2012 Mac Pro 3.3Ghz vs 2012 Mac mini 2.3Ghz

[kevinsjfl3jlj]

#1
2012 Mac Pro 3.33Ghz(6core) 32GB ram, ATI radeon HD 5770 1024MB with 2TB HDD : $750

VS

2012 Mac mini 2.3Ghz i7 16GB ram, 1.5TB(1tb SSD, 500gb HDD 7200 rpm) : $600


I bought a 2014 Mac mini which has only 4GB ram about 1 year ago, and the model couldn't upgrade ram and couldn't install SDD. It was sucks..

So I'm looking for another used Mac. And I found two.
Please let me know which one is better to go.

It is for just basic works for now.
However it is too slow for even basic works.
Sometime, we use Photoshop too.
And I want to have a Mac something that we can use another 5 years.

Please let me know.
Thanks

 

[velocityg4]

The Mac Pro.
- faster CPU
- faster GPU
- more RAM
- more storage
- more upgradeable

All advantages are by a wide margin. Plus when it comes to new macOS versions. Even if it is not officially supported. Given the ability to upgrade the GPU. There will probably be workarounds for a long time.

 

[Naimfan]

Mac Pro.

Unless electricity is very expensive where you live.

 

[Merlin100]

The MacMini will meet all your needs - but the MacPro will do far more. -- I just retired my 2012 Mac Mini and replaced it with a used 6-Core 2013 Mac Pro (The trash can) I've used the Mini nonstop for over 5 years. I got the high end version, the 2.3Ghz i7 Quad-Core with 16GB RAM and the 1.1TB Fusion Drive - I immediately pulled out the 1TB HD and installed a 240GB OWC 6G Flash Drive and created a Hyper Fusion Drive with the Apple Flash drive + the 240 - It has never let me down. I run Photoshop just fine and games just fine. But again, for $150- more the MacPro will blow away the MacMini - The choice is really your preference. A 7x7x1 inch One Pound Mac Mini or a Beastly MacPro Tower.

 

[LorenK]

I had a 2008 Mac Pro, have a 2012 Mac Pro, have a 2012 Mac Mini and a recently deceased 2010 Mac Mini (the GPU has failed). The 2008 Mac Pro is actually still in the family and continues to perform like the workhorse it is. For the price, I would pay the $150 more simply because you can expect the 2012 to still be around when the world around you has fallen to dust. I have not had any problems with my Mac Pros (the 2008 is a refurb and I bought the 2012 used, so that is also testament to their solid build. If I could afford to spend more, I would buy another used 2012 to replace the deceased Mac Mini.

 

[Bollockser]

Dont buy the cheese grater Mac Pro. They are power-gobblers, noisy, and create a ton of heat.
I made the same mistake. Even on the fastest model, the single-core scores can't compete with the quad i7 Mac Mini, meaning everything except rendering is going to feel incredibly sluggish compared to the Mac Mini.
You're going to have to spend money for SATA III and USB 3 expansion cards, and then they won't behave like they are native hardware. Don't invest in completely obsolete hardware and then throw good money after bad to gimp it along for a couple more years.

 

[SuperMatt]

If you are looking for a Mac that will run for 5 more years, just wait until the end of the month to see if a new Mac mini comes out. If there is one in that target price range ($750) then buy that. I personally wouldn't drop that kind of money on a 6-year old computer.

However, if you are dead-set on buying one of these 2 computers, let me say 100% the Mac Pro. I am typing this on an original (2006) Mac Pro that I got for free on Craigslist when somebody else upgraded last year. It runs great despite being 12 years old. And there is no way it will feel slow compared to a Mac mini despite what one poster wrote. That's absurd. Upgrading a Mac Pro is so much easier than a Mac mini too. I doubt a 2012 Mac mini will be running well in 5 years. A 2012 Mac Pro might though.

 

[kschendel]

Neither option is ideal, but I'd agree with the rest that the Mac Pro is better. Add an inexpensive SATA SSD and you're good. (Don't worry about SATA 2 vs 3; most of the time you'll never notice.) Another $40 or so for a USB 3 add-in card if you need such a thing.

The biggest problem with the 2012 Mac Pro is that you can't upgrade the CPU past what's in there now. (well, yes, you could upgrade to a 3.46 Ghz processor, but that's a very small improvement). For single thread work like Photoshop, the Westmere processors are something like 30% slower than the next generation Sandy Bridge processors, which is somewhat unfortunate. On the plus side, for most things, the 3.33Ghz Westmere is good enough, and having plenty of memory and I/O capability makes up for the somewhat slower CPU most of the time.

(Yes, a quad i7 Mini will be faster, as it's a newer generation CPU; but only if you have enough memory in it. Running short of memory makes things so much slower that the CPU is irrelevant.)

It's too bad I don't know if you can make a Hackintosh with a Ryzen 2200G CPU, because otherwise that's what I would suggest as being better than either of the older machines. It's easy to put together a $750 build that will beat the Mac Pro for most general computing tasks, but running OSX on it is the harder part.