New 2014 Mac Mini or 2012 i7 Quad used ?

[TomN21046]

I am considering a 2014 3.0ghz i5 mini vs a used 2012 i7 Quad Mini.

I am used to the speed of a GT 740 on my PC. If I convert to mac will the Mini
be an outright disappointment in terms of graphics speed?

Is the real world graphics speed difference significant between the 2012 and 2014
Mini? If not then a 2012 i7 mini might feel faster due to the extra cores.. Has anyone
compared a 2012 and 2014 mini yet in real life?

PS: I want to use a matte display so I don't want to buy an Imac. The $3000 Pro
desktop is too expensive. And this will be a home computer so I don't want to go
the macbook route either. I just want to explore the Mac Mini option.

 

[pigoo3]

I am considering a 2014 3.0ghz i5 mini vs a used 2012 i7 Quad Mini.

I am used to the speed of a GT 740 on my PC. If I convert to mac will the Mini be an outright disappointment in terms of graphics speed?

Why are you considering the switch from a Windows computer to a Macintosh computer?

How much Mac OS experience do you have?

- Nick

 

[dtravis7]

Some will disagree with me but I would take the slightly older Quad Core I7 mini over the new one.

As far as Video, it depends on what you do.

Do you play demanding games and expect the Graphics on the Mini to keep up with your fast NVidia card? If so, you will be let down. BUT for normal usage and even some more advanced usage the Mini will do just fine Video wise.

 

[pigoo3]

I am used to the speed of a GT 740 on my PC. If I convert to mac will the Mini be an outright disappointment in terms of graphics speed?

Internet search:

- GT740 vs. Iris 5100 (2014 Mini)
- GT740 vs. Intel HD Graphics 4000 (2012 Mini)

* Nick

 

[dtravis7]

Internet search:

- GT740 vs. Iris 5100 (2014 Mini)
- GT740 vs. Intel HD Graphics 4000 (2012 Mini)

* Nick

Agree. I would bet on the Nividia but who knows now a days!

 

[pigoo3]

I am considering a 2014 3.0ghz i5 mini vs a used 2012 i7 Quad Mini.

I don't think there is a 2014 3.0ghz i5 Mini (i7 3.0ghz mini)…yes.

- Nick

 

[dtravis7]

Iris Graphics 5100 Mobile compare Nvidia GeForce GT 740M GPU

This is on the Mobile GT740M but still!

 

[pigoo3]

Agree. I would bet on the Nividia but who knows now a days!

This would be my gut feeling as well. Plus I think that there's supposed to be a mobile & desktop version (GT 740 and GT 740m).

I'm assuming that since the OP is more of a desktop user…that we may be talking about the GT 740 (non-mobile version)…which is probably even faster.

But I also read that the GT 740 is an entry level video card. But an entry level desktop video card in the "Windows World"…could be a "blow your socks off" video card in the "Mac World"!

- Nick

 

[pigoo3]

This is on the Mobile GT740M but still!

You mentioned this just before I posted. The comparison to the 740m doesn't seem terrible. But if the OP has the desktop GT 740…I wonder if that version of the card is faster still.

- Nick

 

[dtravis7]

You mentioned this just before I posted. The comparison to the 740m doesn't seem terrible. But if the OP has the desktop GT 740…I wonder if that version of the card is faster still.

- Nick

My thought also.

 

[TomN21046]

Yes, I have a GT 740 discrete card in my pc. I was using that as a reference point
to ask if the Mac Mini would be too slow compared to what I am used to now.

The Mac has a nicer OS than Windows, so I'm looking into whether a Mac Mini
would be fast enough. Apple doesn't offer a middle group desktop solution.
Its either the Mini or $3000 MacPro desktop.

 

[dtravis7]

Tom, you did not answer my one question. What graphic wise do you do and expect it to do? I gave you some uses where your NVidia would be better.

Also the iMac is a Desktop computer and quite nice. Sure it has a monitor built in but an outstanding display at that.

