New Mini vs 2008 iMac performance ?

[mdhwoods]

Currently have a 2008 24" 2.8 Imac. It does everything we want fairly well. Mostly web browsing, word processing and running Aperture. Son plays mine-craft through osx and boots into win 7 for other games like Smite. Performance is fine. This has a discrete gpu where the new minis don't. Will the performance be the same or better on a new mini compared to the Imac i currently have? The reason I ask is I am guessing that I have limited time on my imac left. I replaced the power-supply about a year ago. It is 6 years old and something else is bound to break. Not sure I want to replace with a new Imac or mini. If the new mini is the same or better performance wise I might just go with that. I know I need to buy a monitor etc.

Thanks

 

[thedeske]

The I.O. on the Mini is a nice jump, but there's still the issue of adding audio/mic/cam if you use or need those. Minis are easy to supercharge, but you can easily reach the entry price of a 1 year old iMac on the used market when you start adding SSD, Ram and a monitor equal to the iMac panel from the last 2 years.

Good Luck

 

[762999]

Currently have a 2008 24" 2.8 Imac. It does everything we want fairly well. Mostly web browsing, word processing and running Aperture. Son plays mine-craft through osx and boots into win 7 for other games like Smite. Performance is fine. This has a discrete gpu where the new minis don't. Will the performance be the same or better on a new mini compared to the Imac i currently have? The reason I ask is I am guessing that I have limited time on my imac left. I replaced the power-supply about a year ago. It is 6 years old and something else is bound to break. Not sure I want to replace with a new Imac or mini. If the new mini is the same or better performance wise I might just go with that. I know I need to buy a monitor etc.

Thanks

the 2008 imac scores about 2500 in geekbench 3, the beefed-up mini is around 12000-14000. That should give you an idea.

This is not even counting the impact of SSD instead of a traditional HDD.

This is a very nice monitor that goes along well with the mini.. it looks like the iMac without breaking the bank.. it's also glossy.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824276020

My brother have that specific model.

 

[mdhwoods]

the 2008 imac scores about 2500 in geekbench 3, the beefed-up mini is around 12000-14000. That should give you an idea.

This is not even counting the impact of SSD instead of a traditional HDD.

This is a very nice monitor that goes along well with the mini.. it looks like the iMac without breaking the bank.. it's also glossy.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824276020

My brother have that specific model.

Thats a great looking monitor and will fit in the spot i have the 24. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[haravikk]

the 2008 imac scores about 2500 in geekbench 3, the beefed-up mini is around 12000-14000. That should give you an idea.

Yeah, the current quad core Mac Mini is actually faster than my 8-core 2008 Mac Pro in nearly every test; the 8-core Mac Pro still has some advantage in very multithreaded tasks, but only if they don't use any of the new or optimised instructions in newer Intel chips! The only thing that's stopped me replacing my Mac Pro is the Mac Mini's graphics as they'd probably be a step back from the discrete card I currently have (except for its monstrously annoying fan), but even that's not all that far off really.

 

[blanka]

Just grab a decent monitor for the Mini, I would not grab the HP. As you are used to 24 inch, get the Dell U2412M. It is a same size, same aspect 1920x1200 IPS display at a nice price.
The HP has a larger panel and lower resolution, so it might look too course. Not too bright either, and lacking quality Dell features like great ergonomics, good warranty, good reliability, good calibration, matte display etc.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260047

The CPU will deliver a big jump, and the GPU a little one.
If you have the Radeon 2600Pro, the HD4000 will be twice as fast
If you have the 8800GS, it is splitting hairs. The HD4000 offers much more modern shaders though with more realistic fog, ripple, particles, ambient occlusion etc, and HD decoding.

----------

The only thing that's stopped me replacing my Mac Pro is the Mac Mini's graphics as they'd probably be a step back from the discrete card I currently have (except for its monstrously annoying fan), but even that's not all that far off really.

The 8800GT is not so great. The HD4000 is a little slower but more modern. See the shader thing above. So the HD4000 might even produce better looking games at higher frame rates, yet the 8800GT will defeat the HD4000 by a vast margin on rotating complex wire models in say Sketchup.

