Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2011/2 Quad Core Mac Minis - performance, power consumption, greenhouse gases

J

james*b

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 2, 2011
143
0
Hi

A few questions about quad core mac minis:

I noticed on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini) that the 2011 quad core Mac Mini Server has an enormous greenhouse gas output relative to regular models (around 1,130kg vs 280kg). Anyone have any idea why?
Also, is it possible to "downgrade" to regular OS and would there be any power consumption benefits?
Finally, is there much difference in performance between the 2011 mac mini quad core server and 2012 quad core (non-server)?

Thanks in advance!
 
Given that the ratios of everything in the original greenhouse gas document shift heavily toward "customer use" I would have to assume that Apple calculates that the Mini server model will be operating a lot more than the regular model is. There's no difference in hardware aside from the second disk, which is an option on the regular server anyway.
 
james*b said:
Hi

A few questions about quad core mac minis:

I noticed on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini) that the 2011 quad core Mac Mini Server has an enormous greenhouse gas output relative to regular models (around 1,130kg vs 280kg). Anyone have any idea why?
Also, is it possible to "downgrade" to regular OS and would there be any power consumption benefits?
Finally, is there much difference in performance between the 2011 mac mini quad core server and 2012 quad core (non-server)?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Consumer use vs commercial use. A server is expected to be run close to capacity for extended periods. Put the same unit in a home and you'll see that figure massively drop
 
Thanks!
Is it possible to "downgrade" to the regular OS and would there be any advantage in doing so if server functionality was not required?
Also, is there much difference in performance between the 2011 mac mini quad core server and 2012 quad core (non-server)? I am mostly using Lightroom and large RAW files, but no video.
 
james*b said:
Thanks!
Is it possible to "downgrade" to the regular OS and would there be any advantage in doing so if server functionality was not required?
Also, is there much difference in performance between the 2011 mac mini quad core server and 2012 quad core (non-server)? I am mostly using Lightroom and large RAW files, but no video.
Click to expand...

They have the same OS. The server just has the Server App. In 2011, the Server model was different as it was a quad, but with 2012 there is not difference. Just an extra hard drive and the server App. So you can turn a non server 2012 into a server model by adding a HDD and downloading the $20 server app.

I have both the 2011 2.0 Quad and the 2012 2.6 quad. There is not real difference apart from:

2012 has a lower RPM fan (1800 versus 2200)

in the 2011, the fan increases as the CPU heat increases, while in the 2012 the fan runs a low rpm for longer and only cuts in around 85'c. This is the design of the 2012 to have a quieter mini for mid-range to low temps.

2012 can run hotter as it has an ivy bridge CPU while the 2011 is sandy. My 2011 hits 95'c at 100% CPU while the 2012 hits 100'c at 100% CPU. But both idle around the same temp (45-50'c)

2012 is much faster for video coding or anything CPU intensive.
 
Thanks - so the 2012 models are probably a bit more future proof.. Also the temperature here can exceed 40 degrees centigrade/105 fahrenheit in July/August - hope that is not an issue. My mac books have always survived..

Also, am I right in thinking that RAM upgrades don't void warranties, but hdd upgrades do?
Plus, do you think I need a quad core and extra RAM for editing large RAW files in Lightroom etc? I am currently using a 2009 core 2 duo mac book pro and it is pretty laggy.
 
james*b said:
Thanks - so the 2012 models are probably a bit more future proof.. Also the temperature here can exceed 40 degrees centigrade/105 fahrenheit in July/August - hope that is not an issue. My mac books have always survived..

Also, am I right in thinking that RAM upgrades don't void warranties, but hdd upgrades do?
Plus, do you think I need a quad core and extra RAM for editing large RAW files in Lightroom etc? I am currently using a 2009 core 2 duo mac book pro and it is pretty laggy.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention the obvious on the 2012... it has usb 3.0 which I am sure you know.

Ambient temps should be ok. Try to keep it well ventilated at least. If you get a Newer Tech alloy side stand and have the mini on its side that will help too.

I always go for the biggest CPU available because I do video editing. The 2.3 quad is ample though. You could definitely get away with the dual 2.5 and you would be happy, but if you need the CPU I would go for the 2.3 quad. Editing large RAW files I am assuming is CPU intensive so a QUAD is the better option. You can upgrade RAM but the CPU is soldered on so go on the safe side.

RAM wont void your warranty.

There is debate on whether even a SSD/HDD install would either. I have always put an SSD in. As long as you can get the old drive back in you will be ok for the warranty. I am running a fusion drive like many others.

My suggested RAM is 16GB of Corsair Vengeance.

If you get an SSD and instal it get the Samsung 840 or 840 Pro. Or OCZ Vector. The Vector is the fastest drive around pretty much (in a real world read/write OS setting).
 
If they did burn Pixies, they'd still emit gases, but what the hell? For the last 17 years (or more) we've been emitting CO2 like mad, but the temperature hasn't gone up. Very embarrassing for the enviro-taleban who'd like you to sit in the dark and walk everywhere while they tax you to death. Pity they won't admit that they don't understand what's happening, the models are obviously hopelessly wrong - despite fudging the data to make them say what they want, and what we see is a perfectly normal variation. CO2 - I love it! Plants love it! Warmer Earth better than colder Earth! I leave my Mac Pro on 24/7 - and sleep very soundly at night.
 
quatermass said:
Very embarrassing for the enviro-taleban who'd like you to sit in the dark and walk everywhere while they tax you to death. Pity they won't admit that they don't understand what's happening, the models are obviously hopelessly wrong - despite fudging the data to make them say what they want, and what we see is a perfectly normal variation. CO2 - I love it!
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know best. The fact that 97% of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject concur that it's real and manmade is probably an anomaly.
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

But let's not get this thread binned to the religious belief forum. It's well known that pixies don't emit greenhouse gases.
 
