2.0GHz or 2.26GHz?

[Pokernut]

Sorry if this has been talked about, but can someone tell me the main difference between 2.0GHz and 2.26GHz. I'm buying the base model and upgrading to 4GB, just wondering if I should fork out the $180 to upgrade to 2.26GHz and will I see a huge difference?

Thanks in advance

 

[SydneyDev]

Since they are the same model CPU, you can directly compare MHz numbers.

Any time you normally find yourself waiting for the CPU (as against the HD), you will be waiting 13% less.

 

[Eidorian]

There's 266 MHz of difference. I don't see much of a need to upgrade the CPU unless you plan on encoding or folding 24/7 on the Mac mini. If your time is money then consider a more powerful computer.

 

[Michael Belisle]

Since they are the same model CPU, you can directly compare MHz numbers.

Any time you normally find yourself waiting for the CPU (as against the HD), you will be waiting 13% less.

I concur. I received my 2.26 GHz Mac mini today and ran Power Fractal on a previous generation 2.0 Ghz Mac mini (2 GB of RAM) and on the new mini (1 GB of RAM). The results are

2.0 GHz (Late 2007): 14002 Mflops
2.26 GHz (Early 2009): 15706 Mflops (12% improvement)

As expected, it the 13% improvement in clock speed gives an approximately equivalent increase in raw computational performance. (Note that Power Fractal isn't strongly influenced by anything but CPU performance.)

It's up to you to decide whether or not the extra 12% is worth $180 to you. (I chose yes because I wanted the fastest Mac mini money can buy. I'm also putting in 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB 7200 RPM hard drive.)

 

[drlunanerd]

The 2.0GHz does not have Intel VT-x. Crippled for marketing reasons I assume.

The 2.26GHz has Intel VT-x. It helps when running some virtualisation software e.g. Parallels or Windows Hyper-V.

Given that the new Mac mini's CPU is soldered, I'd probably get the base mini + 2.26GHz.

 

[Michael Belisle]

The 2.0GHz does not have Intel VT-x. Crippled for marketing reasons I assume.

The 2.26GHz has Intel VT-x. It helps when running some virtualisation software e.g. Parallels or Windows Hyper-V.

Given that the new Mac mini's CPU is soldered, I'd probably get the base mini + 2.26GHz.

The 2.26 GHz processor also has a design temperature of 105°C versus the 90°C of the 2.0 GHz model.

I tried copying a CD, doing computations, running a screen saver, and writing zeros to the hard disk to see how high I could get the temperature. I got the processor up to 91°C and the fan still didn't kick in. I'm guessing that awesomely high design temperature is the reason why. Silence is golden.

Might have to run next to a heater next. Gotta at least know the fan control is working.

(Yes, I believe in stress testing any new hardware. The excessive fan noise of my late 2007 mini really annoyed me.)

 

[bugout]

The 2.0GHz does not have Intel VT-x. Crippled for marketing reasons I assume.

The 2.26GHz has Intel VT-x. It helps when running some virtualisation software e.g. Parallels or Windows Hyper-V.

Given that the new Mac mini's CPU is soldered, I'd probably get the base mini + 2.26GHz.

I don't think it's been confirmed yet that its soldered. It has been confirmed that its glued down though. I don't think anyone has been brave enough to chip away at the epoxy yet..

 

[drlunanerd]

The 2.26 GHz processor also has a design temperature of 105°C versus the 90°C of the 2.0 GHz model.

I tried copying a CD, doing computations, running a screen saver, and writing zeros to the hard disk to see how high I could get the temperature. I got the processor up to 91°C and the fan still didn't kick in. I'm guessing that awesomely high design temperature is the reason why. Silence is golden.

Might have to run next to a heater next. Gotta at least know the fan control is working.

(Yes, I believe in stress testing any new hardware. The excessive fan noise of my late 2007 mini really annoyed me.)

To utilise both cores to 100% do the following:
Open Terminal
Open 2 windows
In each, type the following:
yes > /dev/null
Press Enter

Simmer for as long as it takes the fans to kick in

 

[drlunanerd]

I don't think it's been confirmed yet that its soldered. It has been confirmed that its glued down though. I don't think anyone has been brave enough to chip away at the epoxy yet..

I think that confirms it's not socketed. If you want to do a DIY CPU upgrade it means soldering the sucker in.

 

[Smacky]

The 07 chip is a different architecture to the 09 chip though. The 09 is penrynn while the 07 is Memron.
So even if you compared the 09 2.0ghz will still have better performance than the 07 2ghz

I concur. I received my 2.26 GHz Mac mini today and ran Power Fractal on a previous generation 2.0 Ghz Mac mini (2 GB of RAM) and on the new mini (1 GB of RAM). The results are

2.0 GHz (Late 2007): 14002 Mflops
2.26 GHz (Early 2009): 15706 Mflops (12% improvement)

As expected, it the 13% improvement in clock speed gives an approximately equivalent increase in raw computational performance. (Note that Power Fractal isn't strongly influenced by anything but CPU performance.)

It's up to you to decide whether or not the extra 12% is worth $180 to you. (I chose yes because I wanted the fastest Mac mini money can buy. I'm also putting in 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB 7200 RPM hard drive.)

 

[Pokernut]

I appreciate all the replies, I'm definitely gonna go with the 2.26GHz because I plan on using Parallels quite a bit.

Thanks again

 

[Michael Belisle]

The 07 chip is a different architecture to the 09 chip though. The 09 is penrynn while the 07 is Memron.
So even if you compared the 09 2.0ghz will still have better performance than the 07 2ghz

Sure, but it qualitatively agrees with what Primate labs found: that the performance gains due to the new architecture aren't all that pronounced. Power Fractal probably isn't an ideal test across architectures, even less so that GeekBench.

