Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2.0GHz or 2.26GHz?

Richard8655 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But isn't describing what we want is what all of us are doing here? I wanted a mini. I did not want an iMac. It does not matter to me that an iMac could be had for a small premium. The features listed by Gregintosh are not valuable in my personal cost function, which includes issues like the following:


1) I have a monitor. I like my monitor. Someday I'll purchase a 30" monitor and there isn't room for a 30" monitor and an iMac on my desk. I have no use for a immobile camera (and in fact iSight is a minus because I don't want it). I like my keyboard. I don't want another mouse.
2) I can upgrade the mini myself with a 7200-RPM, 500 GB hard drive and 4GB of RAM, so the ease of upgrading the iMac is of no benefit to me. This mini with a 500 GB HD, 4GB RAM, and 2.26 GHz meets my needs, so that the iMac is marginally better does nothing for me.
3) The mini has a small footprint. It fits nicely in a media center. It moves to my desk easily when I don't want it in a media center. I could make a dock to fit it in my car.
4) It's cute.
 
rrijkers said:
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! :cool::cool::D
Click to expand...

Great link, thanks! I never thought to look there for benchmark results.

I also found the results for the mini 2.0 ghz:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/114186

Basically 3419 vs 3105 in favor of the 2.26 mini (about a 10% improvement). The 2.0 only had 2 GB in it vs the 2.26 having 4 GB in it. I'm not sure how much of a difference that might make in the comparison.

The really interesting thing I found was how powerful they are in comparison to the G5 Power Macs, with the top Power Mac G5 Dual 2.5 (4 Core) coming in at 3244.
 
This strikes me as a bit humorous...

Eidorian said:
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.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that long ago in the PPC days that people would kill for 50 mhz uptick in the processor speed let alone 266 mhz of difference! Made me laugh. Although in reality its raw processor speed is what 12% faster? Probably wont make any difference unless you spend a lot of time doing video encodes. Just remember and I think its already been mentioned that the cpu is soldered onto the motherboard and there will be no way to do a cpu upgrade. Dang you apple for spoiling my evil upgrade plans. :mad: I was already eyeballing a 2.6 ghz core2duo to put in a new mini.
 
Michael Belisle said:
But isn't describing what we want is what all of us are doing here? I wanted a mini. I did not want an iMac. It does not matter to me that an iMac could be had for a small premium. The features listed by Gregintosh are not valuable in my personal cost function, which includes issues like the following:


1) I have a monitor. I like my monitor. Someday I'll purchase a 30" monitor and there isn't room for a 30" monitor and an iMac on my desk. I have no use for a immobile camera (and in fact iSight is a minus because I don't want it). I like my keyboard. I don't want another mouse.
2) I can upgrade the mini myself with a 7200-RPM, 500 GB hard drive and 4GB of RAM, so the ease of upgrading the iMac is of no benefit to me. This mini with a 500 GB HD, 4GB RAM, and 2.26 GHz meets my needs, so that the iMac is marginally better does nothing for me.
3) The mini has a small footprint. It fits nicely in a media center. It moves to my desk easily when I don't want it in a media center. I could make a dock to fit it in my car.
4) It's cute.
Click to expand...

What you say here makes sense. Sorry, I misinterpreted your original post because it was sort of obscure. I agree with your rationale on the Mini over the iMac, and reached the same conclusions.
 
bigdaddyp said:
It wasn't that long ago in the PPC days that people would kill for 50 mhz uptick in the processor speed let alone 266 mhz of difference! Made me laugh. Although in reality its raw processor speed is what 12% faster? Probably wont make any difference unless you spend a lot of time doing video encodes. Just remember and I think its already been mentioned that the cpu is soldered onto the motherboard and there will be no way to do a cpu upgrade. Dang you apple for spoiling my evil upgrade plans. :mad: I was already eyeballing a 2.6 ghz core2duo to put in a new mini.
Click to expand...

In past versions, at least, it was possible. But it's not for the faint of heart and voids your warranty. I like to think that there was a reason why they didn't put a 2.6 GHz in there.
 
Richard8655 said:
What you say here makes sense. Sorry, I misinterpreted your original post because it was sort of obscure. I agree with your rationale on the Mini over the iMac, and reached the same conclusions.
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry about that. I am tired and had just noticed a trend in criticisms of the new Shuffle (see Engadget), the Mac mini, and the MacBook Air. Often times, the suggestion is of the form "At the price of x, why don't you get y" where y is typically nothing like x (examples: shuffle->nano or non-iPod, mini->iMac or hackintosh, Air->anything that's not 3 pounds).

