OK, I'm going for the 2014 mini

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by mogens, Jan 22, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mogens macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    #1
    I just sold my late 2009 27" iMac 2.8 i7 with a 2TB+ DIY fusiondrive.
    What can I expect speed-wise if I switched to a maxed out mini (2014)?
    The iMac was OK, but I miss airplay video and other things. it's now or never if I want to get a decent price for a 4 years old iMac.
    What about apples 27" thunderbolt display? Is it worth investing in?

    thanks
     
  2. slayerizer macrumors 6502a

    slayerizer

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    why are you asking information about a non-released product? the only logical thing to do is to check the 2013 speed and hope it's better. Other than that, no ones knows. There are several pages of speculation that aren't worth much.

    :rolleyes:
     
  3. mogens thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    #3
    You're right, anyway I can see at everymac.com that the current maxed out mini is faster when it comes to cpu but not gpu.
     
  4. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #4
    The current mini is 50% faster on the CPU, and 20% slower on the GPU, and on disk IO it can outperform the new MacPro! The 2009 is really old, so especially the GPU is no match for current iMac models, and closer to the Mini than to recent iMacs. A new Mini with Iris Pro will be faster on the GPU as well.
    Thunderbolt displays are a bad investment. Apple displays always were, they were always below par. Only the first generation of alu imacs had a nice price edge as IPS displays were rare back then and Apple offered a nice package price. Today a comparable Mini with better Dell display is much cheaper than most iMac offerings. Even more if you consider future resale value. I think your old iMac will do around 500-600 bucks. You are better of with a brand new entry Mini, so that kind of defines your resale value.
    It might still be a speedy machine, but it is old tech: 45nm transistors, USB2, no TB, SATA 3, running hot, and most certainly having display defects (any dust, uneven illumination or weird smudgy spots in the panel?)


    Check a Dell U2713HM for a much better product at a lower price.
     
  5. mogens thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    #5
    Thanks for the tip, the Dell U2713HM looks very nice
     
  6. CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #6
    Disc I/O is faster on the SATA mini than the PCIe nMP?
     
  7. apfelmann macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #7
    I think they are talking about dual SSD in RAID 0 mode
     
  8. CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #8
    Me too, but that's not a stock config....The I/O of nMP's single drive blows away any single SATA attached drive.
     
  9. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #9
    Yes but it does not matter: On a pro machine, you probably want 512GB SSD at least, and if you buy 2 Sammy 840 pro's for the mini, it will still be cheaper than the Pro's 512 GB SSD.
    The Mini has 2 bays, and it is very easy to pop in 2 SSD's.
    In a way the PCI is a raid-0 as well. If you buy 1 PCI SSD 512, it has the same amount of memory chips as 2 256GB SATA ones, and all are addressed parallel.
    So the PCI SSD is no argument for the Mac Pro. The only remaining argument is if you need GPU power, or more than 4 cores.
     
  10. CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #10
    In that same way, ALL SSD's are raid o between their nand chips. One could put an external SSD in a thunderbolt2 enclosure, and stripe that with the internal PCIe blade drive and attain the same sort of speeds. Telling someone who is just looking into getting a mac mini that the I/O is better than the nMP is a little misleading at the least, don't you think?;)
     
  11. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #11
    No, that's not always true.
     
  12. barkmonster, Jan 23, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2014

    barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #12
    But any external Thunderbolt drive than can be striped with an internal drive successfully could do the same thing with a Mac Mini too. It has 2 SATA 6Gb/s bays that are a match for the PCIe SSDs of the Mac Pro as an after-market mod if dual SSDs are fitted in a RAID 0 config. You can see plenty on YouTube illustrating not only how to perform the upgrade, but benchmarks afterwards. Also, good luck finding a driverless Thunderbolt external drive that works in a software RAID config alongside the internal drives of ANY Mac :)

    Here's a Mac Mini achieving 927Mb/s write, 915Mb/s read and over 13,000 in Geekbench!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l5dI0zLn-Y&feature=youtube_gdata
     
