PDA

View Full Version : Predict updated Mac Mini specs!




iW00t
Jan 7, 2007, 03:48 AM
I have actually been pondering about this, the Mac Mini has usually been slightly behind the Macbook and everything else. However there has actually been some talk about the line getting a 1.83 and 2.0 speedbump next week.

Since there are no new C2D chips the Macbooks are stuck at their current speeds (else they will be on par with the Macbook Pros), likewise the Macbook Pros are also not going anywhere either, so it is not like the laptop line has any space to move up to make room for the Mini.

Would you guys think it is likely for the Mini to receive 1.83ghz and 2.0ghz Core Duos instead?



4nr-
Jan 7, 2007, 07:50 AM
Not core duos, core 2 duos in that case.

vendettabass
Jan 7, 2007, 07:52 AM
1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo
2.00Ghz Core 2 Duo

1GB RAM standard or price cuts hopefully

freebooter
Jan 7, 2007, 07:59 AM
Not core duos, core 2 duos in that case.

How 'bout several Due Core-O's

eXan
Jan 7, 2007, 08:22 AM
I think minis could stay at their current clock speeds at 1.66 and 1.83, but get Core 2 instead.

Then they may up the RAM to 1 gig on the top model or just keep them at 512 and drop the price.

Bibulous
Jan 7, 2007, 08:53 AM
Low end price drop back to $499 with superdrive stock.

High end price drop to $749 with 1GB and 100GB stock.

Both get iTV wireless but no C2D for either until 10.5 ships.

nyzballa12
Jan 7, 2007, 10:39 AM
Low end price drop back to $499 with superdrive stock.

High end price drop to $749 with 1GB and 100GB stock.

Both get iTV wireless but no C2D for either until 10.5 ships.

:eek: I hope that really happens :D

thejadedmonkey
Jan 7, 2007, 11:16 AM
they should have C2D chips in them for the price you pay..

Kashchei
Jan 7, 2007, 11:29 AM
So nobody thinks that the 965 will be replaced by the X3000 (for both the mac minis and the low-end iMac)? This is bound to happen at some point. The question isn't if, but when.

Alasta
Jan 7, 2007, 12:12 PM
I think that the answer to this question lies in the cost difference between the CD and C2D processors. Does anyone know what this difference is? If the difference is minimal, then I think it would be highly likely that the Mini will get the C2D.

I don't believe that Apple would hold back the Mini just to prevent it from having the same specs as the Macbook. After all, the Mini is priced to compete with other manufacturers' desktops, not with the Macbook.

If the Mini does get updated, it'll be a tough call for me because I don't want to wait for the new model to become available here in New Zealand, but if an update to the C2D processor does happen, then I think I'll be worth the wait.

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 12:17 PM
Status light... Quieter operation... Wireless n. card on the sly... More hard drive options... Less stripped version of OSX...

zen.state
Jan 7, 2007, 12:17 PM
1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo
2.00Ghz Core 2 Duo

1GB RAM standard or price cuts hopefully


if if think apple will put 1gb standard in the mini then you need to stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking :)

MacSA
Jan 7, 2007, 12:18 PM
I think that the answer to this question lies in the cost difference between the CD and C2D processors. Does anyone know what this difference is? If the difference is minimal, then I think it would be highly likely that the Mini will get the C2D.


Apparently there is no difference... although there were a few articles last year mentioning price cuts to the Core Duo chip.

Warbrain
Jan 7, 2007, 12:23 PM
Only an upgrade to C2D. No bump in speed.

phungy
Jan 7, 2007, 12:30 PM
Hopefully they will get a bump to C2Ds as well as RAM to 1GB like the CD MB -> C2D MB while keeping price the same.

Jasonbot
Jan 7, 2007, 12:31 PM
2.0 Ghz conroe, PCI slots, x1900 Graphics, 120Gb HD and 1Gb standard... All for exactly the same price points as current models. I WISH!

timswim78
Jan 7, 2007, 12:34 PM
Less stripped version of OSX...

