[breadiu]

I just tried running Garage Band on my Solo, and I got an error message about a conflicting MIDI driver. A reboot did nothing to help.

I have also been getting "snow" on the top of the screen and on the Dock when returning to the Desktop from Front Row.

I hadn't installed any software yet, either - this was straight out of the box.

I'm doing a clean install now in hopes that will fix what ails me.

I'll post again when I have more info.

[mduell]

Sounds like a bad logic board... Call AppleCare if reinstalling doesn't help.

[harrisjamieh]

Sorry to hear that dude, btw, I know you haven't had a long time to play with it (and WOW was that fast delivery), but how is the speed?

[breadiu]

Originally Posted by mduell

Sounds like a bad logic board... Call AppleCare if reinstalling doesn't help.

Thankfully, the reinstall seems to have cleared the problems up. I haven't given Front Page a detailed going over, but I've done several things in it, and I've been able to come back to the Desktop without any problems.

[breadiu]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Sorry to hear that dude, btw, I know you haven't had a long time to play with it (and WOW was that fast delivery), but how is the speed?

It seems to be pretty quick! I'm very pleased. Windows resize nicely, without any noticable lag. Safari, iTunes and System Prefs all open with one to two bounces of their icon. Garage band takes two to start initializing a pre-existing project - then it beachballs for a few seconds, but it's actually processing things, it's not locked up. It takes a second or two to display the items in my Applications folder that I keep in my Dock when I right-click it - about the same as on my 1.8 G5 iMac.

720p plays fine for a short video clip I tested (30 seconds). And, as expected, 1080p will not play (unless you count a strobe effect as playing).

All in all I'm very pleased with this little computer. It will be a perfect living room computer for me!

And, yes, that was SUPER fast delivery! I had the computer by 9:30 this morning.

Oh, and I'm not sure how long these have been there, but there are 5 really nice black and white pics included in the Desktop Backgrounds options.

[TWinbrook46636]

Any chance you could download a 1080p Quicktime Movie Trailer and see how playback is? I'm curious how a Core Solo will handle it. Thanks!

EDIT: I see you just posted. Thanks.

[harrisjamieh]

Yeh, the black and white photos are really nice!! Infact, I have my desktop background on my iBook set to alternate between 4 of the 5 B+W photos (dont like the wavy one which isnt really a pic of anythin)

[JKT]

Can you download Cinebench (free) and run it for us if you don't mind. It's a benchmarking tool that will give us some idea how it compares to the other intel macs in performance.

Cheers.

P.S. The black and white photos were an addition to the OS in 10.4 so they have been around for a while now.

[breadiu]

Originally Posted by JKT

Can you download Cinebench (free) and run it for us if you don't mind. It's a benchmarking tool that will give us some idea how it compares to the other intel macs in preformance.

Cheers.

P.S. The black and white photos were an addition to the OS in 10.4 so they have been around for a while now.

Here you go. Rebooted and ran it first thing.

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : breadiu

Processor : Apple Mac mini
MHz : 1500
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.4.5

Graphics Card : Intel GMA950 64MB
Resolution : 1280 x 1024 @ 75 Hertz
Color Depth : Millions (32-bit)

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 213 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 259 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 885 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 441 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.41

************************************************** **

[plastiqueusa]

I'm not surprised the system doesn't have the best HD video playback. The Macbook and iMac have AVIVO capable graphics chips from ATI, which assist with H.264 decoding and encoding--I suspect that's why they can run 1080p video without breaking a sweat. When we get reports of how a Core Duo Mini runs 1080p, we'll find out what difference the video chip really makes.

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by breadiu

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 259 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 885 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 441 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.41

Wow... the software lighting is double the speed of the hardware lighting! I'm thinking the main reason for GMA950's such absymal 3D performance is its lack of a hardware T&L engine and vertex shaders. The original GeForce was the first card to have hardware T&L and boy did it make a huge difference in performance. Of course the shared memory architecture isn't helping.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by breadiu

Here you go. Rebooted and ran it first thing.

<snip>

Anyone with a G4 Mac mini willing to run this so we can get a direct comparison?

