2.0 ghz vs 2.26 ghz

[Jackintosh]

Clearly you're single.

Just kidding.

The fact my Wife has never said no to my latest technology loving, fast car driving, sorry butt - is worth any amount of money and definately worth .26ghz. But I digress.

To the OP, not a huge difference and for your application you should save the $150 and put it the bank. By the time the next version of the Mini comes out, you will have at least $150.99 (with interest) to put towards it.

I was kidding with you a bit, and I'd agree that relationships with people are a lot more important than with things, even if it's a Mac. But I would still go for a .26 upgrade over a dinner and a movie. It does sound geeky, though, I have to admit.

 

[rkdiddy]

I was kidding with you a bit, and I'd agree that relationships with people are a lot more important than with things, even if it's a Mac. But I would still go for a .26 upgrade over a dinner and a movie. It does sound geeky, though, I have to admit.

 

[101DM101]

I'm sure one will not really experience the 0.26+, BUT: when comparing the two processors P7350 vs. P8400 I noticed that the P7350 (2.0 GHz) has no "Intel® Virtualization Technology".

So when I want to intall Windows 7 Professional and what to use the XP mode, this will only be possible with CPUs having the virtualization technology (as far as I understood everything I read until now about this feature). For the Mac Mini this means, I would have to buy the 2.26 GHz modell, if I want to use XP mode in Win7....am I right?

The questions is: how important will the XP mode in WIN 7 be?..

Are there any other benefits from "Intel® Virtualization Technology".?

Regards,
101DM101

 

[AVR2]

To the OP, not a huge difference

Let's be honest here, human beings will not perceive ANY difference in real-world use. I can barely discern any real difference between my father-in-law's 1.83GHz mini and the 2.26.

Sure, the kinds of people who absolutely MUST have the very latest, fastest CPU will insist on paying the extra for the 2.26 over the 2.0, but they're kidding themselves if they think they're getting noticeable extra speed for their money.

 

[hitekalex]

Sure, the kinds of people who absolutely MUST have the very latest, fastest CPU will insist on paying the extra for the 2.26 over the 2.0, but they're kidding themselves if they think they're getting noticeable extra speed for their money.

You're clearly wrong. Sure, the difference may not readily noticeable for routine tasks like browsing the web or playing the MP3.. But for CPU intensive tasks, like encoding DVDs - the difference will be visible. If 2.26Ghz CPU saves me 20 minutes on my DVD encode over 2.0Ghz machine - hey I will take that!

You're buying a state of the art computer, that you will hopefully use for a couple of years. CPU on Mini cannot be upgraded (unlike memory or disk) - so extra $150 on a top performing processor is a money very well spent.

 

[AVR2]

If 2.26Ghz CPU saves me 20 minutes on my DVD encode over 2.0Ghz machine - hey I will take that!

Is that a real-world figure backed up with evidence, or did you just make it up? I personally find it very hard to believe that such a small speed bump would make such a big difference to MPEG-2 encoding times. I think you're talking about the difference between, say, 2GHz and 3GHz.

an extra $150 on a top performing processor is a money very well spent.

Not for such a tiny speed increase it's not, unless you're the kind of person who absolutely must have the fastest CPU available. A much better use of the price of a base 2.26GHz would be to get a 2.0GHz with upgraded RAM and HD.

Still, it's a major moneyspinner for computer and CPU manufacturers - charging disproportionate price premiums for very small (and, in real-world use, often barely noticeable) speed gains.

 

[hitekalex]

Is that a real-world figure backed up with evidence, or did you just make it up? I personally find it very hard to believe that such a small speed bump would make such a big difference to MPEG-2 encoding times. I think you're talking about the difference between, say, 2GHz and 3GHz.

No, this number should be pretty accurate. Handbrake encoding speeds are pretty proportional to CPU clock. 2.26Ghz is a 13% bump over 2.0Ghz, which translates into ~18 minutes saved for a DVD encode that takes 2.5 hours.

A much better use of the price of a base 2.26GHz would be to get a 2.0GHz with upgraded RAM and HD.

