C1 on a Mac Mini
I currently work on a 15" MacBook Pro Retina, 2.7GHz i7, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD, NVIDIA M650 video card with 1GB of memory running El Capitan and find C1 runs very quickly on this machine (with OpenCL turned off). It also ran just as quickly on Yosemite with OpenCL turned on.
For a variety of reasons I may be replacing my MBP soon and have been trying to decide between replacing it with a Mac Mini (3.0GHz i7, 16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion drive, Intel IRIS graphics) and a 21/27" iMac (i7, 16GB RAM, 1 TB Fusion drive, separate video cards). Photo editing using C1 is probably one of the most processor intensive things that I do on my system along with running iMovie and I was wondering if anyone on this forum is running a similar configuration to any of the above.
I am sure that either the 21" or 27" iMacs would be faster than my current MBP but the Apple people keep telling me that the new Mini would be just as fast even though the Mini i7 chips are only dual core rather than the quad core in my MBP and even though there is no separate graphics card. I am not hardware knowledgeable enough to know if what they are telling me is true or not but they said that the faster chip speed of the new i7 in the Mini makes up for the fewer cores in the i7 (dual rather than quad) and that most photo editing software does not take advantage of multi-threading. I do not remember seeing any settings in the C1 preferences asking me about how many threads to use so perhaps they are right about C1 (although some of my software, like Dxo Optics Pro, specifically asks me about how many threads to dedicate to batch processing).
Before I order the Mini I thought I would ask people who might actually use that configuration their opinions. Is the Mini configured as above capable of doing photo processing quickly? Or is it too slow and underpowered? I would be using a 24" Dell UltraSharp as my external monitor. I do not know if OpenCL runs on a Mac Mini or if that would make any real difference in photo editing. I do some external editing using Affinity Photo, some Topaz plugins and occasionally Dxo ViewPoint 2 for keystoning. I do no computer gaming.
I would appreciate any information I can get. Thank you in advance.
For a variety of reasons I may be replacing my MBP soon and have been trying to decide between replacing it with a Mac Mini (3.0GHz i7, 16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion drive, Intel IRIS graphics) and a 21/27" iMac (i7, 16GB RAM, 1 TB Fusion drive, separate video cards). Photo editing using C1 is probably one of the most processor intensive things that I do on my system along with running iMovie and I was wondering if anyone on this forum is running a similar configuration to any of the above.
I am sure that either the 21" or 27" iMacs would be faster than my current MBP but the Apple people keep telling me that the new Mini would be just as fast even though the Mini i7 chips are only dual core rather than the quad core in my MBP and even though there is no separate graphics card. I am not hardware knowledgeable enough to know if what they are telling me is true or not but they said that the faster chip speed of the new i7 in the Mini makes up for the fewer cores in the i7 (dual rather than quad) and that most photo editing software does not take advantage of multi-threading. I do not remember seeing any settings in the C1 preferences asking me about how many threads to use so perhaps they are right about C1 (although some of my software, like Dxo Optics Pro, specifically asks me about how many threads to dedicate to batch processing).
Before I order the Mini I thought I would ask people who might actually use that configuration their opinions. Is the Mini configured as above capable of doing photo processing quickly? Or is it too slow and underpowered? I would be using a 24" Dell UltraSharp as my external monitor. I do not know if OpenCL runs on a Mac Mini or if that would make any real difference in photo editing. I do some external editing using Affinity Photo, some Topaz plugins and occasionally Dxo ViewPoint 2 for keystoning. I do no computer gaming.
I would appreciate any information I can get. Thank you in advance.
0
-
I've been down this road.
The Mini is good for a couple of reasons.
Price, and more importantly, you can use whatever monitor you choose.
If neither of these things are important, then I would go with the iMac.
From what I understand, C1 uses every available resource at its disposal, so the faster, the better.
I ended up going from a Mini to a 2012 Pro. The difference wasn't insignificant.However it wasn't in line with the cost difference.But that was before I went to the D800. So the difference may have been more. I don't know.
The reason I made such a drastic jump was I wanted to choose my own monitor. I wish Apple made a mid range rig, without a monitor.
Anyway, look closer at the iMac0 -
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
I've been down this road.
The Mini is good for a couple of reasons.
Price, and more importantly, you can use whatever monitor you choose.
If neither of these things are important, then I would go with the iMac.
I have problems with the glare on the very glossy iMac screens. In fact I have so much of a glare problem that I am now using a matte screen external monitor with my MacBook Pro Retina. The Retina screen was just too bright, reflective and glossy. So the monitor is very important to me.
Did I understand you properly? Are you saying that the Mini is an OK choice for use in photo editing?[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
I ended up going from a Mini to a 2012 Pro. The difference wasn't insignificant.However it wasn't in line with the cost difference.But that was before I went to the D800. So the difference may have been more. I don't know.