  13. CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #13
    Actually, that's not a problem, I have one currently on my iMac. I haven't striped it to the internal, but I could. I also have a mini, and have installed additional drives in it, so I do know the ease of that. As for your read/write, those are good numbers, but you needed two SATA drives in raid 0 to do that. the nMP gets higher numbers with one internal PCIe drive, which is my point. Also, it is incorrect to say that other than dual GPU and more than 4 cores the mini is on par with the nMP. nMP has much more to offer over the mini than just those two things. Mini is a great machine, I just thought it was wrong to mislead someone into believing they are going to buy a mini and get R/W speeds approaching that of a blade drive.:)
     
  14. barkmonster, Jan 24, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2014

    barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #14
    You're the only one misleading people by claiming other forum members have made claims they didn't just to fit your opinion. Reading for comprehension would tell you that BY STRIPING 2 X SSDs IN RAID 0, you get close to the Mac Pro PCIe SSD performance in a Mac Mini. That's a fact, not a misleading statement anyone who actually reads what other forum members post instead of just skimming for phrases they disagree with couldn't deny.

    This thread titled New Mac Pro: Simultaneous Real-Time 4K Effect Rendering, +900MB/s Read/Write shows 952.8MB/s writes and 920.5MB/s reads with Black Magic. As dual SSDs are already over 900Mb/s, an additional 25Mb/s and 5Mb/s over a customised Mac Mini isn't impressive.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1686867&highlight=mac+pro+pcie+ssd

    and

    http://youtu.be/4l5dI0zLn-Y

    Then, there's the fact not every app imaginable takes advantage of the GPUs in any meaningful way to justify the cost and the fact the same upgraded Mac Mini achieves 13,024 in the 64bit multi-core Geekbench test in the video, yet a 4 core 2013 Mac Pro is only 14592 in the same test (You need to view the 64 bit tab on the geekbench results page to prove this).

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

    Obviously there's uses for the Mac Pro that a Mac Mini can't touch but given that in both cases you have to add 3.5" HDDs for mass storage externally and any PCIe card you might want to use (assuming Thunderbolt drivers exist for them) externally using expensive Thunderbolt adapters etc... you get A LOT more CPU power for your money with a £759 BTO Mac Mini + £300 at most of additional SSDs and 3rd party RAM than you get for £2,499 with a 4-core Mac Pro.

    Based on the same (easy to prove for yourself) benchmarks above, it shows that if the Mac Mini inherits the quad i7 Haswell CPUs at the clockspeeds of the 2013 Macbook Pros, a model with the 2.6Ghz CPU will be so close to the quad 2013 Mac Pro multi-core performance that the gap closes completely when it scores 14444 in the same 64 bit multi-core benchmark. (I'm sure those additonal 148 points will make a HUGE difference in the realworld when it's added to a score of over 14400!)
     
  15. CH12671, Jan 24, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2014

    CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #15
    Hmm, no I didn't say any of that. Maybe YOU should read and not skim. I simply said that in ANY STOCK configuration the mini's I/O can't touch the nMP's I/O. Not sure why you are so adamant about this, but you are wrong. But hey, you can have your opinion and be right in your own mind. I'm done with this. The OP has what he needs.
    "Reading for comprehension would tell you that BY STRIPING 2 X SSDs IN RAID 0, you get close to the Mac Pro PCIe SSD performance in a Mac Mini. That's a fact, not a misleading statement anyone who actually reads what other forum members post instead of just skimming for phrases they disagree with couldn't deny." <--- Not even sure what that means. I'm not quoting anyone for peformance. I've read the benchmarks (and COMPREHENDED them). Originally I said that you could't get anywhere near that performance without striping 2 ssd's. That's my point. Nothing more, quit trying to read more into it.


    ----------

    Oh, and nice work on linking to Youtube and other forum threads. I appreciate the education you have afforded me!
     
  16. Noetics macrumors member

    Noetics

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    #16
    I would go for Dell S2740L over 2713HM anyday!

    Forget apple thunderbolt display, huge waste of money.
     
