[quiklee]

so umm . . . the video processor . . . . does this affect the quality of my HD Shows I plan on viewing through my HDTV Big Screen? That's all i really care about

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by cambro

All this talk about offloading interface element processing to the Graphics Card in OS X? Bye, bye.

That's the way I see it. I don't know much about graphic cards, so I'm not even comparing the two models, but we are in an era in which the graphic card is being more and more solicited, at which point it effectively becomes a co-processor for the main CPU.

It seems to be going against the flow in which Apple was swimming since the past years.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

GMA 950 graphics.

Eug, aren't all of those games Windows games? That would keep this particular metric from being a (excuse the pun) apples to apples comparison, wouldn't it?

I'd also like to see the complete review article so I can see what's up with the testing-how much RAM did they use, what the settings were, and so on, can make a big difference.

[aabernathy]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

The website clearly states that the drives are 7200 RPM, look at my above post, it shows an exert from the apple site, at this site:

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje....0.0.3.1.1.3.0

(guesses link will die soon...)

I saw that too, while searching for the specs on the 100 GB and 120 GB options, which don't seem to be listed anywhere. I suspect it's a mistake, given that the main store pages and the main Mac Mini pages both claim that the 60 GB and 80 GB options are 5400 RPM. (And 5400 RPM simply seems more likely to me, given the configuration of other systems and the target market for this machine.)

-andrew

[BikerJonTN]

There is a descrepancy in the information about the speeds of the hard drives for the Mac mini.

As harrisjamieh noted, the "Learn More" link below the hard drive selection list on the configuration page indicates all drives are 7200RPM. However, 5400RPM is specified under the "storage" section of the linked page.

http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html

[DavisH]

From the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine cache of Apple’s Mac Mini Graphics page from March 5, 2005:

Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.

What a difference a year makes: the new Minis use an “integrated Intel graphics” chip!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by FireWire

That's the way I see it. I don't know much about graphic cards, so I'm not even comparing the two models, but we are in an era in which the graphic card is being more and more solicited, at which point it effectively becomes a co-processor for the main CPU.

It seems to be going against the flow in which Apple was swimming since the past years.

Yes, agreed. While the actual possible performance of the Intel integrated chipset in question isn't worse than the 9200 it is replacing, it is going to get far worse video RAM latency. Simply because the dedicated RAM in graphics cards and the soldered on chipsets from ATi and NVidia is heck of a lot faster than conventional RAM. It is also heck of a lot more expensive and an integrated graphics chipset saves money in that way.

With the immense graphic pressure just by the OS, this is a move in the wrong direction. I mean does anyone really think OS X is so fast that it wouldn't hurt being a notch slower?? I didn't think so.

Oh and apropos your nick, the mini has a FireWire connection. I was kind of mildly interested to see if Apple was going to drop that with the Intel swith. This would have been an excellent oppertunity to do so. Not that I'd support such a move, these were just rumors.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by DavisH

From the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine cache of Apple’s Mac Mini Graphics page from March 5, 2005:

Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.

What a difference a year makes: the new Minis use an “integrated Intel graphics” chip!

Oh irony, thy name is Apple marketing

They also said that the G5 was way better than the Intel chips.

What next?

cheers

W-Y

[BikerJonTN]

DavisH is right, look for yourself.

http://web.archive.org/web/200503050.../graphics.html

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Eug, aren't all of those games Windows games? That would keep this particular metric from being a (excuse the pun) apples to apples comparison, wouldn't it?

I'd also like to see the complete review article so I can see what's up with the testing-how much RAM did they use, what the settings were, and so on, can make a big difference.

Yes, of course. However, nobody has reviewed the GMA 950 on Macs yet. However, here is the article anyways:

"These numbers serve to show that spending 50 to 75 USD on an add-in card can actually make the difference between a good gaming experience and a mediocre one. We chose not to highlight the fact that disabling advanced features, shaders, and effects do serve to boost performance to playable levels on today’s integrated platforms because the gap between lowest and highest quality on modern games continues to widen. The major advantage of current generation budget cards is not that they can deliver incredible performance, but that they can deliver something playable without sacrificing image quality to do so.

For those who truly do not need or care about 3D, integrated graphics are fine. People who are nostalgic about Quake III and earlier 3D games will also be satisfied. If just running something with 3D is important, these solutions will get the job done. But integrated performance has still not reached a level where we can recommend it to anyone who wants to play the current generation titles."

