SillyDog701

[Antony]

Okay, I need some inputs from you guys... I am currently thinking about getting a new Mac to replace my slow Power Mac G4 (dual 1.42GHz, 2GB of RAM).

Currently, I am deciding between Mac mini and iMac.

Somehow, I really like the compactness of Mac mini, but ...

To make it easier, would "Core 2 Duo" much better than "Core Duo"? I know it's 64-bit vs 32-bit, but what benefit can I expect from 64-bit (over 32-bit)?
Also how much benefit would 7200-rpm HDD (over 5400-rpm HDD) provide?

I am currently deciding between

Mac mini 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
(default) 512MB RAM, 80GB Serial ATA (5400-rpm) for A$1249
most likely I would upgrade to 2GB RAM, 160GB Serial ATA (5400-rpm), which will be A$1958.99

+ AppleCare Protection Plan (APP) for Mac mini for A$229

or an iMac, which I haven't decided on the size yet.

iMac 17-inch Intel Core 2 Duo
(default) 2GHz, 1GB, 160GB for A$1849.00
(most likely, I'd upgrade to) 2.16GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB for A$2398.99 (or 500GB for A$2708.99)

iMac 20-inch Intel Core 2 Duo
(default) 2.16GHz, 1GB, 250GB for A$2299.00
(most likely, I'd upgrade to) 2.33GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB for A$2963.99 (or 500GB for A$3284.00)

iMac 24-inch Intel Core 2 Duo (unlikely)
(default) 2.16GHz, 1GB, 250GB for A$2999.00
2.33GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB for A$3663.99 (or 500GB for A$3983.99)

+ AppleCare Protection Plan (APP) for iMac A$269.01.

The maximum amount of RAM for iMac is 3GB, but 2GB RAM stick is still very expensive at this stage.

Please provide your opinions on all aspects. Thanks.

Edit by Antony, subject line changed from "opinion wanted on choosing a Mac", 3 Nov 2006

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Pu7o]

You'd probably be better off with the iMac, specially when Leopard comes out. Not to mention that the graphics chip inside the Mac Mini is... less than good.

Also how much benefit would 7200-rpm HDD (over 5400-rpm HDD) provide?

A lot.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; pt-pt) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Don_HH2K]

To make it easier, would "Core 2 Duo" much better than "Core Duo"? I know it's 64-bit vs 32-bit, but what benefit can I expect from 64-bit (over 32-bit)?

That really depends on what you're doing with it. I went 64-bit mainly because of the speed benefit on video processing. For example, I can encode video at almost twice the speed at higher bitrates in 64-bits than I can in 32-bits, which is an advantage if you're using DV files and other high-bitrate media. If you're basically working with lower-bitrate media (let's say, under 768Kbps), the performance gain isn't that great; it's more like 4fps than 10-15fps.

For all intents and purposes, you aren't going to see a speedup in common tasks, say, word processing or Web browsing, on a 64-bit app. You only get that in more intensive stuff. I'd still go with it, even if you're only running 32-bit apps on it for the time being, mainly because it might be useful later on.

Also how much benefit would 7200-rpm HDD (over 5400-rpm HDD) provide?

I've got a 5400-rpm hard drive in here, and on my backup server, and the only time I've run into speed issues related to drive access times is while watching raw video (that is, uncompressed frames and DV files). I also have two 5400-rpm drives in the machine I store my backups on, and from what I can tell, that isn't limiting how fast I can back anything up to it.

iMac 17-inch Intel Core 2 Duo
(default) 2GHz, 1GB, 160GB for A$1849.00
(most likely, I'd upgrade to) 2.16GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB for A$2398.99 (or 500GB for A$2708.99)

I'd say this one looks like a good choice.

If you really need more than 160GB of disk space, a cheaper option would be to network your Power Mac to the iMac, and create a drive mapping from its two hard drives to the iMac. If you have a gigabit connection between those machines, it'd also be faster than buying a FireWire 800 or USB 2.0 external drive enclosure.

