Performance Comparison: Mac Mini 2009 vs 13" Macbook Pro

[imderek]

Hey guys:

I currently have the latest version of the Mac Mini (2.0 GHz, Nvidia 9400M) but am looking for a bit more power. And so I am considering the new 13" MBP 2.26 GHz (since I already have a large display).

Will I see much of a performance boost considering the specs of the current Mac Mini (w/ 2 GB RAM) are so similar to that of the new 13" MBP (w/ 2 GB RAM)?

My Mini scores a 2800 with Geekbench (32-bit app version), but I can't seem to find the score for the new MBPs. Any help?

Thanks!

 

[imderek]

No input?

 

[MWPULSE]

i'd say that the difference in speed is gonna be almost minimal. The RAM speed and size for the 2 machines is the same, the HDD speeds and sizes are most likely gonna be same (depending what you spec) the CPUs are the only difference by .26ghz. Even the GFX is the same.

I'd be quite surprised if the MBP 13 was vastly different from the Mac Mini in Geekbench.

PTP

EDIT: also checking- the cache levels and sizes are the same as well, so there wouldnt be any speed difference in that regard.

 

[iLog.Genius]

Haven't seen any numbers or anything but I'm going to say the performance is going to be very similar. In terms of hardware, there is nothing really different about the two. It's basically the same hardware but one put in a mini-desktop and the other in a laptop.

You have to ask yourself what kind of "power" are you looking for? That will tell you whether to look at an iMac or if you're looking at portables probably looking at mid-range 15-inch MacBook Pro or 17-inch MacBook Pro.

 

[imderek]

You have to ask yourself what kind of "power" are you looking for? That will tell you whether to look at an iMac or if you're looking at portables probably looking at mid-range 15-inch MacBook Pro or 17-inch MacBook Pro.

So what's different about the 15/17 inch? Just the fact that it has a dedicated video card and slightly faster processor? Is there really a huge difference between 2.26 GHz and 2.8 GHz?

Also, can the new MBPs TRULY take advantage of up to 8GB of RAM? Or do the applications (like the Adobe suite) need to be 64-bit?

 

[iLog.Genius]

So what's different about the 15/17 inch? Just the fact that it has a dedicated video card and slightly faster processor? Is there really a huge difference between 2.26 GHz and 2.8 GHz?

Also, can the new MBPs TRULY take advantage of up to 8GB of RAM? Or do the applications (like the Adobe suite) need to be 64-bit?

The processor not too much but there is a good leap from the clock on the Mac Mini (2.0GHz) to a MacBook Pro (up to 3.0GHz). Add to that the dedicated graphics and support up to 8GB of RAM (13-inch supports this).

Applications don't necessarily need to be 64-bit to use 8GB of RAM. If you search for benchmarks, you will see that applications such as Photoshop do get tasks done quicker compared to 4GB or 6GB.

Again, you have to ask what kind of power you need. That will help decide if a 13-inch will do or 15/17-inch will. If you need help, just post what you plan on doing and we'll help you determine which is right for you.

 

[imderek]

Basically, After Effects and 3ds Max. Both pretty power-hungry applications which run decently (until comps and models get complicated) on the Mac Mini w/ 2GB RAM.

Got a link to those Photoshop benchmarks?

 

[iLog.Genius]

Basically, After Effects and 3ds Max. Both pretty power-hungry applications which run decently (until comps and models get complicated) on the Mac Mini w/ 2GB RAM.

Got a link to those Photoshop benchmarks?

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12554_22-214489-1.html

Seeing how you already know how your applications would run on a Mac Mini, you should expect very similar performance. With that said, I wouldn't go further than the mid-ranged MacBook Pro with 256MB discrete graphics. (I don't know how reliant 3DS is on the GPU).