cuad-core i7+3000HD or dual-core i7+AMD Radeon 6630

[ezekielrage_99]

Of course if you expect to be perfectly satisfied with the AMD Radeon/ dual core i7 and never plan to expand using thunderbolt or require better processor performance for the life of the machine, no need to fork out more for the server. All the folks who state how bad the HD3000 sucks, are graphics professionals, intensive gamers and movie makers who should be working on a high end 27" iMac or Mac Pro anyways. All of which have four multi threaded processor cores minimum.

I tend to disagree here, I'd rather have a AMD 6630M over the HD3000, once you start doing anything multimedia based the HD3000 pretty rubbish. I'd rather have a dual-core with a dedicated card than a quad-core with an integrated chipset.

For the sake of a few hundred on the cost of a machine the mid level i5 with AMD 6630M is an excellent buy, plus you have the option to BTO to an i7 if you need the extra grunt.

 

[rhurst]

How about Adobe CS5 and FC Express?

Hi all,

New forum member here. I was planning to start my own thread on this subject, but since this one seems to be getting a lot of good replies, I thought I'd just post here instead.

In regards to image editing, it seems the replies have been split roughly 50-50 as to which configuration is ideal.

I'd like to be able to run Adobe CS5 (especially Photoshop & After Effects), as well as Final Cut Express (not Pro). Which configuration would be better for me?

Thanks!

 

[biosci]

I think you should by the quad-core i7 + HD3000 server, if you do need a professional display card, then you can wait a thunderbolt external display card.

Is there such a thing????

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Hi all,

New forum member here. I was planning to start my own thread on this subject, but since this one seems to be getting a lot of good replies, I thought I'd just post here instead.

In regards to image editing, it seems the replies have been split roughly 50-50 as to which configuration is ideal.

I'd like to be able to run Adobe CS5 (especially Photoshop & After Effects), as well as Final Cut Express (not Pro). Which configuration would be better for me?

Thanks!

Your seriously not going to be able to do much with a HD3000, you need a dedicated graphics card. I still think the best Mac Mini buy is the BTO i7 with the AMD graphics, while if you add 8GB and SSD (dyi) you'll have a very fast little machine.

Face it peoples, the quad core server yes it's fast but I cannot see the point in sacrificing a dedicated GPU for 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads, what you'll gain in CPU grunt you're going to loose in actually GPU grunt when you have to actually use graphics based software. Personally I'd rather have useability rather than faster rendering time.

Is there such a thing????

For Apple, no and I doubt very much there will be an Apple option for this. While Sony does have a Lightpeak external graphics card option which is interesting.

 

[qCzar]

Hi all,

New forum member here. I was planning to start my own thread on this subject, but since this one seems to be getting a lot of good replies, I thought I'd just post here instead.

In regards to image editing, it seems the replies have been split roughly 50-50 as to which configuration is ideal.

I'd like to be able to run Adobe CS5 (especially Photoshop & After Effects), as well as Final Cut Express (not Pro). Which configuration would be better for me?

Thanks!

Go the AMD Route. CS5 is capable of using the graphics card and After Effects should be no different. I'm not positive on AE, though. The quad-core only benefits those of us with CS4 or below.

 

[throttlemeister]

What's all this BS with slagging off the HD3000? I wonder how all these people made due with the nVidia 9400M in the previous generations mini/macbook. The 9400M worked just fine in a multimedia machine and the intel HD3000 is more than twice as fast.

 

[Vermifuge]

What's all this BS with slagging off the HD3000? I wonder how all these people made due with the nVidia 9400M in the previous generations mini/macbook. The 9400M worked just fine in a multimedia machine and the intel HD3000 is more than twice as fast.

In real world preference, the 320M in the 2010 mini was a better video card then the HD 3000

 

[ezekielrage_99]

What's all this BS with slagging off the HD3000? I wonder how all these people made due with the nVidia 9400M in the previous generations mini/macbook. The 9400M worked just fine in a multimedia machine and the intel HD3000 is more than twice as fast.

It's simple the nVidia 9400M or 320M were specs wise similar to the HD3000, but that's where the comparison stops because when you get to a driver level the Intel drivers aren't as developed as the nVidia comparison.

Thus the similar performance from a 9400M compared to a newer HD3000.

 

[Mackilroy]

In real world preference, the 320M in the 2010 mini was a better video card then the HD 3000

Depends on the OS. Under OS X the HD3000 is superior to the 320M.

 

[DisMyMac]

Depends on the OS. Under OS X the HD3000 is superior to the 320M.

If you load the server (HD3000) with 16Gb RAM, does it help the video performance?

I don't know much about hardware.

 

[borgusio]

What's all this BS with slagging off the HD3000? I wonder how all these people made due with the nVidia 9400M in the previous generations mini/macbook. The 9400M worked just fine in a multimedia machine and the intel HD3000 is more than twice as fast.

What do you mean with "multimedia machine"?

Has anyone experience on Motion+Intel HD3000?

I'm not sure that the upgrade of the graphic card via Thunderbolt is really an option... it will be for sure very expensive.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

If you load the server (HD3000) with 16Gb RAM, does it help the video performance?

