Please post if you find a descent monitor for a descent price. My wife is a photographer as well.I've been pricing out a Mini with the i7 512GB SSD and 32GB (3rd party) along with a 4K Display of some sort.
That's where I'm at a loss. I do photography as a hobby and would like something close to a 'Retina' display.
Prices are crazy. Then I have to wonder about if I need a eGPU.
Everything I've come up with is more expensive than a 2017 iMac 27. Analysis paralysis
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2018 Mac Mini vs. iMac with Retina 5K display
- Thread starter edtorious
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the question is 'which is better?', you'll never have an answer. They are both good. If the question is 'which is better for me?', there's room to maneuver.Everything I've come up with is more expensive than a 2017 iMac 27. Analysis paralysis
Imac is a specialist. Its a price effective way to get a single screen workstation that is locked into a few configurations and doesn't do anything else. If that's your configuration, its a great way to go. Mini is a multipurpose marvel. Building a Mini version of an iMac will cost more, but only if you are not using the extra capabilities.
Use the mini for 3 screens. Use the mini as a headless server. Use the mini to drive a TV or projector. These are things few other Macs can do and that make the extra considerations worth it. If you need them.
I have a late 2014 iMac with 5K Retina Display. I may purchase a Mac mini because I divide my time between two places that are thousands of miles apart and it would be easy to transport, which the iMac is not. I intend to keep the iMac and I will probably replace it with another when Apple releases a new iMac.
If you have a use case for an iMac, I think that it's a mistake to see a Mac mini as a full replacement, especially if display quality is part of your use case. You will wind up with a compromise, and in my view you will find out that whatever money you save is an object lesson in false economy. You are not going to find a better display unless you're prepared to pay a lot of money.
If you have a use case for an iMac, I think that it's a mistake to see a Mac mini as a full replacement, especially if display quality is part of your use case. You will wind up with a compromise, and in my view you will find out that whatever money you save is an object lesson in false economy. You are not going to find a better display unless you're prepared to pay a lot of money.
Last edited:
I've had four iMacs over the last 20 years. They were all a compromise. My use case was simple for most of that time.
Now that I've gotten more serious with photography, I want my system to be as good as I can get it. Within a budget of course. At least I have options at this point.
Now that I've gotten more serious with photography, I want my system to be as good as I can get it. Within a budget of course. At least I have options at this point.
I highly recommend the 24” version of this 4K monitor:
Dell Ultra HD 4K Monitor P2415Q 24-Inch Screen LED-Lit Monitor https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PC9HFNY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_8vU5Bb9E2CX3J
If your photography requires a full gamut monitor, the iMac screen won't cover it. I am still using dual NEC PA271W screens after 5 years and they will probably last another generation of CPU. 4k on a 27" is unreadable. I'll be looking at the Mac Mini with an eGPU or the modular Mac Pro in the next year, though the 6 core nMP still runs fine.
On the subject of eGpu's -
I've been under the impression that having a powerful graphics card was important to the editing and processing of images. From what I've been reading, that might not be the case. Or, not as important as I thought.
With regards to choosing an iMac over a Mini, my concern was whether I needed an eGpu for the only intensive task I do - editing photos. I don't game, don't make videos, and don't watch any content on my iMac, iPad or iPhone. All I do is browse websites and manage 35,000 photos. I take less than a thousand photos a month, totally a hobby.
So, the Mini and a new monitor might just do the trick for me. ON1 Photo Raw, DxO PhotoLab, Luminar and Graphic Converter are my main programs. As far as I can tell, ogpu performance isn't an issue.
I've been under the impression that having a powerful graphics card was important to the editing and processing of images. From what I've been reading, that might not be the case. Or, not as important as I thought.
With regards to choosing an iMac over a Mini, my concern was whether I needed an eGpu for the only intensive task I do - editing photos. I don't game, don't make videos, and don't watch any content on my iMac, iPad or iPhone. All I do is browse websites and manage 35,000 photos. I take less than a thousand photos a month, totally a hobby.
So, the Mini and a new monitor might just do the trick for me. ON1 Photo Raw, DxO PhotoLab, Luminar and Graphic Converter are my main programs. As far as I can tell, ogpu performance isn't an issue.