Last edited:
benwiggy said:
I'm sure you know best. The fact that 97% of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject concur that it's real and manmade is probably an anomaly.
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

But let's not get this thread binned to the religious belief forum. It's well known that pixies don't emit greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

FAIL. Even the authors of some of these papers sasy they have nothing to do with AWG.

Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
Click to expand...

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
 
G4er? said:
FAIL. Even the authors of some of these papers sasy they have nothing to do with AWG.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Click to expand...

Ok. So if we assume populartechnology.net is a reputable website and not someones blog, we can click through to where they got their information on the 2013 Cook et. al findings where the 97% idea originally came from.

It is true 97% of the papers reviewed did not express support for AGW. 66.7% of the papers did not have any for/against AGW position at all. This is because the search for the papers was simply "climate change". I would assume the author of the article you cited simply found a few of these 66.7% who had nothing to do with AGW to say that they would be misclassified.

Ok, lets put aside the papers that did not address the issue. If you look at the remaining papers which did have a AGW position, 32.6% supported AGW, while 0.7% rejected the theory. So of those scientists who did give a AGW position, 97% supported the theory, whereas 3% did not.

I can see how some papers may be "misclassified" based on a summary wording technicality, but thats all that can be taken from that article. Still withstanding, the number of scientists who support AGW theory far exceeds the number who reject it.
 
COrocket said:
Ok. So if we assume populartechnology.net is a reputable website and not someones blog, we can click through to where they got their information on the 2013 Cook et. al findings where the 97% idea originally came from.

It is true 97% of the papers reviewed did not express support for AGW. 66.7% of the papers did not have any for/against AGW position at all. This is because the search for the papers was simply "climate change". I would assume the author of the article you cited simply found a few of these 66.7% who had nothing to do with AGW to say that they would be misclassified.

Ok, lets put aside the papers that did not address the issue. If you look at the remaining papers which did have a AGW position, 32.6% supported AGW, while 0.7% rejected the theory. So of those scientists who did give a AGW position, 97% supported the theory, whereas 3% did not.

I can see how some papers may be "misclassified" based on a summary wording technicality, but thats all that can be taken from that article. Still withstanding, the number of scientists who support AGW theory far exceeds the number who reject it.
Click to expand...



sunspot activity has a lot to do with the overheating,but that is not to say burning fuel like mad helps any.

back to the OP the base model 2011 has a 2 core cpu the server model has a 4 core cpu.

thus 2x to of the 4x is just due to the cpu the rest is the assumption that the server runs 24/7 vs 12/7
 
james*b said:
Hi

A few questions about quad core mac minis:

I noticed on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini) that the 2011 quad core Mac Mini Server has an enormous greenhouse gas output relative to regular models (around 1,130kg vs 280kg). Anyone have any idea why?
Also, is it possible to "downgrade" to regular OS and would there be any power consumption benefits?
Finally, is there much difference in performance between the 2011 mac mini quad core server and 2012 quad core (non-server)?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

In 2011, the server was the only model with 4 cores, and it also had two 7200rpm hard drives compared to just 1 5400rpm drive in the other models.

Replace one of the hard drives with an SSD and you will lower power consumption AND gain a lot more speed. You will never make up the savings in your power bill though. :D
 
CausticPuppy said:
In 2011, the server was the only model with 4 cores, and it also had two 7200rpm hard drives compared to just 1 5400rpm drive in the other models.
Click to expand...
The difference in this graph is purely due to projected usage.
 
People who would have no other meaning for living find it by deluding themselves into thinking they are saving the planet by the computer they use, the car they drive (assuming they drive), the food they eat/don't eat, etc. They'd be nothing more than amusing if they didn't try to impose their religion on others via the power of big government.
 
CausticPuppy said:
Nuclear power plants burn pixies, apparently.
Click to expand...
OK, :rolleyes: 75% of energy comes from non-pixie-related sources that do produce greenhouse gases.

TC25 said:
People who would have no other meaning for living find it by deluding themselves into thinking they are saving the planet by the computer they use, the car they drive (assuming they drive), the food they eat/don't eat, etc. They'd be nothing more than amusing if they didn't try to impose their religion on others via the power of big government.
Click to expand...
Nice ad hominem attack and non sequitur.

The OP asked a question about energy consumption of Macs. Whether he is worried about climate change or just paying his bill: it's a valid question.

Let's not descend into anyone's religious beliefs about governments' or scientists' conspiracies.
 
benwiggy said:
OK, :rolleyes: 75% of energy comes from non-pixie-related sources that do produce greenhouse gases.


Nice ad hominem attack and non sequitur.

The OP asked a question about energy consumption of Macs. Whether he is worried about climate change or just paying his bill: it's a valid question.

Let's not descend into anyone's religious beliefs about governments' or scientists' conspiracies.
Click to expand...

This is a tech site. 'Quad Core Mini' and 'greenhouse gases' do not belong in the same sentence or thread title.
 
opinio said:
And who ever said those latin classes at uni were a waste of time...
Click to expand...
I learnt it just before the lesson where my professor told me that evolution and climate change were just made up. I get some of the money and power that all those academics get from the conspiracy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back