Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 31, 2012, 08:21 AM   #1
Beezer900
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Mini 2012 Base vs Mid - Thermal / noise performance

Trying to decide between the base (dual core) or mid (quad core). Will be recording audio, so silent operation is a high priority.

I am leaning towards the mid (quad core), but I'm concerned that the increased power for quad core will result in higher temperatures and fan noise.

As I being overly cautious? Is it correct that the base (dual core) would be the more silent machine under normal use?

I currently use a 2006 core2duo macbook, and the fans get loud with pretty modest web use. Any kind of video will set them off. Can I expect the minis to be silent under anything other than extreme stress (80%+ CPU usage)?
Beezer900 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 08:28 AM   #2
tears2040
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
You should first and foremost think about computer performance. The quad core Mac Mini will be faster than the base and a lot faster than your current setup.

Furthermore Mac Mini is basically silent and even if there is noise, you being a sound engineer I assume you should easily know how to kill low frequencies in your recording. Even then I HIGHLY doubt your mic will pic up any audio from a Mac Mini.
tears2040 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 09:25 AM   #3
OldSchoolMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
OldSchoolMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Think you're bring a bit overly cautious. Any mini is pretty much silent all the time. Either will be fine but I'd go the quad-core route. While it can consume more power requiring the fan speed to increase, it requires less of it's total power to complete the same tasks.

Think of a 100HP car and a 500HP car getting on the highway. Both have the same goal, get to 60mph, but the 500HP vehicle has to use less of it's total power to reach that speed. While the 100HP vehicle has to go through all the gears and rev things way up. High RPMs mean increased engine temp requiring the fan to kick on to cool things down. The higher HP car can hit highway speed in a single gear while keeping the RPMs well below 3000.
OldSchoolMacGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 10:01 AM   #4
Poki
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Even with full CPU load and 90C temperature, the fan only goes to 3500 rpm, which shouldn't be noticeable with a good mic. And after all, the fans only turn up that much when you do heavy video editing. Everything else, including heavy photo editing, don't turn the fans up at all.
Poki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 11:09 AM   #5
lilsoccakid74
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
I think if you talk to a lot of sandy bridge mini owners, you find that the computer is far from silent when under stress. I believe this comes largely from the horrible thermal-paste application on them. With my 2.5 model w/ radeon6630, the CPU will fly up to 90*C+ while under 50%+ load. This can cause the fans to hit 5000 rpms, which sounds like a helicopter taking off

I believe Ivy Bridge will solve many of these heat-related issues. With the mini sitting 2 feet from me on my desk, I can only hear the fan once it hits 3000+rpms. I also found while using SMC fan control to raise my minimum rpms from 1800 to 2400, I can keep the mini silent, and the minis fan will "rev up (3k+ rpms)" much less often due to the increased airflow.

Hope this helped!
lilsoccakid74 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 11:15 AM   #6
propower
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
I am an audio recording person also... I totally understand.

CPU load is the biggest thing. Go quad core absolutely.

I believe if CPU load steady state is kept in the 15 to 20% range the fans should stay at minimum - pretty close to silent. If one has to run higher CPU load a strategy I plan to employ is leaving the bottom cover off and making a stand for the mini with a big low rpm Silenx fan under it. Should be no more than 15dBA (very quiet) and solve the problem. I have seen others do a similar thing with remarkable temperature improvements.

I will be testing this very thing out next week :-) once my mini gets here (2.6/256SSD/16G Gskill Ram.)
__________________
2011 MBA 11", 1.7GHz i5, Mountain Lion
iphone5, ipad Rmini, Apple TV, 24" LED
Late 2013 27" imac, 3.5GHz i7, 256 SSD, GTX775M 2G
Blackmagic Multidock - PT11HD HD Native TB AVID 16x16
propower is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 10:21 AM   #7
pxbr
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
i'm no audio engineer - but, my new 2012 mac mini quad 2.3 is wayyy quieter under cpu load than my old 2011 mac mini (using handbrake which is a really easy way to stress the cpu!)
pxbr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 10:44 AM   #8
Beezer900
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
I'm no audio engineer either, but even for amateur home recordings, fan noise is enough to really spoil things.

