[discotronic]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

Awww crap. I got the arguements and who's making them in this thread all screwed up. Sorry about that!

(And to your point about Apple's marketing dept. vs reality, the mini's performance looks to be par for the course ... about 1/2 of what Apple's promising...)

No problem. I understand how that happens. I hope everything is up to what they promise. I am ready for a surprise.

[Eug Wanker]

Higher scores are better:


Mac mini G4 1.5 GHz:

Rendering (1 CPU): 152

C4D: 159
OpenGL Software Lighting: 414
OpenGL Hardware Lighting: 506
OpenGL Speedup: 3.18


Mac mini Core Solo 1.5 GHz:

Rendering (1 CPU): 213

C4D: 259
OpenGL Software Lighting: 885
OpenGL Hardware Lighting: 441
OpenGL Speedup: 3.41


ie. For GPU-accelerated OpenGL in Cinebench 9.5, the old G4 Radeon 9200 Mac mini is actually 15% faster. The Intel Core Solo GMA 950 Mac mini is 40% faster in CPU rendering though.

[aristobrat]

How could one expect those benchmarks to translate into gaming performance (said the non-gamer)?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

How could one expect those benchmarks to translate into gaming performance (said the non-gamer)?

We can't make direct translations, as Cinebench's use of OpenGL is obviously going to be different than Game A or Game B. Plus, CPU speed is of course very important for game performance too, and the Intel Mac mini has a much better CPU.

However, it does serve as a useful illustration as to just how limiting the GMA 950 graphics chipset can be (when 3D graphics are concerned), regardless of how fast the CPU is.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

How could one expect those benchmarks to translate into gaming performance (said the non-gamer)?

Sharky's Extreme and other sites have run benchmarks; it's half the speed of even nVidia's *integrated* (bleh) solutions, so it's pretty darned slow.

[lamewing]

I am confused why folks are making a big deal out of this. The mini ISN'T a gaming machine and isn't designed for the professional or even semi-professional market. It is a simple, low-end, home computer (or very cool little server). Why try to make it a game machine or even discuss it use as a game machine. Please folks, give it up. Now if the new intel desktops or iMacs came with a video solution like the mini's there THERE would be a reason to be upset. Why are we even upset about this. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by lamewing

I am confused why folks are making a big deal out of this.

I think it's pretty well explained in this thread.

The mini ISN'T a gaming machine and isn't designed for the professional or even semi-professional market. It is a simple, low-end, home computer (or very cool little server). Why try to make it a game machine or even discuss it use as a game machine. Please folks, give it up. Now if the new intel desktops or iMacs came with a video solution like the mini's there THERE would be a reason to be upset. Why are we even upset about this. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Bingo!

People who do casual light gaming are disappointed. And given the Mac mini's market (and the response here), that's a lot of people who are hesistating buying this. The ironic part about all the denial about this is the fact that Apple already acknowledged this when it talked about the G4 Mac mini, as so many people have already pointed out.

Originally Posted by foo2

Sharky's Extreme and other sites have run benchmarks; it's half the speed of even nVidia's *integrated* (bleh) solutions, so it's pretty darned slow.

Link?

[betasp]

"I just ran XBench on my new stock standard Core Duo Mac Mini and uploaded the stats to XBench. The new model destroys the old one, and OpenGL performance is over 2x better than the G4 Mac Mini. Maybe the Intel GMA950 Is not so bad? 1080P trailers from trailers.apple.com run without dropping any frames also."

slow link...
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc...32&doc2=146457

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by betasp

"I just ran XBench on my new stock standard Core Duo Mac Mini and uploaded the stats to XBench. The new model destroys the old one, and OpenGL performance is over 2x better than the G4 Mac Mini. Maybe the Intel GMA950 Is not so bad? 1080P trailers from trailers.apple.com run without dropping any frames also."

slow link...
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc...32&doc2=146457

That's encouraging, but Xbench is pretty useless for most stuff. IIRC, my G4 1.7 gets a better CPU score than a G5 2.0 for example.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

People who do casual light gaming are disappointed. And given the Mac mini's market (and the response here), that's a lot of people who are hesistating buying this.