The answer boils down to the same thing in all cases: because x appeals to me and y does not. You may not understand why, for example, I'm willing to pay more and sacrifice some performance for small size. But that's fine. We're different people with different priorities.

Or perhaps if everyone would say "At the price of x, I'd get y", I'd have no complaint.
 
Hey I didn't want to sound like a jerk, I was genuinely curious in the answer. I myself have been thinking about getting a 30" screen by the end of the year cause of the extra resolution and my options are limited (mac mini or mac pro).

The comment about the reason you can't go past 2.26 Ghz is because they want you to buy an iMac is probably right, though they could have at least given a 2.4 (kind of like in the macbooks).

I hate the idea that if I were to buy the top end mini and hook it up to a 30" display it would be slower than my laptop (Aluminum 2.4Ghz, with aftermarket 120GB SSD and 4GB RAM).
 
Gregintosh said:
Hey I didn't want to sound like a jerk, I was genuinely curious in the answer. I myself have been thinking about getting a 30" screen by the end of the year cause of the extra resolution and my options are limited (mac mini or mac pro).

The comment about the reason you can't go past 2.26 Ghz is because they want you to buy an iMac is probably right, though they could have at least given a 2.4 (kind of like in the macbooks).

I hate the idea that if I were to buy the top end mini and hook it up to a 30" display it would be slower than my laptop (Aluminum 2.4Ghz, with aftermarket 120GB SSD and 4GB RAM).
Click to expand...

If you haven't considered it already, I'd recommend looking at the Samsung 305t. Better specs and $800 less than the Cinema HD 30".

Also, remember that 2.26 is only 6% slower than 2.4. If people are saying 12% isn't noticeable, I can only imagine what they'd say about 6%.
 
Michael Belisle said:
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?
Click to expand...

My 24" iMac is salient. I have yet to hear the fans come on, and I have played 3D games on it and play movies on it (Something that causes my MacBook fan to come on (Netflix) :? ).


Hugh
 
Michael Belisle said:
Also, remember that 2.26 is only 6% slower than 2.4. If people are saying 12% isn't noticeable, I can only imagine what they'd say about 6%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so 2.26 is only 6% slower than 2.4, and 2.26 is only a 13% gain on 2.0, and 1.8 is only 4% slower than that... dang why didn't Apple just give us the option of the 1.8GHz in the new Mini and save us even more money! There's hardly any difference, barely noticible unless your doing some rare and especially challenging computing task of some sort 24/7... sheesh... :eek: :rolleyes: ome on Apple, offer a 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz model so we can save another hundred or so.

The new mini at 2.266 is just fine by me... until they offer the 2.4GHz model in three months and I can gain another 6%. Then again, nah... from 2.266 I probably wouldn't even notice the bump. :p (Unless I'd bought the 2.0 version this time around, then I could dump the 2.0GHz version, take a hit on that, to gain the 20% bump of the 2.4GHz from 2.0.) One could go in circles around this "logic".
 
2.26GHz is a rip off for $150 dollars. If you geekbench the 2.0GHz with 4GB of RAM, I can guarantee you that it would be only a 100 something points slower than the 2.26GHz.

Basically cpu power is more desirable for rendering and in this case the mac mini is not really a machine used for heavy rendering so the $150 for just 260MHz more is just a waste of money.

Think about it, 1/4 more of the price of the mac mini for something that you'll never notice.

IF the mac mini had a 2.4GHz offering with 6mb of cache (but in this case even the 2.26GHz only has 3mb of cache) I would upgrade for $150.
 
Since the Mini isn't the most powerful machine I think $150 is cheap to pay for 260MHz more.

You need all you can get with these machnies.
 
Would a 2009 C2D 2.26 GHz laptop processor be faster than a 2007 C2D 2.13 GHz desktop one? I've been told that as a general rule, desktop processors clean up the floor with notebook processors of the same speed.

Also, for things like burning dvd's, would the jump from 2GHz to 2.26 GHz on the mini make a noticeable difference?
 
How about for gaming? This would be my media pc and I'd like to run some games on it. I hear Quake 4 runs pretty well. Would the 2.26 benefit that at all?
 
