Is the Mac Mini a serious Desktop Computer?

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hello Everyone, I'm just looking at -ALL- my options as I am switching to Mac from windows although I do have a pretty powerful windows machine I will keep for whatever I may need it for. Dell xps 8300 i7 2600 3.4Gz 12G ram AMD 5700 HD. I have been following many Mac forums and started out wanting a Mac Pro (BTW I don't need a laptop as I have an iPad2 for all my mobile needs) But the future and cost of the MP questionable. Then I seriously considered the iMac but don't really like the limitations with an all-n-one machine although I wouldn't be afraid of it. Now I am looking into the Mac Mini which I had pretty much cast aside as a toy computer... Until I started reading some reviews on it and I was quite surprised. Some of the reviews are almost unbelievable what people are saying they can do with their Mac Mini. I don't know if this is just hype or truth. Any serious advice would be helpful.

I use a computer to build websites, some photo shop, writing blogs, and I have one research program that holds about 2000 books that does unbelievable searches from searching for every instance of a word or phrase in various languages within whatever filter I want to make it search for using a topic, word, verb tense, pronoun forms etc. etc. laying it all out in several different structures from list to charts, to graphs word clouds comparison threads in various forms - in literally seconds or sometimes on more complicated tasks under two minutes. This maxes out the core intell i7 and the 12G of Ram and slows my system down quite a bit.

I have an First started with apple with an iPod touch, then iPhone 4 Then an iPad 2 and have love the trouble free smooth way they work so I think I may be happier with a Mac computer as well. Any thoughts would be appreciated, Thanks
«1

Comments

  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by not1lost View Post


    ?I am switching to Mac from windows?



    Welcome.



    Quote:

    But the future and cost of the MP questionable.



    Also, if you didn't already know you needed one, you didn't need one.



    Quote:

    Then I seriously considered the iMac but don't really like the limitations with an all-n-one machine?



    What limitations would these be? I can think of? two: the hard drive's a pain to get to and the GPU's non-upgradable, but you'd get that with any other model anyway. The hard drive one is certainly a legitimate concern.



    Quote:

    Now I am looking into the Mac Mini which I had pretty much cast aside as a toy computer... Until I started reading some reviews on it and I was quite surprised.



    Yep. The little guy is truly a marvel.



    Quote:

    I don't know if this is just hype or truth. Any serious advice would be helpful.



    Depends on what you're doing. Ah, and I see that you?



    Quote:

    ?use a computer to build websites, some photo shop, writing blogs, and I have one research program that holds about 2000 books that does unbelievable searches from searching for every instance of a word or phrase in various languages within whatever filter I want to make it search for using a topic, word, verb tense, pronoun forms etc. etc. laying it all out in several different structures from list to charts, to graphs word clouds comparison threads in various forms - in literally seconds or sometimes on more complicated tasks under two minutes.



    Do some things. Interesting things. If I may, what program would this be? It's entirely possible you'll need to run Windows on the Mac Mini to continue to use it, but if you already know there's a Mac version, that's moot.



    Quote:

    This maxes out the core in tell i7 and the 12G of Ram and slows my system down quite a bit.



    Well, let's see. Every Mac is due for an update between the start of April and the end of August (really September 21, but for once I figure Mountain Lion will be out a little earlier than Apple expects), so it's a pretty bad time to be in the market.



    The CPU performance increase for the Mac Mini will be average, I expect, but perhaps we'll finally get 4GB of RAM standard on the base model, which is a very long time coming. Not that that really matters much; you should get the lowest amount of RAM possible from Apple and buy and install your own third-party for quite cheaper if you're in the market for any sort of upgrade.



    As for the performance of the Mac Mini, yeah, it's something of a little powerhouse. People use it for everything from an HTPC?







    ?to a custom in-car computer?







    ?to servers for every this and that.







