Mac Mini vs Mac Pro

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by danpass, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. danpass macrumors 68020


    Jun 27, 2009
    Miami, FL
    What kind of performance difference is there between the top Mini and the base Pro?

    Let's say the same video is being edited using iMovie 11.

    Is the Mini 50% performance?

    25% of the base Pro?

  2. Vermifuge macrumors 68000


    Mar 7, 2009
    I know these are synthetic numbers but I think with geek bench the base Mac pro is getting a score of ~9500 and the mini server is getting ~10000. Both with 8 GB ram.
  3. class77 macrumors 6502a


    Nov 16, 2010
    Are you sure those are numbers for the Mac Pro, not the MBP?? Mac Pro hasn't been upgraded lately, so it may well be but it sure seems mighty low
  4. benr0ck macrumors newbie

    Aug 29, 2011
    depends on the size of project you're creating and the size media you're editing together. It isn't really a computable figure. but if in either instance your software of choice would be imovie, then you should go with the mini.

    i would also add that the biggest difference you'll run into is the ram capacity difference. if you're dealing with lots of SD clips and you're inevitable output is gonna be SD, then imovie on a mini is probably fine. I use both a mini and a mac pro.
  5. Vermifuge macrumors 68000


    Mar 7, 2009
    Check This Post Keep in mind you don't need 16 GB ram to get these numbers. Scores top out around 8 GB ram.
  6. class77 macrumors 6502a


    Nov 16, 2010
    Wow! Wonder how it will do when Mac Pro is upgraded
  7. Vermifuge macrumors 68000


    Mar 7, 2009
    "if" the mac pro is upgraded. Given Apple killed off the xserve and the slow update of the current Mac Pro there is reason to believe Apple might kill off the Mac Pro line.
  8. DustinT macrumors 68000


    Feb 26, 2011
    Lol... No, I don't think so.
  9. Vermifuge macrumors 68000


    Mar 7, 2009
    I do, and apparently so does Apple.
  10. DisMyMac, Nov 13, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2011

    DisMyMac macrumors 65816


    Sep 30, 2009
  11. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Oct 15, 2008
    It's also good to keep in mind that heavy encoding on a Mini will run it at nearly 100C all the time, while the Pro will do the same task at 50C or so (with little to no fan noise). The Mac Pro will also accept a CPU upgrade, including the Hex core 3.33GHz.
  12. theSeb macrumors 604


    Aug 10, 2010
    Poole, England
    Unreliable rumours don't mean much.
  13. eljanitor macrumors 6502


    Feb 10, 2011
    I still don't understand how the mini is supposed to be able to replace the Mac Pro. It's Like comparing a Ford Fiesta, to a Ford semi truck tractor, there are some similarities but many more differences.
  14. Mak47 macrumors 6502a

    Mar 27, 2011
    Harrisburg, PA
    I don't think the mini is supposed to replace the Mac Pro. If (and I'd say it's a big if) Apple were to kill the Mac Pro, it will only be to replace it with something different that is directed at a similar market.

    While it doesn't sell in numbers comparable to the consumer oriented Macs, it's still an important piece of the product lineup.

    Apple has a powerful reputation as being the only real option for real creative professionals--and the Mac Pro is their solution of choice. If they were to truly kill it, that reputation would eventually die off and that would be bad, it's a very good reputation for Apple to have.

    I'd imagine the Mac Pro will eventually be updated when appropriate components are available. Whether or not this means a redesign or not is debatable, but I can't see them killing it off altogether. I could see them making it BTO only.

    The Mini Server is an excellent little machine, and there are specific tasks that it will perform equally well to the Pro. What it lacks is the customizability of the Mac Pro. In time, as Thunderbolt peripherals hit the market, this may change--making any Mac just as customizable as the Pro--but until they do, it would be truly premature for Apple to kill the Pro.
  15. thekev macrumors 604


    Aug 5, 2010
    Someone necroed the thread :D

    They didn't go out of their way to do a mid cycle refresh or adjust the pricing to reflect current cpu pricing, but in terms of a true update they haven't had any new cpus available for the line.

