We use a Mac Mini to do typesetting and layout of 2-300 page books. Quark, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, and Word are the only applications that run on it work-wise (FF, Entourage, etc. are also run, but this machine isnt used for entertainment/gaming at all). All rendering is 2D; there is absolutely no 3D/dynamic imaging (i.e., video editing, gaming, animation) done on the machine. It is solely used for page layout and design.
For non-germane reasons, were considering upgrading the offices hardware, and if there is a significant performance boost will upgrade the Mini to an Apple notebook. General advantages of a notebook aside, Im having trouble deciding if there will be a noticeable improvement in performance given how we use it.
The processors all seem to be in the same range, and I doubt that wed see a significant/noticeable improvement there (theyre all Intel Core 2 Duo, ranging from 1.83 2.4 GHz).
We have 2GB RAM in the Mini, and most systems either come with the 2GB or wed add up to that. We'll go to 4GB if necessary, but again only if there are noticeable performance changes.
The suspected performance difference is in the graphics capabilities. (Of course, feel free to correct me here!) However, comparisons between them seem to be lacking, especially in the 2D realm. What I have found run gaming and video benchmarks not very helpful in this case. And while I know, say, that DDR3 is faster memory, would it make for a noticeable difference to us? In other words, Quark rendering a page .002 milliseconds faster isnt worth it, but 2-3 seconds would be.
For reference, heres the basic graphic info from the machines Apple.com pages:
Mac Mini (current system):
Intel GMA 950 64 MB DDR2 SDRAM, shares w/ main memory
White MacBook:
Nvidia GeForce 9400M; 256 MB Shared DDR2 SDRAM
MacBook:
Geforce 9400 256 MB DDR3
MacBook Pro:
Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT; 512MB of GDDR3
I-Mac (not a notebook, but a wildcard option):
ATI HD 2400 XT 128 MB DDR3
I know under our current setup, Word runs as fast as its going to run. Will the above graphics options make a difference to Quark? Any sites out there to help answer the question?
Thanks,
Rhythm
For non-germane reasons, were considering upgrading the offices hardware, and if there is a significant performance boost will upgrade the Mini to an Apple notebook. General advantages of a notebook aside, Im having trouble deciding if there will be a noticeable improvement in performance given how we use it.
The processors all seem to be in the same range, and I doubt that wed see a significant/noticeable improvement there (theyre all Intel Core 2 Duo, ranging from 1.83 2.4 GHz).
We have 2GB RAM in the Mini, and most systems either come with the 2GB or wed add up to that. We'll go to 4GB if necessary, but again only if there are noticeable performance changes.
The suspected performance difference is in the graphics capabilities. (Of course, feel free to correct me here!) However, comparisons between them seem to be lacking, especially in the 2D realm. What I have found run gaming and video benchmarks not very helpful in this case. And while I know, say, that DDR3 is faster memory, would it make for a noticeable difference to us? In other words, Quark rendering a page .002 milliseconds faster isnt worth it, but 2-3 seconds would be.
For reference, heres the basic graphic info from the machines Apple.com pages:
Mac Mini (current system):
Intel GMA 950 64 MB DDR2 SDRAM, shares w/ main memory
White MacBook:
Nvidia GeForce 9400M; 256 MB Shared DDR2 SDRAM
MacBook:
Geforce 9400 256 MB DDR3
MacBook Pro:
Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT; 512MB of GDDR3
I-Mac (not a notebook, but a wildcard option):
ATI HD 2400 XT 128 MB DDR3
I know under our current setup, Word runs as fast as its going to run. Will the above graphics options make a difference to Quark? Any sites out there to help answer the question?
Thanks,
Rhythm