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

Obviously it depends on what you are using your machine for as to which mini might be best. Perhaps I missed it but I don't see people blindly choosing one option over another but rather sharing thier experience or recommendation based on someone's question which describes the "what" to some degree.

As to the faster processor having an advantage if you are using single threaded software, that's only true if you are also single tasking. Same for the turbo advantage, which only exists if you are using a single core. If you are running multiple single threaded applications, the OS will spread the load across threads/cores and depending on how many simultaneous threads you have running the slower processor with more cores can still have an advantage.

As to virtualization, I'm not aware of any Mac/OSX/VM software/hardware combination that supports virtual IO. Yet VMware fusion and parallels both run great on the platform so not really sure how critical this feature is. When running multiple VMs extra cores sure come in handy for performance though as each VM can have its own core.

I'm curious about what you call the 29/59 issue. You mention it and go so far as calling the CPUs defective as a result but don't describe what it is or how it might manifest itself. Please enlighten us.
 
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.

Half of the apps you listed can also offload work to the GPU. What data have you gathered that lets you determine the extra cores are better than the GPU and GDDR ram added to the equation? Unless we have benchmarks of tasks on each config then I don't think it's fair to make these generalizations.
 
It's great to see a forum with all this detailed info.
But for all the Mini users, I have been researching for a while, I would like your thoughts. I'm looking for recommendations as to which model to buy.
I am not a high power user, but I routinely buy more machine than I need. It just makes me feel better knowing I have it, even if I'm never going to use it.
This will be my first Mac of any kind.
I will be using it as a desktop, mainly for web browsing, itunes, watching online videos, and minimal photo editing (like cropping, brightness/contrast, scratch/noise removal) most likely Photoshop Elements. Hooked to a single 24" 1080p monitor, possibly a second one later. The machine will however be in use many hours of the day, but none of the use should be very taxing.
Please keep in mind with your recommendations that I like having more machine that I need. Price is not a factor, the difference is only $50, for that small an amount, the only concern is which is a better machine.
I have narrowed it down to the following choices:

Mac Mini
i7 upgraded to 2.7GHz Dual Core
750GB Hard Drive upgrade
Non-Apple RAM upgrade to 8GB
$1049 before RAM upgrade & taxes

Mac Mini Server
i7 2.0GHz Quad Core
Upgrade to Dual 750GB Hard Drives
Non-Apple RAM upgrade to 8GB
$1099 before RAM upgrade & taxes

A separate question:
I doubt I'll ever fill 1 750GB Hard Drive, on the sever model, can the second Hard Drive be run as a Clone in case of failure of one Hard Drive?

Finally: I appreciate any help, but please don't tell me either machine will be fine, or that one or the other or both are more than I need, that won't help me make my decision.
Thanks in advance for any help.
 
It's great to see a forum with all this detailed info.
But for all the Mini users, I have been researching for a while, I would like your thoughts. I'm looking for recommendations as to which model to buy.
I am not a high power user, but I routinely buy more machine than I need. It just makes me feel better knowing I have it, even if I'm never going to use it.
This will be my first Mac of any kind.
I will be using it as a desktop, mainly for web browsing, itunes, watching online videos, and minimal photo editing (like cropping, brightness/contrast, scratch/noise removal) most likely Photoshop Elements. Hooked to a single 24" 1080p monitor, possibly a second one later. The machine will however be in use many hours of the day, but none of the use should be very taxing.
Please keep in mind with your recommendations that I like having more machine that I need. Price is not a factor, the difference is only $50, for that small an amount, the only concern is which is a better machine.
I have narrowed it down to the following choices:

Mac Mini
i7 upgraded to 2.7GHz Dual Core
750GB Hard Drive upgrade
Non-Apple RAM upgrade to 8GB
$1049 before RAM upgrade & taxes

Mac Mini Server
i7 2.0GHz Quad Core
Upgrade to Dual 750GB Hard Drives
Non-Apple RAM upgrade to 8GB
$1099 before RAM upgrade & taxes

A separate question:
I doubt I'll ever fill 1 750GB Hard Drive, on the sever model, can the second Hard Drive be run as a Clone in case of failure of one Hard Drive?

Finally: I appreciate any help, but please don't tell me either machine will be fine, or that one or the other or both are more than I need, that won't help me make my decision.
Thanks in advance for any help.

That's a tough questin to answer only given the information you provided. How long do you plan to keep you mini before replacing it? How close will you be working to the mini and how sensitive are you to noise?

I ask because I expect the desktop mini will feel a bit snappier but will run warmer so possibly more fan noise. Longer term as more apps are able to use Multi cores the server may gain a speed advantage.

As to using the second drive in the server as a clone or backup, you can sure do that but unless you are comfortable changing out a drive yourself which it seems apple made purposely difficult, it's still going to mean some down time and a service call to get back on track.
 
