New Mac advice!

[He's Dead, Jim]

Sorry if this thread is repeating what others have asked, but I'm not sure people have compared these options specifically.

I'm currently mixing on a 2011 MacBook Pro with 8 gigs of RAM and a 2.3ghz dual core i5 processor. It's not the most efficient machine, and it's going to die eventually so I want to upgrade well before that happens. I'd like to stick with a Mac just for simplicity's sake. Here are my options:

1. Apple still sells the little lunchbox-sized Mac Minis. I can get a dual core, 3ghz i7 processor and 16 gigs of RAM with a 1TB drive in a Mini for $1200. Unfortunately they do not make these with quad core processors.

2. iMac, 3.1ghz (or thereabouts) quad core i7. If I get 16 gigs of RAM that bumps it up to $1900.

Here's my question: given that I write/record/mix entirely ITB just as a hobby, is it worth it splurging for the iMac with the quad core, or would the Mini work just as well while still improving upon my current setup? Relatedly, is there an in-between point where I could get less RAM and a lower CPU ghz number for the iMac but opt for quad core instead of dual core and get a cheaper iMac that would still do the job? I'm just not sure what the trade-offs in terms of price/RAM/processors are.

I know there are lots of explainers on this stuff out there, but I wanted the opinion of you guys since you specifically know how it relates to mixing. Any input is appreciated

 

[Line666]

The top of the line 2014 mac mini in this instance is really only about 20-25% faster than your current laptop benchmark wise, imho that's not a substantial upgrade for the amount of money you'd be paying to make it worthwhile.

If you're going to skimp on anything in terms of a base model on a potential imac for cost savings- skimp on ram, you can buy aftermarket stuff and install it easily for cheaper than buying it directly installed in the computer from the apple store and to be honest unless you're running massive orchestral sample libraries ram really doesn't offer as substantial a benefit to audio work as sheer CPU power straight off the bat - buying a model with a better CPU (which obviously can't be upgraded unlike the RAM) makes more sense.

Dual core processors have got a lot better but at this stage I'd still be cautious to recommend them as a serious option as they really don't have the same grunt as quad core - a quad core i5 is not a bad shout if you're saving money though an i7 will offer the most longevity before you start to feel it a few years down the line, most sequencers utilise the benefits the i7 provides these days like hyperthreading.

 

[He's Dead, Jim]

Gotcha, thanks for the info. So if I'm settling on a quad core, I guess my other question is whether I can then go for a lower speed and have it still perform better. In other words, could I go with the 2.7 ghz quad core and still see a major improvement simply because it's quad core, or should I still be opting for around the 3 ghz mark to really get better performance?

 

[Line666]

Well it's really up to you at that stage - what you're essentially asking is if a 10% speed bump between 2.7 and 3 is cost effective and tbh you usually find on the midrange products that price to performance ratio is pretty comparable across the range. A speed increase is always a good thing in terms of longevity but it's down to what you can afford at the end of the day.

At any rate a quadcore iMac will be 2-3 times as fast as what you're running now.

 

[Slicklickz]

You could also go the Xeon route and get a used Mac Pro if you really want maximum processing power for your money.

 

[JeffTD]

Buy refurbed.

Or go Hackintosh. I built one last year that I've still yet to max out on a session, and only spend $1300 on it.

 

[theXbucket]

i´d wait for june, maybe some new machines enter the market then. maybe new macbooks - i am also waiting for this. better than throwing out money at the moment and recognizing the additional value for money in summer. if your macbooks graphics chip is dying you could search the web for this, i read about apple replacing broken graphic chips for free if you have one of the models which are affected by this problem.

 

[JeffTD]

FWIW I have a Retina MBP from summer or fall of 2014 that benchmarks at about 13k on Geekbench's rating, where my 4.2Ghz i7 Hackintosh does 15k. For comparison my late 2009 iMac w/ 2.6Ghz i7 did about 10k, and a bog-standard 13" MacBook Pro i5 does about 8k.

 

[He's Dead, Jim]

Thanks for all the advice, guys- lots of different options to explore. I'll be saving for a while regardless so I'll have time to weigh everything

 

[dominus_malas]

Seriously check out the Hackintosh websites. You can build something for half the price of a comparable Mac. The only difference you'll notice is the outside of the case. You can even use your Apple keyboard and mouse. Those sites will tell you what parts are compatible and you just go from there.

(I did beta testing for Mac software on a Hackintosh and had *no* problems whatsoever.)