Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Mac Mini Server and FCPX

B

bigcreek

macrumors member
Original poster
Apr 23, 2004
30
0
What are your thoughts on this machine for moderate editing? - I like that it is quad core, but don't know about it running Lion Server and FCPX?

2.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
750GB Serial ATA Drive + 256 Solid State Drive
 
I didn't know if quad core processing would outweigh the lack of dedicated graphics hardware - as compared to the dual core model which does have dedicated graphics.
 
bigcreek said:
I didn't know if quad core processing would outweigh the lack of dedicated graphics hardware - as compared to the dual core model which does have dedicated graphics.
Click to expand...

are you saying you already have a mac mini server? and your wondering if you can run FCPX on it?
 
bluap84 said:
are you saying you already have a mac mini server? and your wondering if you can run FCPX on it?
Click to expand...

My bto w/ same specs is not shipped yet. Subscribe to thread. One answer to why from my perspective: if I can serve files and mail from the hdd while working efficiently from the ssd simultaneously, the mini server becomes best of both worlds.
 
I don't have a mac mini, I was trying to decide if I should buy the server version versus the non-server version.

The difference being you could get the 4-core server version without dedicated graphics, or the 2-core non-server version with dedicated graphics. Which would be better for FCP?
 
bigcreek said:
I don't have a mac mini, I was trying to decide if I should buy the server version versus the non-server version.

The difference being you could get the 4-core server version without dedicated graphics, or the 2-core non-server version with dedicated graphics. Which would be better for FCP?
Click to expand...

There will have to be mini users who determine this. I haven't found the answer, but it seems a general consensus in other related threads that it is a trade off between how much better the cpu in server mini is versus the dedicated graphics of the high end two core mini. I already knew that for my work which is image manipulation in CS5 that four cores (8 threads) will allow me to continue my normal work flow- while enjoying Safari, iTunes, Mail, and Quicktime and still screaming at Photoshop and Bridge. I suggest you wait for a few real world tests, surely within the next weeks others will have both a mini and a server mini running FCP and your answer.
 
As FCP X can take advantage of the GPU's RAM, I'd rather go with the non-server model. Don't forget that Video rendering puts a lot of strain on the CPU. I'm not sure if the heat that is produced in the process is not gonna kill the 4-core rather quick.
 
Great points. I was leaning toward the dedicated graphics. Cost less also. -
 
bigcreek said:
The difference being you could get the 4-core server version without dedicated graphics, or the 2-core non-server version with dedicated graphics. Which would be better for FCP?
Click to expand...
Bump for more replies.

Final Cut Pro X says the Mini Server's HD 3000 integrated graphics are supported, but I need to know if the performance is decent, or if it just barely gets the job done.
 
The GPU in the $800 Mac mini is pretty weak VS the ones in $1800 and up MBP, iMac, and Mac Pro.

The only thing I could see it possibly helping is in Motion or using two monitors. Someone would need to test for a difference.

The question is how much will it benefit in Motion VS 2 more cores, 4 more threads?

Besides games, the only other App that I can think of that might prefer 2 cores + GPU VS 4 cores would be aperture. But someone needs to test it ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back