Which one is the best to use xcode?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by Clother, May 21, 2015.

  1. Clother, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015

    Clother macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #1
    Hello guys,

    I already searched a lot for this...but can't find a simple answer (maybe there isnt one)

    I need a second mac to a friend of mine so we can run xcode together and make some apps. I plan to sold the mac after the app is completed (the updates can be done with my macbook)

    I have 2 options from the classifieds...

    Option 1
    Mac mini early 2009
    Intel Core2 Duo a 2.0GHz
    8 GB de memória DDR3 a 1333 MHz
    Disco SSD 128GB
    Nvidia Geforce 9400 256Mb
    Yosemite installed.
    Price: 300€

    Option 2
    Mac mini (dont know the year)
    8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
    2,5 Ghz Intel Core I5 com cache L3 3MB
    Intel HD Graphics 3000
    Disco 500 GB (5400 rpm)
    Price: 350€

    We want to run xcode only... and price difference is 50€ (not much), but the old one has a SSD (i have one SSD on my macbook and i really LOVE IT...its everything super faster)

    Can you help me guys? :)

    Thank you so much
     
  2. dyt1983 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    USA USA USA
    #2
    AFAIK the 2.5GHz i5 was only available with ATI or HD4000 graphics, so you may want to check that. I would get the newer machine and add the SSD for about €50, a small one would be plenty of space for the OS and Xcode.
     
  3. Clother thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #3
    I can't buy the new one and put an SSD (too expensive for what we need)

    My dilema is the performance. The old one have an SSD buy poor CPU, the new one have a i5 CPU, but no SDD. (the RAM is almost the same in both options)

    For xcode, what is more important? SSD or CPU? (i really like fluid apps)
     
  4. Pieterr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #4
    The processor in the Mid-2011 Mac mini is twice as fast as the one in the Early 2009 (see the geekbench scores in the links below).
    So the newer Mac mini has definitively an advantage over the older one.

    For compiling code, a fast HD or better SSD helps of course, but when working in Xcode, you are probably on the critical path yourself (instead of your HD/SSD).

    http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...i-core-2-duo-2.0-early-2009-nvidia-specs.html

    http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i5-2.3-mid-2011-specs.html

    So go for the Mid-2011 Mac mini.
     
  5. dyt1983 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    USA USA USA
    #5
    There's something wrong with the specs so I wouldn't assume it's the 2011 model you're assuming it is. It could be a 2011 with a 2.3GHz CPU (so the HD3000 would be correct); it could be a 2011 with a 2.5GHz CPU (but then it would have ATI graphics); or it could be a 2012 with a 2.5GHz CPU (and with HD4000 graphics). Or it could just be all wrong.

    Its tough to make an informed decision based on incorrect data.
     
  6. Clother thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #6
    You are right.

    Im trying to get more info about this model... I will update it as soon as i have new info.

    Thank you for your help :)
     
  7. D.T. macrumors 603

    D.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Location:
    Vilano Beach, FL
    #7
    FWIW, I did a decent amount of iOS dev work [in Xcode] on a 2010 13" MBP C2D 2.4, 8GB RAM and an SSD which is close to your 2009 Mini spec (though it does have that extra clock, and a 320M GPU vs. the 9400). In fact, I started with the original OOTB specs (4GB, 250GB HDD) and even that wasn't all that bad.

    Xcode (at least the version at the time, a couple of years ago), wasn't as much of a resource hog as you would think.

    The SSD upgrade in that MBP was a major performance boost. In fact, that machine is my Wife's and it is still humming right along :)

    I agree, that #2 machine has some mismatching specs, if it's a '12 machine, that's potentially a really good deal. FWIW, you might be able to fetch $30-35 for the 500GB drive and then go with a small SSD (like 64GB) - Kingston and SanDisk have drives in that capacity in the mid $40-ish range.
     
  8. g33k macrumors member

    g33k

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    #8
    Get the one with an SSD, it does wonders. An SSD is an even bigger difference than a CPU upgrade. You can notice the difference between a obsolete 5400-RPM harddrive and a SSD in read world tests and results.
     

Share This Page