Mac mini vs PC mini

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

#2 the Radeon Pro 555X with just 2GB of VRAM is the bare minimum to power that 4K display.

That's blatantly false. Intel's HD 530 (6th gen Core i) supports 4K60.

 

8 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

1 is the iMac comes with an unusually slow HDD and upgrading that to an SSD of any description will cost $180 (education pricing). The Mac mini comes with an SSD stock.

And? OSX is not unbearably slow on 5400RPM disks.

 

14 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Another benefit of the Mac mini that cannot be understated is that it is much more expandable than the 21.5" iMac seeing as it has 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports compared to the iMacs 2.

Only 2 controllers, so you're bandwidth limited. And adding a dGPU requires it to be the only device in a port, and using the other one for anything other than USB is going to negatively impact performance. Not that there are that many devices that leverage TB3.

 

16 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

3D professionals (up to 4 eGPUs)

Max 2, one per controller.

 

16 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

video editors (up to 4 mass Thunderbolt storage arrays). 

That's just hyperbolic excessiveness for the sake of a bad argument.

 

17 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

So while the iMac might seem like a much better value on paper, once you configure the machine to make sense

For the target audience (meaning not you or other "tech enthusiasts," tech enthusiasts, or professionals), it makes sense.

 

19 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

And you can forget about doing anything remotely 3D with it, even at just 1/4th of the displays native resolution. 

I game on my MBP's 555X. It's not some craptastic GPU you make it out to be. It's not maxing out titles, but it's still far better than the iGPU in the Mini.

 

 

The Mac Mini exists for two groups of people: those replacing a desktop and those who want a small desktop.

 

[DrMacintosh]

Confrontation must be your speciality because that seems to be all you do. 

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Intel's HD 530 (6th gen Core i) supports 4K60.

Yes, but you must be aware that simply because a GPU can support outputting to 4K at 60Hz does not mean that the experience is particularly great. Especially soldiering how much macOS likes to GPU accelerate everything. 

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Only 2 controllers, so you're bandwidth limited. And adding a dGPU requires it to be the only device in a port, and using the other one for anything other than USB is going to negatively impact performance. Not that there are that many devices that leverage TB3.

It's thunderbolt, you were bandwidth limited from the start. And ok, so you only have 2 eGPUs, that's still more than the iMac can do. Mac mini, like iMac, has separate USB 3.0 ports that are not part of the Thunderbolt controller. Use them? And yes, there are plenty of devices that leverage thunderbolt 3, but even if there weren't, thunderbolt is backwards compatible so....

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's just hyperbolic excessiveness for the sake of a bad argument.

It's something the iMac can't physically do that the Mac mini can. I'd say that counts in this context because people do attach storage arrays to their machines.....

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

For the target audience (meaning not you or other "tech enthusiasts," tech enthusiasts, or professionals), it makes sense.

Is this supposed to be saying something combative? Because it just seems like you actually agreed with me on something. 

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

game on my MBP's 555X. It's not some craptastic GPU you make it out to be. It's not maxing out titles, but it's still far better than the iGPU in the Mini.

Yeah? I game on my MBPs Iris 540 iGPU. The Radeon Pro 555X in the MacBook Pro comes with 4GB of VRAM standard unless you have an older model that only comes with 2GB like what is in the iMac. It's simply not a good GPU to power 3D workloads for a machine with a 4K panel. 

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The Mac Mini exists for two groups of people: those replacing a desktop and those who want a small desktop.

It also exists for those who want to a iOS and macOS development platform and content creators. 

 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Yes, but you must be aware that simply because a GPU can support outputting to 4K at 60Hz does not mean that the experience is particularly great. Especially soldiering how much macOS likes to GPU accelerate everything. 

Yes, and the 630 is capable of driving 4K60 in Mojave, otherwise Apple wouldn't run Mac Minis on 4K Ultrafine monitors in their stores.

 

8 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

that's still more than the iMac can do.

And unless you're running multiple instances of your video editor, it's irrelevant.

 

BTW, 27" runs dual eGPU just fine.

11 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Because it just seems like you actually agreed with me on something. 

How the hell do you come to that conclusion? 

 

12 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

he Radeon Pro 555X in the MacBook Pro comes with 4GB of VRAM standard unless you have an older model that only comes with 2 GB.

2017. Still fine for gaming.

 

13 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

It's simply not a good GPU to power 3D workloads for a machine with a 4K panel. 

It is if you keep your expectations in check.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

That's why the 10GBe is an option. 

This is true when companying the Mac mini to other similarly priced PCs. The Mac mini is a Mac though and with it comes a premium for access to macOS and all the pro software it can bring to the table. 

 

But you are right, the Mac mini would make a lot more sense if it did have a dGPU. Even if it was just something weak like the Radeon Pro 555X or 560X like inside the 15" MacBook Pro would have been a wonderful addition. However at the starting price of $800 those would all have to be upgrades seeing as a Mac with those types of specs that cost anything less than an equivalent iMac would not reach the margins that Apple wants. 

