Can the new mini cpu's be upgraded?

ya cha cha

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
2,035
So I was thinking when I saw the release of the mac mini with the core solo, will we be able to upgrade the cpus? I know that the core duo is a mainstream cpu, do you think they are soldering it to the boards?
If not, you could get the 599 mini and buy a dual 2.1 cpu and stick it in there.
 
ya cha cha said:
So I was thinking when I saw the release of the mac mini with the core solo, will we be able to upgrade the cpus? I know that the core duo is a mainstream cpu, do you think they are soldering it to the boards?
If not, you could get the 599 mini and buy a dual 2.1 cpu and stick it in there.

...and let your brand new mini melt :p
 
Why? From what I seen its integrated graphics anyway. Not worth the money, Apple dropped the ball on this one IMO.
 
Getting the mini apart, switching the CPU and putting it back together nicely might be difficult. However I doubt the thermal solution in the Mini could handle a 2.1G chip.
 
Nasty_Savage said:
Why? From what I seen its integrated graphics anyway. Not worth the money, Apple dropped the ball on this one IMO.

Care to explain? This is a pretty piss poor comment otherwise.
 
You'll have to wait a few days for a definitve answer to this question.

Apple did not solder the iMac chip to the board but they did solder the Macbook Pro chip.

Who knows what they did to the Mini...
 
Night Fox said:
Care to explain? This is a pretty piss poor comment otherwise.

The G4 mini had a 9200 card for graphics, the new one uses intel onboard graphics.

I wonder why they didn't use the 9200, it was a strong selling point and if intel couldn't have worked it into the system, no one could.
 
deathBOB said:
The G4 mini had a 9200 card for graphics, the new one uses intel onboard graphics.

I wonder why they didn't use the 9200, it was a strong selling point and if intel couldn't have worked it into the system, no one could.

How about CoreImage and QuartzExtreme? The 9200 wasn't cutting it...
 
Rocketpig said:
You'll have to wait a few days for a definitve answer to this question.

Apple did not solder the iMac chip to the board but they did solder the Macbook Pro chip.

Who knows what they did to the Mini...

Yea Rocketpig summed it up. We will have to wait to find out. My guess would be soldered on but untill we see one cracked open we will not know for sure.
 
Do the faster Intel processors really put out that much more heat? But it just doesn't have the Video Card to warrant a faster processor.
 
Night Fox said:
Care to explain? This is a pretty piss poor comment otherwise.

You have integrated graphics that shares up 250 Mb of Ram (dynamically as 'needed') and all this for 100 bucks more and no dvr capability? That explain it for ya? Why bother upgrading the chip when you're neutered by graphics and memory limitations? Waste of time and money.
 
benamaster said:
Do the faster Intel processors really put out that much more heat? But it just doesn't have the Video Card to warrant a faster processor.

I was thinking the same thing about heat, the Core series all runs very cool, I doubt you would need better cooling for the faster chip, it was probably just a pricing move.

The graphics aren't that bad though, integrated graphics are more than adequete for what the mini is designed for.
 
on there site they sell a core duo.... so cooling it probly wont be a problem since they figured it out.... in a few days when people get theres i bet there will be lots of info on them
 
Nasty_Savage said:
You have integrated graphics that shares up 250 Mb of Ram (dynamically as 'needed') and all this for 100 bucks more and no dvr capability? That explain it for ya?

Everyone who claims that the new Mac mini is a "piece of shit" fails to realize that the new integrated graphics chip is actually MORE robust than the ATi 9200. The new one supports CoreImage, QuartzExtreme and has hardware acceleration for HD video. And as far as the price difference, you are also getting AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0 standard. Those used to be BTO options.

Oh snap.

Nasty_Savage said:
Why bother upgrading the chip when you're neutered by graphics and memory limitations? Waste of time and money.

I wasn't the one who suggested upgrading the chip, so pipe down.
 
Nitpicking, I know, but the 9200 has full support for Quartz Extreme, and a 1.5GHz G4 does Core Image stuff WAY faster than a 9200 could.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Nitpicking, I know, but the 9200 has full support for Quartz Extreme, and a 1.5GHz G4 does Core Image stuff WAY faster than a 9200 could.

Sure the 9200 was supported under Quartz Extreme, but you're talking bottom-rung performance.

So what if the G4 could perform the Core Image tasks faster than a 9200? The new mini has a much better proc in it now, regardless of clock speed. Neither the Mac mini nor the Mac platform in general should ever be heralded for gaming performance as that seems to be what the gripe is about this integrated graphics bullshit.

I'm just hoping the benchmarks come out soon so everyone shuts the hell up.
 
Night Fox said:
Everyone who claims that the new Mac mini is a "piece of shit" fails to realize that the new integrated graphics chip is actually MORE robust than the ATi 9200. The new one supports CoreImage, QuartzExtreme and has hardware acceleration for HD video. And as far as the price difference, you are also getting AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0 standard. Those used to be BTO options.

Yes you get CoreImage, but the fact that it takes up system ram potentially means it will slow the computer back down.

The new mini isn't a piece of shit though, more usb ports, 5.1 optical out, line (maybe optical) input, all things I want. Too bad it costs...
 
illgiveumorality said:
Yes you get CoreImage, but the fact that it takes up system ram potentially means it will slow the computer back down.

Yeah but you can cram more Ram in the Mini. If you would stick 2 gigs in it and then 250mb of it is taken by video you'd still have more than enough to run a number of programs.
 
Night Fox said:
. And as far as the price difference, you are also getting AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0 standard. Those used to be BTO options.

