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

Mac Mini or iMac

H

here2rock

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 23, 2012
170
0
Australia
I am trying to decide between Mac Mini and the iMac.

iMac seems a better value when you combine the cost of the display, keyboard and magic mouse, plus iMac has a much better video card than the Mac Mini.

I am just wondering what kind of resolution can Mac Mini output?

I have an old DELL 24'' Ultrasharp 2407WFP, can the Mac Mini be hooked to it? The Monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1200.
 
The decision also depends on your computational needs, which have not stated yet.

As for the Mac mini and the biggest resolution it can output, that is 2560 x 1600 pixel via the Mini DisplayPort and 1920 x 1200 pixel via the HDMI port.
 
here2rock said:
I am trying to decide between Mac Mini and the iMac.

iMac seems a better value when you combine the cost of the display, keyboard and magic mouse, plus iMac has a much better video card than the Mac Mini.

I am just wondering what kind of resolution can Mac Mini output?

I have an old DELL 24'' Ultrasharp 2407WFP, can the Mac Mini be hooked to it? The Monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

If you already have a monitor + keyboard + mouse/trackpad, the Mac mini offers much better value. The i7 mini is very competitive to the iMacs. Obviously the lack of a discrete GPU in the mini might not work for some people that need that for gaming or work. But for the vast majority of people the Intel HD 4000 will be just fine. There are many on here that are still able to do video and photo editing with the Intel HD 4000. Despite rumors, it isn't made of string cheese.

While iMac is a nice all in one design for some, each time you want to upgrade you need a whole new iMac which can become cost prohibitive for some. With the mini, once you have a monitor + keyboard + mouse/trackpad, all you need to do is upgrade the mini. If you sell you computer after a few years for a loss of ~40-50%, it is much easier to swallow ~40-50% the price of a mini than a iMac.

Despite what you might thing, a mini is more computer than the vast majority of people need. If you are gaming, you shouldn't be on here anyways and should build a custom PC gaming machine.

----------
simsaladimbamba said:
and the biggest resolution it can output, that is 2560 x 1600 pixel via the Mini DisplayPort and 1920 x 1200 pixel via the HDMI port.
Click to expand...

Isn't HDMI 1920x1080?
 
53x12 said:
[/COLOR]

Isn't HDMI 1920x1080?
Click to expand...

Actually no. You are confusing HDMI with HD formats. Since the "dawn" of HDMI, it has always supported up to 1920 x 1200, but no televisions have ever supported that resolution (since no content is provided in that resolution), so we end up with 1080P. However, if you have a computer monitor that can do 1920 x 1200 and an HDMI port (or an HDMI to DVI cable) then you can feed it to full resolution no problem....

Wikipedia my friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#Version_comparison
 
"I have an old DELL 24'' Ultrasharp 2407WFP, can the Mac Mini be hooked to it? The Monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1200."

The Dell will work fine with the Mini -- is it still in good condition?

If you already have a USB keyboard and mouse, you can use them, too. Just plug them in.

I've been a Mac user since 1987 (if that means anything), and I've never cared for ANY of the Apple USB-based keyboards or mice.

Having said that, if you get a Mini, spend the extra money for the 2.6ghz i7. DON'T buy Apple RAM - much cheaper if you buy it yourself, and it's easy to install.

Whether you want the fusion drive will be up to you.

I just got my own Mini set up in the last couple of days. Found a nice deal on a 180gb IBM 520 series SSD. I decided to not open the Mini to try to install it (at least while the Mini is still under warranty). I'm currently using a USB2/SATA "docking station" -- I'll soon replace with a USB3 enclosure which should significantly increase boot and file transfer times. (but for now, it's still fine)
 
Fishrrman said:
Having said that, if you get a Mini, spend the extra money for the 2.6ghz i7. DON'T buy Apple RAM - much cheaper if you buy it yourself, and it's easy to install.
Click to expand...

While the 2.6 i7 is nice, the 2.3 i7 plus an extra $100 to spend towards 16GB RAM is a much better option for most people. Unless of course you need that extra 10% boost.
 
cheezeit said:
Got a link? Seems interesting but is the over all going to be more than the iMac?
Click to expand...


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci-express-graphics-thunderbolt,3263.html




clbenchmark_thunderbolt.png


luxmark_thunderbolt.png


sandra_thunbderbolt.png


You are only going to get 150W out of it.
 
Last edited:
53x12 said:
Yup. It can be very cost prohibitive for most people. But as time goes on, the cost is bound to drop. As with all technology.
Click to expand...

So is the CPU the same in the mac mini and iMac? IE quad core CPU's and not one thats weaker like the mba vs mbp vs rmbp
 
cheezeit said:
So is the CPU the same in the mac mini and iMac? IE quad core CPU's and not one thats weaker like the mba vs mbp vs rmbp
Click to expand...

The CPU in mini (Compared to the i5 iMacs) is actually stronger, because it supports multithreading (also note all the CPUs Turbo Boost to the same speed).
 
cheezeit said:
So is the CPU the same in the mac mini and iMac? IE quad core CPU's and not one thats weaker like the mba vs mbp vs rmbp
Click to expand...

The Mac mini uses notebook CPUs, the i5 in there is a dual core CPU with Hyperthreading, the i7 is a quad core with Hyperthreading.
The iMac uses desktop CPUs, the i5 in there is a quad core CPU without Hyperthreading, the i7 is a quad core CPU with Hyperthreading.

Nate392 said:
The CPU in mini (Compared to the i5 iMacs) is actually stronger, because it supports multithreading (also note all the CPUs Turbo Boost to the same speed).
Click to expand...

Mac Benchmarks by Geekbench

6633 points for the 2012 i5 Mac mini
9531 points for the 2012 i5 iMac
10731 / 11625 points for the 2012 i7 Mac mini
12364 / 12886 points for the 2012 i7 iMac

All in all, the Mac mini is pretty fast, but an i5 in an iMac is faster than an i5 in a Mac mini, and an i7 in an iMac is faster than an i7 in a Mac mini.
 
Thank you everyone.

My old Dell monitor is very good and I still love it very much.

Mac Mini with i7 is two hundred dollars more expensive, it's appeal as a small affordable package start to reduce. Is there a much between i7 and i5 when you are only using it for general use only?

I don't plan to do gaming on it but will be doing some video editing and run Photoshop on regular basis.

Doesn't i5 runs a little cooler than i7? Cooling is also very important for stable running of your computer.

----------
simsaladimbamba said:
T
All in all, the Mac mini is pretty fast, but an i5 in an iMac is faster than an i5 in a Mac mini, and an i7 in an iMac is faster than an i7 in a Mac mini.
Click to expand...

Very interesting reading those scores that Late 2012 Mac Mini scores more than the mid 2011 iMac. Has the CPU technology improved so much? It is not even so far behind the new iMac even though it is only a laptop version of the CPU.
 
53x12 said:
If you sell you computer after a few years for a loss of ~40-50%, it is much easier to swallow ~40-50% the price of a mini than a iMac.

Despite what you might thing, a mini is more computer than the vast majority of people need. If you are gaming, you shouldn't be on here anyways and should build a custom PC gaming machine.
Click to expand...


Very valid points. I do not intend to use it as a gaming machine as I have a PC (with a GTX 670 video card) and gaming consoles. I just wanted another PC just for work, video and photo editing . I also intended to sync my iPhones and iPads with it. Can it really maintain a resale value of 40-50% after few years.

----------
Fishrrman said:
I'm currently using a USB2/SATA "docking station" -- I'll soon replace with a USB3 enclosure which should significantly increase boot and file transfer times. (but for now, it's still fine)
Click to expand...

Is that custom made?
 
paulrbeers said:
Actually no. You are confusing HDMI with HD formats. Since the "dawn" of HDMI, it has always supported up to 1920 x 1200, but no televisions have ever supported that resolution (since no content is provided in that resolution), so we end up with 1080P. However, if you have a computer monitor that can do 1920 x 1200 and an HDMI port (or an HDMI to DVI cable) then you can feed it to full resolution no problem....

Wikipedia my friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#Version_comparison
Click to expand...

Thank you for this.:)
 
simsaladimbamba said:
The Mac mini uses notebook CPUs, the i5 in there is a dual core CPU with Hyperthreading, the i7 is a quad core with Hyperthreading.
The iMac uses desktop CPUs, the i5 in there is a quad core CPU without Hyperthreading, the i7 is a quad core CPU with Hyperthreading.



Mac Benchmarks by Geekbench

6633 points for the 2012 i5 Mac mini
9531 points for the 2012 i5 iMac
10731 / 11625 points for the 2012 i7 Mac mini
12364 / 12886 points for the 2012 i7 iMac

All in all, the Mac mini is pretty fast, but an i5 in an iMac is faster than an i5 in a Mac mini, and an i7 in an iMac is faster than an i7 in a Mac mini.
Click to expand...

Interesting... never heard of a i5 with hyperthreading. thought only the i7 did hyper threading.
 
cheezeit said:
Interesting... never heard of a i5 with hyperthreading. thought only the i7 did hyper threading.
Click to expand...

Thats what I always thought, but all the laptop i5 processors have hyper-threading, but they only have 2 cores, most the desktop i5 processors do not have hyper-threading, but most have 4 cores. Notice the "most", very confusing (Intel Processor Comparison).

Obviously, both running 4-threads, but 4 cores each with a dedicated thread is better than 2-cores each with 2 logical threads (e.g. hyper-threads).
 
here2rock said:
I thought the extra cores were only useful for gaming and high graphic demanding applications.
Click to expand...

The extra cores are useful for any application being able to use those cores, which are not only games or graphic demanding applications, but those are the two favourites to be listed almost all the time.

For your stated needs, the Mac mini will be fine, but if you have the budget, you can always buy an iMac.
 
here2rock said:
I thought the extra cores were only useful for gaming and high graphic demanding applications.
Click to expand...

Try encoding some video using handbrake, you will see those cores being utilized. I have a 2007 iMac that needs upgrading, takes about 15-20+ hours to encode video for my appleTV from a blueray, my Intel Core 2 Duo cores(2) are pegged the entire time.
 
bbucy said:
Try encoding some video using handbrake, you will see those cores being utilized. I have a 2007 iMac that needs upgrading, takes about 15-20+ hours to encode video for my appleTV from a blueray, my Intel Core 2 Duo cores(2) are pegged the entire time.
Click to expand...

What would be the time difference on i5 and i7?
 
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