Mini 2011 vs iMac 2011 for xcode

[mamcx]

I can't find benchmarks that compare the iMac vs Mac mini for compiling XCode project.

I have interest in:

21.5-inch: 2.5GHz
2.5GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5

vs

2.5GHz : 500GB
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5


and upgrade any of them to 8GB RAM or more.

I'm only concerned to have good performance to compiling with XCode. I *suspect* the diference between the two are not big, so my first inclination is the mini (I prefer a mate display, and the posibility to add SSD later look easier in the mini), but and the end development is what matter for me.

Any benchmarks for this case?

 

[walterp]

I can't find benchmarks that compare the iMac vs Mac mini for compiling XCode project.

I have interest in:

21.5-inch: 2.5GHz
2.5GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5

vs

2.5GHz : 500GB
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5

I'm only concerned to have good performance to compiling with XCode. I *suspect* the diference between the two are not big, so my first inclination is the mini (I prefer a mate display, and the posibility to add SSD later look easier in the mini), but and the end development is what matter for me.

Any benchmarks for this case?

Xcode uses all available cores for compiling, so a quad-core i5 will substantially outperform a dual-core i5. A quad-core iMac is probably at least 50% faster than a dual-core Mini for Xcode compiles.

If you want to get a Mini, get the server, which has a 2.0 GHz quad-core i7. (The difference in clock speed probably still gives a slight advantage to the iMac, but the server will be much faster than a dual-core Mini.)

.

 

[Tulpa]

Actually the server mini's CPU spanks the base iMac's in geekbench (9448 to 7241)

 

[Bearxor]

Actually the server mini's CPU spanks the base iMac's in geekbench (9448 to 7241)

Probably Hyperthreading. The i5's on the iMac's don't have it. All the Mini's do.

So you're looking at 4 threads vs. 8 threads.

 

[gooberlx]

Actually the server mini's CPU spanks the base iMac's in geekbench (9448 to 7241)

Probably Hyperthreading. The i5's on the iMac's don't have it. All the Mini's do.

So you're looking at 4 threads vs. 8 threads.

Depends on the specific scenario. Someone else was posting how Handbrake was getting slightly faster encodes on the base imac vs mini server, which I think is likely due to the slightly faster turbo clock on the base imac's 4 core/4 thread i5.

Nonetheless, if Xcode uses threading well, then I'd say the mini server may be a better bet vs the base imac. But I'd definitely take the base imac over the upgraded i5 mini. 4 cores/4 threads > 2 cores/4 threads, not to mention higher turbo clocks.

 

[handheldgames]

The slow 5400 Hard drive speeds @60mb/sec will kill you on compile times. The AMD graphics should help the simulator. Figure in a 750GB WD that can hit at least 120MB/sec. In all - you are adding $110 for the HD, $65 for RAM. Take that into account when comparing the iMac to the Mini.

 

[walterp]

Probably Hyperthreading. The i5's on the iMac's don't have it. All the Mini's do.

So you're looking at 4 threads vs. 8 threads.

Ah, didn't realize that. Then, yes, the Mini server should be much faster than the i5 iMac for compiles, and, more importantly for the OP's choice, the Mini's i5 with hyperthreading should be essentially equal to the iMac's i5 if it doesn't have hyperthreading.

 

[walterp]

The slow 5400 Hard drive speeds @60mb/sec will kill you on compile times.

That's not true; it will have hardly any effect at all. Except for some relatively unusual uses of Xcode, the speed of the disk doesn't matter at all. Xcode compiles are almost always CPU-bound, so having more cores/threads speeds up compiles dramatically, while having a faster drive (even an SSD) makes very little difference.

.

 

[mamcx]

Ok, sound good. Anyone can test it? I will buy the system from another country and the minis are not available in my city (only old models in some stores) so I can't compare it myself.

 

[jaykk]

Actually the server mini's CPU spanks the base iMac's in geekbench (9448 to 7241)

I got the Mac mini server for exactly for that reason, plus upgrading the Hard Disk seems to be easier on Mac Mini Server than iMac ( I can't imagine taking the glass out and putting it back together without any dust stuck in it)

The slow 5400 Hard drive speeds @60mb/sec will kill you on compile times. The AMD graphics should help the simulator. Figure in a 750GB WD that can hit at least 120MB/sec. In all - you are adding $110 for the HD, $65 for RAM. Take that into account when comparing the iMac to the Mini.

The Mac Mini Server comes with 7200rpm 500GB drives, it feels so much faster. But I am going to replace the main drive with a SSD.

I went with Mac Mini Server over iMac for the following reasons.
1. SSD replacement - The iMac have a temp sensor, plus its a pain open it up.
2. You can replace both hard disks to 1TB if you want. There are no temp sensors on either one
3. I already have couple of monitors (matte screens)