Imac vs mac mini for photo editing
If desired, all of these things can be upgraded sometime down the line. Considering that these are the two newest desktops that Apple sells, and the Mac mini has obvious Pro overtures, I thought it would make for an interesting comparison.
The Geekbench 4 scores denote an 8, point difference between the two machines in multi-core, which is substantial, and will only rise as you configure the iMac Pro with higher core counts. And as expected, single core performs slightly better on the Core i7 inside the Mac mini, besting the Xeon by about points.
Mac Mini vs. iMac | Spec Comparison | Digital Trends
Thankfully, the Mac mini is equipped with Thunderbolt 3, which allows you to bolt on a much more capable eGPU. There is an obvious difference between the two machines when looking at SSD performance. Higher storage configurations will likely provide noticeable speed improvements. That said, any Mac mini SSD configuration is more than fast enough for most workflows, and will handle 4K video editing without breaking much of a sweat. One of the things that I most appreciate about my iMac Pro is its virtual silence under load.
At time, the fans are audible, but most of the time the iMac Pro is as quiet as a mouse. The hardware features a rethought cooling system with a bigger fan and expanded vents. I opted for with the most powerful GPU that Apple recommends: The performance of the Radeon Pro WX, as you can see from the graph above, runs circles around the integrated graphics, and turns the Mac mini into a legitimate gaming and graphics-intensive workflow option.
New Post. Home Categories About. Sign In Register. Community Home Products: Photoshop Products: Lightroom Classic CC. Advice on which Mac would best suit editing Mac Mini vs. The iMac Pros: In particular, would it follow suit with the iMac Pro and have RAM that requires a technician to upgrade? I wanted to get some advice, particularly on what would be best for running Lightroom and Photoshop, since those are the primary tools that warrant the more powerful computer. I kinda assume more cores is, generally more important than the GPU. But is it worth waiting? Jon Anscher Posts 30 Reply Likes undecided.
All 4 Replies. David Converse Posts Reply Likes. I wouldn't worry so much about this. Any recent Mac will be just fine. At some point you are spending a lot of money for incremental upgrades. Jon Anscher Posts 26 Reply Likes. And it has crossed my mind in a specific way. I really would love to speed up LR.
Particularly when going through and picking through photos and when stitching large panoramas. Based on what you and dmeephd have said, it sounds like the limiting factor on LR speed is not as much the hardware though. I do know as I mentioned below that LR slows down when I have two external displays plugged into it. Submit Cancel. Jaroslav Bereza Posts Reply Likes. What about PC instead of Mac? Upgrades are cheaper and you will have more performance for the same price.
The Mac mini 2018 finally brings Thunderbolt 3
Select clock rate over number of cores as Lightroom was never designed to use symmetric multi-processing on multiple cores. RAM and clock rate is the Name of the Game. My MacBook Pro and my custom build Windows desktop. Nothing else. As mentioned above, this is what I chose for my photo editing computers in and It works. With only GB of storage I have to think about what I am putting there and actively manage it a bit, watching for programs that default to using the boot drive for temp files. Now you are not going to put your photos here. I guess it is nice to see Apple offer some overkill options.
You may be thinking that 1TB or 2TB of local storage inside the Mac Mini sounds ideal to you as a photographer, but the price is over the top again here. However, Apple is marking up the costs on the SSD quite a bit more than they are with the memory. External storage is the best way to meet the needs of storing your photos and GB or B SSD options are better choices.
While on the topic of storage, if you are going to use a Mac Mini for your photo editing you really have to plan on adding external storage for your photos. I really wish that Apple offered a desktop computer with the form factor that allowed adding internal storage. Maybe the new Mac Pro that is supposed to be headed our way in will provide it, but I am not holding my breath. So the storage has to be external. Fortunately Apple has provided some super speedy ports on the Mac Mini to do just that.
Thunderbolt 3 connections are capable of speeds that rival the M. Neither is worth the price of the storage for the tiny bit of performance increase.
- Photographer's Mac Mini Buying Guide  - Photo Taco Podcast?
- after effects cc 2015 mac requirements.
- One Photographer's Search for the Right Apple Computer | B&H Explora.
- install java plugin chrome mac.
It would sure be nice if there was a less expensive way to go to 2TB of that insanely fast storage. I do have a very good alternative. Still a little on the costly side for many photographers, but a really good option that will provide quite a lot of performance. That drive is plenty fast to keep your Lightroom and Photoshop moving along. Edit from the speedy and mostly reasonably priced SandDisk SSD and then store the photos long-term in the slower but far less expensive WD drive or something similar.
A great solution to the problem of storage for a photographer wanting to use a Mac Mini for photo editing. I recommend BackBlaze as both a reliable and good value online backup provider I have used for many years. There is really only one good reason a photographer would consider this upgrade, and that is if you ever want to use Network Attached Storage NAS. We just talked about needing to add external storage. The important thing to note is that this upgraded Ethernet connection will allow you to get the very most speed out of that NAS as is possible today.
With that 10 gigabit connection you can get speeds fast enough to edit photos from the NAS. If you need it later and are still using this Mac Mini for editing then you can always add a Thunderbolt to Ethernet adapter and get there when you decide you need it.
Though not listed as a decision you need to make as you are buying your Mac Mini, I wanted to go over this briefly here. Graphics cards are pretty expensive in general again, thank you crypto miners and you have to add the cost of a Thunderbolt 3 chasis to the mix. There is some support, and in some cases it has helped, but there are still a lot of photographers finding they have to turn off what limited support there is for GPU in order to get the most performance. Even without great support for GPU in Lightroom and Photoshop, a discrete graphics card would likely do better than the Intel UHD Graphics , but it is going to be good enough for photo editing.
I recommend skipping on the whole eGPU option here. At least for now. The other options are just overkill. Love the article. But to be honest made me confused. And that has being my main machine to edit all my photos in Lr and Ps. I work as a wedding photographer. It has accomplished wonders and only a few times it gets slow and do some delays in the editing. How could I have being able to fully edit thousands of photos on Ps and Lr with a theoretically slower and less powerful machine?
When properly configured with the Core i7 processor and 16GB of memory it does extremely well. I have heard from many photographers who used the advice in the article to guide their purchase and they are extremely happy. That is what I was trying to get across as the entire premise of the article, I think the Mac Mini is the very best price to performance option for photographers to run Lr and Ps.
Now this can be solved with an eGPU connected via that super speedy Thunderbolt 3 connection, so there is that. Though that tech is new enough, and therefore expensive enough, if you want to do video editing you are better off with a MacBook Pro or iMac. Oh, in second reading if your comment Thiago, it is my strong recommendation to not go with the baseline model of the Mac Mini and I do believe that is absolutely true.
- Advice on which Mac would best suit editing (Mac Mini vs. iMac vs. waiting).
- Mac Mini - good for photography? | MacRumors Forums?
- Mac mini review: Apple's most versatile new Mac [Video] - 9to5Mac.
- quickbooks for mac vs pc 2013.
- android tablet wont show up on mac?
- 2012 mac mini 16gb ram.
It is that if you invest a little more in some hardware here the experience of Lr in particular will increase tremendously. It is very worth the investment.
The less advanced features of the software. I also know that importing, exporting, and most of the activities in the Develop module are significantly faster when you have a stronger processor. It will totally work to be sure. For some tasks as you say just fine, just significantly better with Core i5 and then better again with Core i7 that for the little bit of money it takes to get there it is totally worth doing that given most photographers are going to keep this computer around for as long as they can.
My big worry is hooking this up to my existing 5K Ultra Fine and experiencing the laggy LR performance still.