text:
Apple Mac mini Review (Mid 2010)by Anand Lal Shimpi on 8/9/2010 3:37 AM EST
93 Comments
Back to Article
AstroGuardian - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkNow we just sit and wait until some problems show up like overheating, melting of refurbished hard drives, security issues bla bla bla.... This starts to be a trend in Apple equipment.. Reply
solipsism - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkCurious, which new Macs use "refurbished" HDDs? Reply
Pirks - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkWintroll's ones, obviously. Reply
damianrobertjones - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkHe might use Ubuntu.
Either way, he does have a point and the more people that defend Apple, the more they get away with things. Just look at End'Gadget.. many posts asked them to modify their review of the iPhone 4 but did they? Nope.
Oh well Reply
Wizzdo - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkYup, troll above. With the wonderfully low power consumption I would imagine the Mini will be extremely dependable. Reply
damianrobertjones - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkProbably, but remember, it's going to be mass produced so a few bad eggs will get in there Reply
slb14 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkYou must be confusing this with a Dell.
Sorry, troll points are not awarded here. Reply
Stokestack - Sunday, August 15, 2010 - link"overheating, melting of refurbished hard drives, security issues bla"
You're obviously desperate for attention. Why waste your time posting this instead of a legitimate point?
When it comes to the Mini, there's one glaring legitimate gripe: THE PRICE. It's a cool product, but grossly overpriced. It's mystifying why Apple bothers with it at this point. If they're overpricing it to avoid cannabilizing other sales, then why continue to make it?
They should've dropped the price by $200 and replaced the iTV with it. But again, that's counter to Apple's new goal: get rid of real computers and replace them all with locked-down devices running iOS. Again, why bother updating anything resembling a real computer in the product lineup? A smokescreen? Reply
MySchizoBuddy - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkan article about using 10+ mac mini for a render farm or HPC solution would be great. Reply
jasperjones - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linknow that wouldn't be exactly cost-effective ducy? Reply
DaveGirard - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkseriously - I use a Mac Pro Nehalem for Maya and if I had to build a network of headless slaves, this would be an expensive and underperforming option. You could make a vanilla i7 for less and it would destroy this machine for rendering. Nice to see this is a great mini server/HTPC but it's not for performance. Reply
name99 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkWhy would you engage in such a stupid enterprise?
Apple is NOT selling you a bunch of MIPs here at the lowest possible cost. They are selling you a device that runs MacOSX, with IO options adequate for most users, that is low power and small.
If you do not need any of these capabilities, then buying such a computer is stupid.
Or, to put it another, don't buy a package of, what, 10GFlops AND a reasonable quality GPU AND two video ports AND FW8000 AND OSX AND a small form factor, and then complain that the package costs more than this other package consisting of 10GFlops and nothing else.
But if this device meets your needs, it's great --- I got a previous gen mini for HTPC, and it does what it is meant to do, at a price I found acceptable. Reply
JAS - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI bought one of these to run a public kiosk display (Apple Keynote program on a loop). Beyond its good looks, the new Mac Mini provides more than enough horsepower for what most "normal" people use computers for -- web browsers, media playback, e-mail, word processing and so forth. I like how access to the RAM has been made easy and the addition of the HDMI and SD connectors.
My only significant criticism of the new Mac Mini is its retail price. It ought to be $50 to $100 less to be considered an "entry level" Macintosh. Reply
nafhan - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI agree from a computing aspect, but it really ought to be about $200 - $300 less to be considered a good computer for the average home user. Especially since they will have to spring another $100+ for a monitor/mouse/keyboard right off the bat. Reply
Steve W - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkThe idea behind the Mac Mini is that you DON'T have to spring for a "monitor/mouse/keyboard" if you are the average switcher. If you need a monitor, then the iMac is a better buy. Reply
Ratman6161 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkGiven that it does not come with those items? The only way you would not need them is if you just happened to already have them. But if you were buying this as a second computer etc that might not be the case. Reply
tipoo - Friday, September 10, 2010 - linkExactly. Once you add a monitor, keyboard and mouse into the price, you are into iMac price territory, and the iMac is still alot faster. Reply
LtGoonRush - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI don't understand why 7200rpm 2.5" HDDs aren't more popular. The cost difference isn't very large, on a 320GB drive it only amounts to $5. The performance difference isn't Earth-shattering, but given the price of the system it seems hard to justify cutting this corner, along with shaving off 2GB of RAM as called out in the review. Reply
Minion4Hire - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI've heard both power and noise concerns given as reasons (besides cost as you mentioned) why 7200s aren't as popular. Both are pretty minor, but those are valid reasons. Reply
Shark Tek - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkThe main reason of why they aren't popular is a very valid one.
A good example is one about the PS3 HD upgrade. They recommend 5400rpm disks due to problems of overheating using a faster one. Reply
MonkeyPaw - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI don't understand why it has to keep getting smaller and smaller. The original Mini is by no means a monster. I remember setting an old FX5900 on my old G4 mini, and I laughed that the card stuck out about 2" on each side.
I guess my point is that I would have rather seen Apple boost the specs all around as opposed to shrinking the package (and raising the price). Apple continues to miss the boat (at least my boat, anyway) when it comes to price/features. I just don't think Apple cares about market share. They want to continue to sell overpriced items to a smaller audience. I guess that's fine, as they seem to make nice profits doing so. But the original Mini made me buy my first mac, and eventually I bought an iBook and a dual-G5. The dual G5 became mysteriously crash-happy, and I haven't been back since. Appke just can't draw me back in yet, not with this price/product. Reply
thunng8 - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - linkThat is not correct anymore these days. Modern 7200rpm 2.5" hard drives are only marginally hotter than the 5400rpm variety. It would make no difference in a mac mini enclosure. Reply
woutersamaey - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkIt would've been nice to read more on the Mac Mini with Mac OS X Server. To my opinion, it looks like an interesting SOHO server. It has faster (2 of them) 7200 rpm disks and 4 GB of RAM. Reply
solipsism - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkAnand wrote, "With no DMI/QPI enabled NVIDIA chipsets, Apple is either going to have to increase the physical size of many of its products to transition to newer Intel CPUs with 3rd party GPUs or live with Intel/AMD integrated graphics going forward. I'm very curious to see how this plays out over the next 12 - 18 months."
There is plenty of space when they remove the ODD. It's obvious they aren't going to move to Blu-ray if they haven't in August 2010 and haven't even added AACS to Mac OS X.
The ODD is large, slow, prone to breaking and goes unused by most consumers these days. To put it into perspective takes up 25% of the 13" MB/MBP footprint, as well as 5" of port-side space which all Mac notebooks could use.
On top of that, there is no 9.5mm Ultra-Slim Slot-Loading BRD that would be feasible for the needs of a company obsessed with thin.
Honestly, Anand, if they haven't added AACS to Mac OS X, added the option to their Mac Pros with full-sized ODDs, and left their optical disc authoring apps to rot why would you even expect this to arrive in such a svelte machine as the Mac Mini. Reply
Ratman6161 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link...because that isn't what this system uses. Take a look at the page in the review where they show pictures of the system torn down and talk about the Nvidia GeForce 320M and go on to say "The 320M has the graphics, memory controller, SATA controller, PCIe and USB interfaces. " The 320M seems to be a common part on Windows based laptops so it's nothing special - but it isn't Intel. Reply
larson0699 - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - link@solipsism: The new mini also has a server edition ($1k, apple.com/macmini/server), 2 HDD, no ODD, though none of that open vertical space helps the limited real estate of the motherboard itself.
@Ratman6161: As far as I can tell, only Apple has used the GeForce 320M thus far -- you may have mistaken that for the GeForce GT 320M, the former being an IGP and the latter a discrete GPU. Notebookcheck is a great place to compare mobile GPUs by specs, 3DMark scores, and their uses among OEMs, and that's where I learned of the similarly named IGP. Reply
mschira - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkHow does the Mac mini fare with a contemporary medium demading game, such as Starcraft 2?
M. Reply
jabber - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkFor that price and application I would want a BD drive in it.
I mean a BD drive would be what? An extra $50 (real world price) bu then the Apple price would be an extra $200.
Hmmmm. Reply
Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - linkNot just the cost but also a threat to streaming HD content from Itunes which seems to be another reason for not having blu-ray according to Steve Jobs.
I agree with you though hence I bought a Dell Studio Hybrid which is a very similar machine in that it uses laptop component but it also has a blu-ray drive - I'm surprised it didn't get a mention at all in the article.
