03/30/2007, 2:40pm, EDT

Friday, March 30th

Mac mini outperforms Xserve G5 in Web farm

Apple's latest Mac mini system with an Intel Core Duo processor and gigabit Ethernet outperformed an older Xserve G5 server system, according to one user who offers colocation services. "We picked up an Intel Mac mini 1.66GHz Core Duo, had it upgraded to 2GB of RAM (the G4's could only handle 1GB) and started to really put it through it's paces." Citing lower power consumption and resilient performance, the Mac mini stood up to vigorous testing. "No matter how hard I tried I could not make that Mini use more than 0.37A of power. I blasted that thing with multiple concurrent CPU and disk bound processes, getting really heavy loads and disk read/writes." Following the introduction of the Mac minis, an Xserve G5 was migrated in as a Web server in a load balanced group. The forum poster had to periodically adjust the weighting rules, however, to give more and more priority to the Mac minis.

Complementing Apple's small desktop system designed for consumers, the post writer attests to the computer's capabilities. "[The Mac mini] turned out to be a real winner [...] It really shone and had tremendous performance, even under load."

Filed under: Apple

, 12

12 comments

Reader Reactions (Please use <i></i> for italic text)

subscribe to comments
for this article

Expand All

Global Settings

FastAMX79

so...

03/30, 2:45pm, EDT

Good things DO come in small packages!

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Sep 2000

User is offline

Guest

2GB Ram in Xserve

03/30, 4:40pm, EDT

The Xserves have no problem handling 2GB of ram. Even the first version. The later models could do 8GB, and the current version is up to as much as 32GB.

Guest

ram issue

03/30, 5:46pm, EDT

in response to the post by "guest" :

I believe the author was referring to the G4 mac mini when he mentioned the 1 gig of ram limitation. He was not claiming the xserver could only take 1 gig of ram.

Flying Meat

xserve ram

03/30, 5:46pm, EDT

was not in question in the report. They stated that the early mac mini (G4) models could only accept 1 gig (unless I read it wrong too...)

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Jan 2007

User is offline

iYeat

Power Consumption

03/30, 7:42pm, EDT

Did anyone notice that the title of the article has nothing to do with the headline? But I guess if the headline was actually truthful, and not misleading, no one would read it. I definitely wouldn't read an article titled "Mac Minis use less power than Xserve G5s."

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Jan 2000

User is offline

iYeat

ID10T error

03/30, 7:44pm, EDT

OK my post should have read "title of the article has nothing to do with the article itself." - It's Friday.

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Jan 2000

User is offline

SpacedCowboy

Maybe for CPU

03/31, 3:51pm, EDT

Not even vaguely for disk i/o... I recently had cause to run bonnie++ on a couple of XServe's, I wrote it up on my blog

Simon

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Mar 2007

User is offline

vocaro

Typo

04/01, 12:11am, EDT

put it through it's pace --> put it through its pace

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Apr 2007

User is offline

heedlix

please read

04/02, 1:05am, EDT

the article didn't compare power consumption. yes, it's poorly written in that there is no direct comparison of the xServe and mini in performance testing. however, he directly implies that when, "The forum poster had to periodically adjust the weighting rules, however, to give more and more priority to the Mac minis," that means the minis were 'outperforming' the xServes regardless of RAM or power consumption.

i like good grammar as much as the next guy, but come ON people. stretch those brain muscles, eh?

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Jan 2007

User is offline

Your Comments

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

Default Comment View
External Page Links
Comment Threading View