Skip navigation
This discussion is archived

Compare 2009 2.53Ghz 4GB RAM Nvidia 9400 v 2010 2.4Ghz 2GB RAM Nvidia 320

4319 Views 15 Replies Latest reply: Jun 22, 2010 7:04 PM by GoTVols RSS
1 2 Previous Next
BHAussie Calculating status...
Currently Being Moderated
Jun 20, 2010 12:27 AM
Looking to replace my cable with the mini.

Want to know whether the new mini, in particlar with the new GPU with 2GB ram is better than the old mini with 4GB running the older GPU for watching e.g. Hulu. The associate in the apple store advised that adobe was developing new flash to be implemented in hulu and the new chip would be better for this (I'm discarding cable & don't want to upgrade in 6 months).

If the 'Gflps' are anything to go by this new chip has a lot (2.5x) more.

But is this 'trade off' of ram (2GB!) worth the new GPU? As they are the same price now...

Cheers!
  • Euchre Level 4 Level 4 (1,275 points)
    My two generations back GMA950 integrated graphics and 1gb of RAM are handling Hulu and other online streams plenty well. What is more important about the new mini is that it has native HDMI and a better setting for dealing with underscan/overscan issues. This means just one cable running from your mini to your TV, and an almost guaranteed perfect display area on your screen. The newest mini also offers very easy RAM upgrade access, and buying your own memory is cheap and easy. Throw in the fact you've got an SD card slot and no more external power brick, and there's really no particular reason to buy the older model when using the mini as a media center.
    Mac mini 1.25 GHz PPC, Mac mini 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo, Mac OS X (10.5.6), Mac OS X (10.3.9 on PPC mini)
  • GoTVols Calculating status...
    Why obsess over the ram difference and just get the new one and up the ram to 4g. Thats a no brainer.
    You get all the advantages of the 2010 model and most people would want their mini at 4g anyway.
    Its like 90 dollars more and you get the newest imac.
    MacBook 2.0 Black, Mac OS X (10.6.4)
  • Wilbur507 Calculating status...
    I see this slightly differently, I was going to buy one for my kids but here in the UK the price increase an old generation chip minimal hard Drive upgrade and 2GB of ram is not worth it. A friend in Ireland would have to pay the equivalent to $940 for a 2.4 that's even worse. To be honest I'm very disappointed I expected a i5 and a 500GB drive I honestly thought it was coming how wrong I was.

    Still a fan boy but apple are making it harder...
    iMac 3.06, Macbook Pro 2.26, iphone 3G, Ipod 30GB, Mac OS X (10.5.2), I pay a premium so I expect the best!
  • GoTVols Level 2 Level 2 (255 points)
    The reason Apple wouldn't put an i5 in the mini is because Intel chose to put their underpowered graphic processor on the i5 chip. (Intel/Nvidia war). The enclosure of the mini being too tight for a discrete graphics card forced Apple into staying with the Core2Duo and the new 320m or take a BIG hit in graphics performance and go with the i5. I agree with their decision when a discrete graphics card isn't an option. Its the same reason Apple stuck with the Core2Duo on the MBP 13" and MB 13".
    The new MBP's 15" and 17" have plenty of room for a discrete graphics card/dedicated memory.
    MacBook 2.0 Black, Mac OS X (10.6.4)
  • Wilbur507 Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
    If apple are going to re design then i would expect it would be for the future, i3 or dual core? 320m is nothing more than a 9600+ nvidia, sorry its still poor for the money in my opinion.
    iMac 3.06, Macbook Pro 2.26, iphone 3G, Ipod 30GB, Mac OS X (10.5.2), I pay a premium so I expect the best!
  • GoTVols Level 2 Level 2 (255 points)
    That is why Apple has a wide product line. The mini is what it is. Its great performance for the price and if you want more speed there are many other choices from Apple.
    The i3 is a joke, look over the specs from Intel and you will see for yourself.
    Such a small enclosure can't fit everything, period.

