[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes, I think I will thanks

HD decode does in no imaginable way equal H.264 hardware decoding. H.264 doesn't even have anything in particular to do with HD. It can be used from cell-phone videos to whatever.

It is a codec and it scales well and it is very new.

ATi were the first mainstream GPU makers to come out with drivers for H.264 codec and NVidia is still working on it, though it will be soon.

Sooner than any integrated el-cheapo chipset from Intel can decode H.264, with full respect to you, Apple and anyone who hoped otherwise.

cheers

W-Y

Now I'm scrambling to find the original source of where I heard H.264 decoding was supported in hardware.

I read somewhere someone ask an Apple rep at the show and they said it was.

[ink]

Originally Posted by ambush

Plus, you get the Intel Integrated Graphics, which suck huge cocks.

It sucks for gaming, but it can do H.264 just fine.

In software.

I do it all the time with ICH6 boards and MPlayer.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Binarymix

Using it on highest settings and through rosetta right?

640x480 native on Windows...

[dale]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I totally agree.


But she really would like her own keys/mouse/screen. I would think it would be well worth Apple's time to come up with a package of a keyboard, a mouse and an inexpensive screen for minis.

Even if it's only 15" or 17", it would be enough.

I agree.

Given the mini is destined for the lounge, surely it would be in apples interest to produce a version of the keyboard that has a touchpad attached to the side or front (like you get on a Mac Book Pro and iBook). Afterall, you will need to operate the keyboard and mouse from your lap.

[cmeisenzahl]

Originally Posted by Salty

OK well we know the new mini has some features that really bring it up to snuff, notably the faster processor, more USB ports, additional RAM slot, mic in, and all that jazz. But but but, I think this is the first Mac that has ever had an intel integrated graphics card, OK we all know that anyone planning on doing gaming on a Mac mini is dumb, but really, with the fact that some of the newer graphics cards have things like H.264 decoding done on the card itself, you'd think that Apple would have chosen to go with a higher end graphics chipset than an Intel one...

I kind of like it. Keeps the price point down. I don't expect high end graphics and games on a $500 machine. Just my 0.02.

[turtle777]

Haha, this new Mac mini with integrated graphics card would be a flamefest for Rob

[angelmb]

Like another guys have said, my main concern is the price… in my country it is $764 for the intel core solo model and $1014 for the intel dual core model… I can imagine people saying… "such a small thing with no keyboard, no mouse, no display… damn! Macintoshes are freaking expensive and for sure it fails to deliver" <-- (pc bashing of course)

[kikkoman]

You are all acting like the old mini was rocking for hard core 3D games. The lowend GPU was never was sufficient, not even for casual 3D gamer. May the 9200 could crank out a couple more fps than the integrated graphics but it's still not going to be usable by along shot. My feeling is nothing gained nothing lost with the new mini as far as 3D gaming.

[Millennium]

The fact is, Apple seems to be promoting this thing as both an entry-level Mac and as a media center. This is a mistake. Media centers have different needs from gaming machines, but they do not have "lesser" needs. A decent media center does not need hardware 3-D graphics processing, for example, but it does need hardware video encoding (which, conversely, a gaming machine isn't likely to need). In this particular case, the dual-core processor may help things if one core can be dedicated to encoding tasks. I don't see any technical barrier to doing that, but has Apple set up the software to do it? Honest question; I don't know.

What Apple really should do is split the Mini line, perhaps branding the high-end one as a "Mac Media", and set that one up with something more appropriate for media-center PCs. Then it could focus the lower-end Mac Minis on the entry-level market.

[mindwaves]

I find it funny that it has integrated Intel graphics and a higher price point.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I kind of like it. Keeps the price point down. I don't expect high end graphics and games on a $500 machine. Just my 0.02.

Do you expect them on a $600 machine?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by mindwaves

I find it funny that it has integrated Intel graphics and a higher price point.

Very funny!

@kikkoman

The performance between the ancient 9200 and the new 950 is really not impressive, although in general the 950 should be better. It eats up RAM though and doesn't have low latency video RAM.

What happened is basically that the minis got more expensive and yet the graphics card didn't become significantly upgraded. An OEM graphics card in the 9600 class for instance is about $70 for a 128 MB version on the street. Something Apple would get for less than $50.

The 950 is cheaper than the 9200 btw. And still the mini is priced higher. Tsk tsk.

W-Y

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

An OEM graphics card in the 9600 class for instance is about $70 for a 128 MB version on the street. Something Apple would get for less than $50.

