Mac Mini vs Mac Pro?

[WrightBrain]

Looks like a user based problem. Over the years, many tests have been done showing that Windows does in most cases beat Mac on various scores where Photoshop is concerned. This may not have anything to do with either operating systems or near equivalent hardware but how Adobe optimized for Mac and Windows.

I happen to prefer OSX/MacOS over Windows since "Vista" reared its ugly face and underpinnings.
[doublepost=1552413477][/doublepost]

This might be a worthwhile read for you. My fear is one of heating up and ability to keep them in a temperature safe margin.

https://macperformanceguide.com/MacMini2018-diglloydBenchmarks.html

That's a good evaluation. Puts me at ease about what a Mini can do with the onboard Graphics. Add an eGPU an it will FLY! But yeah, I'm concerned about heat issues too. I suppose you could disable Turbo Boost. But definitely buy Apple Care for $100.

Because of heat issues, I've been considering the iMac 5k with 3.5 i5 processor and 8GB 575. I hear that doesn't have heat issues as it is a lower powered chip but still offers good performance. Not as good as the others, but it might last longer. And you could always add an eGPU to that as well.

I've been hearing conflicting things about CPU's and heat. The PC guys think temps near 90 and 100 are a problem. Mac people say, oh Apple knows what it's doing. I'm not so sure. But there definitely is a throttling issue at higher temps and you don't get the full performance anyway.

⁉️

 

[Reality4711]

That's a good evaluation. Puts me at ease about what a Mini can do with the onboard Graphics. Add an eGPU an it will FLY! But yeah, I'm concerned about heat issues too. I suppose you could disable Turbo Boost. But definitely buy Apple Care for $100.

Because of heat issues, I've been considering the iMac 5k with 3.5 i5 processor and 8GB 575. I hear that doesn't have heat issues as it is a lower powered chip but still offers good performance. Not as good as the others, but it might last longer. And you could always add an eGPU to that as well.

I've been hearing conflicting things about CPU's and heat. The PC guys think temps near 90 and 100 are a problem. Mac people say, oh Apple knows what it's doing. I'm not so sure. But there definitely is a throttling issue at higher temps and you don't get the full performance anyway.

⁉️

I look at it this way.

When a PC user says Apple is doing it wrong - I think why are they saying that?

Both user families have by default a slightly biased set of opinions.

Me; I have used both for a long time and from experience I know which platform I can rely on most.

When I see fail rates over 1% worldwide I try and remember success rate of >98%..

In other words the 1% failures cause the most fuss but represent the fewest users experience.

Regards

 

[pl1984]

I've been hearing conflicting things about CPU's and heat. The PC guys think temps near 90 and 100 are a problem. Mac people say, oh Apple knows what it's doing. I'm not so sure. But there definitely is a throttling issue at higher temps and you don't get the full performance anyway.

I suspect the concern is 100 degrees celsius is the maximum operating temperature for the CPU. While this is within specification there are people who feel that operating a CPU at the very edge of the operating temperature can cause the CPU to wear out prematurely. Whether this is true or not can be the subject of debate. Likewise Intel may be publishing 100 degrees but the part may really be rated for, say, 120 degrees thus the part really is not operating at its upper thermal limit.

 

[tpivette89]

Don't discount an iMac as the most cost effective option. Once you are talking about adding an eGPU to the Mac Mini, the prices are suddenly VERY competitive, despite the fact you're getting another monitor you probably don't need on the iMac. (The high end 4.2 GHz quad core i7 on the iMac actually out performs the 6-core i9 on the Mac Mini in both single and multicore and has an RX580 GPU already in it, which has higher performance than the eGPU version with the TB3 bottleneck.) The iMac is actually more upgradeable than the Mac Mini because you can also upgrade the hard drives in it. (Although to be fair, any desktop machine can just use external disk storage.) Plus the iMac still has USB-C ports, although only half as many.

My honest advice would be once your Mac Mini setup exceeds $2K, better to go with a 2017 iMac, even if you don't need the display.

There is no i9 Mini... only i3/i5/i7. Looking up the Geekbench scores show the 4.2 quad iMac about equal to the i7 hex Mini in single-core scores. Multi-core scores, the Mini beats the iMac by over 6000 points.


Also, the desktop version of the RX580 in an eGPU will be equal or better than the mobile version of the RX580 included in the iMac (even over a TB3 interface).

Finally, my Mini cost $1099 for the i5/8GB/256GB version. Swapping the 8GB of RAM for 16GB of RAM added $100. A Razer Core X eGPU was $300, and an RX480 GPU was $100 on Ebay. Total cost = $1600. Since the OP already has a Mac Pro, it's assumed that he doesn't need an additional keyboard/mouse/monitor.

 

[phrehdd]

I suspect the concern is 100 degrees celsius is the maximum operating temperature for the CPU. While this is within specification there are people who feel that operating a CPU at the very edge of the operating temperature can cause the CPU to wear out prematurely. Whether this is true or not can be the subject of debate. Likewise Intel may be publishing 100 degrees but the part may really be rated for, say, 120 degrees thus the part really is not operating at its upper thermal limit.

Because of the size and layout of the Mini, there is more involved than the CPU. RAM too can add to the problem and unless things have changed, "8 gig sticks" produce less heat than say, "32 gig sticks" of RAM. My point is there are a combination of sources in the small space and the real question is whether the fan is sufficient, will it start blasting (be audible) when the cpu is doing serious work etc. My Minis of the past and my present MBP find the fan going on something as simple as certain web pages and it turns out that yes, the heat is rising...then again, doing something such as a media file conversion too will start the heat going.