If you're going with the Core 2 Duo, then you'll probably want that extra 2GB of RAM, because a 64-bit-native system will use more RAM than a 32-bit system (example). It's up to you whether you want to add the 166MHz extra processing power. You won't need it yet, but when Leopard comes out with its 64-bit apps, you probably will.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Pu7o]

The difference between a 7200-rpm HD and a 5200-rpm HD is noted specially when installing software or extracting files.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060523 Ubuntu/dapper Firefox/1.5.0.3

[Don_HH2K]

I guess that'd make sense. I've never used a 7200rpm drive to make a comparison, so I can't really say anything in either case.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

Thanks for suggestions.

Somehow, I really like the compactness of Mac mini, small, easy to hide.

As for the new iMac, I don't really like it's shape. They should make the new iMac in iMac G4's shape (desktop lamp shape).

If you really need more than 160GB of disk space, a cheaper option would be to network your Power Mac to the iMac, and create a drive mapping from its two hard drives to the iMac. If you have a gigabit connection between those machines, it'd also be faster than buying a FireWire 800 or USB 2.0 external drive enclosure.

Thanks

I don't have gigabyte router. That's the problem. I just have a feeling that 160GB is not going to be enough.

If you're going with the Core 2 Duo, then you'll probably want that extra 2GB of RAM, because a 64-bit-native system will use more RAM than a 32-bit system (example). It's up to you whether you want to add the 166MHz extra processing power. You won't need it yet, but when Leopard comes out with its 64-bit apps, you probably will.

Extra 2GB of RAM (total of 3GB) would be extremely expensive, as the cost of PC2-5300 (667MHz) 2GB stick is still very expensive.

The difference between a 7200-rpm HD and a 5200-rpm HD is noted specially when installing software or extracting files.

When I bought my PowerBook 12", I upgraded the harddisk to 5200-rpm. To date, most laptop shops with 5200-rpm HD, 7200-rpm for laptops is available, but still not in the mainstream yet.

Is 17-inch LCD enough? That's another issue if I choose the iMac.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Don_HH2K]

I don't have gigabyte router. That's the problem. I just have a feeling that 160GB is not going to be enough.

What you might be able to do is buy a PC-to-PC USB 2.0 cable, and direct-link them that way. In either case, it'll only be about half the speed of using a gigabit network, but it'll still be four times faster than a 100mbit network. Plus, they're cheap: you can get them for $20 around here; I don't know what that converts to in Australian dollars, but given that you're already buying $1849 of a computer, it shouldn't make that much of a dent.

Somehow, I really like the compactness of Mac mini, small, easy to hide.

How do you turn it on, or get to the CD drive, if you hide it? (Does Apple still put a power button on their keyboards? I think they phased that out awhile ago.)

If you're going with the Core 2 Duo, then you'll probably want that extra 2GB of RAM, because a 64-bit-native system will use more RAM than a 32-bit system (example). It's up to you whether you want to add the 166MHz extra processing power. You won't need it yet, but when Leopard comes out with its 64-bit apps, you probably will.

Extra 2GB of RAM (total of 3GB) would be extremely expensive, as the cost of PC2-5300 (667MHz) 2GB stick is still very expensive.

What I meant to say here was, go with the 2GB option, not get the 1GB stick and then buy a 2GB stick to go along with it. I hear you with the expensiveness of 2GB DDR2-667 sticks: I was looking just for the sake of it a few weeks ago, and I found out that Crucial Memory wants a massive $1299US for one, while they have a "2GB Kit" of two 1GB modules for only $350.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Pu7o]

How do you turn it on, or get to the CD drive, if you hide it? (Does Apple still put a power button on their keyboards? I think they phased that out awhile ago.)

Mac Minis are extremely quiet, you don't need to turn them off.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20060601 BonEcho/2.0 (Ubuntu-edgy)

[Mandrake]

The difference between a 7200-rpm HD and a 5200-rpm HD is noted specially when installing software or extracting files.

Agreed. The difference in speed is quite significant. Antony's PowerMac G4 would probably already have a 7200 RPM hard disk in it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061014 Minefield/3.0a1

[Antony]

The difference between a 7200-rpm HD and a 5200-rpm HD is noted specially when installing software or extracting files.

Agreed. The difference in speed is quite significant. Antony's PowerMac G4 would probably already have a 7200 RPM hard disk in it.