A lot of people. On a Mac forum. Where people tend to be pretty hardcore about their computer choices. I'm sure we don't represent the majority of the market where this machine is targeted.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by lamewing

I am confused why folks are making a big deal out of this. The mini ISN'T a gaming machine and isn't designed for the professional or even semi-professional market. It is a simple, low-end, home computer (or very cool little server). Why try to make it a game machine or even discuss it use as a game machine. Please folks, give it up. Now if the new intel desktops or iMacs came with a video solution like the mini's there THERE would be a reason to be upset. Why are we even upset about this. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I think part of the issue is that it competes in a market space in which machines have tuners and good graphics cards (indeed, even the cheapee PCs have slots for PCI Express graphics these days), and it tends to be among the more expensive of those systems, so I don't think it's unrealistic to expect better performance. Have you guys been in Circuit City lately? Almost all the PCs there are running Media Center 2005, and many of them have MPEG2-in-hardware television tuners too. The 'low end' has increased and improved dramatically with Media Center.

It's small and tiny, and if that's the key criteria, it's basically the best choice in that market space.

But for HTPC, games, and anything but small, pretty, and tiny, I'm a bit disappointed. IMHO, it's a step back for much of what I think most people in that pricerange will be interested in.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I think it's pretty well explained in this thread.


Link?

Links and graphics are available in this very thread, showing X300SE (the cheapy edition of ATI's cheapy graphics card) being five times faster than the GMA950 in FarCry at 640x480, showing GMA950 lowest of a long line of graphics adapters in Castle Wolfenstein, and, at Sharky's Extreme, compared with just the nVidia 6100/6200 solutions.

[inkhead]

The graphics card is a huge improvement! You laugh at shared video but this graphics card is still much, much faster than the card in previous mac minis. Not only that buy the Intel Mac Mini SOLO had two 1080p HD STREAMS running at the same time flawlessly. I couldn't even get a 480p stream to work on the old mac mini with "upgraded" (laugh) video card.

[TWinbrook46636]

That has nothing to do with the integrated graphics as it features no acceleration of MPEG4/H.264 used by those 1080p Quicktime clips. That is handled by the CPU. This would explain why the core solo can't handle it but the core duo can. The integrated graphics can only accelerate MPEG2 if enabled.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by inkhead

The graphics card is a huge improvement! You laugh at shared video but this graphics card is still much, much faster than the card in previous mac minis.

That has already been disproven in this very thread. The hardware OpenGL tests run slower on the new GMA 950 Mac mini than the old Radeon 9200 Mac mini.

Not only that buy the Intel Mac Mini SOLO had two 1080p HD STREAMS running at the same time flawlessly. I couldn't even get a 480p stream to work on the old mac mini with "upgraded" (laugh) video card.

As others have already said, that has absolutely nothing to do with the GPU. The CPU in the Intel Mac mini is very good.

BTW, while two 1080p MPEG2 streams may be possible, that's more or less irrelevant for most people, since all of Apple's 1080p QuickTime material is h.264. The Mac mini Core Solo 1.5 is incapable of decoding two simultaneous h.264 1080p streams flawlessly.

[Lateralus]

Confirmed; The CPU is socketed.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Confirmed; The CPU is socketed.

Yeah, I'd love to see someone swap in a Core Duo 1.66 into a Core Solo 1.5 Mac mini and see what happens.

If you try putting the wrong speed G5 in a Power Mac, it doesn't work properly.

[Lateralus]

Somebody already upgraded their Intel iMac using an off the shelf Core Duo (2.16, IIRC), so I suspect doing the same to a Mini wont prove to be a problem.

[Titom]

The Core solo sounds like a very good upgrade to the mini mac. Wish I could afford the duo, but for what I do (surfing mostly), I think the mini is a good option.

[ehchan]

Originally Posted by Rumz

According to Crucial they're not SO-DIMMS.

http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...z%29&submit=Go

http://www.applefritter.com/Mac_Mini_Take_Apart_Guide

From the pics, they actually are SO-DIMMs... Crucial guessed wrong...

