Is the 2009 Mac mini fast enough for photo editing ?
May/22/09 03:55 Filed in: Technicalities
A photographers experience with Apple's small desktop computer.
Of
course I was debating other alternatives, like the
white Mac book or the new aluminum Mac book (which
I think have identical hardware specs). But I did
not think that I would neither need nor utilize the
mobility factor of those. And considering the fact,
that most of the time I would work in front of my
large screen to edit my photos (that is just what I
do with my computer...) plus realizing that my mini
looks at the back like a porcupine thus never
unhooking that potential laptop from its place, I
decided, that the upgrade would be the new 2009 Mac
mini. Yes, I did take a brief look at the 2009
iMacs. But they were out of the race since I
absolutely dislike glossy displays. I think they do
have their advantages in photo editing, like
avoiding over saturation, but I still don't like
them.
I have read a lot on the internet about whether or not the new 2009 mini is fast enough to do anything. And more than one source (which I will not list here, because they are easy enough to find on the internet) state, that the mini is not the highest performing computer in the world. That is a big surprise indeed. It is not a gaming computer. Who would have guessed? And it is expensive. I would like to state a few thoughts about the (partially misleading) information that is out there:
My mini here is the maxed out version from Apple: 320 GB Hard Drive (yes the slower 5400 RPM one), 4 GB of RAM (yes, the expensive Apple memory) and the larger processor. The latter was indeed a step I was thinking hard and long about, since I was not sure whether or not it would buy me anything. And there is also an external 7200 RPM 150 GB Firewire 400 drive attached to it.
Usually I have iPhoto, Safari, tools and all other small windows open in Space one, Photoshop Elements 6 is running in Space two and RapidWeaver in either Space one or three (I am referring here to Apple's "Spaces" in Leopard). That allows me to create a workflow which I am comfortable with. Photoshop Elements 6 is a piece of software which requires a single screen for itself - hence the use of spaces. But more about that in another future entry. The photos I am working with are 10 Mpixel in size and are JPEGS and RAW images.
The biggest performance booster this system has are the 4 GB or memory. I allocated roughly 60% of that to PSE 6, which is also using my external drive as a scratch disk. Usually two to three images are open in Photoshop. This is usually because I like trying to blend different exposures to one image. The results in one image with several layers, adjustment layers and layer masks. Revealing parts of an image in a layer mask works without any delay while using the brush or any other tool (with the old G4, there was always that one secondish delay between applying the brush in the layer mask and revealing the underlying image.). That is good and a "have to have" performance. All filters show absolutely no delay in the preview screen and most filters I use render within two seconds or less. Resizing images for Web use or print feels also quite sporty. I worked with demo versions of Adobe Lightroom as well as NIKON's Capture NX2 in parallel to the above mentioned applications - all with the same responsive result. Adobe CS4 (the demo) worked excellent as well. Responsive and without hickups.
The performance in Photomatix Pro to create HDR images is also quite pleasing: it takes about thirty seconds to create an HDR from six 10 Mpixel exposures. The tone mapping steps in the medium size preview take between one and two seconds per slider or button action. This is also very responsive and does not feel (!!) slower than on a newer MacBook Pro model. In the end I breed a lot longer over the image to decide wether or not I like the performed steps.
From all the work I have done in the past six weeks of ownership of the 2009 mini I never managed the CPU fan to kick in - and if it did, I did certainly not hear it.
My honest, personal opinion: forget about them. I don't even know what half of the results mean for me in everyday computing. Doesn't it come down to: how does it FEEL? Is my workflow hindered by the computers performance? Do I feel often that I am waiting for my computer? Does the machine feel sluggish? Ok, if you really want to know: This mini on my desk gives me a Geekbench result of 3050 running at full HD resolution. A workstation at my work running COMSOL Multiphysics gives me a mere 2000 and is just fine for what I am doing there. Why? Because it doesn't matter whether I wait four or five minutes for a result of a simulation - it is just long anyways. By the way: the old G4 mini scored 750 and photo editing was still ok. Not great - but ok. In the end it is all about your or my needs.
I don't play games on the Mac mini. It is not what it is built for. If I play games I use my Xbox 360 sitting comfortably on my couch. If I would want to play PC games, I would not buy an Apple but built myself a nice small quite Windows system, which would beat the mini in performance and vastly exceed its price tag.
As a summary I can say that the 2009 Mac mini is a fine computer which fills the computing needs for the most of us - even for the serious image editor/photographer. I can not speak for workflows within the photography business that have more demanding tasks (like automated actions and batch processing in Photoshop and the likes), but if I would have to deal with such things, I would certainly not look at the MacBook pros but at the really big big machines....
