Purchasing used Mac Pro 2009 or Mac Mini 2012?

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

Well, they introduced 12-core in 2010; those models are way more expensive. The 2009 Mac Pro issue isn't RARE, but if you pick one up that's 100% working and has been for the past 7 years, its likelihood of failure should be lower. I just wanted to warn you about the potential issues. It's good to know which computers had/have what quirks, BEFORE buying them. I collect vintage Macs, and I have learned several times that a model of Mac I got was known to have some issue with it that I later wished I never had to deal with.

For example, I got a 2006 Mac Pro before realizing that a workaround (and new GPU) was needed in order to get Mountain Lion or later onto it. I then had to spend tons of my time researching and asking around about good GPUs to use, hours of researching and completing the workaround process, and some more issues down the road. As for the 2009 Mac Pro, it already had the heatsink issue when I got it (and it was a free computer), but I still have to go through the trouble of fixing it.

If you appreciate expandability and don't care that the 2009 Mac Pro will be moving into the 'vintage' classification VERY soon, it's a fine computer to get. If the issue - for whatever reason - happens to your future machine, you can fix it if you're relatively handy. I will be sharing my experiences with my 2009, once I get the necessary items in the mail. Just takes thermal paste, a hex tool, and two plastic pegs.

(BTW, for whichever computer you DO end up getting, I highly recommend using an SSD if you don't already have one. Having an SSD is vital for breathing extra life into computers - especially old machines. If you don't want to spend big bucks on a large SSD, you could just buy a smaller one as your boot disk and store your files on a separate HDD. Although, for myself, a 250GB SSD and 500GB backup HDD is definitely adequate.)

 

[pat500000]

Like I said in previous post #21 I'm searching for a Mac Pro for testing my software to see how well it handless 4 or 6 cores. I'm not sure until I have an opportunity to run some test...

4 core or 6? Might as well get six, right? Even if you're not gonna all 6 cores...i'm sure you might as well get six.

 

[h9826790]

The north bridge issue has cheap fix, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Also, the symptom is very clear. No need to worry about the diagnosis as well.

 

[tripmusic]

4 core or 6? Might as well get six, right? Even if you're not gonna all 6 cores...i'm sure you might as well get six.

Well it's not just about gaining two more cores, but a faster clock speed as well

 

[pat500000]

Well it's not just about gaining two more cores, but a faster clock speed as well

Well that too...

 

[Ebenezum]

Well, they introduced 12-core in 2010; those models are way more expensive. The 2009 Mac Pro issue isn't RARE, but if you pick one up that's 100% working and has been for the past 7 years, its likelihood of failure should be lower. I just wanted to warn you about the potential issues. It's good to know which computers had/have what quirks, BEFORE buying them. I collect vintage Macs, and I have learned several times that a model of Mac I got was known to have some issue with it that I later wished I never had to deal with.

For example, I got a 2006 Mac Pro before realizing that a workaround (and new GPU) was needed in order to get Mountain Lion or later onto it. I then had to spend tons of my time researching and asking around about good GPUs to use, hours of researching and completing the workaround process, and some more issues down the road. As for the 2009 Mac Pro, it already had the heatsink issue when I got it (and it was a free computer), but I still have to go through the trouble of fixing it.

If you appreciate expandability and don't care that the 2009 Mac Pro will be moving into the 'vintage' classification VERY soon, it's a fine computer to get. If the issue - for whatever reason - happens to your future machine, you can fix it if you're relatively handy. I will be sharing my experiences with my 2009, once I get the necessary items in the mail. Just takes thermal paste, a hex tool, and two plastic pegs.

(BTW, for whichever computer you DO end up getting, I highly recommend using an SSD if you don't already have one. Having an SSD is vital for breathing extra life into computers - especially old machines. If you don't want to spend big bucks on a large SSD, you could just buy a smaller one as your boot disk and store your files on a separate HDD. Although, for myself, a 250GB SSD and 500GB backup HDD is definitely adequate.)

Thank you for the clarification.

2010 Mac Pro would otherwise be a possibility but like I explained in my previous post it will likely cost much more and my budget is limited.

