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

Mac Mini vs. Mac Pro

colin.dunn said:
Wow, thanks to everyone who responded. Combining feedback from another thread, this is a summary of responses:

Mac Pro (5 votes)
-Upgradable
-Fast, multi-thread performance
-GeForce 7300 should be replaced
-Relatively old machine
-Requires a lot of power, generates a lot of heat

Mac Mini (7 votes)
-RAM runs faster (1333ghz v 800mhz)
-Scores higher on Geekbench (6515 v 5000)
-Uses less power
-One year of AppleCare
-Thunderbolt
-Not really upgradable

I think I will go with the Mini :)
Click to expand...

Probably the 'right' choice. I would recommend the i7 upgrade though.

good luck
JohnG
 
Prodo123 said:
A MacBook Pro 15" 2011 outperforms a 2010 Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from, and which model against which model?

Maybe in generic benchmarks, but once we tax the gpu it's a different story. There is more to a machine than a processor. That 2006 Mac Pro with 16+ gb ram, an ati 5770 and an ssd raid will work better for CS5 etc. than a new Mini.

Prodo123 said:
Heat
The Mac Pro has an inefficient, outdated, big-die Xeon processor, but has a better cooling system. The Mac Mini has a cool, efficient, small-die Sandy Bridge, but early adopters are saying that it has some heat issues. But due to the sie, the Mac mini will ultimately have a cooler average temperature.
Click to expand...

Nope, due to the size AND propper cooling a Mac Pro runns way cooler than the other tightly cramped together Macs.

That said, since the machine the OP mentioned comes without much upgrades and taking into account the energy consumption the Mini might indeed be the better choice.
 
Are you using a current version of CS? I think that's the first factor. The new Mini won't do Rosetta so if you have an older CS suite, then the Mac Pro will be the better choice as it would actually run the software.

If you're on a current version of CS though, the Mac Mini just makes a lot more sense. Warranty alone is worth it's weight in gold. If the logic board in an old Mac Pro ends up getting shot, the price to replace it is most likely not worth it in the grand scheme of things.

The expandability as far as photo editing goes is kinda pointless IMHO. The video card options for a Mac Pro 1,1 are a little limited. CS is primarily CPU based with a little GPU acceleration so really, the modern iX series CPU is a better bet.
 
colin.dunn said:
Interesting. Why would you suggest the i7? I thought it was only an option for the server mini.
Click to expand...

because the i7 is faster than the i5.
the $799 mini can be configured with an i7. check the online apple store

the server version is a quad-core whereas the one we're talking about is a dual-core with discrete gfx

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Prodo123 said:
Because of this possibility, expandability and upgradeability cannot be argued.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your in-depth response. I especially appreciated your insight on TB: I hadn't thought about it in terms of upgradability, which was one of the primary arguments in favor of a Mac Pro.

sporadicMotion said:
Are you using a current version of CS?
Click to expand...

Yep. Running CS5.

—

While I have your attention, what are your thoughts on paying the $100 to upgrade from an i5 to an i7 on the mini? Worth it?
 
saulinpa said:
I migrated yesterday from a loaded 2x3.0GHz dual core Xeon Mac Pro to the stock 2.5 mini. It is noticeably slower for everyday tasks.:( May be the 4GB ram or it may be Lion. I really need to get the 8GB upgrade on order.

That being said the mini should be more than enough for Adobe products.

I do see that running the CPU cores at 100% causes it to really pump hot air out the back. Definitely hotter than my previous minis.
Click to expand...

An SSD will make the biggest difference in everyday tasks (writing from experience).

edit: oh, I see now that was already suggested.
 
colin.dunn said:
Thank you for your in-depth response. I especially appreciated your insight on TB: I hadn't thought about it in terms of upgradability, which was one of the primary arguments in favor of a Mac Pro.



Yep. Running CS5.

—

While I have your attention, what are your thoughts on paying the $100 to upgrade from an i5 to an i7 on the mini? Worth it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a bit faster but will you notice the difference? Probably not. It's not that big of a difference.
 
colin.dunn said:
While I have your attention, what are your thoughts on paying the $100 to upgrade from an i5 to an i7 on the mini? Worth it?
Click to expand...

I pondered this myself since last night...The consensus seems to be that the performance gains are minimal (going by benchmarks of Windows notebooks with that i7 dual core) and probably won't be very noticeable. So today I went ahead and ordered the 2.5GHz i5! It entered prepared for shipment pretty much immediately. Apple is shipping these out fast.
 
chaosbunny said:
Where did you get that from, and which model against which model?

Maybe in generic benchmarks, but once we tax the gpu it's a different story. There is more to a machine than a processor. That 2006 Mac Pro with 16+ gb ram, an ati 5770 and an ssd raid will work better for CS5 etc. than a new Mini.

.
Click to expand...

