Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.0GHz or 2.26GHz?
- Thread starter Pokernut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And I'm happy knowing I got the fastest processor I could have in my Mini. Should help keep the unit semi-current for a little while longer and make it slightly more desireable on resale. Very well worth the $150 to me, even if the speed improvement isn't something I would notice that much. I use the computer all day every day for Photoshop editing, graphics and filters, general use, etc. So even a tiny speed bump is welcome. I'm very happy I bought a 2.26GHz version and upgraded the RAM and HDD myself. it was a fun process and for around $850 I got a maxed out Mini with 2.26GHz/4GB RAM/7200RPM 320GB Hitachi drive, plus an extra 120GB HDD to use or sell.
A single clock speed multiplier isn't anything to write home about. You're happy so no reason to complain.And I'm happy knowing I got the fastest processor I could have in my Mini. Should help keep the unit semi-current for a little while longer and make it slightly more desireable on resale. Very well worth the $150 to me, even if the speed improvement isn't something I would notice that much. I use the computer all day every day for Photoshop editing, graphics and filters, general use, etc. So even a tiny speed bump is welcome. I'm very happy I bought a 2.26GHz version and upgraded the RAM and HDD myself. it was a fun process and for around $850 I got a maxed out Mini with 2.26GHz/4GB RAM/7200RPM 320GB Hitachi drive, plus an extra 120GB HDD to use or sell.
CPU-Z screens please.
Windows 7 (64bit) via Boot Camp
CPU-Z
Intel PID util
OSX
CPU-X
Intel Tool
Parallels v4
Eldorian... I never said the 2.26GHz was a screamer... just that I'm happy to have it vs. the 2.0GHz. My Mini is home among 4 iMacs, 2 MacBooks, and a MacPro 2.8GHz Dual Quad Core (8-core) so I understand where it sits in the grander scheme of things and yes, I'm very happy with the 2.26GHz mini... nothing to complain about at all and I'm quite content with the decision to go with the 2.26GHz processor vs. the 2.0GHz processor. For my editing work, the mini is able to keep up with what I do (compared to my 8-core MacPro) very nicely. All in all, it's a wonderful machine that performs well for my professional Photoshop editing and general computing use... especially for the money. And I have no interest in how it compares to non-Mac machines as I have no desire to own anything but Macs. The machine may be inadequate for your needs, but it works great for mine.
MagicBoy I have been looking for the MacCPUID tool for ages now! Thanks!
A few users go a little too nuts over 266 MHz and how much more FUTURE PROOF their computer is.
Says the person who's talking to the one with the ancient 65nm 2.2 GHz Merom.
A few users go a little too nuts over 266 MHz and how much more FUTURE PROOF their computer is.
I agree, in a few years when new much faster machines are about that .little bit extra will mean, little......
example: My g3 iMac has 50 more Mhz than my 450Mhz iMac DV wooo woo wu
like the man said...150 dollar in
pocket for what, an extra second ....your money, I can think of better things to do with mine tbh...I'm with you all the way on the RAM/HD upgrade though, fair play
I agree, in a few years when new much faster machines are about that .little bit extra will mean, little......
example: My g3 iMac has 50 more Mhz than my 450Mhz iMac DV wooo woo wu
like the man said...150 dollar in
I'm happy with my choice to get the 2.26GHz. Is it futureproof? Heck no... all computers are old before their time. And I'm very happy with this machine right now. I was happy to buy and to have the 2.26 processor. You can have yours however you want it. No need for your criticism.
I'm happy , your happy- all good
Didn't mean to criticize as such but my comment is my view on this , sorry if you don't like it ..edit* infact no, I dont think I did criticize you, I made a statement to the situation, and kind of asked a question , nothing more....oh, except a compliment !.
My point is that with most things related to computers, advancement is incremental, a little at a time, over and over again. If every time the clock speed jumped by 266MHz we scoffed at it and passed on it, we'd be back at, well... you know where! Each modest bump up is a good thing and while individually they may not be a big deal, they all add up. Some don't feel that paying extra for the 2.26 vs. the 2.0 is worth it and to them it may not be. But I'm very happy to take the incremental bump as much as I can get it and to me, the $150 was no big deal, so I wanted the incremental bump in processor speed.... that's all. And I'm not making it out to be a huge thing.... it's just an incremental bump, but one which I am happy to take and glad I did!
I'm getting a Mini but just planning on learning programming for Macintosh, doing game devlopement on it. Mostly 2D stuff but may work towards 3D. If I ever get to 3D games, I'll consider a Mac Pro at that point. I think the 2.0GHZ would be fine for what I want to do and that $150 would be nice for an additional Hard Drive to backup to.
I still think $150 for a 266mhz upgrade is too expensive no matter which way you try to slice it. They probably get the processor at $10 more than the P7350 costs and is making $140 profit for each person that upgrades.
And in a lot of cases that extra 266mhz will really only net you a 2%-5% processing increase which is hardly worth it.