This was a result for the 17" iMac CD (1.83GHz) as reported on xlr8yourmac.com:

Rendering (1 CPU) = 283
Rendering (x CPU) = 518

C4D = 328
OpenGL SW-L = 867
OpenGL HW-L = 1412
OpenGL = 4.30x

Edited to make layout clearer for comparison's sake.

[rnb2]

From my Mac mini 1.5GHz PPC/1GB, Cinebench 9.5:

Rendering (1 CPU) = 152
Rendering (x CPU) = ---

C4D = 159
OpenGL SW-L = 414
OpenGL HW-L = 506
OpenGL = 3.18x

So, for raw CPU speed, it looks like the Solo is about 40% faster than the G4 1.5GHz.
C4D shading jumps by 63%.
OGL Software jumps by 114%.
OGL Hardware *drops* by 13%.

So, anybody have Core Duo numbers?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by rnb2

From my Mac mini 1.5GHz/1GB, Cinebench 9.5:

Rendering (1 CPU) = 152
Rendering (x CPU) = ---

C4D = 159
OpenGL SW-L = 414
OpenGL HW-L = 506
OpenGL = 3.18x

So, for raw CPU speed, it looks like the Solo is about 40% faster than the G4 1.5GHz.
C4D shading jumps by 63%.
OGL Software jumps by 114%.
OGL Hardware *drops* by 13%.

So, anybody have Core Duo numbers?

That score is absolutely terrible. What gives?

You should expect over 200, like breadiu got. He got 213, which is 30% faster than a G4 1.67.

Other Cinebench scores here.

[rnb2]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

That score is absolutely terrible. What gives?

You should expect over 200, like breadiu got. He got 213, which is 30% faster than a G4 1.67.

Other Cinebench scores here.

Sorry, I was replying to the request for a PPC mini benchmark, but forgot to indicate that mine was a 1.5GHz PPC in my post - I've edited it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by rnb2

Sorry, I was replying to the request for a PPC mini benchmark, but forgot to indicate that mine was a 1.5GHz PPC in my post - I've edited it.

Thanks. You're in the same boat as me with my G4 Macs. I do actually use Cinema 4D, but the poor performance of the G4 is reflected in other benches too. For example, Handbrake h.264 encoding royally sucks on the G4. I really miss my G5 at the moment, since it's in for service.

The OpenGL hardware rendering scores for the Intel Mac mini are really unimpressive though.

[Eug Wanker]

oops

[rnb2]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Thanks. You're in the same boat as me with my G4 Macs. I do actually use Cinema 4D, but the poor performance of the G4 is reflected in other benches too. For example, Handbrake h.264 encoding royally sucks on the G4. I really miss my G5 at the moment, since it's in for service.

The OpenGL hardware rendering scores for the Intel Mac mini are really unimpressive though.

Yeah, and I just bought my mini 5 weeks ago - really didn't expect Intel minis this quickly, and I'm trying to decide if I should be thinking about the Intel, either by selling my current mini or seeing if the Apple store will still do an exchange.

After over a decade of playing around with 3D animation, I dropped it entirely for photography about 2.5 years ago. I'm actually starting to get an itch to dabble in 3D again, which complicates my choices right now. If I was just looking for a good photo processing box, the Intel mini would be just great - max out the RAM and I'd be all set, as both the Lightroom beta and the new version of Bibble are UB. However, the lack of anything resembling even marginal 3D hardware in the Intel mini would probably be really limiting, especially considering that a RAM-maxed mini will run over $1k.

My gut feeling on the Intel mini is that Apple played the "perception game" poorly - by putting a Core Duo in the high end model, they gave it pretensions of being able to do something beyond "basic computing", but then severely limited what those tasks might be by omitting a reasonable GPU. Being able to play 1080p movie trailers is nice and all, but not an application that I'm interested in spending $800 for. If they'd just released 1.5 and 1.67GHz Core Solo minis at $599 and $699, they would have avoided all the Sturm und Drang over the integrated graphics.

