Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: MacMini

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    306

    Default MacMini

    Any suggestions?

    2.5GHz : 500GB
    2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
    4GB memory
    500GB hard drive1
    AMD Radeon HD 6630M
    OS X Lion
    VS
    2.0GHz : Dual 500GB
    2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
    4GB memory
    Dual 500GB 7200-rpm hard drives1
    Intel HD Graphics 3000
    OS X Lion Server
    OS X Lion

    Which is better for graphics and video?
    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    8,079

    Default

    FWIW some GeekBench scores or benchmarks.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Thanks for the link. Great info.
    Regarding the test, are they the base unit from store with min RAM?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    539

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    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.
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Virginia... where one Democrat CAN make a difference
    Posts
    2,901

    Default

    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,

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damien View Post
    The I7 improvements are due to the dedicated graphics chip, most likely.
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    .....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.

    Right?

    So are we talking video, or video? ;D

    So for a camera server, I have assumed more CPU = better. GPU is not very important.
    Last edited by unclemac; 03-06-2012 at 11:22 PM. Reason: rolly eye thingy no worky
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Virginia... where one Democrat CAN make a difference
    Posts
    2,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unclemac View Post
    .....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........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....)
    Damien,

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise
    Posts
    792

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    8,079

    Default Agreed, Thanks Unc

    It has been fun. I've learned much from you. Thank you,

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    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.....
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise
    Posts
    792

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    539

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    BAM!

    There it is. Think POE (power over ethernet) for simple and clean, though more per camera + a POE switch.
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rwm View Post
    FWIW some GeekBench scores or benchmarks.
    Hi Guys:
    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?

    MacMini5,1
    Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3392 MHz
    1 processor, 4 cores, 8 threads
    Geekbench Score: 16028

    MacPro5,1
    Intel Core i7-950 @ 4289 MHz
    1 processor, 4 cores, 8 threads
    Geekbench Score: 14632

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    8,079

    Question That does seem strange

    I would think not but there it is... Hopefully someone else might be able to better explain their benchmark results or scores. Were they both 64 bit?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    8,647

    Default

    MacPros don't have Core i7 processors
    molṑn labe'
    "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
--Ben Franklin

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Is it possible to change those results?
    Here is where I found the Geekbench
    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/575569 and here
    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/578970
    I assume that Geekbench publish those results once you hit submit results from your computer.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    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.
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •