imac vs mac mini

<p>Hi,<br>

I am finding my 2007 imac to be quite sluggish when using LR4 and Photoshop. At the moment I use my imac with a NEC P221w monitor and spectraview II. I'm tempted to go with a new mac mini. However, it looks as though the processor in the the new imacs may be faster? Other than having a monitor, is there any other reason one would choose the new imac over the new mac mini? </p>

<p>Every new issue is a little faster than the earlier one. 5 years or so is probably a good point to consider a new one.<br>

As you probably already know, the cheapest way to get the really large display is to buy it with the iMac built in. If you're happy with the monitor you have, the Mini is very good and the cheapest way to upgrade the whole unit. I still have an early Intel Mini hooked up, and use it occasionally. It takes up next to no desktop area, after all. In both the iMac and the Mini there are limits to the amount of RAM and such, but Apple has been very slow in upgrading their desktop machines in the last few years.</p>

<p>Sluggish performance, however, can also be a symptom of too little RAM - which in my experience is more often a problem than an older processor.</p>

<p>I like the idea of Hackintosh, personally. <br>

http://tonymacx86.blogspot.ca/search/label/CustoMac</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you go with a Mac Mini, make sure you get one with a dedicated video card, not one that shares system memory with the computer's processor like my 2010 Mac Mini.</p>

<p>The fairly newer processing of high quality previews of Raw files at different zoom levels in LR4/ACR7 can be process and possibly memory intensive during editing and for caching of 1000's of previews for both thumbnails and the main preview window while hunting and culling through folders of Raw images.</p>

<p>I have no evidence that this matters except from reading online postings of others who waited for the next gen of Mac Mini's that came with dedicated video systems which they stated made a difference in performance.</p>

<p>I believe the newest Mac Mini's come with dedicated video chip memory and processing. Also you'll need to buy a separate external CD/DVD burner for installing software and playing those formats. Make sure it comes with the appropriate display port connection that's compatible with your NEC P221w and not just have Thunderbolt only output ports. </p>

<p>But if you can afford the iMac I'ld get that instead.</p>

<p>Another option you could consider would be to replace your mechanical hard drive with an SSD. They're fast and they're becoming less expensive. That option along with more memory could be one possible solution short of a new machine.</p>

<p>The current Mac Minis use the Intel graphics integrated with the CPU. Unless you are playing 3D video games you won't know the difference.</p>

<p>Apple limits the CPUs in the Minis. The iMacs have options for faster CPUs. Even the slowest Mini will be much faster than your current computer.</p>

<p>Personally I would buy a quad core Mini and spend $1200 on a 30" monitor that can do 2560x1600. These are better than any iMac or any current Apple display. Apple used to sell one with the same specs but now sell worse monitors.</p>

<p>I have the 2011 Mini, and I found it to be very slow when I got it. 8gb of 3rd party RAM and a 120gb SSD later, it is much much faster. The hard drive is glacially slow in the Mini so a SSD is recommended. I used the kit and guide from iFixit.com to swap the hard drive out and it worked well. </p>

<p>How much faster is it? Booting is 12 sec vs 63 before, opening Lightroom was 21 seconds, now 3 seconds. Photoshop took 25 seconds to open, now 5 seconds.</p>

<p>I have all my data on an external 2tb FW800 WD drive, it's fast enough for it not to feel slow, and lots cheaper than Thunderbolt.</p>

<p>I think the Mac mini make more sense than the new iMacs due to the compromises made to achieve a slimmer design. Apple have shot themselves in the foot with the new iMac, which has dropped the DVD drive, Firewire port and ext mic. What is worse is the impracticability to open it up for maintenance. The older iMacs were difficult; but the new bonded case to the screen must be near impossible to open up. Production delays do not look good either now, estimated sometime in 2013.<br>

