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

Mini's faster than 2012 imacs?

I

iamthedudeman

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 7, 2007
1,460
338
The mac mini is not really 'mini' in power. For 799, you can get a 2.3 I7 that is faster than all stock imacs. I was quite surprised on the Mac mini refresh. Why would Apple put better processors in the mid range and server as standard issue than the stock imacs?

How can anyone complain about a %20 decrease in GPU power when the CPU power actually doubled on the mid range model and has a increase of %35 on the server model. That goes up with the i7 2.6 to %40. That is a insane increase and the biggest update this year to any lineup regardless of price.

We are getting the same internals as the RMBP save for the GPU !

I ordered a 2012 mini with 2.6 i7 , 256 SSD, crucial ram 16GB for $80.00. That machine is faster than any 2011 imac and as fast as the i7 2012 imac 27. Lookup the benchmarks for the retina MBP which has the same processor the 2.6 i7.

leaked imac 2012 benchmark 32 bit.


http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/657744


2.6 retina 32 bit and 64 bit.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/840104

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1198797
 
iamthedudeman said:
The mac mini is not really 'mini' in power. For 799, you can get a 2.3 I7 that is faster than all stock imacs. I was quite surprised on the Mac mini refresh. Why would Apple put better processors in the mid range and server as standard issue than the stock imacs?

How can anyone complain about a %20 decrease in GPU power when the CPU power actually doubled on the mid range model and has a increase of %35 on the server model. That goes up with the i7 2.6 to %40. That is a insane increase and the biggest update this year to any lineup regardless of price.

We are getting the same internals as the RMBP save for the GPU !

I ordered a 2012 mini with 2.6 i7 , 256 SSD, crucial ram 16GB for $80.00. That machine is faster than any 2011 imac and as fast as the i7 2012 imac 27. Lookup the benchmarks for the retina MBP which has the same processor the 2.6 i7.


http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1198797

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/657744

leaked imac 2012 benchmark 32 bit.

2.6 retina 32 bit.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/840104
Click to expand...

Minis will be highly interesting when stackable to Skynet proportions.

For now, a mid range mini in the living room tv is about enough.
 
iamthedudeman said:
The mac mini is not really 'mini' in power. For 799, you can get a 2.3 I7 that is faster than all stock imacs. I was quite surprised on the Mac mini refresh. Why would Apple put better processors in the mid range and server as standard issue than the stock imacs?
Click to expand...

To paraphrase many other posters here, i7-3770 or better plus GTX 660 or better or no buy. No 3.5" drive bay = no buy.

Comparing the current mini to the current iMac is like looking for a cargo hauler and comparing the bicycle to the moped while ignoring the pick-up they're both parked in.

They're both underpowered laptop hardware that has no business being in a desktop computer.
 
Oracle1729 said:
To paraphrase many other posters here, i7-3770 or better plus GTX 660 or better or no buy. No 3.5" drive bay = no buy.

Comparing the current mini to the current iMac is like looking for a cargo hauler and comparing the bicycle to the moped while ignoring the pick-up they're both parked in.

They're both underpowered laptop hardware that has no business being in a desktop computer.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear: You say a 3,4 GHz Ivy Bridge quad core Core i7 CPU and a GeForce GTX 680MX is "underpowered notebook hardware"? Just because something wears the notebook tag doesn't mean it's underpowered or bad at all.

The same goes for the Mini - a 2,3 GHz quad-core Core i7 is more than most people will ever need during the lifespan of a Mini, and just about enough for all but the most extreme power users.
 
Poki said:
Just to be clear: You say a 3,4 GHz Ivy Bridge quad core Core i7 CPU and a GeForce GTX 680MX is "underpowered notebook hardware"? Just because something wears the notebook tag doesn't mean it's underpowered or bad at all.

The same goes for the Mini - a 2,3 GHz quad-core Core i7 is more than most people will ever need during the lifespan of a Mini, and just about enough for all but the most extreme power users.
Click to expand...

