Mac Mini i7 Dual Core vs Mac mini Server i7 Quad Core

[habe]

Just got my Quad Core Mac Mini Server set up yesterday and so far, lovin' it. The better AMD GPU wasn't even a concern since we (family) do all of our gaming on PS3 or XBox360.

Once I upgrade the Ram to 8GB and get a 5.25" USB enclosure for my LG BluRay drive and I'm all set....

If you don't plan on gaming, server all the way!

 

[powerbook911]

Just got my Quad Core Mac Mini Server set up yesterday and so far, lovin' it. The better AMD GPU wasn't even a concern since we (family) do all of our gaming on PS3 or XBox360.

Once I upgrade the Ram to 8GB and get a 5.25" USB enclosure for my LG BluRay drive and I'm all set....

If you don't plan on gaming, server all the way!

I agree. I can tell you, you will feel that 8GB of RAM too. It's a significant step up. Apps launch much quicker.

 

[MJL]

That way with the server you'd get the better processor

I get quite annoyed with people just keeping on dumbly repeating that the quad it is a better processor. A better processor for what?

If the software is single threading then the faster speed of the duo core has an advantage, also turbo runs to a higher speed. Not to mention that both the base and the server mini do not have a processor capable of virtual IO which is imprtant if you are doing virtualisation. And the latter is rapidly creeping in: if you have some software that only runs under windows then you'll want to run parallels.....

And then not to talk about the 29/59 frame error of the integrated HD3000 GPU.

So while the quad may have "more computational grunt" it does not mean that it is the best, I would even go sofar as that the i5 and i7 CPU's are faulty and that in the mid mini there is a work around with the GPU fully functional.

 

[lali]

So while the quad may have "more computational grunt" it does not mean that it is the best, I would even go sofar as that the i5 and i7 CPU's are faulty and that in the mid mini there is a work around with the GPU fully functional.

Hi MJL
could you please explain this a bit more?
Thanks

 

[powerbook911]

I get quite annoyed with people just keeping on dumbly repeating that the quad it is a better processor. A better processor for what?

If the software is single threading then the faster speed of the duo core has an advantage, also turbo runs to a higher speed. Not to mention that both the base and the server mini do not have a processor capable of virtual IO which is imprtant if you are doing virtualisation. And the latter is rapidly creeping in: if you have some software that only runs under windows then you'll want to run parallels.....

And then not to talk about the 29/59 frame error of the integrated HD3000 GPU.

So while the quad may have "more computational grunt" it does not mean that it is the best, I would even go sofar as that the i5 and i7 CPU's are faulty and that in the mid mini there is a work around with the GPU fully functional.

You're right, but the Quad is simply a joy to use, and it crunches video encoding like a small snack.

I would personally find it a bit difficult to get the mid-range Mac Mini *and* do processor and hard drive upgrade with Apple, and end up paying more than the server. Plus, having two hard drives out of the box on the server. The server just feels like a better deal.

Nevertheless, perhaps in a home media center environment, the mid-range model base is a smart move indeed with the GPU, and why not save $200 in such a case? Probably don't need the power there unless using it to crunch video in its spare time, while you would need the GPU for the error you mention.

Two very different uses though (top power (in this compact category) desktop PC versus media center). Those who want light gaming might choose this too.

I just love this server for my primary desktop PC. My old 2009 Mac Mini is still a great PC for my TV.

Therefore, I apologize for promoting the server model so much. You're right, the mid-range machine has its strengths, which is why Apple offers it. Hey, I wouldn't mind having one of it too! I just don't know how much sense it makes to add all these extras onto the mid-range model and get its price so high (I feel similarly about adding too much to the server model).

 

[MJL]

..... I just don't know how much sense it makes to add all these extras onto the mid-range model and get its price so high (I feel similarly about adding too much to the server model).