Vintage classification isn't a problem because A: I am less than impressed with 10.10 and 10.11. I very likely stay with 10.9.5 for several years because it works for my needs. B: Even if Mac Pro breaks down at some point I can find replacement parts relatively cheaply and repairs are much easier than my old iMac. (I don't want to replace iMacs GPU ever again!)

I already have SSD so I only might need to purchase more RAM (depending on how much/little is already installed once I decide which model to purchase.

Well it's not just about gaining two more cores, but a faster clock speed as well

Good point. However if I choose Mac Pro I can't upgrade processor immediately because of budjet. I do keep it in mind.

 

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

Yeah, the 'vintage' classification isn't a HUGE deal, but it's a bit annoying to have a Mac you own suddenly drop out of the 'supported status.' However, none of my Macs are fully supported anyway, so I don't care THAT much.

I see what you mean about El Cap; note, though, that the 2010 Mac Pro obviously can stay at Mavericks as well, so that point is unrelated.

But, yes, the 2010 Mac Pro is of horrendous value, especially when you consider that Mac Pros don't necessarily hold their value as well as iMacs do. I keep trying to tell people that their custom towers are money traps, but they don't really understand the fact that you put money in and don't get anything back out. Going with a 2009 Mac Pro would be just fine, as they aren't horribly expensive and will still get you something in return, should you resell it.

BTW, the 2010 Mac Pro had newer processors AND a model with four more cores; they were a significant upgrade, which is why it costs so much more for one.

 

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

The north bridge issue has cheap fix, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Also, the symptom is very clear. No need to worry about the diagnosis as well.

Yeah, I explained that to him. I'm currently waiting for some parts to come in the mail. Someone around here was able to fix his Northbridge heatsink with those cheap, Chinese rivets from eBay (when you search 'heatsink rivets/pegs,' or something like that). I was skeptical, as they are much longer than the pegs that Apple puts in, but it apparently DID work and gave the guy good temperatures. Hopefully the waiting pays off. I didn't really feel like purchasing that $10 Akasa kit just for the two plastic pegs it comes with.

BTW, does anyone know if a 2009 Mac Pro will run healthily WITHOUT a PRAM/CMOS battery? I realized that the one from mine is missing. If the only issue is with the time and date, I won't care too much, as I have time and date made to set automatically on all my machines. However, if it may pose some other issues or risks, I'd buy a new one.

 

[996085]

This sounds a little worrysome, do you have any further information?



Excellent idea, I have to see if I can find examples of both for testing.

Unless Apple provided the i7 2012 model with better thermal tolerance I suspect it would behave the same as my 2014 Mini which will throttle down in serious use.

For the moment 16GB of RAM is sufficient but if database size grows larger (which is possible) I likely need more RAM.

This is just completely unacceptable. A system should operate at full speed even under serious use. One that does not is flawed.

 

[996085]

Like I said in previous post #21 I'm searching for a Mac Pro for testing my software to see how well it handless 4 or 6 cores. I'm not sure until I have an opportunity to run some test...

Where are you located? Any chance we could assist you with the benchmarking?

 

[h9826790]

This is just completely unacceptable. A system should operate at full speed even under serious use. One that does not is flawed.

I think apart from Mac Pro, most of the Mac can't run at max speed for a prolong period of time. I don't know if it should consider as a fault.

But for me, with turbo boost 2.0. It feels even more strange. The CPU can boost all cores to a higher speed, but they won't guarantee that speed. I can understand this. However, when the CPU is poorly cooled, the CPU can further downlock itself to a lower speed to avoid overheat. So, there is no guarantee of the "normal" speed as well. And the CPU is idling at another much lower speed. Then what's the difference between that normal speed and Boost speed.

 

[996085]

I think apart from Mac Pro, most of the Mac can't run at max speed for a prolong period of time.

Which means they're defective.

 

[Ebenezum]

Where are you located? Any chance we could assist you with the benchmarking?

Nice idea. My main question is how well Mac Mini i7 2012 compares to 4-6 core Mac Pro 2009-2010 model when processor is fully used?

I suspect Mini would not be able to keep turbo boost going very long and with my database size (10-15 Gb) it would be relatively minor improvement to my Mac Mini 2014. I might be able to test 2012 model next week, I found a local person who is happy to loan it for a short test.