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ehchan

http://www.applefritter.com/Mac_Mini_Take_Apart_Guide

Is the smaller heatsink the GPU?

What about the location of the GPU in the G4 Mac mini?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by foo2

My local Circuit City has $460 (model clearance) eMachines AMD 64 3500+ with 200GB, 1GB, ATI Express 200 graphics (and open PCI-Express slot) *with* MPEG2-in-hardware tuner (and Media Center 2005) and remote.

How many percent, no, make that how many times bigger is it?
I'm not a fan of the mini's size, but that's what drives the cost up and the features down.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

People who do casual light gaming are disappointed.

I disagree. Nanosaur, The Sims, Quake 3, etc will all run quite well. Doom 3 and WoW isn't "light" gaming.

Originally Posted by inkhead

Not only that buy the Intel Mac Mini SOLO had two 1080p HD STREAMS running at the same time flawlessly. I couldn't even get a 480p stream to work on the old mac mini with "upgraded" (laugh) video card.

Sounds like those are MPEG2, not H.264; my 1.86Ghz PM can't even play one 1080p H.264 stream without dropping a frame in fast/complex parts.

Originally Posted by ehchan

http://www.applefritter.com/Mac_Mini_Take_Apart_Guide

From the pics, they actually are SO-DIMMs... Crucial guessed wrong...

ITYM Apple told Crucial (and the rest of the world) wrong.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html says "on two DIMMs". Before you say "DIMMs" is just a generic term, on the MBP and iMac pages they say SODIMMs.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Is the smaller heatsink the GPU?

I think it's the northbridge, which includes the GPU. Linky

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

I disagree. Nanosaur, The Sims, Quake 3, etc will all run quite well. Doom 3 and WoW isn't "light" gaming.

Well, I consider WoW "light" gaming (not that I'm a WoW type). Mind you the Blizzard guys are guessing that WoW will be playable on it. I wonder what "playable" means though.

Originally Posted by mduell

Sounds like those are MPEG2, not H.264; my 1.86Ghz PM can't even play one 1080p H.264 stream without dropping a frame in fast/complex parts.

Yeah, the 1.66 Core Duo has now been reported to drop a significant amount of frames on some of the more complex 1080p h.264 stuff.

Most of the lighter 1080p h.264 stuff should play fine though.

I guess I'm going to be spending a lot of moolah by the end of this year... DVI/HDMI HDTV, 1.83 GHz Core Duo Mac mini version B (preferably with better GPU), MacBook 13", etc.

[phazedowt]

There seems to be a lot of talk about the GMA being a less than ideal gaming GPU... which it is. But aren't we missing the point? What about Core Image? Sure all we have now is the silly ripple effect and heavy duty stuff like Aperture (which I doubt many will run on their Minis) but I can certainly see, say, Adobe making a version of PS elements in the future that utilized Core Image. Recall that with the update of the ibook to the 9550, the mini remained the only non-core image machine in Apple's lineup. So, isn't this the real short change here?

Also, I'd imagine that the shared memory kills considering how memory hungry OS X already is.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by phazedowt

Also, I'd imagine that the shared memory kills considering how memory hungry OS X already is.

Yea, but the little box supports 4GB (as soon as 2GB SODIMMs hit the market), so losing 64MB isn't that big of a deal.

[e:leaf]

Most pople who buy a mini are not in the market for a gaming machine, or a photoshop rendering machine, or video editing machine . . .

Most people who buy are net surfers or the occasional iPhoto junkie. I agree that integrated VRAM is certainly less than ideal (as does Apple according to their original sales literature for the mini), but for the lowest-end budget computer that Apple makes, I'm not sure why having an integrated card is the "deal-breaker" that everyone is making it out to be.

I have an original mini (1.25GH/ 512MB) and I can't game at all on that machine (my wife has quit playing Sims2 because of how frustrated she gets with the graphics performance). Why is suddenly having the ability to game on the mini now such a high priority? It's not necessarily about the type of hardware, but whether that hardware can deliver. No core graphics in the original mini with a separate video card. Now we have it with Intel and their integrated graphics chip. I would say that it s step forward despite the apparent downgrade in the 'type' of hardare that runs it.