That's a tough questin to answer only given the information you provided. How long do you plan to keep you mini before replacing it? How close will you be working to the mini and how sensitive are you to noise?

I ask because I expect the desktop mini will feel a bit snappier but will run warmer so possibly more fan noise. Longer term as more apps are able to use Multi cores the server may gain a speed advantage.

As to using the second drive in the server as a clone or backup, you can sure do that but unless you are comfortable changing out a drive yourself which it seems apple made purposely difficult, it's still going to mean some down time and a service call to get back on track.

I plan on keeping the mini for 2-3 years.
From what I've read so far, noise doesn't seem like it will be an issue with either machine, but if both were equal, I'd take the more quiet.
As for second drive cloning, it's just an idea, not a plan, nothing that needs to be worried about relating to the bigger question of which machine to buy.
I'm much more interested in picking which machine will be better.
By better I mean fastest, most reliable, and with the most options for future uses.
 
I plan on keeping the mini for 2-3 years.
From what I've read so far, noise doesn't seem like it will be an issue with either machine, but if both were equal, I'd take the more quiet.
As for second drive cloning, it's just an idea, not a plan, nothing that needs to be worried about relating to the bigger question of which machine to buy.
I'm much more interested in picking which machine will be better.
By better I mean fastest, most reliable, and with the most options for future uses.

Well I have the dual 2.7 i7 mini with a 256 SSD only. Quiet, completely silent most of the time. Forgot about a HD as a boot drive. A SSD is well worth the money and more improtant than any processor. A i5 2.3 base mini with a SSD will be faster in most tasks than even the quad server with a HD.

I will never but a HD in any of my computers ever. The mechanical drive is going the way of the dinosaur and if you plan to keep your machine for a few years, get the SSD.

If you put a HD in the mini be prepared for a little noise. They are still somewhat quiet, but compared to a SSD, it's like night and day. No noise at all. The fan speed on the dual runs about 1800rpm compared to 2200 rpm for the quad. Less fan speed equals silence. The GPU is better than the quad and can take advantage of Open GL applications.

With thunderbolt there really is no need for a internal HD if you are using a display with HDMI or if you want dual displays. Thunderbolt HDs can be daisy chained, for as much storage as you could possibly want.

The 2.7 will be faster than the 2.0 quad in single and dual threaded tasks. The quad server will be faster in highly threaded tasks. Which will you be doing more of?

Pay attention to the 13 inch 2.7 i7 and the 15 inch quad 2.3 i7 which is much faster than the 2.0 15 inch and the 2.0 mac mini server. Same exact processors as the high end mini and quad server but the mac book pro in the tests is using the 2.3 i7 not the 2.0 i7 and the 13 inch 2.7 dual fares very well. But the only difference is that the high-end dual has a discreet GPU the 13 inch mac book pro does not.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge
 
Last edited:
Half of the apps you listed can also offload work to the GPU. What data have you gathered that lets you determine the extra cores are better than the GPU and GDDR ram added to the equation? Unless we have benchmarks of tasks on each config then I don't think it's fair to make these generalizations.

No, the work they offload to the gpu is minimal in OSX.

Edit: Found an earlier thread
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1259002/
 
Last edited:
No, the work they offload to the gpu is minimal in OSX.

Edit: Found an earlier thread
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1259002/

That thread has good info from adobe saying it does indeed use the GPU but then one post where one guy says it doesn't. This is not really proof that there isn't enough work offloaded to the GPU that the combination of faster clock speed and the second proc doesn't have a net gain.


The poster saying that they (GPUs and openCL) are only good for 3D apparently doesn't get the entire goal of the openCL concept which is to leverage this processor FOR NON-3D processing. Not saying that photoshop isn't doing 3d work with it, but the premise remains the same.
 
That thread has good info from adobe saying it does indeed use the GPU but then one post where one guy says it doesn't. This is not really proof that there isn't enough work offloaded to the GPU that the combination of faster clock speed and the second proc doesn't have a net gain.


The poster saying that they (GPUs and openCL) are only good for 3D apparently doesn't get the entire goal of the openCL concept which is to leverage this processor FOR NON-3D processing. Not saying that photoshop isn't doing 3d work with it, but the premise remains the same.
I know it does since I found the info. Unfortunately Adobe's info shows that the gpu is only used for very few operations. The whole point is that the CPU is relied upon for the majority of processing.

I think you'll find that the posters fully understand the concept of OpenCL. The reality is very different in terms of software actually leveraging it at this point in time.
 
So I guess what I am reading if you are gaming avoid the Base 2.3 and Quad Server, and go with 2.5 or 2.7 Mid level.

I have the base but it sucks at playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4, laggy.

My question is with the Mid level with discrete GPU does the 256 MB ram go to 512 when you upgrade to 8GB or system Ram?

