advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: mspace
Date: June 11, 2017 10:46AM
We've been looking at using a mini to run Logic Pro with a full set of orchestral samples and other synth packages. We don't need to have the latest/greatest for doing video, etc.

The reason for postponing a purchase has been waiting for updates to the mini. This seems to be slowing us down.

What is the best oldest mini to go for (within reason)? Asking this regarding minimum specs.

Also, any recs regarding a mackintosh mini and how to go about that?

Many thanks in advance . . .
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: jdc
Date: June 11, 2017 11:19AM
Budget?



----


Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: mspace
Date: June 11, 2017 11:34AM
Quote
jdc
Budget?

Relatively open. We usually go for the previous model on upgrading to save money, unless there's a spec reason to get latest/greatest. It took us 8 years before we upgraded laptops, so we live with things for a while.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: jdc
Date: June 11, 2017 12:54PM
Then I would just buy a brand new one with 16 GB ram, i7 and biggest flash drive you need.



----


Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 11, 2017 01:14PM
Quote
jdc
Then I would just buy a brand new one with 16 GB ram, i7 and biggest flash drive you need.

I agree, go with the 2012 quad core i7.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: mspace
Date: June 11, 2017 01:22PM
Quote
Speedy
Quote
jdc
Then I would just buy a brand new one with 16 GB ram, i7 and biggest flash drive you need.

I agree, go with the 2012 quad core i7.

Is the 2012 the latest/greatest?

Edit: Just saw there was an upgrade in 2014. Other than it being quad core. is there any other reason to go with the 2012? Also concerned with age and software compatibility.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2017 01:35PM by mspace.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: jdc
Date: June 11, 2017 01:56PM
Quote
mspace
Edit: Just saw there was an upgrade in 2014. Other than it being quad core. is there any other reason to go with the 2012? Also concerned with age and software compatibility.

Ok, so there are more things we need to factor in? maybe your question needs to be more specific? Like do you need a ton of internal storage? Or how many screens does it need to run? Does logic use the GPU in any way? many apps do now. Is it quad core aware? or would a quad core be a waste? And what is the idea ram you want? is 8 enough? or 16? how about 32? And is there *really* a budget?

Theres a lot of differences between the 2012 quad i7 and the 2014 dual i7 models. Sure, the chip is different, but the 14 has faster graphics. And a way faster flash drive.

The only way you will find a 2012 quad core is on ebay. Theres a 2.3 and 2.6. 2.3s are easier to find, and if you find one with 16 GB ram and a SSD -- without looking -- Im gonna guess $1000.

Have you considered other options, say a 21" iMac? Far more HP and dedicated video... or even stepping up to a 27' iMac? Lots of options around A$1500....



----


Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: mspace
Date: June 11, 2017 02:10PM
Quote
jdc
Quote
mspace
Edit: Just saw there was an upgrade in 2014. Other than it being quad core. is there any other reason to go with the 2012? Also concerned with age and software compatibility.

Ok, so there are more things we need to factor in? maybe your question needs to be more specific? Like do you need a ton of internal storage? Or how many screens does it need to run? Does logic use the GPU in any way? many apps do now. Is it quad core aware? or would a quad core be a waste? And what is the idea ram you want? is 8 enough? or 16? how about 32? And is there *really* a budget?

Theres a lot of differences between the 2012 quad i7 and the 2014 dual i7 models. Sure, the chip is different, but the 14 has faster graphics. And a way faster flash drive.

The only way you will find a 2012 quad core is on ebay. Theres a 2.3 and 2.6. 2.3s are easier to find, and if you find one with 16 GB ram and a SSD -- without looking -- Im gonna guess $1000.

Have you considered other options, say a 21" iMac? Far more HP and dedicated video... or even stepping up to a 27' iMac? Lots of options around A$1500....

Thanks for the list! That will help to think things through. We will check the Logic specs.

