Three questions about the new Mac Mini.

[Reminisce32]

1) Do the new Mac Mini's have "Turbo Boost" like the iMacs and MBP's do?

2) Does the lack of discrete graphics have a significant impact on being able to edit 5GB, hour long HD video files in iMovie or FCP?

3) Which minimum processor should I get to be able to edit 5GB, hour long HD video files smoothly in iMovie or FCP?

Thanks.

 

[philipma1957]

1) yes
2)?
3) mid with the 2.3 quad then add 8gb ram maybe 16gb

 

[Yebubbleman]

1) Do the new Mac Mini's have "Turbo Boost" like the iMacs and MBP's do?

2) Does the lack of discrete graphics have a significant impact on being able to edit 5GB, hour long HD video files in iMovie or FCP?

3) Which minimum processor should I get to be able to edit 5GB, hour long HD video files smoothly in iMovie or FCP?

Thanks.

1) Yes.

2) in iMovie, no. In Final Cut Pro, it depends on what sorts of things you want to do in editing. For basic things no. For more complex things like for color correction, you definitely want it. Though, the thing to bear in mind is that the Intel HD 4000 is faster and better than the discrete GPU in the MacBook Pros from 2008 and probably comparable to the GeForce GT 9600M GT (if not encroaching comparability to it) found in MacBook Pros from Late 2008 through March 2010. So really, your GPU-dependent performance will only be as bad as using those machines, albeit with 2012 CPU horsepower.

3) If you can afford the quad-core model, then there's no reason not to get it. Even if you don't need it today, I'm sure it will be beneficial down the road.

 

[Reminisce32]

1) Yes.

2) in iMovie, no. In Final Cut Pro, it depends on what sorts of things you want to do in editing. For basic things no. For more complex things like for color correction, you definitely want it. Though, the thing to bear in mind is that the Intel HD 4000 is faster and better than the discrete GPU in the MacBook Pros from 2008 and probably comparable to the GeForce GT 9600M GT (if not encroaching comparability to it) found in MacBook Pros from Late 2008 through March 2010. So really, your GPU-dependent performance will only be as bad as using those machines, albeit with 2012 CPU horsepower.

3) If you can afford the quad-core model, then there's no reason not to get it. Even if you don't need it today, I'm sure it will be beneficial down the road.

Will 2.3GHz to 2.6GHz make a big difference worth $100 extra or no?

 

[Mojo1]

Will 2.3GHz to 2.6GHz make a big difference worth $100 extra or no?

Not as far as I am concerned; others will argue that it can't be upgraded in the future so go for it now.

.3 GHz is about an 8% increase in speed, which is imperceptible during normal use. If you have the extra $100 and want the fastest possible Mini, then go for it...

 

[philipma1957]

Not as far as I am concerned; others will argue that it can't be upgraded in the future so go for it now.

.3 GHz is about an 8% increase in speed, which is imperceptible during normal use. If you have the extra $100 and want the fastest possible Mini, then go for it...

this.


also the dual to the quad is huge 2x the speed in multithread tasks with the quad. or dual a 100 minute handbrake encode low quad 50 minutes better quad 45 minutes. the big gain is the low quad take that $100 bill and buy ram.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buying the stock quad.


http://www.macmall.com/p/Apple-Desktop-Computers/product~dpno~9418667~pdp.iadfcjg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this ram

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104257
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rugged t-bolt 120gb

http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10599

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this will run you just about 1045. gives you a very fast system.


yeah you can shop for a better ram deal or get 16gb ram.

you can pass on the ssd.


but the bottom line is the above system is very fast as configured.




you could argue adding the fusion drive rather then the external ssd.

if the fusion drive setup works as advertised it may be worth the 250 surcharge. but it is an unknown.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Will 2.3GHz to 2.6GHz make a big difference worth $100 extra or no?

I don't think it's all that huge of a difference, nor does Apple seem to be limiting people from future OS X upgrades and individual features based on processor clock speeds like they used to in Leopard and earlier. If you can swing the $100, I say do it as the processor is soldered, not socketed; even if you are enterprising, you will not be able to upgrade the CPU later without replacing the logic board with one that has the newer CPU. But no, I don't think it'll matter too much.

this.


also the dual to the quad is huge 2x the speed in multithread tasks with the quad. or dual a 100 minute handbrake encode low quad 50 minutes better quad 45 minutes. the big gain is the low quad take that $100 bill and buy ram.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buying the stock quad.


http://www.macmall.com/p/Apple-Desktop-Computers/product~dpno~9418667~pdp.iadfcjg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this ram

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104257
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rugged t-bolt 120gb

http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10599

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this will run you just about 1045. gives you a very fast system.


yeah you can shop for a better ram deal or get 16gb ram.

you can pass on the ssd.


but the bottom line is the above system is very fast as configured.




you could argue adding the fusion drive rather then the external ssd.

if the fusion drive setup works as advertised it may be worth the 250 surcharge. but it is an unknown.

The Fusion Drive is supposed to work as advertised. And really, it's not a single drive, but rather a 128GB SSD and, in the case of the Mac mini and the 21.5" iMac, a 1TB hard drive used in conjunction with each other as dictated by the OS. "Fusion Drive" is an OS feature, not a hardware feature. But yeah, unless you can fit everything you care about and then some on a 256GB SSD, going with the Fusion Drive seems like a no brainer.