Speaking of C4D, by the way, how do you like it, and have you used anything else for comparison? My history was almost all Lightwave (back to v1 on the Amiga), but I'm trying to settle on which 3D package to be tempted by on the Mac. C4D looks the most attractive and has the lowest base price, but I have a feeling I'd want at least of couple of Maxon's very pricey add-on modules. Lightwave has had its price reduced again, and probably has the most extensive "out-of-the-box" toolset, but I know from experience how scatter LW feels, and I'm not sure I want to go back there. Finally, I've seen some good things regarding Electric Image, but hard info seems to be hard to come by.

[Eug Wanker]

I don't do 3D.

I just have been playing with the bench because it's universal and cross-platform, and both 32-bit and 64-bit on Windows too. (I suspect the 64-bit OS X version will come out only when Apple makes its OS fully 64-bit, in 10.5.)

As for perception, I think people would still have complained about integrated graphics at a lower price point, just not as much.

Anyways, in your case (photo plus 3D on a budget), a Core Duo iMac would probably have been your best bet, and you could even use your existing LCD monitor in a dual monitor setup.

[rnb2]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I don't do 3D.

I just have been playing with the bench because it's universal and cross-platform, and both 32-bit and 64-bit on Windows too. (I suspect the 64-bit OS X version will come out only when Apple makes its OS fully 64-bit, in 10.5.)

As for perception, I think people would still have complained about integrated graphics at a lower price point, just not as much.

Anyways, in your case (photo plus 3D on a budget), a Core Duo iMac would probably have been your best bet, and you could even use your existing LCD monitor in a dual monitor setup.

Probably true on the perception game, but the complaints would have been (I think) more along the lines of "why didn't they put the Core Duo in it?", which Apple could have answered with "current heat and price limitations" fairly reasonably. As others have said, the Intel mini has a bit of an identity crisis - the Core Duo says "I'm a serious computer", but everything else says it's not really.

The iMac does seem like a reasonable choice right now, but when they came out I decided to wait and see what the line looks like when it's complete. I bought the mini to tide me over for the next few months, but I like it so much, I want to use it for everything In truth, I'd like to have a laptop with reasonable 3D, a Core Duo, 2GB of RAM, and spanning (to work with my 20" Viewsonic panel). A 13.3" MacBook may fit the bill, but now I'm concerned about what Apple will do for a GPU in it.

Sitting on this fence is getting uncomfortable.......

[JKT]

People here would have complained just as much about a dedicated graphics card if there was one (e.g. "meh, it's OK, but XYZ card would have been a much better choice" yadda, yadda, yadda). It is the Mac(NN) way.

rnb2 - Cinebench is just a benchmarking tool based on C4D, not the actual app itself, in case there was any confusion.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by rnb2

<snip>A 13.3" MacBook may fit the bill, but now I'm concerned about what Apple will do for a GPU in it.

Sitting on this fence is getting uncomfortable.......

Pure speculation: I suspect that Apple is going to drop the equivalent of the PowerBook 12" and have a spectrum of models in the new iBook/MacBook. The low end will possibly only feature a GMA950, the upper end 12" PB replacement may even have the x1600, though the x1300 is more likely. In other words, the upper end MacBook will most likely be fairly similar to the 15" MBP but will have a smaller form factor and have a little less of the gravy features of the MBPs.

[rnb2]

Originally Posted by JKT

rnb2 - Cinebench is just a benchmarking tool based on C4D, not the actual app itself, in case there was any confusion.

Oh, I know that - Eug said,"I do actually use Cinema 4D, but the poor performance of the G4 is reflected in other benches too." Maybe I misinterpreted, or he meant to say Cinebench?

I know that nothing is certain on the MacBook, and I'm sure a lot of people are hoping that there will be a range of machines, including at least one with a dedicated GPU, but the mini sets a disquieting precedent. I remain hopeful, in any case.

[ururk]

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : John (ururk)

Processor : Mac mini 1.66ghz Core duo
MHz : 1.66
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.5

Graphics Card :
Resolution : 1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz
Color Depth : Millions

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 256 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 471 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 301 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1079 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 547 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.59

************************************************** **