That increases the price of the mini by almost another 10%. I don't think that's something that most mini customers would want. What you are looking for is a low end PowerMac. Or MacPro or whatever they will call it. They will come before the end of this year.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by mindwaves

I find it funny that it has integrated Intel graphics and a higher price point.

No, it doesn't.

The Intel Mac mini for $599 has similar features to the $599 PowerPC Mac mini. All Apple did was drop the lowest configuration.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by mduell

GMA950 fares alright in 3DMark, but it doesn't do so well in actual games.

That site compares the GMA950 only to a much more expensive GPU that is far faster than what was in the old mini. We need to be comparing the GMA950 to the Radeon 9200 and other very low end GPUs, not to midrange or better ones.

tooki

[ort888]

Originally Posted by tooki

No, it doesn't.

The Intel Mac mini for $599 has similar features to the $599 PowerPC Mac mini. All Apple did was drop the lowest configuration.

tooki

Which was the worst thing they could have done. The $499 price was the whole point of the system.

[mindwaves]

Originally Posted by tooki

No, it doesn't.

The Intel Mac mini for $599 has similar features to the $599 PowerPC Mac mini. All Apple did was drop the lowest configuration.

tooki

Yes, they raised the price point on the lowest Mac mini which now has integrated Intel graphics.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

My wife wants one. Compared to her old desk-lamp iMac it’ll be a major upgrade.

I’m also seriously considering one for an HTPC in the bedroom. As long as it handles HTPC duties, I could give a rip about game performance.

What’s up with Mac users anyway? Spend a solid decade ripping on PC users that all they care about in a computer is how well it plays games, and boast endlessly about how much more superior your taste in computers is to that… but then the second any new Mac comes out? Bitch about how well it plays games.

[bewebste]

I love how people are simultaneously complaining that the price is too high and that they need to put a more expensive graphics card in.

The bottom line is that nobody really knows what the performance of this machine will be like and nobody will until someone actually buys one, sits down, and tests it out. All the speculation until then is just so much intellectual geek masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[olePigeon]

I'm just disappointed in the price. $799 is too steep. I would've expected at least $100 less than what they announced. $499 and $699 respectively.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

What’s up with Mac users anyway? Spend a solid decade ripping on PC users that all they care about in a computer is how well it plays games, and boast endlessly about how much more superior your taste in computers is to that… but then the second any new Mac comes out? Bitch about how well it plays games.

We forget, apparently, that for several years now Apple's been making a point of getting the OS to offload everything that it possibly can to the graphics card...

Originally Posted by bewebste

I love how people are simultaneously complaining that the price is too high and that they need to put a more expensive graphics card in.

It's surprising to you that people would complain when a product 1. gets a critical component massively downgraded and 2. costs more than the old one?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

1. gets a critical component massively downgraded

Can we wait for the benchmarks on this? I doubt that the Intel-GPU is much slower than the 9200 if at all.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

2. costs more than the old one?

It also includes Airport now and got a critical component massively upgraded (the CPU).

[ort888]

Computers always get better and cheaper. We shouldn't be impressed by the improvements. They are supposed to be constantly improving.

When was the last time Apple released something that cost 20% more then it's last iteration and had one of it's components downgraded?

[ort888]

Computers always get better and cheaper. We shouldn't be impressed by the improvements. They are supposed to be constantly improving.

When was the last time Apple released something that cost 20% more then it's last iteration and had one of it's components downgraded?

[bewebste]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

We forget, apparently, that for several years now Apple's been making a point of getting the OS to offload everything that it possibly can to the graphics card...

It's surprising to you that people would complain when a product 1. gets a critical component massively downgraded and 2. costs more than the old one?

I can't say it's too surprising that people are complaining, no, it's just that it's a matter of engineering and tradeoffs. If they put in a beefier graphics card, that would bump the price up even more. If they wanted to bring the price down, they'd have to cut some other feature, which people would inevitably gripe about. I'd also say the jury's still out on whether going from a Radeon 9200 to the GMA950 can accurately be called a "massive downgrade".

They should totally ship a $499 version with a 4 MB Rage Pro card. Awww yeah, native QuickDraw 3D support, baby!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ort888

When was the last time Apple released something that cost 20% more then it's last iteration and had one of it's components downgraded?

The Yikes G4. What a great machine that was.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by tooki

That site compares the GMA950 only to a much more expensive GPU that is far faster than what was in the old mini. We need to be comparing the GMA950 to the Radeon 9200 and other very low end GPUs, not to midrange or better ones.

Here ya go... A GPU around the level of the X300 series was about what I was predicting for the Intel Mac mini:



BTW, the GeForce 6200 is a very low end GPU too. Some models go for under US$40 for a complete PCI-E card.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by ort888

Computers always get better and cheaper. We shouldn't be impressed by the improvements. They are supposed to be constantly improving.