I am not going into the entire pricing/value/Apple tax thing. Its not worth it. I paid 1000 USD for my machine that is sitting on my desk. If I would have wanted to save some money, I would have ordered the cheaper machine adding my own (faster) hard drive and generic memory. But I did not want to deal with opening that box, figuring out what I need and is compatible or gives me heat issues, ordering my own parts, putting them in, etc. etc.. I have been there in life and done that. Today I rather spend time working with computers. And oh yea - I sold my old G4 for 300 US on ebay. So in the end, for about 700 USD I have an ultra quite, fast enough, slick looking computer running OS X sitting on my desk. And that is what fills my needs... What are your needs? Try to answer that question honestly for yourself before you get carried away by specs and countless tech reviews.
I have read a lot on the internet about whether or not the new 2009 mini is fast enough to do anything. And more than one source (which I will not list here, because they are easy enough to find on the internet) state, that the mini is not the highest performing computer in the world. That is a big surprise indeed. It is not a gaming computer. Who would have guessed? And it is expensive. I would like to state a few thoughts about the (partially misleading) information that is out there:
The system setup
My mini here is the maxed out version from Apple: 320 GB Hard Drive (yes the slower 5400 RPM one), 4 GB of RAM (yes, the expensive Apple memory) and the larger processor. The latter was indeed a step I was thinking hard and long about, since I was not sure whether or not it would buy me anything. And there is also an external 7200 RPM 150 GB Firewire 400 drive attached to it.
Usually I have iPhoto, Safari, tools and all other small windows open in Space one, Photoshop Elements 6 is running in Space two and RapidWeaver in either Space one or three (I am referring here to Apple's "Spaces" in Leopard). That allows me to create a workflow which I am comfortable with. Photoshop Elements 6 is a piece of software which requires a single screen for itself - hence the use of spaces. But more about that in another future entry. The photos I am working with are 10 Mpixel in size and are JPEGS and RAW images.
Photo editing performance
The biggest performance booster this system has are the 4 GB or memory. I allocated roughly 60% of that to PSE 6, which is also using my external drive as a scratch disk. Usually two to three images are open in Photoshop. This is usually because I like trying to blend different exposures to one image. The results in one image with several layers, adjustment layers and layer masks. Revealing parts of an image in a layer mask works without any delay while using the brush or any other tool (with the old G4, there was always that one secondish delay between applying the brush in the layer mask and revealing the underlying image.). That is good and a "have to have" performance. All filters show absolutely no delay in the preview screen and most filters I use render within two seconds or less. Resizing images for Web use or print feels also quite sporty. I worked with demo versions of Adobe Lightroom as well as NIKON's Capture NX2 in parallel to the above mentioned applications - all with the same responsive result. Adobe CS4 (the demo) worked excellent as well. Responsive and without hickups.
The performance in Photomatix Pro to create HDR images is also quite pleasing: it takes about thirty seconds to create an HDR from six 10 Mpixel exposures. The tone mapping steps in the medium size preview take between one and two seconds per slider or button action. This is also very responsive and does not feel (!!) slower than on a newer MacBook Pro model. In the end I breed a lot longer over the image to decide wether or not I like the performed steps.
From all the work I have done in the past six weeks of ownership of the 2009 mini I never managed the CPU fan to kick in - and if it did, I did certainly not hear it.
Benchmarks
My honest, personal opinion: forget about them. I don't even know what half of the results mean for me in everyday computing. Doesn't it come down to: how does it FEEL? Is my workflow hindered by the computers performance? Do I feel often that I am waiting for my computer? Does the machine feel sluggish? Ok, if you really want to know: This mini on my desk gives me a Geekbench result of 3050 running at full HD resolution. A workstation at my work running COMSOL Multiphysics gives me a mere 2000 and is just fine for what I am doing there. Why? Because it doesn't matter whether I wait four or five minutes for a result of a simulation - it is just long anyways. By the way: the old G4 mini scored 750 and photo editing was still ok. Not great - but ok. In the end it is all about your or my needs.
Gaming performance
I don't play games on the Mac mini. It is not what it is built for. If I play games I use my Xbox 360 sitting comfortably on my couch. If I would want to play PC games, I would not buy an Apple but built myself a nice small quite Windows system, which would beat the mini in performance and vastly exceed its price tag.
As a summary I can say that the 2009 Mac mini is a fine computer which fills the computing needs for the most of us - even for the serious image editor/photographer. I can not speak for workflows within the photography business that have more demanding tasks (like automated actions and batch processing in Photoshop and the likes), but if I would have to deal with such things, I would certainly not look at the MacBook pros but at the really big big machines....
A last word about the price
I am not going into the entire pricing/value/Apple tax thing. Its not worth it. I paid 1000 USD for my machine that is sitting on my desk. If I would have wanted to save some money, I would have ordered the cheaper machine adding my own (faster) hard drive and generic memory. But I did not want to deal with opening that box, figuring out what I need and is compatible or gives me heat issues, ordering my own parts, putting them in, etc. etc.. I have been there in life and done that. Today I rather spend time working with computers. And oh yea - I sold my old G4 for 300 US on ebay. So in the end, for about 700 USD I have an ultra quite, fast enough, slick looking computer running OS X sitting on my desk. And that is what fills my needs... What are your needs? Try to answer that question honestly for yourself before you get carried away by specs and countless tech reviews.