2.3 or 2.5 Mac?

[megadon]

Hi, so I've done some research and still had to ask..
I just got the 2.3 ghz Mac mini with 2gb memory, but thinking if I should pay another $ 150 to upgrade to 2.5ghz with double ram

Mainly because I might get a 3d tv soon, will the AMD graphics help with 3d?

I have $50 store credit, so is it worth it? Or should I just get 8gb ram in my current Mac mini?

Im mainly using this as an hometheater hub, streaming
Content from other computers to my tv.

 

[reputationZed]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

You can upgrade to 4GB yourself for about $40. Upgrading memory on the MM is fairly simple. This would be the only upgrade, given the usage you wrote about, that would add any real value. Another $110 towards the faster CPU and the AMD GPU would add a bit of performance but no where near the performance/$ you get from upgrading the RAM alone.

Edit: Actually you can get a 8GB upgrade kit on Amazon for under $50

 

[philipma1957]

Hi, so I've done some research and still had to ask..
I just got the 2.3 ghz Mac mini with 2gb memory, but thinking if I should pay another $ 150 to upgrade to 2.5ghz with double ram

Mainly because I might get a 3d tv soon, will the AMD graphics help with 3d?

I have $50 store credit, so is it worth it? Or should I just get 8gb ram in my current Mac mini?

Im mainly using this as an hometheater hub, streaming
Content from other computers to my tv.

No keep the 2.3 mini/


buy this ram from amazon



http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-Modu...ref=sr_1_5?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1317839382&sr=1-5


there has been a lot of testing with this ram on macbook pro 13 inch 2.3 ghz cpu with intel 3000 graphics chip . you get a graphics boost the mbp runs at 1600 not 1333 the graphics get a nice improvement. we have also tested this on macrumors with some 2.3 minis and some server minis. it is a little bit of a secret but you will see a lot of improvement. the graphics will go to 512mb and it will run at the 1600 speed.

specs for the 2.3 intel and 3000 graphics

http://ark.intel.com/products/52224


when reading this it looks like 1333 is the max ram. but testing with quite a few people have shown that 1600 works. also if you look hard enough it shows that 21.3gb of ram can be used. which means a pair of 8gb sticks does work

 

[Skoopman]

Can you really "feel" the difference between the 1600 MHz and 1333 MHz RAM? I want to upgrade my Mac Mini in the near future and I am still not really sure.

 

[philipma1957]

Can you really "feel" the difference between the 1600 MHz and 1333 MHz RAM? I want to upgrade my Mac Mini in the near future and I am still not really sure.

In your case you have the discrete graphics card it has its own ddr5 ram 256gb of high speed ram. I would think for you the 1600 does not help much more then the 1333. you have 4gb ram just going to 6gb of 1333 ram may be enough. 20 bucks for a 4gb stick is possible.

if you have the 2.3 base mini or the quad mini they only have the intel 3000 which sucks up to 512mb of ram from the 2 ddr3 sticks you put in.

It may be a case that the real bargain is the 2.3 mini with 8gb 1600 ram total cost is 599 plus 70 or 670. A lot of tests were done early with the 2.5 and the 2.7 vs the 2.3 in games and they clearly both spanked the 2.3 at games..

No one has tested the 2.3 with 8gb 1600 ram or 8gb 1867 ram posting gamer and multi lcd tests.

since the 2.3 has to get a ram upgrade from the stock 2gb.

{unless you like watching the spinning beachball} 75 vs 45 to go to 8gb 1600 vs 8gb 1333 ram may be a good low cost tweak. we have seen some bench tests that clearly show the 1600 is a bit quicker with the intel grahics then the 1333 ram.

 

[megadon]

Thanks a lot for your input guys, appreciate it.
So, question, if you could afford it, would you get the 2.5with 4gb ram and add anoter 4 for a total of 8gb?

I have this problem where I always think it's better to have a higher spec product.. ( no chance I'm getting the i7 though)

 

[philipma1957]

Thanks a lot for your input guys, appreciate it.
So, question, if you could afford it, would you get the 2.5with 4gb ram and add anoter 4 for a total of 8gb?

I have this problem where I always think it's better to have a higher spec product.. ( no chance I'm getting the i7 though)

well I don't game much so I would not get the 2.5 or the 2.7 I have two quad servers. both have the 750gb hdds and i am happy with my needs being met.

I don't think buying minis is the best idea for gaming needs.