John Reply
PrincePickle - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkAt least Apple is concentraiting on bringing decent GPU's to their lineups. The industry as a whole has been slacking with educating consumers on the benifits of discrete GPU's. Reply
AssBall - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkYeah, that 45 fps at 800x600 in WoW is killer, Dude.
wtf Reply
Tros - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkhttp://www.anandtech.com/show/2921/4
19 fps on an overclocked Intel integrated GPU (i3 generation). I'd say going with NVidia's GPU was the better choice by at least two-fold for gaming. Reply
thunng8 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkThats right, a standard clocked Intel GPU gets approx 12.5-15fps or less than 1/3rd the performance of the Nvidia 320M Reply
retrospooty - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link"Apple calls the new Mac mini the world's most energy-efficient desktop computer"
Nice thing to call it, considering its really a laptop with no LCD. Gotta love Job's spin. ROFL Reply
thunng8 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkWhy is it spin if it is correct? Reply
jihe - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkRidiculously overpriced. Might as well get a laptop and hack off the lcd. Any one care to compare this to a laptop at the same price level? Reply
Tros - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link1) NVidia chipset laptops are hard to find. I imagine this is something like when AMD-powered Dell machines were non-existent.
2) Compare it and realize what? Power consumption on the Mac-mini is already lower than it's low-voltage netbook counterpart. Would you compare a T8600 to a T8600?
And yeah, the initial cost is a lot more. But have you considered the cost over time? Even if the ION system was cheaper, the cost-over-time curve has a higher slope because of power consumption and build quality. The Mac-Mini is the better investment for the long-run. Well, unless you replace your HTPC every year, but who has that kind of money? Reply
jihe - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link1) NVidia chipset laptops are everywhere.
2) Turn off the screen of your laptop and see how much power it consumes.
The mac mini is half an outdated laptop, for much more than the price of one. Reply
name99 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkA laptop that runs MacOS X?
If you are not in the market for such a machine, fine, but don't pretend you're making deep philosophical points by ignoring this issue.
I don't give a damn about motorbikes. The difference between you and me is that I don't feel a compulsive need to read articles on motorbikes and then offer up my opinion on devices that I have never owned and will never own.
20% or so of the US market feels the overall value of Apple products, from the OS to the generally higher reliability to the much better resale value (or, if you prefer, longer usable lifetime) make them worth buying. If you're not in that group, fine, but is your life really so empty that, rather than going door to door asking people if they have heard the word of god, you feel a need to engage in the equivalent behavior wrt a commercial purchase? "Excuse me, ma'am, but have you heard the words of Bill Gates, and how they can save your dollars and the dollars of your loved ones?" Reply
ManjyomeThunder - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - link20%? I hope you're talking about iPhones and not Macintoshes, Considering OS X (all versions) hold around a total of MAYBE 10% of the US market. Reply
iwodo - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkBy end of 2012, we should be able fit Sandy Bridge, 4GB Ram, SSD, and a much faster GFX within the same size. Reply
james.jwb - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkWe will never get to the end of 2012 :) Reply
tech6 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkThe Apple box is nice but its too bad Apple feels the same way about Blue Ray than they do about Flash (and SSDs apparently).
The ASRock i3 based box reviewed earlier is much better value for those seeking an HTPC. For around $700 it delivers i3 performance, a remote as well as BD. Reply
Oscarcharliezulu - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link
Is the CPU soldered in place? No chance of diy CPU upgrades? Reply
futurepastnow - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkYes, it is. Can't you tell just by looking at it? Reply
Ratman6161 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkIt's almost as if they scoured their parts bins for the parts that were obsolete and would otherwise be thrown out and stuck them in a white plastic box and slapped a $699 price tag on it. It may be the cheapest way to get a new OS X system - but it seems to me like Apple has lost it's way with this product. If the goal were to lure new OS X users, I suppose I could see this if it were priced at about $300.
I know Apple people hate price comparisons with Windows PC's but since the hardware is basically identical these days, the comparisons are inescapable. I recently bought my wife a new HP laptop at Best Buy. It has an i3 330M (which blows away the 2.4 GHZ core 2 duo in my Dell laptop by the way), has 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB 7200 RPM hard drive. And of course the laptop has to include a screen as well. It cost $649.00 + tax. Given spare parts bin components being used, there is just no way that the Mini should cost more.
Like I said, you have to really want OS X to buy this. Reply
Ratman6161 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI forgot to mention that this thing comes with absolutely no input devices so if you want Apple stuff the real price is $819. And unlike a laptop it doesn't even need a battery. Reply
futurepastnow - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkWhile I couldn't care less about Apple's mouse and keyboard, upgrading the mini (via Newegg, not Apple) to 2x2GB of RAM and a 7200 RPM drive increases the total to nearly $840. That's completely unacceptable. Reply
fic2 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkMy laptop doesn't need a battery unless I want to use it on the go. It is usually plugged into a wall sitting on my desk at work with the battery laying next to it. Reply
v12v12 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkHaha I 2nd these comments of common-sense! This is nothing but another overpriced Apple rehash of old-technology into a small, shiny, sleek, box. Profiteering for "Apple" is merely how to out fox the fanatical, tech-obsessed "Mac-phile" user base, out of their snidely earned cash.
It's way out of date, comes with sub-standard parts, no BR, "mini" crap ports, sub-par full HDMI port blah blah. Oh and the PRICE? I know the editors have to give Apple a soft, white pillow to slam them down on, but come on... Take a look at these quotes right here;
"The user experience of the Mac mini is noticeably diminished by only having 2GB of memory."
"There are actually no input devices included in the purchase price, so expect to add another $120 if you want an Apple keyboard and Magic Mouse ($140 if you want them to both be wireless). There's no remote included either, although Apple's IR remotes do work with the mini."
That's a very polite way of saying something (honest) such as, "Apple is again cutting corners in the hardware department, yet making it seem 'adequate' for most users." Is 2GB "fine" for 8/10 "users" (highly ambiguous!?) YEP sure is. I work with a huge Win/OSX client base and NOBODY is screaming about needing 4GB of ram, but the industry standard IS 4GB now. 2 is "acceptable," but not up to pace. It's per user's demands, but (in general) anyone with experience dealing with "Apple" knows they've cut corners again. You just softened the blow.
Let's recap; SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($820*) for:
-No peripherals*---WTF?
--Dated CPU
---Sub-par Ram (should I bother asking about timings/quality of the Dimms, lol?)
----Sketchy Vid-output connections (HDMI 1900x1200!)
-----Sub-par GPU vs a laptop (all it is stuffed in a small box)
----Sub-par 5400rpm HD. (Is this a joke?)
---No SSD???
--PRICE! (Overpriced KB/M?)
-No IR remote (this IS marketed as an HTPC?!)
And lastly... dealing with "Apple" is nothing but a PITA if you're not blindly "appeased" with what they've attempted to brainwash you into buying, and then spoon-fed to you. Oh BTW... it's up to YOU to provide your own bib and paper towel to wipe off all that drool. That is until you use the thing and realize; OMFG I shoulda gotten a smaller LAPTOP instead.
__Apple MARKETING is very, very keen on deception and mental-washing and this is how; SMALL FORM FACTORING (SFF). SFF'ing is nothing but a MARKETING ploy. Reply
Guspaz - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkEver since the "Intel HD" integrated graphics (the ones that are on-package for certain i3/5/7 models) came out, Intel has had passable integrated graphics. They perform on-par with the GeForce 9400M (which was benchmarked in this review). That's not saying much, but it's an enormous improvement over the previous generation of GMA. That 9400M as benchmarked, though, is from a year ago (mid 2009), so I can't argue that Intel has caught up enough with nVidia to be a viable alternative for Apple. If they keep up the current momentum, though, they'll probably catch up with nVidia soon enough.
From a more anecdotal perspective, I recently bought a Toshiba Portégé r700 (Anandtech recently discussed it in their "under 14" article) which (for my model) features a Core i5 520M. The graphics are Intel's on-package.
Performance is acceptable. StarCraft 2 is playable at native resolution with a perfectly smooth framerate, but this is admittedly at low to low-medium settings. That's more than I expected to get out of it, though; I didn't buy this thing for gaming, so anything at all is a bonus. Reply
thunng8 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link9400M graphics was first released October 2008, not mid 2009. Also, the Integrated graphics used in the i3 mobile is clocked significantly lower than the i5 desktop. Only on the i5 that the Intel integrated graphics almost matches the 2008 9400M. Reply
Stuka87 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI would have loved to see how it compared to the previous Mac Mini's with the intel graphics and such.
