Classic Mac Pro vs new Mac mini

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by deckard666, Oct 31, 2018.

  1. deckard666 macrumors 6502

    deckard666

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    Location:
    Falmouth
    #1
    I have a 2010 2 x 2.4 quad core classic Mac Pro - how much better or worse is it’s performance against the new base model Mac Mini which is a 3.66 quad core ?
     
  2. saulinpa macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    #2
    Depends on your application. 8 core / 16 threads vs. 4 core / 4 threads. Faster single thread.

    Storage should be faster.

    I am assuming slower GPU.
     
  3. Mac Hammer Fan macrumors 6502a

    Mac Hammer Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Location:
    Belgium
    #3
    The 6core is a better buy. However,
    https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...-core-2.4-mid-2010-westmere-server-specs.html
    Geekbench 4 (SC): 2137 Geekbench 4 (MC): 13153
    You'll be better replacing the CPU of your MacPro with a 2x6 core 3,33 GHz if you have a good videocard and SSD. It will rock.
    https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/10183681 and that's only 3 Ghz. 3,33 will be faster. Geekbench score should be twice as fast as your current Mac.
    The Mini 3,66 has only 4 cores and 4 threads. The upgrade of your MacPro should have 12 cores and 24 threads.
     
  4. t8er8 macrumors regular

    t8er8

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #4
    Mac mini runs on integrated graphics so I’m sure it’s close it’s just depend on how much ram the Mac mini has (if we’re talking about a stock 5,1 with hd5770)
     
  5. AliGT83 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    #5
    Mac mini:
    Faster Ram
    Faster Internal Storage
    Can use eGPU without hacks
    TB3
    USB3
    Less power usage.
     
  6. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #6
    As you already have the cmp then would suggest that look at upgrading that.
    As a 2010 then can upgrade to 2 x x5690 3.46ghz.
    Can also fit better gpu’s and with the 140 firmware with Mojave then now has native name so can fit nice fast storage in there now.
    So can overcome the storage side, and the cpu’s should be pretty cheap now on eBay .
     
  7. MisterAndrew macrumors 65816

    MisterAndrew

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    #7
    It depends how you want to use the machine. If you need better single core CPU performance go for the new Mac mini. If you need a better GPU then upgrade your 5,1 with an RX 580. If you need more storage (multiple drives, Boot Camp, etc) then upgrade your 5,1. Definitely more cost effective to upgrade your current machine. A new Mac mini with an i7 and 512GB or 1TB SSD plus an eGPU is $2-3000. If you're looking to spend that much cash then maybe just wait for the new Mac Pro.
     
  8. PianoPro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2018
    #8
    I've just started looking at the Mac mini as a replacement for my cMP. I'll probably end up waiting for the new mMP, but the Mini looks attractive as an interim product that I can convert to other uses later if get a mMP.

    I'd go for the 6-core 3.2/4.6 GHz CPU and minimum 8 GB RAM and minimum 128 GB SSD (just for a boot drive). Price $1100.

    Keyboard & Mouse ~ $200 if Apple
    DIY upgrade RAM to 32 GB - $330 OWC
    4-Bay 2.5" & 3.5" TB3 Storage Enclosure - $400 OWC (very preliminary 1st look)

    That's about $2000, which I suspect will be far, far less than the new nMP (I'm just guessing $5000 for a base 8-core CPU). If I'm lucky the Mini built-in GPU would be enough for my 43" 4K monitor (2D work only) and 2 x 1080p monitors without an eGPU. If so, my biggest complaint would be not having 10 or 12 core CPU, which is why I'd probably wait for mMP.
     
  9. Hater macrumors 6502a

    Hater

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2017
    Location:
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    #9
    Mac Pro:
    More RAM (more is better than faster)
    Cheaper RAM (DDR3 ECC can be had cheap)
    Much, much more internal storage
    Doesn't need an eGPU
    Can be upgraded easily
    TB3/USB3 can be added on as riser cards (as can NVMe drives if you want)
    Way more ports
    Doesn't have stupid T2 chip

    Mac Mini:
    Will be supported for longer
    Will have OS updates for longer
    Less desk space, less power, quieter
    Better WiFi and all that
     
  10. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #10
    The Mini is a good little machine if you need something that "Just Works".

