2.5GHz : 500GB
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
500GB hard drive1
AMD Radeon HD 6630M
OS X Lion
2.0GHz : Dual 500GB
2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Dual 500GB 7200-rpm hard drives1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
OS X Lion Server
OS X Lion
Which is better for graphics and video?
FWIW some GeekBench scores or benchmarks.
Thanks for the link. Great info.
Regarding the test, are they the base unit from store with min RAM?
we used a mac mini i5 for a camera system and it was maxed out all the time. we switched it over to an i7 and now it sits around 25% all the time. and we've added a couple more cameras. The i7 is just a lot better at video encoding.
We have the same security cam setup as green tree, with about 14 cameras.....and got similar results with the i7 having moved up from the base i5, that was also pegged continusously.
As far as CPU benchmarks are concerned, lack of RAM should make little difference in scores.
The I7 improvements are due to the dedicated graphics chip, most likely. Not only does the main proc not have to do the graphics anymore but the dedicated chip would do it faster and have faster dedicated video memory.
I am curious if any of you have been watching your heat? In this situation (security cams) does the I7 run cooler because the proc isn't maxed, or hotter because of the GX chip/ram? Or about the same ?
Damien the Mini Server with i7 (4 cores) has the integrated Intel 3000 graphics. You can BTO a "regular" mini with AMD dedicated graphics and *dual*-core i7.
Originally Posted by Damien
.....so....since we are talking about it, running a camera server is CPU intensive, but not necessarily graphics intensive - or so I assume - because of constant streams, compression, and so on.
That is a different thing altogether than running something that is graphic intensive on the box: gaming, 3D animation, CAD, etc.
So are we talking video, or video? ;D
So for a camera server, I have assumed more CPU = better. GPU is not very important.
Ok that makes some sense to me... (better note this on the calendar....)
Originally Posted by unclemac
I'm going to chime in here, as I would like to say: That Unclemac has such a nice way to convey the concept, AND I totally second that.
Agreed, Thanks Unc
It has been fun. I've learned much from you. Thank you, :)
Hey, I just blow stuff up and watch to see what happens. :)
How many cameras streams can a Mini push? Let's load it up till it pukes.....
Then we know.
I assume that the work load would be very similar to rendering or compressing video ala TV/Movie production. Nearly all CPU. Blowing up stu......ah, real world testing seems to confirm this.
Oh, and OP asked about video AND graphics, so maybe not part of a surveillance system or video render work station.....
I suppose it could be improper to ask here, but as everything is fresh . . .
So what does it take to set up a security cam system? Cameras, Mini, and software? I've thought about it, but I've never seen any do it your self.
There it is. Think POE (power over ethernet) for simple and clean, though more per camera + a POE switch.
Originally Posted by rwm
I was comparing the results which showed some interesting figures.
Is this explainable? This is not mine and mine is not even close to this.
Just got the results from Geekbench. According below, a macMini can
be faster than this fast macpro I saw on the list. Is that possible?
Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3392 MHz
1 processor, 4 cores, 8 threads
Geekbench Score: 16028
Intel Core i7-950 @ 4289 MHz
1 processor, 4 cores, 8 threads
Geekbench Score: 14632
That does seem strange
I would think not but there it is... :rolleyes: Hopefully someone else might be able to better explain their benchmark results or scores. Were they both 64 bit?
MacPros don't have Core i7 processors
Is it possible to change those results?
Here is where I found the Geekbench
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/575569 and here
I assume that Geekbench publish those results once you hit submit results from your computer.
mis-ID'd computer? Hackintosh?
Look at the clock speed: almost 4.3Ghz. What model is that?
Look at the i7 model: 950. Apple never used that model as far as I can tell.
So.....unless someone benchmarked a rare prototype, it must be mislabeled, a hacked/modded Mac.....or something else fishy.