2011 Base 21.5" iMac or Mini Server?

[lokiju]

I was all set to buy the 2011 Mac Mini Server at $999.

It's a good amount more than the base Mini but for me it's worth the extra cost to get a processor that'll give me more power and should also help give me more years of life out of it.

I sold my 2006 Mac Pro and just sold my 2009 Mac Mini to a member on these forums and am just waiting on all the funds to come through from these sales before I order or go pick up my new Mac.

I was just poking around on Amazon and saw the base model 2011 iMac 21.5" is only $125 more than the Mini Server and otherwise pretty comparable.

They're both quadcore processors but the iMac is a 2.5Ghz i5 vs the Mini Server's 2.0Ghz i7.

Both have 4GB RAM

Both have 6Gbs SATA interfaces.

Both have Thunderbolt ports.

But then the iMac has a much much better video card and it has a Super Drive and the obvious bonus of a really nice 21.5" LCD screen that could be a decent upgrade to my pretty old dual 4:3 ratio 19" LCD's I bought in 2003.

I did some digging to see if I could find performance difference between the two and it's hard to know how to weight these scores sometimes.

While the Mini Server tends to win out on performance test, it doesn't seem to be a huge difference and I have no clue how any of it translates to anything I'd actually ever be able to even feel/notice.

32bit Geekbench scores

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2635QM 2.0 GHz (4 cores) 8573

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400S 2.5 GHz (4 cores) 7250

64bit Geekbench scores

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2635QM 2.0 GHz (4 cores) 9456

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400S 2.5 GHz (4 cores) 7999

So yes, there's a clear difference between the iMac and Mini Server on those results. But again, I can't help but think they're so close that in real world use I'd not feel a difference.

Does anyone here have any experience with either how Geekbench results compare to the real world use or has used both the base 2011 iMac and Mini Server that cares to chime in on their opinion between the two?

 

[vailr]

For what uses would you be putting the machine towards?
If it were my $$'s, I'd probably go with something like the miniATX Hackintosh mentioned here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32200496&postcount=4411
However: if you're not interested in Hackintosh-ing, I'll agree that the 21.5" iMac seems like a better deal than the somewhat more powerful (but: no monitor included) mini server.

 

[lokiju]

For what uses would you be putting the machine towards?
If it were my $$'s, I'd probably go with something like the miniATX Hackintosh mentioned here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32200496&postcount=4411
However: if you're not interested in Hackintosh-ing, I'll agree that the 21.5" iMac seems like a better deal than the somewhat more powerful (but: no monitor included) mini server.

Encoding, transcoding, sftp, http, media server, torrents functions.

Some of those do benefit from processing power.

 

[Ns1]

had a mini server, sold it cuz it didn't do anything for me

<3 my 21.5" base iMac. Need to upgrade it to 8gb ram though, 4gb aint cutting it no mo.

 

[secretanchitman]

imac will be faster no doubt, but minis small enclosure is so tempting.

personally, i would get the imac just because it offers you more for your money..

 

[lokiju]

had a mini server, sold it cuz it didn't do anything for me

<3 my 21.5" base iMac. Need to upgrade it to 8gb ram though, 4gb aint cutting it no mo.

Was it the 2011 i7 mini server? What didn't you like about it?

Do you regret not getting the 27" iMac?

8GB RAM will be upgraded on whatever I get.

 

[lokiju]

imac will be faster no doubt, but minis small enclosure is so tempting.

personally, i would get the imac just because it offers you more for your money..

Not sure if you read what I posted in the OP with the benchmarks but the mini server on benchmarks is faster.

 

[Ns1]

Was it the 2011 i7 mini server? What didn't you like about it?

Do you regret not getting the 27" iMac?

8GB RAM will be upgraded on whatever I get.

nope, it was a few generations back. i just has no need for OSX server, it was a complete waste of money.

Yes I wish I had the 27", but I don't have that kind of $$$ sitting around

 

[secretanchitman]

Not sure if you read what I posted in the OP with the benchmarks but the mini server on benchmarks is faster.

no lie, i actually just fell short of reading where you posted the links. my bad!

still, i would get the imac because of the screen and gpu alone. the 6750m destroys the intel hd 3000 (i have them both in my mbp).

the processors are sort of a mixed bag. the imac is clocked faster and has a higher turbo speed, but lacks hyperthreading. the mac mini server is clocked slower, has a lower turbo speed, but it has hyperthreading.

ultimately, it comes down to space. i think the imac is a much better value for money, but you cant argue with the minis portability and size.

 

[alfa147x]

It comes down to do you need video power? If not take the cheaper route and get the mini.

 

[lokiju]

Went to the local Fry's and played with the new Mini though not the server since they didn't have a demo unit of that model out. I also played with the 21.5" iMac.

I was actually really impressed with the iMac. I was thinking the screen size was going to be so small on the 21.5" but when I sat down at a desk with one I was thinking at first it was a 27" and then realized after looking around that there was a bigger one than the one I sat down at. The 27" is crazy big. I don't think it'd actually even fit on my home office desk as it has a top shelf that's above where the monitors go.

After spending some time on both machines I'm sold on the iMac.

It's a bummer it doesn't have hyperthreading like the i7 Mini Server but for my needs I don't think I'd often or ever see/feel the difference.

The apple online refurb store has them for $1,019. So for $20 more and it also comes with a bluetooth Apple keyboard and Magic Mouse, it's hard to argue against in my case.

