2009 Mac Mini vs. Mac Pro Jan 2008

dansai

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 5, 2008
19
0
My £1800 Mac Pro is approaching two years old now and it still seems to be blisteringly fast but I'm really curious as to how something smaller would stack up to it. The reason I ask is because the Pro is going into the studio soon and it will leave me without a computer in my "man room".

So just hypothetically let's assume you had a Jan 08 2.8ghz Octo-Core Mac Pro with 2gb RAM. How would it compare to the latest 2.66ghz Core2Duo DDR3 Mac Mini? If you're counting CPU clock the Pro would obviously win but how much would the DDR3 / FSB come into play?

Apple & Oranges I'm sure, and there's quite a HUGE price difference, but as I said I'm curious.
 

Badger^2

macrumors 68000
Oct 29, 2009
1,962
2
Sacramento
only 2 gigs in a Macpro? kinda sad to read.

well what do you plan on doing with the mini?

clearly you dont really need the expandablity, so a mini should be fine

but upgrading a mini to a 2.66 makes it almost the base price of a 21" iMac, which is a much better deal
 

dansai

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 5, 2008
19
0
Well, I suppose I won't really be using it for much other than Internet, iTunes and the occasional Movie (1080p mostly) so I could settle for the base model Mini, I've already got all the peripherals left over from my now deceased iMac 2006. My main concern is the 2.5" Hard Drive because in my many years of PC Repair those things are the biggest performance bottlenecks (not to mention reliability).

2.26ghz Mini with SSD? :cool:
 

MacMini2009

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2009
1,730
0
California
Well, I suppose I won't really be using it for much other than Internet, iTunes and the occasional Movie (1080p mostly) so I could settle for the base model Mini, I've already got all the peripherals left over from my now deceased iMac 2006. My main concern is the 2.5" Hard Drive because in my many years of PC Repair those things are the biggest performance bottlenecks (not to mention reliability).

2.26ghz Mini with SSD? :cool:
Get 4GB of RAM and a 160GB Intel SSD (Gen2) and your set to go.
 

Undo Redo

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2009
277
0
Colorado, USA
I just switched from a 2008 quad Mac Pro to a 1.53Ghz mini. For the big things like encoding video, the mini requires about 50% more time. The difference would obviously be bigger when comparing to the octo-Pro.

For the regular stuff like email, iTunes and web, there's no difference. The mini takes an extra second to launch a program but a second is nothing.
 

batistuta

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2008
128
12
2.26ghz Mini with SSD? :cool:
Oh yes! I have the Mini 2.0 with nvidia 9400 and 64GB SSD from SuperTalent. The SSD makes all the difference - it really is that good.
AFAIK Apple doesn't support TRIM yet, but I guess they will in time, so get the latest model SSD that fits your budget.
The mentioned Intel X25-M 160GB Gen.2 is a good suggestion.

Why doesn't Apple include SSD as an option for the Mini? Or at least for the iMac?!
Why would I want a rig with a nice i5 or i7 and a conventional spinning drive? An SSD is faster, smaller and uses less power (especially compared to the 3.5" drive in an iMac).
Will stay with my Mini and 30" Dell for now, even if a quad core is tempting. Such a processor will probably not make it to the Mini in the next revision :-(
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,166
581
Finland
For those tasks you mentioned, Mini is okay. Do you mean editing or just watching movies? SSDs are nice but for those tasks I wouldn't buy one because they are coming better and better all the time and prices are coming down too.
 

robby818

macrumors 6502a
May 2, 2007
582
3
Oh yes! I have the Mini 2.0 with nvidia 9400 and 64GB SSD from SuperTalent. The SSD makes all the difference - it really is that good.
AFAIK Apple doesn't support TRIM yet, but I guess they will in time, so get the latest model SSD that fits your budget.
The mentioned Intel X25-M 160GB Gen.2 is a good suggestion.

Why doesn't Apple include SSD as an option for the Mini? Or at least for the iMac?!
Why would I want a rig with a nice i5 or i7 and a conventional spinning drive? An SSD is faster, smaller and uses less power (especially compared to the 3.5" drive in an iMac).
Will stay with my Mini and 30" Dell for now, even if a quad core is tempting. Such a processor will probably not make it to the Mini in the next revision :-(
May I ask what model SSD you went with & what it cost? I upgraded my mini to a 320 GB 7200 rpm drive but really want to go to SSD after using one in a MBP. Thanks.
 

batistuta

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2008
128
12
I went with the Super Talent UltraDrive ME 64GB, which I believe is rated at 230/180 MB/sec READ/WRITE.

In July I paid 171 euros (approx.250 USD) from a company in Germany. Compare that to the base MacMini price being some 860 USD here in Denmark.
The 120G disk my Mini was equipped with was sold for 40$ btw, so the SSD upgrade added some 25% to the system price - the performance increase felt like a lot more!
I have most of my media files (pictures/movies/music) on a NAS attached via gigabit ethernet to the Mini, so I don't really require more space - until I can afford a 250+GB SSD to store it all.
Snow Leopard should free some extra space, so I will try that shortly...
 

Similar threads

  • dimme
0
Replies
0
Views
212
  • cornholio101
3
Replies
3
Views
527
  • Buadhai
12
Replies
12
Views
920
  • Zeke D
7
Replies
7
Views
959
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.