[l008com]

Before the discussion starts, please be aware that this is a discussion for the sake of discussing, and I'm a good 99% sure that I won't be making this upgrade during this current generation of Mac mini...

So here's what I have: A 1st Generation Mac Pro
4 x 2.66 GHz Processor
6 GB of RAM
90 GB SSD / 1 TB HDD (Both New)
250 GB HDD (original, lightly used for bootcamp)
ATI 5770 GPU w/ 1 GB VRAM

It's a very fast Mac. But when it comes to computing-power-per-cubic-foot, it's very lacking. It also uses about 250 watts of power (not including the monitors), and heats up my room nice and quick.

So I've been wanted to upgrade for years, but Apple keeps holding me back. Generation after generation of kick ass 27" iMac, but all with glossy screens. Glossy screens on my desktop = 100% deal breaker. My current monitor setup is a pair of 20" matte LCDs, one Apple, one BenQ. Up until now, Mac mini's just weren't sufficient. And another new/refurb Mac Pro is just massive overkill. I would love a mini-tower, a headless Mac between a Pro and mini. But I'm not holding my breath.

So what do I do with my Mac? Everything, more or less. Pile on the web browsers. Fire up all the Adobe software. Encode a few videos in Handbrake. Watch some hulu videos. Run up to 3 VM's at once in VMWare. Your normal, every day, power user type stuff.

So here's what I was thinking. The new Mac mini server, with the quad core i7. It's only 2.0 GHz, but I believe it's hyper-threaded. So 8 x 2.0 > 4 x 2.66. Faster DDR RAM would help it feel snappier too. I would take out one of the HDD's and replace it with a 60~90 GB SSD. Using the same setup I have now, I'd have my system on the SSD and my user folder on the HDD. 500 GB, while half what I have for an HDD now, will be plenty as I also have a home server with TB's and TB's of space. Also, if this mini has SATA3, then I could get the 3 series SSD which can read and write at about 500 MB/sec, double the speed of my Mac Pro's SSD. Power consumption during regular use, would be cut from 250 Watts to, just an educated guess, around 40 watts. Much less power usage and much less heat generated. I also plan on replacing my two 20" non-LED LCDs with two newer LED LCDs, one 27" (not apple) and one... probably 23". With all that combined, my power consumption will be slashed drastically, and I'll be using a Mac that in most cases, probably feels just as fast as my old one.

... but when you replace a 5 year old Mac with a brand new Mac, "just as fast" isn't quite good enough, is it. The two main reasons I'm not doing this upgrade right now... 2.0 Ghz i7, and crappy intel HD integrated graphics. If you could get a quad-core BTO option on the high end, non-server Mac mini, I'd be all over that. I'll be the first to admit, that a super powerful GPU is overrated. Unless you boot windows and game with it, that power goes to waste. Very little uses OpenCL. Upgrading from my nVidia 7300 GT to my ATi 5770 was probably the biggest waste of money I've spent on this Mac. But that said, I still want discrete graphics on my primary computer, something better than integrated. And I'm not a fan of intel graphics either. I sure which nVidia was still building the system controllers for Macs.

So at this point, I think my long term plan of action is to focus on upgrading both of my displays. from 1680 x 1050 (x2) to 1920 x 1080 + 2560 x 1440 LED.
And after the next Mac mini refresh, hopefully I can get more, faster cores, and a nice integrated GPU. At that point, how could I not make the switch.

8 GB of Mac mini RAM cost $60 at crucial. Craziness. It wouldn't cost much to 'pimp' out a mini. And if I sell my Mac Pro as it is right now, I could probably break even.

[Andy8]

I am in the same boat as you, MP 1,1 but less ram and slower HDs, considering which Mac Mini to replace it with.

[l008com]

I always feel like I need to upgrade in the summer, when I'm burning electricity to run the AC, to fight the heat I'm making from burning the electricity to run my Mac Pro. But in the winter, when I'm freezing my ass off, I feel much less motivated to upgrade. And with this much RAM and an SSD boot disk, this computer is still quite fast. I would like a hyperthreaded 4-core Mac though, that would give Handbrake a huge boost.

[Andy8]

I am loathed to spend more on FB ram, it is just crazy expensive these days.

I wonder how much power my 30" ACD burn compared to the MP 1,1 (it tends to work as my heater in winter)

[l008com]

My 20" ACD uses about 60 watts. I imagine the 30" uses 100watts or more.
And yeah, 1st Gen Mac Pro RAM prices are unfairly high. $60 will get you an entire 8 GB for a Mac mini. Or, $105 will buy 2 GB of Mac Pro RAM, which when added to the 6 GB I already have, will bring my Mac Pro up to 8 GB total. Now THAT makes me want to upgrade now.