    For everything but the last one that you stated, a Mac Mini would work quite well. With a little more information about this database searching program, we should be able to see if you need more power than it has to offer (but I doubt it).
  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,725member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by not1lost View Post


    Dell xps 8300 i7 2600 3.4Gz 12G ram AMD 5700 HD.



    This maxes out the core intell i7 and the 12G of Ram and slows my system down quite a bit.



    In terms of CPU performance, here's how the Minis compare to your PC:



    XPS 8300 - 10100

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/582252

    Quad Mini - 8700

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/582126

    dual-core Mini - 6592

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/582349



    Even with a dual-core, you will get 65% of the performance of the PC.



    In terms of the GPU:

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

    AMD 5700HD = 1,116

    Quad Mini Intel 3000 = 402

    AMD dual-core Mini = 572



    You should get about 50% of the GPU performance of the PC.



    In terms of RAM, you can go up to 16GB in the Mini for $234:



    http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memor...mini/DDR3_1333



    and you can fit two 2.5" hard drives inside. You can fit a 128GB SSD boot drive and a 750GB platter drive for example.



    They are due for a refresh when the Ivy Bridge chips arrive in June and I'd expect this to make up for some of the difference in performance vs the PC. It should be 15% increase for the CPU so the dual-core goes to 7,580 Geekbench and the quad breaks the 10,000 mark.



    The HD 4000 GPU is between 50-100% faster than Sandy Bridge so GPU scores between 603-804. Apple may choose to make the next Mini lineup entirely IGP-based but if they still have a dedicated GPU in the middle one, expect faster performance.



    I expect a quad-i7 Ivy Bridge Mini with 16GB RAM and an SSD boot drive would be a suitable replacement for your PC and take up about 1/20th the space.
  • not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Welcome.



    Yep. The little guy is truly a marvel.



    Depends on what you're doing. Ah, and I see that you?



    Do some things. Interesting things. If I may, what program would this be? It's entirely possible you'll need to run Windows on the Mac Mini to continue to use it, but if you already know there's a Mac version, that's moot.



    For everything but the last one that you stated, a Mac Mini would work quite well. With a little more information about this database searching program, we should be able to see if you need more power than it has to offer (but I doubt it).



    Thanks for your input TS to answer your questions the main program that is taxing my system is Logos4 and there is a Mac version of it. On the logos forums I have expressed my problems and it seems all the power users are using Macs and advised me to get one to resolve the issue saying they had been through the same thing. I also need to use two monitors when using it. which is also helpful with the website building. I have some info here on it for you on the program that may help you understand. I love and need the program but it is a monster on my machine. There are several levels to the program according to the size of your library and my version is near the top. I also have several thousand dollars invested in the program - it is not cheap... Photoshop is kinda heavy on the GPU but Logos4 strains the whole system to the point when I am trying to take notes my typing is two words behind and I am not a fast typist, the mouse jumps around and screens flicker and even crash sometimes. The companies minimum requirements, Oh heck the maximum requirements for the progam are a joke! (just to get you into it) Then you find out as I did it just wont do and end up buying another computer to use it on. Well I am on my third and FINAL WINDOWS machine I wont keep spending money on these and still not getting the performance I need. The Dell I have now is a pretty hefty machine that is a little less than a year old... I want a machine that can handle anything I throw at it without slowing me down or crashing... This is what I do everyday... Here is a link to a 4 minuet overview video showing the program at work.



    http://www.logos.com/4



    and here are some screen shots of what my pc was doing this morning when I wasn't even pushing it...











    System Name DENNIS-PC



    System Manufacturer Dell Inc.



    System Model XPS 8300



    System Type x64-based



    PC Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, 3401 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s)



    BIOS Version/Date Dell Inc. A06, 10/17/2011



    SMBIOS Version 2.6



    Windows Directory C\Windows



    System Directory C\Windows\\system32



    Boot Device \\Device\\HarddiskVolume2



    Locale United States



    Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.1.7601.17514"



    User Name Dennis-PC\\Dennis



    Time Zone Central Daylight Time



    Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 12.0 GB



    Total Physical Memory 12.0 GB



    Available Physical Memory 7.23 GB



    Total Virtual Memory 24.0 GB



    Available Virtual Memory 14.1 GB



    Page File Space 12.0 GB



    Page File C\pagefile.sys



    I'm new to Mac so any help would be greatly appreciated!