    At the starting price, it's a good machine for grandma. More optioned out it can be a standby if you can squeeze your workflow into it's limitations.

    Without knowing your workflow, we really can't say the better option for you. If you need GPU computing, or if you are maxing out all your CPU cores, or if your workflow requires faster single core performance.

    Me, I need both the highest multi core, and the highest single core I can get. I also need PCI-E slots, and don't favor expensive third party TB boxes with all the wires, I'm sinking in wires as it is.

    I know my next machine will have to have at least two M.2 slots, 2 or 4 SATA with bays, and socketed CPU's and ram.

    Narrow down your use case, try and figure what the Apps you use need to run faster, and look for benchmarks that test your Apps, if you can find them.

    Give it a week or three after the new Mini ships, and we'll all have a better idea how fast it is in real world benchmarks.
     
  11. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #11
    The mini is probably faster in day-to-day use... I mean I hope so it's literally nine years newer which in computer terms is a whole another eon.

    The GPU problem can be solved with an eGPU... if you're paying top dollar to upgrade the classic Mac Pro, you can do the same with an eGPU and you can get even power hungry cards.
     
  12. orph, Nov 1, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2018

    orph macrumors 68000

    orph

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    the macmin 4c CPU will be much faster! than your 2.4ghz cpu in any task up 4 threads maybe close to 2x more if you use apps that use the new instruction sets (if you are cpu limited in the apps)
    the 6c macmin is worth it if you can swing the extra £££ (if you need the extra cores)

    good sides
    -so small
    -ram is faster
    -drive is faster
    -thunderbolt 3 is cool
    i dont know how fast '3' is but thunderbolt 2 is vary nice so i hope "3' is a upgrade. and if the 4 ports are each independent then thats super nice (not looked in to it a lot)
    -cpu is newer
    -USB 3.1 (or something new)
    -smaller :D gafa tape it to the bottom of your desk or behind your display for fun
    -lower power use

    problems
    -upgrades/repairs
    -GPU have to be external, extra cost and any speed problems from thunderbolt v PCI
    -thermal headroom?
    -noise? dont know what it will be like yet (but cmp is not silent)
    -max ram (compared to CMP dual cpu)
    -legacy problems if you need pre osx10.14 apps
    -have to use external drives (but i have to do that any way so ~~ mixed for me no change)

    but it will relay depend on what work/apps you use
    for normal light use web/office/email etc.. it's much much better

    even light video editing it will be fine, options of eGPU if needed and lots of fast options for external drives.

    i relay like cinebench scores, it will give you a good impression of how single core speed compares and how all core speed compares.
    my cmp 6c/12 single core is 101 all core about 735 (so my HT get's me a and extra 134 points :rolleyes: tad lame)
    the new intel CPU's hit about 200 single core at 5gzh so id gess 160-180~ single core at 4ghz id blind gess
    (i like cinbench as i can use it to estimate app performance as if you have 8cores and use an application that uses 6 cores max then you single core speed times 6= speed
    then if it's compared to a 4core computer on the same app 4cores score times 4=speed
    and see if how the scores compare)

    and http://barefeats.com/ will have a review up soon im shore and it's always good to wait a week or two to see if there's any real problems found in reviews.

    if you need more ram and it's possible to DIY it that tends to be cheeper but depends what you need/want

    so as it is now ignoring the GPU side just looking at overall system for tasks that dont need a lot of cores the macmin will be faster and the 6C id gess will be faster for hard CPU workloads than your cmp at the mo
    the app mactracker show's your setup to be slower than my 5.1 with a 6c/12t 3.33ghz cpu in both single thread and all core!
    Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 1.19.15 pm.png
    Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 1.19.19 pm.png

    i think the macmin looks relay nice, the 6c cpu option is (for me) the nice model and not so shore the i7 upgrade is so worth it.
    give it a week and check reviews & how hard it is to upgrade ram DIY as apple charges a lot for ram upgrades

    edit
    even the old mac min in all cpu options shows faster single core speeds in geekbench
    Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 1.26.23 pm.png
    now for long exports im not shore if it thermal throttles (see reviews once there out) but ill bet it ends up faster even if it has to down clock for hard cpu workloads unless you use apps that scale perfectly to duals cpu's and +12cores (and you upgrade the cpu)

    but there are problems with the mac min, as ever look at what you do, what you need and what it will cost and compare to see if it's worth it for you & there may be a macpro in the next year?
     
