mac mini vs intel imac

[digitalmatty]

Here is a quick question:

I have been using my mini to run photoshop, nothing intense, just for touch-ups, website stuff etc...

is my newly ordered intel imac with 2gigs of ram going to be worse, the same, or faster?

thanks everyone!
matt

 

[generik]

It should be better for most of your tasks, the recent barefeats benchmarks shows the Intel iMac lagging at about 50% of the speed of a dual core G5 in one particular photoshop benchmark, and going neck to neck with it in many others.

You should be quite pleased with your purchase overall

 

[shrimpdesign]

Like generik said, it'll be faster. Especially with maxxed 2GB RAM, you lucky Mac user you. I wish I had money for another gig in my new iMac ... gotta wait for that tax return.... : |

 

[FarSide]

For something like that, you don't even need to read reviews or look at benchmarks. Mac mini isn't even as good as the iMacG5 1.6GHz Rev.A and it was never meant to be!

 

[T-Stex]

For something like that, you don't even need to read reviews or look at benchmarks. Mac mini isn't even as good as the iMacG5 1.6GHz Rev.A and it was never meant to be!

I hate to burst your bubble here, but we're not talking about the 1.6GHz Rev. A iMac. While that computer may be faster than the Mini, that doesn't mean anything in this comparison. We're comparing the Mac Mini running Photoshop and other applications natively to an iMac Core Duo using Rosetta to run applications. In this case, the Mini will be faster, due to the fact that Rosetta slows things down so much.

 

[matperk]

Actually, the dual core G5 is very close in speed to the Intel iMac--there's a recent thread about this:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/136593/

Test ran in Adobe Photoshop CS.

Intel iMac (2Ghz Core Duo) w/ 2GB Ram & 256mb VRAM = 51 seconds
Power Mac G5 (Dual 2Ghz) w/ 4GB Ram & ATI 9600 128mb VRAM = 53 seconds

All I can say is... wow.

Mmmm. Photoshop CS2

Intel iMac 2GHz w/ 2GB Ram & 256 VRAM = 56 secs
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8Ghz w/ 2.5 Gb Ram & ATI X800XT 256 = 55 secs


OMG Does Cs2 add those extra 5 sec's... That's 5 sec's of my life I'm never going to get back... Added to the 15 that is takes me to write that I'm never going to get the 5... Added to the .... Aghhh stuck in a time loop

 

[Saturnine]

I should point that big Rosetta apps like Photoshop and Dreamweaver have a bit of a tendency to crash very often on the new Intel Macs - usually while working with multiple hi-res images or something else quite intensive.

I have a theory that it's related to the fact I only have 512MB RAM. While I know this *shouldn't* cause it to crash I'm pretty sure it has something to do with it.

 

[Lancetx]

Rosetta is a RAM hog, but with 2GB of RAM in an Intel iMac, PPC apps will still run faster than they will on any Mac mini. I recently upgraded myself from a 1.42GHz Mac mini to a 17" iMac Core Duo and the performance is much faster, even on apps that use Rosetta (once I upgraded my RAM from the standard 512MB).

 

[bigfib]

I should point that big Rosetta apps like Photoshop and Dreamweaver have a bit of a tendency to crash very often on the new Intel Macs -

Hey guys, if you don't know, why not just make it up??
So much rubbish talked around here.
Photoshop does NOT crash under rosetta, I used it solidly for the last month with 512 and it didn't crash once.
I now have my 1G upgrade and I can assure you and as long as you have at least 1G it will be *considerably* faster than a mac mini.
The benchmarks thread on this very forum shows it pretty close to a dual G5.... and that's running it *under* rosetta.
You should be well happy with your new machine digitalmatty. I certainly am.

 

[digitalmatty]

thanks for the help guys!

 

[yoda13]

Hey guys, if you don't know, why not just make it up??
So much rubbish talked around here.
Photoshop does NOT crash under rosetta, I used it solidly for the last month with 512 and it didn't crash once.
I now have my 1G upgrade and I can assure you and as long as you have at least 1G it will be *considerably* faster than a mac mini.
The benchmarks thread on this very forum shows it pretty close to a dual G5.... and that's running it *under* rosetta.
You should be well happy with your new machine digitalmatty. I certainly am.