I have a couple of blog entries concerning the new mini.

[djc6]

Originally Posted by mduell

ITYM Apple told Crucial (and the rest of the world) wrong.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html says "on two DIMMs". Before you say "DIMMs" is just a generic term, on the MBP and iMac pages they say SODIMMs.

I fell victim to that... I ordered five Core Duo's for my employer and ordered ten 512MB PC2-5300 *DIMMS* from zipzoomfly because I looked at those very tech specs and then crucial's website to confirm (since they had intel mini's listed).

Thank god I lurk on here, saw other people mention SO-DIMMs... I way able to cancel both orders in time, then just re-order from apple with the extra memory we wanted.

[krillbee]

There are many here that are confused about the complaints with the graphics on the new mini.

For all those who say "the mini is not meant to be a gaming machine!" I agree. And that wouldnt be a problem if Apple had another machine out there which played games better and didn't cost $700 more. But lets face it, between the solo mini and the imac, the price difference is huge!

What Apple is doing is forcing their customers to buy an Imac if they want to play any game that is somewhat recent. Unfortunately, by imposing this on their customers I think Apple will lose customers who will instead buy a PC to play games. Instead they will buy a cheap $500 PC and get a video card upgrade for it.

What is even more frustrating though is the disparity between cpu and graphics in the mini. Apple packs a nice cpu in this machine, but fails to find a good video card to go along with it. Why the heck would anyone need a Core Duo cpu when all they are running on is integrated intel video? What do you need all that cpu speed for if you wont be doing graphic heavy things? I suppose it may startup a couple seconds faster, but whats the point in that?

Now from a marketing standpoint, the average consumer could care less about video specifications, since ma and pa dont look at those. If it can play a dvd (which most computers in the last 7 years can) then they are happy.
They see a faster cpu (2x or 4x faster than the earlier mini!) and they want to buy the new mini. And integrated wireless, wohoo. So they are sold on it.

What Apple is doing is smart from a marketing standpoint, but they may disappoint a few of their gamers in the process. I suppose the R+D involved doesnt justify developing a machine to sell in between the price range of the mini and the imac.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by krillbee

What is even more frustrating though is the disparity between cpu and graphics in the mini. Apple packs a nice cpu in this machine, but fails to find a good video card to go along with it. Why the heck would anyone need a Core Duo cpu when all they are running on is integrated intel video? What do you need all that cpu speed for if you wont be doing graphic heavy things? I suppose it may startup a couple seconds faster, but whats the point in that?

Look, the GPU is not well suited for 3D things and that is it. However, it is suited to doing 2D work. That means that it is perfectly good for a Core Duo to be included for people doing 2D work (iPhoto style editing, iMovie style editing, photoshopping style work - with an image editor that is native, if there are any yet). Having a Core Duo is going to help in this instance. Just because this isn't a machine suited for 3D work or gaming, does not make it invalid when it comes to the type of work most people will use it for.

It is obvious that Apple needs a machine inbetween the mini and the iMac. Historically that gap used to be filled by the eMac (except for the past 6 months to a year). The eMac has been essentially phased out for the consumer. The question then is what are Apple going to do to fill that gap? Maybe nothing, who knows? Or maybe, just maybe, they are going to produce a new model Mac that fills it? One thing is for certain - if they do there is going to be endless bitching and moaning about it on these forums no matter what it is or how suited it is to its task.

Has everyone already forgotten that Apple turns 30 in April? Steve Jobs has already left a massive clue that something is going to happen then... don't you think that there might just be a teensy-weensy chance that something completely new is released?

[Tuishimi]

Originally Posted by JKT

One thing is for certain - if they do there is going to be endless bitching and moaning about it on these forums no matter what it is or how suited it is to its task.

Ya think? I think you hit the nail on the head... (or your head against the wall)!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by JKT

Look, the GPU is not well suited for 3D things and that is it. However, it is suited to doing 2D work. That means that it is perfectly good for a Core Duo to be included for people doing 2D work (iPhoto style editing, iMovie style editing, photoshopping style work - with an image editor that is native, if there are any yet). Having a Core Duo is going to help in this instance. Just because this isn't a machine suited for 3D work or gaming, does not make it invalid when it comes to the type of work most people will use it for.