I decided against the new iMac and bought a 27" Thunderbolt display to use with my MacBook Pro. It totally outclasses my Dell U 2410 especially with the colors, resolution and build quality. The Mac screen may not have quite the color gamut of the Dell; but I've not noticed any deficiencies in practice.<br>

I like the portability of the Mac mini. Being able to carry it easily between home and office is a big plus for me. I have ordered a 2.6 GHz i7 Fusion drive version with 16gb RAM. With Thunderbolt, FireWire, SDXC and USB3 ports the mac mini's connectivity is good and I can should be abler to use it with most monitors and HDTVs. <br>

I Don't believe the shared graphics is going to be a problem for image editing. I'm using a i3 dual core 21" iMac with 8GB RAM 256mb Video in my office and an i7 Quad core 15" MacBook Pro at home. The older iMac works pretty well with 8Gb; so the Mac Mini with 16gb should be pretty fast and give the equivalent of a 750mb Graphics card. I will report on this when I get it delivered.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for your input. I guess I was wondering if the new imac is actually faster than the new mac mini. The new imacs don't look like they are shipping at this point, but I was just curious if the imac option would give me more processing speed. Both will take up to 16 MB RAM - I currently use 3 - yes I'm embarassed that I don't have more. It works but just scrolling takes too much time on lightroom 4.</p>

<p>The processor speed is less important than RAM or HDD speed. With 8gb RAM and a 7200RPm Hard drive, even my 2010 dual Core iMac performs imaging tasks effectively enough. if you have 24" iMac, you could try upgrading the RAM and Hard drive first before making a decision, as 3GB RAM is hopeless for imaging.</p>

<p>I think the new mac mini has 5200RPm hard drive. But yes you are right I need to at the very least get more RAM. I believe I can squeeze 6 GB RAM on my old machine.</p>

>>> Production delays do not look good either now, estimated sometime in 2013.

 

The 21.5" iMac will be available this Friday. The 27" model in December. Note that only the 27" model supports user-accessable RAM upgrades.

 

 

Also... I'm very happy with my new 2012 Mac Mini. Went for the quad core i7 option and installed my own SSD. Simple. For me, that's a much better solution than the Fusion drive option.

Dupe. Removed...

Processor speed is more important than ram for LR. It is cpu and core intensive. It is the opposite for PS. PS benifits from

as much ram as possible and not so much on cpu. But with today's machines, any i7 and 16 gigs of ram and ssd is cheap

and plentiful

Processor speed is more important than ram for LR. It is cpu and core intensive. It is the opposite for PS. PS benifits from

as much ram as possible and not so much on cpu. But with today's machines, any i7 and 16 gigs of ram and ssd is cheap

and plentiful

>>> Processor speed is more important than ram for LR.

 

Absolutely agree on that, along with processor type; ie an i7. For example, I also have a 2011 MacBook

Pro laptop with an i7 and the stock 4GB of RAM. Much much faster with LR than my 2009 MacPro desktop with loads more

memory.

<p>What is wrong with the SSD that comes with the mac mini? All of my images are on a external drive with firewire 800. Would you still consider upgrading the SSD in the mac mini? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is wrong with the SSD that comes with the mac mini? All of my images are on a external drive with firewire 800. Would you still consider upgrading the SSD in the mac mini?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look closely at the different models and you will see that the cheapest model does not have an option for an SSD, only the 2 more expensive models. Many of us work in the computer industry and assemble and upgrade our own computers for fun or to save money. You can just buy a higher end model if you want an SSD from the start.</p>

 

<p>Hugh, when I bought my Mini last year it was the brand new model and the top of the line one too, and there was no SSD option. anyway, they probably want an arm and a leg for it, knowing how Apple charges for upgrades.</p>

<p>Thank you Walter and Chris. I get it now. I will look to see what I want to do. At the very least I will add RAM myself from someplace the OWC.<br>

