Not sure if anyone can answer that question right now, but I would think it's a little light for video work, especially if more demanding software is used. I have been using a 2009 iMac for light video work in iMovie, but any longer projects are moved to a recent 15' MBP, and I don't have any 4K files yet, which we know is in our future, even if you don't need 4K quality, the downsized 1080 files are better than native 1080 files, according to reviews. As for RAM, I went from 4gigs on my iMac to 16 on the MBP (which also has discrete graphics) so I can't give any comparison of 8 to 16 differences, and I haven't checked the Apple site yet to check out pricing or the RAM non-upgradable issue mentioned by others. I would like to pick up a Mini to run two monitors for non or light video editing, though. It probably would be okay for photos, but others can answer that question; I only do a few things in LightRoom. 'Knowledge is good.'
I would say go for a Macbook Pro or PC when editing large and high-quality video project. Your Mac Mini won't be able to handle it and the memory and SSD is very limited.
8GB RAM is OK, but 16GB is better for a couple reasons. One if you want to run multiple RAM heavy apps at once, like Photoshop and your video editor for instance. Two, I am hearing that the new Mac mini (announced yesterday) is like the laptops in that the RAM is permanent and you won't be able to upgrade it later.
If that is true you want to max it out now if you want it to be more future proof. The old Mac mini has Intel HD Graphics 4000, which is good enough for Final Cut Pro. If your video editor is Adobe Premiere Pro, you want the new Mac mini announced yesterday because the 2.6GHz model has Intel Iris Graphics which will allow GPU acceleration in Premiere. Otherwise the Mini is fine because the recent Minis can be faster than older Mac Pros. The downgrade to dual from quad CPU's doesn't look good. Also taking it up to 16 gb of RAM is a must and really mandatory as it seems that its no longer user upgradable. If you think 8 gigs is enough now i guarantee in a year or two it won't because software is always wanting more power and resources.
8 gigs is a joke right now even though it will run but its like putting a 4 cylinder in a cadillac. My son used to use an 2009 i7 quad iMac and with 8 gigs of RAM he got lots of spinning beach balls with FCPX when using a moderate amount of plugins. Going to 16 gigs of RAM made a huge difference. The newer processors and slightly higher clock speed should mildly offset the fact that its not a quad anymore but how much is a question till someone tests them against the old. Another way too look at is. If you would have only bought the quad i5 on the older ones then you don't get the 'hyper threading' that only comes with the i7's. Netting you 4 cores only.
If you would get the quad i7 then you get 'hyper threading' which nets you 8 cores.even though its not really equal to actual 8 cores but in many apps the extra virtual cores are used nicely to various processes. So if you do buy a new one you really need to do the upgrade from the i5 to the i7 which has 'hyper threading' that will net you 4 cores. If you only get the i5 then you really only have '2 cores' which is pathetic imo and would not be good for video. So upgrading to the i7 is really more about getting the extra virtual cores than it is about getting a measly 2.8ghz - 3.0ghz. I did notice that the new processors have 'turbo boost'.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but i think the prior mac minis do not have turbo boost. If thats the case then the higher clock speed and turbo boost will add to a bit more performance with these lame dual core mac minis. Anyway you stack it i can't see one of these new ones beating out the old one on apps that actually use CPU's a lot. Still id wait to barefeats.com does a shootout between the old and new.
Davidp wrote: i did notice that the new processors have 'turbo boost'. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but i think the prior mac minis do not have turbo boost.
The prior Mac Minis had Turbo Boost. If thats the case then the higher clock speed and turbo boost will add to a bit more performance with these lame dual core mac minis. Anyway you stack it i can't see one of these new ones beating out the old one on apps that actually use CPU's a lot. On single-threaded applications, one of the new 2.x GHz Minis might outrun one of the old Minis. The new Minis are using a newer generation of Intel CPUs. Davidp wrote: the downgrade to dual from quad CPU's doesn't look good.
Also taking it up to 16 gb of RAM is a must and really mandatory as it seems that its no longer user upgradable. With respect to upgrading RAM, I saw that the manuals for the 2014 Mini were up, so I took a look. Neither the 2012 Quick Start Guide nor the 2014 Quick Start Guide explicitly say that RAM is upgradable or describe how to get at it.
However, both have a photo showing the bottom of the Mini, complete with a round black panel. In the 2012 Quick Start Guide, the panel has two finger-grip holes, and there is a caption saying 'Removable panel'. In the 2014 Quick Start Guide, the panel has no finger grips and there is no 'Removable panel' caption.