P.S. Here is a link to a video of a portion of the keynote.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Quote your opinion like a statement of fact and people tend to get the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.



Yeah, that's funny, because I don't feel I need to impress people either. I'm leveraging the fact that you seem dumber than I do without being as much of an ass as I could be about it. (Would you rather somebody call you names or be pompous?) That said, I don't really care what you think of me, so will you care if I call you an idiot? No? Good. The last people on earth I need to impress are a bunch of people hiding behind monitors and keyboards freely making stupid statements that they wouldn't otherwise make when people could actually see their faces.

Childish

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Childish

In and of itself, the fact that you made that response is childish. Please, give me a break.

[hldan]

It's amazing how some of you guys here complain about everything you can think of that's wrong in your mind but just can't bring yourselves to give a crap load of praise.
The price is a shocker to anyone who knew how much the mini was from the beginning but as usual we'll get over it.
Some of you must have seemingly overlooked the fact that the Mac mini ships with a complete wireless solution with both airport and bluetooth and home media with remote. More USB ports and the top model has a DL superdrive. The ram was upped to 2GB and with an adaptor you can use your TV via S-video.
This is the home media machine that everyone has practically begged Apple to make and it's designed specifically for that solution and best of all it's got much more cache and a better processor.
Correct me if I am wrong but outside from the OS I haven't seen ANY PC on the market in this price range and size offering all these features. It would be really interesting to see a big Dell box (not wireless of course) part of your home theater against the Mac mini (wireless of course).

[Drakino]

Originally Posted by FireWire

That's the way I see it. I don't know much about graphic cards, so I'm not even comparing the two models, but we are in an era in which the graphic card is being more and more solicited, at which point it effectively becomes a co-processor for the main CPU.

It seems to be going against the flow in which Apple was swimming since the past years.

Not really. The GMA950 supports Core Image, something the Radeon 9200 couldn't do. The GMA950 was designed by Intel to be able to accelerate every part of the Vista Aero interface, and currently Vista is more demanding of the GPU then OS X is. Odds are, the GMA950 will be just fine for anything added in 10.5 as well.

Forget the integrated part of the chip. The GMA950 is better then the Radeon 9200 the Mini used to have. And it just happens to be part of the chipset for the system, so it even saves space. The Mini now has 2 memory slots thanks to the advanced features of the Intel chipsets and their integrated nature. The Mini now uses SATA drives (smaller connectors), likely a miniPCIe connected Airport/Bluetooth card (again smaller then the old miniPCI), and has optical audio from the chipset as well. All around, a great upgrade to the system.

[lamewing]

The graphics don't bother me as this would be a simple machine for simple use, but the optical in/out REALLY gets me! I think I may finally break down and buy one. I don't understand the reason not to include 1GB of RAM as a base...or at least on the upper tier mini.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Click on 'learn more' under the HD options:

A variety of hard drive capacities are available for Mac mini. All Mac mini models include standard Serial ATA hard drives featuring data transfers up to 1.5 Gigabits per second. All hard drives run at 7,200 revolutions per minute (rpm).

I think that makes up, in some ways, for the poor graphics

Well, there is a problem then. I checked what you said and yes it says 7200RPM, but the hardware tech specs state 5400RPM...

hmmm

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Drakino

Not really. The GMA950 supports Core Image, something the Radeon 9200 couldn't do. The GMA950 was designed by Intel to be able to accelerate every part of the Vista Aero interface, and currently Vista is more demanding of the GPU then OS X is. Odds are, the GMA950 will be just fine for anything added in 10.5 as well.

Good, but saying it is better than the 9200 is still arguable. In some aspects, but not in others. Texture swapping for instance. No. And the 9200 was out when dinosaurs walked the earth.

cheers

W-Y

[thunderous_funker]

Why is it that every time a major game release comes to Apple, its big news. But when people complain about crappy GPUs in affordable Macs they get shouted down by fanboys that they should go buy a Playstation?

I have a Mini. The only game I play is World of Warcraft. It is really slow.

I was in the market for an upgrade and after seeing the great stats on the Intel iMac was really hopeful. The Intel Integrated chipset is an absolute dealbreaker. Yeah, it might be marginally faster than what I've got, but "marginally faster" != reason to upgrade in my book. You may have more disposable income than I do, however.

