2.0GHz or 2.26GHz?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Pokernut, Mar 8, 2009.

  1. Pokernut macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #1
    Sorry if this has been talked about, but can someone tell me the main difference between 2.0GHz and 2.26GHz. I'm buying the base model and upgrading to 4GB, just wondering if I should fork out the $180 to upgrade to 2.26GHz and will I see a huge difference?

    Thanks in advance
     
  2. SydneyDev macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    #2
    Since they are the same model CPU, you can directly compare MHz numbers.

    Any time you normally find yourself waiting for the CPU (as against the HD), you will be waiting 13% less.
     
  3. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #3
    There's 266 MHz of difference. I don't see much of a need to upgrade the CPU unless you plan on encoding or folding 24/7 on the Mac mini. If your time is money then consider a more powerful computer.
     
  4. Michael Belisle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Location:
    College Station, TX, USA
    #4
    I concur. I received my 2.26 GHz Mac mini today and ran Power Fractal on a previous generation 2.0 Ghz Mac mini (2 GB of RAM) and on the new mini (1 GB of RAM). The results are

    2.0 GHz (Late 2007): 14002 Mflops
    2.26 GHz (Early 2009): 15706 Mflops (12% improvement)

    As expected, it the 13% improvement in clock speed gives an approximately equivalent increase in raw computational performance. (Note that Power Fractal isn't strongly influenced by anything but CPU performance.)

    It's up to you to decide whether or not the extra 12% is worth $180 to you. (I chose yes because I wanted the fastest Mac mini money can buy. I'm also putting in 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB 7200 RPM hard drive.)
     
  5. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    The 2.0GHz does not have Intel VT-x. Crippled for marketing reasons I assume.

    The 2.26GHz has Intel VT-x. It helps when running some virtualisation software e.g. Parallels or Windows Hyper-V.

    Given that the new Mac mini's CPU is soldered, I'd probably get the base mini + 2.26GHz.
     
  6. Michael Belisle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Location:
    College Station, TX, USA
    #6
    The 2.26 GHz processor also has a design temperature of 105°C versus the 90°C of the 2.0 GHz model.

    I tried copying a CD, doing computations, running a screen saver, and writing zeros to the hard disk to see how high I could get the temperature. I got the processor up to 91°C and the fan still didn't kick in. I'm guessing that awesomely high design temperature is the reason why. Silence is golden.

    Might have to run next to a heater next. Gotta at least know the fan control is working.

    (Yes, I believe in stress testing any new hardware. The excessive fan noise of my late 2007 mini really annoyed me.)
     
  7. bugout macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    is everything!
    #7
    I don't think it's been confirmed yet that its soldered. It has been confirmed that its glued down though. I don't think anyone has been brave enough to chip away at the epoxy yet..
     
  8. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    To utilise both cores to 100% do the following:
    Open Terminal
    Open 2 windows
    In each, type the following:
    yes > /dev/null
    Press Enter

    Simmer for as long as it takes the fans to kick in ;)
     
  9. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    I think that confirms it's not socketed. If you want to do a DIY CPU upgrade it means soldering the sucker in.
     
  10. Smacky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #10
    The 07 chip is a different architecture to the 09 chip though. The 09 is penrynn while the 07 is Memron.
    So even if you compared the 09 2.0ghz will still have better performance than the 07 2ghz

     
  11. Pokernut thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #11
    I appreciate all the replies, I'm definitely gonna go with the 2.26GHz because I plan on using Parallels quite a bit.

    Thanks again
     
  12. Michael Belisle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Location:
    College Station, TX, USA
    #12
    Sure, but it qualitatively agrees with what Primate labs found: that the performance gains due to the new architecture aren't all that pronounced. Power Fractal probably isn't an ideal test across architectures, even less so that GeekBench.

    Not that I care: my biggest gripe with the late 1997 model was fan noise. I'm glad that they minimized the power consumption, making my now mini quieter than every other source of noise in my apartment.
     
  13. DHart macrumors 6502

    DHart

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #13
    I received my CTO 2.26GHz base model today. Dropped in 4 GB of RAM and a Hitachi 7200RPM 320GB 16MB cache HDD. I don't have a 2.0GHz model to compare this to, but I am TOTALLY thrilled with this Mac (I also have 4 white iMacs and a MacPro 2.8GHz 8-core). I do a lot of multi-tasking, multi-apps, graphics, heavy pro photoshop use, and this little mini is remarkably sprightly through it all.

    For the extra $150, it may not be worth it to some folks, but if the $150 isn't going to break your piggy bank, JUST DO IT. Your machine will give great performance and last longer in terms of being contemporary... and be more desireable on resale down the road.

    THe NEW mini... MAX it out and ENJOY! :D
     
  14. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #14
    If it's glued it's soldered; nobody glues a chip onto a ZIF socket.
     
  15. solat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #15

    EDIT : mis read wiki, ignore my question pls :)
     
  16. MagicBoy macrumors 68040

    MagicBoy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #16
    The 2.0GHz appears to have VT-x - even though the Intel Spec sheets for the P7350 say otherwise.

    The Intel processor tool and CPU-X both report VTX is enabled on my 2009 Mac mini.
     
  17. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #17
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

    I think I'll go for the 2.26. I know it won't be a big difference, but $150 over the life of the machine is not a big deal either. Also, it may help the resale value down the line as the great majority of minis will be sold with 2.0s.

    Of course, the current value of $150 varies a lot, depending on your situation.
     
  18. rrijkers macrumors 6502

    rrijkers

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #18
    Still no 64bit geekbench results for that one?
     
  19. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Really? Thanks for the info.
    I will do some testing on a P7350 in a MacBook I have here to cross-check this.
     
  20. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Yep, the P7350 does have VT-x. Parallels 4 reports it, as does CPU-X.

    My sample is a Stepping 6, Revision C0.

    Intel are morons sometimes :rolleyes:
    Oh well, good news :)
     
  21. snipes macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #21
    I just received mine and ran the 32bit geekbench. Results are here.

    You can use the chart and find a 64bit result of 3419, versus my 3032. That user also had 4gb ram and I haven't upgraded mine from 1gb yet.
     
  22. MagicBoy macrumors 68040

    MagicBoy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #22
    I did stop and thing twice about getting the 2.26 just for VT-X, then gadget lust and immediate availability kicked in and I didn't care so much!

    Glad it is enabled in the end, doubly so that I've now whacked 4GB in.
     
  23. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #23
    CPU-Z screens please. :D
     
  24. Richard8655 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    #24
    Does a higher design temperature mean the CPU is more hardy and durable? I'm wondering if the 2.26 design temp of 105 vs. 90 for the 2.0 is in any way advantageous.

    In any event, I agree with all those who went with 2.26. Especially with the point that it keeps your Mac Mini more current as time progresses. $150 is nothing if you're a serious Mac Mini devoutee. In my case, I went with COT from Apple at the full spec: 2.26 cpu, 320gb drive, 4gb RAM, and keyboard/mouse for $1139 with tax. It turns out to be only $156 more than if I had ordered the base model with 2.26 and added my own RAM and 500gb hard drive from Newegg. For $156 savings, it wasn't worth opening it up and screwing around with the RAM, hard drive install and reformat, and OS and peripheral software re-install. On top of that, I want to have unquestioned Apple support if I ever need service or repair, rather than worrying about how Apple will view the situation with my own hard drive and RAM mods.

    This Mac Mini release is such a good design improvement, I say go with the full enchelada now.
     
  25. Smacky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #25
    320gb vs 500gb and you still save money
    If you compre 320gb aftermarket you would be saving even more
     

Share This Page