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
I'd go for x2.5-3 the CPU power for the base Mac mini.Sorry if this is a little off topic,
How much of a performance increase would I notice with the new Mac mini (either processor) compared to a single processor 1.8 Ghz PowerMac G5?
How much better is the 9400M than the Ati x800 ?
My most resource intensive application is Aperture.
I think I'd go with the 2.0 Ghz model, but plan to be using parallels Apple always makes it so difficult
Welcome to the mac rumors forum's 'asbestos underwear' club.
I've said nothing that is not true.I didn't know they did that with the iMac screens,..I learn something everyday on this forum.
I know about the screen inconsistency in the MBP's,.. some are really quite nice and some not so....Some inconsistency in the manufacture is usual but splitting quality the way it seems to be and have folks 'hoping' they get a 'good un' isnt great...this will ruin Apple imo.
Still, I can't wait for my Mini to arrive it's always been my favorite Mac.... though it could be much better and then it would dominate the market... think G4 cube with modern internals and decent amount of ports -
I'm a major fan of Apple products and have used Macs since 1985. Owned dozens of them. Incredible machines. But I have been very dismayed since the aluminum iMacs which is when the cheap TN panel went into the 20"er and the 24"er got a great H-IPS panel that somehow wasn't implemented properly and a huge proportion of users had wonderful H-IPS panels that exhibited screen gradients and a disproportionate share of display inconsistencies.
I can see that the casual user who surfs the web, sends e-mail, listens to music, dinks around a little with pictures, spreadsheets, and word processing can be well served indeed with a TN panel - and I'm sure that's why Apple went that route - to cut costs and reasonably well serve the masses.
But for those of us who were accustomed to IPS panels in ALL the iMacs, to find that the 20"ers quietly got downgraded to TN panels was a bad strike.
In practice, however, the 24" size is a better choice for imaging professionals like myself, and IPS is a must for us, and the aluminum 24" iMacs offers that.... but the crap shoot of whether you got a good display or a flawed one was enough to drive me away from iMacs and back toward separates.
So now I buy MacPros and Minis (separate monitors & brains). And separate H-IPS displays that can be swapped around, whatever without any impact on the brain. The flexibility of being able to upgrade or swap around one component without changing the other (brain & monitor) is ideal.
Fortunately, the new Mini is a sprightly and very capable little brain and so far (2.26GHz/4GB/7K320HDD) coupled with high end 24" displays, serves me very well in my professional imaging and general use. I'm very happy with it! Finally!!! the new Mini!
I can see that the casual user who surfs the web, sends e-mail, listens to music, dinks around a little with pictures, spreadsheets, and word processing can be well served indeed with a TN panel - and I'm sure that's why Apple went that route - to cut costs and reasonably well serve the masses.
But for those of us who were accustomed to IPS panels in ALL the iMacs, to find that the 20"ers quietly got downgraded to TN panels was a bad strike.
In practice, however, the 24" size is a better choice for imaging professionals like myself, and IPS is a must for us, and the aluminum 24" iMacs offers that.... but the crap shoot of whether you got a good display or a flawed one was enough to drive me away from iMacs and back toward separates.
So now I buy MacPros and Minis (separate monitors & brains). And separate H-IPS displays that can be swapped around, whatever without any impact on the brain. The flexibility of being able to upgrade or swap around one component without changing the other (brain & monitor) is ideal.
Fortunately, the new Mini is a sprightly and very capable little brain and so far (2.26GHz/4GB/7K320HDD) coupled with high end 24" displays, serves me very well in my professional imaging and general use. I'm very happy with it! Finally!!! the new Mini!
I think I'd go with the 2.0 Ghz model, but plan to be using parallels Apple always makes it so difficult
Barring the 13% speed difference, the 2.0GHz model will run Parallels exactly as well as the 2.26GHz model.
But the one I posted you can buy, without the computer, at everyday low price of $37.95.
What's wrong with it? I'm trying to make the point that contrary to what some people think, the 2.0GHz chip has the VT extensions that are useful in virtualisation work (i.e. Parallels) that are advertised to be in the 2.26GHz chip. Intel's official tech sheets say the contrary but user evidence has indicated that VT extensions *are* in fact on the 2.0GHz model. In other words, the 2.0GHz chip will run Parallels exactly as well as the 2.26GHz chip, only 13% slower. If it were missing the VT extensions then this statement would no longer be the case.
Yeah the difference is less than 13% too in tests.
And if you look at real world usage the difference is even less than that.
Then how is 20 exactly the same as 10. But less... I can't follow such logic
You're getting a bit strange now. Think of it this way, an off road car that drives at 20 miles per hour will manage to drive an off road track just as well as an off road car that drives at 23 miles per hour, it will just take a little bit longer. A normal car driving at 20 miles an hour, will however not manage the off road track as well as either the 20 miles per hour or 23 miles per hour off road cars.
I'm not getting strange, you are
The 2.26 Mini will so everything a tad bit better, end of story. not the same, or equally, just better. Maybe it's not noticable, but as most things, it's possible to measure it.
As there is a speed difference, it isn't really "exactly as well".
A much more accurate description would be: "I will run it, but slower."
Thanks for the clarification Spanky Deluxe, I thought VT extensions were included on the 2.26 Ghz only.
I can now cross the 2.26Ghz off the upgrade list.
Now all I need is to find a reliable 7200rpm drive and FireWire 800 hub.
Hitachi 7K320 (7200RPM 320GB 16MB cache) drives are sweet, silent, and reliable. I've been using one for a year or so and just got another to pop into my new Mini... Hitachi has been the market leader in 2.5" drives for some time now. At around $55 or so with Hitachi's current rebate, it's a great and economical choice.
No problem! As far as the hard drive goes, I've always liked Seagate drives. If I hadn't of had a spare 250gb 7200rpm 2.5" drive lying around then I would have gone for the 500gb 7200rpm 2.5" drive by Seagate.
I didn't make it and no Photoshopping. It's the real deal and you can buy as many as you want, for $37.99, at this link:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/NUCUBE/
Happy days, thanks ....would be great that....all I need now is a couple of decent- 'made for the Mini' external Hd's ...all I can find are those for the old Mini and they only have FW400...not FW800
...oh , it's in the US , will it cost a fortune to send to `Europe?
any ideas how much that would be final price with all the US taxes etc
Actually, that VT extension confirmation might or might NOT be true. The only 2 sources of information is either within the Apple OS itself, and Intel's own utility. Intel is known for making mistakes in their own CPU feature listings, and I have no idea where CPU-x is querying the hardware support from. It could be from the EFI BIOS, a register test, or maybe reading from something inside OSX. If you look carefully, CPU-Z also did not mention VT support in Windows 7. Of course, Intel also ship "specialized" hardware for Apple (that might or might not have the feature enabled for their needs).
Can someone boot a Ubuntu LiveCD on a 2GHz MacMini or MacBook and see if /proc/cpuinfo list vmx as a feature?