Honestly the iMac 5K is a MUCH better value proposition. The Mac mini wins in pure CPU power if you go with the i5 or i7, but everything else is better on the 5K iMac (actually user-upgradeable RAM, a proper GPU, comes with a 5K display and all the peripherals you need). If you want a comparable Mac mini to the base model 5K iMac you'd have to spend around $2200 just for the computer, monitor (if you wanted to get a comparable LG UltraFine 5K display), keyboard and mouse. You wouldn't even have a GPU yet, which would cost at least another $700.
With that said, I REALLY wish the iMac came in a 6-core version.
With that said, I REALLY wish the iMac came in a 6-core version.
Last edited:
I agree.
It's clear that if an iMac and a Mac mini are similarly spec'd, one won't save more than a couple of hundred dollars by purchasing the latter. That assumes that you install your own 32GB of RAM in the mini, saving $300. If one purchases an eGPU, the mini will wind up costing quite a bit more than an iMac.
I own a 5K iMac, but have purchased a mini because I want the portability. Were it not for that, I wouldn't have purchased one.
Last edited:
Granted, last time iMac even remotely interested me they used mobile graphics and CPUs. Seems that it changed recently.
That's better, but still I do not want all-in-one. Each to their own.
They never used mobile cpu that I can remember, they used sometimes mobile gpu like the nvidia 780M and to be honest it was an amazing gpu, wish they did used a 1080m now
They never used mobile cpu that I can remember, they used sometimes mobile gpu like the nvidia 780M and to be honest it was an amazing gpu, wish they did used a 1080m now
I could be mistaken, but I think iMacs have always used a mobile GPU, even though sometimes the name did not have an "M" in it. For example, my Mid-2010 has an ATI Radeon HD 5750, which as I recall, was based off of mobile parts, but without the mobile name. Even the current Pro 580 is at best a slowed down desktop part I believe. From my recollection (which could be cloudy), iMacs and MacBook Pros have been notorious for using the name of a strong desktop GPU to mask a rather mediocre mobile or oddly in-between GPU.
I have no idea whether that is true, but I do know that there are a lot of professional video editors using iMacs, apparently satisfied with their performance.
Says you. Since this is what's been available for many years, it's important why?
Back OT.
Without eGPU, a 2018 Mini can handle one 5K or two 4K monitors plus one HDMI monitor. The 27" LG 5K is $1,299 while the 27" TB3 4K is $699 ($100 less on Amazon). Good 27" HDMI monitors are $200–400 including a couple 4K.
A 2017 iMac, likewise can handle one 5K or two 4K TB3 monitors — in addition to the built-in 5K. The iMac Pro can handle a pair of external 5Ks.
When the cost of keyboards, mice/trackpad and those monitors is factored in, the price differences among the Mini/iMac/Pro aren't far apart at all.
I should clarify. The GPUs are usually decent mid-range parts, but they are presented and priced as competing with above mid-tier desktop parts. Pricing an iMac with the Pro 580 puts it at a base of $2300. That's a pretty hefty price tag for a mid range card even with that gorgeous monitor.
[doublepost=1541879309][/doublepost]
The cost may be similar, but the performance and longevity of a mini with eGPU and externally sourced monitor will be better than an iMac. iMacs are geared as a clean, one-size fits solution. The mini offers more flexibility and better opportunity to get more usable life out of it. I love my iMac, but I don't know that I would buy another one because of the difficulty to upgrade and fix.
Nope, cost would be the same for the silicon which is the same, and they always been generous with ram, but they have thermal constraints. They don’t call it 580rx which has slightly higher frequency. They’ve always used the fastest card available from whatever brand they were partnering with withing TDP limits, which does not play well with their super high resolution monitors for gaming.
For me, I have a mini (mid 2011) and of course I have a monitor, Dell UltraFine, keyboard and mouse.
The concept of the mini, for me is, I can now buy a top mini for under $2000 and I’m good to go.
Back in the day, no one even heard about 5k monitors, so I have some decisions to make.
But the concept is the same, I can get a mini and a 5k, and figure that 5k will last 10+ years.
I REALLY wish they had the 6-core imac PLUS an apple 5k display, both of which are rumored to coming.
Then with all options out I could make a decision.
I guess I’ll wait.....