What does that mean?

zen.state
Jan 7, 2007, 12:34 PM
Only an upgrade to C2D. No bump in speed.

the C2D runs 25-40% faster at the same speed

Nermal
Jan 7, 2007, 12:42 PM
If the Mini does get updated, it'll be a tough call for me because I don't want to wait for the new model to become available here in New Zealand, but if an update to the C2D processor does happen, then I think I'll be worth the wait.

It should be a bit quicker now that Apple actually exists here :)

Alasta
Jan 7, 2007, 01:25 PM
It should be a bit quicker now that Apple actually exists here :)

Yeah, let's hope. I expect that the New Zealand Apple Store web site will probably be updated straight away if an update does occur, so I will probably put in my order straight away and it will be very interesting to see how long it takes to land on my doorstep.

Zwhaler
Jan 7, 2007, 01:45 PM
I hope they get 1.83 and 2.0 C2D, and a price drop.

mkrishnan
Jan 7, 2007, 02:00 PM
I think too that the most likely thing is C2D either at same clock or one step lower each, maybe with the 1 gig. It would seem that this would be good preparation for Leopard.

The only reasons I could think of for them not doing it are if there is still some choking on C2D availability, or very slightly possibly that they are waiting for Santa Rosa. The latter seems unlikely considering how easy the switch to C2D is. With respect to availability, it's worth noting that, even though Apple's market share is low, they're still a major, major purchaser of notebook-class Core 2 processors (since they use them on all MBs, MBPs, and iMacs), and they may be having trouble getting enough to switch the high-volume Mini to them.

Dell is still using Core Duos in their base models of some of their high-volume laptops as well.

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 02:14 PM
C2D is 64 bit

OSX on the mac mini isn't as 'full' as on other hardware. Apparently. Maybe the article I read was FOS but I believed it until you questioned it just now. There was no reason not to...

Eraserhead
Jan 7, 2007, 02:21 PM
C2D is 64 bit

OSX on the mac mini isn't as 'full' as on other hardware. Apparently. Maybe the article I read was FOS but I believed it until you questioned it just now. There was no reason not to...

Except that OS X isn't 64 bit yet, and neither are any programs that you might use, even Photoshop CS3 is only 32 bit. Except for high-end scientific ones...

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 02:24 PM
Don't be pedantic. Do I have to tell you OSX will be 64 bit in a few months?

mkrishnan
Jan 7, 2007, 02:36 PM
Don't be pedantic. Do I have to tell you OSX will be 64 bit in a few months?

I'm sorry, but I think your grasp of the technology is pushing people to be pedantic towards you.

Tiger does not have 64-bit APIs.

Leopard *does* -- and will provide 64-bit support on computers that are able to make use of it (C2Ds, possibly G5s, but not G3s, G4s, CSs, or CDs).

But the mini is not now and will not in the future be shipped with a "stripped" OS -- the 64-bit APIs just are not accessible to processors that don't support them. At least, Apple has never shipped "stripped" versions of its operating systems before.

There are only two versions of OSX: the standard OS X and the Server version. The version of OS X on install DVDs is identical to the version on retail boxes with the exception that the install discs are locked to only allow installation on the hardware they were sold with.

When 64-bit apps do ship, it's pretty unlikely that there will be any for some time that "only run" on 64-bit hardware. Rather, they're likely to be designed with forks so that they run on both 32 and 64 bit hardware.

Besides that, it's going to be some time before there's going to be software that most Mac Mini users use that have significant 64-bit usage... it's going to trickle down from compute intensive apps over a relatively long time. Think about it this way. How long have 64-bit processors been shipping on computers (of all OS brands)? Several years. And yet there's almost no need for 64-bit either on Windows or in OS X. This is going to be a very slow transition.