  17. Dekard macrumors 6502

    Dekard

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #17
    No thanks. The Dell S2740L resolution (1920 x 1080 max.) on a 27 inch screen looks huge.. but we can both have opinions.
     
  18. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #18

    Let me fix this for you....

    Generally for any SSD under 256GB (i.e. 64GB, 128GB, etc), they have less memory chips. For 256GB and up all SSDs have the same amount of memory chips. They actually switch to using denser memory blocks in order to obtain the higher storage. That is why it has always been more expensive per GB for anything over 256GB. We have seen a bit of a shift as of late with the M500 and 840 EVO, but prior to that it was always much more expensive to buy a 512GB drive per GB than it's 256GB "brother".

    This can easily be proven by looking at benchmark numbers. Anything under 256GB always have lower speeds than the 256GB and the 512GB usually has the same speed as the 256GB because you have already maxed out the memory channels.

    Just thought I would clarify that 2 x 256GB SSDs would actually have twice as many memory memory chips as 1 x 512GB.

    ----------

    You lost me at recommending a 1080P 27" display....

    How the devil can you recommend a 1080P 27" display over a 1440P 27" display? I've got 2 x 24" 1080P displays at work and that's even starting to push the pixels to a size that is just too big.
     
  19. dyn macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Location:
    .nl
    #19
    Anyone saying the Mac mini is up to par with the new Mac Pro is misleading other people. The mini is an entirely different kind of machine and can not be compared to the new Mac Pro. If you were to compare to the old (previous model) Mac Pro than the statement would at least hold some truth (because that one uses sata2 instead of sata3 like the mini).

    The problem here is that someone claimed that the mini has i/o as fast as the new Mac Pro. They are implying that you can go to the store, buy any mini and it will be as fast as the new Mac Pro when it comes to i/o. As you've shown here that is absolutely untrue. You can only do so if you buy the mini plus 2 fast ssd's and put them in a raid0 array. How many people are going to do that?

    Another thing to ask: how useful would a mini with 2 ssd's in raid0 be? Not very much compared to a single ssd setup. Why? Because the mini lacks when it comes to the gpu and the cpu (or if you will: computing power). Yes it can be fast over short periods of time but the iMac and Mac Pro will outrun it over longer periods of time (both the new and old Mac Pro that is). The mini still has to deal with a very tiny enclosure that will easily heat up but won't easily be cooled down. It is its thermal envelope that will limit the computing power (of both cpu and gpu).
    Also, on a ordinary laptop/desktop having fast sequential read/write speeds is just useless because nobody will have a workload that will take good use of that. On these machines the random i/o is what matters most as well as latency. This is worse with a raid0 array compared to a single disk system or a PCIe ssd like in the new Mac Pro.

    Aside from the fact that basing entirely on a theoretical benchmark that says nothing about computing power (learn what geekbench is and what benchmarking in general is and you'll understand!) is the stupidest thing to do, this simply shows that the mini and new Mac Pro can not be compared. The new Mac Pro is for anybody that has a workload where parallel processing is key. The mini for anybody who just needs a small simple computer for everyday tasks. Tasks where things like ssd's in raid0 and dual gpu's will have no benefit at all.

    No you don't since the mini won't be used for such tasks nor is it suited for such tasks. If you require cpu power you need to look at things like the MBP Retina, iMac and Mac Pro. However, that doesn't mean the mini isn't powerful. Many people think it is powerless while in fact it can do an awful lot. Do not underestimate the power of the mini but also, do not overestimate it.

    In theory yes and for short amount of times also yes. In reality and over longer periods of time the gap will be huge. The mini will get too hot quicker and thus be clocked down sooner. The popular benchmarks do not test these kind of workloads, they test for very very short periods of time (which is why they are absolutely useless; they tell you nothing about the actual computing power).

    Unfortunately some people here are lacking technical knowledge and make claims that are untrue thus misleading other people. If you know your stuff you'd know that you can not every claim the mini will be at the same level as the new Mac Pro: not at cpu level, not at gpu level, not at i/o level. Also there seems to be little to no understanding of what a benchmark is and how you should use/read it. Or simply put: lots of people here who didn't do their homework and as a result make false claims.