Thanks for the replies everyone. The quad core sounds like a good choice and I feel quite reassured now!
Beezer900 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 10:58 AM   #9
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Using handbrake I got my 2.6 i7 to 105C (221F). Pretty damn hot. Fans kicked in at almost 4000rpm and they were "kind of" loud. Not annoying or disturbing but you could clearly hear them. I guess I wouldn't mind if this thing wasn't super quiet when idle.

So yes, you do notice them kicking in under FULL load. It's not something spectacular, it's just that you notice it as it's usually silent.

Will it make recordings bad? Well I can't tell. I don't think the CPU should get that hot during recordings, but who am I to know.
__________________
Grey computer which does complicated stuff.
Cell phone that can talk to me. (Seriously).
"Fancy quote from dead guy"
dasx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 11:30 AM   #10
Beezer900
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
I won't be getting anywhere near full CPU load, so it should be fine.

Out of interest, roughly what % CPU usage do the fans kick in at an audible level?
Beezer900 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 11:37 AM   #11
hugodrax
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Heavy use and its silent (i7 2.6) So silent that now I notice the fan noise on my Smart UPS 1500LCD and also the sound of my External drive
hugodrax is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 12:13 PM   #12
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezer900 View Post
I won't be getting anywhere near full CPU load, so it should be fine.

Out of interest, roughly what % CPU usage do the fans kick in at an audible level?
Doens't really need any CPU usage I think. I was doing some conversions with subler some minutes ago and noticed that the fans kicked in while the CPU was at like 30%. Checked temps and they were at around 95C.

It seems that all it takes to speed up the fans is one CPU to get hot. For example:
Imagine you run app X which puts one core to 100% and leaves all the others to 0%. That means an overall CPU load of 12.5%. I think that if you stay that way, the cores which is at 100% will eventually get the whole chip to 95C or so with its own heat dissipation. Therefore fans will kick in, eventually.

^^^^That's all guess. Maybe it needs at least 2/3 cores to make the whole chip get hot, but I made my point.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugodrax View Post
Heavy use and its silent (i7 2.6) So silent that now I notice the fan noise on my Smart UPS 1500LCD and also the sound of my External drive
Get a 1080p video file in MKV with DTS audio and convert it to a high profile handbrake preset. You'll hear it trying to cool himself down.
__________________
Grey computer which does complicated stuff.
Cell phone that can talk to me. (Seriously).
"Fancy quote from dead guy"
dasx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:33 AM   #13
Maxx Power
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasx View Post
Doens't really need any CPU usage I think. I was doing some conversions with subler some minutes ago and noticed that the fans kicked in while the CPU was at like 30%. Checked temps and they were at around 95C.

It seems that all it takes to speed up the fans is one CPU to get hot. For example:
Imagine you run app X which puts one core to 100% and leaves all the others to 0%. That means an overall CPU load of 12.5%. I think that if you stay that way, the cores which is at 100% will eventually get the whole chip to 95C or so with its own heat dissipation. Therefore fans will kick in, eventually.

^^^^That's all guess. Maybe it needs at least 2/3 cores to make the whole chip get hot, but I made my point.
That's not how it works for Intel chips with dynamic TDP allocation, a.k.a., Turbo.

If only 1 core is 100% taxed, the other cores' worth of thermal-dissipation and power consumption headroom up to the max TDP of the chip is re-directed dynamically by Turboing the working core a few bins (multiples of the base clock - 100mhz) higher. The TDP of the chips in the quad-core minis are 45 watts, while the dual core base model is only 35 watts.