I have looked at the Pro, but the cost difference is substantial. I have always thought that the Macs were a bit overpriced but that the Pro was unreasonably overpriced for what you get. Especially the base Pro which is just a bit more powerful than the well configured iMac. Still, perhaps it is my best choice if the Mini is not powerful enough.
One other thought was to buy an iMac, but use my current matte screen monitor as an external monitor for the iMac. It is a powerful machine, not too expensive and supports an external monitor, but I am not sure if the setup will work given that I do not work at a desk, but would be putting the machine under a table and only using the wireless keyboard/trackpad and external monitor.0 -
Mike
If I read Jimmy's reply he is saying that, in regard to your specific question re iMac or Mini, he would go for the iMac because of its processor. But of course there are other factors ... Being Scottish, I'd be unhappy about paying for an iMac and having to use a different display 😂 but perhaps you could find a suitable antiglare screen.
Regards
Bill0 -
[quote="NN635770922769309595UL" wrote:
Mike
If I read Jimmy's reply he is saying that, in regard to your specific question re iMac or Mini, he would go for the iMac because of its processor. But of course there are other factors ... Being Scottish, I'd be unhappy about paying for an iMac and having to use a different display 😂 but perhaps you could find a suitable antiglare screen.
Regards
Bill
Yes. See my AP PM.0 -
Yeah, the screen is one reason I stayed away from the iMac. That, and I hate anything "all in one".
The Mac mini didn't misbehave far as I can remember. But it wasn't really fast. Bear in mind this was a couple of years ago and things have changed.
The Mini is more powerful and C1 software has improved.
I'm not sure where to look, but there is a list of graphics that C1 supports. The Mini's may or may not be on the list.
If its not, then you will take a performance hit. How much, man I really couldn't say.
Right now my open CL support is turned off. While I can tell a difference, the difference doesn't keep me from working.
I'm running six cores and 32GB ram so that may be taking up slack.
That was a lot of typing to say "I really don't know"
You do have another choice BTW.
You could get a used Mac Pro 5.1. Its the last "tower" they built.
I just saw a six core on ebay for about $1000.00.
You have the option of adding hard drive space (It has four bays plus two CD Drive bays,) upgrading or even adding an extra video card, extra ram (four slots), adding USB 3.0. Hell, you can even upgrade the "motherboard" to a duel CPU setup! Apple really should have stuck with the towers, the trashcan was a stupid idea.
Of course there is always the option of going to a Windows machine, which is what I may do when its time to upgrade.
I love the modular approach of towers.
Honestly though, there is no way I would buy an iMac just for the processor and video card. Unless of course you could use it as a second monitor. You know, us the iMac as your catalog viewer and your "good" monitor for editing.
I hope some of the guys with Minis will chime in. They may well prove the Mini is more than capable, and thats my hope. I hate to see people spend money unnecessarily.0 -
I got an update for ya Mike.
My Mom has a Mac Mini. I was over visiting today and decided to install C1 on hers.
I then loaded about a hundred images from my D800 onto the catalog some Jpeg, mostly RAW.
It worked just fine. Open CL was turned off (of course).
I'm not sure of the performance as the catalog grows, but it renders perfectly with no noticeable lag.
Here's the specs of her Mini:
Model Name: Mac mini
Model Identifier: Macmini6,2
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Memory: 16 GB0 -
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
I got an update for ya Mike.
Model Name: Mac mini
Model Identifier: Macmini6,2
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Memory: 16 GB
Thank you for the post and thank you very much for going to the trouble to install C1 on your mom's Mini to do the testing. It was very kind and thoughtful of you.
Apparently your mom's Mini is the quad core 2012 version while the current offerings only include a dual core i7. Faster, but only dual core. Still, this gives me more information and more to think about.
Thank you again for posting.0 -
Bear in mind that a 2012 Mac Mini, quadcore is A LOT better than the vast majority of Macbook Pro's.
Since there are a lot of people who are working every day on Macbook Pro (apparently not complaining), I guess using a decent configuration Mac Mini will not disappoint.
I'm using a 2012 2.3 quadcore as a capture machine and I'm very happy. And I process the files and do some Photoshopping on the Mini or on a 201, 3.4 i7 iMac. The iMac is a bit more powerful, but not day and night more powerful.
So, from my side, a big thumb up for Mini.0 -
[quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
I got an update for ya Mike.
Model Name: Mac mini
Model Identifier: Macmini6,2
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Memory: 16 GB
Thank you for the post and thank you very much for going to the trouble to install C1 on your mom's Mini to do the testing. It was very kind and thoughtful of you.
