Mac Mini - eMac performance difference.

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by MacSA, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. MacSA macrumors 68000


    Jun 4, 2003
    What kind of difference would you likely see between the 1.42ghz mini and the 1.42ghz eMac - I know that the eMac has a better hardware set than the mini - 64MB 9600 graphics card, faster hard drive and more I/O ports. But how much difference would this make in everday use? By the time you add a mouse and keyboard to the price of the mini, the price difference isnt that great.
  2. iGary Guest


    May 26, 2004
    Randy's House
    Watcha using it for?

    Already have a monitor?
  3. MacSA thread starter macrumors 68000


    Jun 4, 2003
    Yes I have a 15" CRT monitor already..... I just use the internet, occasional word processing and some very light photo editing. I'm currently using a 4.5 year old PC - celeron 667mhz 320mb RAM and Windows ME !! :eek: .. and i'm sick of it lol

    I was all set to get a Mac mini when they updated them - except they didnt really "update" them, they still have that ancient 9200 graphics card in them and removed the modem !!! lol
  4. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Apr 3, 2004
    Adelaide, Australia
    I'd say the eMac is quite a bit better than the mini as a machine so it's just a matter of weighing up whether you want to spend the small premium to get the all in one design and ditch your current keyboard/screen etc.

    Nevertheless, whilst the mini is adequate, I'd recommend the eMac. :)
  5. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus


    Mar 10, 2004
    Bergen, Norway
    Don't think there's that big difference. The eMac is a bit faster, the mini a bit more stylish.

    Just a few points, off the top of my head:

    * The mini is cheaper if you already have a monitor (or buy the cheapest CRT you can find), even if you have to get a keyboard (get Apples standard wired keyboard, which also gives you two extra non/low-powered USP ports) and mouse (any two-button optical scroll wheel USB mouse will do just fine).

    * If you spend a bit more you can add a 17" LCD to your mini and they will take up very little desk space. Perfect if you're (really) pressed for space.

    * The eMac on the other hand can have larger, faster and cheaper internal hard drives. So if you want an compact all-in-one solution with much storage capacity go for the eMac.

    * The eMac has built-in stereo speakers while the mini only has a (really) poor mono speaker (but many 17" LCDs has built-in speakers you can use with the mini, or you may want to hook it up to your HiFi, anyway).
  6. MacSA thread starter macrumors 68000


    Jun 4, 2003
    I did get to play on an eMac for a few minutes Wednesday, not as big and chunky as I thought and the screen is very nice. But Apple only ship it with 256MB RAM .. BOOOOOOO !! Very odd I think, but at least it's easy to upgrade.

    What do people make of that G5 mini rumour? I know a G5 mini at this stage sounds ludicrous, but some irrational part of me is kind of hoping lol :rolleyes:
  7. shadowmoses macrumors 68000


    Mar 6, 2005
    eMac's are nice machines but if you are not looking for big internal storage go for the mac mini as it is smaller and more stylish.....

    As for the G5 Mini rumors, i struggle to belive they will become a reality anytime soon, it may happen if they are one of the last macs to switch to intel, but i cannot see it happening soon,

  8. Mechcozmo macrumors 603


    Jul 17, 2004
    The G5's heatsink is the size of a Mini. I'd think we see a G5 in the eMac first, or Intel's new stuff and skip the G5.

    The higher-end eMac comes with 512MB of RAM and the eMac can handle 2GB of RAM. That's 2x1GB sticks, or if you can find 2GB DIMMs, then 4GB, but that's pretty damn expensive.
    Another plus to the eMac-- dual-screening. If you buy another screen or even connect your current one to the eMac's mini-VGA out (may require an adapter for like $30) then with a screen hack you can have dual-screens. Not just mirroring, but true spanning. And the eMac's monitor is great... one of the better CRTs I have used. Me like the eMac. Much underrated it is.
  9. callan macrumors newbie

    Aug 23, 2005
    Leicester UK
    Having used an eMac for nearly 3 years after using PCs I can recommend it. In 3 years Ive not had any real trouble with it, just the odd freeze up. Im running 10.3.9 and its still quick when you consider its only 800MHz.

    As already mentioned, the screen in it really is great and the speakers are pretty good to say they're built in. I was quite surprised when I first played an mp3 on it.

    The only downsides are:

    1) Desk space. Its not big, but its definately a lot bigger than a Mini and a flat screen.

    2) Its DAMN heavy. Obviously sat on a desk that not a problem but i moved houses quite a bit after just finishing Uni and it's a real pain lugging the thing up and down stairs!
  10. iWillard macrumors regular


    Apr 27, 2005
    Staring at a Mac Screen
    I have 8 eMacs in my classroom (1.25gHz/40GB HDD/512 RAM) and my students love 'em... We do iMovie editing day in and day out on them and they work consistently awesome...

