Chuck
Sorry Win10 has peed you off. I hadn’t realised that the mini had so much
muscle, but then it does get quite pricey.
If a 1Tb Fusion Drive is large enough for you, the following configuration
looks like a decent one to my eyes:
3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz)
16GB 1600MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
1TB Fusion Drive
Intel Iris Graphics
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad
User's Guide (English)
Magic Mouse 2
Accessory Kit
And that comes to $1527, with no monitor.
This will be pretty speedy, but I couldn’t compare it to a Win machine; the
clock speeds and processor numbers don’t tell the whole story, I’m led to
believe. But I do understand that the same clock speed with offer improvement
when using OS X over Windows (or that used to be the case).
There are several reviews of this model on the Internet, the ones that I’ve
read seem to agree that only the more expensive models use the better GPUs.
Good luck getting what you want.
Chris
> On 24 Dec 2015, at 13:56, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Now that I've had to go help a few unfortunate owners of new Win10 machines
> or (worse) upgraders from Win7 I have vowed I'm never going to Win10. I am
> seriously thinking of turning myself into an Apple fanboy.
>
> That, of course, requires running Photoshop on some sort of Mac
> configuration. I don't want a Mac laptop (yet) and don't need a big monitor
> (already have one) so I've been thinking of Mac minis. These can be
> configured from about $500-2,000. What do I need in the way of CPU, graphics
> processor and memory to get good Photoshop performance? I make extensive use
> of ACR to process 16MP E-M1/M5 images and need to consider that the E-M1 MkII
> will likely have the 40MP mode or maybe even larger. Of course, such large
> image sizes will not be the norm but probably do dictate 16GB RAM.
>
> My current machine is an HP desktop with 8GB and an AMD A8 5500 quad-core at
> 3.2GHz with integrated graphics. Performance is similar to an Intel i3 3220
> although the AMD's graphics performance is better. This has what I consider
> acceptable performance for 16MP images but hardly bowls me over. For some
> reason recent startup performance in Photoshop has become much slower. I've
> never timed it but it seems that it's not really ready to rock and roll until
> it's been up for 20-30 seconds. After that performance is normal.
>
> I'd love to have something that's twice as fast or even 3 times as fast if
> that's possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|