123Macmini.com
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   GalleryPhoto Gallery   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Core 2 Duo Mac minis Geekbenched
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> 123Macmini.com News and Reviews
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 2145
Location: U.S.A

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:15 pm    Post subject: Core 2 Duo Mac minis Geekbenched Reply with quote

Core 2 Duo Mac minis Geekbenched
Monday, August 13, 2007
Posted by: Brian

Primate Labs today posted an updated series of Geekbench scores for the Mac mini. This includes scores for the latest Core 2 Duo models that were released by Apple last week.

According to the company's blog, "Moving from the Core Duo to the Core 2 Duo brings modest performance improvements without an increase in clock speed, and moving from 1.83GHz to 2.0GHz brings (unsurprisingly) another modest increase in performance. If you're running a previous generation Mac mini I see no real reason to upgrade (unless, of course, you want to use 64-bit applications). Of course, if you're moving from a PowerPC (or Core Solo) Mac mini, you'll notice a huge improvement in performance, not only from the improved Core 2 architecture, but also from the addition of an extra processing core."







Primate Labs is an independent software company based in Waterloo, Ontario. They develop Geekbench, which is a cross-platform benchmarking tool for Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows.

http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/723.html


Last edited by admin on Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Weee
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 816
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Core 2 Duo Mac minis Geekbenched Reply with quote

admin wrote:
(unless, of course, you want to use 64-bit applications).


I think that is the name of the game going into Leopard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnnyBoy
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 3954
Location: West Sussex, South-East England

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Core 2 Duo Mac minis Geekbenched Reply with quote

Weee wrote:
I think that is the name of the game going into Leopard.

I think it will be more interesting to re-run all of the tests once 10.5 has been released, and see what advantage this gives the 64-bit processors. While running Tiger, the overall score for the 1.83 GHz C2D is only 6% higher than the identically clocked Core Duo. Nothing to get excited about.
_________________
Intel Mini 2.0GHz C2D (4GB/120GB/SuperDrive/10.5.8 ), 120GB WD Passport, Logitech ergo k/b
iPod Touch (32GB, 3rd gen), iPod Shuffle (512MB, 1st gen)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bsnoel
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 355
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't suspect 64-bit will gain that much on the Mac mini. The biggest advantage of 64-bit computing is that you can address over 4-GB of RAM. Since the Mac mini only has 2-GB max, 64-bit is not going to matter.

Some people argue that 64-bit processors transfer chunks of data that are twice as large, and therefore 64-bit CPUs are faster. However, in many cases a true 64-bit application sees no real performance advantage if everything else is equal. The reason is because, while the processor can move data in chunks twice the size, often the instructions in a 64-bit app are also compiled to twice the size of their 32-bit equivalent. This essentially cancels out the advantage of the CPU being able to move larger chunks of data.

So, unless an application is very memory intensive or has very large datasets, there is not that much of a performance gain from 64-bit computing. In some instances 32-bit apps run faster on 64-bit CPUs.

That being said, Leopard probably will be faster, than Tiger due to better optimized code for the Intel platform.
_________________
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz, PowerMac G5 2.3 GHz, iMac Core Duo 17", MacBook Pro 2GHz, MacBook Pro 2.2GHz, Mac mini Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz. Multi-K9 Security System. No false alarms, just lots of sharp teeth.
www.grweather.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bsnoel
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 355
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone have any photos of the internals of the new Core 2 Duo Mac mini?

I put a Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz in my Core Duo Mac mini this last winter.
It works great, other than I ran into issues with excessive heat under heavy load and I had to increase the RPM on the fan to compensate. I'm wondering if Apple changed the heat sink design on the new Core 2 Duo Mac mini?
_________________
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz, PowerMac G5 2.3 GHz, iMac Core Duo 17", MacBook Pro 2GHz, MacBook Pro 2.2GHz, Mac mini Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz. Multi-K9 Security System. No false alarms, just lots of sharp teeth.
www.grweather.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bandit Bill
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 5963
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My G4 appears to be slow Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devo
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 5377
Location: Dunwoody, GA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bandit Bill wrote:
My G4 appears to be slow Smile