The heat production in the mid Mac mini is the highest of the trio so I would not want to have two HDD's in it. Only the memory upgrade from 4 Gb to 8 Gb makes sense in OS X and that can be done relatively cheaply with non-Apple memory. Unfortunately Apple is no longer playing nice with Windows 7 as only install since the last EFI update - am having lots of small issues with Windows / windows restore since installing that.

 

[shortcut3d]

The heat production in the mid Mac mini is the highest of the trio so I would not want to have two HDD's in it. Only the memory upgrade from 4 Gb to 8 Gb makes sense in OS X and that can be done relatively cheaply with non-Apple memory. Unfortunately Apple is no longer playing nice with Windows 7 as only install since the last EFI update - am having lots of small issues with Windows / windows restore since installing that.

Interesting, I've also been having small issues with my Windows only Mac Minis. Maybe we should start a new thread so we don't hijack this one.

 

[StrangeNoises]

Previous comments seem to indicate that the new mini 2011 server will handle 2x27 dell inch U2711 monitors at 2560 x 1440 without too much problem.

I suspect those previous comments were wrong. There simply aren't the ports on any of the mac minis to do that.

You could physically plug them in, one into the tbolt port (the U2711 has displayport so a mini-dp -> dp adapter should do) and one into the HDMI port, but HDMI can only carry 1920x1200, so that's all you'd get on that monitor, which would be an awful waste of a gorgeous monitor.

That applies to *all* the current mac minis. The limitation is in the HDMI standard itself.

The mac mini server's integrated GPU would only be able to handle one 2650x1440 display through its tbolt port - whether a U2711 or an apple tbolt monitor. It doesn't have the oomph to drive another monitor daisychained to that; the AMD-equipped mac mini does.

From what I understand (and someone earlier in this thread *did* confirm) the mac mini server would be able to drive two 1080p displays (and probably two 1920x1200 displays by the same token), one through each interface. That's actually what I came here looking to confirm.

 

[cfedu]

I suspect those previous comments were wrong. There simply aren't the ports on any of the mac minis to do that.

You could physically plug them in, one into the tbolt port (the U2711 has displayport so a mini-dp -> dp adapter should do) and one into the HDMI port, but HDMI can only carry 1920x1200, so that's all you'd get on that monitor, which would be an awful waste of a gorgeous monitor.

That applies to *all* the current mac minis. The limitation is in the HDMI standard itself.

The mac mini server's integrated GPU would only be able to handle one 2650x1440 display through its tbolt port - whether a U2711 or an apple tbolt monitor. It doesn't have the oomph to drive another monitor daisychained to that; the AMD-equipped mac mini does.

From what I understand (and someone earlier in this thread *did* confirm) the mac mini server would be able to drive two 1080p displays (and probably two 1920x1200 displays by the same token), one through each interface. That's actually what I came here looking to confirm.

The 13" MacBook pro can drive 2 acd thunderbolt displays, I think any 2011 mini can do that as well at 2560x1440.

The 2011 mini with and gpu can run 3 monitors, 2 thunderbolt and 1 with hdmi. The server can only do 2 thunderbolt.

 

[indg]

I get quite annoyed with people just keeping on dumbly repeating that the quad it is a better processor. A better processor for what?

if your choice is between the dual-core i7 mini and quad-core i7 mini server, and you work with any of the following apps:
final cut pro x
lightroom
aperture
photoshop
xcode
video transcoding apps

you'll be better off getting the quad-core i7 mini server. it's not even debateable. that's not to say the dual-core i7 can't run these apps. the quad-core will just allow you to get your work done faster. in other words, the dual-core is suitable as a home pc. the quad-core is workstation class.

 

[keema]

if your choice is between the dual-core i7 mini and quad-core i7 mini server, and you work with any of the following apps:
final cut pro x
lightroom
aperture
photoshop
xcode
video transcoding apps

you'll be better off getting the quad-core i7 mini server. it's not even debateable. that's not to say the dual-core i7 can't run these apps. the quad-core will just allow you to get your work done faster. in other words, the dual-core is suitable as a home pc. the quad-core is workstation class.

Your working to these applications "all at once"? is that what you mean here?

or just running 2 or 3 apps + web browsing at the same time? --> if this is the scenario would both run it very smoothly or still the server would run it much better?

 

[brentsg]

If the software is single threading then the faster speed of the duo core has an advantage, also turbo runs to a higher speed. Not to mention that both the base and the server mini do not have a processor capable of virtual IO which is imprtant if you are doing virtualisation. And the latter is rapidly creeping in: if you have some software that only runs under windows then you'll want to run parallels......

Parallels will run just fine without VT-d. Besides, the CPU would need the support, but also the chipset, EFI, and Parallels itself would also need to line up.

It is unlikely that anyone will do enough serious VM work on a mini that this would be an issue anyways.

 

[MJL]

Parallels will run just fine without VT-d. Besides, the CPU would need the support, but also the chipset, EFI, and Parallels itself would also need to line up.

It is unlikely that anyone will do enough serious VM work on a mini that this would be an issue anyways.

VMware is used for some real serious work on a lot of platforms and even on the Mac mini. More money is daily on the line in virtual machines than what I suspect you'll earn in a lifetime. Parallels is for those people not an option - platform independence rules.

 

[brentsg]

VMware is used for some real serious work on a lot of platforms and even on the Mac mini. More money is daily on the line in virtual machines than what I suspect you'll earn in a lifetime. Parallels is for those people not an option - platform independence rules.

I understand the value of virtual machines. However, I do not view this subset feature as being particularly important on a consumer-level device such as the Mini.

VMWare and Parallels will work fine on a Mini today, regardless of the feature you are worried about. I use both VM and Parallels every day, sometimes 3-4 concurrent sessions on my Mac Pro, and I do not have VT-d.

The last time I looked, VT-d support was not available in either VM Fusion or Parallels for Mac. The last time I looked, even when VT-d support was included in the CPU for my Macbook Pro, the actual chipset being used did not support it. Even if it had been supported by the chipset, Apple would also have needed to turn it ON in EFI.

I haven't investigated the lastest versions of VM and Parallels, nor have I investigated the new Mini models. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't see VT-d as a feature on an Intel white paper and feel confident that you'll be using it. Nor should anyone view the absence of that feature as an indicator that VM Fusion or Parallels for Mac cannot be used.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blo...el-virtualization-technology-for-directed-io/

 

[iamthedudeman]

Just got my Quad Core Mac Mini Server set up yesterday and so far, lovin' it. The better AMD GPU wasn't even a concern since we (family) do all of our gaming on PS3 or XBox360.

Once I upgrade the Ram to 8GB and get a 5.25" USB enclosure for my LG BluRay drive and I'm all set....

If you don't plan on gaming, server all the way!

Still debating on the server model myself. I found out that in OSX if you use 8GB of ram the GPU HD 3000 will use 512 instead of the 384 with 4GB of ram.

 

[iamthedudeman]

Well. I have a MacBook Air 2011 i7 hooked up to a TBD. I don't game at all. OSX Lion is very graphical intensive just all by itself. Try running that on a TBD with a large pixel count and it does a good job mostly but it has some trouble with some things.

I use the Air most of the time on the road so it's not a big deal. Gave a 27 2.93 imac with SSD to a new employee at the office and I miss it already.

I love my MBA. But it is somewhat limiting by the 384MB of ram for the GPU. The Server does not have this problem if you 8GB ram or more for 512MB for the GPU so you should be okay.

 

[kappaknight]

I'm contemplating between the server or dual core models but want to make sure the server model will perform well enough for Plex and EyeTV, has anyone tried to otherwise care to chime in?

I'm running an 09 mini w/ Plex and it handles 1080p just fine. I'm pretty sure any of the 2011 models will do it without breaking a sweat.

 

[nikespex]

After viewing this thread back in September I purchased the mini server with a 27" thunderbolt display.

Annoyed that the server won't sleep automatically. Thinking about installing the non-server OS with hope my machine will sleep normally. Anyone know if that will work?

Also...
When viewing HD podcasts full screen the video freezes periodically, then resumes several seconds later. This only happens with HD podcasts (H.264 1280x720) such as "Diggnation" and only when played at or near fullscreen resolution. I'm wondering if the Intel HD 3000 is to blame? Anyone with the AMD Radeon graphics able to verify?

 

[FrankHahn]

I think it is the Intel graphics to be blamed! I use a 2011 Mac mini of 2.3 GHz i5 with a 27" Cinema Display at home and lags can be noticed when complex graphics is to be displayed.

 

[nREMfan]

Annoyed that the server won't sleep automatically. Thinking about installing the non-server OS with hope my machine will sleep normally. Anyone know if that will work?

I don't have that issue. Server sleeps as noted in the system prefs pane. Are you running Server Services? I have that turned off and running it as a desktop.

 

[shortcut3d]

After viewing this thread back in September I purchased the mini server with a 27" thunderbolt display.

Annoyed that the server won't sleep automatically. Thinking about installing the non-server OS with hope my machine will sleep normally. Anyone know if that will work?

Also...
When viewing HD podcasts full screen the video freezes periodically, then resumes several seconds later. This only happens with HD podcasts (H.264 1280x720) such as "Diggnation" and only when played at or near fullscreen resolution. I'm wondering if the Intel HD 3000 is to blame? Anyone with the AMD Radeon graphics able to verify?

I have no problem viewing MP4 backups of Bluray movies with the Intel HD 3000. These have a higher bit rate than a HD podcast and are at the native resolution of the Bluray movie (1920x1080).

 

[nikespex]

I have no problem viewing MP4 backups of Bluray movies with the Intel HD 3000. These have a higher bit rate than a HD podcast and are at the native resolution of the Bluray movie (1920x1080).

@Shortcut: Thanks. What software are you using to play the Bluray backups? And what is the resolution of your display?

@nREMfan: I disabled Lion Server per HT4827, but it seems some components are still running (I get email notifications from System Administrator when I reboot). What method did you use to remove Server?

 

[nREMfan]

@nREMfan: I disabled Lion Server per HT4827, but it seems some components are still running (I get email notifications from System Administrator when I reboot). What method did you use to remove Server?

I still get those, too. And turned off the services according to that document your referenced, as well.

FWIW, I downloaded 4 iTunes movie previews (1080p versions) and ran them at full screen. None of them showed any hiccups during playback. Of course, the clips ranged from 2-4 mins.

Are you running with 8GBs of RAM? That increases the video RAM "allowance" - maybe that's the difference?

 

[shortcut3d]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm using Quicktime (OSX) and Windows Media Player (Windows 7). I used DVDfab Bluray Copy to file then Handbrake normal profile. The Mac mini Server is the one in my signature. The Mac mini is connected to a 27" iMac.

 

[nikespex]

I still get those, too. And turned off the services according to that document your referenced, as well.

FWIW, I downloaded 4 iTunes movie previews (1080p versions) and ran them at full screen. None of them showed any hiccups during playback. Of course, the clips ranged from 2-4 mins.

Are you running with 8GBs of RAM? That increases the video RAM "allowance" - maybe that's the difference?

Yes, I'm running 8GBs of RAM. I just tried downloading some 1080p iTunes trailers and they play fine. The hiccups seem to happen with any of the Revision3 HD podcasts played at full screen. Anyone willing to test one of these podcasts and tell me if you get hiccups? If not, I'll head down to the Apple Store to test and report back.

BTW: Saw this post in the Apple forums about completely disabling Lion Server. Planning to give it a try to see if it gets rid of those email notifications.