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

[Poki]

Well, you should be able to run games like Dragon Age 2, Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 on low-to-mid settings just fine. (I'm talking about a 1080p-Screen here - on a 1440p-Screen they may only run in low settings). Games like Metro 2033 however shouldn't run smooth.

As for App Store games - there are some "real" games on the App Store like Bioshock or Duke Nukem Forever. Both should run good in mid-to-high settings. So these are no problem, at least this year. More demanding games next year or even 2014 may be a problem, though.

Oh, and here you can find graphical benchmarks about the HD6630M, which should be adequate for your Mini (for games you play on OSX, take 10fps off - the graphic drivers on OSX aren't too great for games). Just scroll down to the game benchmarks.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M.43839.0.html

 

[McRocket]

Well, you should be able to run games like Dragon Age 2, Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 on low-to-mid settings just fine. (I'm talking about a 1080p-Screen here - on a 1440p-Screen they may only run in low settings). Games like Metro 2033 however shouldn't run smooth.

As for App Store games - there are some "real" games on the App Store like Bioshock or Duke Nukem Forever. Both should run good in mid-to-high settings. So these are no problem, at least this year. More demanding games next year or even 2014 may be a problem, though.

Oh, and here you can find graphical benchmarks about the HD6630M, which should be adequate for your Mini (for games you play on OSX, take 10fps off - the graphic drivers on OSX aren't too great for games). Just scroll down to the game benchmarks.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M.43839.0.html

Thank you.

What Apple computer would I need (iyo) to play the best Mac App store games at their highest settings?

 

[Poki]

Thank you.

What Apple computer would I need (iyo) to play the best Mac App store games at their highest settings?

Well, both the 15" MacBook Pro and any iMac with the HD6750 should be adequate for gaming. Right now only the High-End iMac with its HD6970 is future proof for gaming, but the others are certainly good enough for casual gamers.

 

[McRocket]

Well, both the 15" MacBook Pro and any iMac with the HD6750 should be adequate for gaming. Right now only the High-End iMac with its HD6970 is future proof for gaming, but the others are certainly good enough for casual gamers.

Thanks.

I have read that the HD6970 (as good as it is) has trouble with the huge screen size (27") on some games.
Or is that just probably referring to really top games played on full settings?

I am beginning to understand why people have been telling me all these years that Mac's are not that good for gaming.

It seems they all lack truly great, gaming video 'chips'...even the top ones.

That is too bad (if true).

 

[Poki]

I'd say that this isn't true anymore. Look how thin a MacBook Pro is. Look how small a Mac Mini is. I can guarantee you that you won't find as small/thin computers with better CPUs and/or graphic cards. The thing is just that there is no space for better cards.

Other in the iMac. There is plenty of space, and they use it wisely. The HD6970 was the fastest Single-Core GPU available when the iMac was last refreshed. It's a GREAT card! Just look at these benchmarks:

http://www.notebookcheck.com/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43076.0.html

However, the HD6970 is expensive, so they fit it only in the top model. Oh, and no, it has no flaws when playing on the 27" screen, but some poorly coded games have problems with it. The only two games this card can't run on full resolution an max details are Metro 2033 (poorly coded) and Crysis (great graphics), but that's it.

As for the HD6750, it's also very capable of playing most to all current games on high settings.

http://www.notebookcheck.com/AMD-Radeon-HD-6750M.43836.0.html

It's enough for 98% of Mac users. And don't expect much more graphics power in the next update. This simply is the best compromise between size, prize and power usage (heat).

In the end, you must know how important gaming is to you and which Mac you choose based on this.

 

[McRocket]

I'd say that this isn't true anymore. Look how thin a MacBook Pro is. Look how small a Mac Mini is. I can guarantee you that you won't find as small/thin computers with better CPUs and/or graphic cards. The thing is just that there is no space for better cards.