and stable. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2665
Location: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found the benchmarking to be very helpful with regard to deciding which of the new minis to buy. I thought that the 2.0 ghz model would have a big advantage over the 1.83 because of its larger cache (4 mb vs 2 mb on the 1.83). However, the difference in overall speed appears to be less than 10%, which is to say, less than the difference in processor speed. As a result, I am now more inclined to buy the low end model, since I don't need a CD burner. I can get the same drive as the high end and max out the RAM for less than the cost of the stock high end mini. But I'm still planning to hold out for the release of Leopard before buying. Smile
_________________
Mini 1 (2011): 2.3 ghz Core i5; 8 gb RAM, Corsair 240gb SSD, 500 gb Seagate XT
Mini 2 (2009): 2.26 ghz Core 2 duo, 8 gb RAM, 500 gb Seagate used as HTPC
Also a Cube, 13" MacBook Air, 20" 2.66 ghz iMac & 11.6" Acer 1810TZ running Ubuntu & Crunchbang
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yvan256
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Quebec, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bandit Bill wrote:
My G4 appears to be slow Smile


I bet it's as fast as mine! Very Happy

edit: I'm also waiting the release of Leopard before buying the low-end model. At least I didn't have to wait for iWork '08, which I received today! Hurray!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dfifo
New Member
New Member


Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do these benchmarks take advantage of dual core? Seems like comparing dual core to CPUs to single core, using single core tests doesn't give a clear picture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bprice
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 92
Location: LA Ca

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dfifo wrote:
Do these benchmarks take advantage of dual core? Seems like comparing dual core to CPUs to single core, using single core tests doesn't give a clear picture.


dfifo
Both were dual cores

Core Duo=32 bit
Core 2 Duo=64 bits

bp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
g5g5
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 2762
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
I thought that the 2.0 ghz model would have a big advantage over the 1.83 because of its larger cache (4 mb vs 2 mb on the 1.83). However, the difference in overall speed appears to be less than 10%, which is to say, less than the difference in processor speed.


Yeah, I thought that extra 2MB of L2 cache, along with the higher clock speed, would bring in some higher marks. I'm just going with the 1.83GHz model and slapping a 160GB drive and 2GB of RAM in there. This will still bring in the total cost below the 2.0GHz model. It also gives me more expansion for either Boot Camp or Parallels. And I have a LaCie external DVD burner, so I don't need the SuperDrive. To be honest, I mostly burn CDs anyways. I'm ordering mine later in the week. I'm one of the few Intel holdouts round these parts, so I can't wait! Smile
_________________
1.25GHz Mac Mini / 1.8GHz iMac G5 / 2.0GHz C2D Mac mini (2009)
4GB iPod mini / 2G iPod shuffle / 16GB iPhone 3G
Apple TV 2
iLife's a Bitch!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2665
Location: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dfifo wrote:
Do these benchmarks take advantage of dual core? Seems like comparing dual core to CPUs to single core, using single core tests doesn't give a clear picture.

The test machines included the 1.5 ghz core solo, which is a single core. Overall results suggest that the extra core adds 35-40% to the speed, taking into account that the core duo closest to the core solo also has a slightly faster processor (1.66 ghz vs. 1.5). However (and maybe this is what you are referring to, dfifo), the large difference was not manifested in all of the benchmarks. The extra core has little effect on memory-related tests (no surprise there), or on the streaming test. I'm not sure what the latter represents.
_________________
Mini 1 (2011): 2.3 ghz Core i5; 8 gb RAM, Corsair 240gb SSD, 500 gb Seagate XT
Mini 2 (2009): 2.26 ghz Core 2 duo, 8 gb RAM, 500 gb Seagate used as HTPC
Also a Cube, 13" MacBook Air, 20" 2.66 ghz iMac & 11.6" Acer 1810TZ running Ubuntu & Crunchbang
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Texark
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 357
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Mac mini is just a video card away from me buying one again. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
picaman
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bsnoel wrote:
That being said, Leopard probably will be faster, than Tiger due to better optimized code for the Intel platform.


Each version of OS X gets faster. One of the [many] things I love about OS X, as opposed to the other Redmond-supplied option.

Razz

Jamie
_________________
I'm Jamie, and I approved this message.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> 123Macmini.com News and Reviews All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



      

Shop:  Apple Store  |  Refurbished Macs  |  Refurbished iPads  |  MacConnection  |  Mac Mini Vault  |  Other World Computing

MK 1 Studio Mac mini Racks  |  Crucial Mac Memory  |  Top Free Mac Apps  |  Top Paid Mac Apps



123Macmini.com is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or approved by Apple Computer, Inc.
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2011 123Macmini.com. All Rights Reserved.