Bummer. Guess I'm going to have to build a PC to play WoW on since Apple apparently only cares to announce when WoW developers support the platform but don't seem to give a rat's ass about putting decent game performance in any machine under $1300.

[legacyb4]

Agreed! As a headless media center playing onboard/streamed digital audio and for playing back stuff on regular (I know, I'm way behind in TV technology), this fits the bill. Not to mention tossing on a wireless keyboard and mouse and you are reading for a small, out of the way media computer.

Originally Posted by lamewing

The graphics don't bother me as this would be a simple machine for simple use, but the optical in/out REALLY gets me! I think I may finally break down and buy one. I don't understand the reason not to include 1GB of RAM as a base...or at least on the upper tier mini.

[Tuishimi]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Why is it that every time a major game release comes to Apple, its big news. But when people complain about crappy GPUs in affordable Macs they get shouted down by fanboys that they should go buy a Playstation?

I have a Mini. The only game I play is World of Warcraft. It is really slow.

[snip]

Bummer. Guess I'm going to have to build a PC to play WoW on since Apple apparently only cares to announce when WoW developers support the platform but don't seem to give a rat's ass about putting decent game performance in any machine under $1300.

Don't get mad at me, not trying to shoot you down, but I played WOW on my G4 mini and it wasn't bad. I play it on my G5 iMac and it isn't bad either. I am guessing WoW will run great in the new intel iMacs... but the mini... well, it never was meant for gaming (as far as I can tell). 32 MB VRAM in the old model, now just 64 (well, Apple's site says it needs 96 MB) shared?

The graphics will work and they won't be bad or anything, but I think they are meant for displaying images, documents, etc. The machine is better for non-graphic-intensive tasks.

You are right... the only good mac gaming platforms are the one's that obviously have a decent graphics card + memory.

And, if you really are a serious gamer, then you will be wanting a PC anyway, since the vast majority of the games are originally designed for the PC anyway, with many if not most never making it to OS X.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by Tuishimi

And, if you really are a serious gamer, then you will be wanting a PC anyway, since the vast majority of the games are originally designed for the PC anyway, with many if not most never making it to OS X.

I'm not mad. I'm just saying that I find it very irritating that Apple loves to tout it whenever a game (like WoW) releases for Apple (they even have a universal binary already) and yet the consistently hamstring all their entry level machines with mediocre GPUs.

Consider this, I have a Celeron 800 with 512Mb RAM and a GeForece3Ti card. It plays WoW as well (and in some respects better) than my Mini even with max ram installed.

Yeah, its not a gaming machine. But the Mini is also pretty damn slow at iPhoto and any Video work. It needed a legit upgrade. The sad part is that every other spec on the new Mini is terrific, with the notable exception of the GPU. Just doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me.

I think they are tripping over dollars to pick up nickles. Its a stupid place to pinch pennies, a good GPU can really extend the life/utility/performance of a machine over all, not just playing a game or two.

[Eug Wanker]

1) How is RAM allocated to the GPU? Is it dynamically varied in OS X, with demand?

2) Is the Mac mini dual-channel memory capable? My guess is yes, since the machine is shipped with memory in pairs only. If it indeed is dual-channel capable, how much of an impact will this have on 3D gaming performance? I'd love to see a gaming review that compares 2x512 vs 1x1024 MB.

I would recommend the minimum config for a Mac mini is 2x512, especially since you lose 80 MB right off the bat. 512 MB in Tiger already sucks. 432 MB in Tiger would suck even more.

[yikes600]

Shared video memory = no sale for me.
Bummer, even if it still had the ancient Radeon 9200 I'd buy.

[dale]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Why is it that every time a major game release comes to Apple, its big news. But when people complain about crappy GPUs in affordable Macs they get shouted down by fanboys that they should go buy a Playstation?

I have a Mini. The only game I play is World of Warcraft. It is really slow.

I was in the market for an upgrade and after seeing the great stats on the Intel iMac was really hopeful. The Intel Integrated chipset is an absolute dealbreaker. Yeah, it might be marginally faster than what I've got, but "marginally faster" != reason to upgrade in my book. You may have more disposable income than I do, however.

Bummer. Guess I'm going to have to build a PC to play WoW on since Apple apparently only cares to announce when WoW developers support the platform but don't seem to give a rat's ass about putting decent game performance in any machine under $1300.

