't care or need, just trying to figure out which to buy.. such hard decisions
I guess it really depends on your target use of the system.
__________________
no mac for Bunny anymore

"Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most."
costabunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 AM.

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

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