What makes difference among pocessors in everyday use is technology and not GHz. You see difference going from Pentium to Core duo, from Core duo to Core2duo, form Core2duo to Quad core etc. A few GHz difference in the same technology won't really benefit you at all in 99% of the cases.

Processing speed and overall computing speed is not only GHz. It is system bus, it is memory bus, it is memory clock speed, it is number of processor cores, it is processing technologies (VT, 64bit, HT etc.), it is L2/L3 cache memory, it is disk speed etc.
 
For a real world comparison....Could anyone compare the new Mini's to the last black/white Macbooks ?, speed wise.
 
I have two questions:

1.) how would these new minis be compared to an older version Mac mini with T7600 Merom 2,33 GHz CPU, 4 GB (2x2 GB) 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB 7200 rpm /16MB cache HDD?

2.) are the CPUs in the new mini really soldered?

I asking you, because i like the dual-screen option in the new Mac mini and i'm really thinking to sell my old one and buy a new one with GeForce 9400M.

Thanks for all your responses!
 
I think most CPUs downclock themselves these days to save power. I wonder if the 2.0 and 2.26 really run at the same frequency (e.g. 1.8) most of the time, and are only different when you do intense computation.
 
SydneyDev said:
I think most CPUs downclock themselves these days to save power. I wonder if the 2.0 and 2.26 really run at the same frequency (e.g. 1.8) most of the time, and are only different when you do intense computation.
Click to expand...

Downclock to save power would make sense on a laptop. But surely not on a desktop, like the mac mini, which does not have a battery.
 
another consideration?

The apple guy at my local compusa told me before it closed that, in his opinion , the mini was the best mac for the money. "We NEVER get these things returned and I haven't seen one that had problems. These things are bulletproof."

This could also be a reason why applecare is also less expensive on the minis than it is on the imacs.

I second the opinion on the boards about the mini's options and pricing are engineered to encourage you to buy an iMac. I'm surprised they didn't weld the case shut, soldier the ram onto the logicboard, or put in a special exploding dye package that requires a special tool.

I like the upgrade from combo to superdrive, and the nvidia chip instead of the sucky intel graphics. But the base model, $599 for a core 2 duo with ONE GIG OF RAM and a 120 GIG HD in 2009? :eek::mad::( No video cables or even a stinkin' front row remote?
 
clyde2801 said:
I like the upgrade from combo to superdrive, and the nvidia chip instead of the sucky intel graphics. But the base model, $599 for a core 2 duo with ONE GIG OF RAM and a 120 GIG HD in 2009? :eek::mad::( No video cables or even a stinkin' front row remote?
Click to expand...
My experience of Mini's has been gret-best Mac out there imho....really really cheap not to put 2Gb RAM standard but I guess this way with the 1Gb RAM in the base model they can put 128Mb graphics and so 'con' folks who don't know into buying the 'high end' Mini for the 256Mb graphics....bit underhanded imo
 
marbles said:
My experience of Mini's has been gret-best Mac out there imho....really really cheap not to put 2Gb RAM standard but I guess this way with the 1Gb RAM in the base model they can put 128Mb graphics and so 'con' folks who don't know into buying the 'high end' Mini for the 256Mb graphics....bit underhanded imo
Click to expand...

Welcome to the mac rumors forum's 'asbestos underwear' club. :p If you're lucky, the true believers and apple apologists will only ignore your comment. And I totally agree with the slightly underhanded business practices comment. Remember when they didn't tell anyone they were sticking a cheaper quality panel into the 20" aluminum mac?
 
jjahshik32 said:
2.26GHz is a rip off for $150 dollars. If you geekbench the 2.0GHz with 4GB of RAM, I can guarantee you that it would be only a 100 something points slower than the 2.26GHz.

Basically cpu power is more desirable for rendering and in this case the mac mini is not really a machine used for heavy rendering so the $150 for just 260MHz more is just a waste of money.
Click to expand...

What about the 2.26 GHz with 4 GB of RAM? Would it, possibly, get a Geek Bench score 300 points higher than the 2.0 GHz with 2 GB of RAM*? Oh snap.

And how do you know what I plan to do with my mini? How do you know I'm not, say, making music in Logic Pro?

* I couldn't find a 4 GB, 64-bit Geekbench result for the 2.0 GHz machine. But 2GB->4GB is not going to contribute 200 points to the 2.0 GHz machine. So you're still wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back