Firstly, I must say, I am not a gamer. As such, I often struggle to understand why people need to have one "box" that is capable of doing everything. Is it not better to have something like a Mini or an iMac to use as a "computer" and buy an xbox 360 or PS or something to play games on. That way you can have one in the study, and one in the lounge for when your mates come round.

Am I missing something fundamental ??

I must say, the mini isn't great value, but it does add a lot to the package (Digital Audio out, Digital in, Frontrow, remote, 2 extra USB, bluetooth, wireless and DL DVD burning).

I can't help but feel that the new mini is a bit of a fudge between a media center that everyone wanted, and a regular "computer". I expect the 3rd party manufacturers (such as Elgato) to launch peripherals using the same form factor in the next few weeks to make use of those extra ports. An elgato TV recording box is an obvious candidate, and may possibly have its own 3.5 HD inside as well, giving a base mini extra storage. But this will of course take the price up to $1100 or £800 in the UK!!!

[JKT]

Originally Posted by yikes600

Shared video memory = no sale for me.
Bummer, even if it still had the ancient Radeon 9200 I'd buy.

What, so you won't buy it because of shared video memory, but you would buy it if it had an even worse graphics option?

[Scarpad]

I love my original mini but this new one is less than underwhelming, who are they aiming this thing at? For $800 it's truely underpowered to be used in the HT, I mean Intergrated graphics ! I thought my 9200 sucked. I have FR on my mini now and it's less impressive even than MCE 2005 (No Easy Feat). I can easily build a better HT Computer for 8 bills. Wow Just Wow.

[ghporter]

I think there's a lot of FUD going on in this thread. While it's quite possible that this integrated video will be less stunning than we'd all like, so far nobody's done any tests (that have been posted) on THIS implementation. Considering how involved both Windows and OS X are in producing the display image, I'm not going to say "no thanks" to the new Mini unless it's shown to be really, really dismal.

I'm not looking for the Mini to be a super computer, or a competitor for the G5 Quad; I AM looking for it to be a great starter computer with a whole lot of value bundled into a tiny little box. And so far, I'm not seeing this new version as being a disappointment.

Thanks for the details, Eug. I can't argue with the statement that an expansion card would be better than integrated graphics. But I'm still waiting to see what real world experience and dependable benchmarks say about the new Mini's video.

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by JKT

What, so you won't buy it because of shared video memory, but you would buy it if it had an even worse graphics option?

I think in many ways, Apple is responsible for this attitude, as they used to advertise against integrated graphics. Of course, Apple used to advertise about Intel hardware being bad in general, but I think that we all understand that marketing information is biased.

Personally, the GMA950 works fine for me. I use a Gateway PC with it at work and I have never had any problems with it. I use it for normal office work, not to mention lunchtime Mame, DVD, and video (xvid, divx, wmv) playing.

What I am really trying to figure out the the CPU situation. How does the Core Duo in the Mini compare in processing power to, say, the 3ghz Pentium 630 I have on my work computer? The only comparisons I have found so far compare the 2.16ghz Duo, not the 1.66ghz version found in the Mini.

By the way, I can't find mention of a 1.5ghz Core Solo on Intel's site. The only model I saw listed is the T1300, which runs at 1.66ghz. There is, however, a Duo Core L2300 that runs at 1.5ghz.

[Gee4orce]

Um guys, a reality check for y'all. This is not the complete Apple Intel Mac lineup. Repeat. This is not the complete Apple Intel Mac lineup.

Who's to say that Apple won't release a Mac Nano that's ultra-cut price for those who just want web, email and word processing (leaving the Mini for Home Theatre) ? Who's to say Apple won't release a Mac Maxi, a sub-powermac for you SOHO power users and gamers ? Who's to say ? Not us.

[Shaddim]

I would buy one of these for one reason, and one reason alone, as a set-top WoW machine (to hookup to my 43" HD set upstairs). Given that this GPU has already proven to be a poor performer in WoW, even worse that the Radeon 9200, there's no way I'd consider this thing.

What a disappointment.

[kikkoman]

Originally Posted by DavisH

From the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine cache of Apple’s Mac Mini Graphics page from March 5, 2005:

Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.

What a difference a year makes: the new Minis use an “integrated Intel graphics” chip!

Yeah right! Just try playing Halo on a Mac mini G4.