    Dennis



    iPod Touch 64G iPhone4 32G iPad2 64G
  • not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member
    Well the screen shots didnt come out as I expected - not used to this forums tools... anyway it shows the CPU maxed out at 100% Memory at 44% and Disc at 63% .... These this graph is also very radical seeming even unstable to me... Jumping top to bottom continuously... I dont know all about all these things but I do know this system is struggling to keep up. I can tell that without looking at these numbers... and here is a Log file of what my system does when I open Logos 4



    well I "Tried" to put the system log of the logos program in the post but got this message

    "The text that you have entered is too long (123629 characters). Please shorten it to 30000 characters long."
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by not1lost View Post


    Well the screen shots didn't come out as I expected - not used to this forums tools?



    I use Imgur instead of the forum's built-in attachment system. It tends to compress and distort images.



    As for Logos, I imagine a Mini would run it fine. Wait for Ivy Bridge if you can so you can get a performance boost (and HDD, RAM, etc.) for the same price, but yeah. It'd be nice if this sort of thing had Spotlight integration so that searching would be that much smarter and faster without any extra work on the part of the developer, but hey.
  • not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    In terms of CPU performance, here's how the Minis compare to your PC:



    XPS 8300 - 10100

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/582252

    Quad Mini - 8700

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/582126

    dual-core Mini - 6592

    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/582349



    Even with a dual-core, you will get 65% of the performance of the PC.



    In terms of the GPU:

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

    AMD 5700HD = 1,116

    Quad Mini Intel 3000 = 402

    AMD dual-core Mini = 572



    You should get about 50% of the GPU performance of the PC.



    In terms of RAM, you can go up to 16GB in the Mini for $234:



    http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memor...mini/DDR3_1333



    and you can fit two 2.5" hard drives inside. You can fit a 128GB SSD boot drive and a 750GB platter drive for example.



    They are due for a refresh when the Ivy Bridge chips arrive in June and I'd expect this to make up for some of the difference in performance vs the PC. It should be 15% increase for the CPU so the dual-core goes to 7,580 Geekbench and the quad breaks the 10,000 mark.



    The HD 4000 GPU is between 50-100% faster than Sandy Bridge so GPU scores between 603-804. Apple may choose to make the next Mini lineup entirely IGP-based but if they still have a dedicated GPU in the middle one, expect faster performance.



    I expect a quad-i7 Ivy Bridge Mini with 16GB RAM and an SSD boot drive would be a suitable replacement for your PC and take up about 1/20th the space.



    Well that is impressive for the little guy, I am surprised by the performance of such a small machine. Although it still is way behind what I have now and it's not nearly enough.... Thanks though...

    I well may end up going with a MP if they do keep producing it (Heck, second thought I may buy one anyway. the one they have now is plenty powerful enough isnt it? or is there some un-upgradable things that are/will be necessary I dont know about) otherwise I'll propbably need at least an iMac 27 with high end CPU and maxed memory...

    Thanks
  • not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




    In terms of RAM, you can go up to 16GB in the Mini for $234:



    http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memor...mini/DDR3_1333



    and you can fit two 2.5" hard drives inside. You can fit a 128GB SSD boot drive and a 750GB platter drive for example.



    They are due for a refresh when the Ivy Bridge chips arrive in June and I'd expect this to make up for some of the difference in performance vs the PC. It should be 15% increase for the CPU so the dual-core goes to 7,580 Geekbench and the quad breaks the 10,000 mark.



    The HD 4000 GPU is between 50-100% faster than Sandy Bridge so GPU scores between 603-804. Apple may choose to make the next Mini lineup entirely IGP-based but if they still have a dedicated GPU in the middle one, expect faster performance.