 

[TomN21046]

Looks like:

PassMark - G3D Mark
GT-740: 1600
Iris 5100: 753
Intel 4000: 455

So orders of 2x performance difference. But "real world" experience isn't always
the same as benchmark numbers. That is why I was asking. If an Intel 2012 4000
based Mini "feels" no different for real life video speed than a 5100 based 2014 Mini
then that would steer me towards a used 2012 Mini with a quad core.

 

[dtravis7]

What do you intend to do on the Mac? That will give us more info to better answer you. I would think the Iris would be slightly IN REAL USE faster than the Intel 4000. But I would bet the Quad core I7 would beat the new 2 core.

 

[TomN21046]

Tom, you did not answer my one question. What graphic wise do you do and expect it to do? I gave you some uses where your NVidia would be better.

Usually run Word, VLC MediaPlayer, Chrome, and Mame at the same time.
(Movies, MameGames, and Surfing).

Also the iMac is a Desktop computer and quite nice. Sure it has a monitor built in but an outstanding display at that.

See my first note why an Imac is out.

 

[dtravis7]

Ah, ok the Matte display.

The Mac Pro is no Gaming machine, the video cards are Pro and not for demanding Gaming. Just a note. Let me search around on Mame games and see if I can find anything on them on the Iris and Intel .


It's been ages since I worked with Mame!

Your other two apps will work on anything really that is modern.

 

[dtravis7]

Minimum system for Mame/Street Fighter 4 : MAME

Read especially the first answer. CPU is what is important according to them and not really GPU.

So that would point at the quad I7 for me anyway. Hope that maybe helps you
!

 

[pigoo3]

Looks like:

PassMark - G3D Mark
GT-740: 1600
Iris 5100: 753
Intel 4000: 455

So orders of 2x performance difference. But "real world" experience isn't always the same as benchmark numbers. That is why I was asking. If an Intel 2012 4000 based Mini "feels" no different for real life video speed than a 5100 based 2014 Mini then that would steer me towards a used 2012 Mini with a quad core.

Real world performance vs. the 740 gonna be tough to get that info here…since most of us are using Mac's (no GT 740's). And those of us that are using Windows computers most likely don't have a GT 740 in them.

As far as the Mac-Mini HD 4000 vs. Iris graphics. The Iris graphics are supposed to be pretty good (compared to previous graphics). Also remember that the HD 4000 graphics is 2 generations old. We had HD 4000, HD 5000, then Iris graphics. So a HD 4000 vs. Iris…the Iris should be a good bit better.

Data on the performance of the 2014 Mac-Mini is still kind of scarce at the moment. I don't think that I've seen any in-depth performance reviews yet. I would wait to see what the performance reviews look like. These reviews will undoubtedly compare the new mini to the previous model.

- Nick

 

[lclev]

Okay, my Windows 7 video editor is running a nVIdia Geforce 770 with 4GB of memory. I run two 27" monitors on it. The specs on the computer include 24GB of memory and two quad core xeon processors on a tyan server board - which makes a difference. Does it play high graphic intense video games - oh yes.

I say all that because a video card is only as good as what else is running the computer. As for mac graphic - it is hard to compare windows to mac. The way the two operating systems handle graphics is very different. Is the Intel Iris Graphics as fast as the nVidia 740? Not in head to head tests. As for the card you reference, we have no further specs on the 740 nVidia card. Who makes it determines quality and also the amount onboard memory which a manufacturer can change.

IMO - If you are a gamer a mini is not for you. Most high end games are written for Windows. If you want to watch HD movies then a mini like you have listed will be fine. The Intel Iris graphics are designed for it.

If this will be your first time to experience OS X be aware there will be a learning curve involved too.

Lisa

 

[TomN21046]

Thanks all. It looks like I'll just have to try out a Mini and return it in 14 days if it feels underpowered.
The games I play are mostly Mame oriented so I might be ok.