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

i7 2012 mini vs i7 macbook pro 13.

icecoldart

icecoldart

macrumors member
Original poster
Mar 30, 2012
60
0
Europe-Poland
So my question is how much improvement those 4 cores in mac mini would be over 2 core 2.9GHZ i7 in 13" macbook pro?

I'm going to use it for Photoshop/movies/music.

Photoshop can be resource hungry with larger files, that i usually work with ( add many layers to that )


I'm currently on a 2010 PC which is still quite capable ( included picture with specs ), but windows is killing me with eachd ay. And since macs in my country are way overpriced i can afford either a mini which i'd then upgrade with 256gb ssd and 16gb of RAM.

or a 13 inch high end macbook pro which would get a 16 gb ram and an ssd later. I'd go with the macbook for it's portability since i'm going to travel but a mini and an external monitor is not a huge problem either, but you know a laptop's a laptop. You have what you need in front of you without the need of cables plugged in to anything. Plus the display which makes working/enjoying your stuff on the go possible.
 

Attachments

  • specs.jpg
    specs.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 215
The 2,3 GHz Mini is about 50 to 60% faster than the 2,9 GHz MacBook Pro, or even more when many cores are needed (VMs for example).
 
Last edited:
Both processors use hyperthreading, with duplicates the number of cores in your computer virtually. Both the processors in the mac mini and the macbook pro 13" use this. So, the mac mini will have 8 cores (4 physical + 4 virtual) and the macbook pro 13" will have 4 cores (2 physical + 2 virtual), so due to obvious reasons, the mac mini will be faster with your applications such as Photoshop. the mac mini is also more upgradable, so you can easily pop off the bottom case and upgrade the ram, and adding an SSD would be more viable, too.

However, since you already have a win7 desktop - then it would make more sense to get the 13" macbook pro - since the desktop would be your 'powerhouse' for all your heavy activity.
 
You could still travel with your mini using this USB powered monitor, that i am probably going to buy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgFDkMeUJDY

Gets high marks by every reviewer.

This means you can travel with a mini and have a quality light 14inch screen for a fraction of the price of a 15"macbook pro,
but have the same 2.3 or 2.6ghz quad core power
 
Most people I know with a Macbook, carry them from desk 1 with docking screen, to desk 2 with docking screen. The mini does that with less back-ache. But if you are a commute worker, you need the MB.
 
2 mid mac minis 799 plus 799 =1600


1 lacie rugged thunderbolt/usb3 = 200


cost is 1800 this allows you to move the osx via the lacie. or any other booter you choose.


your home and your office would be fine what it does not allow is jobsite,
but a mini ipad for 399 and you kind of have it all.

for about 2.2k.

lots of redundancy which is good for work.



now it seems to me that the future is 2 mac minis (or imacs) with a dock and a mini ipad how long for that to be offered.
 
Poki said:
The 2,3 GHz Mini is about 50 to 60% faster than the 2,9 GHz MacBook Pro, or even more when many cores are needed (VMs for example).
Click to expand...

If someone is still interested, I am using a 2012 Macbook Pro i7 13" to make music with Logic X. As most old generation third party plugins use only one core for their processing. the 2.9 GHz Intel should work smoother than the Mac Mini 2012 i7 quad core 2.3 GHz.

Please let me know your opinion. I want to buy a 2012 Mac Mini and expand it. Otherwise, I will keep my MAcbook Pro.
 
Last edited:
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