Another Mac Mini upgraded to T7600!

[macenforcer]

So I got me a mac mini base model and decided to fill it up turbo style.


New mac mini specs:

- 2.33ghz Core 2 duo T7600
- 2gb Ram
- Superdrive
- Airport N
- 100gb 7200rpm HD. (250gb Scorpio on order)

Upgrades went without a hitch. System runs 3 degrees hotter than before. Fan stays at about 2100rpm at idle compared to 1900rpm like before. No real difference in noise at all.


I must say, it is a really fast, quiet and great little system now. I love it so much I am selling my Mac Pro. So basically for about $1400 I have the fastest little computer you can get. I like it.

[monke]

Wow. That's one smoking Mini. :eek: :)

[Dont Hurt Me]

sweet but its still crippled by integrated graphics, if only apple had a way to get something better in it.

[plinden]

What's the cost breakdown on the $1400, and where did you get the components?

I know it gives bragging rights, but considering the T7200 is half the price and only 330 MHz slower than the T7600, I wonder if you have the best bang for the buck. Not criticizing, but it usually isn't worthwhile to be right on the bleeding edge.

And what are you doing for the wireless N? Is that a Mac Pro airport N card, like the one people have added to MBPs?

This is the sort of thing I wouldn't mind doing to my own base model mini in increments, as the cost of the components come down. Although it handles it current job as the media center without a hitch, I wouldn't mind doing a bit of tinkering.

Still, $1400 on top of $600 gives you a $2000 Mac with no GPU upgrade possible.

Edit: Oops, I think I misread your original post. Is it $1400 including the original mini? I would still like a cost breakdown on this, since the T7600 is pretty much $650-$750 everywhere I look.

[dswoodley]

sweet but its still crippled by integrated graphics, if only apple had a way to get something better in it.

Crippled? Crippled how? Unless you use as it a replacement for your Macpro (and who is silly enough to do that?) how on earth is it crippled? My core solo, CORE SOLO, performs eavery daily task and some non-routine complicated ones without a hitch.

Awesome mod, by the way, to the original poster.

[plinden]

Crippled? Crippled how? Unless you use as it a replacement for your Macpro (and who is silly enough to do that?) ...

The original poster?

I love it so much I am selling my Mac Pro.

[Digital Skunk]

If Apple wants to keep the mini on the market I hope they make that same upgrade... and add a better graphics card I guess. Keep the cost under $800 and the mini would still be able to hold it's own.

[macenforcer]

You know I have read millions of posts on the poor 950 integrated graphics but I must say I like it. I have it hooked up to a 24" Dell flat panel and it works great. Have not seen any problems with it. The only problem is that it won't work on a 30" flat panel monitor. No, no problems with integrated graphics. I don't play games on my mac so I don't care.

Yes, I do have a mac pro. But here is the deal. I ran tests on xbench. Here is the skinny.


Xbench mac mini upgraded: 190.44
Xbench mac Pro: 206.59

Not that much of a difference. Not saying the mini is as fast, no the mac pro is twice as fast in some stuff but for what I do its good to go. I got the Turbo.264 device and it makes the mini almost as fast at the mac pro in encoding ipod movies. The mini really is a great machine.

Cost breakdown

$583 - Mac mini with gov discount
$659 - CPU T7600
$44 - N card
$90 - Ram
$90 - HD
$100 - Superdrive

Total: $1566

But I had the ram already, had the superdrive, had the hard drive and had the N card. The superdrive and ram I had in my kids imac, he don't miss it. The hard drive and N card I had lying around. Only real expense was the CPU but it was well worth it.

Here is the deal on cpu.

You get the cheaper $300 chip right.

Then next year or later the T7600 chip is $300 and you buy that one. Now sell your T7200 chip on ebay, you might get $50 for it. So after several yrs you end up paying the same amount but the whole time you used a slower chip. Might as well go for the fast one now and enjoy it. Besides I didn't want to open my mini for a brain transplant twice you know. on top of that the T7600 is a better chip than the T7200. Runs cooler.

[Dimwhit]

That's one damned fine mod! Glad to hear it works great.

[kalisphoenix]

:confused:

A $1566 computer with integrated graphics?

[macenforcer]

:confused:

A $1566 computer with integrated graphics?

Its called a macbook. Don't you have one? :eek:

[flopticalcube]

A lot of graphics card snobs here on MacRumors. Most computer users DON'T play games on their computers.

[Gymnut]

Its called a macbook. Don't you have one? :eek:

Lol, well to be fair the Macbook does have a screen albeit 13.3in.

Just out of curiosity, is this type of upgrade not for the feint of heart or is pretty straightforward?

[kalisphoenix]

Its called a macbook. Don't you have one? :eek:

Yeah, but mine is portable and still has a warranty 8)

A lot of graphics card snobs here on MacRumors. Most computer users DON'T play games on their computers.

Nor do I, as evidenced by the fact that my only Mac with non-integrated graphics is, what, seven years old?

