| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hangtown
Junior Member
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 36
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:57 am Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
 |
|
| bsnoel wrote: | Most folks here will most likely go ahead and max out the new Mac mini with 2GB of RAM. So that 80MB of shared RAM will account for a whopping 4% of system memory.  (Well actually a little less than 4%.) That's hardly something I would lose sleep over. |
Yeah, in my case that's exactly what I did. I was running the G4 mini with 1 gig which seems to work great. But the more I thought about running the Core Duo system with 1 gig, the more I decided to go to 2 gig instead for several reasons.
Obviously cost wasn't one of them.  
I've also heard (I think it was anandtech) that the Intel macs use more memory than the PPC macs. Personally, I wonder if they are more efficient in keeping things in memory rather than dumping stuff to disk (which would help performance rather than hinder it). As long as memory is available, this is potentially a good thing unless they somehow need more memory for some other reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
resuna
Member
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:26 am Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
|
|
| hangtown wrote: | | I've also heard (I think it was anandtech) that the Intel macs use more memory than the PPC macs. |
That's correct. You have to run a fairly large extra program (Rosetta) and you have part of the memory allocated to the video
| Quote: | | Personally, I wonder if they are more efficient in keeping things in memory rather than dumping stuff to disk |
Why on earth would you think that? It's the exact same operating system, the code is identical except for some device drivers. Both computers allocate memory the same way and use it with equal efficiency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
g5g5
Veteran Member
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 2716
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
|
|
| resuna wrote: | That's correct. You have to run a fairly large extra program (Rosetta) and you have part of the memory allocated to the video
|
If you max out the mini to 2GB, you probably won't even notice the memory being put aside for video. I think 512MB is the new 256MB when it comes to the mini. You are going to need more.
_________________
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 |
|
|
SOCOMRAIDER
Veteran Member
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 2869
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
|
|
| g5g5 wrote: | | resuna wrote: | That's correct. You have to run a fairly large extra program (Rosetta) and you have part of the memory allocated to the video
|
If you max out the mini to 2GB, you probably won't even notice the memory being put aside for video. I think 512MB is the new 256MB when it comes to the mini. You are going to need more. |
And in that case I think there's no reason not to go 2GB. What resuna said is true, at least for now with Rosetta. 1GB will be perfect in the future for basic apps in multitasking, but 2GB will help with Rosetta now (until everything is Universal), and especially with the syphoning integrated graphics on the Mini. Plus it's 2GB, why not? lol
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
picaman
Veteran Member
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
|
|
| SOCOMRAIDER wrote: | | And in that case I think there's no reason not to go 2GB. |
I agree, if you can afford it up front. Especially when you consider that to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB, you'll have a pair of chips on your hands to deal with.
Jamie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
resuna
Member
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
|
|
| g5g5 wrote: | | resuna wrote: | That's correct. You have to run a fairly large extra program (Rosetta) and you have part of the memory allocated to the video
|
If you max out the mini to 2GB, you probably won't even notice the memory being put aside for video. I think 512MB is the new 256MB when it comes to the mini. You are going to need more. |
*sigh*
Yes, I think that's my point. I was just verifying that the requirements for the new OS are higher, and the Mini itself needs more memory, and these requirements are real. Speculation about a "more efficient OS" are just bunk... there's no "new OS", it's just new drivers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SOCOMRAIDER
Veteran Member
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 2869
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
|
|
| resuna wrote: | *sigh*
Yes, I think that's my point. I was just verifying that the requirements for the new OS are higher, and the Mini itself needs more memory, and these requirements are real. Speculation about a "more efficient OS" are just bunk... there's no "new OS", it's just new drivers. |
It's not the drivers, it's the integrated graphics that makes the Mini basically need more RAM.
And it is a more efficient OS, especially in the fact how it manages hard drives and the file system.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
resuna
Member
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: 512MB vs 1GB? |
|
|
| SOCOMRAIDER wrote: | | It's not the drivers, it's the integrated graphics that makes the Mini basically need more RAM. |
I didn't say the drivers made it need more ram.
I said the drivers were the only difference between the source tree for Tiger on PPC and Tiger on Intel.
| Quote: | | And it is a more efficient OS, especially in the fact how it manages hard drives and the file system. |
It's the same OS. Tiger on PPC and Tiger on Intel are the same OS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SOCOMRAIDER
Veteran Member
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 2869
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm always defending OS X always on CNET for some dumb reason. I did read your post wrong, I read it as compared to XP. My mistake, so disregard more efficient OS, because it's the same OS. Still performs wonders.