PowerMac G4 has 7200-rpm HD in it. I honest can't notice much difference on speed of copying files, installing software between the two.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Antony]

To make it easier, would "Core 2 Duo" much better than "Core Duo"? I know it's 64-bit vs 32-bit, but what benefit can I expect from 64-bit (over 32-bit)?

That really depends on what you're doing with it. I went 64-bit mainly because of the speed benefit on video processing. For example, I can encode video at almost twice the speed at higher bitrates in 64-bits than I can in 32-bits, which is an advantage if you're using DV files and other high-bitrate media. If you're basically working with lower-bitrate media (let's say, under 768Kbps), the performance gain isn't that great; it's more like 4fps than 10-15fps.

For all intents and purposes, you aren't going to see a speedup in common tasks, say, word processing or Web browsing, on a 64-bit app. You only get that in more intensive stuff. I'd still go with it, even if you're only running 32-bit apps on it for the time being, mainly because it might be useful later on.

I still don't know how much benefit the Core 2 Duo over Core Duo would provide.

From Apple's Intel Core 2 Duo page:


They were comparing between January 2006 model 20-inch iMac (Core Duo) 2.0 GHz 1GB RAM and September 2006 model 24-inch iMac (Core 2 Duo) 2.33 GHz 1GB RAM.

(default configuration for 24-inch iMac is 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo.)

2.33 GHz is 16.5% faster than 2.0 GHz in clock speed (or 1.15x faster). From the data provided by Apple, the speed increase in not signifiant, with the noticable performance increase in Final Cut Pro (HDV Render and Encode), but only 1.5x faster rather than 2x faster.

This could well due to the fact Tiger (for Intel) may not be fully 64-bit support. Apple did mention Tiger (for PowerPC) provides great 64-bit support when installed on Power Mac G5.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Don_HH2K]

Even if Tiger has any x86_64 support, at this point it's probably only at the kernel level right now. Wait for Leopard and a 64-bit Final Cut Pro, and then you'll see a speed increase.

The Core 2 Duo is still faster than the original Core Duo at 32-bit processing, though when the entire platform makes the jump to 64-bits, you'll see an improvement in those intensive tasks. So it might make sense to plan ahead and go 64-bit, especially if you aren't planning on upgrading again for awhile.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

Performance test by Bare Feats showed that in all tested categories, iMac Core 2 Duo (2.16 GHz) is faster than iMac Core Duo (2.0 GHz), which is also faster than iMac G5 (2.1 GHz), which is faster than iMac G5 (2.0 GHz).

Mac Pro 3.0 GHz is faster than iMac Core 2 Duo (2.16 GHz) in Cinebench 9.5 as expected, but surprisingly slower in games categories (Doom 3, Quake 4, UT2004, Halo UB).

They said,

The iMac Core 2 Duo 2.16GHz has an 8% clock speed advantage over the iMac Core Duo 2GHz. Yet in our CPU intensive tests, the Core 2 Duo's performance advantage ranged from 10% to 50%. In our GPU intensive tests, the advantage ranged from 10% to 23%. (In the unpublished UT2004 Flyby test, the advantage was 38%.)

Detail at http://barefeats.com/imcd3.html

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Mandrake]

The game results are hardly surprising. The iMac had a Geforce 7600 GT video card whilst the Mac Pro had to make do with a 7300 GT.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061015 Minefield/3.0a1

[Antony]

The game results are hardly surprising. The iMac had a Geforce 7600 GT video card whilst the Mac Pro had to make do with a 7300 GT.

Thanks for pointing out. Antony does not know much about graphic cards.

Does anyone think that 17" wide format screen is a bit too small? I know I can connect my current 20" Cinema Display as extended desktop.

17-inch, 1440 x 900
viewing angle: 140° horizontal; 120° vertical
brightness: 250 cd/m
contrast ratio: 500:1

20-inch, 1680 x 1050
viewing angle: 170° horizontal; 170° vertical
brightness: 280 cd/m
contrast ratio: 800:1

24-inch, 1920 x 1200
viewing angle: 178° horizontal; 178° vertical
brightness: 400 cd/m
contrast ratio: 700:1

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7