I'm not saying the mini does it, but there are reasons to do it on a desktop. Energy still costs money, for example. And the new Mac Pro features Turbo Boost, which increases the speed of the active cores and shuts down the inactive ones.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.0GHz or 2.26GHz?
- Thread starter Pokernut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not saying the mini does it, but there are reasons to do it on a desktop. Energy still costs money, for example. And the new Mac Pro features Turbo Boost, which increases the speed of the active cores and shuts down the inactive ones.
THis kind of thing can be argued around and around endlessly. What it comes down to for me is simple... compared to the MacPro I just bought for $2800, the mini is cheap. I want the mini to be all that it CAN be, the most BANG I squeek out of it, and paying $149 to upgrade from 2.0 to 2.26 is not a financial strain for me. I can (and did) still afford to buy 4GB of RAM and a 7200RPM 320GB HDD to max it out. The whole thing is costing me around $860 maxed out and I have a spare 120GB HDD to use or to sell off if I want to. So this is a no brainer in my case. Others on tighter budgets may well decide that the 2.0 is plenty good enough and ya know what? I just will have to be.
Many can afford a maxed out mini and that's what they want to buy. No problemo. Done deal. But, if the extra $149 is such a strain on your budget that you can't afford more RAM or to upgrade the HDD, and it becomes a major dilemma in your mind, then you can't afford it. Period. If you want the most mini you can presently get and you can afford it, I say go whole hog, max everything out on it, and love it!
Either way it's a nice machine and does a remarkably good job doing a little heavy lifting.
Many can afford a maxed out mini and that's what they want to buy. No problemo. Done deal. But, if the extra $149 is such a strain on your budget that you can't afford more RAM or to upgrade the HDD, and it becomes a major dilemma in your mind, then you can't afford it. Period. If you want the most mini you can presently get and you can afford it, I say go whole hog, max everything out on it, and love it!
Either way it's a nice machine and does a remarkably good job doing a little heavy lifting.
I'm hoping that some Macrumors members might be able to post some of their own Geekbench scores here. After looking at the comparisons of Geekbench scores to other macs, it seems the scores posted previously in this thread might be on the high side. I find it hard to believe that the 2.26 can score a 3419 and that a 2.0 can actually score 3105. The P8600 (2.4 Ghz) Macbook scored just over 3000, so I find it hard to believe that the 2.0 or 2.26 Mini could beat it.
I'm beginning to consider the 2.26, and I would like to get some results from members here, that can either prove or disprove the results that I have seen on the Primate Labs results.
Thanks for any results you guys with the new minis can post.
As I don't have a mac yet, I can post the dismal results for my 2.2 Ghz dual core Opteron 175 system - 1643! That means if I get the 2.26 mini, and the numbers posted previously are correct, I can almost double my CPU and memory performance - that, to me, is amazing considering the similar clock speeds.
I'm beginning to consider the 2.26, and I would like to get some results from members here, that can either prove or disprove the results that I have seen on the Primate Labs results.
Thanks for any results you guys with the new minis can post.
As I don't have a mac yet, I can post the dismal results for my 2.2 Ghz dual core Opteron 175 system - 1643! That means if I get the 2.26 mini, and the numbers posted previously are correct, I can almost double my CPU and memory performance - that, to me, is amazing considering the similar clock speeds.
Wow on a good day my Macbook scores just over ~2,900 on Geekbench. I think my record is 2941 right now. 
Wow on a good day my Macbook scores just over ~2,900 on Geekbench. I think my record is 2941 right now.
I pulled the scores from this page:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/01/mac-performance-january-2009/
Am I to take this as a warning that I should not take the results on that page too seriously?
That is why I'm hoping that we can get some new mini owners to post some honest results. I'm interested to see exactly where the mini stands. I just ran the Geekbench on my other machine, a Quad-core Q6600 HP with 4 GB of Ram, and scored 4876. With my other machine scoring 1643, I'm curious where the new mini might fall between the two.
I had a play with Geebench last night and ran it about three times.
First run was after closing the apps on a session that had been active for about four days, which gave about 2670.
Rebooted and tried again, got a 2779, then 2800, then 2785 . Specs as below. HDD is a Hitachi if it matters.
Here's the 2800 result :
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/117309
No idea where the 3105 came from tbh.
First run was after closing the apps on a session that had been active for about four days, which gave about 2670.
Rebooted and tried again, got a 2779, then 2800, then 2785 . Specs as below. HDD is a Hitachi if it matters.
Here's the 2800 result :
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/117309
No idea where the 3105 came from tbh.
The results from Geekbench are acceptable. Just don't expect magical gains over somewhat older Core 2 hardware at the same clock speeds.
If you have a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo (T7300 Merom) don't expect massive gains on a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo (P7350 Penryn).
Picture very related.
Attachments
You are comparing the 32-bit version with the 64-bit versions of geekbench. We must only compare the 64-bit versions. These score higher
You are comparing the 32-bit version with the 64-bit versions of geekbench. We must only compare the 64-bit versions. These score higher
Thank you - Since it was measuring CPU and memory performance, I didn't realize there would be a difference as to 32 bit vs 64 bit scores. I guess it makes sense now.
Also it puts the scores into better perspective for me, since I now see that the top 2.26 score in 32-bit is 3008, and the top 2.0 32-bit score shown is 2782. The scores makes sense and seem more realistic to me now.
The last version of OS X that I ran here at home was 10.3 (I think) - so forgive my ignorance, but is it possible to run the 64-bit tests under Leopard? I was under the impression that it was not a fully 64-bit system yet (I am definitely behind the times!).
Thanks again
This concept of being able to "afford" the upgrade is odd and condescending, at least if we talking as a catch all.