Maybe better for you.. and the CPU and RAM/HD upgrades are not mutually exclusive! I personally don't care about a large disk - I have a multi-terabyte Storage array already, and the base 120GB drive is plenty for local OS & apps. And I upgraded my Mini to 4GB with 3rd-party RAM, rather than paying Apple tax for memory. So the money I saved on that went towards the bumped up CPU.

 

[jw2002]

Not for such a tiny speed increase it's not, unless you're the kind of person who absolutely must have the fastest CPU available... Still, it's a major moneyspinner for computer and CPU manufacturers - charging disproportionate price premiums for very small (and, in real-world use, often barely noticeable) speed gains.

So what? This phenomenon is not unique to computers. The 50 horsepower upgrade on a car is going to be disproportionately more expensive than the 150 horsepower in the base model. But the buyer may consider it worth it to be able to peel out that much faster. And then there are stereo systems, boats, swimming pools, cameras, bottles of wine, etc. All of these products see large price increases for modest improvements in quality. But that's not a valid reason to say people shouldn't be buying the higher end versions of those products.

A much better use of the price of a base 2.26GHz would be to get a 2.0GHz with upgraded RAM and HD.

One major problem though: if you buy the 2.00 GHz, you are stuck with it at that speed. You can't upgrade the processor later. On the other hand a person can buy the 2.26 GHz now and upgrade with better ram/disk at a later date if desired, assured that they have the best possible speed in the machine already.

 

[California]

On a refurb, the 2.26 is only 649. If you can afford the base model retail, you can afford the refurb faster model.

I now only buy with an eye for resale and who wants to buy the used, slower model?

Since is it somewhat of a BTO machine, the 2.26ghz mac mini is much more desirable.

I'm on it now, and guys, it rocks. VERY snappy, silent wonderful.

 

[AVR2]

No, this number should be pretty accurate. Handbrake encoding speeds are pretty proportional to CPU clock

Show me real-world proof and I'll believe it. Otherwise, it sounds more like theoretical geek wish-fulfillment

a person can buy the 2.26 GHz now and upgrade with better ram/disk at a later date if desired, assured that they have the best possible speed in the machine already

But for how long? A few months? And when the next speed bump comes out, they're in the exact same, not-as-fast-as-possible, non-upgradeable boat as the people with 2.0GHz machines.

That's all that the price premium seems to be buying you - a few months of the ability to feel good inside that you've got the largest currently-available number on your CPU. But hey, it's your money, you do what you like with it

 

[dubhe]

One major problem though: if you buy the 2.00 GHz, you are stuck with it at that speed. You can't upgrade the processor later. On the other hand a person can buy the 2.26 GHz now and upgrade with better ram/disk at a later date if desired, assured that they have the best possible speed in the machine already.

If you are that bothered about speed you will always buy the latest model, therefore selling your mini when the upgraded one comes out, you won't mess about upgrading yourself.

On a refurb, the 2.26 is only 649. If you can afford the base model retail, you can afford the refurb faster model.

I now only buy with an eye for resale and who wants to buy the used, slower model?

Since is it somewhat of a BTO machine, the 2.26ghz mac mini is much more desirable.

You could argue a non-refurb mini with original box will look more appealing to future buyers too. Someone seeking a bargain on eBay is still going to pay a good price for the 2.0, and I doubt the difference of resale between it and the 2.26 is more than you would pay now for the faster processor.

 

[hitekalex]

Show me real-world proof and I'll believe it. Otherwise, it sounds more like theoretical geek wish-fulfillment

I don't have both 2.0 and 2.26Ghz mini's to compare them side by side. But based on my past experience, a faster clock makes a significant improvement in encoding times (and other tasks that tax the CPU 100%). Not really interested in proving this to you any further - believe me or not, that's totally up to you

 

[rkdiddy]

I think this thread kind of spiraled down...

The OP, said:

im considering buying a new mac mini and am wondering which cpu speed i need. i plan on using this mini as just a basic use machine.

The answer is either will be fine for "basic use". Yes, 2.26ghz > 2.0ghz, but the rest depends on your budget. Go with (at least) 2.0ghz and 2gb of ram (to max out the shared video).