There's your $100 increase right there, not to mention 2 extra USB 2.0 ports and a remote + Media App
 
I don't know why people are complaining about the price increase, the yonah is more powerful than the G4.
 
deathBOB said:
I don't know why people are complaining about the price increase, the yonah is more powerful than the G4.

And you get more features that easily make up for the price. I think you're getting even a better deal.
 
gah... now I wish I wouldn't have bought my mini so fast. I got a good deal on mine at the time... (80gb, superdrive, 512 ram, airport/bluetooth, for 400) but now I see that the new one is a WAY better value. I'd rather paid hte extra 200 for a NEW mini with more features. But, I didn't know the new intel minis would be coming out so soon.
 
Yes, the integrated graphics coupled with a much faster processor is going to be more than adequate for first time mac users and people with relatively basic needs. But, there are a number of people out there (such as myself) that would really like something akin to a headless imac. A computer that can handle hd content and graphics intensive things without choking. On another note, I would like to think that once vista is out, it will easily dual boot on an intel mac. Having a mini with a decent graphics chipset and dedicated memory would eliminate my want/need for a windows only machine to game on.

Anyhow, the new mini is looking pretty good, certainly a much better value than the ppc mini. However, I think they could have done a bit more, or released a "heavy duty" mini with dvr capabilities and more robust hardware. All IMO of course :p
 
I would love a headleass iMac too, but Apple is sadly ignoring the middle of the market segment. They need to make what is basically a cross between a powermac and and an iMac sans display, but they won't. They give us low end with the mini, ultra-high end with the Powermac, and no midrange without a display.
 
nonameo said:
gah... now I wish I wouldn't have bought my mini so fast. I got a good deal on mine at the time... (80gb, superdrive, 512 ram, airport/bluetooth, for 400) but now I see that the new one is a WAY better value. I'd rather paid hte extra 200 for a NEW mini with more features. But, I didn't know the new intel minis would be coming out so soon.

Sell it and buy a new one. Yours could prob get you almost what you paid for it. Hell I'd be kinda interested.
 
Night Fox said:
Everyone who claims that the new Mac mini is a "piece of shit" fails to realize that the new integrated graphics chip is actually MORE robust than the ATi 9200. The new one supports CoreImage, QuartzExtreme and has hardware acceleration for HD video. And as far as the price difference, you are also getting AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0 standard. Those used to be BTO options.

Oh snap.

With integrated graphics it should be the same or cheaper with the extras

Night Fox said:
I wasn't the one who suggested upgrading the chip, so pipe down.

Original thread asked about upgrading the chip, get on topic and keep in context or pipe down yourself.
 
benamaster said:
Do the faster Intel processors really put out that much more heat? But it just doesn't have the Video Card to warrant a faster processor.

Why not? You do know that not ONLY games use CPU power? many applications could benefit from a faster CPU, but could care less about what GFX chip it has, stop being so narrow minded on the use of a faster CPU.
 
Since the graphics memory is shared can you up the amount dedicated to graphics like on other motherboards with integrated graphics.
 
In regards to the OP question..

The big question is whether or not the TPM module will work with any CPU other than what the systems come with. I think the stuff is just too new for anyone to know yet, but I'm sure someone somewhere will eventually try it.
 
Why upgrade to a faster chip?


Because it makes encoding videos faster, and other cpu-intensive tasks. Who cares if the graphics chip sucks at games, you're not going to buy a mini to play games anyway.

It's still faster than the 9200 for Quartz Extreme-- the only legit complaint is the fact that the shared memory reduces the memory available to the OS. So you certainly don't want to order a new mini with less than 1GB memory.

In fact, I bet it'll be easier to overclock the new minis.
 
Thud said:
Why upgrade to a faster chip?


Because it makes encoding videos faster, and other cpu-intensive tasks. Who cares if the graphics chip sucks at games, you're not going to buy a mini to play games anyway.

It's still faster than the 9200 for Quartz Extreme-- the only legit complaint is the fact that the shared memory reduces the memory available to the OS. So you certainly don't want to order a new mini with less than 1GB memory.

In fact, I bet it'll be easier to overclock the new minis.


My point exactly, but some people seem to think the only use for a computer is gaming.
 
Musei said:
In regards to the OP question..

The big question is whether or not the TPM module will work with any CPU other than what the systems come with. I think the stuff is just too new for anyone to know yet, but I'm sure someone somewhere will eventually try it.

The imacs did support it when people put high speed core duos in them so it is a good chance but if it is soldered on then it would take a good rework station to upgrade.......

With anyluck they will be socketed but I'm betting they will not be as it takes up more space. Lets hope I'm wrong.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Post again when someone runs a real benchmark.

That's fine, as the net is soon going to be flooded with them and they will all tell you the same thing. ;)
 
Night Fox said:
That's fine, as the net is soon going to be flooded with them and they will all tell you the same thing. ;)


Shared Memory, is bad memory.

The reason the 9200 was better was because of it's quick access dedicated video ram. Because the video ram is now shared with the system, it's going to add HUGE slowdowns. Instead of being able to easily cache to local ram, the "video card" is now going to have to leave the northbridge and pass through a memory controller before it can write to the high latency system ram.

Thoes Open GL tests were synthetic. The least Apple could of done was used the Radeon 200M or some form for x300 with hypermemory (or 6200TC). I wouldn't be suprised if WoW takes a hit in performance.



Not only that, but now because of the price increases, the mac mini really isn't a "bargain mac".
 
Back
Top