On Sep 1, 2013, at 6:46 PM, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: > even a Mini with an SSD might be faster than your iMac with an SSD, but > current Minis use "integrated graphics", and the last Mini that didn't (the > one i have) only has USB 2, so there is a performance plateau with Minis that > the iMacs can exceed; personally i find processing images is really bogging > me down (MBP, quad i7, 16GB RAM, spinning disk), and i'm about to add a 1TB > Crucial M500 or Samsung Evo, but i think i may still be hamstrung by sharing > photo processing with other functions (browsers chew up RAM), so dedicating > an iMac to photos plus light duty server functions might be a real win (plus > i can use its display with my MBP)
Current iMac 27 systems are faster and take more RAM than the latest minis, but I have one of those iMacs on my desk at the office and the mini at home, and LR 5.2RC on both. There is zero noticeable difference in actual processing throughput that I can see, and I've never seen LR consume more than about 4-5G RAM even processing a bunch of 300Mbyte scan files. If/when I want or need more performance than my current mini, I'll buy the Mac Pro. ;-) I'm not a big fan of integrated display computers overall. Seems a huge waste to dump a perfectly good display just because you want to upgrade the cpu. Most of my displays have lasted through two-three cpu upgrades. (Note: I still have a lovely, perfect shape, 2006 Apple Cinema Display 23" available for sale. I bought the TBD and gave my ACDLED to my partner. He'd been using the 23" since I bought the ACDLED.) G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