As you note, the GeForce GTX 680MX is a notebook processor. Compare the performance to the 680 at the same price. Or compare the performance to the 660 at 1/3rd the price. On a desktop, why should you take such a huge performance hit and pay extra for it to boot?

And saying it's all the power you need for the lifespan of the computer is so silly. The lifespan ends when the computer can no longer do the job. So put a proper desktop CPU in the mini and it will have a much longer lifespan at the same price. Of course it will still offer all the power most people will ever need during the lifespan of the mini.

you throw around "most people". "Most people" put their desktop computer on their desk when they get it and then don't move it for years. Why does anyone care if it's a few fractions of an inch thinner?

By your logic, why should anyone ever upgrade? My 2.26 GHz C2D mini will run ML just fine. So what if apps load a bit slower, it's not quite as responsive as it should be switching desktops. Most users won't even know the difference. Why do you want to squeeze in the minimal performance Apple can get away with when much more powerful hardware is the same price in desktop versions. It's right in the name. Desktop.

The point is you're buying a desktop computer that still weighs well over 20 pounds. Why in the world does anyone think it's a good idea to take the performance hit and pay price premiums to get notebook components all to make it a few percent smaller and lighter. It's still sitting on your desk not being moved!
 
Oracle1729 said:
As you note, the GeForce GTX 680MX is a notebook processor. Compare the performance to the 680 at the same price. Or compare the performance to the 660 at 1/3rd the price. On a desktop, why should you take such a huge performance hit and pay extra for it to boot?

And saying it's all the power you need for the lifespan of the computer is so silly. The lifespan ends when the computer can no longer do the job. So put a proper desktop CPU in the mini and it will have a much longer lifespan at the same price. Of course it will still offer all the power most people will ever need during the lifespan of the mini.

you throw around "most people". "Most people" put their desktop computer on their desk when they get it and then don't move it for years. Why does anyone care if it's a few fractions of an inch thinner?

By your logic, why should anyone ever upgrade? My 2.26 GHz C2D mini will run ML just fine. So what if apps load a bit slower, it's not quite as responsive as it should be switching desktops. Most users won't even know the difference. Why do you want to squeeze in the minimal performance Apple can get away with when much more powerful hardware is the same price in desktop versions. It's right in the name. Desktop.

The point is you're buying a desktop computer that still weighs well over 20 pounds. Why in the world does anyone think it's a good idea to take the performance hit and pay price premiums to get notebook components all to make it a few percent smaller and lighter. It's still sitting on your desk not being moved!
Click to expand...

The thing is you can't fit desktop parts inside a Mini or even the new, thinner iMacs, so why are we talking about this? I can understand Apple - they want to offer beautiful machines and don't care so much about the price, and I understand the customers - I would never put a tower on or even under my desk. A Mini simply looks cool, is relatively cheap to upgrade to a newer generation and is plenty fast for many people.

I like a clean setup, and whenever I can save an inch on my desk, I'm happy. I also bought the B&W MM-1 speakers partly for their tiny footprint - something cheaper, possible as good speakers can't provide me.
 
Poki said:
The thing is you can't fit desktop parts inside a Mini or even the new, thinner iMacs, so why are we talking about this? I can understand Apple - they want to offer beautiful machines and don't care so much about the price, and I understand the customers - I would never put a tower on or even under my desk. A Mini simply looks cool, is relatively cheap to upgrade to a newer generation and is plenty fast for many people.
Click to expand...

So, you can make the boxes thicker. Apple makes a stupid design decision and now it's a fundamental property of the universe and we can't even discuss outside that misshapen box? Will a mini twice as thick on your desk really look that bad, at 4 times the power with a 3TB HD and an SSD?

Apple offers ugly scrawny little things. Apple has anorexia. Their computers are so thin they're ugly already and they keep throwing out essentials to make them even thinner and uglier.