Apparently your mom's Mini is the quad core 2012 version while the current offerings only include a dual core i7. Faster, but only dual core. Still, this gives me more information and more to think about.
Thank you again for posting.
Yeah, I was taken aback when I read the specs on the new Minis. I was hoping that there would be something in the architecture that would make the new dual cores faster, but the benchmarks say otherwise.
And no trouble on the testing. I like knowing better than guessing.0 -
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
Yeah, I was taken aback when I read the specs on the new Minis. I was hoping that there would be something in the architecture that would make the new dual cores faster, but the benchmarks say otherwise.
And no trouble on the testing. I like knowing better than guessing.
The benchmarks for the new Minis are just appalling when compared to the 2012 version - 6,000 compared to 11,000. My basis is probably my current MBP since I know how that operates and what to expect and its benchmark is almost 13,000 (early 2013, i7 chip).
(see here: under the 64 bit multi-core).
That appears to be quite a drop in performance and I can not see myself saying "Well, that's OK". If I upgrade I do not really want to see a drop in performance.
On the other hand I suppose it would not hurt me to give it a try, or perhaps Apple will bring back the quad core i7. The alternative is either the 21" iMac (i7, quad core) or the 27" iMac (i7, quad core) with benchmarks of about 14,000 and 16,500. Of course I am not sure my wife wants to see a 27" iMac sitting on the table in the living room where I do my "work".0 -
[quote="tantareanu" wrote:
Bear in mind that a 2012 Mac Mini, quadcore is A LOT better than the vast majority of Macbook Pro's.
Since there are a lot of people who are working every day on Macbook Pro (apparently not complaining), I guess using a decent configuration Mac Mini will not disappoint.
I'm using a 2012 2.3 quadcore as a capture machine and I'm very happy. And I process the files and do some Photoshopping on the Mini or on a 201, 3.4 i7 iMac. The iMac is a bit more powerful, but not day and night more powerful.
So, from my side, a big thumb up for Mini.
Thanks for posting.
You also have the 2012 Mini with the quad core chip. I have not seen any post from someone with the newer Mini and the dual core chip.
It is probably worth testing the new Mini as Apple has a 14 day return policy (what happened to the 30 day return policy?) but the benchmarks for the new Mini are not good (about 6,000) compared to my current MBP (about 13,000) and the new 21 and 27 inch iMacs (at 14,000 and 16,500 respectively).0 -
Hello,
I run Capture one Pro 7 on both an iMac (21.5 in Mid 2010 model with 3 GHz i3 and 12 GB Ram)and a Mac Mini(i5, 2.5G, 4GB) with a Dell 24xx monitor. I don't usually process a large volume of pictures. My experience is that the Mini is great. I don't see any difference in speed for processing, and the Dell monitor is significantly better than the iMac in color rendition and glare.0 -
Check out the today announced two new iMac's 21.5inch in 4K resolution and the 27inch in 5k. They now support the DCI-P3 color space and come with up to 4.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processors depending on model and choice.
If you don't have a very nice color-accurate display yet then these new iMacs will definitely be worth to look at (especially for a enthusiast photographer). And I'd guess they will outperform every Mac Mini out there.0 -
[quote="NNN634310105226416359" wrote:
Hello,
I run Capture one Pro 7 on both an iMac (21.5 in Mid 2010 model with 3 GHz i3 and 12 GB Ram)and a Mac Mini(i5, 2.5G, 4GB) with a Dell 24xx monitor. I don't usually process a large volume of pictures. My experience is that the Mini is great. I don't see any difference in speed for processing, and the Dell monitor is significantly better than the iMac in color rendition and glare.
Interesting. Are you processing raw images with C1? Or only jpgs? Hope many photos constitute "a large volume"?
The Mini I was thinking about would have a 3.0GHz i7 and 16GB RAM so it should be a bit faster than yours and if you do not see any problem with photo editing with your machine then it appears that the Mini is more than capable of doing what I need.
Thank you for your post.0 -
[quote="AndyE" wrote:
Check out the today announced two new iMac's 21.5inch in 4K resolution and the 27inch in 5k. They now support the DCI-P3 color space and come with up to 4.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processors depending on model and choice.
If you don't have a very nice color-accurate display yet then these new iMacs will definitely be worth to look at (especially for a enthusiast photographer). And I'd guess they will outperform every Mac Mini out there.
Looked at them this morning as I was very interested. Apparently the 4K Retina model no longer uses a separate video card with its extra memory. I was surprised to see that the price from the 21" non-Retina (quad core i7, 16GB RAM, 1 TB Fusion drive) to the equivalent 21" Retina had dropped $100.00. But then someone pointed out that the video card option had disappeared and that explains the price drop. I think.0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
15件のコメント