It is possible that he is experiencing problems. Just because you aren't doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Instead of accusing him of being a liar, why don't you just say that in your experience that isn't the case?

 

[p0intblank]

Hey guys, if you don't know, why not just make it up??
So much rubbish talked around here.
Photoshop does NOT crash under rosetta, I used it solidly for the last month with 512 and it didn't crash once.
I now have my 1G upgrade and I can assure you and as long as you have at least 1G it will be *considerably* faster than a mac mini.
The benchmarks thread on this very forum shows it pretty close to a dual G5.... and that's running it *under* rosetta.
You should be well happy with your new machine digitalmatty. I certainly am.

Thanks for that sigh of relief. I may be getting an Intel iMac soon and I definitely do NOT want Photoshop crashing on me now and then.

 

[jacobj]

I hate to burst your bubble here, but we're not talking about the 1.6GHz Rev. A iMac. While that computer may be faster than the Mini, that doesn't mean anything in this comparison. We're comparing the Mac Mini running Photoshop and other applications natively to an iMac Core Duo using Rosetta to run applications. In this case, the Mini will be faster, due to the fact that Rosetta slows things down so much.

On what evidence. Several PS actions are on a par under Rosetta to the G5. But that does not mean that it is faster over all because it isn't as I have said many times (I did a little benchmarking an apple reseller). But the G5 iMac that was being compared is over 40% faster than a Mac Mini and the average Rosetta drop is about 40% (and that's 40% of a lesser number), so it will beat the Mac Mini.

 

[FarSide]

If you think that a Mac mini is faster then a Intel iMac your're dreaming as much as those guys, who think a Intel iMac is faster then any dual G5 2.0 GHz (dual-singlecore / dualcore). I won't post any benchmarks again in here. Accept the facts and get over it. Homemade tests are most times worthless! Why? Forget it if you don't know it...Oh yes a iMac G5 2.1 is faster then a Intel iMac if you dont use UB. Now do the math if you check the professional reviews/benchmarks. Stop posting those stupid homemade test please - they are useless...

 

[bigfib]

If you think that a Mac mini is faster then a Intel iMac your're dreaming as much as those guys, who think a Intel iMac is faster then any dual G5 2.0 GHz (dual-singlecore / dualcore). I won't post any benchmarks again in here. Accept the facts and get over it. Homemade tests are most times worthless! Why? Forget it if you don't know it...Oh yes a iMac G5 2.1 is faster then a Intel iMac if you dont use UB. Now do the math if you check the professional reviews/benchmarks. Stop posting those stupid homemade test please - they are useless...

Ooooooh. Get her.
They're not pointless if they let some poor guy who's worried about making a purchase have some idea how his new machine will perform.... mellow out.

Hey p0intblank, if you're really worried, why don't we do some stupid home-made tests and compare??
Why not base it around the test.jpg file elsewhere on these forums
(here) https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/174226/
But lets include some ohter stnadard parts of photoshop use.
Here's my figures from my 17" Intel Imac with 1.5 gigs so you can compare with your mac mini.
Must be after a restart opening photoshop for the first time.
1: Open Photoshop CS. (21 secs)
2: Open test.jpg (3secs)
3: 'radial blur' (54 secs)
(settings at: Amount = 100 Blur Method = Spin Quality = Best)
4:change image size to 10000 x 7500 (4 secs)
5: rotate 90° (3 secs).
6: Save As Test2.jpg, quality "highest". 44 secs. (now that seemed slow... hmmm).
Let me know how that compares to your mac mini.

 

[generik]

The 17" Intel iMac runs at 1.83Ghz right?

Anyway just did that test on my dual opteron (2Ghz) box running on Windoze, 48 seconds..

If the iMac performed so well I think I can imagine being very happy with the 2.0Ghz MBP.. Urgh.. temptation!

Just to add: I think the main hit from Rosetta comes from the load times, once loaded it's definitely pretty quick, but 21 seconds to load is quite a long wait.

 

[FarSide]

Why don't you just read reviews and look at benchmarks/test done by professionals?