    I expect a quad-i7 Ivy Bridge Mini with 16GB RAM and an SSD boot drive would be a suitable replacement for your PC and take up about 1/20th the space.



    RE-THINKING.... What you said.... Maybe....? .... Thanks for all your help - It was very helpful...
  • guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by not1lost View Post


    Well that is impressive for the little guy, I am surprised by the performance of such a small machine. Although it still is way behind what I have now and it's not nearly enough.... Thanks though...

    I well may end up going with a MP if they do keep producing it (Heck, second thought I may buy one anyway. the one they have now is plenty powerful enough isnt it? or is there some un-upgradable things that are/will be necessary I dont know about) otherwise I'll propbably need at least an iMac 27 with high end CPU and maxed memory...

    Thanks



    The Mini is an OK computer, but it's outclassed by an iMac or MP.



    The main selling points, are its size and price. I have an old 2007 C2D Mini, and it's definitely showing it's age, primarily because it needs more RAM, and it can only be maxed out at ~3 GB. OSX is pretty nice, but I can't take advantage of some of the latest advances and I have no interest in putting Lion on it, partly because of RAM, and it's seems like it was made for a trackpad.



    However, it's not a great computer, if you are concerned at all about maxing out RAM, or intensive games/GPU uses - it's a basic, desktop computer, and once you begin factoring BTO options, the $1200 base iMac blows it out of the water. The iMac offers a dedicated GPU, quad-core CPU, comes with KB/mouse, monitor...while an AIO, it's the better computer.



    Personally for me, Apple doesn't make a computer that fits, I can't afford a MP, and the mythical xMac will never happen...so I won't be upgrading to a new Mac. It will probably be an iPad at some point, but only PC's offer what I'm looking for in a desktop.
  • mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    The Mini is an OK computer, but it's outclassed by an iMac or MP.



    The main selling points, are its size and price. I have an old 2007 C2D Mini, and it's definitely showing it's age, primarily because it needs more RAM, and it can only be maxed out at ~3 GB. ....



    That's all good and fine, but the OP is probably not in the market for a 2007 computer. Fortunately, there were two models of Mac mini released in 2009, one released in 2010, and one released in 2011. If the OP wants to learn about a Mac mini that he can actually buy in 2012, then he might want to look here and there.
  • guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    That's all good and fine, but the OP is probably not in the market for a 2007 computer. Fortunately, there were two models of Mac mini released in 2009, one released in 2010, and one released in 2011. If the OP wants to learn about a Mac mini that he can actually buy in 2012, then he might want to look here and there.



    Understood, chief, but the OP seems more concerned with maxing out components and bells and whistles (the current Mini performs about 35% slower, CPU wise, and 50%, GPU wise then his current PC), so that kind of answers what performance to expect.



    The only reason I brought up my Mini, is while I don't own the latest one, I do own one, and it's an OK computer, but if you're expecting Z from something that delivers X, you'll be disappointed, but it's also something that has a lower shelf life life, than something with more oomph, like the iMac.
  • winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    Absolutely, the Mini is a very serious contender. I have it plugged into my HDTV, upgraded the base model from 2 GB to 8 GB of RAM (pretty much required even for basic use), and added in an SSD. It is very fast and I absolutely love it.



    I have not been this proud of a computer since my parents bought me my first computer at age 12.
  • not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    Understood, chief, but the OP seems more concerned with maxing out components and bells and whistles (the current Mini performs about 35% slower, CPU wise, and 50%, GPU wise then his current PC), so that kind of answers what performance to expect.



    The only reason I brought up my Mini, is while I don't own the latest one, I do own one, and it's an OK computer, but if you're expecting Z from something that delivers X, you'll be disappointed, but it's also something that has a lower shelf life life, than something with more oomph, like the iMac.



