I really struggle to take a decision

[sioannou]

Ok guys, I have to admit it, I am really passing hard time to take any decision to my life

For a month now, I am back and forth between the two mini's (not the server). Please help, I will use the computer mainly for xcode development (i have read in another thread that the dual core will struggle a little in compilation) internet browsing, and the one and only game I play in a computer platform FM2012 (football manager).

From the minimum requirements the only think that makes me worry is that it needs a
Video Card - Nvidia Geforce 7300 GT or greater; ATI Radeon X1600 or greater.

1. Is Intel 3000 somewhere near these gpus?

2. I suppose that I could run the game in my early 2011 base 15" mbp. But is the gpu of the mbp better that these gpus?

Please help me I am really desperate

 

[warvanov]

What would you need a Mac mini for that you can't do with your 15" MBP connected to a monitor and keyboard?

 

[sioannou]

What would you need a Mac mini for that you can't do with your 15" MBP connected to a monitor and keyboard?

I need a computer that will actually stays always on. And I hate having to disconnect/reconnect cables. So I'll have my laptop for when I am not at home .

 

[warvanov]

Well, it seems like either Mac mini would be a downgrade from your MBP in terms of overall computing power. The graphics on the high end mini might be a bit better than on your MBP, but probably not by much.

Essentially, this sounds like a computer you want for the convenience, not something that you particularly NEED. If you have money to spend for the convenience of having a desktop computer you might as well get the higher end of the two machines.

 

[shortcut3d]

The AMD 6630M in the mid-range Mac Mini is not as powerful as your 2011 base 15" MacBook Pro. Therefore, you might as well get the high end Mac Mini Server and have the second drive and/or parts to swap in an SSD at a later date. Plus the 2.0 GHz quad core i7 is a beast. You can even add 1866 MHz RAM and get near full size desktop performance.

These statements are only my opinion. I do not think either graphics option in the Mac Mini line up is truly worth it. However the Mac Mini is really capable in terms of processing power. A Mac Mini Server with 1866 MHz RAM and 128GB SSD SATA III is an easy, afordable DIY beast of a system.

 

[philipma1957]

tough call for you I would consider buying a second mbp 15 inch this one



http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC721LL/A


why the price dropped a few days ago and it is faster then any mac mini.

it will also run snow leopard. add a low price small ssd and some 1866 ram it would be faster then any mac mini in any job you do.

 

[sioannou]

tough call for you I would consider buying a second mbp 15 inch this one



http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC721LL/A


why the price dropped a few days ago and it is faster then any mac mini.

it will also run snow leopard. add a low price small ssd and some 1866 ram it would be faster then any mac mini in any job you do.

I wish I was staying in USA mate ;P no refurbs for us :*(

 

[MJL]

If you do development and want to do testing using a virtual machine then be aware that only the mid mac (2.5 ghz) does full virtualization. Neither the server nor the base does that. It may or may not be important.

 

[etsi]

If you do development and want to do testing using a virtual machine then be aware that only the mid mac (2.5 ghz) does full virtualization. Neither the server nor the base does that. It may or may not be important.

What is the difference because both support Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) ?

I am about to decide which one to buy the server or the mid one. However it's nice to have 2x7200rpm hd and that second cable to add an SSD. The cpu seems to be much faster for multitasking as well.

 

[shortcut3d]

Intel VT is dependent on the virtualization software you are using and the biggest advantage is direct I/O. You should check to see if your needs take advantage of Intel VT. Otherwise the quad-core server model will out perform the mid-range dual core. In fact, other than direct I/O and enhanced client security, you may still get better performance with the quad-core server.

 

[indg]

if you're looking for best performance in xcode, get the quad mini server. likewise for parallels or vmware.

the ATI Radeon X1600 is like a 6 year old mobile gpu. the HD 3000 with quad i7 is on par if not better. if you're worried about game performance, do a search on youtube or vimeo for "mac mini server gaming" or "mac hd3000 gaming". there are people playing modern warfare and crysis 2 with the intel hd 3000. of course, you may need to run windows and bootcamp for best gaming performance.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Intel VT is dependent on the virtualization software you are using and the biggest advantage is direct I/O.

VT-x means, your processor has Intel Vanderpool Technology instruction set extensions, sometimes called "hardware virtualization". All Intel processors >= Core 2 Duo processors in Macs have the necessary VT-x. VT-x are important for Mac OS X "guests" inside VMs on a Mac OS X host machine.

VT-d means, your processor has Intel direct I/O instruction set extensions. No Mac virtualization software can use these instruction set extensions (AFAIK).

Sandy Bridge, like Westmere (2nd generation Nehalem) brings support for the VT-x with EPTs. You should use EPTs (VMware Fusion settings), wherever possible (higher efficiency, lower heat).