2013 Mac Pro vs 2018 Mac Mini

[dgn76677]

I know there are several threads on this same topic, but it was hard to find one similar to my particular situation.

My employer and I have been waiting for the release of the new 2019 mac pro for our department. I am reading that they have been pushed back to a December release, so we may have to purchase now instead of waiting.

We are working primarily in photoshop and color correcting very large, nearly 3GB images, sometimes 16-bit up to 1200dpi. We are doing lots of batch processes in photoshop by running the image processor to do large volume conversions on these images as well.

So what's it gonna be folks? 2013 Mac pro or the new mac mini? Any and all help is appreciated.

 

[Plutonius]

we have been waiting on the new 2019 mac pros for the "Fall release." Now I am reading that they have been yet again pushed back to decemeber.

Fall ends Dec 20th so it will be a fall release unless it happens past then.

 

[MacUser2525]

To purchase now with only weeks to go until a launch seems a little hasty. If you need to waste the money that badly go with the minis. At least you will get years more of supported software releases with it. Unlike the pro which is going to be dumped at the next earliest possible opportunity.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I know there are several threads on this same topic, but it was hard to find one similar to my particular situation.

I'm managing a new imaging department with my employer and we have been waiting on the new 2019 mac pros for the "Fall release." Now I am reading that they have been yet again pushed back to decemeber.

With new hires coming on that will need computers and with upper management pushing to pull the trigger on new machines for our department, it's looking like we can no longer wait. So now I'm weighing my options.

We are working primarily in photoshop and color correcting very large, nearly 3GB 16-bit images, sometimes up to 1200dpi. We are doing lots of batch processes in photoshop by running the image processor to do large volume conversions on these images as well. I'll also be using final cut occasionally for some smaller video projects, and we may be getting into some autoCAD software.

So what's it gonna be folks? 2013 Mac pro or the new mac mini? Any and all help is appreciated.

If you are going to be editing images with that high of a resolution and probably you guys would be doing quite a bit of layering at those bit level, then you will need more than the 64Gb memory ceiling that the Mini could accept, whereas the Mac Pro 6,1 could accept up to 128Gb of memory. The new Mac Pro 7,1 could theoretically take up to 768Gb of memory! Lots of memory and high speed storage I/O are both things that Photoshop thrive for especially if you're working exclusively in AdobeRGB or ProPhoto and doing large volume conversions. You can do them with less memory like on the Mini 2018, but you'll experience slightly longer processing times and when these Minis overheat, which they will since past 64Gb of RAM requirement, they will start paging in and out of SSD, the Minis will throttle during sustained high operating throughput. So you also need to provide good ventilation and cooling for these Minis. The purpose of the Mac Pro is that they are designed to do high sustained load work for long periods of time without overheating or throttling their speeds. The Mini is designed for the on-the-need high throughput load work. While the Minis are also used as servers, they are always in a well ventilated server room to keep them running cool. You don't need to worry about the Mac Pros as much.

Personally I would convince management to wait just a month more to buy the Mac Pro 7,1, or else buy some Mac Pro 6,1 as terminals and provision some heavy duty work like batch conversions and color work to the Mac Pro 7,1 as a server setup. This way you can scale up the Mac Pro 7,1 to meet the business needs and demands. After all, time is money and if the business is making money, the Pro 7,1 will have even more horsepower and longevity than the Mini 2018 or the Mac Pro 2013.

 

[Silencio]

If you need to buy right now, an iMac Pro is going to be your best choice. They haven't really seen spec upgrades since they launched in 2017, but they're still very fast and very capable machines.

What displays do you use / will you use for color correcting such high res, high bit Photoshop files? The iMac Pro itself has a very good 5K display built-in, but it can drive a big, high resolution external display easily enough.

 

[dgn76677]

If you are going to be editing images with that high of a resolution and probably you guys would be doing quite a bit of layering at those bit level, then you will need more than the 64Gb memory ceiling that the Mini could accept, whereas the Mac Pro 6,1 could accept up to 128Gb of memory. The new Mac Pro 7,1 could theoretically take up to 768Gb of memory! Lots of memory and high speed storage I/O are both things that Photoshop thrive for especially if you're working exclusively in AdobeRGB or ProPhoto and doing large volume conversions. You can do them with less memory like on the Mini 2018, but you'll experience slightly longer processing times and when these Minis overheat, which they will since past 64Gb of RAM requirement, they will start paging in and out of SSD, the Minis will throttle during sustained high operating throughput. So you also need to provide good ventilation and cooling for these Minis. The purpose of the Mac Pro is that they are designed to do high sustained load work for long periods of time without overheating or throttling their speeds. The Mini is designed for the on-the-need high throughput load work. While the Minis are also used as servers, they are always in a well ventilated server room to keep them running cool. You don't need to worry about the Mac Pros as much.

Personally I would convince management to wait just a month more to buy the Mac Pro 7,1, or else buy some Mac Pro 6,1 as terminals and provision some heavy duty work like batch conversions and color work to the Mac Pro 7,1 as a server setup. This way you can scale up the Mac Pro 7,1 to meet the business needs and demands. After all, time is money and if the business is making money, the Pro 7,1 will have even more horsepower and longevity than the Mini 2018 or the Mac Pro 2013.

Thank you so much for this reply. This is excellent info. I'm still pushing management to wait, but wanted to have a plan in case all else fails. Your info about more than 64GB of memory is surprising to me- I my initial thought was that 64GB would be more than enough, but your explanation makes sense. Looks like we will be shooting for 128GB if we wait for the new mac pro!
[automerge]1573831768[/automerge]

If you need to buy right now, an iMac Pro is going to be your best choice. They haven't really seen spec upgrades since they launched in 2017, but they're still very fast and very capable machines.

What displays do you use / will you use for color correcting such high res, high bit Photoshop files? The iMac Pro itself has a very good 5K display built-in, but it can drive a big, high resolution external display easily enough.

We are using the Eizo ColorEdge CG319X, which is a self calibrating 4K monitor, so I had initially ruled out the iMac Pro as an option. Although using the Eizo as the primary and the iMac display as a secondary monitor could be an option, but may be overkill. Will have to think through this one. Good suggestion nonetheless.

 

[iluvmacs99]

You're welcome. I had worked in digital imaging for 26 years before semi-retiring, so my advice is based on my decades of experience working with professionals especially dealing with images of such high resolution and bit level is that, most professionals under-estimate the needs for more memory. That is because, Mac OS is very elegantly setup to provide seamless paging between memory and storage I/O. That's okay for people who are doing photography as a hobby or even on SPEC when they are working with Nikon D850 or Fuji GFX 50 files. But not if you are working in commercial advertising. A lot of Mac Pro 6,1s die not because this Mac is poorly designed. It was somewhat compromised a bit, but mainly because people populate these machines with less ram and unknowingly worked them hard to death hours, days, weeks and then years because of the constant paging. Some people just want to save a few bucks here and there and memory is something you shouldn't be saving bucks from. Hope this helps..