Mac Mini vs. Mac Pro

[japtor]

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.

On the other hand it depends which components will need to be upgraded, like CPU or GPU options may be limited and possibly pricey. The mini could have better resale value in a year too, so upgrading the machine (by swapping it entirely) may not be a huge financial hit.

The form factor becomes a matter if you want to keep the old machine around. Mac minis can pretty much be used for anything and be discreet about it (like HTPC, file server, etc) since they're so compact...not so much with Mac Pros. They're just excessive both size and power wise for secondary use.

Go for the mini its a little powerhouse of a machine. The only thing I wish it had are 2 front usb ports.

Belkin should make a new version of this thing to fit the new model.

 

[sporadicMotion]

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.

I really think that would only really apply against newer Mac pro. 1,1 is just too old for any great upgrades. Yeah you could get a bit faster CPU but one could easily sell a mini and buy the latest with a similar cost.

 

[flopticalcube]

The i7 mini is only faster than the iMac if you can take advantage of ht. If you can't, the iMac will be faster.

 

[iCheddar]

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.

The thing of it is though is that there isn't very far for that Mac Pro to go since it's so old. It can't be updated to the newest GPUs, and adding more ram only goes so far. He'll end up spending just as much time and money trying to track down compatible parts as he would selling the mini and buying a new one.

 

[Tulpa]

The i7 mini is only faster than the iMac if you can take advantage of ht. If you can't, the iMac will be faster.

I don't use CS5 at all, but I'd be very surprised if it doesn't hyperthread. A processor-intensive piece of software like that better do everything it can to increase performance.

 

[ryanide]

interesting thread

I have a 2006 Mac Pro that I use for my main computer. Over the years I have loaded it up with 16GB RAM, Blu-Ray DVD and just put in an SSD to speed it up. I have a 2TB drive as my main storage drive (separate from my OS drive) and store my iTunes media on a 10TB NAS.

I found that the RAM upgrade in this machine from 8GB to 16GB made almost no difference in actual usage.

I know that the newer machines are faster, but in real world usage this beast is a reliable workhorse. The downside it that it does generate quite a bit of heat (with 4 HDs) and along with my monitors it does suck power (as someone else noted like a bulimic at a buffet).

That said I am planning on buying the new mac mini server, but it will be used a server and the Mac Pro will remain my main desktop. I don't like to have my mac pro running all the time just so I can stream iTunes to my TV. So the server will share my iTunes library as well as run my home automation software. I will use Remote Desktop from the Mac Pro to operate the mini server which will be in the closet with the NAS.

Keeping the Mac Pro as my main desktop allows me to rip Blu-Rays to the HD and then I can offload the files to the mini server to run Handbrake on them. Also, the mac pro supports both 27" ADC and a 22" Cinema Display (one Glossy, one Matte) which is really nice for image editing (Aperture and PS) as well as Dreamweaver.

 

[flopticalcube]

I don't use CS5 at all, but I'd be very surprised if it doesn't hyperthread. A processor-intensive piece of software like that better do everything it can to increase performance.

It's a mixed bag. Sometimes it's slower, http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Photoshop-CoresSlower.html but Adobe says it's faster, usually, http://forums.adobe.com/thread/806048?tstart=0.

 

[j-banana]

Neither of the two coz if you do so you wont have flexibility to upgrade either way. Its either you spend a little bit more on a better machine or waste your $800 on a machine that will frustrate you more.

 

[derbothaus]

It's geekbench people. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[philipma1957]

It's geekbench people. It doesn't mean anything.

Geekbench is mostly a cpu guide. If you encode , run handbrake etc it has a lot of meaning.

a 10min 1080p cartoon clip "big buck bunny" takes about 5 minutes with a mac pro hex 3.2 geekbench is 15500 the same clip takes 22 minutes with a 2009 mac mini geekbench of 4000 the 2011 base 2.3ghz mac mini with a geek bench of 6000 does the clip in 14 minutes

 

[derbothaus]

Thanks for the common sense. Did you know cpu's crunch 1's and 0's?

 

[johnnymg]

Interesting. Why would you suggest the i7? I thought it was only an option for the server mini.

The i7 dual-core is available on the higher end mini. Lots more umph for a little more money:
http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html