Though I already have a Apple bluetooth keyboard and Magic Mouse, so guess I could try and sell the ones I get and recoup some of the cost.

 

[Ns1]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-MC309...5752155?pt=Apple_Desktops&hash=item2a137f8adb

1,186.54, free ship no tax (except in NY) + $24 back in eBay bucks

just a thought.


There's a rumored late 2011 iMac refresh FYI

 

[Tyranicus]

Edit: Wrong topic

 

[lokiju]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-MC309...5752155?pt=Apple_Desktops&hash=item2a137f8adb

1,186.54, free ship no tax (except in NY) + $24 back in eBay bucks

just a thought.


There's a rumored late 2011 iMac refresh FYI

Wonder what they'd put in a refresh this soon?

I follow Macrumors pretty close and haven't seen anything that I can recall lately.

I'm desktop-less at the moment though, don't know that I could hold out that long.

 

[yottabit]

Wonder what they'd put in a refresh this soon?

I follow Macrumors pretty close and haven't seen anything that I can recall lately.

I'm desktop-less at the moment though, don't know that I could hold out that long.

AFAIK, Mac follows this design cycle:

A) Sexy new design, carryover old hardware
B) Dump new hardware into sexy new design
C) Rinse and repeat

 

[bearxor]

32bit Geekbench scores

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2635QM 2.0 GHz (4 cores) 8573

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400S 2.5 GHz (4 cores) 7250

64bit Geekbench scores

Mac mini (Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2635QM 2.0 GHz (4 cores) 9456

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400S 2.5 GHz (4 cores) 7999

I think these scores are misleading you a little bit. The i5's and i7's in the Mini all have Hyperthreading, so the OS thinks there's 4/8 cores, not 2/4 like there actually are. The i5's in the iMac do not support Hyperthreading. So the benchmark is essentially a 8-core vs 4-core synthetic test.

Now, The question to ask is, does hyperthreading make a difference in video encoding or transcoding, which is one of your main stated uses.

That answer is yes, usually in the realm of 15-25% between HT turned off on the same processor. Now, will the extra 500mhz make up for advantage?

Doing just some quick searching and using notebookcheck.com, I can see that the 2635qm is slightly slower than a i5-750. An i5-2400s is only slighty faster than i5-750. There's no direct comparison between the 2635qm and the 2400s outside of the generic Mac benchmarks so I'm just extrapolating some data here. On average, it seems the i5-2400s is maybe 5-10% faster in real world tasks than the i7-2635qm.

Now, seriously, we're talking seconds here. IMO, it's a wash. I wouldn't take anymore time thinking about. I'd be much more concerned about which form factor is best for you instead of the nearly equivalent processing power.

 

[bearxor]

Wonder what they'd put in a refresh this soon?

I follow Macrumors pretty close and haven't seen anything that I can recall lately.

I'm desktop-less at the moment though, don't know that I could hold out that long.

If it happens, it won't be a full re-release. It'll likely just be a speed bump. Don't think it will happen though myself. Too near to a yearly refresh cycle at this point. Don't really expect any major changes in the next iMac either, other than USB 3.

 

[lokiju]

Seems like a good resource for finding the best price on any Mac.

http://www.appleinsider.com/mac_price_guide/

 

[manly]

The late 2011 iMac rumor was largely dismissed because the $999 edu-iMac from last month is currently called "late 2011" in Apple documentation. As an aside, they might speed-bump MacBook Pros to goose holiday quarter sales, but that hasn't happened often in recent years.

If you don't need the Mac mini form factor, just get the iMac. I think the latter will carry better relative resale value down the road, because the mini Server is a bit of a specialized SKU. Might still be a close call if you have an ACD or other nice display all ready for a new mini.

 

[Paperlantern]

If you are going to be using this as a server, get the server, if you need a desktop, get the desktop...

There is no reason to not get the correct tool for the task at hand.

 

[alfa147x]

If you are going to be using this as a server, get the server, if you need a desktop, get the desktop...

There is no reason to not get the correct tool for the task at hand.

I disagree. I would go the Mac Mini route personally because I have no use for a video card. The small for factor would be nice plus I have an odd fear of AIO computers

 

[uli2000]

If you don't need the OS X server, you can get the mid level mini for $799 and Apple will upgrade it to the quad i7 for another $100. Only downside is, only one hard drive. IDK if the dual hard drive cable is avalible yet to upgrade a mini to 2 HDD.

 

[bearxor]

If you don't need the OS X server, you can get the mid level mini for $799 and Apple will upgrade it to the quad i7 for another $100. Only downside is, only one hard drive. IDK if the dual hard drive cable is avalible yet to upgrade a mini to 2 HDD.

The upgrade on the non-server Mini is for a dual-core i7, not quad. The cable is available from OWC, but I think they sell out quickly.

 

[Paperlantern]

I disagree. I would go the Mac Mini route personally because I have no use for a video card. The small for factor would be nice plus I have an odd fear of AIO computers

That's not really disagreeing, you are still getting the correct tool for the task at hand, you do not need video performance, so you buy the one with less video capability. Just because it's not verbatim (i.e. needing a server get the server, need a desktop get the desktop) doesn't mean the rule of getting the right tool for the job doesn't apply.

 

[lokiju]

Stopped by a local chain that's been popping up called Prachtree Mac after catching a movie yesterday (been off yesterday and today) and asked if they'd price match online competitors. I had them pull up that appleinsider price guide I posted before and showed them the lowest price and they said they'll match it.

Sweet!