And like some others have asked, will it run Starcraft 2? I typically play on my PC, but would be nice to not have to switch some times (Since saved games are saved on b.net). Reply
archer75 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI'm curious to know how World of Warcraft performs at 1900x1200 with all in game settings maxed? Reply
icecreampop3 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkAt 1280x1024, maxed, 23fps according to notebookcheck.net. I'd say maybe 18 fps @ 1080p. Reply
archer75 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI just looked up some youtube videos of wow running on the mini at 1920x1080, slightly lower than my resolution of 1920x1200 but they were getting 18-25fps in cities and warsong. So not that great. Reply
james.jwb - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkNot only a WOW player, but you want a Mac Mini?
You must be one tough SOB to admit to this ;) Reply
tipoo - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI'm really confounded by the price jump over the previous generation. If it had stayed the same, I may have found the Mini to be worth it. Reply
mados123 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkA better alternative for an HTPC would be the Viewsonic VOT550 w/ Blu-ray, Core 2 Duo 2,2GHz, 4GB, etc. for around $600.
http://www.viewsonic.com/vot530-550 Reply
Claudius-07 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkJust got an Acer Revo and installed XBMC. I have a seagate T+, HDX 1000, WD Live, and the Revo+XBMC is the best thing thus far (however can't bitstream HD audio). Anyhow, love Apple but still scratching my head on this one for the price. Reply
CharonPDX - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkPeople talk about how Apple is incapable of switching to the i3/i5/i7 plus a discrete GPU because of size constraints...
Yet they forget that the original MacBook Air and the original Mac MIni were both three-chip solutions, with CPU, Intel Northbridge, and Intel Southbridge. If they could fit all three at some time in the past, why can't they fit three now? (CPU, Intel chipset, and nVidia/ATI GPU.)
Especially the mini, whose motherboard has GAINED area. (Not much, since it doesn't fill the whole newly-enlarged chassis, but it did gain a little.) Reply
james.jwb - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkAggressive profit requirements per sale at Apple is probably a major reason. Reply
Penti - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkOf course they can, redesigning the boards. But for a discrete mobile gpu too, they also need room for the added memories just like in the MBPs. (Well there's two sides of a PCB). It's a design choice not a limit. They could probably put something like Mobility HD5650 without upping the price and up the ram to 4GB and still make a lot of money. i5-520M 2.4GHz and HM55 costs $265 from Intel, though they also have a much higher power usage. P8600 goes for $209 plus nVidias 320M chipset. The same money + gpu. But it's worse in europe any way since they priced it when the dollar was high, so the mac mini is 809 euros (incl 19% sales tax) that's 900 US dollars before taxes. So we pay over a thousand dollars for something that goes for 699 in the states. For that kind of money 4-8GB, Mobility HD5650, faster drive etc should be standard. It should rather be something like €630. So we pay almost a 30% overprice. On a product that has a 20-30% margin easily. Reply
GeorgeH - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkThe current MacBook Air has a bigger battery than the original, so 3 chips (and the extra cooling hardware that would be required for a discrete GPU) wouldn't fit without sacrificing battery life. Reply
Penti - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkYes it's pretty busy already, http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/AaB5PK5d35HGTsZ... & http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/KJJyYGCKwbfhmAJ... in the Air. Much more room in the Mac Mini. Enough for discrete graphics I would say, with a serious redesign. Higher density DRAM (x16) might help (some) in the MB Air though. Reply
Penti - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkAnd the redesigned board (later mid 2009), http://cart-products.ifixit.net/cart-products/ULXA... & http://cart-products.ifixit.net/cart-products/Ti4N... No more room there. Reply
Penti - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkJust to add, mobile discrete GPU will be too much for a 40Wh battery as the macbook Air is using any way. Reply
solipsism - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkYOu seem to be forgetting the rounder edges on the case reducing the footprint over a square 7.7"x7.7" footprint, the placement of the components and the PSU which now resides inside the Mini for the first time.Unless it's using TARDIS technology that MoBo isn't likely to be big enough.
You also have to account for the engineering of larger heat sinks, more or bigger fans and potentially increased power needs. It's not the simple achievement you are making it out to be.
My guess is that these small machines will get the Core-i when they remove the ODD. They aren't going to add a $500 9.5mm slot-loading Blu-ray drive and they haven't added AACS to Mac OS X so you all can stop scratching your head over what should be obvious. They are going to drop ODDs from notebooks and small PCs and move forward from there. Reply
farhadd - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkYou can use any keyboard you like, not just an Apple. F12 functions as the eject key on non-apple keyboards. And you can customize the keys to make the command / option keys whatever you like, not just the windows / alt key that it defaults to. Reply
farhadd - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkApple still sells white macbooks with 2GB of RAM standard. Reply
Casper42 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI know you said you already sent it back, but I'm curious why you didn't toss in an 80GB Intel G2 SSD (or a SandForce as mentioned), upgrade the RAM to 4GB and run it through all the paces again?
Sure it comes out to be a $1000 machine at that point, but it would have been nice to see what the total potential of the platform would be. And putting in the SSD would arguably reduce the power footprint slightly as well. Reply
akatsuki - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI think Apple's SSD support is still a bit thin anyway. Once they add TRIM support, etc. I think it will be a much better time to benchmark.
I can't imagine spending that kind of money on a Mini over an entry level Macbook or a dedicated HTPC device - especially since GoogleTV and AppleTV revisions are due soon and should revitalize that area. Reply
cjs150 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkWould have hit reply but for some reason locks my machine up
No way would I use this as a server. Far better is to pick up an Atom board with a PCI-E slot (for a nice raid card), 4gb of memory and use Ebox (free) as the server software. Would cost 50% of the Mac mini price.
Having just built one for a home server it is simply and just works without fuss Reply
thunng8 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkSome nice nostalgia with the Powermac G5 2.5Ghz. I enjoyed reading about it. I'm surprised at how well it holds up in the benchmarks. Just a minor nitpick, but the Dual 2.5Ghz model was released in mid-2004, not early 2005. Reply
aliasfox - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkAgreed - would love to have seen some "vintage" games, just to see if an ancient midrange graphics card can hack it against a modern integrated chip. Throwing in an old Northwood (or was it Prescott by the end of 2004?) system just for comparison's sake would be amusing, too.
Ancient's relative, too - I'm running (and occasionally gaming!) on an 8-yr old Power Mac (with a Radeon 9700pro) and do "general" stuff on a PowerBook that's nearly as old...
I think one of the reasons that Power Mac G5s hold their value so well is that they are the only machines (pre Mac Pro) that could hold multiple HDs internally, as well as be upgraded (for a price) to a relatively modern GPU - ATI 3xxxx series, nVidia 8xxxx series, I think.
As for the mini... as much as I like Apple's products, I can't get behind the pricing of the Mac mini - sure, it's a great piece of industrial design, and I'd love to have a stylish, small, nearly-silent box in my home theater set up, but having to drop $800 before getting 4GB of RAM means this is far, far out of its price range. $499-599, maybe $699 with BD and 4GB of RAM... too bad Apple doesn't believe in BD. Or RAM. Or internal 3.5" HDs... Reply
_gescom_ - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkGreat machine, but definitely way too expensive at 760+ EUR.
It should cost 450/500 EUR like the old one.
Why additional 250+ EUR? I know, we sheep, you bleep. Reply
Setsunayaki - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkThis is actually worse than a Laptop in a many ways...
The scope of computers have changed and the public has proven the majority of people view email, write papers, use internet....or listen to music. Very basic things...
I find that netbooks are way better...considering you can buy an always-on internet connection with them and their battery life is good. When one looks at basic usage, i know people can talk about performance and other things out there....
But how many people out there who own computers as basic users end up using 30 - 40% of the processor on a dual core or quad core? I am still sitting here on a Quad Core and unless I am gaming or doing something heavy, I don't use it at heavy load. Once one eliminates the need for heavy servers or Heavy Gaming altogether...computers lose their grace..
I remember I bought a Laptop in 2005 for $300 on sale. I know by now every laptop outperforms mine, but I don't do 3D gaming on the laptop and I run on Ubuntu Linux. I am not even at the point where my processor chokes and most of the time I don't even use 2GB of RAM on the laptop.
Sorry, but with so many better offerings which include a monitor, keyboard and built in mouse along with portability, this MAC-Mini would have been great 4 years ago, unfortunately too little, too late. Reply
hummerchine - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkMan, you guys are a tough bunch to please! I own over 20 computers right now, from a gaming PC me and my son built with top shelf parts, to 5 Dell PCs, to a Mac Pro running a 30 inch monitor, to my wonderful new MacBook Pro 17", to three Mac Minis (not the latest...and best...ones), and multiple other Macs and PCs. Jeez, for many uses the Mac Mini totally rocks! And for many uses, it is the best computer you can possibly buy.