    Anyway, ontopic: what you can expect with the 2014 mini if it'll ever arrive: it'll be similar in specs as the 13" MBA or 13" MBP Retina. This seems to have been the case since the early 2009 models. The mini is merely the desktop version of those notebooks. For many that's all they need really.
     
  20. barkmonster, Feb 2, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2014

    barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #20
    NO. I think you'll find it's you and people with the same mindset that are insisting on the disclaimer that it has to be factory config Mac Mini vs factory config Mac Pro just to bolster their blinkers on point of view.

    I'm simply stating that having PCIe SSD forced on you as the only option is only an advantage because of the 900Mb/s+ performance. Performance that can be achieved with 2 x SATA 6Gb/s drives on either a PCIe card like the Sonnet Tempo in a Thunderbolt enclosure or with dual internal SSDs. I'm merely stating an "advantage" of the Mac Pro isn't an exclusive advantage when it can be worked around with user-upgrades. Again, you'll come back with the stock config of the Mac Mini vs Mac Pro disclaimer to bolster your point of view yet again by disregarding any facts that can refute it.

    I already have a complete understanding of what benchmarking is thank you very much.

    I also have a complete understanding of how it relates to real-world performance in different applications. Heavily threaded applications like DAW software (as in ALL current DAW software I can think of or of have used) can use ALL available cores and as much RAM you can throw at it for either plug-in processing for fx and software synths or for reducing latency. This makes your benchmark-based attempt at being patronising pointless because you're the uninformed party here I'm afraid.

    You "opinion" of what each system "should" (in your "opinion") be used for does nothing to dispute what they're capable of given the amount of people more than capable of demonstrating what they use them for already.

    Again with the "your opinion" of what each system "should" (in your "opinion") be used for!

    Hate to burst your bubble, but none of what I stated was "in theory", it was based on current uses of additional systems as plug-in processing nodes in both Reaper and Logic. Just because your (obviously limited) software knowledge can't think of any software that works in that way, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's unfortunate that Apple have silently removed the 32bit Logic Node from Logic X and not provided a replacement 64bit version, but that still leaves Reaper Remote if you use that DAW (or rewire into it as a plug-in host for software synths as I currently do):-

    http://wiki.cockos.com/wiki/index.php/ReaMote

    (Please don't bother "educating me" that Wikipedia isn't a valid source, it's the official wiki of Cockos who MAKE reaper so read it and weep!)

    Oh, you completely contradicted that at the end of your post too…

    I agree, the Mac Mini IS the desktop version of whatever Macbook Pro was released before it, you just seem to disagree with yourself over how useful 2 identical systems are based on if they're in portable or desktop configuration for some reason.

    I've seen some people running massive, plug-in heavy sessions on quad i7 Mac Minis so sorry, that's just yet another one of your presumptuous opinions again. (contradicted yet again by your own Macbook Pro = Mac Mini observation).

    No. Just people with a thorough grasp of what "host-based" processing entails, who've made every Mac purchase to date based on it's relative performance over their previous model, who have no interest in nit picking over I/O speeds or what self-proclaimed "professionals" claim they "should" be using etc… and just want a system thats a given amount faster than their current Mac for a suitable price point. That's why 3 or 4 years between buying a new system makes more sense for a lot of people. It gives ample time to weigh up the options they have available to them compared with their current system, make "informed" choices and for suitably more powerful systems to become available.

    Personally, I'd go for a BTO Haswell quad i7 Mac Mini in a heartbeat funds allowing once it shares the same Haswell CPUs as the 2013 Retina Macbook Pro.
     
  21. mvmanolov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    #21
    ok, i feel like i just walked into a No-country for old men style stand-off...

    lol, what would be interesting to see though is if the new mini, if it comes, will have lasers that look like sharks on its head...

    no but seriously though, people buy different computers for different reasons... and the question of comparison among machines is only relevant in the context of any given particular use (application) and user (applicator;) ). So while benchmarking offers some insight its limited, no one is arguing with that... but the reason why it exists is so that there be a good starting point for a more comprehensive comparison... (and bragging of course - my mini does 13001 :D ).

