Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mac Mini or iMac or Hackintosh?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 21, 2012 10:17:58 AM

I am a developer and work on a variety of platforms from Java to Flex to PHP/HTML/CSS to Photoshop for work, for fun and as a hobby to try things out (soon planning to discover Android and iOS platforms as well).

I am planning to buy a computer which runs Mac OS X - primarily because I want to build cross platform applications and running OS X on a VM isn't as efficient and is time consuming - with all the fixes and patches that I have to do when an update comes along. Can't use XCode at all times as things break with every update apple sends across

Now my budget is tight - If I can get a mac mini - a new 22" monitor, RAM upgraded to 8Gb, wired keyboard and mouse for about $200 more. So the Mac Mini setup would costs me about $800 inclusive of everything.

iMac on the other hand costs $1200 with wireless keyboard and mouse. I am not too keen about Apple display either (somehow don't like Gloss on monitors).

What I am really confused about is the processing power and if the Mac Mini will be able to handle multiple memory and process intensive applications that I plan to run in parallel. iMac comes with Quad core i5 whereas Mini comes with Dual core i5. I don't even know the processor marketing names to check their CPU benchmark to have an idea.

Really need some help with this. I can't risk spending $800 on something which won't be able to run my applications in parallel at all times.


Alternatively, I can buy an Intel i5 quad core 3570K, a gigabyte motherboard, 16Gb of Memory, 500Gb HDD, a monitor and dual boot Windows and OS X ( native - hackintosh ) for $750. Not sure if there will be a hit in the performance and if I will continue to face problems and spend time fixing them with every OS update.


Thanks for reading through my question.
November 21, 2012 12:04:38 PM

Go hackintosh it's much cheaper and you will have a longer life of the device. There is a definite performance boost, and you won't have to update the OS all the time.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2012 1:23:56 PM

+1 for Hackintosh. Better value for money by far.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2012 8:42:14 PM

Hackintosh for sure. Apple stuff is overpriced and nowhere near competitive at its price point.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2012 8:51:21 PM

^Ditto.Noone meantioned also that it is cheaper to upgrade as needed.iMac is full of c**p!They make very nice systems but charge twice their worth.Only 'i' thing I recommend is an i5 and the iPod160gb( :p  expensive but worth every $)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2012 9:07:54 PM

Hackintosh if you're set on a Mac. However I would still go with Windows. It's your choice though.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2012 9:09:52 PM

+1 Hackingtosh.
m
0
l
November 22, 2012 6:00:43 AM

Hello Everyone,


Thank you soo much for your valuable feedback.

@Montosaurous, its not that I am set on Mac - I just want to develop cross platform applications, so I would need a system running OS X to run and test them.


Given your feedback, it all boils down to building a system and then dual booting windows with hackintosh.

This is the system configuration that I suppose should work fine:-

Intel Quad Core i5 3570K or 2500K processor, Gigabyte GA-H77M-D3H board, 16Gb of memory, 500 GB WD Hard drive, 22" Dell HD monitor.

I don't play games at all, so a processor that has overclocking abilities (like the 2 mentioned above) I believe are of not much use to me. If overclocking helps with running my programs faster, then yes, I would be interested; but if it lowers the life on my computer, then no overclocking at all for me.

Alternatively, if overclocking is not a big deal for my requirements, to cut costs should I opt for Ivy bridge i5 3450 or 3550. However, one noticeable difference between 3570 and 3450/3550 is the graphics. The latter comes with Intel 2500 whereas the earlier one has Intel 4000 HD!

Please suggest if the config needs any changes.

Thanks
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
November 22, 2012 6:21:26 AM

Gigabyte boards ALWAYS for hackintosh.

Go with the 2500K, so far that has been the CPU that hackintoshes work the best on. Personally I use a hackintosh with a 2500K and SL on it.

The biggest problem is compatibility, that's just what you have to get over when you go hackintosh.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2012 10:34:12 AM

Hackingtosh on a 2600k and a good GPU for best results. Most intel sandybridge chips are compatible with hackintoshes.
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
November 22, 2012 8:08:04 PM

jaideep1337 said:
Hackingtosh on a 2600k and a good GPU for best results. Most intel sandybridge chips are compatible with hackintoshes.

Radeon 6870 would be the best choice for the hackintosh. :) 

I use a 5450 on my hackintosh.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 2:03:11 AM

hackintoshes can also support a 6970 so I guess thats the highest you can go on the GPU
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
November 23, 2012 1:17:27 PM

That isn't the best card for compatibility.....
m
0
l
April 13, 2013 2:55:17 PM

Hackintosh all the way. It will probably end up being half the price, with more than twice the performance.
m
0
l
!