When was the last time Apple released something that cost 20% more then it's last iteration and had one of it's components downgraded?

True.

But you have to look at it from different perspectives. Think about the iBook: when it was last revised in July 2005, the following came standard on it (that were optional before):

- Aiport Extreme
- Bluetooth
- Scrolling trackpad
- 256MB more RAM (making it 512MB)

Plus, the ATI Radeon 9200 was upgraded to a 9550. But that's about it. Processor-wise, the machine received little more than a push from behind from 1.2GHz to 1.33GHz on the 12" model and 1.33GHz to 1.42GHz on the 14" model. Hardly something to write home about - but the standardized features overshadowed this blunder (which was done to keep the speeds below the 12" Powerbook, obviously) and everyone called it a success - especially since the price remained the same.

As for the Mini, the story is the same - but different. As for the upgrades:

- Aiport Extreme & Bluetooth now standard
- Digital In/Out
- 4 USB ports
- 2 RAM slots
- Front Row/Apple Remote
- Intel integrated graphics (not sure if this is an "upgrade" yet)
- Intel Core Solo or Duo (major upgrade)

The last part needs to be digested a bit. If Apple had kept the G4 in the Mini any longer and simply increased the processor speed of each model (1.5 and 1.67, respectively) - I'm sure the price point would have remained the same. But that's not the case here - they jumped all the way from a slow G4 to an up-to-date Intel Core Solo & Duo - which is the same chip found in the more expensive iMacs and professional MacBook Pros. Honestly, who really thought we'd see a Core Duo in the Mini since the MacBooks got them? I honestly didn't. This chip, for the time being, must be costing Apple more then the old-world G4 - hence the price increase. Of course, they could've just plopped a Intel Celeron chip in there and kept the price the same - but then we would all be even more enraged. No, the graphics processor isn't the greatest thing in the world - but I think it's reasonable for this entry-level Mac.

But hey, we're only complaining about the graphics processor with the Mini thus far - which is good, considering all the issues people are having with the MacBook Pro (battery life, screen angle, heat, fans, etc..). So at least Apple got it 99% on par with are abnormally high and unreasonable standards.

[ort888]

But the price of the iBook stayed the same and everything was improved. The price of the Mini went up 20% and it was downgraded in an important area. I don't see how the two can be compared. I don't see the graphics card as the big issue here. The real problem is the price increase... which is a really counterproductive move.

[driven]

Originally Posted by ambush

Plus, you get the Intel Integrated Graphics, which suck huge cocks.

Example of what he really meant:

[mduell]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apple has said that hardware acceleration works on the GMA950 and it can do two H.264 feeds at once.

GMA950 does not support hardware acceleration of H.264; it does support hardware acceleration of MPEG2, which is what all of the broadcast networks use for HDTV.

Originally Posted by tooki

That site compares the GMA950 only to a much more expensive GPU that is far faster than what was in the old mini. We need to be comparing the GMA950 to the Radeon 9200 and other very low end GPUs, not to midrange or better ones.

I'm aware of that, and I was only posting the benchmark to look at the absolute performance of GMA950.

Originally Posted by ort888

Computers always get better and cheaper. We shouldn't be impressed by the improvements. They are supposed to be constantly improving.

When was the last time Apple released something that cost 20% more then it's last iteration and had one of it's components downgraded?

$2000 PB w/ FW800 -> $2500 MBP w/o FW800

Of course that's assuming you want to be entirely ignorant of all the other upgrades that went into the Intel Macs.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Here ya go... A GPU around the level of the X300 series was about what I was predicting for the Intel Mac mini:

BTW, the GeForce 6200 is a very low end GPU too. Some models go for under US$40 for a complete PCI-E card.

Bigger than GMA950?
Hotter than GMA950?
More expensive than GMA950?

[moonmonkey]

Give me benchmarks.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by ort888

But the price of the iBook stayed the same and everything was improved. The price of the Mini went up 20% and it was downgraded in an important area. I don't see how the two can be compared. I don't see the graphics card as the big issue here. The real problem is the price increase... which is a really counterproductive move.

You missed my point. The iBook improved marginally in all areas - including the processor (1.2 to 1.33GHz? Big whoop). The Mac Mini improved marginally in some areas, substantially in some - like the processor: it was bumped from a G4 to an Intel Core Solo/Duo. In any event, adding a processor like that to an entry level machine just screams "price increase." If Apple wanted to keep the price the same, they would've added a crappy Intel Celeron processor inside.