I read somewhere that it does, and also it will show up to 768 at times, but not sure.

Thinking of ditching the 2.3 on eBay and getting the 2.7 Mid Level with Discrete, since I use it for Ripping, Gaming and everything else, also going to start moving home movies from Camcorders to DVD and iMovie.
 
Wicked1, I am also interested in this even though I do not run games.

As far as I know adding RAM will not increase the available VRAM when a discrete GPU is being used. But I can say that adding 8GB RAM to a Mac with an Intel HD3000 integrated GPU will increase the VRAM from 384MB to 512MB.

Since I haven't added more than 8GB RAM I do not know that adding more RAM than that will increase the available VRAM. I haven't found anything online regarding an increase over 512MB VRAM when RAM is upgraded to 12GB or more. If that was the case one would expect some chatter on the subject on the Macrumors forums.

Hopefully someone will chime-in who knows more about this subject.
 
Wicked1, I am also interested in this even though I do not run games.

As far as I know adding RAM will not increase the available VRAM when a discrete GPU is being used. But I can say that adding 8GB RAM to a Mac with an Intel HD3000 integrated GPU will increase the VRAM from 384MB to 512MB.

Since I haven't added more than 8GB RAM I do not know that adding more RAM than that will increase the available VRAM. I haven't found anything online regarding an increase over 512MB VRAM when RAM is upgraded to 12GB or more. If that was the case one would expect some chatter on the subject on the Macrumors forums.

Hopefully someone will chime-in who knows more about this subject.

When I went from 8gb to 16gb the ram allocated to video stayed at 512
 
So, after reading past posts, I'm still looking for advice. Somewhere I read that I should avoid the Intel 3000 like the plague if I'm intending to do video rendering and such.
What I want to do is use EyeTV to transfer all my VHS family movies to DVD for my kids.
Will I be better off with the mid level Mini 2.5GHz with AMD graphics, or the Server 2.0GHz quad though it has the Intel 3000, assuming I'd upgrade the RAM on either one to 16MB?
And is it worth upgrading for resulting performance no matter which one I get?

Then there's the other question--is a new model going to come out any day, or not likely? I'm guessing it's not likely given that the new TV thing is keeping everyone busy....
 
My question is with the Mid level with discrete GPU does the 256 MB ram go to 512 when you upgrade to 8GB or system Ram?
.

No. A discrete GPU has it's own memory. No matter how much RAM you put in your machine, you will not increase it's allocated memory (since the Memory is not coming from the System RAM).

----------

Also my .02 worth...

I have the Base Mini. It's a fine machine, but I wish I would have spent the extra 300 and gotten the 2.7ghz i7 mid range model. I do a lot in excel which is very single threaded, so faster cores is better for me. Further, the Base Mini only allows me to use 2 monitors where as the Discrete GPU allows you to use 3+ monitors which would be more preferred my needs (I like to have my spreadsheets open on one screen, my coding software on another, and the web site I'm playing with on another). At this point I am waiting until Ivy Bridge at which point I will move my Base to server only functions (replace one of my aging 2006/2007 Mac Minis) and buy (hopefully) a discrete GPU based Ivy Bridge Mac Mini....
 
Wicked1, I am also interested in this even though I do not run games.

As far as I know adding RAM will not increase the available VRAM when a discrete GPU is being used. But I can say that adding 8GB RAM to a Mac with an Intel HD3000 integrated GPU will increase the VRAM from 384MB to 512MB.

Since I haven't added more than 8GB RAM I do not know that adding more RAM than that will increase the available VRAM. I haven't found anything online regarding an increase over 512MB VRAM when RAM is upgraded to 12GB or more. If that was the case one would expect some chatter on the subject on the Macrumors forums.

Hopefully someone will chime-in who knows more about this subject.


Correct. The AMD 6630 uses GDDR5 memory, which is much much faster than system memory. This makes the two hard to compare, and I have seen that some believe the HD3000 with 8gb ram (bringing graphics memory to 512) is faster than the AMD6630, because it only has 256mb. The speed of the memory is more important than the amount available.:)
 
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)

MacSkagit said:
So, after reading past posts, I'm still looking for advice. Somewhere I read that I should avoid the Intel 3000 like the plague if I'm intending to do video rendering and such.
What I want to do is use EyeTV to transfer all my VHS family movies to DVD for my kids.
Will I be better off with the mid level Mini 2.5GHz with AMD graphics, or the Server 2.0GHz quad though it has the Intel 3000, assuming I'd upgrade the RAM on either one to 16MB?
And is it worth upgrading for resulting performance no matter which one I get?

Then there's the other question--is a new model going to come out any day, or not likely? I'm guessing it's not likely given that the new TV thing is keeping everyone busy....

The Mac mini server is a beast at encoding. Plus, if you find software that supports Intel Quicksync you will see huge gains. Mostly this would be in bootcamp Windows 7.
 
