A 2011 base mac mini with 16gb of ram would be as fast as the upcoming 2012 mini?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by Che Castro, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. Che Castro macrumors 603

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    #1
    I can't wait any longer :(

    Im wondering if the base model mac mini from last year , if i put 16gb of ram would that be as good/fast as the upcoming rumored mac mini base model with probably 4gb of ram & ivy bridge or whatever is called ?

    Im no computer expert so go easy on me , this will be my first mac

    I don't play games but i do watch & convert 1080p movies, plus some net surfing


    Also how fast is usb 3 compared to usb 2 , all my external drives are usb 2,what are the benefits


    Reading this section people have been saying wait since June
     
  2. Omnius macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    #2
    converting 1080p will be slow. Watching 1080p will be fine.
     
  3. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #3
    Well RAMs dont make you computer faster.
    Thats the thing...

    The 2012 model (if coming) would probably have better CPU compared to 2011.
    Which means converting 1080p would be slower.
    Watching videos and internet surfing should be fine.

    USB2 and 3's difference would obviously be speed.
    3 is 5Gbps vs 480mbps.
    If you peripherals are 2 only, I wouldnt worry but they are going to change soon.
     
  4. TinHead88 macrumors regular

    TinHead88

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #4
    USB3 is worth the wait if you can. It is significantly faster (can easily saturate drive speeds, even SSD) and affordable. Thunderbolt will eventually be an option but at this stage it is too expensive. Its main use currently is to add more displays and for extreme data throughput as in special raid arrays.

    If you are going to convert a lot of movies using handbrake then it is generally recommended to get the quad core mini. That will make a difference and you can find evidence of this if you google it.
     
  5. theRAMman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Location:
    The Moon.
    #5
    also the HD4000 graphics is supposedly "70% faster" than the current intel HD3000. Put it like this, the 4000 is very similar in speed to the AMD Radeon HD 6630M in the current midrange. (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php benchmarks: AMD Radeon HD 6630M-274 HD3000-358 HD4000-277)
     
  6. skipjakk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    #6
    The 2011 midrange mac mini ($799) and the 2012 base should be about the same.
     
  7. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #7
    If you ignore USB 3, that's just about the most correct statement someone could make. And as you get Thunderbolt - and TB storage should get cheaper very fast, USB 3 might be less of a loss than many might think. That is unless you already got tons of USB 3.0 devices waiting for your Mac.

    Also don't forget that you may be able to get a Quad-Core Mini with dedicated graphics card, which would be about double as fast as the current mid range Mini in most scenarios. If you need that amount of power, you may want to wait.
     
  8. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #8
    well since you are converting movies you want a quad core version not the base mac mini.

    you can get a 2011 quad core for about 900-950 .

    you don't need 16gb ram.

    8gb ram is good enough for most people.

    even if the 2012 quad core only has 4000 graphics it would be good enough for you. Also the 2011 quad would drop in price.

    If you convert a movie on a quad core it is much faster then any other mini.

    say 40 minutes for a 80 minute movie vs 65 minutes with the dual core.
     
  9. Mojo1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #9
    The tests and reviews that I have read estimate the real-world speed increase to be closer to 40% than 70%...
     
  10. theRAMman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Location:
    The Moon.
    #10
    i probably got my figures wrong, i just seem to remember reading it somewhere...:p
     
  11. Lancer macrumors 68020

    Lancer

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Australia
    #11
    I thought the raw CPU speed would only see a small bump, maybe 10-15%.

    More RAM does help some programs, I'd get at least 8Gb in any new computer and I'm hoping the Mini and iMac have 8Gb standard in the top models come October :D
     
  12. Mojo1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #12
    Well, at one point I was doing some serious poking around comparing the Intel HD GPUs and the discrete GPU in the Mini. I was expecting more of a boost but 40% is apparently it, more or less...

    Unfortunately, I didn't bookmark my sources so I cannot easily go back and post a link or two. But I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone comes up with something different.

    I'm waiting patiently for the upgraded Mini for the Ivy Bridge CPU, USB 3.0 and a long-shot chance that the discrete GPU will be head and shoulders above the current offering. (Fat Chance... :rolleyes:)

    Frankly, both the base model 2011 and upcoming Mini is all really need. But I would prefer to spend my $$$ on an upgraded Mini...
     
  13. skipjakk, Sep 16, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012

    skipjakk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    #13
    From Passmarks Website

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?gpu=Intel+HD+4000

    Not sure how accurate, but here's Passmark 6630M and HD4000

    Mobility Radeon HD 4670.........................578
    FireGL V7100.........................................578
    GeForce 9600 GSO................................576
    GeForce GT 230.....................................573
    Radeon HD 6630M..................................572
    GeForce 7800 GTX..................................571
    Mobile Intel HD.......................................571
    Intel HD 4000.........................................569
    GeForce Go 7950 GTX............................568
    RADEON X800 XL..................................564
     
  14. Mojo1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
  15. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #15
    which is why the op should wait for the new server.

    the quad core mini is really a lot better at video conversion then any mini.

    so a 2012 server with a 4000 igpu would fit his needs better then any current mini.
     
  16. Mojo1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    #16
    Hope This Helps...

    I quickly found a couple of pages with Mac Mini test results, including a Handbrake test. Unfortunately, the 4-core Mini isn't among the tests but it may be available. I didn't have the time to go over all the search results.

    Even without a Mac Mini server test comparing a 2-core Mini to some of the 4-core Macs that were tested may be helpful...

    It all comes down to how much video conversion the OP plans on doing and whether the time=$$$ equation pencils-out for him.

    http://www.barefeats.com/mini11_04.html

    http://www.barefeats.com/mini11_01.html

    If you know someone with a 4-core Mac Mini Barefeats has a request:

    WHAT ABOUT THE QUAD-CORE MINI?
    Some of you are asking us about that. We don't have access to the quad mini at the moment but if you do and want to run our tests, let us know so we can send you the test procedures and test files.
     
  17. QuantumLo0p macrumors 6502a

    QuantumLo0p

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #17
    Assuming Apple does the upgrade. I hope they don't sit on their laurels like they have on some other refreshes. IMO overall Apple is better at not dropping the ball than they used to but it may happen.
     

Share This Page