Honestly, i highly doubt a new macbook pro outperforms my mac pro hex unit. I might be wrong and if i am, i might be looking at those instead for power purposes, but my mac pro geekbenches 16k+, and i havent seen that number from any other unit apple offers...
 
chaosbunny said:
Where did you get that from, and which model against which model?

Maybe in generic benchmarks, but once we tax the gpu it's a different story. There is more to a machine than a processor. That 2006 Mac Pro with 16+ gb ram, an ati 5770 and an ssd raid will work better for CS5 etc. than a new Mini.
Click to expand...

Photoshop DOES NOT TAX THE GPU! The only programs that actually give a workout for the GPU are video editors (FCP) and games. Therefore the GPU is not really important to the OP.

And I got this from: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2011/20110303_1-MacBookProTests--reviews.html
Notice these are NOT Geekbench or any other benchmark scores; this is real-life importing into Lightroom speeds. The MBP quad-core rivals last year's hex core Mac Pro, and beats the quad-core Mac Pro. Also notice the RAM capacities.

@OP It might be more worth it for you to simply get an iMac 21". For 400 bucks more you get a big screen, better cooling, quad-core, free keyboard & mouse, and easy expandability.
 
Prodo123 said:
@OP It might be more worth it for you to simply get an iMac 21". For 400 bucks more you get a big screen, better cooling, quad-core, free keyboard & mouse, and easy expandability.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but there are currently 2011 iMac refurbs for $1,019.00+tax. OP, if you're cool with the glossy screen, this may be the best route. Much better performance for the money :cool:.
 
I can't believe this thread even got as many posts as it did.

That is an ANCIENT MacPro.

Unless you're running a huge database that would be serving thousands of requests and would need the disk speed and memory capability OR, you're going to use it primarily as a gaming machine and want to upgrade the video card, avoid that MacPro.
 
Bearxor said:
I can't believe this thread even got as many posts as it did.

That is an ANCIENT MacPro.

Unless you're running a huge database that would be serving thousands of requests and would need the disk speed and memory capability OR, you're going to use it primarily as a gaming machine and want to upgrade the video card, avoid that MacPro.
Click to expand...

I think your post sells the Pro over the Mini. Yeah, you can run a huge DB; it can be a gaming machine; you can upgrade video cards, add internal RAID controllers . . . as for TB . . . PCI express card someday soon?
 
The i7 Quad server is almost as fast as my 2009 MP 3.33 Quad in geekbench... You loose all the internal storage and video card upgrades that the MP brings... Still that's hell fast for $1k!
 
handheldgames said:
The i7 Quad server is almost as fast as my 2009 MP 3.33 Quad in geekbench... You loose all the internal storage and video card upgrades that the MP brings... Still that's hell fast for $1k!
Click to expand...
Wow nice. What result is your Mac Pro in geekbench? And are Mac Pros big? They're so expensive though :( One of my Windows laptops has 1537 points in geekbench but it's 30 months old.
 
dolphin842 said:
Not only that, but there are currently 2011 iMac refurbs for $1,019.00+tax. OP, if you're cool with the glossy screen, this may be the best route. Much better performance for the money :cool:.
Click to expand...

The 2011 server mini's quad core i7 spanks the iMac's quad core i5 though, has double the HDD space, and costs $20 less than that refurb. The iMac's GPU is better but that doesn't appear to be an issue in this case.
 
Tulpa said:
The 2011 server mini's quad core i7 spanks the iMac's quad core i5 though, has double the HDD space, and costs $20 less than that refurb. The iMac's GPU is better but that doesn't appear to be an issue in this case.
Click to expand...

Yep exactly, the i7 Quad in the mini is a beast
 
Jayrcee said:
Are you sure the new Mini goes up to 16GB ram? I thought it was only 8GB.
Click to expand...

Apple may or may not support 16GB in the Mini (I didn't look it up, tbh) but OWC has tested the two x 8GB setup - and so I used their figure. I used OWC for the Mac Pro max RAM as well, to compare Apples to Apples (pun intended).

@ OP - as Bearxor says - you appear to looking at an ancient Mac Pro. For $800 it had better come completely specced out, or it's a lot of money for a machine that could end up needing repairs soon.

There is conflicting information on whether TB will be possible with a drop-in PCI card. The last official word I read from Intel was that it won't be possible, but that may have been amended by now. A new-ish Mini or iMac with Thunderbolt will be nearly as expandable as a Mac Pro (at least as far as Photoshop is concerned.)

And contrary to an earlier post, maxing out the RAM will give you much more of performance boost than an SSD. PS only goes to the scratch disk for operations it can't run in RAM, at least as far as I understand it. RAM is always faster than SSDs.
 
colin.dunn said:
I think I will go with the Mini :)
Click to expand...
And in a year when the Mini is considered slow by the newer standards, you will spend more money replacing it than you would by just upgrading components in the Mac Pro. Just something to think about.

However if the smaller form factor of the Mac Mini is more important to you, then the mini is a great choice.
 
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