New Mac Mini vs. Macbook Pro -FCS3

chris f

chris f

Veteran
Here's my key background points:

1. I'm on a budget
2. At work I use a 8 Core MacPro that is completely upgraded and has more power than I know what to do with and can always stay after hours and use that system if needed.
3. I've been using the original white Macbook for my own side projects for the last 2.5 years and 95% of the time I've used it as a desktop computer, rarely editing on location or on the road.
4. I just bought a Canon 7D and am just now switching to all HD projects and will be upgrading from Final Cut 5 to FCS3


I'm not a super technical hardware guy but to me it looks like if I upgrade the Mac Mini to the 1049.00 price with the following specs:

2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
Mac OS X Snow Leopard

It pretty much has the exact same specs as the 15" Macbook Pro upgraded to the the 2,099.00 price. The only difference being that the MBP is expandable.


I know the Mac Mini is looked down upon for "serious" workloads, but seeing as I have a terrific machine at work for anything that is too intensive, would the Mac Mini be sufficient enough or am I overlooking a massive shortcoming with running FCS3 on this machine?
 
Last edited:
The MacMini is a very limited machine. Lots of shared memory to keep the system running from a very small box. I'd look at an iMac. The new ones are pretty impressive for what they are. Nothing beats having an eSata connection (MBPro), but the iMac would be a viable alternative.

Don't upgrade memory, whatever you do. Get third-party RAM later and install it yourself. That's much less expensive and just as reliable.
 
chris f said:
Here's my key background points:

1. I'm on a budget
2. At work I use a 8 Core MacPro that is completely upgraded and has more power than I know what to do with and can always stay after hours and use that system if needed.
3. I've been using the original white Macbook for my own side projects for the last 2.5 years and 95% of the time I've used it as a desktop computer, rarely editing on location or on the road.
4. I just bought a Canon 7D and am just now switching to all HD projects and will be upgrading from Final Cut 5 to FCS3


I'm not a super technical hardware guy but to me it looks like if I upgrade the Mac Mini to the 1049.00 price with the following specs:

2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
Mac OS X Snow Leopard

It pretty much has the exact same specs as the 15" Macbook Pro upgraded to the the 2,099.00 price. The only difference being that the MBP is expandable.


I know the Mac Mini is looked down upon for "serious" workloads, but seeing as I have a terrific machine at work for anything that is too intensive, would the Mac Mini be sufficient enough or am I overlooking a massive shortcoming with running FCS3 on this machine?
Click to expand...

FWIW, I just ordered a refurb 15" MBP 2.66 GHz (originally released spring of 2009), 4GB RAM, with the dual video setup and 512MB of RAM.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC026LL/A?mco=MTA4MzI2Mzg#overview
This laptop also has the express card slot so I can use it with a SATA adapter and an external RAID drive setup. The late 09 15" MBP lost this interface.

Note: This laptop has the "B3" rev of the nvidia controller and can take up to 8GB of RAM.

Computer was $1599 + tax. As much as I like that little Mini I think a laptop with a bit more HP would be well worth the extra $'s.

best
JohnG
 
I don't know how overly capable the mac mini is... but we just did a 48hr film fest and the computer that it was edited on was a mac mini running final cut 7. I'm not sure of the exact specs of the mini, but it was bought in the summer.

I thought it was a bad idea to try to edit on it, but it worked great! The short was shot on the 7D and it handled the 1080HD footage just fine. Hell, half the footage was on a usb hard drive and it still ran great. The short was about 7 minutes long. There was also a bunch of audio layers too. It rendered titles and the limited color correction quite quickly, then rendered and burnt an idvd dvd in a remarkably fast time - just in time for us to get it handed in before the deadline.

I was quite impressed with what it was capable of.
 
Mini is decent as a very limited editing machine- like if you're doing DV, HDV, DVCPROHD- desktop editing only from say Firewire 800 drives. Once you get into any sort of Color work or you want to look at shots on a broadcast monitor you'll want for something more powerful. Not to mention rendering of extensive filters/effects. The mini is in my opinion much better suited to working as a home media jukebox/server.

Noah
 
buy a iMac or something instead..a mac mini is borederline useless..that computer always seemed like a throw-away..something extra on the menu..

the new iMacs are far more powerful but limited expandability,still more than a mac mini..and they cost $1,000 i believe..3.2ghz duo now? 21" and i heard they are upgrading iMacs to i5 & i7 processors aswell and will be in the $1,000 range..
 
Mini has one CORE problem the Intel GMA graphics chipset, which makes it slow and ineffective with Core/Quarts/RT - more and more FCP stuff is GPU and CPU bound, therefore....

Also the mini's I've modded take a laptop format 2.5" HD, largest one I know of is 500GB.
They now ship with that ....ing mini-DVI connector. I just saw the newest one.

An iMac is a step up, but has only but a firewire 800 to keep things going, Full 3.5 sized SATA HD's and a decent GPU.

But ever since apples little snafu with ExpressCard34 on the 15" MBP.
The two normal remainign computers (if bought new) for FCP are MacBook PRO 17" and the Mac Pro. - I think they're gonna get on installing that compact flash reader in them soonish though... since the 17" is always behind the 15" a step.

And the part that hurts the most you ask? Neither MacBook Pro, nor the Mini ship with an Apple Remote included in the box anymore, go pay 19.99.
sad sad sad.

For more intel check out 123macmini.com forums.
 
Last edited:
I would not try to edit on the mini. Unless you're doing real simple stuff. I have 2 and they are great little machines for light work and general computer use.
 
Not sure all the information you're getting here is up to date ... the Mini hasn't used the Intel GMA for a couple of versions now -- the latest version of the Mini has a very capable graphics adapter, and can drive two monitors. And though the internal drive is not the lates & greatest, it's as good as anything a Macbook Pro had in the previous version, and the FW800 connection let's you attach all the HDD you could ask for ...

I suspect the latest Mini is all the computer the early spring iMac was ... but you should check the specs, as some posts in this thread seem to be working from memory. As am I -- so if I'm wrong, sorry!

Cheers,
GB
 
I can note that the Mac Mini is now faster then my 2007 Core 2 2.2Ghz 15" MacBook Pro.

So yes it can handle editing. It won't be all that fast compared to the rest of the current Mac lineup. But it will do it at a very budgeted cost. Your just buying 2007ish performance instead of 2009 performance.

Can you buy a used iMac MBP of the same performance levels for less money? ( Honestly I don't really know. I've not looked into it at all. )
 
we have a mac mini - worst mac we ever bought. its good for secretary work, but too slow for post-production.
 
The Mac Mini has certainly gotten much better, but you're only getting the computer, no monitor, etc...

The iMac is very strong for what it is...but you also get a screen, etc...

The main limitation is expandability for both. Nothing can beat a Mac Pro.
 
enjoi009 said:
The iMac is very strong for what it is...but you also get a screen, etc...
Click to expand...

You are getting a screen with iMac? Last time I checked, it was more like a mirror :-( The faster HDDs are probably the reason to choose an iMac though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top