View Full Version : Mac Mini core solo: 1.5ghz to 1.83ghz dual core question

Dec 29, 2009, 01:39 PM
Hello, I've done some reading and research here but have a question.

Per: http://www.123macmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20069

There are two 1.83 dual core processors avaiable, the T2400, and the T5600. Comparing them both on Intel's site, it just seems the T5600 is 64 bit, which shouldn't matter I would think with my old core-solo mac mini which is 32.

Is this the only real difference between the two? I also noticed the t5600 uses twice as many transistors. Does that mean the T2400 isn't really a 'dual core' but is instead a normal Pentium chip with hyperthreading pretending to be a 2nd core?

I'm just trying to upgrade my mini a spec to speed basic things up. Like word processing, general web browsing, and i'd like to support Hd videos (either .mkvs, or 720p youtube videos, the 1.5 ghz solo stutters horribly with these). I'd hate to drop some money on a processor which doesn't do much more than my current 1.5 solo....

Don't do much gaming on it, I have a fairly well equipped PC for that. Any input would be helpful, thanks!

Dec 29, 2009, 01:43 PM
at that speed the fsb cache etc are all the same its just missing the 64bit side od things so its classed as a core duo not a core2duo thats all. if you were going up a step further then you would go for the c2d chip as the fsb etc are higher meaning a slightly better bang per buck.

Dec 29, 2009, 01:54 PM
Thanks for the quick reply, I sort of wondered as much. Just the twice-as-many-transistors part made me wonder if it wasn't in fact a true dual core.

I'd hate to just gain a few hundred mhz during an upgrade. Looks like I can't lose with either option.

Dec 29, 2009, 02:10 PM
just to mention it , stuttering on youtube doesn`t always has the conclusion the computer is to slow , first cause is very often adobe flash player 10 , as most people think :"ah a new one i have to upgrade" ...big mistake adobe flash player is the most demanding for any hardware yet i call it the windows vista of flash players,
adobe flash player 9 is using much less ram and much less processor and runs much smoother ,
smooth enough to watch youtube on my iMac g3 next to all videos without any stutter ,

only videos made on or for flash player 10 dont work proper so very few which do not work ,

but i just say if it does not run on the iMac g3 its not worth watching , and no the iMac g3 is certainly not to slow for video, i watch dvd`s on it , streamed divx files over my network(ethernet) and all work fine , and i do rendering on it with vue 7 and poser 5

and i use the iMac g3 for testing programs if they work on it i keep them if they dont work proper i bin the programs

Dec 29, 2009, 02:14 PM
flash player 9 is using much less ram and much less processor and runs much smoother

Interesting! I wonder if I can downgrade to 9. I just recall reading the 1.5 solo didn't really handle HD content (though the 1.66 dual did) and figured that was that.

Dec 29, 2009, 02:15 PM
yes a 1.6 dual core will run 720p perfectly 1080 might struggle during high action sections but not that much.

Dec 29, 2009, 02:19 PM
yes a 1.6 dual core will run 720p perfectly 1080 might struggle during high action sections but not that much.

1080p isn't necessary, the monitor hooked up to it is just a cheapie widescreen. 720p is all I could hope for.

http://www.tuesdaynight.org/2008/10/28/downgrading-to-flash-9-for-mac-os-x.html/comment-page-1 is a link I just found for downgrading to flash 9. Posting here in case anyone else is curious, gonna try in in bit here.

Dec 29, 2009, 02:39 PM
yes you can just bin the flashplayer 10 and download flashplayer 9 and you will notice the stutter is gone on nearly all youtube videos

Dec 29, 2009, 03:47 PM
A C2D is about 10% faster than the same CD chip. Otherwise there is not much difference in the mini.*

Do you have the full 2GB your machine supports? If not, drop that in while upgrading the CPU.

* Yes the C2D is 64 bit, but with basically a 32 bit motherboard in a Mac mini it doesn't really matter.

Dec 29, 2009, 03:56 PM
Ok downgraded to 9, flash does seem to play videos a bit better now, though 720 content is still a chop fest.

Thanks for the help everyone!

edit: I have 1gb. Haven't opened it yet to see if it has an open dimm slot or not.

Dec 29, 2009, 04:16 PM
The T2400 is Core Duo, the other is Core 2 Duo (32bit vs 64bit)

I upgraded my 1.83GHz Core Duo to a 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo and definitely noticed a difference. As has been recommended, max out the RAM, it's not that expensive.

Dec 29, 2009, 04:37 PM
doesn't downgrading the flash player opena security loophole?

Dec 29, 2009, 04:47 PM
doesn't downgrading the flash player opena security loophole?
not in mac osx

Dec 30, 2009, 10:52 AM

Is the ram upgrade really worth it? I remember Os 6,7,8 and 9 were huge memory hogs. While my mini has only 1gb, it seems to do pretty well. I figured hdd speed and processor speed were my main limiters. I don't run photoshop or anything on it.

Here are my current xbench results, fwiw: http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=296820&unsetCookie=true

Dec 30, 2009, 12:18 PM
if you only do some surfing and office work and other not ram intense apps and maybe watch a dvd or so
its not worth to upgrade it will cope like it is