It is obvious that Apple needs a machine inbetween the mini and the iMac. Historically that gap used to be filled by the eMac (except for the past 6 months to a year). The eMac has been essentially phased out for the consumer. The question then is what are Apple going to do to fill that gap? Maybe nothing, who knows? Or maybe, just maybe, they are going to produce a new model Mac that fills it? One thing is for certain - if they do there is going to be endless bitching and moaning about it on these forums no matter what it is or how suited it is to its task.

Has everyone already forgotten that Apple turns 30 in April? Steve Jobs has already left a massive clue that something is going to happen then... don't you think that there might just be a teensy-weensy chance that something completely new is released?

If you're counting on April 1 bringing a new desktop Mac that makes up for the deficiences of the Mac mini, then methinks you're setting yourself up for a disappointment.

I'd be all for it, but if they don't bring out that new line (and I don't expect them to), then I would hope for a less @sstastic GPU in the Mac mini.

P.S. jamil5454 has explained why GMA 950 is so @sstastic here:

"Hardware(accelerated) transform and lighting, introduce in the original GeForce 256 in 2000, has been the biggest thing to hit 3D video cards. Nearly every single video card manufactured from Nvidia and ATI since 2000 has it. The GMA950 lacks this.

Not arguing with you, just pointing out that if the GMA9650 had hardware T&L then it wouldn't suck so much."

[stuffedmonkey]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

To keep trumpeting Apples old ad copy is just foolish. It further makes those of you look the bit of a whiny child.

Boohoo, Waaaah, They Saaaaaid, Seeeee, Stomp Stomp Stomp.

'It's like I'm playing with my sister's kids. Ya, nerve racking SOBs'

If everyone would just take half a breath and put down the Baskerville torches…

The MacMini is what it is, Apple ad copy or not.

If it still had a 9200 but 64mb of ram you complain it wasn't the 9550.

It it was a 9600 it should have been a x300

If it had been the biometric warp core accelerator, it clearly should have been the quantum biometric warp core accelerator MkII.

Same as it ever was… Same as it ever was…

I think you miss the point entirely. Perhaps you fall on the other end of the spectrum - the people who think whatever Apple does is great, because the Great Steve said so. It's frustrating from the point of view of working in IT, because it hurts credibility. I'm fighting to keep the Macs we have, and co-workers dismiss Mac user as basically ignorant, and that they will believe whatever Apple tells them - even if it is the exact opposite of what they said last week.

[Tuishimi]

Originally Posted by stuffedmonkey

I think you miss the point entirely. Perhaps you fall on the other end of the spectrum - the people who think whatever Apple does is great, because the Great Steve said so. It's frustrating from the point of view of working in IT, because it hurts credibility. I'm fighting to keep the Macs we have, and co-workers dismiss Mac user as basically ignorant, and that they will believe whatever Apple tells them - even if it is the exact opposite of what they said last week.

What kind of business are you in? I am an IT developer... Not sure how you would have convinced your employees to use Macs in the first place, unless you have graphic artists. The only people at our company with Macs are the Marketing folks and QA (for testing web stuff). I think we have 4 macs in a company of about 180 people.

We get such good deals on desktop workstations from Dell there is no point in trying to convince our IT Support group to buy anything but...

Still, I get up on my soapbox every once in awhile and try to convince people to buy macs for themselves... everyone thinks I am weird. Well, O.K. I *AM* weird...

[thebunny]

I have been reading this thread for a while now and I can't believe the Stalinistic, 'The Great Leader Can Do No Wrong', Apple appologists. The x86 mini is crap with being more expensive and having that GMA950 travesty which is *the* slowest video card you can get today! I am completely stunned by this. Apple is turning into peddlers of expensive Intel crap and socks/leateher cases and speakers. I thought to get a mini for my sister before they were released but I won't. I also shared my sentiments with a bunch of other people in the office and I can tell you that none of them are happy either. Also, watch for the benchmarks of the Solo vs. the old mini (x86 mini will get owned by the lowly G4).