[l008com]

This just in, the Mac mini server's 2 GHz processor can turbo boost up to 2.9 GHz when not all of the cores are being used. And it has hyper-threading as previously noted. And it apparently supports (unofficially) 16 GB of RAM. But the 8 GB modules cost over $500 each, while the 4 GB modules only cost $30. And, it does have 6 Gb/sec SATA, which means it can run the 500MB/sec SSD drives.

[P]

I have a lot of points on the above, let's hope that I can remember all of them.

Yes, it has Hyperthreading. In a rare moment of clarity in the world of Intel's naming schemes, it seems that all i7 processors have it. It doesn't have the large cache, however, which almost all others do.

As you correctly note, the max turbo is 2.9 GHz. Furthermore, it can run at 2.6 GHz with all 4 cores active - presumably for shorter periods of time - so for anything that doesn't grill all 4 cores for minutes at a time, it's a 2.6 GHz quadcore.

Sandy Bridge (the current Intel generation) integrated graphics are nowhere near as crappy as they used to be. The integrated graphics are completely new and share essentially nothing from the old design. Intel doesn't spend a lot of transistors on it, but it has access to the shared L3 cache (now referred to as LLC by Intel) which helps a lot. What it doesn't support is OpenCL, which may or may not be important down the road.

The next mini will in all likelihood have the Ivy Bridge GPU, the successor to Sandy Bridge. That boost will not be very big - faster RAM will help, but the raw performance will go up by about 33-50% best case (12 execution units in the current model, rumors claim 16-18 EU in Ivy Bridge). Apple may decide to put a quad and discrete graphics in the next mini, but I doubt it - the TDP for something like that will be high.

Please note that the regular HDD will be significantly slower than your current HDD. 2.5" HDDs simply can't keep up with the full-size models. An SSD will fix that, obviously, but be aware that the regular HDD will be SLOW.

Recently I have seen reports of people running iMacs with the front glass panel removed. This apparently removes most of the glare. I have removed mine several times, but since I'm not bothered by the glare, I'm not a good judge.

[Big Mac]

Regarding Sandy Bridge graphics, the benches I've seen of it against Llano do not impress. I guess it's okay for light graphical needs and certainly better than Intel's previous efforts, but Llano really makes it look bad.

[P]

Llano (AMDs latest A6 and A8 mobile desktop CPU with integrated graphics) has physically a much larger GPU, and its quadcore CPU trades blows with the dualcore Arrandale (ie, the Core iSomething chips in last year's MBP). If I were considering a low-end laptop (and I might be, soon, for my dad), I would look closely at Llano, as AMD has managed to really get the power consumption down, but it's not a chip to replace an MP.

The integrated graphics in Sandy Bridge is roughly comparable to the 7300 GT that MP came with.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by l008com 

...Fire up all the Adobe software. Encode a few videos in Handbrake. Watch some hulu videos. Run up to 3 VM's at once in VMWare. Your normal, every day, power user type stuff.

...Upgrading from my nVidia 7300 GT to my ATi 5770 was probably the biggest waste of money I've spent on this Mac.

8 GB of Mac mini RAM cost $60 at crucial. Craziness. It wouldn't cost much to 'pimp' out a mini. And if I sell my Mac Pro as it is right now, I could probably break even.

I too keep trying to create a killer Mini configuration. A limiter in creating a Mini scenario is the lack of dedicated GPU at the low end. You state the 5770 was a waste, but in my experience running Aperture like I did on the 2.66 MP upgrading the 7300 was a necessity for good performance. Even PS is now accessing the GPU for important Adobe Labs plug-ins like Pixel Bender, and that may well be a portent of where CS6 may go.

IMO we buy new hardware guessing what the next OS and apps versions we use will be demanding rather than simply looking at current versions' needs. Clearly that means more RAM and for some of us also a strong GPU.

Another Mini deal breaker is the huge price add for SSD. IMO an SSD is a necessity, and by the time one adds an Apple SSD the price of a Mini is quite high (unlike my MBP which added Apple SSD for $100).

Also does anyone know if there are any DIY RAM or drive upgrade limitations on the Mini like there are on some MBAs and iMacs?

BareFeats.com does have some tests of the Mini.