[bleee]

With regards to the integrated Graphics Chipset it's not the greatest solution I always praised Apple for having a dedicated GPU with dedicated GPU memory. Most memorable is the Ti powerbook's they had their down dedicated GPU and dedicated GPU memory when every laptop manufacture used shared memory and shitty GPU's i.e. SIS evilness.

I think that the resentment towards, I will call them "no name" GPU's (Intel/SIS) and shared memory comes from the fact that PC manufactures such as DELL, HP, IBM did such a poor job of integrating them into their low end systems. I'm hoping Apple will surprise us all and do a better job of using "no name" GPU's and Shared video memory. I will admit I was really really excited when I saw the release of a core duo mini, with 2 ram slots, and all the extra external ports more USB etc... but then was disappointed about the 5400RPM HD and Intel graphics/shared vid memory.

[yikes600]

Originally Posted by JKT

What, so you won't buy it because of shared video memory, but you would buy it if it had an even worse graphics option?

Worse according to who? Let's see what Apple has to say about it. Here's an excerpt from the Mac Mini G4 page at Apple.com:

Do More Simultaneously

Your Mac mini uses its dedicated graphics chip to offload visual tasks from the main CPU. So the G4 processor doesn’t have to worry about layering windows, moving them around, scrolling through web pages or worse, figuring out the pattern umpteen laser beams make when reflected off a shielded spaceship during combat. The Radeon 9200 takes care of all that, and does a better job than a general purpose CPU since it’s designed especially for such tasks. Even better, the Radeon 9200 gets to use 32MB of dedicated memory, which lets the G4 processor use all of its RAM for other tasks. That means you can run many more programs at once.

Lock the Target

Or one 3D game. Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.

So view your digital life at the highest resolution with Mac mini and the world’s most advanced graphical user interface.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:.../graphics.html


(thanks to rtmac from xlr8yourmac for pointing this gem out.)
Looks like I'm sticking with my upgraded Digital Audio for a few more years. Hey, at least it plays Doom 3.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by yikes600

snip

Because, you know, Apple marketing is the most accurate out there

[Zim]

Given that I don't need a Powermac... and I don't WANT the built-in screen of an iMac, the Mini is appealing, if nothing else as the "what's left" option... given that I have a G4/800 (edit: Radeon 7500), I'd have to imagine it would
be mucho "snappy" in comparison.

One thing I wanted to confirm... having never cared about buying a new video card for any machine whatsoever, is there any way to add video to such a system.. via USB2 or FW? Not a big deal, just a minor curiosity. Never heard of such a beast, but thought I'd ask.

2nd question.. again coming from someone that have never had a dual-processor box at home... I run jobs
on 3.4G dual-processor pentiums all the time at work... (linux workstations).. I'm unaware of any tool I use
in my work environment that uses more than one processor at a time.... so it makes me wonder how often
I would notice have a Duo vs a Solo... or would that just mean I could be converting a movie for iPod one one
proc, and the kernel would launch my game process on the other core, so I could do both at once?

thanks,
Mike

[JKT]

Originally Posted by kikkoman

Yeah right! Just try playing Halo on a Mac mini G4.

Have done and it plays pretty well, thanks very much - and that was on the 1.25GHz version as well.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by yikes600

Worse according to who? Let's see what Apple has to say about it. Here's an excerpt from the Mac Mini G4 page at Apple.com:

The 9200 didn't even support Core Image/Core Video for crying out loud. This chipset does. That alone makes it a massive improvement over the 9200. FWIW, I am not saying that this is an ideal solution - I am pointing out that it is a big improvement over the 9200. If people don't want to believe that just because they have their heads so far up their own arses...
The mini is not meant to be anything other than an introductory level Mac at a reasonable price point. If including the Intel chipset has already pushed the price up, just what do you think sticking in dedicated GPU would do to the price as well? I can guarantee that the people whinging here now would still have been whinging here if Apple had done that and, unsurprisingly because of the increased manufacturing costs, instead of being $599 it was now $650 or $700 for the low end model.

<snip>Looks like I'm sticking with my upgraded Digital Audio for a few more years. Hey, at least it plays Doom 3.

Given how crap Doom 3 is, who bloody cares? And how do you know that the new Mac mini won't play Doom 3 until someone has tried it?

