Significant difference in graphics performance of 2.3GHz anf 2.5GHz Mac Minis?

Is there a significant difference in the graphics performance of the 2.3GHz anf 2.5GHz Mac Minis?

Yes. The 2.5 GHz model uses a discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM, while the other model uses the integrated graphics of the CPU. The 2.5 GHz model has a better GPU.

Similar Messages

Will increasing the memory from 4Gb to 8Gb make a big difference to the speed of my Intel Core Duo 2 Mac mini?

Will increasing the memory from 4Gb to 8Gb make a big difference to the speed of my Intel Core Duo 2 Mac mini?

Well, technically no, CPU will remain the same speed. But having 8 gig will give you some room for memory hungry apps and run better with multiple apps.
Adding a SSD drive will give a second life to your macmini. I did mine a few weeks ago (240 gb SSD ) and also went from 2 to 4 gig ram. It's like having a new computer!
Good luck!

Would a 256 GB SSD on a 2012 Mac Mini significantly improve Final Cut Pro X Performance?

Would a 256 GB SSD on a 2012 Mac Mini significantly improve Final Cut Pro X Performance?
I'm considering a 2012 Mac Mini 2.6 Quad Core with 16 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD with external Thunderbolt drives.
I understand that Mavericks allocates 1GB VRAM from system memory in a 2012 Mini with 8GB RAM.

It will only improve the read and write performance, and this is not as important as the processor and the GPU in Final Cut Pro.
The Mac mini has got an integrated GPU that may work if you are a home user, but if you are a professional user, you should consider an iMac, a 15-inch MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro. You won't notice a big performance increase

Would 256 SSD on 2012 Mac Mini significantly improve Final Cut Pro Performance?

Would a 256 GB SSD on a 2012 Mac Mini significantly improve Final Cut Pro Performance? I'm considering a 2012 Mac Mini 2.6 Quad Core with 16 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD with external Thunderbolt drives.

It will only improve the read and write performance, and this is not as important as the processor and the GPU in Final Cut Pro.
The Mac mini has got an integrated GPU that may work if you are a home user, but if you are a professional user, you should consider an iMac, a 15-inch MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro. You won't notice a big performance increase

AMD Radeon 6750M or Intel Intel HD Graphics 4000 New Mac Mini

I currently have a MBP with the AMD Radeon 6750M 1gb dedicated graphics i7 quad with 8gb. Since I do not need a laptop any more, I was thinking of the new mini with 16gb. and the new fusion hd.
I also have a 27" cinema display. Do you think I will see a difference in graphics performance since I do a ton of video and image editing. How does one compare the graphics
thanks

I happy to see the Core i7 option in the non-server configuration, but very disappointed in the regression only having an integrated GPU. I use a 27" Thunderbolt Display with the 2011 Mac Mini 2.5Ghz with 6670M discrete graphics. It does "ok" for casual use, though it really struggles with full-screen HD video (there's a very noticeable choppiness), at least in Safari. It's passable with Firefox or Chrome, though even there the computer's fan revs up at times. Also, actions such as swiping Launchpad screens exhibits a noticable lag.
My usage includes casual desktop stuff like email & web browsing, but also full screen video, photo manipulations in Lightroom & Photoshop, and occasional video work in Premiere Elements. In addition to the video issues I described above, I see what feel like "long" delays (compared to my Core i7 Windows 7 box) when doing things like opening a 16MP Nikon raw file in Photoshop from Lightroom. It's usable since I'm not doing this for a living, but it's annoying.
I wonder with the 2.6Ghz quad-core CPU and Intel 4000 GPU configuration how overall performance would compare to my present setup...
I realize many will just say the Mini isn't the right box for what I am doing. But the iMac or MBP don't allow me the flexibility to upgrade just the computer & keep my current display. So I'm trying to discern whether upgrading to the best possible 2012 Mini configuraiton would provide a noticable improvement over the 2011 model or if the Intel 4000 vs 6670M would negatively offset the CPU upgrade.

Keynote Performance on Mac Mini (General Question)

I'm hoping the awesome community of Apple users can provide some much needed insight for a guy who's been out of the Apple scene since 2005. I am looking to purchase a Mac Mini 2.3GHz quad-core i7 for the sole purpose of running Keynote on Sunday's at my church. Currently, we have on loan a 15" MacBook Pro (not sure the specs, but I believe it was purchased last year) and it runs Keynote like a champ! That being said, my reasoning for choosing Mac Mini is cost. Any insight into the performance of Keynote running on a vanilla Mac Mini 2.3GHz quad-core i7 would be much appreciated! Also, it would be running on multiple displays.
Thanks
1upmshrm

Keynote will run perfectly well on any new model of Mac. For good performance, adding additional RAM to the basic spec is advisable, a minimum of 8GB RAM should be fine.
We run a basic Mac MIni i5 with 8GB at an international conference centre running 8 hours every day.

