Serious question..How would this Mac Mini compare to my current system..

H

Headbust

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
1,585
CURRENT SYSTEM:

Q6600 @ 3.40ghz Thermaltake V1 Cooler
Gigabyte EP-45-UD3P
WD SE16 WD6400AAKS 640GB / WD 1TB Exterior
OCZ Agiilty 60GB SSD
Intel 520Series 180GB SSD
8GB Kingston HyperX PC8000
MSI GTX460OC
SAMSUNG DVD/LIGHTSCRIBE
Antec 900
Corsair 550 PSU
WINDOWS 8 Professional 64Bit


MAC MINI:

Processor Brand: Intel®
Processor: Intel® 3rd Generation Core™ i7
Processor Speed: 2.3GHz
System Memory (RAM): 4GB
Hard Drive Type: SATA (5400 rpm)
OS X Mountain Lion
Intel HD Graphics 4000


Now keep in mind, If i did get the Mac Mini i would 100% of course wap out that 5400rpm drive with my current Intel 520 180GB SSD i just bought a couple weeks ago to replace it.

I think specs wise except for the video card the mini would beat it correct? I always built HARD machines here in my 10yrs here or so on this forum, but as you can see by my currently build i slowed down dramatically over the last few years. I just have no need for a power house PC. 95% of the stuff i do is web browsing/email...I rarely play ANY games at all on the PC anymore :( Just no time :( However, having the option to go back and play a few classics (HL2, DOD Source, CS Source...ect) would be great if the HD4000 graphics could play it as well as the GTX460 did.


Also, I have gone the hackintosh route many times, but always only try it out for a few days. For some reason now i just have this itch to switch over to OSX..Not sure why :( I guess the best thing to do would be to just go buy a Mini down at BB and try it out for a week or two. If i don't like it just return it :)

So ..other than the 460, are you guys seeing anything blaring i should be considering?...

Please set aside any PC vs MAC discussion unless it is really relevant here.

Thanks for any suggestions
 
For everyday use, assuming you do swap in the SSD, I doubt you would notice a HUGE difference if you are only doing Web use/office apps etc..The main thing that worries me is the Intel HD4000 is no where near a 460 in performance..In fact, I would say the 460 is easily twice as fast, if not faster...Add to that the fact that Intel's drivers are sub par, and aren't updated every month...

I honestly think that if you really want to go full on OSX, then I would purchase one from BB like you mentioned and give it a shot for a week or so..
 
Intel HD Graphics 4000 is roughly equal to an Nvidia GT 220, half the speed of an Nvidia 9800GT, and is maybe one fifth the speed of a GTX 460. It will be shockingly slow compared to a GTX 460 for anything.
 
Lol so I started looking at all thr MacBook laptops and they have seem to have thr hd4000 video, all thr way up to there $2,000 laptops... Wtf?? I guess apple folk don't like to game !


Anyway...it seems after looking at all the laptops thr Mac mini is thr same thing just in a desktop form. Is the i7 in these things mobile version or any else different about them?
 
Headbust said:
Lol so I started looking at all thr MacBook laptops and they have seem to have thr hd4000 video, all thr way up to there $2,000 laptops... Wtf?? I guess apple folk don't like to game !


Anyway...it seems after looking at all the laptops thr Mac mini is thr same thing just in a desktop form. Is the i7 in these things mobile version or any else different about them?
Click to expand...

Actually, of the Mac laptops, only the MacBook Air line relies solely on the integrated Intel HD graphics. Most MacBook Pros (the current generation) use discrete (but onboard) Nvidia GeForce 600M series GPUs. The current iMacs also use GeForce 600M series GPUs.
 
OP, I have a very similar setup as yourself. My everyday computing (including blizzard gaming) is done with a 2010 Macbook, which has an nVidia 320m. I'd recommend getting a macbook of some sort, and I agree you should try and get dedicated video. Note that in the current line only the 15" Macbook Pros have dedicated video! See http://guides.macrumors.com/MacBook_Pro , http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ and http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina for the low down.

Personally I like 13" laptops, so if I were to buy now I'd get the 13" MBP non retina. That said, if the retina had dedicated video it would be my first choice. But since they don't have separate video, I'm not going to switch at this time - and will likely need to jump to 15" when I do.

P.S. stick a Q9550 in that machine and upgrade the video card, you'll find that when you do game it behaves much quicker.
 
Last edited:
You should be fine if you don't play new games. The old games run fine on the new IGPs from Intel; you can really feel how they got their shit together in the last two generations and put a lot of work in those. Still, IGP is IGP, right? Performance will be nowhere near a 460. The higher-end iMacs offer that performance, but I assume those aren't an option to you?
 