[MickS]

I'm waiting for benchmarks before I decide for or against. Having a massive increase in CPU performance, faster bus, memory, etc is all good. How OS X works with the chipset will determine how good the new mini is.

I would have liked BTO options for faster Core Duo processors. I currently use a Mac Mini to do iChat Video on an HDTV. I'd love to be able to host multi-way conversations.

[Tuishimi]

Originally Posted by JKT

Given how crap Doom 3 is, who bloody cares? And how do you know that the new Mac mini won't play Doom 3 until someone has tried it?

I'm sure it will play it... one frame at a time. But I agree with you. This chip, with or w/o shared ram, will perform better than the ati 9200 in the mini. I played games with my G4 mini like AOE and Warcraft. Lugaru is another good one. Tribal Trouble, stuff like that, are all good games to play on the mini. Actually, even with my souped up G5 iMac here (20" 2.0) I still find myself playing those games. I guess if I get a cool new game (like B&W 2 when it comes to mac) I'll try it on the mini and if it cannot handle it, I'll just go play on the iMac.

[JKT]

Joy of Tech's take on all of this

LOL.

[P]

I think most people in here are in agreement that the GMA950 is better than Radeon 9200 on general interface issues, and that the Radeon 9200 is better for gaming. OK? Now, I have two questions for all of you:

* Would you rather
a) have a Mac mini that has bad general performance and bad gaming performance
or
b) one that has good general performance and horribly unusable gaming performance?

* You have two desktop Macs under $1500. Would you rather have
a) one with bad gaming performance and one with so-so gaming performance
or
b) one with decent gaming performance and one with horribly unusable gaming performance.

[mduell]

Has anyone seen benchmarks directly comparing GMA950 and the 9200 with the same setup/configuration? Everything I've seen sofar is comparing GMA900 to 9200 or GMA950 to foo and foo to 9200.
As someone noted in another thead, GMA950 adds features (like Core Image/Video support) which the 9200 lacked.

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

The Mac mini simply isn't a high-end machine. If you want a high-end style consumer machine, front the money for an iMac. You can't expect Apple to put that kind of stuff in a $600 system. Most $600 Dells are equipped far worse than this new mini. Despite the fact that the graphics are integrated, the fact remains that it IS indeed superior to the old Mac mini. Would you rather have this GMA950, or would you rather have a dedicated TNT2 which is about three times slower?

A $600 Dell includes 128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon X300 SE, and of course you have the PCIe slot available to upgrade to anything you want (including 7800GTX 512MB).

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

GMA 950 graphics.

I wonder what that means for real-world performance. My guess it that stuff like Aperture won't be allowed to run at all on it, but it will be fine for CoreImage effects in OS X.

The picture you posted is comparing GMA950 to the 6200, which is a generation ahead of the 9200.

[HazMacFan]

Originally Posted by jebjeb

Most of you guys are hilarious!

Ok, maybe I am not the most normal customer for something like this, but I guess I am still part of the market place.

I want a Mac to hook up to my new LCD tv when I get it. I have a Quad already for my main machine and will be either grabbing a Mac Book Pro or iBook replacement when they come out for my portable.

What I would like is a machine that can;
- show my photos (planning to use HDTV as digital picture frame when not "improving" my mind watching TV)
- play music (ideally digital into an external DAC hooked up to my decent 2-channel setup)
- play DVD's both off disc and accessed from main HTPC
- playback some 720p HD content
- Odd bit of web surfing
- iChat video confrencing
- grab most of its content of my main HTPC with a big-ass RAID-5 down in the basement

Now, maybe that is some quite specific requirements. I guess it is helped by the capability I DON'T need;
- playing games
- any kind of photo editing or other intensive work
I can do all that on the Quad.

So the new Intel Mac mini looks pretty damn good to me.
- It should be fairly quick
- can chuck a decent amount of RAM in there at a low cost
- Digital Audio out without using a M-Audio Sonica etc
- DVI (as before)
- Front Row - the big one for me as it makes the machine very easy to use for a living room machine
- Gigabit Ethernet for quick access to my central Photo library and ripped DVDs (which I know would be fine over 100mb)

As long as it can do the following, it is a bloody good solution to my needs;
- Gotta be able to play 720p video (H.264 etc)
- play this through the FrontRow interface (ideally show the HD trailers as well)

Thing I am not particularly happy about are the fact that one cannot buy the Core Duo machine without a superdrive (I' don't need to burn DVD's on this machine). However, I understand that this makes logistics much easier so if I want the Core Duo, I have to pay the extra for the optical drive I don't really need.