[Eug Wanker]

Interesting comments on GMA 950 from Macworld and Apple:

"Although on PCs the GMA950 can potentially eat up as much as 224MB of main memory for use in frame buffering, Boger told us that Apple’s implementation doesn’t work that way: on the new Mac minis, the GMA950’s memory use is locked at 64MB."

"Peter and I also asked Boger about how well the new Mac mini would handle 3-D games. He replied that Apple hasn’t published any gaming tests on the mini, but informally, the company was seeing increases of between 10 percent and 40 percent for frame rates on games they tested (although he didn’t mention which ones)."

"That statement conflicts with our initial testing of the Core Solo version of the Mac mini. In our Unreal Tournament 2004 test, the Mac mini Core Solo actually had a lower frame rate than the previous-generation Mac mini."

[doctre]

Well I'm not one of the "Whatever Steve and Apple says is scripture" guys... but I have ordered a Mini Core Duo. I'll be installing WOW on it once it gets here to see how it handles it vs. my original 1.42 w/32meg 9200 which barely kept up even with the settings turned all the way down. When I first saw integrated graphics I was annoyed, I really wanted an x1300 in the box along with a Core Duo, Apple chose not to give me that (and its not that much of a surprise due to size and monetary constraints). However, as my mini had long since relegated itself to being hooked up to my TV that doesn't really bother me that much. After reading about the Mini playback of 1080p (over at xlr8yourmac.com) I'm happy to see that it'll work just fine. I'm also happy to see the chip is socketed in the Mini so hello upgrades, I'm really looking forward to seeing if people can get 2.16 Core Duo's running.

[mD LEWIS]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Most of the people that will buy this system don't give a rip about the graphics chip. If Apple used better video and had a lower price, it's quite likely they wouldn't be making profit. Sure, the thing would sell like hotcakes (and it will even at the current price point), but the more they sell in that scenario, the more money they lose. You can't expect everything for cheap and free. But after all, this is America...what am I thinking?

Your dead wrong, some of us PC users don't like windows but we are forced to use it because of some of the apps we choose only support windows. And looking for away out of the feature stealing, blue screen hack of a OS, and OSX is really he only competing solution. Being from the PC side I would expect somthing low end in terms of a gpu a x1300 fits that bill perfectly imo for a mac mini. You can buy a 1300 for under 100 bucks so I'm sure apple just purchasing the chips in volumes would allow them to be acquired at a reasonable price to put in the mac mini.

I could overlook the price increase IF it didnt have such a weak gpu in it becaus that's more processing offloaded to the cpu(s), if anything I would think the price hike indicated better cpu's an GPU's. But choices like this an Apple's ridiculous pyramid pricing scheme is what keeps me and others on the fence and or going to linux. I really want to make the jump to mac but apple keeps making that impossible with their selection, or rather limiting and limited selection. Imo the pyramid pricing leads me to believe the price hike is artifical in nature. And in case your wondering what I mean if you go and slect the lowest model mini fill it with fairly reasonable or modest options you'll notice you are in the price range of the next model, all the way up to the top line. As a PC user who had total control over price through numerous hardware selection and vendors, his is very daunting. And I can't help but feel like I'm being taken for a ride. I scrutinize all purchases and when I see things like

http://www.techbargains.com/u.cfm?afsrc=1&id=58899&u=1

or this http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...978&pfp=BROWSE

It makes me question the prices, and my frigging brain can't let me get past that as laptops are generally roughly 2x-3x the price of a desktop. I'm tempted to get a imac, but I wanted to start with a mini in case of the small(.0000000001) chance I didnt like osx(not very likly) but my brain just would shut up.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by mD LEWIS

Your dead wrong, some of us PC users don't like windows but we are forced to use it because of some of the apps we choose only support windows. And looking for away out of the feature stealing, blue screen hack of a OS, and OSX is really he only competing solution. Being from the PC side I would expect somthing low end in terms of a gpu a x1300 fits that bill perfectly imo for a mac mini. You can buy a 1300 for under 100 bucks so I'm sure apple just purchasing the chips in volumes would allow them to be acquired at a reasonable price to put in the mac mini.