    If your fixated on the i5 or i7, go with a MBP or an iMac.
    And the 340m isn't a joke, the intel integrated graphics in the i5 & i7 for the portables is in my opinion.
    MacBook 2.0 Black, Mac OS X (10.6.3)
  • Dah•veed Level 7 Level 7 (29,555 points)
    I am not sure about what you are comparing BHAussie because the two models mentioned in the title are not the same price.

    The Late '09 Mac mini with 2.53 GHz CPU, 4 GB RAM, a 320 GB HDD and the Nvidia 9400 was US$799.00.
    The Mid '10 Mac mini with 2.4 GHz CPU, 2 GB RAM, a 320 GB HDD and the Nvidia 320 is US $ 699.00

    The Late '09 was US$ 100.00 more.


    Dah•veed

    Early '09 Mac mini - 2GB RAM - Early '06 iMac CD - 2 GB RAM, Mac OS X (10.6.4), Happily using Macs since 1984!
  • daviangel Calculating status...
    It's still 2x the performance as far as graphics go compared to my mini though
    Here's a review they did on the new macs using the new graphics chip:

    This is roughly twice the performance of the GeForce 9400M used in last year's model.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3762/apples-13inch-macbook-pro-early-2010-reviewed -shaking-the-cpugpu-balance/9

    p.s. I must say the 9400 gpu in the older mini's like mine support hardware acceleration in flash 10.1 which hulu uses so both are capable of smooth playback
    550Mhz PowerPC G4, Mac OS X (10.6.3), early 2009 macmini 10.6.2 2GHZ upgraded to 4GB ram
  • daviangel Level 1 Level 1 (125 points)
    GoTVols wrote:
    That is why Apple has a wide product line. The mini is what it is. Its great performance for the price and if you want more speed there are many other choices from Apple.
    The i3 is a joke, look over the specs from Intel and you will see for yourself.
    Such a small enclosure can't fit everything, period.

    If your fixated on the i5 or i7, go with a MBP or an iMac.
    And the 340m isn't a joke, the intel integrated graphics in the i5 & i7 for the portables is in my opinion.

    Agreed!intel integrated graphics is a joke!
    Someone knows their hardware around here
    550Mhz PowerPC G4, Mac OS X (10.6.3), early 2009 macmini 10.6.2 2GHZ upgraded to 4GB ram
  • JezzerP Calculating status...
    I'm not sure memory is that cheap at the moment is it? The 'issue' with the DIY RAM upgrade is that the new 2GB mini comes with 2 sticks of 1GB, not 1 x 2GB, so if you want 4GB...well you can do the maths!! Here in the UK at least, this makes the upgrade to 4GB from Apple currently cheaper (£80) than buying a 4GB kit from the likes of Crucial (£92)
    Mac OS X (10.6)
  • Wilbur507 Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
    I am sure there will be plenty of people in Europe prepared to pay the equivalent of $940 for a old Dual core a small hard drive with a minor Graphics update, I just wont be one, roll on next year or my next trip to the USA
    iMac 3.06, Macbook Pro 2.26, iphone 3G, Ipod 30GB, Mac OS X (10.5.2), I pay a premium so I expect the best!
  • daviangel Level 1 Level 1 (125 points)
    550Mhz PowerPC G4, Mac OS X (10.6.3), early 2009 macmini 10.6.2 2GHZ upgraded to 4GB ram
  • Wilbur507 Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)
    Sorry I don't see your point, a 2.4 is faster than a 2.26, i hope so and it beat the 2.53 in some cases???
    My point is I expected the new design to be better than what it is - I know is personal, but the 2.5 is 2008 technology and I would not expect to have to pay £649 for it, remember there is no keyboard, mouse or screen you are near macbook and imac prices

    Nice design though!
    iMac 3.06, Macbook Pro 2.26, iphone 3G, Ipod 30GB, Mac OS X (10.5.2), I pay a premium so I expect the best!
  • beamermt25 Calculating status...
    I recieved my late 09 mini for 699 refurbished (looked new to me).. i can't see any reason to upgrade at all honestly...
    Late 2009 Mac Mini, Mac OS X (10.6.2), 320Gig, 4GB Ram...
1 2 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.