Not that I care: my biggest gripe with the late 1997 model was fan noise. I'm glad that they minimized the power consumption, making my now mini quieter than every other source of noise in my apartment.

 

[DHart]

I received my CTO 2.26GHz base model today. Dropped in 4 GB of RAM and a Hitachi 7200RPM 320GB 16MB cache HDD. I don't have a 2.0GHz model to compare this to, but I am TOTALLY thrilled with this Mac (I also have 4 white iMacs and a MacPro 2.8GHz 8-core). I do a lot of multi-tasking, multi-apps, graphics, heavy pro photoshop use, and this little mini is remarkably sprightly through it all.

For the extra $150, it may not be worth it to some folks, but if the $150 isn't going to break your piggy bank, JUST DO IT. Your machine will give great performance and last longer in terms of being contemporary... and be more desireable on resale down the road.

THe NEW mini... MAX it out and ENJOY!

 

[alphaod]

I don't think it's been confirmed yet that its soldered. It has been confirmed that its glued down though. I don't think anyone has been brave enough to chip away at the epoxy yet..

If it's glued it's soldered; nobody glues a chip onto a ZIF socket.

 

[solat]

The 2.26 GHz processor also has a design temperature of 105°C versus the 90°C of the 2.0 GHz model.

I tried copying a CD, doing computations, running a screen saver, and writing zeros to the hard disk to see how high I could get the temperature. I got the processor up to 91°C and the fan still didn't kick in. I'm guessing that awesomely high design temperature is the reason why. Silence is golden.

EDIT : mis read wiki, ignore my question pls

 

[MagicBoy]

The 2.0GHz does not have Intel VT-x. Crippled for marketing reasons I assume.

The 2.26GHz has Intel VT-x. It helps when running some virtualisation software e.g. Parallels or Windows Hyper-V.

Given that the new Mac mini's CPU is soldered, I'd probably get the base mini + 2.26GHz.

The 2.0GHz appears to have VT-x - even though the Intel Spec sheets for the P7350 say otherwise.

The Intel processor tool and CPU-X both report VTX is enabled on my 2009 Mac mini.

 

[QCassidy352]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

I think I'll go for the 2.26. I know it won't be a big difference, but $150 over the life of the machine is not a big deal either. Also, it may help the resale value down the line as the great majority of minis will be sold with 2.0s.

Of course, the current value of $150 varies a lot, depending on your situation.

 

[rrijkers]

Still no 64bit geekbench results for that one?

 

[drlunanerd]

The 2.0GHz appears to have VT-x - even though the Intel Spec sheets for the P7350 say otherwise.

The Intel processor tool and CPU-X both report VTX is enabled on my 2009 Mac mini.

Really? Thanks for the info.
I will do some testing on a P7350 in a MacBook I have here to cross-check this.

 

[drlunanerd]

Yep, the P7350 does have VT-x. Parallels 4 reports it, as does CPU-X.

My sample is a Stepping 6, Revision C0.

Intel are morons sometimes
Oh well, good news

 

[snipes]

Still no 64bit geekbench results for that one?

I just received mine and ran the 32bit geekbench. Results are here.

You can use the chart and find a 64bit result of 3419, versus my 3032. That user also had 4gb ram and I haven't upgraded mine from 1gb yet.

 

[MagicBoy]

Yep, the P7350 does have VT-x. Parallels 4 reports it, as does CPU-X.

My sample is a Stepping 6, Revision C0.

Intel are morons sometimes
Oh well, good news

I did stop and thing twice about getting the 2.26 just for VT-X, then gadget lust and immediate availability kicked in and I didn't care so much!

Glad it is enabled in the end, doubly so that I've now whacked 4GB in.

 

[Eidorian]

Yep, the P7350 does have VT-x. Parallels 4 reports it, as does CPU-X.

My sample is a Stepping 6, Revision C0.

Intel are morons sometimes
Oh well, good news

CPU-Z screens please.

 

[Richard8655]

The 2.26 GHz processor also has a design temperature of 105°C versus the 90°C of the 2.0 GHz model.

I tried copying a CD, doing computations, running a screen saver, and writing zeros to the hard disk to see how high I could get the temperature. I got the processor up to 91°C and the fan still didn't kick in. I'm guessing that awesomely high design temperature is the reason why. Silence is golden.

Might have to run next to a heater next. Gotta at least know the fan control is working.

(Yes, I believe in stress testing any new hardware. The excessive fan noise of my late 2007 mini really annoyed me.)

Does a higher design temperature mean the CPU is more hardy and durable? I'm wondering if the 2.26 design temp of 105 vs. 90 for the 2.0 is in any way advantageous.

In any event, I agree with all those who went with 2.26. Especially with the point that it keeps your Mac Mini more current as time progresses. $150 is nothing if you're a serious Mac Mini devoutee. In my case, I went with COT from Apple at the full spec: 2.26 cpu, 320gb drive, 4gb RAM, and keyboard/mouse for $1139 with tax. It turns out to be only $156 more than if I had ordered the base model with 2.26 and added my own RAM and 500gb hard drive from Newegg. For $156 savings, it wasn't worth opening it up and screwing around with the RAM, hard drive install and reformat, and OS and peripheral software re-install. On top of that, I want to have unquestioned Apple support if I ever need service or repair, rather than worrying about how Apple will view the situation with my own hard drive and RAM mods.

This Mac Mini release is such a good design improvement, I say go with the full enchelada now.

 

[Smacky]

320gb vs 500gb and you still save money
If you compre 320gb aftermarket you would be saving even more