Best performing Mac mini graphics?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by adonis3k, Mar 3, 2018.

  1. adonis3k macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    #1
    Hi all
    I had a 2012 Mac mini with the HD4000 which was pants, are the later graphics any better which would be best for graphics work, light 1080p video work?
    Thanks
     
  2. treekram macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Location:
    Honolulu HI
    #2
    The 2.6Ghz+ models (so not the base model) of the 2014 Mini has the Iris Graphics 5100.

    http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...-vs-Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-125-GHz/m8813vsm7653

    http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...-5100-mobile-vs-intel-hd-graphics-4000-mobile

    I have both the 2012 and 2014 models. I haven't noticed a big difference between the two in terms of graphics performance but don't spend a lot of time on the 2014 (it's mainly a DVR/transcoding computer) and much of the time I screen-share when I have work to do on it. What (if anything) are you doing that you notice any issues with the 2012? I have two different versions of Adobe Premiere Elements (video editing software) - one on my 2012 Mini and another on a computer with a much faster GPU. I mainly edit 720p videos and for what I do I haven't noticed much of a difference in graphics performance between the two systems. It's not that there isn't a big difference in GPU performance, it's that the nature of the work that I do doesn't overly tax the 2012 GPU performance that I notice the difference - so it might not be worth it just for the extra graphics performance of the 2014 Mini. And for video encoding that uses the CPU (rendering a video to a file), if you have the quad 2012 Mini, your performance will suffer in going to the 2014 Mini.
     
  3. adonis3k thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    #3
    I use Mocha a lot with After effects which is slow as hell in tracking, its mainly for this. I was just wondering if the later machines where any better.
     
  4. treekram macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Location:
    Honolulu HI
    #4
    I think you'd need to investigate the specifics of how After Effects and the Mocha (plug-in?) works. If you're using the plug-in bundled with AE, that's "free" whereas the regular version is $595. Anytime I see that, I wonder what's missing from the free version - there may be a performance component to that.

    This is just one article on the web I found - the last poster says the GPU makes no difference - I don't know if that's true but you can get an idea as to how the GPU is used in AE by reading this and other similar articles or perhaps post to the Adobe site to get recommendations.
    https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1916149
     
  5. Boyd01 macrumors 601

    Boyd01

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    New Jersey Pine Barrens
    #5
    I have been using a 2012 2.6ghz quad core i7 mini with 16gb RAM and 1tb SSD with the mocha based TrackX and SliceX Final Cut Pro X plugins. Seems to work pretty well, but faster would be better. I was under the impression that the graphics chip wasn't as significant as the CPU. And this model has the fastest CPU of any Mini - about 1.5x faster than the top of the line 2014 3.0 ghz i7 Mini.

    Don't have any experience with After Effects unfortunately. But for any demanding video work, there are surely some better choices than any of the Mini's. ;)
     
  6. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #6
    Any halfway serious GPU-related stuff on any mini would probably need an external GPU in 2018, until Apple unwraps an updated mini this or next Year.

    At least nowadays it seems halfway affordable (Akitio Thunder and an older-gen GPU) and doable even for an average user to go eGPU. Whether it would make economic sense to spend that time and money for a machine that’s technically a couple of years old, is a different question, though
     

Share This Page

5 March 3, 2018