-Allen

[l008com]

Regarding my 5770... I don't use aperture. I do use photoshop, but almost exclusively with small web graphics, so the added GPU acceleration is hardly noticeable at all. If apps like Handbrake used OpenCL, my GPU would get a nice workout. But as of right now, I don't know of any apps that use OpenCL directly, not counting apps that use is by using CoreImage....That said, I agree that I don't want shitty intel integrated graphics. If you could BTO the high end model non-server Mac mini, with a quad core i7, that would be perfect. As far as SSDs, yeah forget about Apple's SSDs and RAM. In fact, I wish I could buy the mini with no drives or RAM at all, at a discount. 8 GB of RAM is like $60 on crucial. A 7200 RPM 500 GB HD through newegg is under $100, and a super fast SSD is something like $150. That would be a mean desktop for a while, assuming it had strong graphics. I also plan on running every pixel possible. A full 1080p LCD on the hdmi port and a 27" LCD on the miniDP port. And by the time this all happens, if they make cheap thunderbolt cases for 3.5" hard drive, I'll go with one of those and a 1 TB HDD ($60 maybe) and use that as the "User" drive. So one of those, and a 64GB SSD for the boot drive, and the OEM 2.5" HDD would stick around as my bootcamp drive, and spend most of it's life unounted and spun-down (just like the current bootcamp drive in this mac pro).

[P]

I suggest you go to an Apple store and give the latest Intel graphics a try. It's not as shitty as it used to be, and your needs seem very modest.

ifixit's teardown reveals that any mini can take a second HD, if you can source the cable for it, but the CPU is soldered an non-upgradeable.

[l008com]

I've read that the intel 3000 is about the same as the nvidia 320m, which is in the macbook pro i'm on right now. But the intel doesn't support openCL, not sure why. My GPU needs are somewhat modest. But with the right software updates, they could suddenly become quite strong. I sure wish intel hadn't sued nvidia.

[P]

The SB graphics are a step back (compared to previous Intel graphics) towards less programmability to get decent graphics performance out of a low transistor count. Apparently this GPU has been cooking long enough that OpenCL wasn't finished by the time the design was set in stone, and Intel did not consider math on the GPU to be very important. Their fix is to make an OpenCL stack that runs quite fast on the 4 cores of the CPU. It is possible that Ivy Bridge will improve this, and the article I linked above implies it, but we don't know.

It is important to note what the lawsuit was, and what it prevented. When graphics is integrated, it means that they are integrated in the memory controller. With Core 2 and previous chips, that memory controller was on a chip on the motherboard called the Northbridge or MCH. With the Nehalem generation, the memory controller moved into the processor. This was not because Intel was being monopolistic - it was because doing so made the chip much faster. AMD did so long ago.

What the 9400m did was integrate the Northbridge (including the graphics) with the Southbridge (ICH), which includes a lot of other functions on the motherboard (SATA controller, USB, etc). This reduced the number of chips on the motherboard by one, which Apple liked. When the memory controller moved into the CPU, the rest of the Northbridge moved into the Southbridge and was renamed PCH, so an Intel solution was also down to one chip less.

What nVidia was trying to was to make their own PCH and integrate it with a graphics chip. This would not be integrated graphics in the traditional sense, but rather a discrete graphics chip that needed memory access somehow. This could come from main memory, but it would be across the PCIe x16 bus instead of using its own memory controller, which means that it would be slower than a GPU integrated with Core 2. More likely then would be that this chip had its own graphics memory, what AMD calls sideport. It would certainly be faster than Intel integrated graphics, but the price would go up quite a bit compared to a traditional integrated graphics solution, and that extra memory also needs space and connections on the motherboard. It is this solution that Intel blocked with its refusal to license the DMI bus.

Even without the lawsuit, nVidia would have had to close up its integrated graphics production. With a license, they could have created a situation where the OEM could get rid of the Intel PCH if they had nVidia graphics, but the replacement would be either on an MXM card or a bunch of chips on the motherboard that are larger than the PCH. It would be a niche product in either case.

[P]

I know you don't want an iMac, but... The Mac mini quadcore is $1000. The cheapest iMac is $1200, and you get a faster quadcore, faster discrete graphics than any mini, more RAM slots, an optical drive and a faster HDD for your $200 (you do lose 500 GB of storage space, however). You can consider the display a large digital photoframe or something.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'd wager a quad core mini with 8GB RAM and a 6Gbps SSD boot drive will feel a whole lot faster than the old Mac Pro.
Or you you could really mad and fit two SSDs in a striped RAID. That should be obscenely quick.

My understanding is that Photoshop doesn't care very much about graphics cards, Aperture does. You can always keep the Pro as an occasional Windows gaming rig/space heater.

[Head_Unit]

Originally Posted by P 

I know you don't want an iMac, but... The Mac mini quadcore is $1000. The cheapest iMac is $1200, and you get a faster quadcore, faster discrete graphics than any mini, more RAM slots, an optical drive and a faster HDD for your $200 (you do lose 500 GB of storage space, however). You can consider the display a large digital photoframe or something.

That's a REALLY good point. Usually with 2 screens one is quite secondary. And they sell WAY more iMacs, so whatever problems you encounter have a much better chance of finding help to solve.