    But even more importantly, i really think its time we started a thread on the 2015 mini and which broad well chip it will feature.... :D
     
  22. scottsjack macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Location:
    Arizona
    #22
    True that. Here is a comparison between my 2012 MBP 2.3GHz, 2012 mini 2.3GHz and 2010 MP 3.2 quad. The first two have 16GB of the same Crucial 1600MHz RAM while the MP has 24GB of OWC 1333GHz RAM running at 1026 (or something like that) All three machines use Crucial M500 960GB SSDs for boot drives. Unfortunately the MP boot is SATA2.

    The MP Geekbench 3's at about 9850. The other two Geekbench 3 very close to 12000 since they are in many ways the same technology.

    If I convert a 100 Canon 5D3 cr2s to tiffs the two 2.3GHz machines crank up their clocks and with their faster SATA3 drives speeds and faster RAM just kill the MP by minutes.

    If I edit the commercials out of an EyeTV recording of Saturday Night Live the MP wins by about 2/3rds the time the two "laptops" take. Eight virtual cores running at 2.3GHz are no match to eight running at 3.2GHz, the MP's slower RAM and slow SATA speeds not withstanding.

    Get me a Haswell mini with dGPU and it's adios Mac Pro!
     
  23. dyn macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Location:
    .nl
    #23
    Actually not quite that. You make it look as if the default configs people can buy in the Apple store are faster than a new Mac Pro. What you do not do is tell them that you need to create it afterwards yourself. That not only requires additional components and thus costs but also additional technical skill.

    No what you are doing is implying the Mac mini is as fast as the Mac Pro. It is not. You can come close to the Mac Pro performance in terms of i/o but as I said earlier it requires a lot more. One needs to ask himself the question if all the additional costs and setup is worth it. The crowd for the Mac Pro is a completely different one than the crowd for the Mac mini. Comparing them whatsoever (raid0 ssd array or not) is therefore stupid.

    If you really did you would never have used those benchmarks because you'd have known that these are unsuited for what you are trying to communicate.

    Mac mini has no more than 4 cores, Mac Pro has 12. You still are forgetting the entire point I'm making (which again clearly shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about): there are different kind of cpu workloads. With long cpu loads you can not ignore the difference in thermal envelope between the Pro and the Mini. There are not that many benchmarks that will run for more than an hour. Let alone ones that test parallel processing of the entire machine (so cpu plus gpus).

    Btw, you do know that the mini can only take 16GB of RAM and the Mac Pro can take twice as much (and probably more but those 16GB sticks are hard to find; the memory controller in the cpu isn't the problem here though).

    Except it isn't my opinion ;) This is what you call an observation as well as actually knowing what the hardware is all about.

    Don't worry, you're not bursting my bubble because there's a list of software that will tell a different story. Try things like Matlab, Mathematica, Maya, FCP and so on and so forth. You are now being very selfish and arrogant by imposing your workload onto others. I can tell you from sheer experience there are many different workloads. People who do a lot of calculations or simulations will run them not for several hours but for several days. These workloads will benefit from the Mac Pro, not from any mini configuration that is out there or you can create. And that is the entire point: the Mac Pro is meant for different kinds of workloads than the mini. That's why the Pro has dual gpus and the mini only has the simple (but great) Intel HD 4000.

    Nope, you simply fail to understand there are different kind of machines suited for different kind of workloads.

    I've seen people run Windows XP on their Pentium 120MHz systems. Is it usable? Not really. Some people are fine with their old XP systems that are over 8 years old. Others are complaining their new high end machine isn't powerful. Different workloads, different hardware needs.

    The 13" MBP Retina is quite comparable to the Mac mini if you actually looked at the specifications. The MBA does not have a quad core cpu, the Mac mini has. The 13" MBP Retina has too.

    That could be any Mac since the "given amount" is quite personal. They either buy a Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro depending on how high that "given amount" is.

