i5 vs i7, dual-core vs quad, GHz, GHz, GHz -- what does it all mean?

Question

Level 2

393 points

i5 vs i7, dual-core vs quad, GHz, GHz, GHz -- what does it all mean?

I'm looking at the mac mini configurations, and comparing with iMac configurations. I'm trying to argue we should go the mini route. I want this to be true for a couple of reasons:

The users are doing page layout or are artists. It's really nice for them to have a BIG screen, but it would be nice to be able to get nice screens and then not replace them as frequently as we replace cpus.
Machines get "handed down" from users who need lots of cpu and memory to users who don't need that so much. Those users might not need all that screen real estate, either, so in the computer "musical chairs" it would make more sense for people to keep the monitor that fits their work needs.
Eventually machines end up running serverish tasks back here in the computer room. (We have a collection of junk back here and it's awesome how well it works. We just retired our last G3 tower a few weeks ago, and we've got lots of old G4s and G5s, too.) Cast-off minis are great for us -- just stack them up and plug them into a kvm switch. Towers are fine, too. But a bunch of 20" or 21.5" iMacs? Yikes!

But looking at the minis, they appear to be underpowered next to the iMacs. The mid-price mini can be ordered with an i7 but it's only dual core not quad. The GHz on the cpus is lower. Is there something I'm missing here? (Like stuffing memory into the machine is more important than the cpu, or that the extra cores aren't going to do any good for my users running InDesign...)

So, help me out here -- how do I justify the mini? It just doesn't seem to have quite the same horsepower as what should be an "equivalent" iMac, at least on paper.

Posted on Aug 11, 2011 10:03 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Aug 11, 2011 10:41 AM in response to cathy fasano

For InDesign (light graphics), RAM will be the biggest factor. The iMacs do have more in the power department though.

I think it really comes down to how long you are wanting to use them before replacing. Obviously if you are expecting 4+ years you will want the best you can get now. If you are like me and replace every 3 years, extra power is negligible cause they will likely be replaced before the software starts to max them (except for power users of course).

Reply

Answer 2

user1724

Level 3

535 points

Aug 11, 2011 11:46 AM in response to cathy fasano

I think the question is to do what? Most users don't do anything more intensive than iMovie and PhotoShop. For them, and likely 90% of the users out there, the $599 mac mini with a $70 8GB ram upgrade (you need that) will be more than they ever need. Most people I know get hung up on the processor numbers and buy way more hardware than they need.

Reply

Answer 3

Aug 12, 2011 2:57 AM in response to cathy fasano

The bottom line depends on what your most intensive

application is. For instance, Photoshop will actually

perform better on a 2.7 dualcore that a 2.0 quad core.

Most of it's operations a singlethreaded (only doing one

thing at a time). But as an example, Hanbrake, which is

a video conversion application, will run 2 to 4 times faster

on a 2.0 quad core vs. 2.7 dual core.

The 2011 Macbook Pro line uses similar processors and

there are many benchmark reports for them.

The other item is graphics rendering. If you have graphics

intensive applications that are graphics chip dependent,

then you will want to opt for the Mini with the discrete

graphics option vs. the integrated Intel option.

Reply

Answer 4

cathy fasano Author

Level 2

393 points

Aug 12, 2011 8:44 AM in response to cathy fasano

I really really like the mini, but man I sure wish it came with four slots for memory so you could take it up to 16GB. I think the cpu isn't so much a problem for reasons other people have given -- especially when you run Adobe apps you can never have enough memory! I think the perfect app for that quad-core chip would be parallels virtual server, if it weren't for the lack of memory. I would run 4 VMs on it in a heartbeat except that you are only going to be assigning 2GB apiece...

Reply

Answer 5

smaco

Level 1

0 points

Aug 12, 2011 9:06 PM in response to cathy fasano

I´m a graphic designer and now i´m using a new mac mini the "small one" with i5 and with 8GB of ram and is really fast. Lion only use 1gb of ram aprox, and 288mb for the video card.

I think you maybe need to know if the software you are going to use is really 64bits?? because for example adobe cs3 isn´t and it will only be able to use 3.5 to 4GB of ram (per application) i dont remember exactly the max of memory. The other thing is the weigth of the files.

Reply

Answer 6

fficc

Level 1

5 points

Aug 13, 2011 3:34 AM in response to cathy fasano

The mini format also means mini power supply and mini cooling, so running graphics intensive apps, 3D (games) makes the mini run hot and the fan gets a little noisy. The mini is priced for what it is, a low end machine. Also make note of the max screen size in pixels and this may affect or limit your purchase of future monitors. And the 288MB video memory size is the minimum used, my 8GB mini uses up to 512MB for video. (World of Warcraft)

Reply

Answer 7

creasyj

Level 1

0 points

Sep 22, 2012 9:44 PM in response to fficc

"The mini is priced for what it is, a low end machine."

I beg to differ sir. The Mac Mini is not by ANY means a "low end machine". It may be the lowest end between the Mac Mini options but consider the price when it doesn't come with a monitor, mouse, or keyboard... If you were to compare this to a mid range iMac the pricing would be equal once you added the missing components.

Reply