I don't know much about hardware.

If you load it with 16GB of RAM you'd still only have a 288MB frame buffer, it's locked

 

[pixor]

For doing anything interactive and graphical, the dedicated graphics chip will be hugely faster.

The quad-core is called a mini server rather than a mini workstation for a reason.

 

[thejoelhansen]

Mac Mini, Win 7, and multiple monitors

Piggy back:

I'm looking into a current or last gen Mac Mini to do some Windows 7 testing on (run some Linux VMs, serve a few Java Applications).

Can anyone confirm using multiple monitors on a Mac Mini under Windows 7?
1 by DisplayPort/ThunderBolt and 1 by HDMI, both @ 1080P, extended desktop?

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Joel

 

[Ice Dragon]

On the plus side; whether you buy the 2.5 GHz Mini with the SSD or Quad-core server with the SSD, it carries the same $1,400 price tag.

 

[japtor]

Piggy back:

I'm looking into a current or last gen Mac Mini to do some Windows 7 testing on (run some Linux VMs, serve a few Java Applications).

Can anyone confirm using multiple monitors on a Mac Mini under Windows 7?
1 by DisplayPort/ThunderBolt and 1 by HDMI, both @ 1080P, extended desktop?

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Joel

You should be able to do that with even a 2009 one, which had Mini DVI and Mini DisplayPort. Depending on how many VMs and how much you'll be serving you might want to stick with a new one though, particularly the server model to give you more cores to work with.

 

[astrorider]

If you load it with 16GB of RAM you'd still only have a 288MB frame buffer, it's locked

The tech specs make it sound like it's variable, not locked.

"Memory available to OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 288MB."

Also, the server version, with 4GB of RAM instead of 2, says "384MB".

http://www.apple.com/macmini/server/specs.html

 

[beginner17]

Hi, new member here from Germany, so please excuse my english

I`m working extensive with Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop. I think the mid Mini with i5 and the AMD is much better for me as the i7 quad with the Intel?

Is this right?

Will upgrade the Mini with 8GB RAM and a SSD.

 

[JeepGuy]

You plan on running Revit? If so, how will you be running Windows?

If he plans on running revit, the mini is not the way to go unless you are doing very small models, Revit benefits more from high clock rate and gobs of memory and needs 1gb or more of graphics memory. I run Revit every day and it's a pig even on my Hex core mac pro with a Quadro 4000.

If you really have to use a mini, then I would go Quad core mini server with 8gb, this will meet the Value configuration, but with the Basic Video


Value

Microsoft Windows 7 64-bit or Microsoft Windows Vista 64-bit (SP2 or later)  Intel® Core™ i5-2300 quad-core processor [2.8GHz, 6MB cache] or equivalent AMD® processor with 8GB memory, Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (SP2), 1 GB DirectX® 10 capable graphics card with Shader Model 3

Performance

Intel® Core™ i7-2600 quad-core processor [3.8GHz, 8MB cache] or equivalent AMD® processor with 16GB memory, Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (SP2), 2GB+ DirectX® 10 capable graphics card with Shader Model 3

If you are running autocad any of the mini will work.

 

[scupking]

Depends on the OS. Under OS X the HD3000 is superior to the 320M.

Not at all....

 

[vinchino]

im a newb,,,this is gonna be my first apple product, i've decided i will convert from windows to mac. i already have a monitor, keyboard and mouse.

i'll be using mac mini only to surf on the web, stream videos, watch 1080p movies, listening mp3.
i do not use photoshop nor aftereffect, but i do however run multiple programs at the same time, itunes, vlc, chrome, msn, spotify, imovie, powerpoints and etc.

money is not the problem, should i choose high-end mac mini+good gpu or the mac mini server+bad gpu?

 

[zedsdead]

im a newb,,,this is gonna be my first apple product, i've decided i will convert from windows to mac. i already have a monitor, keyboard and mouse.

i'll be using mac mini only to surf on the web, stream videos, watch 1080p movies, listening mp3.
i do not use photoshop nor aftereffect, but i do however run multiple programs at the same time, itunes, vlc, chrome, msn, spotify, imovie, powerpoints and etc.

money is not the problem, should i choose high-end mac mini+good gpu or the mac mini server+bad gpu?

I think the better gpu would be better than the quad core chip since you are not doing nothing that processor intensive except for iMovie. The serve also has more storage space though.

 

[zedsdead]

I just noticed that the server model has 384 mb of shared memory versus 288 mb in the base model. Anyone know if that will make a large difference?

 

[Mackilroy]

Not at all....

Do we have to go through this again? Take a look at the benchmarks here. The 320M wins exactly once. In every other situation the HD 3000 comes out on top.

Anandtech review

 

[jonjon1]

For doing anything interactive and graphical, the dedicated graphics chip will be hugely faster.

The quad-core is called a mini server rather than a mini workstation for a reason.

What exactly is the difference? what would be a MINI SERVER?
At the end I decided to buy the 2.5 Ghz i5 dual-core, because of the dedicated graphics. So I guess I made the right choice. I would have bought the i7 dual core, but I had no time to wait, cuz im leaving the country.

I planing to use the mac mini to run Archicad and Artlantis Studio.