[Eug Wanker]

This is a little bit of a sky-is-falling type of rant, but then again, I haven't been impressed by Intel integrated graphics chipsets either.

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/...view/page2.asp

It is getting harder and harder for the average consumer to buy a computer with a decent graphics chips in it. When I go to major electronics retailers I see that most of the machines being sold are using Intel Integrated graphics - including the vast majority of laptops. Some of the desktop machines don’t even have slots for discrete graphics cards which I find personally offensive. Laptops of course are mostly not upgradable so a bad laptop is a bad laptop forever and considering how many people are replacing desktop with laptops this is especially worrisome. It is really sad when you see the moniker “media” or “entertainment” attached to something with Intel Integrated graphics in it. I question the logic of developing dual-core CPUs and saddling them with ultra-low-end graphics especially considering that one of the big benefits of Windows Vista will be a hugely improved graphical user interface that will help improve productivity. There are some seriously expensive desktops and laptops with crappy graphics chips in them – these aren’t just the low-priced machines either. Intel salespeople are probably patting themselves on the back for these design wins but the truth is the more successful they are with this strategy the faster they could be killing off the PC games market and nobody has the balls to stand up and cry foul because Intel is so powerful.

If people take those machines home and try to play recent PC games on them they’re going to have a horrible experience and possibly give up on PC gaming altogether. Users aren’t educated in this area but when their new $1,500 PC says “no” to a decent PC game they’re going to just assume the PC games market had passed them by. This is sad because the difference in cost the PC manufacturer to put in a decent graphics chip isn’t very much.

[Dark Helmet]

Well wadda you expect on the CHEAPEST possible Mac you can get.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Well wadda you expect on the CHEAPEST possible Mac you can get.

He hasn't even talked about Macs specifically.

-t

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

He hasn't even talked about Macs specifically.

-t

But Eug is only posting it on a Mac forum because it is in a Mac Mini and he doesn't like it. And rightly so.

[olePigeon]

He has a point. Instead of "Intel Integrated Graphics," why not have an "ATI Integrated Graphics" with non-shared memory? Didn't the old PCs and Macs used to do that? I know the Beige G3 did.

[BRussell]

I wonder what % of computer users play these kinds of games. 5%? Less? If everyone really wanted powerful graphics cards, I'm sure they'd include them.

[Dark Helmet]

Lets just pray the new iBooks don't use them.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Even the Atari ST had 32kB *dedicated* video RAM. In 1984. Picture that.

cheers

W-Y

[greenamp]

Geez shut up about the Mac Mini integrated graphics already. Or least quit using the "it sucks for video games zomg" argument.

Even with dedicated graphics it would still suck for games.

[Tomchu]

Greenamp: You are wrong. The PPC Mac Mini plays Quake 3 and UT2004 just *fine* at 1024x768 with medium (UT2004) and max (Q3) details. The Intel Mac Mini would suck for the same purposes.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

He has a point. Instead of "Intel Integrated Graphics," why not have an "ATI Integrated Graphics" with non-shared memory? Didn't the old PCs and Macs used to do that? I know the Beige G3 did.

Uhhhh... no.

Integrated Graphics, regardless of manufacturer, means strictly that the GPU is integrated into the motherboard chipset. (That means that the GPU is part of another chip, rather than being its own chip. Integrated does NOT mean "soldered onto the motherboard"!!) The beige G3 used standalone Rage II+ or Rage Pro GPUs soldered onto the board. They are still real GPUs, not integrated. Since the beige G3s did not have integrated graphics, they used separate VRAM.

tooki

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Greenamp: You are wrong. The PPC Mac Mini plays Quake 3 and UT2004 just *fine* at 1024x768 with medium (UT2004) and max (Q3) details. The Intel Mac Mini would suck for the same purposes.

Do you know how old those games are? And what's more, 1024x768 resolution is by no means "just fine," it's sub-par. Games look like total shyte at that low of a resolution, even the old ones.

I'm not defending Apple's decision to put integrated graphics in the new mini by any means. I think it's very lame. But it's stupid to raise this argument based on how well the mini handles gaming. It's not a gaming machine, and neither is anything else out there with a single cpu for $600.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Greenamp: You are wrong. The PPC Mac Mini plays Quake 3 and UT2004 just *fine* at 1024x768 with medium (UT2004) and max (Q3) details. The Intel Mac Mini would suck for the same purposes.