Go with the 2.0Ghz and save that $150 for a Mac Pro.
I still think $150 for a 266mhz upgrade is too expensive no matter which way you try to slice it. They probably get the processor at $10 more than the P7350 costs and is making $140 profit for each person that upgrades.
And in a lot of cases that extra 266mhz will really only net you a 2%-5% processing increase which is hardly worth it.
Go with the 2.0Ghz and save that $150 for a Mac Pro.
Actually If I had those extra $150 to spend on my mini now, I would rather prefer to buy a SSD hard disk which really makes difference in performance, than go for the 2.26GHz CPU. In a year from now when all machines will be quad core no one will be really impressed if your computer has a 2.00 or 2.26GHz C2D CPU.
If you're deciding whether to buy your Mini loaded or in the minimum configuration, consider how unhappy you will be later if you don't like it. Upgrading RAM and hard drive in Mini's has always been a misery and the CPU's are not considered upgradeable except by some crazy people with insane skills, like the guys who used to upgrade the Core Solo Mini's to Core Duo. I'd load up a new Mini with every available option.
Why not just buy the iMac at that price point? For a bit more you get not only a faster CPU, but a beautiful 20" screen with iSight & Speakers, a 7200rpm HD rather than 5400rpm (you can upgrade RAM to 4GB for around $85 or less, and buy from Amazon or something to avoid sales tax altogether).
The 20" display in the iMac is not beautiful, in fact it's rather poor.
I'd rather have a mini than a low-end iMac any day.
Why would I want a system where the monitor is chained to the processing unit and have much less flexibility? I can buy any beautiful 23" inch monitor of my choosing and connect it to the Mini. If I change my mind in the future or the monitor fails, I can choose another. With an iMac, you're stuck with the monitor for the life of the computer. And unlike the iMac, the Mini is elegantly compact and portable.
When I get a Hi Def LCD TV in the future, I might hook up the Mini to that. No such option with an iMac.
iSight and speakers - for me that's entertainment fluff. I already have decent powered external speakers ready to conect to the Mini. Yes, 7200 vs 5400 drive would be prefered, but would the difference seriously impact anyone day-to-day? (one can use that same argument against me with my choice of 2.26 over 2.0 cpu).
I thought your point was going to be why spend the extra $ for the high end Mini versus the base Mini.
A PC notebook website comparing the 3DMark06 CPU benchmarks between the P7350 and the P8400 gives a nearly 15% advantage to the 2.26 GHz upgrade, so a 12-13% real world speed boost seems plausible. Not too shabby for a 25% cost increase on the base model.
Totally convinced:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115984
It scores just 100 points below my current top machine which does everything I throw at it flawlessly, superb!
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/115984
It scores just 100 points below my current top machine which does everything I throw at it flawlessly, superb!
The 20" iMac screen (which looks ok at first glance and while looking S-T-R-A-I-G-H-T D-E-A-D ON) is a TN panel, the lowest quality display technology with horrible image quality at anything but a perfect dead-on viewing angle. While it's decent for e-mail & surfing, for anyone with a more than casual interest in screen image quality and working with photos and such, TN panels are a relatively poor choice as compared to PVA and especially IPS panels. For someone with a more than casual interest in imaging, the only iMac to buy is the 24" with its H-IPS panel, at least with your brain is chained to your display, you have a great quality display panel.
Unfortunately, though, for many in the last couple of years, the 24" iMac screens have been plagued with gradients and inconsistencies... when that happens, your whole machine needs to go, not just the monitor. With the mini, you can pick and choose displays, keyboards, mice, etc. and upgrade or repair any component without having to lose everything.
With an all-in-one, the problem is also that, one component or the other (display or processor/RAM/VIDEO) will get outdated before the other and you'll need to dump it all. Example: I have three early white 20" CoreDuo iMacs which have superb IPS 20" displays with matte finish.... perfect for critical professional imaging work.... problem is the 2.0GHz CoreDuo and 2GB RAM limitation is very long in the tooth now. I wish I could upgrade the processors and RAM so I could keep using the incredible display panels in the computers, but I can't.
I think in future, unless things change much, in my portrait photography studio I'll be going with Minis and separate IPS panels rather than iMacs for the Photoshop workstations, as I'm starting to do now with the new Mini. I love the flexibility to swap stuff around. And with the 2.26GHz processor, self-upgraded 4GB RAM and self-installed 7200RPM HDD, the Mini does a very nice (and fairly economical) job as a graphics workstation.
Because it's not what I want. The mini has features that are salient to me. The iMac does not.
Why buy something I don't want?
That's fine. No one's doing any arm twisting in one's individual choice. But "salient" is a curious way to describe the Mini in comparison to the iMac, without detailing what those salient issues are. It's also not all that enlightening in discussing pros and cons to say something's prefered because that's what I want.
It's the Apple way...
Steve wants you to buy what HE wants you to buy, NOT what YOU want to buy!