 

[762999]

Just grab a decent monitor for the Mini, I would not grab the HP. As you are used to 24 inch, get the Dell U2412M. It is a same size, same aspect 1920x1200 IPS display at a nice price.
The HP has a larger panel and lower resolution, so it might look too course. Not too bright either, and lacking quality Dell features like great ergonomics, good warranty, good reliability, good calibration, matte display etc.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260047

The CPU will deliver a big jump, and the GPU a little one.
If you have the Radeon 2600Pro, the HD4000 will be twice as fast
If you have the 8800GS, it is splitting hairs. The HD4000 offers much more modern shaders though with more realistic fog, ripple, particles, ambient occlusion etc, and HD decoding.

----------


The 8800GT is not so great. The HD4000 is a little slower but more modern. See the shader thing above. So the HD4000 might even produce better looking games at higher frame rates, yet the 8800GT will defeat the HD4000 by a vast margin on rotating complex wire models in say Sketchup.

I have the dell 2412m and it's a piece of crap. I totally dislike it.. Having seen the two, the HP is way nicer. The OP should go see them in person.

 

[mdhwoods]

Thanks guys for all the info. Ill probably go with a mini once I make the move. Since its not broke yet ill wait a bit and see if apple is going to finally drop a new one.

----------

I have the dell 2412m and it's a piece of crap. I totally dislike it.. Having seen the two, the HP is way nicer. The OP should go see them in person.

Ya, ill never buy a monitor site unseen. There are so many variables and some are personal preference.

----------

Just grab a decent monitor for the Mini, I would not grab the HP. As you are used to 24 inch, get the Dell U2412M. It is a same size, same aspect 1920x1200 IPS display at a nice price.
The HP has a larger panel and lower resolution, so it might look too course. Not too bright either, and lacking quality Dell features like great ergonomics, good warranty, good reliability, good calibration, matte display etc.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260047

The CPU will deliver a big jump, and the GPU a little one.
If you have the Radeon 2600Pro, the HD4000 will be twice as fast
If you have the 8800GS, it is splitting hairs. The HD4000 offers much more modern shaders though with more realistic fog, ripple, particles, ambient occlusion etc, and HD decoding.

----------


The 8800GT is not so great. The HD4000 is a little slower but more modern. See the shader thing above. So the HD4000 might even produce better looking games at higher frame rates, yet the 8800GT will defeat the HD4000 by a vast margin on rotating complex wire models in say Sketchup.

Ive got the 2600pro which preforms well for what we play. Thanks for the info.

 

[blanka]

Thanks guys for all the info. Ill probably go with a mini once I make the move. Since its not broke yet ill wait a bit and see if apple is going to finally drop a new one.
Ya, ill never buy a monitor site unseen. There are so many variables and some are personal preference.

Good luck. In my experience good screens are never on display in stores. Brick and Mortar stores only sell the cheap crap.

 

[Fishrrman]

If you do go with the Mini, I'd recommend that you spend the extra $$$$ and get the i7 model, with an eye on the future...

 

[mdhwoods]

If you do go with the Mini, I'd recommend that you spend the extra $$$$ and get the i7 model, with an eye on the future...

for sure.

----------

Good luck. In my experience good screens are never on display in stores. Brick and Mortar stores only sell the cheap crap.

Thats a good point, ill have to do some research and see whats out there.

 

[AlexMaximus]

have a look on this solution..

Since you like the mini and your coming from the Pro, you might want to have a look at this here..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koE5r0Kg1Rc

.. a new 2014 mini with that upgrade would be neat..

 

[mmomega]

I don't have an '08 iMac with me to test but here are my benchmarking results from my 2007 2.4GHz 6GB iMac.
A 2012 i7 Mac Mini and a 2012 i5 Mac Mini.

The i7 rocks the socks and in "benchmarking" it starts to get close to my 2013 i7 iMac scores.
My iPhone 5s actually scores higher than the '07 2.4GHz Core2Duo.

and here's my profile with some of my machines. I do a few with different builds of OS X to check if there are any large performance gains from one build to another.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/user/61858


*** I highlighted the 2012 iMac i7 instead of the 2012 iMac i7 which is directly below the 2nd red box.***

 

[xraytech]

Currently have a 2008 24" 2.8 Imac. It does everything we want fairly well. Mostly web browsing, word processing and running Aperture. Son plays mine-craft through osx and boots into win 7 for other games like Smite. Performance is fine. This has a discrete gpu where the new minis don't. Will the performance be the same or better on a new mini compared to the Imac i currently have? The reason I ask is I am guessing that I have limited time on my imac left. I replaced the power-supply about a year ago. It is 6 years old and something else is bound to break. Not sure I want to replace with a new Imac or mini. If the new mini is the same or better performance wise I might just go with that. I know I need to buy a monitor etc.

Thanks

In my case, my MacBook Pro connected to a 30" Apple Cinema Display, finally gave up the ghost this year. So making the jump from an old 2008 MacBook Pro to an i7 Mac Mini was an easy decision.

Get a Mac Mini and get a inexpensive monitor.

 

[brdeveloper]

I don't have an '08 iMac with me to test but here are my benchmarking results from my 2007 2.4GHz 6GB iMac.
A 2012 i7 Mac Mini and a 2012 i5 Mac Mini.

The i7 rocks the socks and in "benchmarking" it starts to get close to my 2013 i7 iMac scores.
My iPhone 5s actually scores higher than the '07 2.4GHz Core2Duo.

and here's my profile with some of my machines. I do a few with different builds of OS X to check if there are any large performance gains from one build to another.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/user/61858


*** I highlighted the 2012 iMac i7 instead of the 2012 iMac i7 which is directly below the 2nd red box.***

I don't like Geekbench results because its approach is measuring processor (CPU/memory access speed)performance. If you consider I/O performance, a 2006 Macbook equipped with a SSD can beat any 2013 iMac equipped with standard HDDs. Also, if you consider non-realtime tasks, RAM matters a lot. If your RAM is capable of loading 1000 raw pictures at once, it can perform better than a system which loads 200 raw pictures at once.

This said, Geekbench doesn't say anything more relevant than "if you have a 2012 iMac it will perform better than your 2011 iMac". That is, it only shows the obvious, but not always true.

 

[mmomega]

I don't like Geekbench results because its approach is measuring processor (CPU/memory access speed)performance. If you consider I/O performance, a 2006 Macbook equipped with a SSD can beat any 2013 iMac equipped with standard HDDs. Also, if you consider non-realtime tasks, RAM matters a lot. If your RAM is capable of loading 1000 raw pictures at once, it can perform better than a system which loads 200 raw pictures at once.

This said, Geekbench doesn't say anything more relevant than "if you have a 2012 iMac it will perform better than your 2011 iMac". That is, it only shows the obvious, but not always true.

Both the 2012 i5 and i7 Mac Mini's and the 07 iMac all have Samsung 840 Pro SSD's.
I try to even the playing field as much as I can but there's DDR2 v DDR3, SATA2 v SATA3, Dual Core v Quad Core but the OP asked for a performance difference so I showed him the best I could with what I have.

I'll see if I can get OP a graphical benchmark as well.

 

[brdeveloper]

Both the 2012 i5 and i7 Mac Mini's and the 07 iMac all have Samsung 840 Pro SSD's.
I try to even the playing field as much as I can but there's DDR2 v DDR3, SATA2 v SATA3, Dual Core v Quad Core but the OP asked for a performance difference so I showed him the best I could with what I have.

I'll see if I can get OP a graphical benchmark as well.

I agree with you in the sense that Geekbench is a good "short answer" when you're looking for performance information. However, it's not always good in the long answer, that is, in the following example (which isn't the OP case, though):

"I wonder if my old 2008 iMac can process batches/actions of 40MB per raw picture as fast or even faster than a base current iMac".

Well, a base current iMac with 8GB ram equipped with a HDD will probably perform this specific task slower than an old iMac equipped with a SATAII SSD and 16-32GB of RAM. If you consider the money to be invested, performing an upgrade on the older iMac can be more affordable while it can give better results.

It doesn't matter if you have more cores in this example if you have small ram space and slow I/O.
-------
EDIT: I wasn't aware that the early-2008 24" iMac doesn't support more than 6GB of RAM. It wouldn't outperform even a base current iMac on my example.

 

[mdhwoods]

Thanks guys. Waiting patiently to see if a new Mini drops.

 

[Mcdevidr]

Just wanted to chime in about the monitor. I bought a 23 inch HP same model. It looks real nice but it feels real cheap. The 23 was very pixilated for me. If I were getting 1080p I don't think I cold stomach a monitor over 21.5. Going from the 21.5 iMac to the 23 HP was not a good experience for me. The panel itself seemed decent nice colors and angles but when getting close everything seemed coarse.