How about glare screens for the iMac? I too HATE glossy screens, so I feel your pain 1008com. That exact issue is keeping me from upgrading to a new one-but I think we're stuck with that forever. Just try to buy a non-glossy-screen laptop.

By the way 1008com, do you need an optical drive? (which the mini doesn't have built in).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'd wager a quad core mini with 8GB RAM and a 6Gbps SSD boot drive will feel a whole lot faster than the old Mac Pro.

It will not only `feel faster', it will be faster. Even without the SSD, anything that is cpu bound and not io bound will be faster (same number, but faster cores).

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

My understanding is that Photoshop doesn't care very much about graphics cards, Aperture does.

No, it doesn't. And today's integrated cpus can run even the biggest displays, so there is also no need to have a machine with better graphics to drive a 30" or 27" display.

[Waragainstsleep]

Photoshop doesn't or Aperture doesn't?

[OreoCookie]

Photoshop doesn't while Aperture does to some degree, although I'd still like to see benchmarks that shows me the impact of a beefier GPU with all other things equal.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You'd be better off building a sandy bridge mitx system in a ss sg05 case. It would cost alot less than a mini and you could use any gpu and ssd you want. It would also run circles around the most expensive mini. Or you can spend a small fortune on an underpowered pos mac mini and in a year you'll realise what a poor decision you made.

[P]

According to Silverstone's website, that thing has an internal volume that is 10.8 liters (why they'd announce that, I don't know) or more than 6 times the size of the mini. Not exactly the same thing - not that size is the big reason for a mini, I think.

If you came here to suggest a Hackintosh more in general...well, that's an option. It's just that it's fiddly to get it right, you have to pick mobos and GPUs that work, be on your toes with system updates etc. Trust me, I made an Hackintosh myself a while back (in a Silverstone box, as it happens) and while it can be done, it just isn't easy.

[l008com]

To the guy that suggested the base model iMac is a better deal than the high end server mac mini.... I would have switched to iMacs years ago if it wasn't for the glossy screens! I would most likely have a 27" iMac with a second 27" external display. But glossy screens are a 100% deal breaker. And anti-glare films aren't the same as a real anti-glare screen. They blue the screen and refract the colors so the edges of objects get a little rainbow thing going. And besides all that, it's nearly impossible to apply one without getting some specs of dust under it. And every spec of dust means a much much much larger bubble in the film.

So sadly, iMacs are out. Which is too bad because they are really badass otherwise. Just an awesome deal. iMacs are such a great deal, that I would probably buy one at it's current price, even if it came with a second miniDisplayPort instead of the built in LCD. Of course shaving $200 off the price, so I had a Mac that had all of the specs of the 'high end' 21.5" iMac, with the i7 BTO upgrade, for $1499... I would give steve jobs one of my... which organs do we have two of? I was always more into physics than biology.

So I guess I'm back on to my "apple needs a headless iMac" rant again. Although they don't even need that, they just need a matte option for ALL Macs.

Although there's also the issue of power consumption. I'm sure iMacs use less power than my Mac Pro. But I'm sure they still use far more power than a Mac mini server. Even accounting for various displays, and lack thereof.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by l008com 

iMacs are such a great deal, that I would probably buy one at it's current price, even if it came with a second miniDisplayPort instead of the built in LCD.

The 27s have two Thunderbolt ports.

Perhaps you should look at the refurbished store. Current 27" 2.7 Core i5 is $1439. This gives you your two mDP/Thunderbolt ports for external displays at the price point you specified as desirable. (OK, its an extra $39)
If the glossy 27" is really too unbearable to watch TV or movies on, you can just stick the iMac under your desk where the Mac Pro would live and forget the glossy panel is even there.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by l008com 

To the guy that suggested the base model iMac is a better deal than the high end server mac mini...

I agree, the iMac is the better deal.

Originally Posted by l008com 

I would have switched to iMacs years ago if it wasn't for the glossy screens!

I don't understand that: you can connect up to two external screens to the top-end iMac (it has two Thunderbolt ports and thus two DisplayPorts). Just use the iMac's screen for stuff that is not color critical (e. g. Mail, Safari, browser windows, palettes or thumbnails). That's how I use my MacBook Pro's screen when I connect it to my external screen.

[P]

With a real Thunderbolt display, you can even daisychain up to 4 screens per port. The only Thunderbolt display that I know of is Apple's which is glossy, but if the technology takes off, there will likely be matte Thunderbolt displays as well.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by P 

With a real Thunderbolt display, you can even daisychain up to 4 screens per port. The only Thunderbolt display that I know of is Apple's which is glossy, but if the technology takes off, there will likely be matte Thunderbolt displays as well.

I have no issues with the glossy panels but this seems like a glaring gap in the Apple market.