Why would you never put a tower under your desk? Out of sight it's less clutter than a mac mini on your desk would be. Why do you want to keep upgrading to a newer generation mac mini that still can't compete with destop hardware from 2 generations ago?
 
Oracle1729 said:
So, you can make the boxes thicker. Apple makes a stupid design decision and now it's a fundamental property of the universe and we can't even discuss outside that misshapen box? Will a mini twice as thick on your desk really look that bad, at 4 times the power with a 3TB HD and an SSD?

Apple offers ugly scrawny little things. Apple has anorexia. Their computers are so thin they're ugly already and they keep throwing out essentials to make them even thinner and uglier.

Why would you never put a tower under your desk? Out of sight it's less clutter than a mac mini on your desk would be. Why do you want to keep upgrading to a newer generation mac mini that still can't compete with destop hardware from 2 generations ago?
Click to expand...

Now we're talking about the Mac Midi, something Mac users (and I) want for years now, knowing that Apple is never going to give it to us -- at least since the overpriced G4 Cube.

And the current Mini can compete with two year old desktop hardware in the back then same price league - in this time, Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge got released, two substantial upgrades.

I simply hate the look of most towers. They're either the "gamer" style, which attracts too much attention, or the plain-and-stupid grey/black box design which honestly looks terrible. If someone could provide a tower about triple the size of the Mini with a nice design and OSX, I'd buy it. But as things look now, the Mini is the best option.
 
In the scale of least powerful to most powerful is it:

i7 Mac Mini -> i7 21" iMac -> 17 27" iMac

?

Would the i7s in the iMacs be noticeably snappier than the Mac Mini version? I've got moderate CPU needs for audio work.

I get the feeling the mini's i7 to 21" i7 might not be too noticeable, but by the 27" you're pulling away significantly.
 
MetzoPaino said:
In the scale of least powerful to most powerful is it:

i7 Mac Mini -> i7 21" iMac -> 17 27" iMac

?

Would the i7s in the iMacs be noticeably snappier than the Mac Mini version? I've got moderate CPU needs for audio work.

I get the feeling the mini's i7 to 21" i7 might not be too noticeable, but by the 27" you're pulling away significantly.
Click to expand...

You may be about right. But keep in mind the Mini comes standard with an i7 and you've to pay additional money to get it in the iMacs.
 
Poki said:
You may be about right. But keep in mind the Mini comes standard with an i7 and you've to pay additional money to get it in the iMacs.
Click to expand...

True. The $799 mini is going to be faster then any of the standard iMacs. I'm debating getting a mini over a new iMac because of that.
 
Poki said:
You may be about right. But keep in mind the Mini comes standard with an i7 and you've to pay additional money to get it in the iMacs.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for clarifying. Deciding between a mini, or the two differently sized iMacs is making my head spin.
 
MetzoPaino said:
Ok thanks for clarifying. Deciding between a mini, or the two differently sized iMacs is making my head spin.
Click to expand...

You may want to base this decision on whether you want an All-In-One or not as CPU speeds are not different enough. I decided against an iMac because of that, as upgrading to a newer generation simply overwhelms my budget if I'd have to buy a new iMac all 2 - 4 years.
 
Poki said:
You may want to base this decision on whether you want an All-In-One or not as CPU speeds are not different enough. I decided against an iMac because of that, as upgrading to a newer generation simply overwhelms my budget if I'd have to buy a new iMac all 2 - 4 years.
Click to expand...

Upgrading from a an early 2008 Macbook Pro which can't hold up to the audio work that I do on it. (CPU Overloads, long loading/caching times and playback halting from slow writing to disk).

An iMac is the simpler and sexier solution, but its also more expensive and needs to be upgraded before it really pulls away from the mini's capabilities. Tough to decide because people say the mini and iMac are just big laptops, but compared to what I have they're probably both super computers.

Whatever I get is probably what I'll have for the next 5 years at least.
 
MetzoPaino said:
Upgrading from a an early 2008 Macbook Pro which can't hold up to the audio work that I do on it. (CPU Overloads, long loading/caching times and playback halting from slow writing to disk).