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 02:48 PM
Again the pedantacism. Those were two entirely seperate points. I guess I read a dodgy review of the mac mini, but if you read the post I didn't assert that I was entirely sure of it. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but your putting words in my mouth. I did not claim that OSX in its current form was 64 bit... Furthermore my point was, and I'm suprised you didn't get this by inference, unless of course your trying to pick a fight cause your bored, was that C2D is important in 'future proofing'. Would you like me to pull up the article for you?

Eraserhead
Jan 7, 2007, 02:56 PM
that C2D is important in 'future proofing'. Would you like me to pull up the article for you?

Yes

The advantage 64 bit gets is primarily being able to have more than 4GB (2GB per app) of RAM, the only Mac that can support that much RAM is the Mac Pro, the Macbook and Macbook Pro are limited to 3GB by motherboard design (and they *are* core-2)

Even Photoshop CS3 (as mentioned in my last post), due in May this year is still entirely 32 bit, the only other app's that will become 64-bit quickly are high end scientific app's (some which are 64 bit) or video editing apps (which are still 32 bit). Virtually no Mac Mini user will use these applications, those users want higher end hardware anyway.

iW00t
Jan 7, 2007, 03:00 PM
Don't be pedantic. Do I have to tell you OSX will be 64 bit in a few months?

What do you intend to run on OSX? Photoshop CS3?

Even that is only 32 bits.

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 03:09 PM
I'd say theres a huge advantage in processors being able to do calculations to more than 72 decimal places in a cycle! I wouldn't buy one myself Iwoot, as HDTVs cost a fair bob in ye olde englande, (plus PAL shows more lines than NTSC anyway so hi-def a bit less of an inssue) but my reason de mac etre is pro audio and I have no idea whether that will go 64 bit very soon... tbh I don't think it makes a blind difference to me, but it could prove to be a bottleneck on a machine I might otherwise find a task for in the future! The gigabit ethernet has so far reduced one major bottleneck...

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 03:10 PM
To clarify I was talking about using the mini to run that HDTV*

gamerz
Jan 7, 2007, 03:12 PM
hmm... i think that they will have C2D chips, and lowered prices, also how much better is the X3000 than the 950? They are still both interegated.

Josias
Jan 7, 2007, 03:17 PM
hmm... i think that they will have C2D chips, and lowered prices, also how much better is the X3000 than the 950? They are still both interegated.

Though the actualy memory comes form the RAM, the X3000 chip itself has equivalent performance to an Ati X1300.:D

iW00t
Jan 7, 2007, 03:18 PM
hmm... i think that they will have C2D chips, and lowered prices, also how much better is the X3000 than the 950? They are still both interegated.

It won't be revolutionary, but it will supposedly be on par with low end GPUs... like maybe the x1300.

mkrishnan
Jan 7, 2007, 04:00 PM
...was that C2D is important in 'future proofing'. Would you like me to pull up the article for you?

If you don't mind linking the article, I am curious, and would love to read it.

Of course I want to see C2D in Mac Minis too. However, I do consider it future proofing to a very limited extent for this reason:

1) As I and others have pointed out several times, the progress of 64-bit apps has been *very* slow.

2) Right now, two things are happening with processors and have been happening for sometime, that are major possibilities for breakthroughs in performance: 64-bit and multiple cores. Much more progress is coming from the latter right now than the former, and they're independent benefits.

3) 64-bit app development has been very slow. The AMD and PPC/G5 64-bit processors particularly have been around for several years with minimal 64-bit development outside of very specialized areas.

3) As a result, my theory is this, and I think the data supports it: by the time 64-bit really becomes important in consumer apps, the current C2D are going to have been outdated by much faster processors, likely with several more cores than the processors have now. So even if the C2D future-proofs in the sense that it supports 64-bit, I just seriously doubt there will be a lot of 64-bit apps for a Mac Mini before its processor becomes prohibitively slow.