I just cannot get over the seething hatred of Apple I sense so often...usually from people who hate them so much that they never use any of their products, and thus really know nothing about what they are talking about.
I have not used the very latest Mac Mini, but since it's better than the two new ones I bought earlier this year that are awesome I'd have to guess it's awesome too! Reply
Rayb - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - linkI see you really bought into their marketing hype, line, hook and sinker.
An ION1 box fully loaded can do exactly the same things, including BD playback wireless and remote for around $200 less. Do you see the irony now?
With people like you thinking this is cutting edge tech in a new shinny box, I rest my case. Reply
aliasfox - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - linkI for one don't hate it - I hate the price.
Even without i3 or i5, it's a great box - but at $700 (or near $850 with a basic monitor, keyboard, and mouse), it's far, far too expensive - in fact, the 'on the road' price is so close to a white macbook (with screen, keyboard, trackpad, and battery), that one has to imagine that Apple doesn't really *want* the mini to sell in huge numbers. Reply
synaesthetic - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - linkWhy all the Apple hate?
Apple doesn't have it.
Apple has too much of it. Reply
kpxgq - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - linki think its amazing that this thing uses about the same power (wattage) as my acer revo htpc (single core atom 1.6ghz and ion chipset)... if these thing drop in price, i might pick one up as my main htpc and relegate the revo to the bedroom tv Reply
TinksMeOff - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - linkNeeds to start a $599 like before with 2gb of basic ram and offer $799 for the upgraded RAM/CPU/HD Model. The article suggested you can upgrade the RAM yourself and save money. Problem is probably voiding the one year warranty and if you upgrade to the $150 three year protection plan, even more years of voided warranty all to save $30 bucks?
You can also upgrade the HD from 320gb to 500gb for $100 more (no option for SSD or 7200rpm HD). The Intel Core 2 Duo CPU can be upgraded from 2.4GHz to 2.66GHz for $150 more.
My existing MAC Mini is the Intel Core Solo 1.5GHz which came with 512MHz DDR2 memory which worked great originally. I upgraded to 1GB (upgradeable to 2GB). I've kept and used it through the years to just look at what Apple is up to and so far I'm able to run the lastest 10.6.4 software with a little lag loading some heavily laden web pages and video. Upgrading to 2gb would probably fix the issue and a Core 2 Dual wouldn't hurt either. I don't play games on the MAC by choice (along time ago) and would never recommend a MAC for PC Gaming over a W7 gaming system.
This latest MAC Mini just gives me no incentive to upgrade my existing one at the price point, but my purpose in using it is strictly internet and MAC experimentation. I would assume many internet and general usage only people will be thinking just like me regarding this new version of the MAC Mini.
Thanks for the thorough article and possible advantages of this MAC Mini model. Reply
thunng8 - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - linkUpgrading RAM does not void the warranty. Reply
TinksMeOff - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - linkThanks for the update, the one I bought would have voided the warranty but you need a putty knife to get the cover off mine and then some work disconnecting some wires 'just so' to reach the ram modules. This model does have all the upgrade ease of a laptop ram upgrade and I was wondering about the warranty is done by the owner. Reply
matt b - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - linkYou said that most OS X programs would be perform more like the Cinebench and Quicktime tests . . . I'd like to see more tests. I have a feeling that Cinebench is highly optimized for Intel processors and that Intel has optimized its drivers for the cinebench test. Intel does a lot of work on trying to win benchmarks that are used in tests . . . see the Federal Trade case against Intel. I'd love to see if that was true . . . test some more software that is less rarely used in benchmarks and see if the POWER chip prevails in those as well. Reply
derektrotter - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - linkNot sure why people care more about streaming DTS-HD or Dolby Digital out the HDMI than discrete audio. Discrete uncompressed audio is also lossless and more versatile than compressed schemes which are tougher to clip mix and such.
But the new Mac Mini also does 7.1 channels of 96KHz/24-bit streaming audio out. VLC doesn't support it correctly (you have to stream instead, with the checkbox that streams out the S/PDIF normally), but someday VLC surely will.
Additionally, PLEX/XBMC do not impress me with their hardware video decoding support. People say they can play about every other frame of a Blu-ray rip? On this Mac Mini VLC can play every frame of a Blu-ray rip. It only bogs down at all on the toughest sections in Avatar (the hardest challenge, as it is full-frame 1.78:1, 44GB file). Video playback acceleration still needs some work on the Mac clearly. Reply
RagingDragon - Sunday, August 22, 2010 - linkIf Apple are determined to put OpenCL in all Mac's, then I guess we'll see either: Open CL drivers for Intel i3/i5, or the small form factors Mac's moving to AMD CPU's and and integrated graphics. Reply
mbtgood - Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - linklike mbt a lot
http://www.mbt-usa.com Reply
mutarasector - Sunday, November 28, 2010 - linkThis system offers more bang for the buc than a Mac mini:
http://www.asrock.com/nettop/overview.asp?Model=Vi... Reply
Johnexo - Saturday, December 11, 2010 - linkThe Mac Mini remains unique as the smallest mainstream desktop, but competition from Dell and HP has narrowed the gap in features while also offering room for expansion, and at a better price. Reply
RJARRRPCGP - Saturday, June 09, 2012 - linkThe errors are probably because the SATA interface is SATA 1 and it not being backward-compatible. You must get a SATA 2 card. Reply
666an666 - Monday, May 13, 2013 - link"Disconnect all of the temperature sensors and cable connectors from the back of the board..."
Huh? Can you be more specific? Where are "all of the temperature sensors" connected? I only see two connectors: IR sensor and power supply. Where are all these other sensor connectors??? Reply


text:
ATF to Whistle-Blower: You Can't Publish a Book
(NEWSER) – ATF agent John Dodson blew the whistle onOperation Fast and Furious, in which feds accidentally handed Mexican drug cartels 2,000 guns. Now Dodson's bosses say he can't publish a book on the scandal—though he plans to do so anyway, Fox News reports. Dodson gave the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms a manuscript of The Unarmed Truth, in accordance with federal rules, but the bureau said its publication "would have a negative impact on morale" and hurt "our relationships with DEA and FBI."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Microsoft Releases Hotfix to Improve Bulldozer Performance UPDATE: Pulledby Kristian Vättö on 12/16/2011 9:29 AM EST
75 Comments
Back to Article
LancerVI - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkHey, 10% may not catch it up, but a 10% bump is pretty damn good!
That being said, I'm still waiting to replace my I7 920 C0 with something. It's probably going to be Ivy Bridge. Reply
goldenatom - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkSame here, the old 920 is feeling a bit long in the tooth, pretty disappointed by the Ivy Bridge delay....not to mention the limited (and dang expensive) cpu releases for x58 over time... Reply
KingofL337 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkI'm still Rocking a Q6600 @ 3.5GHz and haven't found a reason to upgrade. Reply
MonkeyPaw - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkI just grabbed a Phenom II X4 at 3.3ghz. Not cutting edge anymore, but considering I was moving from a 1.3ghz single core, it's significantly better. :) Reply
knedle - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkI gave up on my Q6600 and gave it to my brother, he never complained to me about it's performance, so I think it's still pretty good CPU.
As for me, I moved to Sandy Bridge - something more energy efficient, to minimize electricity bills. ;) Reply
dj christian - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkAgreed! See no reason for me upgrading my old trustworthy Q6600 until Ivy Bridge comes out. Will do good for both perfomance, powerdraw and requiring less powerfull fan which will do good for noise. Reply
CK804 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkI'm still running a Q6700 at stock speeds on a 975X board. The only reason for me to upgrade would be to lower power consumption and noise. Reply
claytontullos - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkI've got a 920 D0 - No reason to upgrade.
I've got it clocked at 3.6ghz. Reply
Samus - Sunday, December 18, 2011 - linkditto, i have my 920 d0 clocked at 3.96 at 1.325v, completely cool and stable, no reason to upgrade, especially with 12gb of triple channel Reply
augiem - Sunday, December 18, 2011 - linkSame here. (Can't remember the stepping.) @ 3.6 + 12GB mem, I don't see anything out there on the market worth spending hundreds of dollars on for an upgrade. Sure, you may get a 4.0 clock and 10% better performance per clock with SB, but it's just not significant in real-world use. I'm really suprised this build has lasted me 2.5 years already with no signs of feeling at all weak with all the 3D, video editing, photoshop, games, etc. stuff I do. I'm used to a 1.5 year upgrade cycle, but there's just no reason to upgrade. I guess processors just haven't been improving at the break-neck pace of the past. Reply
MadMan007 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkMight as well wait until Haswell unless you really want lower power consumption or find yourself CPU-bound a lot. Reply
stimudent - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkI'm waiting for Collapsed Bridge. Reply
niva - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - linkYeah wth, 10% is a HUGE deal. It might actually make the BD a better performer than the Phenom IIs now. Reply
Kryten67 - Friday, January 27, 2012 - linkI wrote a benchmarking tool in 1999 which stress-tests the CPU's ability to context switch and perform small/large memory copy operations.