But still it's not the requirements for the OS on the Intel machines that need more RAM, it's the integrated graphics on the Mini.
Maybe just a slight amount for Rosetta if you are running non-universal programs. Otherwise when everything turns universal you won't need as much RAM, because it will all be the same.
No different from a iMac G5 to a iMac Core Duo with memory usage (at least with universal apps).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
resuna
Member
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SOCOMRAIDER wrote: | | Otherwise when everything turns universal you won't need as much RAM, because it will all be the same. |
Since everything isn't universal yet, Rosetta's still part of the problem.
I'm talking about now. By the time everything's Universal (including Photoshop), you may be able to buy a Mini with a Radeon x1300.
(PS: compared to FreeBSD, Mac OS X is still pretty bloated and inefficient) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James T Kirk
Veteran Member
Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 757
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| resuna wrote: |
I'm talking about now. By the time everything's Universal (including Photoshop), you may be able to buy a Mini with a Radeon x1300. |
So I might wait another year or so, sell my mini to one of my (by Garageband and iPhoto impressed) friends and buy one of the newest mini's! Actually I'm quite happy with my G4 1.5 mini, which I don't think is sluggish at all, I don't even need my external FW disk for booting from. The 1 GB stick helps of course! 
_________________
___________________Jim©
Now on Hackintosh in G5 case! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Veteran Member
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2630
Location: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have looked at reviews, examined the benchmarks and asked a number of questions on forums like these to try to help me come to a conclusion about buying now or later, and if now, which Mini. I'm inclined to buy now, but I want to play with one first. Fortunately, I'm taking a trip that will bring me near an Apple store in Virginia. I'll play with the Minis there and make my decision from that. But like others have said, it isn't a must-have. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with my current 1.42 Mini setup (with 1 gig of RAM and the external miniStack drive as startup).
_________________
Mini 1: 2.3 ghz Core i5; 8 gb RAM, Corsair 240gb SSD, 500 gb Seagate XT
Mini 2: 2.26 ghz Core 2 duo, 8 gb RAM, 500 gb Seagate
Also a Cube, 13" MacBook Air, 20" 2.66 ghz iMac & 11.6" Acer 1810TZ running Ubuntu, Mint & openSuse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ack_mac
Veteran Member
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 605
Location: Northern VA (DC)
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: | | I have looked at reviews, examined the benchmarks and asked a number of questions on forums like these to try to help me come to a conclusion about buying now or later, and if now, which Mini. I'm inclined to buy now, but I want to play with one first. Fortunately, I'm taking a trip that will bring me near an Apple store in Virginia. I'll play with the Minis there and make my decision from that. But like others have said, it isn't a must-have. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with my current 1.42 Mini setup (with 1 gig of RAM and the external miniStack drive as startup). |
Fox, I take it you will be in Northern Virginia? We have several Apple Stores here (Tyson's Corner, Arlington)..
Will you mostly be using universal apps, or will you need to use Rosetta? I am planning on waiting about 1 more year (I have the 1.5GHZ stealth mini with 1GB of RAM and boot off an external drive as well) before I consider buying. I am just not sure that there will be a big enough performance gain to justify the Intel Mini. I guess you cannot really go wrong either way...
_________________
Vote for me, and your wildest dreams will come true.. - Pedro Sanchez, "Napoleon Dynamite" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbstingray
Veteran Member
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 677
Location: In a Mac.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Would it really be a major benefit to the processor and the system as a whole to have 2GB of RAM? Seems like 1GB would do the job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blazer
Veteran Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 1061
Location: San Ramon, California
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbstingray wrote: | | Would it really be a major benefit to the processor and the system as a whole to have 2GB of RAM? Seems like 1GB would do the job. |
1GB should be enough for most tasks, but I'm inclined to say max it out while you're doing the upgrade. Don't forget, some of that memory is going to the dedicated video.
_________________
1.42GHz Mac mini
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini (2009)
2.5GHz Core i5 Mac mini (2011)
24" Dell LCD & 42" Sharp TV
EyeTV 250 Plus
1G, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G iPod nanos
16GB 3G iPhone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Photo Gallery
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