That's all. I'm sorry if you consider that pedantic. And again, I think Apple should continue to progress with both 64-bit and Core architecture processors across the board. So I certainly want to see them get C2D in Minis too. I'm just saying that I'm not holding my breath for the changes 64-bit will bring to the desktop.

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 04:57 PM
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/MacMini2.html

The links pretty old school I couldn't find a newer one.

mkrishnan
Jan 7, 2007, 05:20 PM
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/MacMini2.html

The links pretty old school I couldn't find a newer one.

Wait, is this really the article you read? I'm about to have to get pedantic on you again. :o That's a satire website. If you did miss the joke, read some of the other articles they put together.... This site has come up on MR before. When they called OS X on the Mini stripped down, they were joking....

Tarkovsky
Jan 7, 2007, 06:06 PM
Again your comprehension lacks. I never wished to prove to you that OSX on the mini was stripped down, only that there were references to such a modification on the internet. This is also not the original article I read, but a quick google, which you were apparently unable to perform for yourself.

mkrishnan
Jan 7, 2007, 06:29 PM
I think it's time for a :rolleyes:™. Good luck with all of that.

CrackedButter
Jan 7, 2007, 06:49 PM
I'm hoping for the processor bumps, maybe a memory bump and because of the weak dollar, a damn price drop.

Oh, and shipping this Tuesday, that makes up for making other people wait so long on this update.

Cybix
Jan 7, 2007, 07:01 PM
I'm waiting to buy a Mac Mini for my kitchen. Waiting till after the show, so I can either buy a new one (if the spec changes are worth my while), or pick up a used one on ebay or something.

I'll be starting a new thread with pics and notes on the kitchen mac install :)

eXan
Jan 7, 2007, 07:15 PM
the C2D runs 25-40% faster at the same speed

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!! I'd say, about 3-15 on average (except PhotoShop CS2, which does see a formidable increase)

Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/mbcd8.html)

bousozoku
Jan 7, 2007, 07:57 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAA!! I'd say, about 3-15 on average (except PhotoShop CS2, which does see a formidable increase)

Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/mbcd8.html)

Intel's benchmarks are going to be higher, regardless but Mac OS X tends to be taking a toll on the processors.

Leopard will likely have better throughput on Intel since Apple have had over a year to look at results of actually production versions of the operating system and applications running after many years of guessing at what would work well.

I'd hope that they next Mac mini has a better GPU (along with the MacBook) as well as the updated processors. They might as well add 802.11n-compatible WiFi hardware since the standard will be approved eventually.

eXan
Jan 7, 2007, 09:17 PM
Intel's benchmarks are going to be higher, regardless but Mac OS X tends to be taking a toll on the processors.

Leopard will likely have better throughput on Intel since Apple have had over a year to look at results of actually production versions of the operating system and applications running after many years of guessing at what would work well.

What do you mean by Intel? You mean that Intel's own benchmarks are higher than those from barefeats?

iW00t
Jan 7, 2007, 10:16 PM
Well C2D or not any improvement is still an improvement.

Right now we probably have 2 possibilities.

1) Minis get bumped to Core (1) Duo 1.83 and 2.0 speeds, so that way Apple can still maintain their market segmentation (ie: Minis slower than Macbooks, Macbooks slower than Macbook Pros) without having to upshift the other 2 lines.

2) Minis get bumped to C2D chips of the same speed, hence we get Core (2) Duo 1.66 and 1.83 machines. But IMO this is not very likely as Apple probably has warehouses full of unused CD chips.

eXan
Jan 7, 2007, 10:30 PM
Well C2D or not any improvement is still an improvement.

Right now we probably have 2 possibilities.

1) Minis get bumped to Core (1) Duo 1.83 and 2.0 speeds, so that way Apple can still maintain their market segmentation (ie: Minis slower than Macbooks, Macbooks slower than Macbook Pros) without having to upshift the other 2 lines.

