[Macworld]

Post your comments for Benchmarks: New Mac minis here

[lordPatton]

" The new Mac mini has 3GB of shared L2 cache."
Good God!

[macxpress]

That is a typo...no computer in this world has 3GB of L2 Cache (that would be expensive as hell!)...they meant 3MB of L2 Cache

[tfrogh]

"The performance of the new low-end Mac mini and the entry-level white MacBook 2GHz () are very similar. With just 3 Speedmark points separating them, the two systems finished within a second or two of each other and the majority of our tests. "
Interesting since the MacBook uses the older and slower DDR2 memory.
It would be nice to see the comparison matrix include a CoreDuo Mini. Thank the Gods I sold my CoreDuo Mini 2 weeks ago. I never would have dreamed Apple was going to update the Mini. I am smiling all the way to the bank.
Since I get dizzy trying to figure out which of the new machines is best for me, I will keep using my iMac G5 20" iSight and my Powerbook G4 15" ALS. I see no home runs in the current line-up at least not without spending $2k+. If only the Unibody MacBook had a Firewire port.
Yes...I am one of those weirdo's with Firewire Hard Drives.
Tom

[fellaintga]

You would be right $2000 gets you a pretty nice iMac though with top of the line graphics. But what are you using it for? You are probably better getting a mini and doing a 4GB RAM upgrade with a 320GB 7200RPM drive upgrade which would be the best bang for your buck and will be faster than you current 2 machines combined.

(Also I believe GMA 950 was the old graphics, 2 mistakes in the article a little proof reading wouldn't hurt.)

[Bruce8]

Yeah, I want one of those that has the 3 GigaBytes of shared cache too! ;)
But one thing I would like to know when comparing Mac mini 2007 2 GHz C2D with 4 MB cache to the Mac mini 2009 2 GHz C2D with 3 MB cache -- Is there much difference in the actual CPU?
The test results that (to me) seem cpu focused (and less dependent on disk or graphics) look pretty close 2007 vs 2009.
Since it is exactly the same 2 GHz, but they cut down the cache from 4 MB to 3 MB, did they just boost it internally so that it performs marginally better at same 2 GHz??
Leaving aside the graphic chip upgrade which looks to be the major improvement...
It looks sort of like the typical Apple development behavior of late: add a little bit here, take a little bit away there (Firewire), make it shiny and marginally better then slap a NEW IMPROVED label on it and sell, sell, sell.
I mean, to use essentially the same 2 GHz cpu in the machine as the model from 2 years ago seems unbelievably petty / arrogant / disappointing. Just my opinion of course.
And yes, about their dropping FireWire from the MacBook, I agree that was just another unbelievably dumb move on their part, disenfranchising a large group of their existing user base. I too have lots of FW devices that will never work with the new MacBook line. Sad.
I still like the Macs overall, but they have lost their edge and vision, and seem content to just dribble out tiny improvements.

[Jim Galbraith]

Typo has been corrected.
Thanks.

[Macalways]

@ Bruce8
Could you explain after you read the article and the test proticol how you came to the conclusion that "The test results that (to me) seem cpu focused…"?

[kyle988]

Bruce8, its not the end of the world. FW800 works fine with FW400 devices. You just need a different cable. And while I agree they should have had a FW port on the MacBook, one has to believe that if they kept it on the Mini, surely they will be bringing it back to the MacBook in the future.

EDIT: Sonnet even offers a FW800 > 400 adapter
http://www.sonnettec...fw_adapter.html
Message was edited by: kyle988

[solidstate]

I'd be really interested to find out what benefits the 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo option gives over the stock 2ghz. In the UK this upgrade costs an extra £120.00 and in the US is $150 - sounds like a lot for a quarter of a ghz.
...and can anyone link me to any benchmarks that show the difference in performance between one of these and my trusty 1.6ghz Core Duo Mini.

[oluf]

There are a few more tests that should be carried out before a final conclusion is drawn:
1. There are a few rather comprehensive support threads at the Apple forum (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1836042&tstart=0) dealing with the infamous $99 Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter connected to external 30-inch LCD from one of the new laptops, causing periodic flicker. The problem seems to be reported for several months, without Apple doing anything else than replacing adapters, at no use. Some posts may indicate that the problems disappear if going back to OSX 10.5.5. Can it be verified that this is not a problem with the new Mac Mini ?
2. Are there any limitations when using two 24-inch LCDs at 1920-by-1280, each connected to its own display port ?
3. How much is there to gain in performance by replacing the HD with an SSD ?

In my opinion Apple should have used the 45% faster GeForce 9600M instead of the 9400, since it makes no sense to save that little power on a stationary machine. Also, why not use 7200 rpm HD as standard instead of 5400 ? Perhaps Apple target the Mini as a media hub for the living room, and as such have made it reasonably silent ?

[Jarmo]

Well I would have bet good money against the odds of this update.
Decent enough graphics and FW800 too, how odd.
I can see the reasoning behind low power CPU and HD, Apple's very interested in keeping the macs quiet, I'm sure they'd just love to get rid of the fan altogether.
The important thing to see here is, the baseline mac graphics performance just tripled. That's huge. A year from now we'll see the effect of this, as developers will no longer need to assume half of the mac population has near zero GPU power.

[icerabbit]

Thanks for running the mini over to the lab so quick :)

The 21% speed increase unfortunately means no mini for me. While the graphics update is more than welcome and overdue ... this update only puts it on par with my G5, which is now 4 (5?) years old. So, I will hold off upgrading until we get a new cube that uses core i7 CPUs, which would balance power and cut cost in half compared to the $3k mac pro. It doesn't make sense, for me to get the new mini, upgrade it to max ram, 7200rpm HDD and still be status quo.

Time to do some spring cleaning on my G5, I have a faster primary drive handy and with a clean install it will be like new :)

[DisabledTrucker]

As I said before, too little too late, at least they finally added Wi-Fi 802.11n to it this time and put a decent graphics chip in it... Now if they would just stop using slow hard drives...