  13. pl1984 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #13
    Given Apple's past attention to these details (such as with the 6,1 Mac Pro) I would not be surprised to learn each port is independent and all can sustain full speed operation at the same time.
     
  14. orph macrumors 68000

    orph

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    the 6.1 macpro has 6 ports with 3 controllers so it's optimal to split things between the 3 controllers but thats only if you actually do anything that needs that much speed so for most people it wont matter much :D
    https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/mac-pro-thunderbolt-performance/
    something like
    eGPU controller 1
    displays from controller 2 or eGPU (depending what you do)

    after that cant see it relay matter much unless your using lot's and lots of eGPU's
     
  15. Flint Ironstag macrumors 6502a

    Flint Ironstag

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Location:
    Houston, TX USA
  16. Oculus Mentis macrumors member

    Oculus Mentis

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2018
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    I may be a little off topic here but you can also get a new mini with a 10Gbe, install the same on your cMP and re-purpose it as a file server. You shouldn't need an expensive 10Gbe switch to do this.

    If you get a mini with the 6 core 12 thread CPU then you can keep your video options open with whatever eGPU that suits your needs...

    Apologies if I'm off topic.
     
  17. Raunien macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #17
    I do alot of video conversion from blu-ray MKV rips to 1080p h.265 (HEVC) with handbrake. The speeds I get on my 12 core 3.33ghz cMP are not that great (usually a 1:1 conversion rate).

    I'm wondering if the new i7 6-core mac mini will be able to do the job much faster. If anyone has any experience with the newer CPU's (I know the 24inch iMac has the same processor) and this type of conversion, let me know if I should spring for one of these new minis.

    Thanks!
     
  18. orph macrumors 68000

    orph

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    there will be benchmarks out in a week or two sit tight and watch
     
  19. pl1984 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #19
    With 12 cores / 24 threads I expect your Mac Pro will be faster at transcoding than the new 6 core / 12 thread Mini. The additional clock speed on the Mini will narrow the gap but I doubt it will be sufficient to overcome the smaller number of cores / threads compared to the Mac Pro.

    My prediction: Mac Pro will be faster.
     
  20. Raunien macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    #20
    Thanks for the insight. I have considered the fact that apple says the T2 chip offers 30x faster HEVC encoding. In addition, using my handbrake preset currently, my cMP uses about 60% of the CPU power (about half the cores) which may be a limitation of handbrake. Thoughts about this?
     
  21. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #21
    My prediction is the Mac mini.

    Why? Intel QuickSync on the iGPU.
     
  22. pl1984 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #22
    I did assume HEVC would not be used. If that's the case then yes, the Mini will easily out perform the Mac Pro.
     
  23. orph macrumors 68000

    orph

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    we have no idea if handbrake will be able to see any T2 chip (is it actually doing decoding and encoding and if so faster than real time?)

    iv seen hand brake has problems scaling with a lot of cores but id gess the macmin 6c/12t will do well
    and there will be handbrake benchmarks ^^
     
  24. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #24
    Handbrake on Mac OS doesn’t use quicksync. Macxdvd will use quicksync though on a Mac.

    Until gets updated to use it then a 12 core cmp will be quicker.
     
  25. pl1984 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #25
    I experienced scaling limitations with Handbrake. My 16 core / 32 thread Z620 completed the same transcode in the same time / rate as my 12 core / 24 thread Z600. Both systems have similar clock speeds. Viewing the performance metrics of the Z620 I can see where all threads were not fully utilized.
     

Share This Page

24 October 31, 2018