I just bought a base mini. It bears no financial strain whatsover. To me it comes down to value. 25% increase in the cost of a good for marginal performance benefit as to how I'll be using it - as an htpc - it just seems irrational to spend that money. OTOH, if I was using it as a bargain basement solution for using Final Cut Pro... maybe I could see it.
I was talking about what was shown on the Primate Labs site (Macmini3,1) from the link that was posted earlier in the thread. It seems that they benchmarked both the 2.0 and 2.26, so I thought that was a fair comparison. I would assume at least a 100 point sway in either direction can be expected (at least that seems to be common on the systems I benchmark here at home).
I had that benchmark bookmarked and forgot to include yours in my bookmarks!
[EDIT] I'm sorry, MagicBoy, I noticed that your benchmark also says Macmini3,1 on it. I was under the assumption that this was the name of the person who submitted the benchmark, but I see that might not be the case (unless you also submitted the other benchmarks for both the 2.0 and 2.26 systems).
This was the chart of benchmarks that I was using in my comparison:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/chart/113913
I could squeeze a some more points if I switched to 2 x 512 MB of RAM but I don't think that's necessary.
Here's mine from the day that I got it.
Here's mine from the day that I got it.
Attachments
I should clarify...no intention of being condescending. For some people it is a simple matter of affording the extra $149... that much money makes a huge difference in some people's budgets - enough so that they wouldn't be able to upgrade the RAM or the HDD if they bought the faster processor. For others, it's whether the value is apparent to them for how they'll use the computer, regardless of cost. And for others, even if the value isn't large, just having a bit of a bump in processor speed is what they desire. I totally agree that for certain applications, there's very little top gain by upgrading to the 2.26.
I tend to tax my systems somewhat with lots of multi-processing, many open apps, large photoshop files, burning discs while running photoshop filters on large files, etc. Much of this taxation is directly addressed with memory and having at least 4GB is extremely important to me, which makes the biggest difference, followed by quicker drives, which helps as I am constantly opening and closing numerous image files which range from 36MB to 250MB or so. But some of my use is processor intensive and I appreciate having the quickest processor I can get with the mini and, for me personally, the value is there.
Me too. 2009 Mini 2.0GHz upgraded to 4GB and 7200 RPM HD.
Processor integer performance 2196
Processor floating point performance 3932
Memory performance 2369
Memory bandwidth performance 1817
Geekbench Score 2800
Geekbench 2.1.2 for Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
I also strikes me as odd with all this straining and analyzing of a $149 cost savings in choosing the lesser of 2 processors. This, when we all know we're here buying a quality product that in itself has at least a 25% price premium over the equivalent PC circuit bucket. If we're so tight in not wanting the best that Apple has to offer with the Mini, why aren't we on a PC board discussing the virtues of Gateways vs. Acers?
I'm of the opinion that for a vast majority of Apple customers, $149 is not going to be all that significant. The loaded Mini with 2.26 is worth it because it brings a fine product to its best potential. If not getting every penny out of the $extra 149 is a "bang for the buck" issue, then I question what we're doing here and why we're not buying PCs.
In my case, this'll be my primary desktop for a long while. I need the best performance for the long haul, and 2.26 satisfies that. A few years from now, I don't think I'll be worried about that $149 as a calculated fractional return on investment, as much as knowing I have a Mini that's a lot more current.
Wow on a good day my Macbook scores just over ~2,900 on Geekbench. I think my record is 2941 right now.
Any settings change in System Preferences for performance boost?
I squeezed those few extra points killing a few background processes and some Terminal antics. I never touched System Preferences.Any settings change in System Preferences for performance boost?
Yeah 5 points. Maybe it was cosmic rays.
Can you say which ones?
I am mildly interested in improving performance by a few points.
Dashboard, a few daemons that will respawn eventually, killing off anything that phones to the mothership in the cloud from the menu bar, and only having Finder open otherwise.Can you say which ones?
I am mildly interested in improving performance by a few points.
Agree. This would be like telling a Ford Mustang enthusiast that he could achieve cost savings by getting a Yugo! Of course 2.26 vs 2.00 is less extreme than Mustang vs Yugo, but the core concept remains.
There are many examples of increments in performance requiring larger increments in dollars. Whether we are talking about cpu speed, car engine horsepower, or DIMM size, it is nearly always the case that they increase geometrically in cost.
Apple is making a killing on the upgrade to the P8400. 266 MHz more for effectively the price of the processor itself.
So what. That has nothing to do with the decision. Are we to avoid the upgrade because our first obligtion is to deny profits to Apple? If that's the case, buy a Dell or something. Or cobble your own machine together. Apple products buyers bring huge profits to Apple whatever we buy. I make huge profits on some of my most desireable products as well and my clients are happy to buy them because that's what they want and their focus is on obtaining what they desire, not on trying to reduce my profit.
A profitable Apple ensures their continued success and more great new products.
As Richard stated above, if the intent is the best "deal", lowest price, greatest economy... why buy Apple products at all?
Sorry if this is a little off topic,
How much of a performance increase would I notice with the new Mac mini (either processor) compared to a single processor 1.8 Ghz PowerMac G5?
How much better is the 9400M than the Ati x800 ?
My most resource intensive application is Aperture.
I think I'd go with the 2.0 Ghz model, but plan to be using parallels…Apple always makes it so difficult
How much of a performance increase would I notice with the new Mac mini (either processor) compared to a single processor 1.8 Ghz PowerMac G5?
How much better is the 9400M than the Ati x800 ?
My most resource intensive application is Aperture.
I think I'd go with the 2.0 Ghz model, but plan to be using parallels…Apple always makes it so difficult