So whether or not you only load 1 core to 100% or 2 cores to 100%, the thermal dissipation power of the chip under either circumstance is 35 watts. The quad-core variants have a much more aggressive 1-core and 2-core active Turbo because there is more TDP room to begin with. Although in reality, the total power dissipated with only 1 core on Turbo is likely lower than 2 core at 100%, but Intel's algorithms for Turbo and design guides for heatsink/fan assemblies are calculated and based on TDP.

This means, and according to the Apple specifications, the quad-core minis run typically louder. Since they use the same heatsink/fan assembly, this reasons to that the fan speed curves/minimum fan speeds are likely higher in the quad-core models to dissipate the additional 10 watts of TDP. See this snippet:

"Typical acoustical performance, sound pressure level (operator position):

Dual-core model: 12 dBA at idle
Quad-core model: 15 dBA at idle
"
Maxx Power is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 12:48 PM   #14
propower
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
There are no silent computers :-)
There are very few silent rooms!

Typical background noise in a quiet room is ~30dBA. FWIW my rooms measure ~32dBA. At idle I can't hear my mini above the background. To keep it at idle (lowest fan) I have to keep my sessions under 18% total cpu load. There are many strategies to do this. Mix as you go and print tracks. Make guide tracks so that resources are kept low etc. At 25% load this creeps up to ~42dBA. Yes I can pick out that sound. But I can also mix or with careful mic placement record pretty much any acoustic instrument.

So silence is golden but very hard to come by. If the above is not enough the mini has yet another easy solution! Since it is relatively so small, build a well ventilated doghouse to put the mini in! Acoustically treat the inside and use enough low rpm quiet fans form Silenx or others.
__________________
2011 MBA 11", 1.7GHz i5, Mountain Lion
iphone5, ipad Rmini, Apple TV, 24" LED
Late 2013 27" imac, 3.5GHz i7, 256 SSD, GTX775M 2G
Blackmagic Multidock - PT11HD HD Native TB AVID 16x16
propower is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:08 PM   #15
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxx Power View Post
That's not how it works for Intel chips with dynamic TDP allocation, a.k.a., Turbo.

If only 1 core is 100% taxed, the other cores' worth of thermal-dissipation and power consumption headroom up to the max TDP of the chip is re-directed dynamically by Turboing the working core a few bins (multiples of the base clock - 100mhz) higher. The TDP of the chips in the quad-core minis are 45 watts, while the dual core base model is only 35 watts.

So whether or not you only load 1 core to 100% or 2 cores to 100%, the thermal dissipation power of the chip under either circumstance is 35 watts. The quad-core variants have a much more aggressive 1-core and 2-core active Turbo because there is more TDP room to begin with. Although in reality, the total power dissipated with only 1 core on Turbo is likely lower than 2 core at 100%, but Intel's algorithms for Turbo and design guides for heatsink/fan assemblies are calculated and based on TDP.

This means, and according to the Apple specifications, the quad-core minis run typically louder. Since they use the same heatsink/fan assembly, this reasons to that the fan speed curves/minimum fan speeds are likely higher in the quad-core models to dissipate the additional 10 watts of TDP. See this snippet:

"Typical acoustical performance, sound pressure level (operator position):

Dual-core model: 12 dBA at idle
Quad-core model: 15 dBA at idle
"
Nice explanation. Thanks!
__________________
Grey computer which does complicated stuff.
Cell phone that can talk to me. (Seriously).
"Fancy quote from dead guy"
dasx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:05 PM   #16
Maxx Power
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasx View Post
Nice explanation. Thanks!
No problem!
Maxx Power is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 02:01 AM   #17
Kaloman
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilsoccakid74 View Post
I think if you talk to a lot of sandy bridge mini owners, you find that the computer is far from silent when under stress. I believe this comes largely from the horrible thermal-paste application on them. With my 2.5 model w/ radeon6630, the CPU will fly up to 90*C+ while under 50%+ load. This can cause the fans to hit 5000 rpms, which sounds like a helicopter taking off

I believe Ivy Bridge will solve many of these heat-related issues. With the mini sitting 2 feet from me on my desk, I can only hear the fan once it hits 3000+rpms. I also found while using SMC fan control to raise my minimum rpms from 1800 to 2400, I can keep the mini silent, and the minis fan will "rev up (3k+ rpms)" much less often due to the increased airflow.