2) Minis get bumped to C2D chips of the same speed, hence we get Core (2) Duo 1.66 and 1.83 machines. But IMO this is not very likely as Apple probably has warehouses full of unused CD chips.

I actually think that #2 is more likely, because lately Apple has been trying to keep up with PC manufacturers in including the most advanced CPU in their computers, so if Apple bumps Core Duos to 1.8 and 2.0 GHz, it would still sound worse to an average consumer than Core 2 Duo, even if both CPUs turn out to be equal in performance.

Also, recent mini PCs already have Core 2 Duos in them, so it seems logical for Apple to put C2D in Mac mini.

Spock
Jan 7, 2007, 10:40 PM
Right now we probably have 2 possibilities.

1) Minis get bumped to Core (1) Duo 1.83 and 2.0 speeds, so that way Apple can still maintain their market segmentation (ie: Minis slower than Macbooks, Macbooks slower than Macbook Pros) without having to upshift the other 2 lines.

What is the big deal with the Mac Mini being faster than the MacBook? The Mac Mini is in the desktop segment not the portable segment. The 24" iMac is the same speed as the low end MacBook Pro, honestly, if anything You need to compare the iMac to the Mac Mini. What I would like is a 2 GHz Core solo at $399 and a $299 17" display.

iW00t
Jan 7, 2007, 11:04 PM
What is the big deal with the Mac Mini being faster than the MacBook? The Mac Mini is in the desktop segment not the portable segment. The 24" iMac is the same speed as the low end MacBook Pro, honestly, if anything You need to compare the iMac to the Mac Mini. What I would like is a 2 GHz Core solo at $399 and a $299 17" display.

Quite honestly I have no clue either.

All along the Mac Mini has been trailing behind the Macbook, so it really seems obvious that it is Apple's intention to keep it that way for market segmentation purposes.

bousozoku
Jan 7, 2007, 11:40 PM
What do you mean by Intel? You mean that Intel's own benchmarks are higher than those from barefeats?

I mean that Intel has tweaked their compilers to provide very good benchmarks, but Apple and other developers aren't using icc for Mac OS X development, they're using gcc. It's gotten better but you'll notice that gcc is rarely used on Windows because they have good commercial compilers.

livingfortoday
Jan 8, 2007, 12:01 AM
I'm waiting to buy a Mac Mini for my kitchen. Waiting till after the show, so I can either buy a new one (if the spec changes are worth my while), or pick up a used one on ebay or something.

I'll be starting a new thread with pics and notes on the kitchen mac install :)

This I wanna see! I was planning on installing a Kitchenmac using an old Powerbook of mine, so I'd be curious to see what route you go with it. What are you going to use it for?

eXan
Jan 8, 2007, 12:06 AM
I mean that Intel has tweaked their compilers to provide very good benchmarks, but Apple and other developers aren't using icc for Mac OS X development, they're using gcc. It's gotten better but you'll notice that gcc is rarely used on Windows because they have good commercial compilers.

Yes, now i get it :)

MacSA
Jan 8, 2007, 04:40 PM
When the MacBook, iMac and MacBook Pro received Core 2 duo they also received new wireless chips, I suspect Apple will have to update the Mini with those very soon.

zen.state
Jan 11, 2007, 07:52 PM
Yes, now i get it :)


thanks for laughing at me when I was right..

bousozoku
Jan 11, 2007, 08:51 PM
thanks for laughing at me when I was right..

It's not apparent to most people why the laboratory test vs. real life testing should be different.

It's easy to give the figure in the laboratory for your device when it's not typically coupled to any other device. Intel's tests are promising; better battery life and better performance. What could be better?

It's just that the operating system, applications, and the development system are part of the real life equation. The Intel version of the operating system is likely not as efficient as the PowerPC version is and that's likely because the compilers aren't as efficient. It took a long time for the PowerPC version to reach the speed it's got. Leopard will help show how good the Intel processors are.