 

[Synchro3]

Nice idea. My main question is how well Mac Mini i7 2012 compares to 4-6 core Mac Pro 2009-2010 model when processor is fully used?

I suspect Mini would not be able to keep turbo boost going very long and with my database size (10-15 Gb) it would be relatively minor improvement to my Mac Mini 2014. I might be able to test 2012 model next week, I found a local person who is happy to loan it for a short test.

If you increase the fan rpm manually it can keep turbo boost going as long as you want. See my post #11. As said, the two additional cores of the Xeon W3690/X5690 in a Mac Pro make the difference regarding multi core speed. Single core speed is the same.

 

[996085]

Nice idea. My main question is how well Mac Mini i7 2012 compares to 4-6 core Mac Pro 2009-2010 model when processor is fully used?

I suspect Mini would not be able to keep turbo boost going very long and with my database size (10-15 Gb) it would be relatively minor improvement to my Mac Mini 2014. I might be able to test 2012 model next week, I found a local person who is happy to loan it for a short test.

One should not consider Turbo Boost as the deciding factor. In this situation I would rely on the base clock as that's the clock the system should be operating at under full load. To clarify when I say clock down I'm not referring to clocking down from the Turbo Boost clock to the base clock. I'm referring to clocking down from base clock to something slower (usually in order to protect the system because of insufficient cooling).

 

[bokkow]

I had a 2012 2.6GHz i7 Mini, and at medium load it reached 90-95 degrees and 100 degrees at full throttle quite fast with a lot of fan noise. Raw computing power in geekbench was 12000 points, IO throughput maxed out at 950MB/s with two SSD's in RAID0 and it is limited to 16GB max. Since I reached the highest possible configuration I decided then to sell the Mini for €1000,-

Straight after that I bought a cMP 5.1 for €700,-, sold the standard HD5770 for €125,- and got a X5680 (€120,-), 32GB (€100,-), SM951 256GB (€200,-) and a GTX 680 4GB (€150,-). Geekbench of around 14000 points, IO throughput at 1400MB/s and a lot more RAM. But most importantly perhaps is the more desireable temperature at load around 60 degrees maximum with acceptable fan noise and the availability of dedicated graphics. I love this machine to bits and not once did I regret selling my Mac Mini.

Tldr; a decently upgraded cMP 5.1 does not have to be more expensive than a maxed out Mac Mini QC i7 but can surely outperform and even leave room for more upgrades.

 

[996085]

I had a 2012 2.6GHz i7 Mini, and at medium load it reached 90-95 degrees and 100 degrees at full throttle quite fast with a lot of fan noise. Raw computing power in geekbench was 12000 points, IO throughput maxed out at 950MB/s with two SSD's in RAID0 and it is limited to 16GB max. Since I reached the highest possible configuration I decided then to sell the Mini for €1000,-

Straight after that I bought a cMP 5.1 for €700,-, sold the standard HD5770 for €125,- and got a X5680 (€120,-), 32GB (€100,-), SM951 256GB (€200,-) and a GTX 680 4GB (€150,-). Geekbench of around 14000 points, IO throughput at 1400MB/s and a lot more RAM. But most importantly perhaps is the more desireable temperature at load around 60 degrees maximum with acceptable fan noise and the availability of dedicated graphics. I love this machine to bits and not once did I regret selling my Mac Mini.

Tldr; a decently upgraded cMP 5.1 does not have to be more expensive than a maxed out Mac Mini QC i7 but can surely outperform and even leave room for more upgrades.

The cMP has upgradability well above and beyond the Mini. If upgradability is important than the cMP is the more appropriate option.

As for benchmarks one needs to take Geekbench with a grain of salt. I have an rMP which readily outperforms my Mac Pro according to Geekbench. However when it comes to long, CPU intensive tasks the Mac Pro easily bests the rMP. Geekbench is only good for telling one how fast a particular system can run Geekbench.

With that said when it comes to single thread or low thread count work, such as the OPs situation, the cMP may fall short. According to the OP his software hits the wall when it reaches four threads. Thus the ability of the MP to have more than four threads is a non-starter for the OP. He needs to be looking at single thread performance. This is typically better in the iMac and Mini than the MP...either cMP or nMP. If throttling doesn't occur I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac of Mini outperform either MP.