Other in the iMac. There is plenty of space, and they use it wisely. The HD6970 was the fastest Single-Core GPU available when the iMac was last refreshed. It's a GREAT card! Just look at these benchmarks:

http://www.notebookcheck.com/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43076.0.html

However, the HD6970 is expensive, so they fit it only in the top model. Oh, and no, it has no flaws when playing on the 27" screen, but some poorly coded games have problems with it. The only two games this card can't run on full resolution an max details are Metro 2033 (poorly coded) and Crysis (great graphics), but that's it.

As for the HD6750, it's also very capable of playing most to all current games on high settings.

http://www.notebookcheck.com/AMD-Radeon-HD-6750M.43836.0.html

It's enough for 98% of Mac users. And don't expect much more graphics power in the next update. This simply is the best compromise between size, prize and power usage (heat).

In the end, you must know how important gaming is to you and which Mac you choose based on this.

That maybe so...but for $2G's?!?

It sounds like the 2.5 with 8G RAM (aftermarket) is the way to go and I will PC for higher end gaming.

Thanks for your help, though.

 

[217833]

If you want something freaking fast... swap the HDD for a SSD. You can even have a small 120GB SSD for the system and a larger 500 or 750GB for the storage.

That would definitely help

PS: What I also mean is that a SSD vs. a HDD will improve so much more your system than a Quad vs. a Dual Core.

I have an iMac i3, 3.2 GHz, 8GB, 2TB which is slower than a simple MacBookPro Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz, 8GB... because the MBP has a Vertex III 120GB SSD. Booting time is 12 seconds and I generally don't wait more than 2 seconds for any applications: iTunes, iPhoto, Word, etc... whatever I click on, I count 1, 2, it's there, where I do have to wait 5, 6, sometimes even 8 seconds on my iMac, which definitely has a more powerful CPU.

 

[McRocket]

If you want something freaking fast... swap the HDD for a SSD. You can even have a small 120GB SSD for the system and a larger 500 or 750GB for the storage.

That would definitely help

PS: What I also mean is that a SSD vs. a HDD will improve so much more your system than a Quad vs. a Dual Core.

I have an iMac i3, 3.2 GHz, 8GB, 2TB which is slower than a simple MacBookPro Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz, 8GB... because the MBP has a Vertex III 120GB SSD. Booting time is 12 seconds and I generally don't wait more than 2 seconds for any applications: iTunes, iPhoto, Word, etc... whatever I click on, I count 1, 2, it's there, where I do have to wait 5, 6, sometimes even 8 seconds on my iMac, which definitely has a more powerful CPU.

Yes...SSD sounds better and better every day.

 

[chrwil]

Which is best for multiple VMs?

This is a very helpful thread... but unfortunately I have leaned one way and then the other as I've read the roughtly 200 posts...

I'm not a heavy video creater so speed doing this occasionally isn't an issue. And I'm not a gamer at all. But I do need to run multiple VMs concurrently - including one with Windows 7 (I have not been able to escape completely yet!). My most demanding applications are big spreadsheets (Excel) and databases (Access) and that has pushed me towards the 2.7 dual core but the multiple VM thing keeps pushing me back towards the 2.0 quad core.

I'm currently running OS X Lion on my 2010 13" MBA with two VMs (using VMware Fusion) for Win7 and Linux. And it is responsive enough so I guess that either the 2.7 i7 dual core or the 2.0 i7 quad core is going to do ok. But which is going to be *better* for the multi-VM environment and give me more flexibility over the next 3 years or so?

I do know that RAM is going to be a factor. I'd like to go above 8G and some of the comments suggest that 16G is possible using third-party modules. I'd really appreciate actual experience here. Does it work with both the regular Mac Mini and the server version? What manufacturer/modules have been proven to work?

Thanks, Chris

 

[philipma1957]

This is a very helpful thread... but unfortunately I have leaned one way and then the other as I've read the roughtly 200 posts...

I'm not a heavy video creater so speed doing this occasionally isn't an issue. And I'm not a gamer at all. But I do need to run multiple VMs concurrently - including one with Windows 7 (I have not been able to escape completely yet!). My most demanding applications are big spreadsheets (Excel) and databases (Access) and that has pushed me towards the 2.7 dual core but the multiple VM thing keeps pushing me back towards the 2.0 quad core.

I'm currently running OS X Lion on my 2010 13" MBA with two VMs (using VMware Fusion) for Win7 and Linux. And it is responsive enough so I guess that either the 2.7 i7 dual core or the 2.0 i7 quad core is going to do ok. But which is going to be *better* for the multi-VM environment and give me more flexibility over the next 3 years or so?

I do know that RAM is going to be a factor. I'd like to go above 8G and some of the comments suggest that 16G is possible using third-party modules. I'd really appreciate actual experience here. Does it work with both the regular Mac Mini and the server version? What manufacturer/modules have been proven to work?

Thanks, Chris

samsung 16gb works in a mac mini

crucial 16gb works in a mini

geil 16gb works in a mini

corsair 16gb works in a mini



some links


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233217

20% off promo code EMCNFNG48, ends 4/9


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220621

$10 off w/ promo code EMCNFND93, ends 4/8

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231531



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148469

I owned the corsair the geil and the gskill. I also owned samsung and elpida. If you buy this ram run this test


http://kelleycomputing.net/rember/



it is a free download. use all ram and 5 passes takes about 3 to 4 hours. run it the day you put it in as newegg will only replace the ram for 30 days after 30 days you must go to the manufacturer.


I have had good luck with the 14 or 16 sticks I have purchased , but 1 set was bad. Since I tested it the first day I got it replacing was easy.

 

[rw3]

I can confirm that the Patriot that philipma1957 linked on NewEgg does indeed work in the 2011 Mini (All models).

 

[MJL]

This is a very helpful thread... but unfortunately I have leaned one way and then the other as I've read the roughtly 200 posts...

I'm not a heavy video creater so speed doing this occasionally isn't an issue. And I'm not a gamer at all. But I do need to run multiple VMs concurrently - including one with Windows 7 (I have not been able to escape completely yet!). My most demanding applications are big spreadsheets (Excel) and databases (Access) and that has pushed me towards the 2.7 dual core but the multiple VM thing keeps pushing me back towards the 2.0 quad core.

I'm currently running OS X Lion on my 2010 13" MBA with two VMs (using VMware Fusion) for Win7 and Linux. And it is responsive enough so I guess that either the 2.7 i7 dual core or the 2.0 i7 quad core is going to do ok. But which is going to be *better* for the multi-VM environment and give me more flexibility over the next 3 years or so?

I do know that RAM is going to be a factor. I'd like to go above 8G and some of the comments suggest that 16G is possible using third-party modules. I'd really appreciate actual experience here. Does it work with both the regular Mac Mini and the server version? What manufacturer/modules have been proven to work?

Thanks, Chris

there are some vm specific functions that the duo core mid mac mini 2011 CPU offers and are not offered in either the server or the base mac Mini CPU's and that may or may not be important to you. You may want to investigate the Intel CPU specifications. I never got Parallels to work properly yet VMware worked straight out of the box like a charm.

 

[DustinT]

there are some vm specific functions that the duo core mid mac mini 2011 CPU offers and are not offered in either the server or the base mac Mini CPU's and that may or may not be important to you. You may want to investigate the Intel CPU specifications. I never got Parallels to work properly yet VMware worked straight out of the box like a charm.

If you are referring to hyperthreading, that's easily replaced with the two real cores on the Quad Core.

----------

This is a very helpful thread... but unfortunately I have leaned one way and then the other as I've read the roughtly 200 posts...

I'm not a heavy video creater so speed doing this occasionally isn't an issue. And I'm not a gamer at all. But I do need to run multiple VMs concurrently - including one with Windows 7 (I have not been able to escape completely yet!). My most demanding applications are big spreadsheets (Excel) and databases (Access) and that has pushed me towards the 2.7 dual core but the multiple VM thing keeps pushing me back towards the 2.0 quad core.