    Thanks I needed to hear that! although the mini is probably a fine everyday computer I really need more than I have now.. thanks again
  • mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by not1lost View Post


    Thanks I needed to hear that! although the mini is probably a fine everyday computer I really need more than I have now.. thanks again



    Remember that the Mac mini is not just one thing. It is a family of computers that run the gamut from the least expensive 2.3 GHz dual core i5-based system starting at $599 to the high-end 2.7 GHz dual-core i7-based system. A quick scan of Geekbench score listings is illuminating. The Geekbench score for the 2.7 GHz i7-2620M-based Mac mini (2011) is 6936. By way of comparison, the 3.6 GHz i5 680-based iMac (2010) has a Geekbench score of 6937. Always take benchmark scores with a grain of salt.
  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,725member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    The Mini is an OK computer, but it's outclassed by an iMac or MP.



    You'd expect that though otherwise everyone would just make small PCs. That doesn't stop it being a serious desktop computer though.



    It has a quad-core option and both it and the dual-core models are hyper-threaded so the dual-cores behave like quad-cores and the quads behave like 8-cores. The quad-core i5s in the iMacs aren't hyper-threaded. The chips in the Mini and iMac also dynamically over-clock to similar maximum clock speeds (3.1-3.6GHz).



    The Mini also takes up to 16GB RAM now, which is plenty of RAM.



    If you check out the Mac charts, you can see that the quad i7 Mini in fact outperforms all the i5 iMacs:



    http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/



    The performance varies between 5,884-12,000 from low-end to generally affordable high-end. I don't think dropping the performance by half makes a machine go from acceptable to unsuitable. In the worst case it's half the speed so you just wait 4 minutes for a complex task instead of 2.



    The GPU is different as dropping by half could make a game unplayable but even then, you just drop the resolution. If graphics card x plays a game at 1920 x 1080 and graphics card y is half the speed then it will play the same game at 1024 x 768. It's just not as sharp looking.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by not1lost


    although the mini is probably a fine everyday computer I really need more than I have now



    It seems like the research program you use is the most intensive app you need to run but I'd say that maxing the computer out isn't the way to go. If a program that holds just 2,000 books is running search queries that use up 12GB RAM and maxes out a quad i7, it seems like the software needs tuning/better caching mechanisms. If you specified a search pattern for example, it should only need to open 1 page at a time offset by your pattern size. Once it locates the matches, it can then operate on those results.



    Pattern matches could even be run in OpenCL and use the GPU power:



    http://wiki.postgresql.org/images/6/65/Pgopencl.pdf



    If the queries are interpreted, they can be compiled to C code and could run up to 10x faster. Very few complex problems are solved by horsepower because more horsepower in the consumer space means 2-3x speedup. Adjusting algorithms and using optimised code can jump up 5x-100x.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Winter


    I have not been this proud of a computer since my parents bought me my first computer at age 12.



    I feel the same way. The aluminium version is a really well designed machine and it's not bad value for money. You get over 75% of the performance of the entry Mac Pro for under 40% of the price.
  • hmmhmm Posts: 3,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The Mini also takes up to 16GB RAM now, which is plenty of RAM.



    If you check out the Mac charts, you can see that the quad i7 Mini in fact outperforms all the i5 iMacs:



    http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/




    It's a bigger boost in benchmarks than real use. Hyperthreading tends to give semi inflated results on benchmarking programs. The reason for the higher benchmarks is that hyperthreading is disabled on quad i5 cpus. It's enabled on dual core i5 cpus and all i7s. Intel is a bit weird with this stuff.
  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,725member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    It's a bigger boost in benchmarks than real use. Hyperthreading tends to give semi inflated results on benchmarking programs. The reason for the higher benchmarks is that hyperthreading is disabled on quad i5 cpus. It's enabled on dual core i5 cpus and all i7s. Intel is a bit weird with this stuff.



    The numbers can vary from one benchmark to another. I think Cinebench is a reliable benchmark as it is actually processing a real render and this does show the iMacs to be faster:



    Mac Mini i7 = 4.2

    http://www.barefeats.com/mini11_01.html

    3.1GHz iMac i5 = 4.9

    http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html



    This is showing that the $2,000 iMac is 15% faster than the $1,000 Mini and the Mini is on par with the $1700 iMac.