    Also, the eMac has an audio-in on it, which is a big help if you do any audio recording or analog to digital capturing...
  11. topgunn macrumors 65816


    Nov 5, 2004
    I think the eMac is highly underrated.

    It can house a 500GB HD compared to the mini's max of 100GB. The eMac has a 7200RPM HD which has much higher burst rates and sustained transfer and faster access times than even a 2.5" 7200RPM HD that you could put into the mini. This will affect boot time, application load time, level loading in games and page-outs/ins (if you are low on memory).

    The other major factor is that the eMac is core image compatible unlike the mini. The 9600 is much better than the 9200 in games, if thats your thing (not that either is a real barn burner).

    More minor advantages for the eMac include less cable clutter, faster DVD burner, cheaper components and you won't lose it under paperwork. And Apple does ship the $999 eMac with 512MB of RAM.
  12. aidanpendragon macrumors 6502a

    Jul 26, 2005

    As someone who just bought an eMac, after much deliberation between that and the Mini, I love it. Great to see that's the consensus here, too. Several high points, which have been echoed earlier:

    - Faster (and bigger) hard drive. The eMac starts up in no time at all, and so do applications - so fast that I'm still stunned after a month.

    - More ports. Coupled with the above, you then don't have to buy a Mini Mate or similar product for adequate storage and ports.

    - Not as big as you think it is. MacSA, you mentioned this. I'm someone who wanted to get space back with a Mini, but the eMac has a surprisingly small footprint. Spend another 50 bucks for the tilt-and-swivel stand; it looks nice and saves even more room.

    - Graphics card. I got the 9600 for games. More importantly, though, I've heard that 10.4.2 finally offloads user interface/window drawing to the GPU rather than the CPU - meaning that your graphics card directly affects how the computer handles at the most basic level.

    - Your current monitor. Despite Apple's claims, Minis have been notoriously uneven in supporting CRTs, and I doubt anything in Rev. B changes that. There's a list up somewhere on incompatibilities; you might have to add a new display to the Mini price.

    I could go on and on (decent speakers, DL Superdrive, modem not "optional", comes with keyboard/mouse, you can upgrade memory yourself easily) - but my opinions should be clear. Plus, you can grab a Superdrive model with all that, stock, from the Apple store; if you want a Mini with modem, you have to go BTO/mail order. If you can get a student discount, it narrows the price differential even more.

    Go for the eMac - it's Apple's best-kept secret.
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    May 7, 2004
    Sod off
    The eMac is faster than the Mini, and has a better display than the 15" you already own. The Mini is cheaper. I'd go with the eMac if you are willing to spend the extra money. Whichever computer you get, upgrade the RAM immediately - and buy 3rd party RAM, NOT Apple RAM, which is overpriced.

    As for the G5 Mini, it's going to have an external heatsink on top of the box, keeping the tiny form factor and functioning as a small hot plate so you can make Lipton Cup O' Soup or Ramen noodles in your cubicle.

    ;) :rolleyes:
  14. jayscheuerle macrumors 68020


    They upgraded my 450mHz G4 to a mini this past year, and while I love the faster processor when it comes into play, I notice the difference in disk speeds a LOT as I'll often have the entire Adobe Suite open along with Quark and others and page outs do happen. More beachballs on the Mini...
  15. Err macrumors member

    Aug 19, 2005
    i own a 1.42 mini
    my roomate owns a 1.42 emac

    emac is better for the money, but im using an external FW drive with my mini, and a gig of ram, and they xbench almost the same, the mini winning in disk tests, the emac winning in video card tests, everything else is about identical. hope that helps.
  16. PaRaGoNViCtiM macrumors 6502a

    Mar 18, 2005
    It really depends on your needs. Only you can make the final decision. I have to agree with the majority here, and say I would go with the eMac.
  17. Jesus macrumors 6502

    for me it would be the eMac, i love it so, (i know this is crazy but) it is the only mac with a soul. the iMac, Mac Mini and PowerMac both are so sterile, and the the portables are no better, it i was to buy a new mac today, it would be the eMac.

  18. hepcat57 macrumors newbie

    Aug 24, 2005
    I purchased a mini based on my needs (already had a good LCD, I despise CRT, some desk space differences)...but I do see how the eMac has the edge in some categories. I guess it all comes down to whether you prefer "a la carte" or "all-in-one". :eek:
  19. Mechcozmo macrumors 603


    Jul 17, 2004
    I bet if you test the internals of each, the eMac will win more often. And Xbench isn't the greatest tool ever. Not very trustworthy. My 1.33 GHz PowerBook tested slower than my 800 MHz iMac did in raw number calculations, both after a fresh restart. :confused:

Share This Page