I run the test to pin everything on one core of the processor.
Doing so reveals that a new Opteron 6204 runs at about HALF the speed of an i7 920 or even a E3-1230.
I've opened up support tickets with AMD and SuperMicro to see if I can get to the bottom of this issue, but it's a very concerning performance issue. Reply
kishorshack - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkMy basic question question here is why microsoft took months to address this issue, anyways wasnt anything that could have been done from AMD's side to tackle this issue????? Reply
N4g4rok - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkMaybe a driver, but that still would have just been a topical fix. The OS's thread scheduler is where the issue comes from. A new set of drivers wouldn't be able to dictate the way the OS handles parrallel processing, and it would ahve just consumed mroe unnecessary system memory. Reply
crimson117 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkAMD could have identified this issue during testing and worked with Microsoft to release the patch before Bulldozer was released. Reply
MonkeyPaw - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkFor all we know, they did and it has taken this long to straighten it out. I imagine it's not a small change.
I wonder what would happen if you applied this fix to an Intel SMT system? :p Reply
TormDK - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkMicrosoft has much bigger conserns than a 2-5% hotfix for a certain kind of CPU when we are talking about changing the Scheduler in Windows Core.
You do not do this without making certain overall Windows performance is not effected, Microsoft does not Hotfix it's core OS parts that often. It typically takes four to six months from an issue is identified, till a hotfix is provided depending on how business critical it is (Hint, AMD's issue isn't critical in that sense) Reply
knedle - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkMicrosoft took month to eliminate Pentium HT issue, so I think it's just the way all bi corporation are - big, slow and ugly ;) Reply
gseguin - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkChanges to the scheduler are complex. People (Benchmarks, applications, drivers) have been optimising for the current scheduler for years. When you change anything in the windows core, it represents months of testing on different hardware and apps. It makes no sense to make a windows patch that kills the performance of Core 2 Duo processors to help out AMD, so due diligence on this kind of patch is rather costly in time and effort..
As for AMD, they probably provided the design for the patch and an engineer(s) for the project. They can't build windows core services themselves, else they'll have to pay for testing on all versions/subversions/patches of all supported windows versions, and risk loosing Microsoft as a partner.
Microsoft has no vested interest in making AMD chips optimal for the OS, but they do need windows to be seen as a performing and up to date OS. Reply
Mirakulix - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkThe patch doesn't generally perform better, sometimes worse, and has been removed already.
The links below are German, but you get the numbers:
http://ht4u.net/news/24857_patch_soll_bulldozer_un... Reply
Kristian Vättö - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkThe source link still works, so I don't think it has been removed. Reply
darkequitus - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkThe patch has been removed by MS due to unforeseen circumstances.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/microsoft-pulls-down-t... Reply
JarredWalton - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkText updated, thanks. Reply
werfu - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkWhat's coming out of these numbers is that the patch doesn't take into account when a thread is massively using floating point instructions. I guess MS didn't take into account that detail. But once they get it right I think we may really see a good boost. Reply
tk11 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkAFAIK no schedulers make any attempt to examine the instructions they're scheduling. I don't think it would make sense to attempt to write a scheduler that did so either. Best case would be an OS that schedules one thread per module before scheduling threads on any module that isn't idle.
It would probably be ideal if MS had some sort of scheduler API that allowed CPU manufacturers to write a driver that could suggest to windows which core to schedule the next thread on. Perhaps the driver could use a few of the CPU's vendor specific performance counters to make a more informed decision than windows could ever hope to make. Reply
freezervv - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkI imagine we'll see that in the next 10 years with heterogeneous computing.
An Intel GPU won't be an ATI GPU won't be an NVIDIA GPU... and if we have "one framework to rule them all", then we're going to need some BIOS-equivalent able to say "Hey! I'm here, and these are the computational resources I provide!" Reply
fic2 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkStill waiting on the AMD fix.... Reply
ochadd - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkAMD would be gone if the wintel CPU business had more than a couple players. IMHO AMD needs to be the first to market with some new whizbang technology to stay relevant. Optical CPUs, quantum computing, etc. They will not be able to outperform Intel by ratcheting up an existing technology. There aren't enough mhz or cores out there to make the jump. Reply
jeremyshaw - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkIMO, that's what they have done in the past, slowly, deliberately, and surefootedly, marched intels pace, even if intel itself failed to keep up. Though they did try something new: APU. While we may not think much of it, it is apparently running the roost in some markets outside of the USA.
The manuf aspect of the technology race? I honestly don't expect anyone to catch up to intel in the consumer market. iBM may give them a helluva chase (and whooping) in the enterprise/server market, though (technically, it's what's happening right now). Reply
0ldman79 - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkThere were several players a few years ago. Now there is only AMD and Intel. Anyone else (Via?) is left to ultra low power usage with matching performance.
Most of the x86 compatible single board computers are AMD based.
Otherwise, I agree, AMD needs to up the ante a bit. They had the performance crown for a while, now they're pricing is much more agreeable and the CPU's are fast enough, but we now have more of a performance difference percentage than we did back in the P2/K6 days. Reply
chizow - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkThis hotfix doesn't do anything to address Bulldozer's underlying problem, poor design leading to poor single/lightly threaded performance. All it does is arrange thread load on the fewest number of modules to give a slight boost in performance from turbo modes for lightly threaded apps. Given how far behind Bulldozer is compared to Intel or even previous Phenom II designs, don't expect any miracles from a few hundred MHz. Reply
JonnyDough - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkSpoken like a true Intel fangirl. Reply
0ldman79 - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkI don't see a bit of preference in that comment. Sounds like a bit of fact.
Bulldozer is very reminiscent of Williamette. First gen of a new core that needs GHz+ to work well compared to the previous generation.
I was kind of waiting of Bulldozer to start my next system, now I'm really leaning towards a 6 core Phenom II if it will work in my board, or a faster quad core if it won't.
Completely ignoring Intel, Bulldozer performance just isn't that impressive compared to the previous generation at this time.
I'd rather have the six core CPU. Reply
chizow - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkRight, coming from the gal dancing around this thread defending this dud of a CPU at every chance.
Its a dud, even AMD has admitted to it and are looking to correct their mistake ASAP with Piledriver. Reply
Hector2 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkI'm confused. I'll take a leap of faith that AMD validates their products before launch and that they would include Microsoft OS'es in their validation. Did AMD wait until Anand & Co ran their benchmarks and uncovered a performance problem ?
Seems like Elementary Validation 101 to me. If they already knew they needed a Microsoft fix, they should have either 1) delayed launch until it was fixed or 2) at least mention that we would see performance degradation until it was fixed by MS.
This shouldn't have been a surprise to either AMD or their customers. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkThey did the latter one. Like I mentioned in the article, AMD ran tests on W7 and W8 before the NDA of Bulldozer was lifted, so they knew what was going on. Reply
BSMonitor - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkIt is not a fix, it's an optimization. And Microsoft is under no obligation to optimize their code for every AMD whim out there.
This all sounds a lot like 3D Now!.
Intel builds and implements its own compilers when implementing new registers/architecture changes, etc. And hands that over to the software companies.
AMD makes hardware changes and expects everyone to do the work for them.
Two different approaches. Clearly one is superior. Reply
aGreenAgent - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkIntel does the same thing. Look at the number of Windows KBs that fix (in software) a hardware problem that Intel did. This is fairly standard practice for all hardware manufacturers with respect to Windows fixes. Reply
BSMonitor - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkAgain, it is not a fix. It is optimizing software for a architecture enhancement. Similar to Hyperthreading, Quicksync, MMX, SSE, etc..
If AMD wants software designers to make full use of <new> transistors, AMD needs to provide the tools for doing this. Not wait around for software vendors to incorporate their new tech.
AMD has compiler code available to it as well as Intel... Intel simply does this better than AMD.
Again, NOT a fix. An Optimization. Reply
phatboye - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkThis is an optimization to the Windows scheduler, not some library optimization. This is nothing like MMX, SSE or quicksync. Neither AMD nor Intel has the ablility to release updated versions of the windows scheduler as that is proprietary MS code. They have no access to that and only MS is able to produce optimizations to that code. Reply
BSMonitor - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkYawn. You must be a Republican. Nit pick the evidence. And miss the point completely.
Notice how you pulled out the three similar scenarios and left the one scenario that is EXACTLY like this out of your argument.
Good try, no one is saying what you are implying I said. Grow Up. Reply
phatboye - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkOK, I get it. Of the 4 things you mention 3 of them have nothing to do with the topic at hand and I call you out on it. Then your response was that I am nick picking. Finally you resort to calling me a Republican (lol). You then conclude by telling me to grow up while showing your level of maturity (which is not that of an adult).
OK yeah I left out hyperthreading. Even still Intel does not have access to optimize the Windows scheduler to improve hyperthreading performance so my argument still stands. You cannot blame AMD for this as this is something totally out of their hands. Even if AMD wanted to release an optimized scheduler they can't. I wound't go around and say MS is at fault either, maybe they wanted to wait till final silicon was released in order to properly test this optimization out. Maybe they needed more time for validation. Either way my argument still stands. Reply
JonnyDough - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkI agree with your "immature" statement. /thread Reply
BSMonitor - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkMy immature reaction is entirely eaggerated to meet the level of ignorant ranting of the person commenting.
Continues to fail at comprehending the initial point and repeats his own beliefs, instead of facts.... YAWN Reply
phatboye - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkLOL ignorant ranting? You initial point was that AMD was not providing the fix themself and instead is relying on others (MS in this case) to provide a fix for their changed hardware.
I then explained how this is something that is totally out of their control. MS is the only one able to make changes to the MS scheduler.
You have yet to counter my argument with anything (substantial or otherwise) at all. Instead you question my maturity and resort to stating that I "Continues to fail at comprehending the initial point".
The really funny part is when you state that I am ignorant on this subject. That is laugh worthy. While AMD doesn't provide it's own proprietary compiler and no where near as much code is released from AMD as it is from Intel (AMD doesn't have nearly as many resources as Intel) to state that AMD does nothing is completely false. It is just as ignorant as your claim that AMD should do the work of optimizing the scheduler themselves especailly when Intel does the same exact thing when they release a new CPU architecture requiring core changes to the MS windows closed source scheduler.
Also consider this my last update to your post unless you are going to post something relevant to defend your original statement. Otherwise you are just trolling with your claims of me being ignorant without any counter-argument to back up your statements. Reply
JonnyDough - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkStop calling it that. Windows needs to change, because the architecture is FORWARD THINKING and cannot be changed. Its a FIX, something that has to be implemented to make the hardware work properly. You really are an Intel fanboy, I bet you own stock...
You can argue semantics all day long if you'd like, but its kind of silly. Who cares what its called? Reply
BSMonitor - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkIntelligent human beings.
Fix = implies Microsoft has done something wrong in not preemptively changing long-standing base code for a 3rd parties' architectural whim
Optimization = a planned redesign of existing code to accommodate new hardware
My point, AMD waits until after the release, and then blames Microsoft.
Intel works with Microsoft during development to ensure optimization at launch.
Again, ignorant fools prove their amazingness on forums! Reply
JonnyDough - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkYou're right. They should just design their operating system around Intel and give them a monopoly. /sarcasm Reply
BSMonitor - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkExactly. And if AMD were forward-thinking they would work with Microsoft in the design phase, not post-product release.
It has happened before and will happen again, and again, and again. AMD's management has/always will be brutal. Reply
Dark Man - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkAccord to BSN, this patch was just the first one and still not "enough"
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/12/16/mi... Reply
ajcarroll - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkEach BullDozer shares the FP (floating point) and Instruction Decode units between the cores on the module.
The consequence of this is that when 2 threads are scheduled on a single module, the threads are competing for resources... and thus, depending on what they are doing, may run slower when scheduled on a single module, than when scheduled on separate modules.
Offsetting this is the competing tension that when fewer modules are active, turbo mode kicks in and ups the clock speed
The point is there's this tension between "maximizing clock speed" vs. "maximizing Instructions per clock cycle".
If a given pair of threads are collectively bottlenecked by "Instructions per Clock Cycle" (because the penalty they incur by competing for resources, exceed the benefit they would receive from higher clock speed), then those threads will run faster when run on separate modules, despite the lower overall clock speed.
The point is the choice between scheduling a task to a separate module or on the same module, is potentially task dependent.
This is very very very nuanced.... and tricky for something as low level as the task scheduler to get right, without additional hints........ so it will be interesting to see if without compiler support Microsoft can come up with a one-size-fits-all solution in the scheduler. Reply
BrianTho2010 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkThe thing that gets me about this is that AMD should have waited until MSFT had the patch ready before releasing the processors, AND they should have included an update disk with each CPU so that you could get maximum performance from the processor even if you were not connected to a network. Reply
phatboye - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkyou do realize that AMD CPUs run on OS other than MS Windows. So for them to hold up an entire product launch because of Windows doesn't make sense especially on the server side of things,
As far as Desktops are concerned, although the CPUs didn't run at full potential without this updated scheduler, it did run good enough that it made sense to release the product. AMD just can't sit on their hands waiting for MS to finish the scheduler optimizations before releasing their product. They knew the update was coming soon so they decided to release bulldozer.
Also if you for one second think companies don't release products until they have fully optimized drivers, etc. you need to wake up. This is fairly standard practice. This is not limited to AMD CPUs, just look at the GPU industry for starters. Intel released drivers that take advantage of it's new architecture in its Sandy Bridge iGPUs after it's hardware release. Reply
JonnyDough - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkFail. Software follows hardware. Not the other way around. Reply
BSMonitor - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkUhhh, not fail.
"Software follows hardware"
Uhhh, wrong. Where in the x86 world have you been?? Every piece of hardware released as an x86 processor must run legacy x86. Hence, new processors should run existing software just as fast as previous hardware.
AMD decided to ignore this, hence BD is a huge FAIL. Reply
praeses - Monday, December 19, 2011 - link"new processors should run existing software just as fast as previous hardware"
Hrm.. So P4 Hyper-Threading was a complete failure too? There were lots of applications notably for desktops (games were a big one) that were noticeably slower with Hyper-Threading enabled.
How about when multi-core processors came out with slightly lower clocks than the single core siblings and they were slower at single threaded applications than multi-threaded? Was that a big fail?
Or how about when applications would refer to the RTC in multi-core processor systems rather than the OS Clock? Some would glitch and freeze, some would return incorrect results, some would crash.
Or how about applications that would just flat out crash with SpeedStep?
Heck pretty much all the code from the previous generation is supported with bulldozer, whether it will get optimized or not is still a good question. Windows is only a part of the problem from a performance perspective. I would recommend taking a broader look at the situation.
Software/data necessitates hardware yes, but software updates tend to follow hardware for support. Whether its a driver, application update, or operating system update it varies depending on the situation.
Don't get me wrong, the product doesn't impress me, I will wait until Piledriver before making a decision between it and Ivy Bridge but your argument is clearly flawed looking at history. Reply
BSMonitor - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkDon't let JonnyDough hear you talk like that.. He thinks Microsoft owes it's existence to AMD and should bow to their less than mediocre whims! Reply
Beenthere - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkPeople buying Bulldozer based Zambezi CPUs do not want Intel CPUs. The hotfix is a free small performance enhancement. It is not intended to make the FX CPUs as fast as Intel's CPUs. It's intended to better use the available processing power of the Bulldozer architecture. People are voting with their wallet and FX CPUs are selling very well. Reply
fic2 - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linksource?
FX cpus are selling very well: "we can't get enough to meet demand" - i.e. yields are so low that AMD can't produce enough for the 1% of people that want them. Reply
ZekkPacus - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkAt every price point you can get an Intel CPU that will kick the snot out of an FX for the same price, except in VERY specific multi-threaded integer heavy/FP light scenarios.
Current retail price for the i5-2500k in the UK is £167.40. The FX-8120, which generally appears under the 2500k in bench, costs £179.95 and is as rare as you like. Granted, AM3+ motherboards are much cheaper, but I don't think the cost difference is worth it, especially given we have now gone as far as AM3+ is likely to go and the Piledriver CPU will most likely require a new socket. I personally know from experience that the only two Zambezi parts regularly available in the channel are the FX-4100 and the FX-6100. That's not due to overwhelming demand, that's due to a lack of product being made available by AMD. I find it very telling that not one major OEM is producing desktops based on Zambezi, because they just can't guarantee supply. Reply
ZekkPacus - Friday, December 16, 2011 - linkInfact, a cursory glance reveals that there aren't even any A8-3850 based machines available from HP or Dell. That's the ONE bright spot in AMD's product range right now - an agressively priced quad-core CPU that offers blistering price/performance when compared to an i3, which it's more or less competing against. I'm looking to build an HTPC soon and would've prefered to base it around one of those bad boys, but the 95W TDP and the lack of supply has forced me into Intel's hands again. Reply
JonnyDough - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkFor an HTPC you could have just used a single core Sempron. LOL Reply
vortex222 - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkunless you do transcoding, stream ripping, light big screen gaming, content serving....
Technically an e350 is a fine htpc core, but in practice such systems are painful to use. Even when surfing to Youtube to watch a video. Reply
frozentundra123456 - Saturday, December 17, 2011 - linkI am becoming somehat more impressed with Llano on the desktop than I was originally, and agree it is the best line that AMD sells.
However, I wouldnt exactly call the A8-3850 "blistering" in comparison to the i3 2100. Infact I would think that the i3 would offer superior CPU performance in most cases except for very highly theaded scenrios. If you are comparing graphics without a discrete card, then yes, the A8 is superior. But personally, since I do some gaming at moderate settings, I would prefer an i3 with a mid-range discrete card. The A8 IGP is still not quite good enough, and if you add a discrete card, it kind of defeats the purpose of an APU.
But for HPTC use like you are talking about, Llano might be ideal. Reply
ZekkPacus - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - linkWas talking purely from a price/performance standpoint - bang for buck, if you like. AMD motherboards are also cheaper than Intel ones whilst retaining the same or better features (c'mon Intel, how long has USB3 been out and it's still not native). Reply
Samus - Sunday, December 18, 2011 - linkpentium 4....lol Reply
niva - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - linkWhat's the problem, if it gets the job done? If you're not gaming a p4 system might be more than enough for what you need. Reply
Roy2001 - Sunday, December 18, 2011 - linkNothing can save the BD. Reply
kennii - Sunday, December 18, 2011 - linkI need this cause for XMAS Reply
ShieTar - Monday, December 19, 2011 - linkI don't assume this patch will really change much in any scenario where CPU power is critical, as such cases should not be a 3-thread case as described in the graphic in this article.
3-Thread applications tend to be games, but they will be GPU limited in about 99% of all cases, because that is how people buy: Almost nobody will run a 40$ CPU along a 500$ GPU.
Or your software is either singlethreaded, so that scheduling should play no role, or highly multithreaded, where 8 Threads are used and the scheduler is out of options anyways.
I could be wrong, but personally I expect to see the only differences in gaming benchmarks done in ultra-low resolutions. Reply
Dragan - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - linkI gave up on my Q6600 it has a good CPU and I don't see any reason to upgrade!
<br/><a href="http://www.bijuterieonline.ro">bijuterii online</a> Reply
Belard - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - linkI'm building a system for one of my clients with parts from a local store. I priced out the system with 3 different kinds of CPUs. The MicroCenter store is offering $50~30 off for CPU and Mobo combos for Intel and AMD... Other than the CPU and mobo, the entire system with Win7Home has the same parts.
$650 = Intel i5 2500k (Gigabyte board with USB 3.0)
$600 = AMD X4 970 (Gigabyte 880 board)
I told my client, spend the $50 extra and get a system that is up to 50% faster roughly... depending on the application. The FX 8150... not much better. Reply
fashionbook - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - linkOur Website: ===== www fashion-long-4biz com ====
Our main product list is as follows: Reply


text:
ASUS Eee PC: Laptop, UMPC, or Something Else?by Jarred Walton on 11/30/2007 4:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- Laptops
36 Comments
Back to Article
rhangman - Friday, December 14, 2007 - linkIf you are going to compare, then surely a Via Nanobook based solution would be the way to go.
Same sized screen/resolution.
Faster clocked chip.
Longer battery life.
Larger storage.
Very similar dimentions.
You also get MPEG-2, MPEG-4, WMV9 HD acceleration, although only with via's poorly implimented drivers and applications under Linux. Openchrome should at least add MPEG-2 support eventually though.
The Asus is I think better looking and cheaper though.
http://www.viagallery.com/index.php?option=com_fli...">http://www.viagallery.com/index.php?opt...s&Se... Reply
Schugy - Monday, December 03, 2007 - linkI would by any other cheap subnotebook with an Athlon 64 2000+ (8W TDP), Radeon Xpress 1250 and a more open Ubuntu Mobile on it. Reply
PCTC2 - Monday, December 03, 2007 - link1) You can modify the GUI to include a start button to access a lot more features on the EeePC by changing the file value of TaskBarShowStartMenu from 0 to 1 in the directory /etc/X11/icewm
2) A 10" version with 16GB of SSD space is rumored to be in development for mid-late next year.
I say chuck Xandros and put Ubuntu on it. Reply
PCTC2 - Monday, December 03, 2007 - linkJust kidding about the 10" version. Just a rumor that has now been proven to be false. My b. Reply
krwilsonn - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkWhat is the effect of web browsing on the device since I would imaging most webpages are designed for 800 x 600 or above? Also is the voting system removed from this comments section? Reply
JarredWalton - Monday, December 03, 2007 - linkBrowsing is "okay" - much better than a PDA, but as you guessed there are sites designed for 1024x768 (and even 1280x1024). The vertical size isn't as much of a problem, and really you can deal with the 800 width. AnandTech, for example, you miss some of the right and left columns but can keep the main article content in view. Most sites are like that. But then, I'm spoiled by running at 30" LCD at 2560x1600. :)
I don't know what happened to comment ratings - I guess we ditched that with the upgrade. Or maybe it's just not present for now. There are a few areas of the updated site that still appear to have some bugs to work out. Reply
shadghost - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkI have been using one for a few days now, and on the first day i got out of "easy mode" and i must tell you it is easy to install new programs with out even going to a new OS, true, apt-get install does not have a lot of programs, but most sites are now putting out .deb, and i find these easier to install then a windows program. I think i am going to switch over to ubuntu, only partly because i feel the OS is crippled, but mainly i have a server hosting ubuntu on my local network. I must say, it is a good little computer, way better then my last laptop that was about 15 pounds to just go to class, now it is down to two pounds plus my backpack.
me love the Eee
On the down side, i am downgrading from a 22 inch wide screen and a 17 inch 4:3 to the 7 inch... that is the hardest part.... and that it did not come with ssh server and client pre-installed Reply
n0nsense - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkyou can always add more repositories for additional software.
Synaptic package manager will make it easy for newbies. Reply
Ihlosi - Saturday, December 01, 2007 - link... to me, it does have some minor issues that add up.
1. Why 800x480 ? That's such a weird resolution. 800x600 would be almost infinitely preferable.
2. Leave out the crappy webcam and microphone.
3. Why no PCMCIA/CardBus ?
4. eSATA would be nice, but is probably asking too much. Reply
mmntech - Saturday, December 01, 2007 - link800x480 would qualify as WVGA. It's a 5:3 aspect ratio. It is a non standard aspect ratio though. Regular WVGA is 854x480.
I have a lot of issues with the Eee PC. Namely price and lack of storage. It would be interesting to crack it open and tinker with it to see what it can do. I assume the hard drive is a standard 2.5'' laptop form factor. I'd be curious to see what would happen if someone tossed a mechanical drive in there. Flash drives offer higher seek time and lower power consumption but mechanical drives last longer and are still cheaper dollar per gigabyte.
It's a cute toy but the hardware is really far too antiquated, especially if you install XP on it and realize you can't run half of your programs. Dell had some 15'' Sempron 3600 laptops for $499 so if you want something cheap, that's the better buy. 12'' laptops aren't much of a burden and if you buy one that's a couple years old, they're the close in price to the Eee PC. Reply
JarredWalton - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkAs others have pointed out, this isn't competing in the same market as 15" notebooks, or even 12" models. That's both good and bad - I'd personally take a 12" laptop, but then those start at about 3x the cost of the Eee PC 4G. :|
Also, you're correct that 800x480 is not a standard AR. It really doesn't matter too much outside of running certain applications, but 16:10 would really be a 768x480 resolution. You're talking about 16:9, when you say 854x480, which is in some ways just as non-standard. I'd still like something higher, though... 1024x640 would be a lot better. It's amazing what 160 extra pixels in height can do. But then it would be more difficult for vision-impaired people to read the screen. Reply
shadghost - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkit is a solid state storage device onto the mb, not any standard form factor, non removable Reply
tmx220 - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkI thought the name for these are subnotebooks
or is that not standard yet? Reply
nubie - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkI don't know where Anand got such WRONG data, this clearly shows upgradeable memory: http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=3626">http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=3626
The 700 is the version that has been showing up without a so-dimm, that is the "$200" version, AFAIK even the 2GB Surf model with 256MB ram is going to be $300 and have the upgradeable RAM.
As far as the "Voided warranty" bit, the only way the designers/engineers were able to get this put on the market is by convincing those in charge that it isn't a computer, the entire company seems to believe it too.
As far as how small it is and how much money and performance, it is much much smaller than a Vostro (like less than half the size), so it isn't really the same thing, do some price-searching on a laptop this size and you will soon see that the price is less than half as expensive as similarly sized models with equal horsepower.
I think we will continue to see ignorant comments comparing it to laptops for a long time (if not forever), simply because these people have never used something as small as a Toshiba Libretto, let me tell you it is a big step up from a Libretto 110CT (233mmx 32/64MB RAM)
I am just really hoping that we get some competition and have more of these for around $300.
WINDOWS CE!!! Screw that, if you don't understand the difference, STFU!!!.
I have struggled to get a CE device to update its OS, you can't do it, you need the MFR to give you the bootloader and the OS restore, and if it gets FUBAR'd, there is nothing you can do. XP/Linux is infinitely better.
Not to mention the ability to use apps/games/utilities, UGH, CE should curl up and die. Reply
psychobriggsy - Saturday, December 01, 2007 - linkIt's clear that the costs on this thing can come down a lot once Intel creates an x86 SoC that incorporates the CPU (like this 900MHz Dothan), the northbridge, a GPU, and a southbridge onto the same package, or even the same die. That's three large footprint chips down to one, plus hopefully fewer support chips.
It would also allow the footprint to be reduced so that the 7" screen doesn't need a massive border - making it far more portable. That, or allow the speakers to be placed into the base (like on most laptops), and allow a bigger display to be put in - maybe even a 10" 1024x600.
Don't rule out ARM coming up from below either with competitive SoCs. Look at what the iPhone/iPod Touch can do interface-wise, and Linux runs on ARM without any issues. Reply
JarredWalton - Saturday, December 01, 2007 - linkI have made some edits since the first release of this article, addressing many of the items you mention. However, the comparison to a laptop is not without merit. Yes, this is much smaller - I mention that fact several times - but smaller isn't always better. I can type fine on laptops; the Eee PC keyboard isn't quite at the level of a Blackberry, but as a touch typist I find it nearly impossible to type at anything approaching normal speed. So, from ~70-80 WPM down to around 20-25 WPM. Yay!
In regards to the warranty, ASUS has a very good policy on all of their other products. The Eee policy by comparison has been castrated. Zero bright dot? Nope! Two year manufacturer warranty? Nope. I haven't spent much time trying to contact the public ASUS groups for support on the Eee, but others are again reporting less than stellar response times. Top that off with a voided warranty if you upgrade the RAM (I smell a class action suit or at least a change to this policy), and you can see the ways in which ASUS has managed to keep costs down.
Again, that doesn't mean the Eee PC doesn't fill a market niche. I've heard PDA wireless can be terribly painful/sporadic, and other than a few minor glitches I experienced no difficult with the Eee. The screen size is also much larger than any PDA, even if it's still a far cry from a "normal" laptop.
Fox5 - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkAs a PDA user of several years who was sold on their "versatility", I'd say PDAs are nearly useless, same as the tablet PC. Both are devices limited by their performance, stability, size, and battery life.
My tablet pc didn't get long enough battery life to use for long lectures, was still too heavy/bulky to make it reasonable to carry around, the screen was hard to write on especially near the edges, and program lag and random crashes killed it for me. Replaced it with a notebook and found it far superior.
The PDA was similar, but it was replaced with a memo pad. My PDA now only sees occasional use as a calculator and often as a gps.
Something that had full pc functionality and performance, even if on the bottom end of it like this eee pc, would be a huge step up. A real, high-performance web browser, real office suite, and what not are far beyond what a PDA can offer, and no other device is this light and this cheap. Sure, there are other $400 laptops, but they're not ultraportable, not even portable enough to wear it'd be no bother to just throw them in a bag and bring them along. Reply
Omega215D - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkI have the Palm T|X and found that using it to finish off papers I was working on was not a good idea. The keyboard is fine but the screen is a bit too small for that. Then there's using the T|X to access the internet. I hate the browser that comes with the device which takes a bit to load web pages.
I find that the Asus Eee PC is what I was looking for. Buying a regular laptop for that kind of price would be a pretty big clunker and the other laptops the size of the Eee cost anywhere from $1100 to $2400. I say the Asus has a pretty clear purpose. Reply
walmartshopper - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkI just got a Vostro 1400 from the Dell outlet for only $600. It has a C2D, 2GB, 120GB, and a Geforce 8400GS. It's still small and light, and the battery lasts up to 7 hours. It can even run Crysis at 800x600 at low quality and get 30fps. I know I'm comparing laptops that have different purposes, but still it just doesn't seem like a good deal to pay $400 for something so crippled.
Plus, I would probably get frustrated trying to type on that thing with my big ol' sausage fingers. Reply
johnsonx - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkIf you can get to a console, is rpm available? If so then it should be possible to install any packages you want from the command line.
n0nsense - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkXandros in debian based.
so it uses dpkg or apt package management.
(deb not rpm) Reply
n0nsense - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkXandros in debian based.
so it uses dpkg or apt package management.
(deb not rpm) Reply
n0nsense - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkXandros in debian based.
so it uses dpkg or apt package management.
(deb not rpm) Reply
johnsonx - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkok, I'm a Novell/SUSE kind of guy, so sue me for not knowing all the Linux flavors.
Either way, the question still remains. Is the package manager available from the teminal window?
JarredWalton - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - linkapt-get appears to be fully functional. You would have to know more about what to do to get additional programs than I do, but I would assume you can install pretty much any standard Linux package that works with apt-get. Reply
johnsonx - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkHow about a follow up article wherein you install XP? Maybe even Win2k for it's lean disk and memory footprint, if there's enough driver support?
Also, how about some words about using an SD/SDHC flash card for additional storage? Performance I mean, like application load times and such. I'd envision putting XP and main apps on the main storage, and then additional apps and data on the secondary flash card.
Certhas - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkI will definitely get one eventually. I already have a 15 inch laptop as my primary computer, but it's simply to heavy and bulky to carry around all the time. What I envisage this thing for is as something more portable, for going on a weekend trip for example. Generally, a gadget that will do most things that a Laptop does on the road (play music, allow me to write papers in Latex, load up google maps) and that i can drop in my backpack without thinking twice about it.
As far as I can tell there is nothing else remotely in this price range that fits the bill. The other UMPC are overpowered and a PDA is more of an organizer and note taker then a minimal work machine to me.
For the moment the reason I'm holding off is that it seems difficult to get a full Linux install running properly and the programs installed are definitely not sufficient for me. Reply
Chris Peredun - Friday, November 30, 2007 - link... and you'll have yourself the world's smallest Quake-3-at-60-fps laptop. ;) Reply
ksaajasto - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linki saw the article on his in computer shopper, looks like a high quality buy Reply
mihaimanuta - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkNot all software is open source. Flash Player and Skype are just 2 examples of closed source, proprietary software that are free for use. However they ARE NOT covered under the GPL license. Reply
BladeVenom - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkI think they should make a 9 inch screen version. It looks like it would fit. Reply
DigitalFreak - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkAsus cannot void the warranty (at least in the US) because you upgraded the memory. It's the Magnunson-Moss Warranty Act.
A dealer or manufacturer cannot void or charge for a warranty service based on use of aftermarket products unless a failure is a DIRECT result of use of the aftermarket product and they will have to prove how. Reply
jiteo - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkOpen up the file manager, then Window -> Terminal Emulator. Voila. Reply
JarredWalton - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkAh, thanks... I looked all over for some way to access a command prompt. Even killing X didn't help - it would simply restart. Technically, the menu item (under the ASUS File Manager) is labeled "Open Console Window" under the Tools menu. Obviously, my Linux skillz have started to atrophy. :) Reply
elegault - Friday, November 30, 2007 - linkWouldn't having Windows CE instead of XP make more sence? Reply
Ihlosi - Saturday, December 01, 2007 - link[quote]Wouldn't having Windows CE instead of XP make more sence?[/quote]
Why should they run Windows CE on something that is an actual PC ? The thing does have enough CPU power and RAM for WinXP, I can just see the tiny 4 GB SDD being completely filled up after the install. Reply


text:
King Size
Long live the king size candy bar! You'll be chanting this from the crowd as you watch these royal size candy bars march past. With selections of giant, king size candies from Almond Joy, to Hershey's Chocolate Bars, to Mounds, to Skittles, and so many more, you'll have a kingdom worth of candy in every order. Get your taste buds ready to bow down to the deliciousness of these huge candies. If you're preparing for a big family get together, this is an awesome section for you because it's sure to feed a crowd! Begin your royal journey through these king size candies today!