Mac Mini Server Graphics?

Hi,
I'm torn between getting a secondhand Mac Pro and a Mac Mini i7 server. I recently tried the Current Mac Pro against the basic i5 Mac Mini in the Apple Store and did not like the juddering graphics of the latter when opening Launchpad. Is it possible that the problem was low ram and slow hard drive or is it just that the HD3000 graphics are not able to keep up?
I mainly use my system for music production but I think I would find the slow graphics irritating. If I did buy a Mac Mini I would replace the system drive with an SSD I already own and increase the ram to 16gb.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

BDAqua wrote:
Hopefully, but I wouldn't consider the slower Server Version which is meant for a whole different purpose, plus, I've never been happy with any Intel Shared Graphics solution.
LOL, I did. And I had to consider only base configurations, not BTO -- call it, being a sucker for killer discounts. The Mini Server has a 4 core i7 and two HD stock, so I went for that. Extra cores help with rendering and batch converting RAW image files.
Even if you BTO the Mini with the AMD Radeon, you can up the CPU from a i5 to i7 dual core, not quad core. Quad core goodness is found only in the server with the Intel GPU. Such are the compromises that one faces.
As for GPU, I'd already been using the Intel in MBP i7 13", so I knew what to expect. I'm not seeing anything devasting with the standard graphics apps (CS, Quark) and FCS; I don't game. I upgraded to 8GB RAM from the get go -- well, with exception of the shipping time. With 8GB RAM, the Intel gets 512MB for VRAM, less when there's less RAM. Works for me, but people have different needs and expectations. Launchpad doesn't "judder" for me, but then again, I only know it with the Intel GPU.

GPU/CPU Temps and Graphics Performance Questions

I am also experiencing some similar oddities with my 15in UMBP. As background on my setup I am running 10.5.7 (the problem began before the update) and I work in an air-conditioned office with a cooling pad for my frequently "toasty" MBP. I have noticed that my temps are significantly higher while running on the NVIDIA 9600M GT vs. the 9400M, and also I use iStat to monitor my system.
Here's the problems. With only Mail, iChat, Safari 4, and iTunes running (87-93% idle) I frequently see temps hit 150-155 F for the GPU 145-150 F for the CPU. While running on the 9400 with the same applications (87-92% idle) I see temps from 90-95 F for both GPU and CPU. When I had first gotten my MBP I used it mostly with Aperture 2 and I thought it was strange that I couldn't tell the difference in performance between the 9600 and the 9400. Later I tried to use it from time to time in Win XP (bootcamp) for gaming, but it would get so hot that i could hardly touch the keyboard and the graphics performance wasn't nearly what i thought it should be. In fact I was only able to run games slightly better than on my company provided Dell Inspiron D620 (old POS). On the Mac side I tried to test out the performance of my GPU by setting the graphics in X-plane just to the point that with the 9600M GT enabled the program wouldn't tell me that I had too many graphics options turned on. After getting that dialed in I switched over to try it with the 9400 and the performance was nearly identical, and maybe even a little better... I'm not a genius when it comes to computers by any means. I don't know very much about what kind of performance I should be seeing from these two cards, but I would think that the 9600 would greatly out perform the 9400.
Any feedback or advice would be greatly appreciated

I used istat pro to get the temperatures and fan speeds. You can download it free here:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/istatpro.html
I turned it on a few hours ago and the temperature of one of the cores reached 70 degrees C and the fan speeds all went up to around 3000 rpm. I'm just going to leave it off for now and take it in to get serviced. Only problem is I have to make an appointment and who knows how long it will take to get it in. Hope it works out for you.
Kyle

Improving graphics performance in DIAdem 11.0 Report?

Dear Forum,
when working on a Report layout, the poor graphic performance of DIAdem is a real problem for me.
For example, many diagrams with lots of data are on one page. One opens the proficiencies of one of the diagrams and changes e.g. the curves color or whatever and closes the dialog window. After this, the whole Report page is refreshed - wich takes up to one minute, depending on the amount of data displayed.
The strange thing is, when I close the given dialog window, and while the report page is being refreshed sent DIAdem to the taskbar and open any other application window, the process of refreshing the screen takes only 1 second instead of 30 seconds.
The question is: Is there a tweak to improve the speed how DIAdem refreshes the report page? Or is there any workaround other than switching applications during refreshing?
Thanks a lot.
Greetings from Germany
Oliver

Hello Oliver,
The easiest way to speed up the graphics performance in Report with large data files (or 3D graphs with lots of nodes) is to turn off the "Data Layer" (German: "Datenebene") in the "View" menu (German: "Ansicht").
That function basically turns off the display of all data in Report, but retains the axis systems, texts, etc., so you can still move them, place them and edit them without having to guess sizes. Once you're done with the report, simply turn the data layer back on and you're ready to create a PDF, print or save the result as an image file (JPG, BMB, etc.).
I think the performance difference you described (1 vs. 30 seconds) is due to the fact that once DIAdem has drawn a page, it retains an image in memory and will simply draw that image when you bring DIAdem to the foreground (or maximize it). After any edits you make to the report (e.g. change the color of a graph), DIAdem redraws the complete page from scratch, which takes much longer then just re-displaying an image that has already been drawn previously. Someone from the DIAdem R&D team could probably do a better job explaining this, but I think this is the explanation for the time difference in drawing.
Anyway, the "Data Layer" trick should hopefully solve your problem, let us know if that works for you.
Greeting from Austin, TX.
Otmar D. Foehner
Business Development Manager
DIAdem and Test Data Management
National Instruments
Austin, TX - USA
"For an optimist the glass is half full, for a pessimist it's half empty, and for an engineer is twice bigger than necessary."

Graphics performance - external monitor

Hello everybody.
I've run into a problem..
When I add an external monitor to my rMBP 15", the graphics performance is reduced by quite a bit. Example: when I play League of Legends on my built in monitor, it runs smoothly at 60fps with almost the highest graphic settings. But when I play it on the external monitor, with the lid closed, it's going at 30fps with the lowest graphic settings.
Here's the twist..
I bootcamped it, just to test if there'd be any difference. And surely, there was. Suddenly I could play with the highest graphic settings at 60fps on my external monitor.
Here's my setup:
MacBook Pro Retina 15", mid 2012.
Asus VE278Q
The monitor is connected with a HDMI cable.

I have the same hardware, a rMBP with the quad 2.6, 16 gigs of ram and the NVidia 650. I don't have the problems you are describing but I play different games - mostly borderlands, so perhaps that makes a difference.
The first thing I would suggest is to use something other than an HDMI cable. I can't remember the details but I recall reading that the throughput of the HDMI is limited, especially compared to thunderbolt, so I would try switching first. Of course you are roughly quadripling the pixels you are pushing when you go from 1440x900 (native retina) to 2880x1800 .... so that could be it, and I would also try to scale the external monitor 1440x900 ... and see what happens.
Lastly, most games run a lot faster under windows than OSX. Sad but true. I sometimes run the same game on my server ( a proliant with a Xeon quad @ 3.3 ghz with either a decidedly low end GT630 video card. It smokes the retina MBP, badly for whichever game I have ever tried. They look better, they run much faster. That said, I still like to game on the Mac and only use the Server when I need a third machine when my daughter comes to kick my butt. I personally will take the ease and elegance over the speed, since the rMBP is fast enough.

A significant difference between the metrics captured at Proxy and BS level

Context: -
          Currently we have following set up for a particular OSB project.
AccountManager
          Interface …… (this has all the schemas and wsdls)
          Services
               AccountManagerProxy… (Proxy service)
               AccountManagerBS … (Business service)
AccountManagerBS – is configured with end point URL to interface with back-end system.
AccountManagerProxy – includes a ‘Route to’ action for linking to AccountManagerBS as given below
The performance monitoring is enabled at AccountManagerProxy and AccountManagerBS level.
Test Scenario: - I am running a simple load test for AccountManager and checking performance metrics from OSB dashboard.
Expected behavior: - The performance metrics at proxy and at BS level should not differ more than few milliseconds (10-50 msec)
Problem Statement: - I am seeing a significant difference (like 40 to 50 seconds) between the metrics captured at proxy and BS level.
     As an example, the number at proxy level is “1 minute 20 seconds” and the number at BS level is ‘500 milliseconds’
     Moreover, this behavior is not consistent. It has started showing this behavior in last few days. The further impact of this is ‘stuck threads’ on webLogic server and hence the high possibility of memory outage. I have already restarted the Admin/managed-1/managed-2 servers couple of times.
Can anyone help me understand and identify the exact problem area for this issue?

does your proxy do any authentication with any 3rd party auth providers ?
Also in proxy service monitoring are you seeing all time at route node ? .. is the business service request type different that the contents of $body before the route? .. there could be some implicit transofmations if yes...

Improving Video/Graphics Performance

Okay, so one cannot upgrade one's iMac graphics card. Any other strategies to improve video performance? I have done the obvious like closing all other apps and maxing out RAM (4GB).

Thanks Dan but maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I'm interested in is whether or not one can expect a noticeable difference in video graphics performance between a 20" Cinema Display and a 23" Cinema Display, when connected to a Mac Mini Core Duo.

Mac Mini Core Duo and 23" Cinema Display: video graphics performance

I know the Mac Mini Core Duo and the 23" Cinema Display are compatible but can anybody tell me if one can expect better graphics performance when using a 20" display or does it not make any difference?

Thanks Dan but maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I'm interested in is whether or not one can expect a noticeable difference in video graphics performance between a 20" Cinema Display and a 23" Cinema Display, when connected to a Mac Mini Core Duo.

Get the best graphical performance

I've been developing an application where the graphical appearance is very important, so every panel has a 1280x1024 size with a 32-bit color depth picture control as large as the panel itself used as background; moreover there are a lot of other picture controls.
In this situation, loading and displaying panels is very slow, so I need to know form some CVI developers how I can improve these operations:
is the performance of LoadPanel() affected by the size of the whole uir file, or by the size of the panel to be loaded? Is it a good idea having more than a panel in a single uir, if the uir size is more or less 100MB? I think there should be no difference...
while updating tables, the performance increases if they're set as invisible before updating, and set as visible at the end. When a panel has been loaded, but not displayed yet, is the graphical performance affected by hiding or showing controls? I don't think so, because I think that if a panel is not displayed, all its controls are invisible, but I'm not sure...
Thanks
Vix
In claris non fit interpretatio
Using LV 2013 SP1 on Win 7 64bit
Using LV 8.2.1 on WinXP SP3
Using CVI 2012 SP1 on Win 7 64bit, WinXP and WinXP Embedded
Using CVI 6.0 on Win2k, WinXP and WinXP Embedded

After having reduced the images as possible, there are 2 or 3 uir files with a size of 20MB. All the uir files are then embedded into the executable files (that is more than 100MB large).
I've already considered other design schemes for loading images, but this one is the best for my application: the problem is that the graphical performance of CVI are quite bad (as already discussed in the past)
I've been trying to get the highest performance from CVI, but the improvements are not so easy.
I don't have any particular issue with tables: it was only an example where a quite simple workaround dramatically increases the graphical performance.
You could update all the values, then refresh the display rather than refreshing the display after each data update
How can I suspend the display refreshing in CVI? I know LabVIEW has a panel property, but I haven't found any CVI function to do the same. I call ProcessDrawEvents() to force the refresh, but how can I suspend it?
Vix
In claris non fit interpretatio
Using LV 2013 SP1 on Win 7 64bit
Using LV 8.2.1 on WinXP SP3
Using CVI 2012 SP1 on Win 7 64bit, WinXP and WinXP Embedded
Using CVI 6.0 on Win2k, WinXP and WinXP Embedded

T520 - 42435gg / Sound stutter and slow Graphic performance with Intel Rapid Storage AHCI Driver

Hi everybody,
I have serious Problems with my 42435gg
Any time I install the Intel Storage AHCI Driver (I've tried plenty of different versions) which is suggested by System Update I experience a horrible Sound stutter and slow Graphic performance in Windows 7 64-Bit.
The funny thing in this case: If the external e-sata port is connected the problems do not occur. If the port is unused again, the stutter begins immediately.
The only thing I can do is using the Windows internal Storage Driver with which I am not able to use my DVD recorder for example.
The device was sent to lenovo for hardware testing with no result. It was sent back without any repairing.
Anybody experience on this?
Kind regards,
Daniel

Did you try the 11.5 RST beta? Load up DPClat and see if DPC conditions are favorable.
What are you using to check graphics performance?
W520: i7-2720QM, Q2000M at 1080/688/1376, 21GB RAM, 500GB + 750GB HDD, FHD screen
X61T: L7500, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, XGA screen, Ultrabase
Y3P: 5Y70, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, QHD+ screen

Significant difference in graphics performance of 2.3GHz anf 2.5GHz Mac Minis?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for