Intel iMac Review:posted originally by risc in macrumors
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...-coreduo.ars/1

additional Intel iMac benchmarks:
http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

If a iMacG5 1.6GHz Rev.A is faster then a mac mini, you should be able to do the math, unless you want to trust the homemade coalition. BUT: Please format your HD on your old Mac - install the latest OSX 10.4 - update it - install Photoshop CS 2...

Try to do a semiprofessional test at least...

PS: There are many iMacG5 vs. Intel iMac [Rosetta] buying discussions - specially since you get nice discounts on "old" iMacG5's.

 

[bigfib]

Why don't you just read reviews and look at benchmarks/test done by professionals?

Why don't *you* just let people do whatever tests they want to do?
When did it become a crime for people here to fiddle about and compare?

 

[Saturnine]

Hey guys, if you don't know, why not just make it up??
So much rubbish talked around here.
Photoshop does NOT crash under rosetta, I used it solidly for the last month with 512 and it didn't crash once.
I now have my 1G upgrade and I can assure you and as long as you have at least 1G it will be *considerably* faster than a mac mini.
The benchmarks thread on this very forum shows it pretty close to a dual G5.... and that's running it *under* rosetta.
You should be well happy with your new machine digitalmatty. I certainly am.

How dare you accuse me of making things up.

I own several Intel iMacs with 512MB RAM and am speaking from experience. What do you expect me to do? You seriously need a lesson in how to present your point. If you don't agree with what I said then there are much better ways to put your views forward than accusing me of talking rubbish.

As I said, I am running multiple apps, and am working with hi-res images so our utilisations of our 512MB RAM could be quite different - so I am not talking rubbish. Perhaps you should learn to consider the different circumstances before you post. So, I'll say again that, for me, Photoshop DOES crash under Rosetta.

 

[bigfib]

How dare you accuse me of making things up.
I own several Intel iMacs with 512MB RAM .

Now why would anyone own *several* Intel Imacs with 512 MB???


Seriously though, sorry; no offence meant. I didn't read your post properly and didn't see that you had one (some).

I still wouldn't agree with the statement that "Photoshop crashes a lot under rosetta" as mine clearly doesn't, and nor does anyone elses I've read about, but I accept that your version of photoshop on your intel imac with your confirguration of software does.
That said, if you manage to find a repeatable crash scenario, I'm happy to do some tests with you and see if the same thing crashes mine.
Might help you narrow down the source of the problem.

 

[unixfool]

Why don't *you* just let people do whatever tests they want to do?
When did it become a crime for people here to fiddle about and compare?

No one said it was a crime, but the last thing this thread needs is more poorly done benchmarking with the testers 'verifying' that their benchmarks show that there's some underlying issue when there probably isn't. If there is an issue, I'd much rather believe someone who has professional experience with benchmarking.

Face it, not EVERYONE knows how to test and compare and still be unbiased, especially in these forums where there are daily clashes with the G4/G5/CD groups.

 

[FarSide]

... Unix(fool) - you hit the point ...

 

[bigfib]

... Unix(fool) - you hit the point ...

Ok, well, let's all just go home, leave the benchmarking to the professionals, other users specific questions unanswered, and people like you happily complaining about, erm, oh! Nothing at all.

 

[generik]

As does Golive on my machine too, Adobe programmers can't code for nuts. Stop blaming Apple, case closed.

Now why would anyone own *several* Intel Imacs with 512 MB???


Seriously though, sorry; no offence meant. I didn't read your post properly and didn't see that you had one (some).

I still wouldn't agree with the statement that "Photoshop crashes a lot under rosetta" as mine clearly doesn't, and nor does anyone elses I've read about, but I accept that your version of photoshop on your intel imac with your confirguration of software does.
That said, if you manage to find a repeatable crash scenario, I'm happy to do some tests with you and see if the same thing crashes mine.
Might help you narrow down the source of the problem.

 

[generik]

Ok, well, let's all just go home, leave the benchmarking to the professionals, other users specific questions unanswered, and people like you happily complaining about, erm, oh! Nothing at all.

Well, the professional test results might not be reflective of our "non professional" use either, anyway I find the test.jpg test to be quite indicative of speed.