The mini is under consideration because of the form factor for performance. If no monitor is being used, then we'd run it with an iPad. It would also be easier within the space configs at other jobs where there are already monitors and keyboards.

We are open to other ideas that we may not know about with a similar ease of size.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: hal
Date: June 11, 2017 03:19PM
If you spend a lot of time looking at progress bars for rendering audio, then the 2.6GHz 2012 model is your best bet, but the 2014 i7 model with a PCIe SSD would be pretty damned fast too. The 2012 model would be MUCH cheaper. And other than the PCIe port on the 2014 model, performance outside of the processors are pretty much the same.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: Lew Zealand
Date: June 12, 2017 01:57PM
If your software is quad core capable (not just single threaded which is common or maybe dual threaded), then the 2012 Quad Core i7s are great. Just get whichever one you come across, the differences between the 2.3 and the 2.6 are minimal, about 10%. I have both.

If you are just single or dual threaded and you don't mind buying your RAM with the purchase from Apple, then the 2014 models may be better as they are a bit faster for single and dual threaded operations than the 2012 2.6, about 10%. But the RAM is not upgradeable in these machines so get 16GB if you think you'll ever need it.

The GPU is better in the 2014 Minis and they have 2x Thunderbolt 2, where the 2012s have 1x Thunderbolt 1, so the other tech in the 2014s is better if you will ever use it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: mspace
Date: June 12, 2017 02:42PM
Quote
Lew Zealand
If your software is quad core capable (not just single threaded which is common or maybe dual threaded), then the 2012 Quad Core i7s are great. Just get whichever one you come across, the differences between the 2.3 and the 2.6 are minimal, about 10%. I have both.

If you are just single or dual threaded and you don't mind buying your RAM with the purchase from Apple, then the 2014 models may be better as they are a bit faster for single and dual threaded operations than the 2012 2.6, about 10%. But the RAM is not upgradeable in these machines so get 16GB if you think you'll ever need it.

The GPU is better in the 2014 Minis and they have 2x Thunderbolt 2, where the 2012s have 1x Thunderbolt 1, so the other tech in the 2014s is better if you will ever use it.

Very helpful. We are also going to compare a mini to maybe a smaller laptop. We have mid-2014 15" MBPs. The desire is to have all the music work on a separate computer.

Offhand, are there any laptops smaller than the 15" that compare favorably to either of the minis?

Continued thanks to all for the help in sussing this out.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Not so mini question . . .
Posted by: Lew Zealand
Date: June 13, 2017 01:59PM
The 2012 and 2013 13" MacBook Pros (Retina and non-) are the same generation as the 2012 Mac Mini and the low end models match the dual core 2.5 Mini. Mid and high-end 13" MBPs have faster dual core CPUs. GPU is not as good as the 2014 and later models but these are all integrated GPUs so not overall high performance for 3D uses.

There are no quad core 13" MBPros so nothing there can match the CPU in the 2012 quad core Minis*. Only the 15" MBPro receives the quad core chips.

All Retina models are non-upgradeable though there are some relatively pricey 3rd party SSDs which can replace the Apple-specific ones inside. 2012 was the last year with a non-Retina upgradeable 13" MBPro option. These are prized by many people, even with the rather low rez display.

The Mid 2014 13" MacBook Pro is the same inside as the Late 2014 Mini, with all the unupgradeability of the Mini.
The Early 2015 13" MacBook Pro has the next-gen CPU and GPU re: above models but is only a small upgrade in both CPU or GPU.



* I have the current-gen 2017 Intel NUC with the top end Kaby Lake dual core 3.5 i7 CPU and it is as fast or faster than the 2011 2.0 i7 quad core Mini and 15" MacBook Pros for multithreaded workflows. So we've come to the point where a dual core chip can outperform a 6 year old quad core one, but not a 5 year old one. My 2012 2.3 Quad core Mini is still faster than the 2017 i7 NUC.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 204
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 847 on February 04, 2015