Top Consumer Mini or Server (Graphics vs Quad Core)?

[powerbook911]

What does everyone think about considering the top Consumer Mini or the Server Mini?

The main difference is that the top consumer model has Dual Core processor with a discreet graphics chip, whereas the server model removes the discreet graphics to make room for QUAD core system.

What do you think? Would I notice the graphics hit if I went with the server model?

 

[philipma1957]

What does everyone think about considering the top Consumer Mini or the Server Mini?

The main difference is that the top consumer model has Dual Core processor with a discreet graphics chip, whereas the server model removes the discreet graphics to make room for QUAD core system.

What do you think? Would I notice the graphics hit if I went with the server model?

why not buy both run them for ten days and return one?


Sounds silly but the answer is it depends on your usage.


The server is almost as fast as a 2.5k mac pro when running handbrake so if you use handbrake a lot the server is good for you. Handbrake was tested by a lot of us and the server with the quad core is clearly very fast more then twice the speed of any other mini!

the question is do you game? do you run a ton of 1080p? the server won't be as good as the 799 2.5.




here is the highest 2.7 score I can find on geekbench


http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/451560 8055




here is the highest 2.5 score I can find on geekbench

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/451250 7158

one cost 899 the other cost 799

so a 12.5 percent price hike gets you a 12.5 percent better geekbench score. so you get what you pay for if you buy either one of the better consumer models. by the way that is not apples way it is more likely a 20 percent price hike gets you 12.5 geekbench hike.

 

[moxxey]

This is another question I can answer

I have the 2011 MBP 13" i7 dual core. Used to connect this to my Cinema Display 27" in clamshell mode. OS X was fine, very usable, despite the Intel graphics. However, Windows 7 running in virtual mode, was a bit too slow.

Bought a Mac Mini quad core last week and it's even faster than the i7 dual core 13" MBP. Lion seems snappier (Lion is on both machines) and Windows 7, on VMware Fusion 2011 (beta), is far faster than on the dual core MBP.

The primary reason for this is being able to throw two cores at Windows 7.

So, for me, the quad core wins through. I've not seen any day-to-day stuff where the dual core MBP seems faster, yet that's the same architecture as the dual core i7 Mini. Quad core was the right purchase. Happy.