The mac mini isn't a very good value option when comparing it to another small form factor PC, but as you pointed out comparing it to the iMac they both have their own benefits and downsides. The iMac doesn't have user accessible RAM slots, and at that pricing only has a 5400RPM HDD,  if I only had $1200 to spend on a Mac i'd choose the Mac mini, Thunderbolt eGPU and storage is better if a person doesn't mind having to add those.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

They could still opt for a low power dGPU like a Radeon Pro 555.

IDK, they have them on the MBP line, they aren’t anything to write home about. 

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The iMac doesn't have user accessible RAM slots

Neither does the mini. You have to do teardowns on both to upgrade RAM, however, the iMac can be upgraded to an SSD.

 

12 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

if I only had $1200 to spend on a Mac i'd choose the Mac mini, Thunderbolt eGPU and storage is better if a person doesn't mind having to add those.

$800 Mac Mini + $200 eGPU enclosure. That's $200 for a GPU and storage.

 

5 minutes ago, floofer said:

IDK, they have them on the MBP line, they aren’t anything to write home about. 

Far better than the HD630.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Neither does the mini. You have to do teardowns on both to upgrade RAM, however, the iMac can be upgraded to an SSD.

That’s just being dishonest. The Mac mini upgrade is FAR easier to do than removing the display of the iMac for the 21.5” model and removing the board and then reassembling everything. That’s a 2 hour upgrade minimum with high risks. 

 

The Mac mini can have its RAM upgraded in 15min. Any storage needs can be satisfied with the plethora of Thunderbolt ports....

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That’s just being dishonest.

Not when the biggest difference is taking the time to cut glue.

 

8 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The Mac mini upgrade is FAR easier to do than removing the display of the iMac for the 21.5” model and removing the board and then reassembling everything. That’s a 2 hour upgrade minimum with high risks. 

You have to completely disassemble the Mini. Honestly, the only upside to the Mini upgrade is that there are less screws and no glue, meaning it's faster (but not easier).

 

8 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Any storage needs can be satisfied with the plethora of Thunderbolt ports....

Any storage needs on the 21.5 can also be solved with TB3. It's not as useful as you make it out to be. And honestly, having 4 of them AND other IO on the mini is just a waste.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Honestly, the only upside to the Mini upgrade is that there are less screws and no glue, meaning it's faster (but not easier).

That literally means it’s easier! 

 

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Any storage needs on the 21.5 can also be solved with TB3. It's not as useful as you make it out to be. And honestly, having 4 of them AND other IO on the mini is just a waste.

The iMac only has 2 ports and is limited with 1 controller.....the rest of your comment is just......irrational. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

 

Far better than the HD630.

Actually what I thought they would do is have those Vega/Intel chips. What do you think about those, or are they not available with the intel SKU?

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

That literally means it’s easier! 

No, it doesn't. You're working in confined space with the Mini.

 

And something taking longer =/= harder.

1 minute ago, floofer said:

Actually what I thought they would do is have those Vega/Intel chips. What do you think about those, or are they not available with the intel SKU?

I don't think there is enough stock (or demand) for the G series chips to justify Intel making that many.

[XenosTech]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I don't think there is enough stock (or demand) for the G series chips to justify Intel making that many.

Stock I could understand but give apple a sales pitch and they would probably fly out the factory.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

Stock I could understand but give apple a sales pitch and they would probably fly out the factory.

Because that worked out sooooo well for Iris Pro Mac Minis.

 

The simple truth is that Apple doesn't want to buy alot of custom silicon for what are now niche devices.

[Blademaster91]

42 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Neither does the mini. You have to do teardowns on both to upgrade RAM, however, the iMac can be upgraded to an SSD. 

The teardown on the Mac Mini is easy enough, theres guides that show you every step on what to take apart. With the iMac to get the SSD upgrade its an extra $200 from Apple, if you do it yourself you need a special toolkit, and risk breaking the screen while prying the glue or tape off, and you risk voiding your warranty if you need service from Apple because you opened the iMac yourself.

42 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

$800 Mac Mini + $200 eGPU enclosure. That's $200 for a GPU and storage.

An extra $200 on an eGPU enclosure is worth it if a dGPU is needed, and a much better GPU can be put in there than the 2GB Radeon Pro 555X in the iMac,which really isn't enough for a 4K display.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

the 2GB Radeon Pro 555X in the iMac,which really isn't enough for a 4K display.

Again, the 555X is enough.

 

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

and a much better GPU can be put in there

And one can do the same with the iMacs and still be ahead overall.

[Blademaster91]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Again, the 555X is enough. 

Its enough in the macbook pro 15" which has a 2880x1800 screen, 2GB isnt enough for a 4K display.

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

And one can do the same with the iMacs and still be ahead overall.

Except upgrading to the Vega 20 is an extra $350, and still far behind a Vega 56.

[Drak3]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

2GB isnt enough for a 4K display.

I've ran my 4K display with 1.5GB. Mac Mini 2014 and 2018.

 

I've ran the same 4K display and the 2880x1800 off of the 2GB 555 in my MBP.

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Except upgrading to the Vega 20 is an extra $350, and still far behind a Vega 56.

eGPU. I can put in a better eGPU, and come out ahead.