I'm currently running OS X Lion on my 2010 13" MBA with two VMs (using VMware Fusion) for Win7 and Linux. And it is responsive enough so I guess that either the 2.7 i7 dual core or the 2.0 i7 quad core is going to do ok. But which is going to be *better* for the multi-VM environment and give me more flexibility over the next 3 years or so?

I do know that RAM is going to be a factor. I'd like to go above 8G and some of the comments suggest that 16G is possible using third-party modules. I'd really appreciate actual experience here. Does it work with both the regular Mac Mini and the server version? What manufacturer/modules have been proven to work?

Thanks, Chris

I'm a VMware VSP and VTSP and I can tell you from personal knowledge, there's no replacement for ram and cpu cores when you are talking about virtualization. I'd strongly recommend you look at the quad core with a 16g ram upgrade.

If your VM's are just for personal use you'll be fine with the on board storage but if you decide to get into running a lot of VM's or you need more performance from your drives then you can get from the internals, you should consider some of the lower end Thunderbolt options. They will delivery plenty of i\o performance and will represent a significant upgrade from the 2 x 500g 2.5" drives it ships with. Those are basically notebook drives, so they aren't going to be fast when compared to most anything else. But, I'd wait and cross that bridge when you get to it. I suspect you'll be just fine with what's on board *if* you do the ram upgrade to 16g.

 

[Roy G Biv]

I take it that for a Joe Schmoe wanting to hook up to an aging 27" iMac, the dedicated graphics would likely be of greater use for all those pixels?

Just average stuff like Chrome with loads of tabs, iTunes, and Hulu/Netflix.

 

[Poki]

I take it that for a Joe Schmoe wanting to hook up to an aging 27" iMac, the dedicated graphics would likely be of greater use for all those pixels?

Just average stuff like Chrome with loads of tabs, iTunes, and Hulu/Netflix.

For the stuff you use a Mini is more than powerful enough. The screen size and pixel count isn't too important as long as you don't want to play newer games. OSX with a 27" Display needs about 120 MB VRAM and not really much graphics power, so you should be fine with just about any current Mac out there.

 

[T4R06]

Get the duo and put 16gb of ram. If you plan triple monitors you can do it. Plus eyefinity is amazing

 

[alexkywalker]

...and upgrade to a better gpu is possible via T-bolt if ever needed

Can you elaborate on this? I am very curious.

 

[philipma1957]

Can you elaborate on this? I am very curious.

(gpu via t-bolt)

that was hinted at but has turned out to be a no go as of today

 

[alexkywalker]

:-(

That stinks

 

[CausticPuppy]

there are some vm specific functions that the duo core mid mac mini 2011 CPU offers and are not offered in either the server or the base mac Mini CPU's and that may or may not be important to you. You may want to investigate the Intel CPU specifications. I never got Parallels to work properly yet VMware worked straight out of the box like a charm.

I'm using Virtualbox for a Windows XP instance and it works great. Maybe not as slick or fast as Parallels, but it's hard to argue with free.


The quad core does support hardware virtualization (VT-x). It doesn't have Trusted Execution.

 

[roguel]

Mini server i7 quad runs hot at only 15% load

Have been using the mini server i7 quad as HTPC for a while now and get more and more annoyed by the fan noise. I use eyeTV and when watching HD the CPU load is only 15-18%, however the cpu runs 85C and the fan ramps up to 5200rpm. (data from istat)

Is this normal? I see people complaining about high temps under full load but this is hardly "full load"...

Anyone suggestions?

 

[Poki]

Have been using the mini server i7 quad as HTPC for a while now and get more and more annoyed by the fan noise. I use eyeTV and when watching HD the CPU load is only 15-18%, however the cpu runs 85C and the fan ramps up to 5200rpm. (data from istat)

Is this normal? I see people complaining about high temps under full load but this is hardly "full load"...

Anyone suggestions?

The server model has a quad core CPU and 7200 rpm hard drives - two factors that heavily increase heat from the other models. So if the other models get hot, it seems normal that the server gets hotter (and louder). However, this seems a bit much. Does it have sufficient space to get new air?

If yes, hopefully somebody who owns the current server model can answer the question more complete.