Heat is no friend to motherboards, adhesives, wire insulation and more. Heat over the long haul can denature chip hulls/casing and the list goes on. Nothing new about that but often it takes so long that the parts are still in order when retired.

 

[smetvid]

I can't speak to the reliability of eGPU yet but there are many users with great success. Most of the kinks have been worked out but having a good internal GPU in the iMac is also a great way to go. Most eGPU users are likely using a RX580 solution and thats what you can get in the top iMac so really no gain at all. eGPU can also run a bit slower depending on the application. Typically around 20% slower due to the TB3 bandwidth. Not a big deal at all compared to the crappy GPU in the Mac mini but when comparing a RX580 eGPU to the RX580 in the top iMac the iMac will win.

Thats why the 27" iMac is tremendous value even if it is a quad core machine right now. The GPU is likely as fast or faster than most eGPU users would opt for anyway and its hard to beat a 27" 5k p3 10bit color display for the cost. That would typically be a $1,200 monitor. So if you buy a iMac for $2,300 you are really only paying $1,100 for the computer itself. Once you subtract about $400 for a custom RX580 eGPU (cheapest option) that puts the rest of the computer at $700. Even if you opt for the fast i7 CPU thats only $900 for the computer itself which is likely much less than a comparable Mac Mini. When you consider the display cost for the base model 27" for $1,800 you are basically paying $200 for the computer. It may only have a RX570 GPU vs the RX580 but thats still faster than the RX560 in the top MBP. Due to the bandwidth loss of TB3 it would not serve any advantage to get a RX580 eGPU over the internal RX570 in the base model iMac.

Where the Mac mini really shines is not every user needs a 5k display. Some users are likely perfectly fine with a 4k display which can be as low as $300. Some users like myself already have HD monitors which are also perfectly fine to use and upgrade them later as needed. It's also silly to pay for the RX580 or RX570 in the iMac if we plan on buying a Radeon VII or Vega 64 eGPU. So the Mini is really more about choices and flexability. For those that are more of a open the box, plug in the power cord and push the on button kind of people and never do anything else the iMac is the way to go.

 

[pl1984]

Because of the size and layout of the Mini, there is more involved than the CPU. RAM too can add to the problem and unless things have changed, "8 gig sticks" produce less heat than say, "32 gig sticks" of RAM. My point is there are a combination of sources in the small space and the real question is whether the fan is sufficient, will it start blasting (be audible) when the cpu is doing serious work etc. My Minis of the past and my present MBP find the fan going on something as simple as certain web pages and it turns out that yes, the heat is rising...then again, doing something such as a media file conversion too will start the heat going.

Heat is no friend to motherboards, adhesives, wire insulation and more. Heat over the long haul can denature chip hulls/casing and the list goes on. Nothing new about that but often it takes so long that the parts are still in order when retired.

I agree with this. I think the Mini is a great system when it's used as an entry / mid level system. However, due to Apples lack of any other headless option, people are shoehorning it into higher end work. Thus causing it to operate at its extreme. This is why I have constantly advocated for Apple to make something between the Mini and Mac Pro (assuming the new Mac Pro will be a high end system once again). There are examples after examples where people are doing this (this thread is just one). Given this I feel there is a real need for a mid-range system. But Apple refuses to make one. Which is why I, on occasion, recommend an alternative platform.

 

[filterdecay]

I agree with this. I think the Mini is a great system when it's used as an entry / mid level system. However, due to Apples lack of any other headless option, people are shoehorning it into higher end work. Thus causing it to operate at its extreme. This is why I have constantly advocated for Apple to make something between the Mini and Mac Pro (assuming the new Mac Pro will be a high end system once again). There are examples after examples where people are doing this (this thread is just one). Given this I feel there is a real need for a mid-range system. But Apple refuses to make one. Which is why I, on occasion, recommend an alternative platform.

people are doing it because they are starved for a professional computer in the osx space. There is so much pent up demand for a real macpro people are even using this little toy.

 

[phrehdd]

I agree with this. I think the Mini is a great system when it's used as an entry / mid level system. However, due to Apples lack of any other headless option, people are shoehorning it into higher end work. Thus causing it to operate at its extreme. This is why I have constantly advocated for Apple to make something between the Mini and Mac Pro (assuming the new Mac Pro will be a high end system once again). There are examples after examples where people are doing this (this thread is just one). Given this I feel there is a real need for a mid-range system. But Apple refuses to make one. Which is why I, on occasion, recommend an alternative platform.

Simply doubling the height of the Mac Mini would create great possibilities though I like the old idea of a smaller "cheese grater" style case. One of the more fun PC cases was the "shuttle" designs that used a small motherboard and fit in normal sized cards and drives. Something akin to that would be great.

 

[Reality4711]

Simply doubling the height of the Mac Mini would create great possibilities though I like the old idea of a smaller "cheese grater" style case. One of the more fun PC cases was the "shuttle" designs that used a small motherboard and fit in normal sized cards and drives. Something akin to that would be great.

Some of the early mockups people posted when the modular system was muted seemed like fun. Especially the lozenge shaped black trashcan that you could revolve in layers to update/upgrade the internals.
It would replace my old 2013 wonderfully. Keeping an aesthetic I love but allowing for the much needed modular approach.