Here in Yosemite we are anticipating up to 8 inches of rain!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I would buy a quad core Mini and spend $1200 on a 30" monitor that can do 2560x1600. These are better than any iMac or any current Apple display.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1. There's nothing at all special about Apple displays, I'd hate to be stuck with one after all these years using SpectraView displays. My wife has an iMac and it's fine for Quicken and Mail display wise. But I'd rather have the Mini and hook up a good NEC SpectraView II system for imaging. </p>

<p>Hugh,</p>

<p>Pretty much any new Mac will be considerably faster than your 2007 iMac. The major differences between the Mac mini and the iMac come down to:</p>

<ul>

<li>price (you don't pay for an LCD when you buy the mini)</li>

<li>graphics (no current mini has a discrete graphics processor, but all iMacs do)</li>

</ul>

<p>Don't get caught up in the Ghz too much. These days, that is less of a performance indicator than in past years. And, the price difference is not always commensurate with the performance difference.</p>

<p>Things you do want to look for:</p>

<ul>

<li>cores - make sure it has 4. The base model of the mini still has a dual core processor. More is always better.</li>

<li>RAM

<ul>

<li>if you can NOT upgrade the RAM yourself (as in the Retina MBP and the 21.5" 2012 iMac), make sure to buy the maximum RAM amount when you buy the machine.</li>

<li>If you CAN upgrade at a later time (non-retina MBP, mini, 2012 27" iMac), then buy the minimum and upgrade with OWC or another vendor (it'll be far cheaper).</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Discrete graphics - more and more, photo processing programs are utilizing the Graphics Processors. While your current software may not use them for the heavy pixel lifting, future versions probably will.<br /><br /></li>

</ul>

<p>Also, don't worry so much about the internal drive capacity. If Photography is the or a main use for the computer, and you take a lot of photos, you will very quickly overwhelm any internal drive you get. You'll be using a lot of external drives soon enough!</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My wife has an iMac and it's fine for Quicken and Mail display wise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's pretty funny. How do you really feel. iMac screen is quite good. Yes its not a Spectra View, but so what, a Porsche isn't a Ferrari, but its still a fine car.</p>

From what I've read,.this years iMacs have a nicer monitor than previous years. I've also

read its harder to take apart and that the hdd's have thier own apple connectors

<blockquote>

<p>That's pretty funny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glad I could provide some humor to your day</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do you really feel</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for asking, pretty good. How about you?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>iMac screen is quite good</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way? I never said it was bad. I said it's nothing special. It's fine for non image editing tasks but far, far from ideal.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes its not a Spectra View, but <strong>so what?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The so what <strong>is</strong> the SpectraView is a smart monitor (reference display) with a high bit internal calibration path that provides functionality that the iMac and most other displays can't provide. If the utmost precision, control and options of calibration targets (multiple targets based on differing output needs) is important to the photographer's digital darkroom, the differences are significant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a Porsche isn't a Ferrari, but its still a fine car.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Poor analogy. How about this. A Porsche and a RAM truck are both fine products to get from point A to point B. If you heed to haul a lot of equipment or tow another vehicle, one's vastly better for the task. If your goal is 0-60 MPH in the least amount of time, there is again a significant difference in the two cars. If you don't really understand the differences in the two products (their design, their capabilities), sure, they both seem like fine cars. I seriously doubt consumers who purchase a car feel the Porsche and truck are equal for the tasks they hope to achieve with either. They don't expect to fit as much stuff in the Porsche as the truck and they don't expect the truck to corner nor accelerate like the Porsche. <br /> <strong>IF</strong> you purchase an iMac, you're '<em>stuck</em>' with the display forever and you've paid for it too. It's simply not close to providing the capabilities and qualities for image editing as the SpectraView or similar Eizo. Same could be said of any old CRT versus a Barco Reference V, PressView or Sony Artisan. Reference display systems cost more and do more for a reason. <strong>IF</strong> editing images visually, soft proofing and expecting a very close match between display and print are the least bit important to you, then the quality and functionality of the display system should be considered.</p>