Upgrading Mac mini CPU
in [UK Mac]
|
From: zoara on 7 Apr 2010 07:44 Anyone had any experience upgrading a Mac mini CPU? I'm after boosting my Core Solo 1.5GHz to a Core Duo with a bit more oomph. I've looked at the guides and the early minis have a ZIF, and besides the usual pig to get anywhere in a mini (I've already upgraded the RAM) it doesn't seem to arduous. And the brief look at replacement CPUs implies they are around sixty quid (I haven't looked at specific models yet). Is this worth doing, or is it not going to be much cheaper or much less effort than simply buying a faster second hand mini and selling my old one? -zoara-
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 7 Apr 2010 08:06 On 7 Apr 2010 11:44:13 GMT, zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: >Anyone had any experience upgrading a Mac mini CPU? I'm after boosting >my Core Solo 1.5GHz to a Core Duo with a bit more oomph. Having taken a look into the 1st gen Intel Minis, it should be a simple dropin if you can get the right CPU for it. >I've looked at the guides and the early minis have a ZIF, and besides >the usual pig to get anywhere in a mini (I've already upgraded the RAM) >it doesn't seem to arduous. And the brief look at replacement CPUs >implies they are around sixty quid (I haven't looked at specific models >yet). > >Is this worth doing, or is it not going to be much cheaper or much less >effort than simply buying a faster second hand mini and selling my old >one? What purpose are you needing the extra CPU power for? Generally I've found more change putting in a fast hard drive than upping CPU power, but I never used a core solo. Cheers - Jaimie -- Actually, the Singularity seems rather useful in the entire work avoidance field. "I _could_ write up that report now but if I put it off, I may well become a weakly godlike entity, at which point not only will I be able to type faster but my comments will be more on-target." - James Nicoll
From: David Empson on 7 Apr 2010 08:42 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On 7 Apr 2010 11:44:13 GMT, zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > >Anyone had any experience upgrading a Mac mini CPU? I'm after boosting > >my Core Solo 1.5GHz to a Core Duo with a bit more oomph. > > Having taken a look into the 1st gen Intel Minis, it should be a > simple dropin if you can get the right CPU for it. > > >I've looked at the guides and the early minis have a ZIF, and besides > >the usual pig to get anywhere in a mini (I've already upgraded the RAM) > >it doesn't seem to arduous. And the brief look at replacement CPUs > >implies they are around sixty quid (I haven't looked at specific models > >yet). > > > >Is this worth doing, or is it not going to be much cheaper or much less > >effort than simply buying a faster second hand mini and selling my old > >one? > > What purpose are you needing the extra CPU power for? > > Generally I've found more change putting in a fast hard drive than > upping CPU power, but I never used a core solo. There are some things which simply can't be done on a 1.5 GHz Core Solo, because it isn't fast enough either due to the clock frequency or the lack of a second core, e.g. - H.264 video playback via EyeTV requires 2 cores. - Better video quality in iChat needs a Core Duo (preferably 1.83 GHz). - DVD player needs 1.6 GHz for improved video deinterlacing. - Grand Central Dispatch needs 2 cores to be useful. If it was me, I'd rather get a Core 2 Duo Mini to replace it. I'd be concerned about likely future Mac OS X support for Core Solo/Duo (32-bit) models, limiting the future options for a complex upgrade. The Core 2 Duo models also have the advantage of being able to install more memory (at least 3 GB). Apple's usual pattern with a new version of Mac OS X is to drop support for models 4 to 6 years after they were superseded, with occasional earlier cutoffs. If 10.7 is released about March 2011, that's just over 3.5 years after the last Core Duo model was superseded (Mac Mini in Aug 2007), and about 4.5 years after the rest of the Core Duos were superseded (Sep-Nov 2006). -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Richard Tobin on 7 Apr 2010 18:11 In article <1jglsvm.77zshw1q9e6udN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote: >- DVD player needs 1.6 GHz for improved video deinterlacing. That's surprising, considering that I used to play DVDs on a 300MHz processor that did a lot less per clock. -- Richard
From: David Empson on 7 Apr 2010 20:01
Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article <1jglsvm.77zshw1q9e6udN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, > David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > > >- DVD player needs 1.6 GHz for improved video deinterlacing. > > That's surprising, considering that I used to play DVDs on a 300MHz > processor that did a lot less per clock. It is mentioned on Apple's specifications page for Mac OS X. If you have a CPU slower than 1.6 GHz, DVD Player uses a less CPU intensive algorithm that produces a lower quality image from interlaced video. As far as "minimum CPU speed for playback" is concerned: Some beige PowerMac G3 models (333 MHz or slower) had DVD-ROM, but they required support from the video card. I see mention of an "ATI 3D Rage II+DVD" video card in MacTracker. The slowest Mac model I can find which appears to support software playback of DVDs is the PowerBook G3 Series ("Wallstreet"), which had DVD-ROM as an option for the 250 MHz and faster models. Perhaps Apple had to rely on hardware playback in the late 1997 PowerMac G3 because they didn't have the software decoder working yet, or hadn't licensed DVD decoding in software, but this was sorted by mid 1998 (Wallstreet). If so, then a 250 MHz G3 is fast enough to play a DVD with MPEG-2 decoding in software. 400 MHz is clearly fast enough (e.g. iMac DV from late 1999), and there may have been 300 MHz and 350 MHz PowerMac G3 (Blue & White) models from early 1999 which had DVD-ROM as an option. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz |