Comments on: Upgrades Give New Mac Mini a Whole New Attitude http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/ Understanding the accumulation of data Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:58:00 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: dean http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-14243 dean Sat, 19 Dec 2009 05:41:16 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-14243 is it worth the optional purchase of CPU with 2.6Ghz version as the base then upgrading internal hd to 320 or 500 @7200 or 500? I will be using 2 external 500GB HD (in one box), connected via usb, is it worth the optional purchase of CPU with 2.6Ghz version as the base then upgrading internal hd to 320 or 500 @7200 or 500? I will be using 2 external 500GB HD (in one box), connected via usb,

]]> By: dean http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13938 dean Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:41:16 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13938 is it worth the optional purchase of CPU with 2.6Ghz version as the base then upgrading internal hd to 320 or 500 @7200 or 500? I will be using 2 external 500GB HD (in one box), connected via usb, is it worth the optional purchase of CPU with 2.6Ghz version as the base then upgrading internal hd to 320 or 500 @7200 or 500? I will be using 2 external 500GB HD (in one box), connected via usb,

]]> By: Name http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13717 Name Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:07:02 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13717 Greatly thorough and helpful article. I plan on upgrading my mac mini's hard disk because the 80 GB it came is silly. I plan on sticking with your recommendation on the 320 GB drive but Is it possible to upgrade to larger than 320 GB?<br><br>I have a huge photo and iTunes library that I am running off a 500 GB external firewire drive and pretty much use the mini drive only for the applications folder. But, I would like to have my working files running off the internal drive. Greatly thorough and helpful article. I plan on upgrading my mac mini's hard disk because the 80 GB it came is silly. I plan on sticking with your recommendation on the 320 GB drive but Is it possible to upgrade to larger than 320 GB?

I have a huge photo and iTunes library that I am running off a 500 GB external firewire drive and pretty much use the mini drive only for the applications folder. But, I would like to have my working files running off the internal drive.

]]> By: Sam http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13297 Sam Mon, 04 May 2009 06:02:17 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13297 That's a Momentus 7200.4 by the way...sorry. That's a Momentus 7200.4 by the way…sorry.

]]> By: Sam http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13296 Sam Mon, 04 May 2009 06:00:25 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13296 Awesome Job with this by the way! I know there are close to a billion drives out there (ok, so maybe a billion is too many), but has anyone had any experience with the Seagate 7200.4? I read the comparison re: the 7200.3 on Tom's Hardware site...I appreciate the link back to that! Anyway, any/all input for the 7200.4 would be appreciated!<br><br>-Sam Awesome Job with this by the way! I know there are close to a billion drives out there (ok, so maybe a billion is too many), but has anyone had any experience with the Seagate 7200.4? I read the comparison re: the 7200.3 on Tom's Hardware site…I appreciate the link back to that! Anyway, any/all input for the 7200.4 would be appreciated!

-Sam

]]> By: sfoskett http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13267 sfoskett Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:13:56 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13267 I apologize. It is indeed "1066 MHz RAM". There is no such thing as 1067 - I just rounded up! I apologize. It is indeed “1066 MHz RAM”. There is no such thing as 1067 – I just rounded up!

]]> By: mick http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13265 mick Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:42:58 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13265 Your article prompted me to do just as you did so I just bought the base model mac mini and I plan to do the same mod but go for 4GB of RAM.<br>In regards to my last question, when I was in the store I checked to see what speed RAM it uses and the System profiler says it is 1067 Mhz but the apple site lists it as 1066 on the specs page.<br>Now my question would be does it matter if you use 1066 or should I keep hunting down 1067?<br>Also this article <a href="http://macperformanceguide.com/Storage-Drive-Hitachi-5K500.html" rel="nofollow">http://macperformanceguide.com/Storage-Drive-Hi...</a> states that the 5K500.B 500GB is actually a faster drive despite being 5200rpm. Do you have any thoughts in this drive? Your article prompted me to do just as you did so I just bought the base model mac mini and I plan to do the same mod but go for 4GB of RAM.
In regards to my last question, when I was in the store I checked to see what speed RAM it uses and the System profiler says it is 1067 Mhz but the apple site lists it as 1066 on the specs page.
Now my question would be does it matter if you use 1066 or should I keep hunting down 1067?
Also this article http://macperformanceguide.com/Storage-Drive-Hi… states that the 5K500.B 500GB is actually a faster drive despite being 5200rpm. Do you have any thoughts in this drive?

]]> By: mick http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13264 mick Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:45:43 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13264 In your post you say "The Mini uses fast 1,067 MHz DDR3-8500 memory". Do you mean 1,066 MHz? I can't find 1,067 MHz anywhere. In your post you say “The Mini uses fast 1,067 MHz DDR3-8500 memory”. Do you mean 1,066 MHz? I can't find 1,067 MHz anywhere.

]]> By: sfoskett http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13263 sfoskett Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:43:14 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13263 That's very interesting! So the 320 GB 5K320 is twice as fast as the 120 GB version. The difference is that the 320 GB model has two platters and four heads, while the 120 GB model uses just one platter and two heads. Assuming the drive interleaves data on both platters (which seems like a good idea since the heads move together), getting twice the sequential performance would definitely be reasonable! And the difference between two platters at 7200 rpm and two platters at 5400 rpm should be something like 25% in sequential.<br><br>The 7K320 also has twice the cache of the 5K320, and this (plus the quicker platters) should make a bigger difference in real-world use - on the order of 50% perhaps. I think the switch to a 7200 rpm drive would be noticeable for anyone, but it's less of a bump over the stock 320 GB drive. But I stand by my statement that replacing the 120 GB drive in a base Mini with a 7200 rpm unit makes a HUGE difference!<br><br>What software did you use for your readings? And how full was the drive? Xbench is not the best, but here's my exact numbers for both drives, for comparison...<br><br>Stock nearly empty 120 GB 5400 rpm single-platter 5K320:<br><br>Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write<br>4 KBytes 14.26 MB/Sec 35.72 MB/Sec 0.43 MB/Sec 1.01 MB/Sec<br>256 KBytes 31.69 MB/Sec 32.28 MB/Sec 15.61 MB/Sec 18.99 MB/Sec<br><br>Replaced half-full 320 GB 7200 rpm dual-platter 7K320:<br><br>Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write<br>4 KBytes 13.48 MB/Sec 78.03 MB/Sec 0.62 MB/Sec 1.12 MB/Sec<br>256 KBytes 71.52 MB/Sec 70.98 MB/Sec 26.13 MB/Sec 33.34 MB/Sec That's very interesting! So the 320 GB 5K320 is twice as fast as the 120 GB version. The difference is that the 320 GB model has two platters and four heads, while the 120 GB model uses just one platter and two heads. Assuming the drive interleaves data on both platters (which seems like a good idea since the heads move together), getting twice the sequential performance would definitely be reasonable! And the difference between two platters at 7200 rpm and two platters at 5400 rpm should be something like 25% in sequential.

The 7K320 also has twice the cache of the 5K320, and this (plus the quicker platters) should make a bigger difference in real-world use – on the order of 50% perhaps. I think the switch to a 7200 rpm drive would be noticeable for anyone, but it's less of a bump over the stock 320 GB drive. But I stand by my statement that replacing the 120 GB drive in a base Mini with a 7200 rpm unit makes a HUGE difference!

What software did you use for your readings? And how full was the drive? Xbench is not the best, but here's my exact numbers for both drives, for comparison…

Stock nearly empty 120 GB 5400 rpm single-platter 5K320:

Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 14.26 MB/Sec 35.72 MB/Sec 0.43 MB/Sec 1.01 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 31.69 MB/Sec 32.28 MB/Sec 15.61 MB/Sec 18.99 MB/Sec

Replaced half-full 320 GB 7200 rpm dual-platter 7K320:

Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 13.48 MB/Sec 78.03 MB/Sec 0.62 MB/Sec 1.12 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 71.52 MB/Sec 70.98 MB/Sec 26.13 MB/Sec 33.34 MB/Sec

]]> By: Chuck http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/03/17/upgrades-give-mac-mini-attitude/comment-page-1/#comment-13258 Chuck Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:19:30 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=1558#comment-13258 These hard drive numbers don't seem to jive with what I have been seeing. With 2GB 320 mb mini stock I get results that look like this (delivery of true sATA speeds for sequential operations): <br><br>Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write<br><br> 4 KBytes 14.698 MB/Sec 9.157 MB/Sec 0.377 MB/Sec 0.865 MB/Sec<br> 8 KBytes 23.873 MB/Sec 16.986 MB/Sec 0.748 MB/Sec 1.744 MB/Sec<br> 16 KBytes 37.400 MB/Sec 29.177 MB/Sec 1.562 MB/Sec 3.385 MB/Sec<br> 32 KBytes 56.732 MB/Sec 44.523 MB/Sec 2.970 MB/Sec 7.651 MB/Sec<br> 64 KBytes 76.462 MB/Sec 61.161 MB/Sec 5.772 MB/Sec 11.410 MB/Sec<br> 128 KBytes 94.160 MB/Sec 75.820 MB/Sec 11.188 MB/Sec 15.979 MB/Sec<br> 256 KBytes 106.498 MB/Sec 85.492 MB/Sec 20.606 MB/Sec 21.502 MB/Sec<br> 512 KBytes 113.120 MB/Sec 91.057 MB/Sec 25.207 MB/Sec 30.110 MB/Sec<br>1024 KBytes 117.268 MB/Sec 94.176 MB/Sec 40.470 MB/Sec 41.081 MB/Sec<br><br>Naturally random operations fall off a bit from sequential because of the slower drive speed, but things are respectable. This is not your daddy's mac mini. <br><br>If I boot to a high speed sATA 7200 rpm drive pushing through the 800 firewire into the new mini, I can improve random operations a bit, but loose the high large end sequential through the firewire connection. <br><br>Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write<br><br> 4 KBytes 19.448 MB/Sec 15.375 MB/Sec 0.641 MB/Sec 1.536 MB/Sec<br> 8 KBytes 31.850 MB/Sec 24.716 MB/Sec 1.270 MB/Sec 3.026 MB/Sec<br> 16 KBytes 44.732 MB/Sec 37.841 MB/Sec 2.536 MB/Sec 5.482 MB/Sec<br> 32 KBytes 57.613 MB/Sec 50.294 MB/Sec 4.956 MB/Sec 9.878 MB/Sec<br> 64 KBytes 58.143 MB/Sec 60.504 MB/Sec 9.912 MB/Sec 17.478 MB/Sec<br> 128 KBytes 59.268 MB/Sec 66.900 MB/Sec 18.569 MB/Sec 27.151 MB/Sec<br> 256 KBytes 59.322 MB/Sec 52.951 MB/Sec 28.150 MB/Sec 38.341 MB/Sec<br> 512 KBytes 59.176 MB/Sec 72.608 MB/Sec 35.959 MB/Sec 40.217 MB/Sec<br>1024 KBytes 59.098 MB/Sec 73.362 MB/Sec 46.003 MB/Sec 49.491 MB/Sec<br><br>All in all, I believe you will benefit on the order of 10 to 20 % with the 7200 rpm drive, but unless you are doing some heavy duty stuff, I don't think you will notice much. I certainly can't between booting internal off the stock or using the external through the firewire. These hard drive numbers don't seem to jive with what I have been seeing. With 2GB 320 mb mini stock I get results that look like this (delivery of true sATA speeds for sequential operations):

Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write

4 KBytes 14.698 MB/Sec 9.157 MB/Sec 0.377 MB/Sec 0.865 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 23.873 MB/Sec 16.986 MB/Sec 0.748 MB/Sec 1.744 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 37.400 MB/Sec 29.177 MB/Sec 1.562 MB/Sec 3.385 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 56.732 MB/Sec 44.523 MB/Sec 2.970 MB/Sec 7.651 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 76.462 MB/Sec 61.161 MB/Sec 5.772 MB/Sec 11.410 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 94.160 MB/Sec 75.820 MB/Sec 11.188 MB/Sec 15.979 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 106.498 MB/Sec 85.492 MB/Sec 20.606 MB/Sec 21.502 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 113.120 MB/Sec 91.057 MB/Sec 25.207 MB/Sec 30.110 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 117.268 MB/Sec 94.176 MB/Sec 40.470 MB/Sec 41.081 MB/Sec

Naturally random operations fall off a bit from sequential because of the slower drive speed, but things are respectable. This is not your daddy's mac mini.

If I boot to a high speed sATA 7200 rpm drive pushing through the 800 firewire into the new mini, I can improve random operations a bit, but loose the high large end sequential through the firewire connection.

Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write

4 KBytes 19.448 MB/Sec 15.375 MB/Sec 0.641 MB/Sec 1.536 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 31.850 MB/Sec 24.716 MB/Sec 1.270 MB/Sec 3.026 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 44.732 MB/Sec 37.841 MB/Sec 2.536 MB/Sec 5.482 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 57.613 MB/Sec 50.294 MB/Sec 4.956 MB/Sec 9.878 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 58.143 MB/Sec 60.504 MB/Sec 9.912 MB/Sec 17.478 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 59.268 MB/Sec 66.900 MB/Sec 18.569 MB/Sec 27.151 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 59.322 MB/Sec 52.951 MB/Sec 28.150 MB/Sec 38.341 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 59.176 MB/Sec 72.608 MB/Sec 35.959 MB/Sec 40.217 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 59.098 MB/Sec 73.362 MB/Sec 46.003 MB/Sec 49.491 MB/Sec

All in all, I believe you will benefit on the order of 10 to 20 % with the 7200 rpm drive, but unless you are doing some heavy duty stuff, I don't think you will notice much. I certainly can't between booting internal off the stock or using the external through the firewire.

]]>