We have yet to see any benchmarks on the new graphics processor, so for the time being, it's still classified as a marginal improvement.

[runningdog]

From Stratus Fear @ Intel Mac Mini! discussion from the iMac, eMac & Mac mini section of the forum.

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Here's a few other things I found about the GMA950. http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

Compare to fill rate and feature lists of the old Radeon 9200 here. http://www.google.com/search?q=radeo...utf-8&oe=utf-8

The GMA950 supports Shader Model 2 and 3. The 9200 does not. The GMA950 has a 1.6 gigapixel/sec fillrate. The 9200 has 1.2. The mini, since it has two memory slots, most likely supports dual channel memory -- the same as the Core Duo iMac. Using two PC2-5300 sticks, the memory bandwidth of the system is twice what the system bus can saturate. So about 5.xGB/sec of bandwidth or so goes unused. So that's what the integrated graphics has available. The 9200 has 6.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth. Bandwidth aside, I'd say the GMA950 is technically superior to the old 9200, and it IS actually an upgrade to the system. There is a certain stigma attached to integrated graphics, but you really ought to know what's going on inside before you're ready to dismiss it as crap. This mini should perform well. Apple would have had to raise the price more and put in a more expensive ATi solution than the 9200 (and obviously more expensive than the GMA950) to make it better than the GMA950. And frankly, the GMA950 is cheaper than a standalone solution, likely performs better than the old standalone solution, so they could focus more on adding other features to the system.

Seems like a deal to me.

[wdlove]

I won't take a real look to Rev. B is released.

[bewebste]

Here's a quick comparison of a PPC and Intel mini, running the Cinebench suite of tests. No info on the exact specs of the two machines though.

http://thedailycup.acupo.com/?p=43

[ort888]

Originally Posted by volcano

You missed my point. The iBook improved marginally in all areas - including the processor (1.2 to 1.33GHz? Big whoop). The Mac Mini improved marginally in some areas, substantially in some - like the processor: it was bumped from a G4 to an Intel Core Solo/Duo. In any event, adding a processor like that to an entry level machine just screams "price increase." If Apple wanted to keep the price the same, they would've added a crappy Intel Celeron processor inside.

We have yet to see any benchmarks on the new graphics processor, so for the time being, it's still classified as a marginal improvement.

My point is that no one is buying the Mini for the processor, they are buying it for the $499 price tag.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by bewebste

Here's a quick comparison of a PPC and Intel mini, running the Cinebench suite of tests. No info on the exact specs of the two machines though.

http://thedailycup.acupo.com/?p=43

The Intel Mac mini is a 1.5 GHz Core Solo. Judging by the scores, the PowerPC Mac mini is a 1.5 GHz G4.

The interesting part of that is that the hardware OpenGL scores are slower on the Intel Mac mini.

These results confirmed benches in the other MacNN Intel Mac mini thread.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by bewebste

Here's a quick comparison of a PPC and Intel mini, running the Cinebench suite of tests.

So there the GMA950 is about 20% slower than the ATI 9200. That's not really that impressive considering the 9200 is already lowest end. I would have hoped the integrated Intel GPU would be on par.
On the other hand the CoreSolo is 30% faster than the G4.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

So there the GMA950 is about 20% slower then the ATI 9200. That's not really that impressive

Not really that impressive ?

I'd call it BS. Apple creates a computer that supposedly is 3-4 times faster than the old mini, and the GPU is SLOWER ? Apple, WTF ?

-t

[Binarymix]

Who cares. The Mac Mini is not supposed to be used for gaming or high end graphical apps anyways. Get over it. It will run all the newest eye candy just fine.

- The new mini has wireless built in, the old one did not (except the higher end)
- The new mini has a 5400 RPM drive. The old mini had a 4200 RPM drive
- The new mini can play back HD 1080p video. The old mini cannot.
- The new mini has Front Row w/Remote

The last two points make it very interesting for some.

[volcano]

[Dakar]

That's pretty funny.

[sek929]

Just as a general rule of thumb I stay away from any machine with integrated graphics. The machines on the PC side I've used with integrated GPUs produce really disappointing results.

[Dakar]

I just realized -- what happens if Apple to do the same thing in the iBook?

[driven]

If they did, I wouldn't buy one. (Just my opinion.)

But I don't need one either. My wife is happy with her G4 iBook and I've got my Powerbook. If they did this I'd just have to hope that in a few years they'd come to their sences.

Apple: You don't have to use EVERYTHING that Intel makes.

[Dakar]

Well I'm thinking since we're talking about differentiating between lines, this seems plausible, right?