An iMac is the simpler and sexier solution, but its also more expensive and needs to be upgraded before it really pulls away from the mini's capabilities. Tough to decide because people say the mini and iMac are just big laptops, but compared to what I have they're probably both super computers.

Whatever I get is probably what I'll have for the next 5 years at least.
Click to expand...

The iMac is not sexier if you supply the Mini with a Thunderbolt display, a cool set of B&W MM-1, and an Apple keyboard, Trackpad and mouse. ;)
 
Oracle1729 said:
They're both underpowered laptop hardware that has no business being in a desktop computer.
Click to expand...
The reality is that Apple is as much a consumer product company as it is a technology company. They will compromise on performance, ease of maintenance, and ease of upgrade in return for sleekness and visual appeal. I don't think there's much value in complaining about that fact. I've accepted it as the price I have to pay to get OS X, which suits me better than Windows.

That said, I would not buy Mac if the technology wasn't good and if it could not get the job done. My 2009 MacBook Pro, upgraded with an SSD, is more than adequate for my uses, and it has become even better with Mountain Lion. I also have a 2009 Mini with a 2.0 processor that's beginning to struggle with the newest version of Adobe Lightroom. A 2012 Mini with an i7 processor will resolve that problem.

Jeff
 
Oracle1729 said:
No 3.5" drive bay = no buy.
r.
Click to expand...

I need to point out that the fastest drives available on the market anymore are SSD's and (with the exception of a few), most are 2.5" drives so stating that it needs to have a 3.5" drive bay is outdated.....
 
iamthedudeman said:
The mac mini is not really 'mini' in power. For 799, you can get a 2.3 I7 that is faster than all stock imacs. I was quite surprised on the Mac mini refresh. Why would Apple put better processors in the mid range and server as standard issue than the stock imacs?
Click to expand...

I'm confused, have I missed benchmarks of the new iMac's? Geekbench isn't officially showing iMac benchmarks yet for the 2012's.....

----------
flopticalcube said:
unless you need the storage capacity of 3.5" or don't want to pay the higher prices per GB of SSDs.
Click to expand...

But with USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt, does a 3.5" bay even matter? Our external connections have greater bandwidths than the fastest mechanical drives on the market (by far). So again, I challenge the "conventional wisdom" of the "necessity" of a 3.5" bay. If data centers are moving to 2.5" because they can pack greater storage densities in 2.5" bays (and utilize SSD's as well), why is it necessary for home use where (generally speaking), drive thoroughput is even less needed. I contend that a 2.5" SSD for OS and programs and a fairly large 2.5" drive or external 3.5" drive for data is perfect for 99% of home users out there.
 
fig said:
I'd happily stick a 2.5" SSD in any machine I've got and connect to an external FW/TB drive for needed data storage.

Actually, I do :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, for some reason I thought I was in an iMac thread. Too many new machines at once. :confused: :D

I have the same setup on my 2009 mini. 2X1TB FW800 drives and I'm going to be putting an SSD in as the main drive soon.
 
Last edited:
Poki said:
I simply hate the look of most towers. They're either the "gamer" style, which attracts too much attention, or the plain-and-stupid grey/black box design which honestly looks terrible. If someone could provide a tower about triple the size of the Mini with a nice design and OSX, I'd buy it. But as things look now, the Mini is the best option.
Click to expand...

Some of the newer Dell Vostro boxes have cut edges which give the box a nice "modern" feel to it. Likewise, there's actually a lot of nicer mini atx boxes at places like Best Buy.

They exist, they're just not the norm so you really have to look for them.
 
thejadedmonkey said:
Some of the newer Dell Vostro boxes have cut edges which give the box a nice "modern" feel to it. Likewise, there's actually a lot of nicer mini atx boxes at places like Best Buy.

They exist, they're just not the norm so you really have to look for them.
Click to expand...

But in the end, they don't run Mac OS 10. :rolleyes:
 
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