Hope this helped!
Why Does Ivy Bridge Run Hotter?
Why should the Ivy Bridge chips, which are more power efficient than Sandy Bridge, run hotter?

PCWorld Senior Editor Jason Cross suggests four possible reasons for these findings. The heat issue also may be a combination of these factors:

Ivy Bridge packs more transistors into a smaller area than Sandy Bridge. That means increased thermal density--heat generated in a given area. It's harder to cool processors where the heat is concentrated into a small space.

Modern CPU chips have a "heat spreader" on top of them. It's part of the processor package. The Sandy Bridge heat spreader was soldered on, while the Ivy Bridge heat spreader makes contact with the CPU using thermal paste. It may not be conducting heat as well as the Sandy Bridge's soldered heat spreader.

Ivy Bridge usually runs using a lower operating voltage than Sandy Bridge. But to overclock it way up to 4.9GHz, you have to bump up the voltage. In fact you have to add more voltage to an Ivy Bridge processor than a Sandy Bridge processor to reach that level. Since power consumption is strongly related to operating voltage, this means you're adding more power consumption and heat.

Intel's 22nm manufacturing process is quite new, while the 32nm manufacturing process used with Sandy Bridge is more mature. As the months roll on and Intel improves its 22nm process, leakage and heat dissipation may improve.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25471...erclocked.html
Kaloman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 03:12 AM   #18
motrek
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezer900 View Post
...
I currently use a 2006 core2duo macbook, and the fans get loud with pretty modest web use. Any kind of video will set them off. Can I expect the minis to be silent under anything other than extreme stress (80%+ CPU usage)?
Unfortunately if you check Activity Monitor you will find that watching most Flash-based video on web pages is hardly "modest" use and will usually cause one or even two cores to be utilized 100%.

Flash is really terrible when it comes to using the CPU. Watching a video with QuickTime or VLC will hardly cause a noticeable blip of CPU usage, but watching a YouTube video seems to take more processing power than curing cancer.

There are many utilities like "FlashFrozen" that automatically kills Flash if you don't want to use it, so random ads on web pages don't take up all your battery power and/or make your machine sound like a vacuum cleaner.
motrek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 04:56 AM   #19
Liquidstate
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Definitely a topic I was waiting for...

I have to move forward with my maxed out audio recording system. I've been juggling needs and formats (I have legacy gear). Who knows what a new Mac Pro would be, or when, or what Avid/ProTools is going to do next? I have stacks of system design diagrams.

Back on topic, the noise level of the Mac is important to me. That's why I moved to an iMac, and taught myself the PT workarounds. It's quiet enough, but it's underpowered and too old to upgrade.

I've been seriously considering a Mac Mini 2.6 i7 16GB. But I have some concerns it might be a little too noisy.

I'm starting to wonder if the slightly slower Mac Mini 2.3 i7 quad SSD with 16 GB might run a little cooler and quieter?

Is there any technical justification for this idea?
Liquidstate is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 08:54 AM   #20
Maxx Power
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaloman View Post
Why Does Ivy Bridge Run Hotter?
Why should the Ivy Bridge chips, which are more power efficient than Sandy Bridge, run hotter?

PCWorld Senior Editor Jason Cross suggests four possible reasons for these findings. The heat issue also may be a combination of these factors:

Ivy Bridge packs more transistors into a smaller area than Sandy Bridge. That means increased thermal density--heat generated in a given area. It's harder to cool processors where the heat is concentrated into a small space.

Modern CPU chips have a "heat spreader" on top of them. It's part of the processor package. The Sandy Bridge heat spreader was soldered on, while the Ivy Bridge heat spreader makes contact with the CPU using thermal paste. It may not be conducting heat as well as the Sandy Bridge's soldered heat spreader.

Ivy Bridge usually runs using a lower operating voltage than Sandy Bridge. But to overclock it way up to 4.9GHz, you have to bump up the voltage. In fact you have to add more voltage to an Ivy Bridge processor than a Sandy Bridge processor to reach that level. Since power consumption is strongly related to operating voltage, this means you're adding more power consumption and heat.

Intel's 22nm manufacturing process is quite new, while the 32nm manufacturing process used with Sandy Bridge is more mature. As the months roll on and Intel improves its 22nm process, leakage and heat dissipation may improve.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25471...erclocked.html
The heatspreader-bonding theory has had substantial amount of test results and it indeed affects desktop grade CPUs (that have heatspreaders).

Mobile Ivy Bridge as used in MBP, Mac Minis and eventually iMacs do NOT have integrated heatspreaders. They are naked-dies only.

As such the mobile Ivy Bridge CPUs should not run substantially hotter due to this.

Last edited by Maxx Power; Nov 13, 2012 at 03:08 PM.
Maxx Power is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 02:07 PM   #21
motrek
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterbalance View Post
I have to move forward with my maxed out audio recording system. I've been juggling needs and formats (I have legacy gear). Who knows what a new Mac Pro would be, or when, or what Avid/ProTools is going to do next? I have stacks of system design diagrams.

Back on topic, the noise level of the Mac is important to me. That's why I moved to an iMac, and taught myself the PT workarounds. It's quiet enough, but it's underpowered and too old to upgrade.

I've been seriously considering a Mac Mini 2.6 i7 16GB. But I have some concerns it might be a little too noisy.

I'm starting to wonder if the slightly slower Mac Mini 2.3 i7 quad SSD with 16 GB might run a little cooler and quieter?

Is there any technical justification for this idea?
Interesting question. You can double check me easily enough but I believe both chips have the same TDP at 45W so according to Intel's specifications they should be exactly as loud as each other under load.

Since you would expect a faster chip to run hotter, there could be a few reasons for this odd specification that I can think of:

1) Maybe the 2.6GHz chips are bin sorted so they can run correctly at a lower voltage than the 2.3GHz chips, so they both really do use the same power (and thus make the same amount of noise).

2) Maybe the 2.3GHz chip does use somewhat less than 45W but Intel wanted to round up just to make things simpler for engineers designing around these chips.

3) Maybe one or both chips reduce their performance (turbo boost) to stay in the 45W envelope, meaning the 2.6GHz chip might run at the same speed as the 2.3GHz chip in more cases than one might think.

Although ultimately I wonder what the Mini will be doing while recording? Just grabbing sound data and storing it somewhere should not be taxing to the CPU and thus the Mini should basically be silent. Mixing all the tracks might stress the CPU but is that done at the same time as recording?
motrek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 02:46 PM   #22
propower
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterbalance View Post
I've been seriously considering a Mac Mini 2.6 i7 16GB. But I have some concerns it might be a little too noisy.

I'm starting to wonder if the slightly slower Mac Mini 2.3 i7 quad SSD with 16 GB might run a little cooler and quieter?

Is there any technical justification for this idea?
I have posted in several places (including above) test results for noise from the 2.6 i7 mini using pro tools (Just search for my other posts).

In my opinion the difference between the 2.3 and 2.6 will be very subtle for this use. There may be a slight edge for the 2.3 though. Both procs will have standby heat generation (just by sitting there) and I would expect the 2.3 to be slightly less. Once you are using pro tools there is a finite number of things the proc must do, be it at 2.3 or 2.6 so I would guess the heat generation for this part will be the same!

After seeing the loads I get on the 2.6 I am happy with my choice. The noise is within what I expected and I have many avenues to reduce it in practice (dog house for the mini, alternate heat sinking, fans, cold plates, removing the bottom cover, orientation, getting it 6 feet away instead of 2 etc etc....

14 days to try one.... you could always just give it a whirl !
__________________
2011 MBA 11", 1.7GHz i5, Mountain Lion
iphone5, ipad Rmini, Apple TV, 24" LED
Late 2013 27" imac, 3.5GHz i7, 256 SSD, GTX775M 2G
Blackmagic Multidock - PT11HD HD Native TB AVID 16x16
propower is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 03:32 PM   #23
Maxx Power
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
Interesting question. You can double check me easily enough but I believe both chips have the same TDP at 45W so according to Intel's specifications they should be exactly as loud as each other under load.

Since you would expect a faster chip to run hotter, there could be a few reasons for this odd specification that I can think of:

1) Maybe the 2.6GHz chips are bin sorted so they can run correctly at a lower voltage than the 2.3GHz chips, so they both really do use the same power (and thus make the same amount of noise).

2) Maybe the 2.3GHz chip does use somewhat less than 45W but Intel wanted to round up just to make things simpler for engineers designing around these chips.

3) Maybe one or both chips reduce their performance (turbo boost) to stay in the 45W envelope, meaning the 2.6GHz chip might run at the same speed as the 2.3GHz chip in more cases than one might think.

Although ultimately I wonder what the Mini will be doing while recording? Just grabbing sound data and storing it somewhere should not be taxing to the CPU and thus the Mini should basically be silent. Mixing all the tracks might stress the CPU but is that done at the same time as recording?
As far as why 2 different speed chips have the same TDP rating goes, the reason is that the TDP number (so say, 45 Watts), is a BALL-PARK figure that Intel designates so that engineers who are designing systems and cooling will know how much they must dissipate to operate the chip to its specifications (to not throttle ALL the time).

In reality, the 2.3 Ghz chip have a SLIGHTLY lower TDP than the 2.6 Ghz chip if the silicon they came from are identical, and the voltages they operate at are identical. Although this isn't always guaranteed since Intel can select and bin chips according to their leakage and frequency headroom, no two silicon dies are exactly the same... In practice, what Intel's chips do is that they internally monitor their current power consumption and temperatures to predict its own current TDP and uses an algorithm to throttle the CPU speeds when the temperatures gets too high so that in essence, the CPU is dissipating more TDP than the heatsink/fan is capable of. This is what saves Intel silicon's bacon in MOST consumer laptops. You'll notice that the Intel CPUs runs very HOT, from Dell, to HP to Apple. It doesn't get destroyed because it can throttle very quickly to prevent thermal catastrophe. As per Anandtech's tests, the MBP Retina (both 13 and 15 inches) are some of the ONLY laptops with performance oriented Intel mobile chips that don't throttle (in the case of the 13 inch) or throttle lightly (in the case of the 15 inch), so the the performance of the system when loaded remains constant. On some systems (the new Dell XPS laptops comes to mind as per Anandtech), the throttle is horrible that you practically only get what Intel intended for performance (Turbo) a tiny fraction of the time. This has been the norm since, I think, Sandy Bridge. Last time I read about this, the Mac Mini CPUs throttle too, so you'll notice a reduction in Turbo as the minutes drags on into a CPU intensive workload as the CPU gets hot. Previously, there were some workarounds in software to artificially hold the Turbo, but I'm not convinced that this action is healthy for the CPU.

OCCASIONALLY, Intel or AMD have been known to produce different VID (Vcore ID) chips, so that 2 chips are both rated at 45Watts, for example, but one chip has a Vcore at 1.2Volts while the other has only 1.15Volts. In this case, the lower VID variant runs cooler. However, I'm not aware that Intel is doing this with their modern Ivy Bridge chips...
Maxx Power is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 05:39 PM   #24
dasx
macrumors 65816
 
dasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Barcelona
I got a 2.6GHz i7 and it does get loud… when using 100% of the CPU. Does the software you use consume a lot of CPU? In that case the DC i5 might be a better choice. But if not using 100% of CPU, then the i7 would be fine.

I don't know what software you use, but if it's prepared to work multithread and it does use all CPU power when available… Then expect the Mini to be damn loud. And I mean LOUD. Fans at 5500rpm are sooo noisy.

Gotta say though, that I only achieved that using Prime95, a software designed to stress the CPU to its maximum. When running some programs I make which also consume 100% of CPU (but not as intense as Prime95, they just use 8 threads with simple tasks but taking all the power) temps stayed like in Prime95 (around 98C) but fan speeds where much lower, around 3500rpm. Still hearable, but not like at 5500rpm.

Also, when using CPUTest (another CPU stresser), after 20 minutes with the CPU at 100% it was at 97-100C and fans stayed at 4000rpm. Much silent than with Prime.
__________________
Grey computer which does complicated stuff.
Cell phone that can talk to me. (Seriously).
"Fancy quote from dead guy"
dasx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 06:47 PM   #25
Snowcake
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxx Power View Post
As far as why 2 different speed chips have the same TDP rating goes, the reason is that the TDP number (so say, 45 Watts), is a BALL-PARK figure that Intel designates so that engineers who are designing systems and cooling will know how much they must dissipate to operate the chip to its specifications (to not throttle ALL the time).

In reality, the 2.3 Ghz chip have a SLIGHTLY lower TDP than the 2.6 Ghz chip if the silicon they came from are identical, and the voltages they operate at are identical. Although this isn't always guaranteed since Intel can select and bin chips according to their leakage and frequency headroom, no two silicon dies are exactly the same... In practice, what Intel's chips do is that they internally monitor their current power consumption and temperatures to predict its own current TDP and uses an algorithm to throttle the CPU speeds when the temperatures gets too high so that in essence, the CPU is dissipating more TDP than the heatsink/fan is capable of. This is what saves Intel silicon's bacon in MOST consumer laptops. You'll notice that the Intel CPUs runs very HOT, from Dell, to HP to Apple. It doesn't get destroyed because it can throttle very quickly to prevent thermal catastrophe. As per Anandtech's tests, the MBP Retina (both 13 and 15 inches) are some of the ONLY laptops with performance oriented Intel mobile chips that don't throttle (in the case of the 13 inch) or throttle lightly (in the case of the 15 inch), so the the performance of the system when loaded remains constant. On some systems (the new Dell XPS laptops comes to mind as per Anandtech), the throttle is horrible that you practically only get what Intel intended for performance (Turbo) a tiny fraction of the time. This has been the norm since, I think, Sandy Bridge. Last time I read about this, the Mac Mini CPUs throttle too, so you'll notice a reduction in Turbo as the minutes drags on into a CPU intensive workload as the CPU gets hot. Previously, there were some workarounds in software to artificially hold the Turbo, but I'm not convinced that this action is healthy for the CPU.

OCCASIONALLY, Intel or AMD have been known to produce different VID (Vcore ID) chips, so that 2 chips are both rated at 45Watts, for example, but one chip has a Vcore at 1.2Volts while the other has only 1.15Volts. In this case, the lower VID variant runs cooler. However, I'm not aware that Intel is doing this with their modern Ivy Bridge chips...
The cpu not using Turboboost is not throttling.
Throttling is: Working at a lower speed than the standard speed. TurboBoost is above standard speed.
Snowcake is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which Mac Mini is better? 2011 Mid-level or 2012 Base? dmk1974 Mac mini 74 Dec 7, 2013 04:00 AM
OS X: Has anyone compared gaming on base mini versus mid range 2012? madeirabhoy Mac and PC Games 11 Dec 6, 2012 11:18 AM
Help decide: 2012 Mini (base or mid) vs. 2011 iMac base refurb k.alexander iMac 6 Oct 25, 2012 09:26 AM
Help decide: 2012 Mini (base or mid) vs. 2011 iMac base refurb k.alexander Mac mini 7 Oct 25, 2012 09:25 AM
Help decide: 2012 Mini (base or mid) vs. 2011 iMac base refurb k.alexander Buying Tips and Advice 6 Oct 25, 2012 09:25 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC