<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Overclocking the Mac mini</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/02/overclocking_the_mac_mini/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/02/overclocking_the_mac_mini/</link>
	<description>Nerds are for Dorks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:14:48 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cliche</title>
		<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/02/overclocking_the_mac_mini/comment-page-1/#comment-9254</link>
		<dc:creator>cliche</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forevergeek.com/?p=1184#comment-9254</guid>
		<description>just gotta wonder how much extra heat we&#039;re dealing with here.  it&#039;s not like we can put a huge heat sink like we can in an overclocked pc.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>just gotta wonder how much extra heat we&#8217;re dealing with here.  it&#8217;s not like we can put a huge heat sink like we can in an overclocked pc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MacGeek</title>
		<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/02/overclocking_the_mac_mini/comment-page-1/#comment-9253</link>
		<dc:creator>MacGeek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forevergeek.com/?p=1184#comment-9253</guid>
		<description>Some people would consider 14% a lot of improvement and could show more-than-marginal increases in some Xbench scores.

Going from 1.42 to 1.58 would be on the lower end of 11%, which might yield some improvement as well, but when it comes right down to it, it is probably less than noticeable.  

I think this is more for the cool factor and the rep of only having paid for the lesser mini, but now he essentially has the speed of the bigger brother.

I still think increasing the RAM to 512mb or even 1GB is the real difference, one that would be noticeable across the board.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some people would consider 14% a lot of improvement and could show more-than-marginal increases in some Xbench scores.</p>
<p>Going from 1.42 to 1.58 would be on the lower end of 11%, which might yield some improvement as well, but when it comes right down to it, it is probably less than noticeable.  </p>
<p>I think this is more for the cool factor and the rep of only having paid for the lesser mini, but now he essentially has the speed of the bigger brother.</p>
<p>I still think increasing the RAM to 512mb or even 1GB is the real difference, one that would be noticeable across the board.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Flint</title>
		<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/02/overclocking_the_mac_mini/comment-page-1/#comment-9252</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Flint</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forevergeek.com/?p=1184#comment-9252</guid>
		<description>Seems like a lot of trouble just to squeeze out an extra .17 ghz.

Does that really make a difference in performance?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems like a lot of trouble just to squeeze out an extra .17 ghz.</p>
<p>Does that really make a difference in performance?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