 

[tripmusic]

Since this thread is talking about turbo boost... My Hardware Monitor app says my cpu does not support turbo boost. I do have the x86 driver installed for HWM. Is this just an app glitch? Is there a way to verify turbo boost functionality? And why is HWM saying "Number of cores 16"?

 

[h9826790]

For W3690, MacCPUID can show you the CPU is Turbo Boost support, but can't quite let you monitor the actual clock speed.

Linpack may able to capture the boosted clock during the test, but not always capture the max speed.

 

[tripmusic]

For W3690, MacCPUID can show you the CPU is Turbo Boost support, but can't quite let you monitor the actual clock speed.

Linpack may able to capture the boosted clock during the test, but not always capture the max speed.

Ok thanks

 

[Ebenezum]

The cMP has upgradability well above and beyond the Mini. If upgradability is important than the cMP is the more appropriate option.

As for benchmarks one needs to take Geekbench with a grain of salt. I have an rMP which readily outperforms my Mac Pro according to Geekbench. However when it comes to long, CPU intensive tasks the Mac Pro easily bests the rMP. Geekbench is only good for telling one how fast a particular system can run Geekbench.

With that said when it comes to single thread or low thread count work, such as the OPs situation, the cMP may fall short. According to the OP his software hits the wall when it reaches four threads. Thus the ability of the MP to have more than four threads is a non-starter for the OP. He needs to be looking at single thread performance. This is typically better in the iMac and Mini than the MP...either cMP or nMP. If throttling doesn't occur I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac of Mini outperform either MP.

Problem is that I don't know for certain if my software supports 4 or 6 cores because I have no opportunity to test with a 4 or 6 core Mac. Thats why I'm attempting to test with both CMP and Mac Mini i7. With little luck I have the Mini in testing for Thursday so I can have better idea of its capability...

 

[996085]

Problem is that I don't know for certain if my software supports 4 or 6 cores because I have no opportunity to test with a 4 or 6 core Mac. Thats why I'm attempting to test with both CMP and Mac Mini i7. With little luck I have the Mini in testing for Thursday so I can have better idea of its capability...

If your software can utilize more than four cores than the Mac Pro is your only option (assuming you need a true core and that a thread will not suffice). The only way to know which will be faster is to benchmark your application on each. I'll be interested to hear the results of the Mini benchmark results.

 

[Ebenezum]

Unfortunately the person had to postpone the Mini testing. I am hoping we can arrange another time in the near future.

Not that I am in a rush but I would like to sell my current Mini before warranty is over (about 4 months to go).

I hope I can find someone with a Mac Pro 2009-2012 in the vicinity for testing, it would provide valuable information for my decision.

 

[Ebenezum]

Update:

After testing i7 Mac Mini 2012 and concluding it was somewhat better than Mac Mini 2014 I managed to find a nice 8 core 2.26 Mac Pro 2009 with 8GB of RAM and Geforce Gt 120 for 600€. After testing it I was impressed since it handled everything without breaking a sweat unlike Mini 2014 so I decided to purchase it a few days ago. I also managed to sell Mini for almost the same price I originally bought it so I can afford some upgrades.

I also tested it with several different diagnostic software and it passed all the tests. Internally it is in good condition, very little dust and no sign of any damage. Outside case has two minor scratches which are hard to see without a flashlight. It seems previous owner treated it well.

I am aware that processor upgrade is difficult compared to 4 core model but that isn't a issue because current processors are much better than the Mini in tests and its likely I don't even need faster processors for a while.

I ordered a USB3 card, more RAM and mounting bracket for my SSD and I am certain I made the right choice!

 

[tripmusic]

Yeah, server cpu's always feel stronger to me than desktop chips, sometimes even when they're quite a bit older. It's all what you throw at it.

That 8 core upgrade does seem a little tricky, I chickened out and went for the single 6 core upgrade. It was a pleasure to upgrade it was so easy and I love this machine. Does what I need it to do and it is clean inside. I may find a stock 8 core board in the future and try to upgrade.

If your talking about an SSD in the optical bay, I just attached it with one screw to one of the screw mounts in the bay and it seems to hold fine. I think my next upgrade is a PCIe SSD card and a faster drive.