Actually, no, I'm right. The market for this system isn't the picky enthusiasts that browse internet forums. It's the average joe. Averages joes will be the majority of people that buy this system.

As for the price, no, I highly doubt I'm wrong. I'm not the only person that shares the ideas I speak of, either. The chip prices I've heard to OEMs from Intel is... Core Solos go from Intel for ~$230 (based on estimates off of Core Duo price). The Core Duo 1.67 goes for ~$280. I've read estimates of the G4 being priced around ~$50-$75. The low end system this time around also has wireless features that last year's low end system didn't have, and if you haven't seen the motherboard, it really has no room left for a discrete graphics chip. Developing that one would have increased the price because of a more complex motherboard or a larger machine. Not to mention it's little extra cost to go with the graphics integrated version of the 945 chipset. Apple probably saved at least $50 on the graphics between materials and production. For only a $100 increase in price, Apple added a lot to this machine, and I doubt they have that big of a profit margin on it. I highly doubt it's likely that they could have put a discrete graphics chip in the system without raising the price even further, and this is not a gamers system, so it doesn't matter anyway.

For the record, used a mini at the Apple store today. Obviously, they had no 3D apps on the system (what Mac comes with any?) but GUI performance on the 23" Apple displays was perfectly fine. No slowdowns in anything, Front Row included, and this is exactly what Apple intended. This serves their target market perfectly. The machine is much faster than my friend's G4 mini, it's not even funny.

[mD LEWIS]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Nice job, skippy.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by mD LEWIS

Imo the pyramid pricing leads me to believe the price hike is artifical in nature.

Intel-based systems cost Apple at least $100 more to manufacture than PocketPC-based systems. That's a fact that analysts have been talking about ever since Apple announced their Intel transition plans.

Maybe Apple will consider making a cheap-ass full-sized entry level system for people who want to "dabble with OS X" and could care less about the innovative 6 inch by 6 inch form factor that the mini comes in. (Seeing as how that form factor comes at cost .. components are more expensive for it).

[mD LEWIS]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I know.

They thrive on the simple truth of "there's no pleasing some people". They can always point out that even if things were so and so, some people would still not be satisfied.

Be that as it may. I'd still like to reaffirm some points:

1. The GMA 950 is a step backward in technology even as it is marginally more powerful than a lowly 9200. However it is not more powerful in all aspects. Only some and it is introducing a technology I doubt people would like to see spread in Macs today.

2. The Mac mini is no gaming machine, but it used to be a light gaming machine where people could play relatively new FPS and 3D games. On a 9200. On the Windows side people have been using the GMA 950 for a while now and with unimpressing results. Remember games run faster on Windows.

3. The pricepoint went up, while no special features were added. I'm referring to the low end mini here, while one can say that a higher pricepoint for a dual core machine has merit. Every now and then machines are updated, they get more slots, more HD, more standard RAM, more MHz etc. but they keep their pricepoint.

4. Apple has been making a point to offload as much as they can of the OS windowing system and graphical system onto the GPU. This demands video RAM and today 32 MBs is the recommended minimum amount. Video RAM affects what is displayed and how. QuartzExtreme doesn't work on anything less than 16 MB cards IIRC and when that RAM is a slow RAM, then so will the OS slow down.

5. There is no number five.

Perhaps some people don't understand why anyone should complain and then they won't. Nothing I can do about that. This is a precidence Apple is setting and it isn't good. The Mac mini becomes a worse gaming machine, because time passes and games demand more even though the GPU is in some areas marginally superior. It becomes more expensive, and it isn't going to make OS X any snappier.

And this is the entry level machine. For switchers. First impressions last. As a server, a media machine and whatever else non-GPU intensive it is a damn fine machine. But this isn't the 90s anymore. GPUs *are* important and Macs have always lagged behind the Wintels. This is just adding insult to injury.