    Some people dismiss the Mini as being a poor desktop simply because it has a 2.0GHz mobile CPU vs the iMac desktop 3.1GHz when those CPUs achieve very similar results.



    The iMac is better value due to the GPU but if the iMac is a viable desktop, the Mini is too and is of the headless design some people (myself included) prefer.
  • hmmhmm Posts: 3,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




    Some people dismiss the Mini as being a poor desktop simply because it has a 2.0GHz mobile CPU vs the iMac desktop 3.1GHz when those CPUs achieve very similar results.



    The iMac is better value due to the GPU but if the iMac is a viable desktop, the Mini is too and is of the headless design some people (myself included) prefer.



    I never said it was bad. I was trying to address some of the discrepancy between i5 and i7 benchmarks. It can be a little confusing if you aren't familiar with Intel's practices. Dual core i5 = 2 physical, total of 4 logical as opposed to quad i5 where it has 4 physical cores without hyperthreading, so the system sees 4 total cores once again. I am a little surprised at times by how compressed the numbers have become in certain areas. Anyway I can't think of an interesting direction to go with this post so I'll leave it as a basic response.
  • not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    It seems like the research program you use is the most intensive app you need to run but I'd say that maxing the computer out isn't the way to go. If a program that holds just 2,000 books is running search queries that use up 12GB RAM and maxes out a quad i7, it seems like the software needs tuning/better caching mechanisms. If you specified a search pattern for example, it should only need to open 1 page at a time offset by your pattern size. Once it locates the matches, it can then operate on those results.



    Pattern matches could even be run in OpenCL and use the GPU power:



    http://wiki.postgresql.org/images/6/65/Pgopencl.pdf



    If the queries are interpreted, they can be compiled to C code and could run up to 10x faster. Very few complex problems are solved by horsepower because more horsepower in the consumer space means 2-3x speedup. Adjusting algorithms and using optimised code can jump up 5x-100x.







    I feel the same way. The aluminium version is a really well designed machine and it's not bad value for money. You get over 75% of the performance of the entry Mac Pro for under 40% of the price.



    I havent made up my mind yet but you all are really helping. The Mini is sounding better all the time. Actually I am quite fascinated by it.

    As far as your evaluation of my research software I dont doubt it needs some tweaking as they update it often even weekly sometimes. some things it does that you may not have known is that it's not just 2000 books of "just words" each word is "keyed" in several different ways to produce almost unlimited patterns from the structure of the context to the word numbering system keyed differently in different sets of books then there are the morphology of each word it has to consider as well as it compares each word in various languages. It trys to do all this within seconds while at the same time assembling charts and diagrams of whatever the queries may require. Then the it has the ability to reference much of this info with just a mouse over pop up window instantly. It is truly amazing but hard on a computer.



    Thanks for all your help the Mac Mini is looking like a more serious contender for my needs. It would be nice to have a machine take up so little space and do so much! like I said before maybe not here but the Pro is a monster and I dint like all in ones.... thanks!
  • lemon bon bon.lemon bon bon. Posts: 2,101member
    Try looking at a Mini in real life. It's quite beguiling. It's sexy little beast. Very touchable too.



    With Ivy Bridge it will run cooler with better integrated GPU.



    With any look, Apple will broaden the i7 options across the line and offer a better discrete GPU.



    Regardless, it's a respectable machine.



    I think it could be cheaper. But I'd say that about Apple desktops across all lines.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • lemon bon bon.lemon bon bon. Posts: 2,101member
    Quote:

    This is showing that the $2,000 iMac is 15% faster than the $1,000 Mini and the Mini is on par with the $1700 iMac.



    A nice statistic. Something to consider. Bang for buck compared to a mid range iMac and entry Mac Pro.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
Sign In or Register to comment.