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)



The Mac mini server is a beast at encoding. Plus, if you find software that supports Intel Quicksync you will see huge gains. Mostly this would be in bootcamp Windows 7.

By Beast, I hope you mean awesome, not pitiful, since I just bought it!

Are there better apps than EyeTV and iDVD/iMovie to accomplish the task of converting VHS tapes to DVDs? Last time I did it, it seemed that I needed to know in advance how long the VHS was in minutes. Any way around this?
 
By Beast, I hope you mean awesome, not pitiful, since I just bought it!

Are there better apps than EyeTV and iDVD/iMovie to accomplish the task of converting VHS tapes to DVDs? Last time I did it, it seemed that I needed to know in advance how long the VHS was in minutes. Any way around this?

I just shipped it to you . {I think}


shortcut3d knows his stuff.

you'll like the machine. this site is good a lot of info on how to use mini's.

phil
 
I just shipped it to you . {I think}


shortcut3d knows his stuff.

you'll like the machine. this site is good a lot of info on how to use mini's.

phil

Thanks phil... I hope I know a little something being a Computer Forensics Director and .NET Enterprise Application developer.

By beast, I mean beast like muscle cars are beasts. So very good. The 2011 Mac mini deserves a good analogy to muscle cars with 8 threads vs V8, small case vs two door :)

----------

By Beast, I hope you mean awesome, not pitiful, since I just bought it!

Are there better apps than EyeTV and iDVD/iMovie to accomplish the task of converting VHS tapes to DVDs? Last time I did it, it seemed that I needed to know in advance how long the VHS was in minutes. Any way around this?

EyeTV is the best application I know for analog to digital. Converting DVD's is best done with makeMKV and Handbrake. The Windows side has a bunch of options for authoring home video easily from arcsoft and cyberlink. Hauppauge also makes hardware similar to EyeTV to help convert analog to digital on the Windows side. I use bootcamp for a majority of my video compression because the community is bigger or easier to access. Little things like metadata tagging, etc. just have better applications (for example: MetaX for Windows is significantly faster than the OSX version).
 
Thanks phil... I hope I know a little something being a Computer Forensics Director and .NET Enterprise Application developer.

By beast, I mean beast like muscle cars are beasts. So very good. The 2011 Mac mini deserves a good analogy to muscle cars with 8 threads vs V8, small case vs two door :)

----------



EyeTV is the best application I know for analog to digital. Converting DVD's is best done with makeMKV and Handbrake. ...

First, thanks for weighing in with your factual opinion.
Alas, I don't do windoze and never will, so can you point me out the sequence of how this has to work with OS X software? Convert with EyeTV, then what is the most efficient sequence? I note that EyeTV needs to know how long the tape will be. Any quick way to determine this short of watching the whole thing and timing it? After that conversion, what is needed to get to burning the DVD? Do I need to use iMovie to make titles, or is there an easier way?
Thanks....
And yes Phil, I bought your server.
 
Unfortunately, I can not help you with converting analog video to digital. I'm just familiar with the hardware from Elgato (aka EyeTV).
 
Hi all - I am trying to decide which Mac Mini to buy.

What I use it for (please excuse the fact that I am semi-computer illiterate):

- web surfing (extensive with multiple sites open at once)
- watching videos - primarily YouTube, Netflix, iTunes
- some gaming - mostly Mac Apps but also some decent non-App games
- substantial video uploading and downloading - though I store most of these on separate hard drive
- little or no photo editing

My priorities are:

- obviously being able to do all of the above
- Have the computer good for a solid 2-3 years
- QUIET operation


I am leaning towards a 2.7 i7 with a 256 SSD (and add RAM later)?

Or should I get a 2.0 Quad i7 with a 256 SSD (and add RAM later) - though I read it is noticeably louder due to running the fan more?

BTW - right now I am running an Acer desktop with an AMD 9600 2.3 Quad and 8 G's of RAM and it does everything I want just fine - I just want to have an Apple.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
@McRocket: Don't throw away your money! For your task, the 2,5 GHz model is more than enough! As for gaming: Which games do you play? Just with the word "decent" it's hard to tell if the 6630M is able to run it.

As for SSD - why don't you buy a 128GB one and store everything else on an external HDD? I mean, 128 is enough for your software. This could save you another 100.
 
@McRocket: Don't throw away your money! For your task, the 2,5 GHz model is more than enough! As for gaming: Which games do you play? Just with the word "decent" it's hard to tell if the 6630M is able to run it.

As for SSD - why don't you buy a 128GB one and store everything else on an external HDD? I mean, 128 is enough for your software. This could save you another 100.

Thank you.

I do not have particular games in mind as I currently play almost all my non-App store games on my PS3.

I guess I mean games that are middle-of-the-road in requirements.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.