 

[reputationZed]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Hi, so I've done some research and still had to ask..
I just got the 2.3 ghz Mac mini with 2gb memory, but thinking if I should pay another $ 150 to upgrade to 2.5ghz with double ram

Mainly because I might get a 3d tv soon, will the AMD graphics help with 3d?

I have $50 store credit, so is it worth it? Or should I just get 8gb ram in my current Mac mini?

Im mainly using this as an hometheater hub, streaming
Content from other computers to my tv.

No keep the 2.3 mini/


buy this ram from amazon



http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-Modu...ref=sr_1_5?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1317839382&sr=1-5


there has been a lot of testing with this ram on macbook pro 13 inch 2.3 ghz cpu with intel 3000 graphics chip . you get a graphics boost the mbp runs at 1600 not 1333 the graphics get a nice improvement. we have also tested this on macrumors with some 2.3 minis and some server minis. it is a little bit of a secret but you will see a lot of improvement. the graphics will go to 512mb and it will run at the 1600 speed.

specs for the 2.3 intel and 3000 graphics

http://ark.intel.com/products/52224


when reading this it looks like 1333 is the max ram. but testing with quite a few people have shown that 1600 works. also if you look hard enough it shows that 21.3gb of ram can be used. which means a pair of 8gb sticks does work

From the threads I've seen the improvements associated with going from 1333 to 1600 or higher have been benchmark improvements and the biggest improvements have come when running windows not OSX. Boosting your Geekbench score a few hundred points in nice but ultimately meaningless if there is not a corresponding performance boost in real world usage. Has anyone seen realworld performance figures for 1333 vs higher speed memory?

 

[philipma1957]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)



From the threads I've seen the improvements associated with going from 1333 to 1600 or higher have been benchmark improvements and the biggest improvements have come when running windows not OSX. Boosting your Geekbench score a few hundred points in nice but ultimately meaningless if there is not a corresponding performance boost in real world usage. Has anyone seen realworld performance figures for 1333 vs higher speed memory?

I am trying to get people to post game fps at medium settings with 1600 kingston ram and 1866 kingston ram with the 2.3 and the server. I started a thread .

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1241444/

it would be very helpful for data and results if people post on it.

 

[paulrbeers]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)



From the threads I've seen the improvements associated with going from 1333 to 1600 or higher have been benchmark improvements and the biggest improvements have come when running windows not OSX. Boosting your Geekbench score a few hundred points in nice but ultimately meaningless if there is not a corresponding performance boost in real world usage. Has anyone seen realworld performance figures for 1333 vs higher speed memory?

Faster memory usually equates to a few percentage points in faster benchmarks, but to be honest in real world usage it's almost negligible. Back in my gaming days, I used to buy the fastest memory possible, but then again I was usually overclocking my computer. Since you aren't going to overclock your mac mini, there really is no reason to spend the extra unless you really feel you need to (I also worry about how it will affect the stability of your mac mini as macs can be very temperamental).

Edit: And unless something has changed, you should always use same sized memory sticks otherwise you lose the dual channel memory which can reduce your overall speed by up to 10%. Meaning, do NOT put in 1 2GB stick and 1 4GB stick.

 

[reputationZed]

Faster memory usually equates to a few percentage points in faster benchmarks, but to be honest in real world usage it's almost negligible. Back in my gaming days, I used to buy the fastest memory possible, but then again I was usually overclocking my computer. Since you aren't going to overclock your mac mini, there really is no reason to spend the extra unless you really feel you need to (I also worry about how it will affect the stability of your mac mini as macs can be very temperamental).

Edit: And unless something has changed, you should always use same sized memory sticks otherwise you lose the dual channel memory which can reduce your overall speed by up to 10%. Meaning, do NOT put in 1 2GB stick and 1 4GB stick.

I sometimes miss my old overclocking days and fondly remember the Celeron 300A I had running at 450 MGhz. I completely agree that benchmarks often have very little to do with real world performance. I remember about ten years or so back Kyle and the guys over at HardOCP gave up on synthetic bench marks altogether and did all their testing by comparing actual frame rates in games. And these are guys who take quite a bit of pleasure in squeezing every ounce of potential out of a CPU, GPU, or memory that they could. I'm not sure I agree with the advice on matching memory modules. I seem to remember reading that the delta between single channel and dual channel performance is not as great as it once was and that the performance gains of having more memory, up to a certain point anyway, easily offset the performance loss of mismatched modules.