    Yes and no. A lot of people want a similar kind or better performance. Not only hardware will progress in that time but software too. In reality you don't see much difference in the systems people are buying. People who previously bought a Mac Pro will stick with a similar system.

    What it does not is give you time to figure out what you want. In a lot of cases things changes quite a lot or stay the same. For the latter you don't need to think, you just buy the current model of what you were already using. For the former you can only decide when the machine is up for replacement. In reality most people will wait until the machine needs to be replaced anyway (aka last moment).

    I would too but that's because my workloads do not exceed the Mac mini's computing power.

    In the end people need to look at their own workloads (and not yours!) then decide for themselves (or ask if they can't) which Mac is more suited for them. The Mac mini and Mac Pro are not the same nor are any of the other Macs. The mini is not a silver bullet like you are very eager to make people believe. Just be realistic about it.
     
  24. CH12671 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Location:
    Southern US
    #24
    Cool. Where ya going to buy one of those?:rolleyes:
     
  25. barkmonster, Feb 3, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2014

    barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #25
    It only took reading to the end of a sentence to make those :rolleyes: only applicable to your attempt at sarcasm. I'll highlight it for you…

    See. It was a forward looking statement based on when such a system is available to purchase. I would have thought that was obvious to begin with?

    That's all based on your presumption.

    Yet again, based on your presumption.

    No, they're an "indication" of the relative performance increase of a more recent system over an older one from a purely CPU power stance.

    I'm well aware the Mac Pro offers more than 4 cores. What? YOU can refer to base configurations with your PCIe SSD vs RAID 0 SSD analogy but it doesn't count when I do with CPUs?

    Yep. I also know you pay A LOT for a Mac Pro and the only other Macs that don't top out at 16Gb too are the 27" iMacs.

    Ok, it's an "observation" of what people are using them for. Remember the Macbook Pro = Mac Mini point that you wholeheartedly, yet selectively agree with? Same point applies here. If a quad i7 is useful for a purpose that doesn't rely of it's portability or PCIe SSD, it's desktop equivalent is too. CPU-bound software that gains no advantage from PCIe SSDs or GPU hardware either does perform well on a multi-core system or it doesn't and it doesn't discriminate on whether it's a desktop or laptop if the systems themselves are using identical CPUs.

    Ok, so you can cherry pick software to suit your point too, lets agree to differ shall we?

    Pot, Kettle... (See point above).

    I agree, there are uses where anything less than a XEON-class workstation like that Mac Pro wouldn't cut it. Equally, there are situations where, if we're talking the quad core model only, it's overkill and much less suitable or cost-effective than a quad i7 system either in desktop or laptop form from lower down the range.

    I understand it perfectly, you just seem to cherry pick when it applies or not depending on if it's a Macbook Pro or Mac Mini (with identical CPUs).

    A meaningless and to be honest, sarcastic analogy, I thought you were someone who understands about CPU load? Here you go. You'll be pleased to note comments on the video confirm that under load, heat come into play. I never disputed that would be an issue though:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ka--dw6P-U

    (A Pro Tools plug-in stress-test)

    I never said it wasn't, you were the one claiming a quad i7 Macbook Pro is somehow a more capable system than a quad i7 Mac Mini based on the same CPUs.

    I completely agree but for people with a setup consisting of their own brands of monitor, they could be simply comparing the Mac Pro or Mac Mini they current have to current models of either and deciding on what they buy based on that. I can't see someone trading their displays for a glued together all-in-one like the iMac.

    I agree for the same reasons as above.

    I was actually looking into a used 8 core Mac Pro before the Mac Mini I currently have caught my eye. It was only £330 on eBay and came with 8Gb so I thought it was a worthy tie over system between the G4 it replaced and whatever I decide to get next and could be repurposed as a media centre through my TV setup quite easily.

    Precisely why I want one actually.

    It sound like both our "workloads" are identical but from different angles here and the Mac Pro is unsuitable for either of us. This entire back and forth seems a little pointless given that fact don't you think?

    (Even though you're conclusion jumping and putting words in my mouth by implying I claimed the Mac Mini is a "silver bullet")
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page