But $1566 seems pretty steep for a machine with these specs. Low ceilings. Barriers to upgrading. I have a Mac mini too -- I'd just spend the balance in a different way, and so I picked the most obvious shortcoming of the Mac mini to express my difference of opinion.

[plinden]

I would think of it more as a satisfying hobby. I'll probably upgrade my Mini similarly (no need for a superdrive, and I have a 500GB external HDD) in a year or 18 months. Wireless N would be nice, but only when the rest of my home network is N. By the way, what exactly is the wireless N card?

But I'll likely do it incrementally. RAM first, then CPU when I can get > 50% performance gain for $200 - ie. when the T7400 or T7600 reach that price. So the cost of the refurb mini ($520) and the upgrades ($90 for the RAM, $200 for the CPU) would give me a similar machine for about $800.

[kalisphoenix]

True, and I've enjoyed doing much the same thing before (pimping out a B&W Mac G3, for instance). I don't intend to be offensive, mind you.

But a Mac mini seems a strange thing to hotrod. A G4 Cube seems a much better choice -- its graphics, 3.5" HD, a spare PCI slot iirc. Not that it could approach the power of the OP's mini, of course, but it wouldn't approach the cost either.

I love my Mac mini, don't get me wrong, but I'm not going to put any money into it aside from RAM :)

If the OP likes it, that's all that matters.

[PCMacUser]

A lot of graphics card snobs here on MacRumors. Most computer users DON'T play games on their computers.
That's true, but when I had a 1.66 core duo mac mini for a day, it was hooked up to my Dell 24" LCD monitor, and it was dropping frames when watching movies at 1920x1200. That's where I'd need a discrete graphics card with some horsepower.

[macenforcer]

That's true, but when I had a 1.66 core duo mac mini for a day, it was hooked up to my Dell 24" LCD monitor, and it was dropping frames when watching movies at 1920x1200. That's where I'd need a discrete graphics card with some horsepower.

This is the most common misconception. Its not the graphics card here its the cpu. I can run full HD 1080 now with no dropped frames with the new CPU. Heck I can run more than one without dropped frames.

[Vidd]

I'd rather spend that amount of money on an iMac.

[flopticalcube]

This is the most common misconception. Its not the graphics card here its the cpu. I can run full HD 1080 now with no dropped frames with the new CPU. Heck I can run more than one without dropped frames.

Indeed. Even my "measly" 2GHz MacBook can output 1080p with no dropped frames.

[macenforcer]

I'd rather spend that amount of money on an iMac.

I have an imac also. Nice machine but I want it to be small, real small. I love the size of my mini. Its quiet and super fast. Its fun to use my mac and look at it sitting there and thinking, wow, thats tiny man. Plus it can have many more uses later on like a tv hub or in your car or kitchen, anywhere space is an issue.

Mini's are cool man.

[Vidd]

I really like the Mini, actually.
If I had a nice display (and they actually decided to upgrade the Mini), I'd be very tempted to get one.
An AIO simply suits me better as my next computer purchase. :)

[MAC1988]

I noticed you are putting a 250GB Hard drive, i thought the mini was only capable of holding 160gb hdd, would i be fine if i ordered a 250gb Western digitial??

[speakerwizard]

have you seen this post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=297040 about gfx cards in mac mini?

[macenforcer]

Doesn't it look cool? Look at that old apple symbol I pulled off my Powermac 9500!


http://208.249.125.30/images/mini_002.jpg


http://208.249.125.30/images/mini_001.jpg

[Vidd]

I'd like to see the old metal Apple logo from the iMac G4 return in some form.
I bet it'd look cooler here, anyway. ;)

[volvoben]

This is the most common misconception. Its not the graphics card here its the cpu. I can run full HD 1080 now with no dropped frames with the new CPU. Heck I can run more than one without dropped frames.

a fast CPU can make up for a slow video card, but the video card is responsible for rendering video. I can't say i'm positive about this, but take any windows box and turn off hardware acceleration, then play a high res video. Without the hardware acceleration the CPU usage will jump way up as the CPU tries to take over the processing, and on my old server box (nvidia 6100 sempron 2500) anything over 640x480 divx will start dropping frames and use 100% cpu as opposed to about 25% with hardware acceleration.

I can't claim to be an expert on the matter, but in my experience rendering video is mostly (and preferably) a GPU task. I've never seen the ability to turn off hardware acceleration on my macs (why would you need to since you'll never get a mac without full driver support, thank you apple).

A regular mac mini user definitely won't have much use for a powerful GPU, but a $1400 computer would be rather unbalanced for many users if it lacked the option of adding a GPU. For $1400 in apple's lineup the imac has discrete graphics, so they also seem to recognize that this class of machine benefits from good GPU performance.

[MAC1988]

is 160GB the largest hard drive you can put in the mini or can i put a 250gb hard drive in there?

[Cave Man]

is 160GB the largest hard drive you can put in the mini or can i put a 250gb hard drive in there?

Any standard 2.5" SATA drive will go in, even the 250s.

[PCMacUser]

This is the most common misconception. Its not the graphics card here its the cpu. I can run full HD 1080 now with no dropped frames with the new CPU. Heck I can run more than one without dropped frames.

That's interesting. So why can't the GMA950 drive a 30" monitor?

[flopticalcube]

Resolution is too high at 2560 x 1600. The GMA950 can go to 1920 X 1200.

[volvoben]

That's interesting. So why can't the GMA950 drive a 30" monitor?

Doesn't have the horsepower, and shouldn't since it's intended for the lower consumer market. It just can't handle the pixel output of 2560x1600 apparently, it would require too much memory and/or power to put out a quality signal.

Not driving a 30" wouldn't be a big deal to me, but I always run 2 or more monitors. The MBs and iMacs allow 2 monitors (including their own built in screens), but then again the mini's not meant for folks like me, and it's great for the average user.

[Cave Man]

Doesn't have the horsepower, and shouldn't since it's intended for the lower consumer market. It just can't handle the pixel output of 2560x1600 apparently, it would require too much memory and/or power to put out a quality signal.

I thought 30" displays required two DVI ports on the video card, as is shipped with the Mac Pros?

[volvoben]

I thought 30" displays required two DVI ports on the video card, as is shipped with the Mac Pros?

You're confusing 'dual link' with just plain old dual. a dual link dvi port is a different type of dvi port which uses all the pins instead of having a gap between 2 sets of pins. It's perfectly compatible with single link dvi monitors. The MBP and many powerbooks also have dual link DVI ports (and obviously have only 1 DVI port) and can drive 30" 2560x1600 monitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

[PCMacUser]

Doesn't have the horsepower, and shouldn't since it's intended for the lower consumer market. It just can't handle the pixel output of 2560x1600 apparently, it would require too much memory and/or power to put out a quality signal.


But that other chap said that displaying movies at high res was all to do with CPU speed, not the GPU. Does this mean he's wrong? Or are you both right, and I'm missing something?

[volvoben]

But that other chap said that displaying movies at high res was all to do with CPU speed, not the GPU. Does this mean he's wrong? Or are you both right, and I'm missing something?

The GPU processes everything that goes to the screen, and therefore determines how many pixels the computer can display and how fast they can be updated. If the CPU was terribly underpowered it wouldn't be able to process data to send to the GPU, but that would be a very unbalanced machine.

Displaying movies at high res, as I understand it, is nearly all GPU under normal circumstances. The CPU has to read the data from the HDD and send it to the GPU, but the GPU does most of the work of making it into pixels on the screen.

Without a fully functioning GPU (as in a windows machine without proper drivers) the CPU will use software to accomplish the same task (always much slower). If the load is too much for a properly functioning GPU I believe the CPU aids in the processing, but I have no proof of this, it just seems to be what happens (after a certain resolution/number of videos playing, the CPU use starts to spike).

I suppose the video format must have some effect as well, since i assume some more complex codecs and formats require more decoding, but I'm certainly no expert on the matter.

[darkcurse]

IIRC most video decoding was traditionally done on the CPU. Only certain codecs allow or even mandate that the GPU be used (like h.264, the new wmv, divx maybe... i'm not certain on that one). But some clever people down at the GPU companies began to realize, hey since we're dealing with graphics why not let the GPU take over some of the tasks of decoding the video so they built in some functions to help decode codecs and hey presto thats what we have now. Its not all GPU though...

[Cave Man]

You're confusing 'dual link' with just plain old dual.

Actually, I was just plain ol' ignorant. But thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt (and for the lesson). :)

[Spanky Deluxe]

macenforcer, that's one sweet mini you have there! I absolutely love the minis, they're such an amazing form factor! The only thing I wish for is HDCP compliance and maybe even dual link. The former could possibly be enabled if they were to ever update the Mac Mini to the Santa Rosa platform.

[macenforcer]

Now I am super glad I did the cpu upgrade. Can now take full advantage of the 64bit Leapord when it comes out. Now its a must have upgrade!

[4JNA]

nice! did a T7200 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=238912) upgrade awhile ago, and agree that it is money well spent. back then the 7600 was just under $1000, so couldn't justify the cost...

mine runs 24 x 7, FOLDING (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=21908) at 100% on both cores, and has been up for months now without a problem. totally sweet machine, like nothing else i have ever owned.

lots of bench data on google that show the faster cpu really drives the 950 to very usable levels, but will second the OP, runs great, never drops a frame. Wow runs fine, farcry runs well but has a texture issue. all my oldschool games freaking fly on this thing. not going to replace my game machine but not bad for a 6 inch square with integrated graphics.

for an un-scientific benchmark, i have the mini/T7200 and an intel mobo/E6700 both folding at 100%. the mini will average about 1100 points per day, and the the desktop will average about 1300 points per day. not a huge difference from the mobile to the desktop, and at a much lower cost. and less power. and less noise. and less space. and less upgrades (as per the haters above...). anyway, love mine, wish i had more.

great job. :apple:

[toru173]

Actually, I was just plain ol' ignorant. But thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt (and for the lesson). :)

It gets really fun when video card manufacturers try to show off the fact that their cards have two dual link dvi ports - I've seen "Dual dual link" used far too often >_<