    Ram is all about what keeps you from paging out or using scratch disks or doing anything else that involves the computer having to write a lot of extra information to disk. It doesn't mean you get more performance all the time, but having excessive save times or periods of unresponsiveness due to paging sucks. Anyway for most people 8GB is acceptable.

    The mini seems like a nice little machine for the price. It uses laptop components which do cost a bit more than their equivalently performing desktop versions. On a lot of cpu intensive tasks it's about equal with the baseline mac pro because that damn thing has a 2009 processor design.

    You know this was one of the things that really steered me away from a mini in the past (and my computing needs are becoming more complex at the moment anyway). I thought they had attempted to address some of the heat issues with the 2011 version? 100C is just absolutely insane. The hex core is nice if you found a good deal on a 2009 and felt comfortable doing a cpu upgrade. I'm waiting on updates. If I don't like the new options I'll buy a PC and switch my software over as Apple has been really annoying me the past couple years. For what the mac pro costs it's a pretty weak value. The single socket machine especially is really expensive for what you get, and having to buy applecare for more than a year warranty is pretty weak.

    The dual socket models are closer to PC pricing, but they still lack a lot of features. For example I wish they had eSATA long ago rather than having to rely on third party solutions with buggy firmware.
  16. philipma1957 macrumors 603


    Apr 13, 2010
    Howell, New Jersey
    A lot of the above is right on spot.

    having owned a quad 2010 mac pro and writing the thread on making it a 6 core that machine smashes any mac mini. but I did not need 32gb ram and a hex core with the 5870 gpu card. so I sold it.

    I have the quad mini with 16gb ram cost 950 for the server with 750gb hdds and 400 for the ram total 1350. and a promise pegasus r6 cost 1320 total cost 2670.

    the mac pro base is 2400 with the better gpu 2600 and the ram 16gb can be had for 200.

    so 2670 vs 2800

    mac mini has 7.5 tb storage mac pro has 1 tb for those prices

    mac mini has an equal cpu for those prices

    mac mini has equal ram for those prices

    mac pro has a far far far far far better graphics card

    mac mini uses under 100 watts counting the promise pegasus

    mac pro uses 300 watts

    so some people would be better off with a mac mini others a mac pro at that price point.

    for my needs large fast storage okay cpu and mediocre graphics the mini is better. but my mini is not faster then the base mac pro .
  17. MJL, Nov 14, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011

    MJL macrumors 6502a

    Jun 25, 2011
    Under Windows 7 I hardly ever use more than 2 Gb of RAM. Ordered 8 Gb to run Parallels but whatever I do I cannot get Parallels to work on the 2011 Mac Mini with EFI 1.4 and Lion 10.7.2. Keeps on giving error messages straight after starting the virtual Machine. VMware is not much better - no sound at all. It all boils down to this hyping up of a new release by Apple without giving anyone a prerelease of the soft- and hardware. My time is too valuable to try to sort this mess out - next machine will be back to a standard PC where I know VMware will work out of the box.

    IMHO Apple as a computer company has always been mediocre with just some fancy enclosures that few others could come up with. The only runaway success they've had was iTunes with the iPod and now the iPod is being replaced by a smart phone which is holding all the music. And the mobile phone industry has seen a lot of comers and goers and I have my doubts it will be any different with Apple.

    The iPad imho is another toy and not suitable for serious computing - especially when you need a mouse and a keyboard: by that time a laptop has more battery life and is compacter (and does not need some fancy protection, just close the lid and you're ready to travel).

    The fan has to be set manually under windows - it only comes on when the temperature is nearing the 100C which is far above recommended tempratures: Intel recommends not to run their CPU's continiously above 80C, it is only credit to the robustness of Intel's CPU's that they survive at 100C. But most of the other compnonents are having a shortened lifespan at those high temperatures - memory and SSD are normally recommended to run below 65 - 70C. HHD are recommended to run at 55-60 max. Ugg

Share This Page