iMac FK452LL/A (i5" 3.1) worthy upgrade to Mac mini Late 2012 (i7 2.3)?

[vvcarpio]

Really looking forward to the 4K display of the iMac FK452LL/A. But in terms of speed increase, is it, with an i5-5675R, a worthy upgrade to my current Mac Mini late 2012 with i7-3615QM? I use it for processing photos in Photoshop.

Reason speed is important is to me is, after getting an Asus M32CD with i7-7700 processor and Windows 10 nearly a year ago, I have stopped using my Mac Mini for processing photos because the Asus is just so much faster -- I finish my processor-intensive Photoshop edits faster. If I upgrade to the iMac and the speed improvement turns out to be not much over the Mac Mini (downgrade from i7 to i5?), I might still end up not processing photos on it other than maybe to just look at the final edits on its gorgeous display.

Thanks a lot.

 

[chscag]

Welcome to our forums.

The iMac you referred to above is a 21.5" late 2015 model. Although it's certainly an improvement over your late 2012 Mini, it's probably not going to be any improvement over the Asus. If you want to buy something faster than your Asus, suggest purchasing a new iMac. The new 2017 models especially the 27" are much faster than your Asus but of course cost much more.

 

[vvcarpio]

Thank you, chscag. Yes, I guess the iMac being only 3 years younger than my Mac Mini, I can't really expect much speed improvement. I made a mistake about my Asus' processor, however -- it's i7-6700, not i7-7700.

To compare my systems, I downloaded geekbench and ran it on my Mac Mini and Asus. The scores (multi-core test):

Mac Mini: 10279
Asus: 15324

I then searched geekbench's list and found entries for the iMac the slowest being:

iMac: 13494

So my Asus is .49 faster than my Mac Mini. While the iMac would be .31 faster than my Mac Mini. Also, my Asus would only be .13 faster than the iMac.

Hmm, it sounds like I might still go for the iMac 2015. I didn't really desire for the iMac to be faster than my Asus, just fast enough to be comparable. Besides, the 2017 models are outside my budget.

The only thing I don't like about the iMac 2015 is, according to some online articles I read, I can't at least use it as a monitor if, say, 5 years from now I decide to upgrade again. I guess I can always hand it down to a family member when that time comes.

 

[chscag]

Also keep in mind that all 2015 21.5" iMacs are not user upgradeable for memory or anything else for that matter. And the 21.5" models use a slower hard drive unless you go for an SSD or Fusion drive. And yes you're correct about using it as an external monitor - no target mode on that model.

 

[vvcarpio]

Also keep in mind that all 2015 21.5" iMacs are not user upgradeable for memory or anything else for that matter. And the 21.5" models use a slower hard drive unless you go for an SSD or Fusion drive. And yes you're correct about using it as an external monitor - no target mode on that model.

Hmm. Thank you for the info. Definitely a "con" against the iMac. I'll have to research if 8gb (vs. 16gb on my Mac Mini now) would slow down Photoshop. I hope the geekbench scores already took that into account. Regarding hard drive, I use external drives to store and process photos so I guess it would not matter (?).

 

[vvcarpio]

I came up with one more question...

Is the iMac 2017 MNDY2LL/A, these benchmarks? It's within my budget, however, it seems a tad slower than the iMac 2015. Even if slower, I would go with the 2017 because of the (hopefully) newer technologies in it. What would be the 2017's advantages over the 2015, if any?

Thanks a lot.

(Sorry for the edits -- still getting used to the benchmarks tables.)

 

[ferrarr]

I'm not sure if you're in the U.S., but Apple has a Refurb and Clearance store, https://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/imac/21, which may be worth checking out.

 

[pigoo3]

Is the iMac 2017 MNDY2LL/A, these benchmarks? It's within my budget, however, it seems a tad slower than the iMac 2015. Even if slower, I would go with the 2017 because of the (hopefully) newer technologies in it. What would be the 2017's advantages over the 2015, if any?

Remember that the benchmarks being discussed are ONLY CPU benchmarks. Video hardware is important too. And in many cases from year to year...it's the video performance that's advancing at a faster rate than CPU performance. Generally speaking...getting the newest model is the way to go...because it will very likely have better video hardware. And since you're starting with a 2012 Mac-Mini (where video performance is not really a strength)...almost anything you get will be better!

- Nick

 

[vvcarpio]

I'm not sure if you're in the U.S., but Apple has a Refurb and Clearance store, https://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/imac/21, which may be worth checking out.

Yes, I am in the US. Now I have to decide if I should wait for shipping refurb by Apple -- I certainly don't need it like right this absolute now -- or visit Best Buy and pay $100 more. However, my Best Buy lists an open-box for about $100 less. So I'm thinking I'll check out the open-box and decide there. Thank you ferrarr.

 

[vvcarpio]

Remember that the benchmarks being discussed are ONLY CPU benchmarks. Video hardware is important too. And in many cases from year to year...it's the video performance that's advancing at a faster rate than CPU performance. Generally speaking...getting the newest model is the way to go...because it will very likely have better video hardware. And since you're starting with a 2012 Mac-Mini (where video performance is not really a strength)...almost anything you get will be better!

- Nick

Ah, yes, I forgot about the video. As I understand it, it's more and more an important part of today's systems. Thank you, Nick.

 

[vvcarpio]

Got the iMac. Geekbench score is 13048. Screen (21.5") is smaller than my old (24") but higher resolution allows me to see more. Real happy. Thank you, all.

 

[pigoo3]

Congratulations. A new-shiney computer is always fun!

- Nick

 

[karlsimpson]

You are right 4K video from a late 2012 mac mini is not on! However I run two HD screens with no problem at all (16GB RAM helps). To make the whole thing faster I have an external SanDisk Extreme480GB SSD start-up disk connected with USB3. My 2.5 GHz Core i5 with 16GB RAM now races along. From on to desktop in 42 seconds, compared to usual internal HD in 2 minutes 10 seconds. (my MacBook Air 2015 i7/ SSD from on to desktop is 28 seconds). HD is pretty reasonable with two monitors, although I agree 14K on one big monitor would be nice (it works with the MacBook Air which I regularly use to drive a 43" 4K LG TV). The Intel 4000 video graphics is HD only, whereas the Intel 6000 handles 4K. late 2012 mac minis are reasonably priced second-hand and easily upgradeable (HD/SSD and RAM) but not video. From late 2012 the 4 USB slots are USB3.

 

[pigoo3]

You are right 4K video from a late 2012 mac mini is not on! However I run two HD screens with no problem at all (16GB RAM helps). To make the whole thing faster I have an external SanDisk Extreme480GB SSD start-up disk connected with USB3. My 2.5 GHz Core i5 with 16GB RAM now races along. From on to desktop in 42 seconds, compared to usual internal HD in 2 minutes 10 seconds. (my MacBook Air 2015 i7/ SSD from on to desktop is 28 seconds). HD is pretty reasonable with two monitors, although I agree 14K on one big monitor would be nice (it works with the MacBook Air which I regularly use to drive a 43" 4K LG TV). The Intel 4000 video graphics is HD only, whereas the Intel 6000 handles 4K. late 2012 mac minis are reasonably priced second-hand and easily upgradeable (HD/SSD and RAM) but not video. From late 2012 the 4 USB slots are USB3.

Are you sure you replied to the proper thread? The reply does not seem to fit here.

- Nick