Cool. Where ya going to buy one of those?
It only took reading to the end of a sentence to make those
only applicable to your attempt at sarcasm. I'll highlight it for you…
...once it shares the same Haswell CPUs as the 2013 Retina Macbook Pro.
See. It was a forward looking statement based on when such a system is available to purchase. I would have thought that was obvious to begin with?
Actually not quite that. You make it look as if the default configs people can buy in the Apple store are faster than a new Mac Pro. What you do not do is tell them that you need to create it afterwards yourself. That not only requires additional components and thus costs but also additional technical skill.
That's all based on your presumption.
No what you are doing is implying the Mac mini is as fast as the Mac Pro. It is not. You can come close to the Mac Pro performance in terms of i/o but as I said earlier it requires a lot more. One needs to ask himself the question if all the additional costs and setup is worth it. The crowd for the Mac Pro is a completely different one than the crowd for the Mac mini. Comparing them whatsoever (raid0 ssd array or not) is therefore stupid.
Yet again, based on your presumption.
I also have a complete understanding of how it relates to real-world performance in different applications.
If you really did you would never have used those benchmarks because you'd have known that these are unsuited for what you are trying to communicate.
No, they're an "indication" of the relative performance increase of a more recent system over an older one from a purely CPU power stance.
Mac mini has no more than 4 cores, Mac Pro has 12. You still are forgetting the entire point I'm making (which again clearly shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about): there are different kind of cpu workloads. With long cpu loads you can not ignore the difference in thermal envelope between the Pro and the Mini. There are not that many benchmarks that will run for more than an hour. Let alone ones that test parallel processing of the entire machine (so cpu plus pus).
I'm well aware the Mac Pro offers more than 4 cores. What? YOU can refer to base configurations with your PCIe SSD vs RAID 0 SSD analogy but it doesn't count when I do with CPUs?
Btw, you do know that the mini can only take 16GB of RAM and the Mac Pro can take twice as much (and probably more but those 16GB sticks are hard to find; the memory controller in the cpu isn't the problem here though).
Yep. I also know you pay A LOT for a Mac Pro and the only other Macs that don't top out at 16Gb too are the 27" iMacs.
Except it isn't my opinion This is what you call an observation as well as actually knowing what the hardware is all about.
Ok, it's an "observation" of what people are using them for. Remember the Macbook Pro = Mac Mini point that you wholeheartedly, yet selectively agree with? Same point applies here. If a quad i7 is useful for a purpose that doesn't rely of it's portability or PCIe SSD, it's desktop equivalent is too. CPU-bound software that gains no advantage from PCIe SSDs or GPU hardware either does perform well on a multi-core system or it doesn't and it doesn't discriminate on whether it's a desktop or laptop if the systems themselves are using identical CPUs.
Don't worry, you're not bursting my bubble because there's a list of software that will tell a different story. Try things like Matlab, Mathematica, Maya, FCP and so on and so forth.
Ok, so you can cherry pick software to suit your point too, lets agree to differ shall we?
You are now being very selfish and arrogant by imposing your workload onto others. I can tell you from sheer experience there are many different workloads.
Pot, Kettle... (See point above).
People who do a lot of calculations or simulations will run them not for several hours but for several days.These workloads will benefit from the Mac Pro, not from any mini configuration that is out there or you can create. And that is the entire point: the Mac Pro is meant for different kinds of workloads than the mini. That's why the Pro has dual gpus and the mini only has the simple (but great) Intel HD 4000.
I agree, there are uses where anything less than a XEON-class workstation like that Mac Pro wouldn't cut it. Equally, there are situations where, if we're talking the quad core model only, it's overkill and much less suitable or cost-effective than a quad i7 system either in desktop or laptop form from lower down the range.
Nope, you simply fail to understand there are different kind of machines suited for different kind of workloads.
I understand it perfectly, you just seem to cherry pick when it applies or not depending on if it's a Macbook Pro or Mac Mini (with identical CPUs).
I've seen people run Windows XP on their Pentium 120MHz systems. Is it usable? Not really. Some people are fine with their old XP systems that are over 8 years old. Others are complaining their new high end machine isn't powerful. Different workloads, different hardware needs.
A meaningless and to be honest, sarcastic analogy, I thought you were someone who understands about CPU load? Here you go. You'll be pleased to note comments on the video confirm that under load, heat come into play. I never disputed that would be an issue though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ka--dw6P-U
(A Pro Tools plug-in stress-test)
The 13" MBP Retina is quite comparable to the Mac mini if you actually looked at the specifications. The MBA does not have a quad core cpu, the Mac mini has. The 13" MBP Retina has too.
I never said it wasn't, you were the one claiming a quad i7 Macbook Pro is somehow a more capable system than a quad i7 Mac Mini based on the same CPUs.
That could be any Mac since the "given amount" is quite personal. They either buy a Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro depending on how high that "given amount" is.
I completely agree but for people with a setup consisting of their own brands of monitor, they could be simply comparing the Mac Pro or Mac Mini they current have to current models of either and deciding on what they buy based on that. I can't see someone trading their displays for a glued together all-in-one like the iMac.
Yes and no. A lot of people want a similar kind or better performance. Not only hardware will progress in that time but software too. In reality you don't see much difference in the systems people are buying. People who previously bought a Mac Pro will stick with a similar system.
I agree for the same reasons as above.
What it does not is give you time to figure out what you want. In a lot of cases things changes quite a lot or stay the same. For the latter you don't need to think, you just buy the current model of what you were already using. For the former you can only decide when the machine is up for replacement. In reality most people will wait until the machine needs to be replaced anyway (aka last moment).
I was actually looking into a used 8 core Mac Pro before the Mac Mini I currently have caught my eye. It was only £330 on eBay and came with 8Gb so I thought it was a worthy tie over system between the G4 it replaced and whatever I decide to get next and could be repurposed as a media centre through my TV setup quite easily.
I would too but that's because my workloads do not exceed the Mac mini's computing power.
Precisely why I want one actually.
In the end people need to look at their own workloads (and not yours!) then decide for themselves (or ask if they can't) which Mac is more suited for them. The Mac mini and Mac Pro are not the same nor are any of the other Macs. The mini is not a silver bullet like you are very eager to make people believe. Just be realistic about it.
It sound like both our "workloads" are identical but from different angles here and the Mac Pro is unsuitable for either of us. This entire back and forth seems a little pointless given that fact don't you think?
(Even though you're conclusion jumping and putting words in my mouth by implying I claimed the Mac Mini is a "silver bullet")