Somehow I don't think this will affect Mac mini sales much, but it may affect total Mac sales a bit. People who would have bought the last mini will probably buy this one, but people wanting an entry level desktop Mac without spending more than $1000, well. I'd count them out.

cheers

W-Y

I think your post nails the situation perfectly

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by mD LEWIS

Being from the PC side I would expect somthing low end in terms of a gpu a x1300 fits that bill perfectly imo for a mac mini. You can buy a 1300 for under 100 bucks so I'm sure apple just purchasing the chips in volumes would allow them to be acquired at a reasonable price to put in the mac mini.

How are you going to get a x1300 in a mini?

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by mD LEWIS

I think your post nails the situation perfectly

The point about the price going up with no addition features being added is incorrect.

The base mini price was raised $100 and it received WiFi + BlueToooth.
As he points out, the fact the non-base machine received a dual core merits that price increase.

[gentryfunk]

My question is this: what would a dual core G4 1.67 Ghz run? I get the sense that the G4 would run well in dual core against these Intel chips.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by gentryfunk

My question is this: what would a dual core G4 1.67 Ghz run? I get the sense that the G4 would run well in dual core against these Intel chips.

It probably wouldn't...Even the Core Solo shows nice gains over the G4, and I believe the G4 would still be constrained to its ever abysmally slow bus.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

How are you going to get a x1300 in a mini?

That's a silly question. They get X1400s and X1600s into notebooks, some of which barely cost more than the Mac Mini and are far smaller.

http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...978&pfp=BROWSE
($1299 after $200 rebate that Acer/CompUSA offer from time to time.)

2GB RAM, 120GB HDD, X1400 graphics, 1.66 CoreDuo. It's a decent laptop. A Mac Mini with 2G/120GB/Modem is $1351, or more than the laptop (!!!) during CompUSA sales. Even without the sale (ie laptop at full price) it's only ~$150 more for the laptop - with X1400 graphics and much smaller formfactor.

So yes, this entire "small is superexpensive" is nonsense if Acer can put a full 15.4" LCD *AND* X1400 *AND* even smaller form factor into the equation for somewhat similar pricing.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by gentryfunk

My question is this: what would a dual core G4 1.67 Ghz run? I get the sense that the G4 would run well in dual core against these Intel chips.

Re: Dual G4 1.67

1) Too hot for a Mac mini.
2) Significantly slower than a Core Duo 1.66.

[doctre]

I understand that we all wanted to have something "amazing" with the Intel Mini... we got something that has "ooooo's" (Core Duo option) "ahhhh's" (Bluetooth and AE included) and one "well crap" (Integrated Video). Some people would also point at the "price hike" as a downer too save the fact that the BT and AE upgrade to the original Mini was $99 so that negates that one for me. Again... I'm just as annoyed as you all are about the integrated video, however, they aren't going to switch it this late in the game so everyone who can't get around it has only one real option, and no I'm not trying to flame people (not that that'll mean much ) wait for Rev B and hope that Apple listens to all the negative feedback. If Rev B has a separate video card you can bet I'll be in line to get one myself (unless the towers are out by then and then it won't matter as much )

[Eug Wanker]

I'm just as annoyed as you all are about the integrated video, however, they aren't going to switch it this late in the game so everyone who can't get around it has only one real option, and no I'm not trying to flame people (not that that'll mean much ) wait for Rev B and hope that Apple listens to all the negative feedback.

Yeah, and fortunately for me I can wait.

And there is precedence:
The iBook's Radeon 9200 --> Radeon 9550.
The iMac's GeForce FX 5200 U --> Radeon 9600 --> Radeon X600 --> Radeon X1600.

Here's hoping for the version B Mac mini.

[krillbee]

Another thing I dont understand is why they didnt just put Pentium M cpus in their lower model mac minis, that would have cut back on costs tremendously!

Getting a single core yonah for $230 is absurd, Apple is not managing their money wisely by getting these. paying a few bucks more for the Core Duo, thats another thing, I can see that.

But Pentium M cpus are cheap, and i cant imagine theyd be that much slower than a single core yonah. And maybe their lower model could have retained the $499 price sticker had they done that...