I don't really care whether it is integrated graphics or not, as long as it can do what I want it to do.

This should save me from replacing my Squeezeboxes with a Sonos system as I would then have a living room based machine that I can easily play music from.

I know some of you guys obviously want a much cheaper machine than a PowerMac which can still do everything you need it to do. Unlucky I guess.

This is the most sense I see in the thread. Excatly what the Mini is for. Would have liked it a couple of hundred dollars less, but hey.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

The picture you posted is comparing GMA950 to the 6200, which is a generation ahead of the 9200.

I know, but there was no review that compared it to the 9200.

However, the 9200 was inadequate even last year. I would have hoped that a 2006 Intel Mac mini would have an updated GPU like the Radeon 9550 or X300. And as I've said before, even my cheap 12" iBook (which came with a free iPod mini) has the Radeon 9550.

In 2006, I think it's fair to compare GMA 950 against the Radeon 9550 and X300, since both of these latter two GPUs are considered low end.

[lamewing]

None of the Mac can handle WoW as well as a PC...especially when you consider overall cost. Having said that, after 13 months my wife and I are 100% WOW FREE. By the gods it feels good to go outside and worship that big glowing ball in the sky...what is it called again?

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Why is it that every time a major game release comes to Apple, its big news. But when people complain about crappy GPUs in affordable Macs they get shouted down by fanboys that they should go buy a Playstation?

I have a Mini. The only game I play is World of Warcraft. It is really slow.

I was in the market for an upgrade and after seeing the great stats on the Intel iMac was really hopeful. The Intel Integrated chipset is an absolute dealbreaker. Yeah, it might be marginally faster than what I've got, but "marginally faster" != reason to upgrade in my book. You may have more disposable income than I do, however.

Bummer. Guess I'm going to have to build a PC to play WoW on since Apple apparently only cares to announce when WoW developers support the platform but don't seem to give a rat's ass about putting decent game performance in any machine under $1300.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell

A $600 Dell includes 128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon X300 SE, and of course you have the PCIe slot available to upgrade to anything you want (including 7800GTX 512MB).

Which $600 Dell model are you talking about? And is it anywhere near as small as a Mini?

[Eug Wanker]

GMA 950
On Intel i945G, Intel i945Gx, Intel 950, and Intel 955x chipset motherboards.
Clock speed: 400 MHz
T/L: CPU based (no hardware T&L)
Pixel Shading: Yes. Pixel Shader 2.0
OpenGL: Yes. v.1.4 with enhanced lighting
DirectX (hardware): Yes. v.9.0
Based on PowerVR Zone Rendering Technology licensed from ST Microelectronics

Re: HDCP

Can the Mac mini support it? There is no mention of HDCP support anywhere on the Mac mini pages, but I do note that some GMA 950 chipsets do support it.

[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by HazMacFan

This is the most sense I see in the thread. Excatly what the Mini is for. Would have liked it a couple of hundred dollars less, but hey.

I guess I'm lucky as it looks like it fits the bill for me, as long as it can play back HD H.264. I can sort of see why people are going on about graphics for games and stuff but I am not particularly a gamer and for the little I do play, I have the Quad and a PS2.

Personally, I don't think that it is Apple's intended market. It is obvious though that there could be a few more sales if there was a decent GPU in it. However, these extra sales would be offset by the large drop in sales due to the corresponding increase in price. If they could somehow make it an option to have a faster GPU then it would be cool. I guess that would be tough to do though as it would need an actual new component in the machine (I assume).

I don't really understand all the unsubstantiated prejudice against the integrated graphics. Until we see how if performs we won't really know. Also, it looks pretty bloody likely that it is better than the previous gpu in the G4 Mac mini so with the extra horsepower from the CPU(s) and memory, the machine should be much better. Mind you, it would want to be for the extra money.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Which $600 Dell model are you talking about? And is it anywhere near as small as a Mini?

It's hard to compare Dells against the mini .. I can't find any inexpensive Dells that use the Core Duo.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It is unfortunate that it is more expensive than the current models even if it is a better machine that what is currently offered.

How could it be better? It has SHARED MEMORY GRAPHICS!!!

Isn't that a BAD thing? That's what you guys were saying a year ago!