Mac Mini vs. Antec Solo-based custom system

[plaur]

Hello everyone,

I plan to get a new computer to replace my current one, a 6-years old Athlon 1.1GHz. I'm oscillating between a Mac Mini and the following custom configuration:

• - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6660
  - 4 GB DDR2 667 (2x2GB, perhaps later upgradable to 8GB)
  - Intel DG965WH mainboard (integrated graphics are ok for me)
  - Scythe Ninja (CPU fan)
  - Antec Solo case (hopefully w/o the optional fans)
  - Corsair VX power supply

Would such a setup be as quiet as a Mac Mini, or even quieter? The German magazine c't measured Mac Mini as generating 0.2 Sons at idle and 0.6 under load (iMac was the best, with 0.1 Sons at idle and 0.2 under full load, including while reading the optical drive - unfortunately, iMac is not an option for me due to the glossy display). Does anyone have first-hand experience with Mac Mini? I'll probably continue to use Debian GNU/Linux on either system, so Mac OS X isn't necessarily a plus for me.

[ddrueding1]

That is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. The Q6600 is significantly more powerful than the mini. The mini would certainly be smaller. The Q6600 would likely be more expensive.

If you could provide a use for the system, perhaps other options could be considered?

[elec999]

That is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. The Q6600 is significantly more powerful than the mini. The mini would certainly be smaller. The Q6600 would likely be more expensive.

If you could provide a use for the system, perhaps other options could be considered?

I must disagree for a second. If you get a mac mini with core 2 duo at 2gig with 2gig of ram, you get a pretty powerfull system, small and silent out of the box. The Q6600 may cost the same as the mac mini to build, YES it may be more powerfull then the mac mini, YES it will be alot bigger and harder to make silent.
Thanks

[ddrueding1]

2 2Ghz cores vs. 4 2.4Ghz cores? That is a pretty significant difference. A Core2Duo CPU at 2Ghz is also known as an E4400 and is basically the slowest C2D you can buy.

Is it enough for most tasks? Sure, but by current standards it is slow.

[Eiffel]

Isn't the slowest C2D the E2140 (with 2 1.6GHz cores and a small cache)?

This being said, I would not rule out such processor as it's great value for money and can be easily overclocked if needed. In fact, for HTPC applications, with video card such as the Nividia 8600 or Radeo 2600, it is a great little processor

[ddrueding1]

I stand corrected, I forgot about the new slow(er) ones.

[ryboto]

2 2Ghz cores vs. 4 2.4Ghz cores? That is a pretty significant difference. A Core2Duo CPU at 2Ghz is also known as an E4400 and is basically the slowest C2D you can buy.

Is it enough for most tasks? Sure, but by current standards it is slow.

Then the current standards are way out of wack. Users don't need that much power. I use an x2 at 2.1ghz, underclocked to 1ghz, it's still more than fast enough for video playback and everyday use.

[plaur]

Thanks both for your replies. I plan to use the system for programming and photo processing (Gimp, panorama stitching with Hugin/enblend, and some HDR). I am aware that the two systems aren't even in the same league: not only is the Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz in Mac Mini lower frequency than Q6600, but it's the mobile version of Core 2 Duo (T5600), not the desktop version (E4400, if it ran at 2 Ghz). Actually, all the parts in the Mac Mini are laptop parts, probably to keep heat in manageable limits for such a small case, and the noise very low.

On the other hand, I think I'm currently more limited by the insufficient memory I have than by processor speed. I'm tempted by the lower version of Mac Mini with 2GB RAM - I hope it would be fast enough not to be annoyed by it, and that 2GB RAM would be enough for the photo processing I do (already calculated, Gimp needs about 7 bytes per pixel for a layer with mask, and I have a 6MP camera). Of course, Gimp would greatly benefit from the 4 cores, many of the time consuming functions are SMP-aware, and can spread the calculations among multiple processors. But, since I won't be doing this all the time, I'd settle for a Mac Mini, if it's quieter (I live in an extremely quiet place - at night, I can hear the ticks of my electromechanical watch in the same room). I don't want absolute silence, but something quieter than the ArcticCooling T2 case and ArcticCooling "silent" CPU fan I have now. Of course, if a Q6600 w/ 4GB RAM in an Antec Solo can generate less noise than a Mac Mini, then I'm all for it!

