Is there going to be any difference in user experience or is this more of a on-paper gain? Trying to figure out the most bang for my buck with a mini. People are talking about getting base models and buying aftermarket drives too. Would be used for graphics...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.53 vs 2.66 Mini..
- Thread starter ewytt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 2.66GHz model is 5% faster and it costs 15% more than the 2.53GHz model.
You would not gain much, maybe seconds and minutes in hours-long renderings and encodings.
For graphic work it will be more than okay to use the slightly slower model.
But if you don't have a problem with paying 180USD more and want to future proof your machine, you could go for it anyway.
You would not gain much, maybe seconds and minutes in hours-long renderings and encodings.
For graphic work it will be more than okay to use the slightly slower model.
But if you don't have a problem with paying 180USD more and want to future proof your machine, you could go for it anyway.
I run Photoshop CS4 Extended, and Premier Pro CS4 on my Mini. It runs as well as it does on my work PC, a quad 2.5GHz Xeon running Vista.
Save the money and buy the "slower" machine then stick an SSD in it. That is the best "bang for buck".
Save the money and buy the "slower" machine then stick an SSD in it. That is the best "bang for buck".
What's there to figure out? The base model is clearly the best bang for the buck. It will do everything the 2.53 and 2.66 can do, just slightly more slowly. Without a direct comparison, it's not something most people would notice or care about. On the other hand, if you think you will derive $350 worth of psychological benefit from owning the top model, go for it. It's your money.
You have a SSD, do not you? You can not compare 5400 RPM hard drive and SSD hard drive. Then again you might be right, mac mini run all those things with out much problem. I am saying HDD and GPU might be bottle neck not the CPU.
let me use a different anaolgy
using quick math of 2.53/2.66 = about 5% difference. so if you apply that to how fast your going on the highway its about the difference of 75 vs 78 miles an hour, are ya really gonna notice the difference? no, not really. id put that extra $$ into more ram or a ssd or something, there you would actually notice the difference.
just my two cents
using quick math of 2.53/2.66 = about 5% difference. so if you apply that to how fast your going on the highway its about the difference of 75 vs 78 miles an hour, are ya really gonna notice the difference? no, not really. id put that extra $$ into more ram or a ssd or something, there you would actually notice the difference.
just my two cents
SSD = Solid State Drive, HDD = Hard Disk Drive.
The HDD uses mechanical platters that circle around (therefore HDDs with 4200RPM, 5400RPM, 7200RPM, 10000RPM and 15000RPM), while SSD use RAM, like the computers memory, just that the RAM of an SSD doesn't get deleted during power off.
It's a newer technology and offers faster read and write speeds to eliminate the bottleneck the HDD is. But they are still expensive compared to HDDs.
For further information: MRoogle.
helldiverUK, you're just the person I've been looking for,assuming you have an SSD in yours. My question is does the SSD help speed up the rendering and encoding process? I know the processor packs most of the load,but I would like to know if SSD would help me even more.
Thanks in advance,and if anyone else does a lot of encoding on a mini,please jump in.
spinnerlys gave you a great answer.If you would like to see one in action go to youtube and type in mac mini ssd....boot times under 20 seconds. I'm trying to wait for the price to come down (or more storage)on them before I get one.
I agree with you,BUT if you do a lot of recoding video,the 2.66 will be quite a bit better than the 2.26,but that's about the only job that I can think of where I would go for the top processor....of course for that price you might as well get the 21.5 inch iMac then.
You may WANT SSD. But you may not NEED it. Think about it. My mac mini runs perfectly fine. Although for some reason, it's a little slower when I'm saving my iWork documents to mobileme when compared to my MBP. It doesn't really bother me. But then again, I'm a hypocrite. If you have more than enough cash, wait for the SSD to drop in price, buy it and replace. Then you'd be in speed galore.
If you have more than enough cash, wait for the SSD to drop in price, buy it and replace. Then you'd be in speed galore. Exactly. The Mac Mini isn't the computer for someone who does a lot of heavy duty video processing, 3D modeling, etc.
Thanks for the help guys.
I don't do any video or 3D modeling. I am a print designer and work in Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign. I also will be editing photos in RAW from a 10.2 mp DSLR.
SSD looks like the ticket, but pretty spendy for my budget. I would get the iMac but it just won't work in my current living situation. (big windows)
I am intrigued by the Mini and want to give it a try. I think it will be a huge improvement from my 6 year old 1.6 G5.
I don't do any video or 3D modeling. I am a print designer and work in Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign. I also will be editing photos in RAW from a 10.2 mp DSLR.
SSD looks like the ticket, but pretty spendy for my budget. I would get the iMac but it just won't work in my current living situation. (big windows)
I am intrigued by the Mini and want to give it a try. I think it will be a huge improvement from my 6 year old 1.6 G5.
No, it's still slow rendering.
I tend to move the projects to the PC for rendering using the big-ass Quadro card.