Seems kind of expensive just to use a junky OS with rubbish "exclusive" software, and generally poor stability and ugly design. If you want something different try Linux or something. It's free. :p
 
If you aren't gaming, HD4000 is plenty powerful enough for everything else. In fact, I have my secondary (1080p) monitor connected to my IGP and when I'm doing regular desktop stuff, moving windows around, you wouldn't know it was connected to a GPU that's a tiny fraction as powerful as my 680. Obviously when I fire up a game, it loads on my primary display which is driven by the 680.

I'm also a multi-platform user and I can say with all the confidence in the world, DeathPrincess has no clue what he/she is talking about. I would say take that advise with a bucket of salt, but salty BS is still BS, so just ignore it all together.
 
RamonGTP said:
I'm also a multi-platform user and I can say with all the confidence in the world, DeathPrincess has no clue what he/she is talking about. I would say take that advise with a bucket of salt, but salty BS is still BS, so just ignore it all together.
Click to expand...

Based on what? Sorry, but due to one studio having 2 IT departments run by "ooh shiny!" morons means I have to use that junk. It is not a pleasant experience (it's not even them being morons though, these are straight from the factory models...). Crashes are constant, work has to be saved every 5 minutes to avoid important stuff from being messed up (on multiple machines, usually from opening 2 things at once, it's not hourly, but you know there will be a few full stops a day). The interface is terrible, the window management is from the 90s and it has a pile of stupid quirks. It is not a stable OS that should be put anywhere where important stuff needs to be done, sorry. If you believe it is, you are either not using it to do anything or are lucky.

As you haven't presented any "evidence", it's pretty clear your post was just you being silly. :p
 
DeathPrincess said:
Based on what? Sorry, but due to one studio having 2 IT departments run by "ooh shiny!" morons means I have to use that junk. It is not a pleasant experience (it's not even them being morons though, these are straight from the factory models...). Crashes are constant, work has to be saved every 5 minutes to avoid important stuff from being messed up (on multiple machines, usually from opening 2 things at once, it's not hourly, but you know there will be a few full stops a day). The interface is terrible, the window management is from the 90s and it has a pile of stupid quirks. It is not a stable OS that should be put anywhere where important stuff needs to be done, sorry. If you believe it is, you are either not using it to do anything or are lucky.

As you haven't presented any "evidence", it's pretty clear your post was just you being silly. :p
Click to expand...

Did you ever stop and think that maybe your IT department is the problem? At work I have a desktop that is not part of the engineering network that runs XP. It runs like total shit. Having owned XP I know it's not the OS, it's the install that's the problem. If I had to judge XP by this install I would have to conclude that it's a total POS. Opening apps takes at least 5 seconds. I would question the sanity of anyone that would willingly want to use this turd. The only saving grace is it doesn't crash outright, but who cares when it runs like a total dog.
 
I've seen most of DeathPrincess' posts be something apple flamebait related on here, no matter the thread topic. I would just ignore it.

In fact most of [H] are microsoft nuthuggers, so...
 
KENNYB said:
Did you ever stop and think that maybe your IT department is the problem? At work I have a desktop that is not part of the engineering network that runs XP. It runs like total shit. Having owned XP I know it's not the OS, it's the install that's the problem. If I had to judge XP by this install I would have to conclude that it's a total POS. Opening apps takes at least 5 seconds. I would question the sanity of anyone that would willingly want to use this turd. The only saving grace is it doesn't crash outright, but who cares when it runs like a total dog.
Click to expand...

It could be, but these are from 2 totally separate departments. They are pretty much as they come from the factory, with the base model with the base OS with the relevant programs installed, no crap network ware or any "advanced setup". So there isn't really any scope for it to be the IT department. Plus, various people there with their own systems they bring in...same issues. At some point you just have to say it's not a good product.

Cheetoz said:
I've seen most of DeathPrincess' posts be something apple flamebait related on here, no matter the thread topic. I would just ignore it.

In fact most of [H] are microsoft nuthuggers, so...
Click to expand...

So you post a rebuttal using no evidence whatsoever and then complain about fanboyishness...

It isn't flamebait when it's the truth based on experience (plus I don't remember the last time I even mentioned them...). I (and lots of other people) don't dislike their products because of some personal vendetta, but because they are subpar and usually more expensive than the competition. I see a company, any company selling crap, they get called out. Do you want them to get a free ride or something?
 
My evidence is my experience... If you want more evidence feel free to head over to a Mac/apple forum and they'll also tell you what I already know. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You also suggest Linux as an alternative because macs suck so bad yet OSX is unix based just as Linux is.
 
If all you are doing is light office chores, email, web surfing, and casual gaming, or playing old games, I see no reason the mini would not be fine.
As already noted repeatedly, the 460 is way more powerful than the HD4000.
I would personally stay with what you already have, and Win7, but if OSX is what you want, then go for the mini.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top