[ddrueding1]

For photo work I highly recommend the Q6600. I'm in the middle of doing an HDR composition in Photoshop CS3 from my Canon 20D (8.2MP). Even on my system (see sig), these things can take an hour. 4GB of RAM is highly recommended as well.

A Q6600 system can be really, really quiet if the space/cost constraints aren't too tight. I'd look around here and see what others have done with the Q6600 and Antec Solo.

[ddrueding1]

I'm stupid...nevermind....

[hmsrolst]

From my experience, it's easy to make a desktop quieter than a Mac Mini. I have a Core Duo 1.83GHz Mini with 2GB of RAM and it rests on top of my Antec P150 (white Solo) desktop. In my quiet office, the latter is silent, and the Mini, while quiet, is nowhere near silent. Granted my desktop is a very low power system with virtually the same components as the Mini--also a 1.83GHz Core Duo with 2 GB, a laptop HDD and using onboard video on an AOpen i945GTm-VHL, but the bigger space of the P150 is cooled by larger fans--a 120mm Nexus at about .5v and the CPU with a 92mm Nexus also at about the same voltage. In the desktop I also use a Pico PSU, so there's no noise from there. I haven't priced them out, but I suspect that the desktop system and the Mini are about the same.

The Mini is great, because I only turn it on now and then, and it's so small, but if it was on all the time, I would be very unhappy with it not being quieter.

[plaur]

For photo work I highly recommend the Q6600. I'm in the middle of doing an HDR composition in Photoshop CS3 from my Canon 20D (8.2MP). Even on my system (see sig), these things can take an hour. 4GB of RAM is highly recommended as well.

I guess that's using Photoshop's "Merge to HDR", with automatic image alignment enabled? That's a very long time for that fast CPU! Is this CPU-bound, or insuffienct memory and swapping? How much memory does that process take? I'm asking since it might help me better estimate my memory needs (2GB vs 4GB).

Offtopic: Photoshop might not be using the most efficient method of aligning the images, if it takes that long. I use Hugin for aligning, before importing the aligned images in Cinepaint for HDR merge. It takes below two minutes for five 6MP images (and about 20 minutes for automatically finding the matching points with autopano, which Hugin needs as input, but that's due to intense swapping to disk).

[jfeldt]

I just put together a Q6600 build in an Antec solo and it is quieter than my last build, which was much quieter than a G4 mac mini that I borrowed for a few months. I don't know how the new mac minis compare to the old noise-wise, but if it is similar I wouldn't pick one on a noise basis alone over a Q6600 setup.

[Telstar]

I seriously considered a mac mini for a HTPC. The capacity problem made me not go that route.
In short is cheaper than if u build your own with similar specs and silent out of the box.

[plaur]

@jfeld, thmsrolst: thanks a lot! I wrongly assumed a desktop will always be louder than a Mac Mini (the German computer magazine c't tried to build a silent computer, assembled from parts from various German firms claiming to be specialized in this - the best they got was 0.6 Sons at idle, 3 times worse than Mac Mini's 0.2 Sons - I guess I shouldn't take them too seriously...). I think I'll go with a silent Q6600 in an Antec Solo. Great info, thanks again!

Indeed, the low-end Mac Mini with 2 GB RAM would cost 740 EUR, while the custom setup would be around 875 EUR (for some unknown reason, prices in EU tend to be numerically the same or even greater than prices in US$, despite the 1.30 currency conversion rate advantage - go figure!). It seems to be well worth the difference, both as noise and performance.

[ddrueding1]

I guess that's using Photoshop's "Merge to HDR", with automatic image alignment enabled? That's a very long time for that fast CPU!

Yes. And yes it is.

Is this CPU-bound, or insuffienct memory and swapping? How much memory does that process take? I'm asking since it might help me better estimate my memory needs (2GB vs 4GB).

Solidly CPU bound; I'm showing about 75% memory usage during the process. My disk subsystem is a rocket ship, but I don't hear much disk access at all.

Offtopic: Photoshop might not be using the most efficient method of aligning the images, if it takes that long. I use Hugin for aligning, before importing the aligned images in Cinepaint for HDR merge. It takes below two minutes for five 6MP images (and about 20 minutes for automatically finding the matching points with autopano, which Hugin needs as input, but that's due to intense swapping to disk).

I doubt it is the most efficient, but it works well and is a 1-click solution. I'm playing with 7-13 shot HDR, so it makes sense that it would take longer.

[ddrueding1]

Depending on what you do for a hard drive, it will likely be the loudest thing in there. Good luck!