From the benchmarks I've seen, if you think those games are fine on a PPC Mac mini, they won't necessarily "suck" on the new ones.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

But Eug is only posting it on a Mac forum because it is in a Mac Mini and he doesn't like it. And rightly so.

I'm also worried the iBook... errr... MacBook will get integrated graphx.

Originally Posted by greenamp

I'm not defending Apple's decision to put integrated graphics in the new mini by any means. I think it's very lame. But it's stupid to raise this argument based on how well the mini handles gaming. It's not a gaming machine, and neither is anything else out there with a single cpu for $600.

Actually it's pretty easy to get a reasonable PC gaming machine for $600, but it won't be as small or have as many bells and whistles as the Mac mini.

I just think the Mac mini and MacBook would do well to get a Radeon X300 HyperMemory with 32 MB on-board, and shared memory up to 128 MB. That's a reasonable compromise.

Anyways, when people come to me for PC purchasing advice and they're the type that don't game much but who have young kids, I generally tell them to either get a PC with a low end discrete GPU, or else get one with integrated graphics and an empty PCIe slot. Unfortunately, you can't do that with the Mac mini or a laptop.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Well wadda you expect on the CHEAPEST possible Mac you can get.

...which went up in price when they went with all this supposedly-cheaper technology?

Gotta love that Intel tech, man.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Do you know how old those games are? And what's more, 1024x768 resolution is by no means "just fine," it's sub-par. Games look like total shyte at that low of a resolution, even the old ones.

There are many people that still game at 800x600 and are perfectly happy with it, let alone 1024x768. Just because all the ADD-afflicted kids claim they need SLI and $500 video cards to "game effectively" doesn't mean that the regular user can't fire up a classic and have some fun at 1024x768. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by greenamp

But it's stupid to raise this argument based on how well the mini handles gaming. It's not a gaming machine, and neither is anything else out there with a single cpu for $600.

No, it's not stupid. See above. I'm sorry that your standards call for $2000 machines, but that's just not the way reality works for most of us.

Oh, and I can easily put together a single-CPU PC for $600 that will smoke your typical G5 in games.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

From the benchmarks I've seen, if you think those games are fine on a PPC Mac mini, they won't necessarily "suck" on the new ones.

UT 2004 @ 1024x768
PPC Mac Mini - 25 FPS
Intel Mac Mini - 7 FPS

Say what?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

If people take those machines home and try to play recent PC games on them they’re going to have a horrible experience and possibly give up on PC gaming altogether.

PC Gaming is a horrible experience. Dang near every game expects your video card to be less than a year old. CPU gets a little more lag. I've got a P4 2.8Ghz with a Radeon 9600 and most recent games run like crap. Some games force install their preferred version of DirectX without checking to see if you have a newer version. You get patches galore for the games and the hardware to fix various bugs. At some point, the game companies are going to have to put their focus on great gameplay and quit pushing the hell out of the graphics.

If Epic wants more people to buy their games, then they need to quit focusing on enthusiasts and release some games that run on the hardware the majority of people actually own. Don't sit around complaining that people don't pay *extra* to be able to play your games. This problem has existed since GLQuake. Prior to that games pretty much ran on all computers.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

There are many people that still game at 800x600 and are perfectly happy with it, let alone 1024x768. Just because all the ADD-afflicted kids claim they need SLI and $500 video cards to "game effectively" doesn't mean that the regular user can't fire up a classic and have some fun at 1024x768. Give me a break.

No look. Just because you can manage to squeeze out some game at a ridiculously low res like 800x600, does not mean it automatically becomes a "gaming machine" worthy of mentioning in benchmarks. If you can do and are happy playing it fine, but don't come here thinking you have a computer which needs to be mentioned.

No, it's not stupid. See above. I'm sorry that your standards call for $2000 machines, but that's just not the way reality works for most of us.

My standards simply say that it is moronic to worry about gaming on an entry level computer. And the Mac Mini is an entry level Mac. The only reason the PPC Mini had dedicated graphics is because they used retro-fitted iBook logic boards. And even then it still sucked at games. Anything that gets less than 20 fps on modern games is not worth crying over.

Oh, and I can easily put together a single-CPU PC for $600 that will smoke your typical G5 in games.

The cpu and video card alone for a system that can play at full settings, full resolution, and get 50+ fps will run you $600+. Good luck with you quest I'll be interested in the results.

UT 2004 @ 1024x768
PPC Mac Mini - 25 FPS
Intel Mac Mini - 7 FPS

Say what?

Don't even much come here trying to pull benchmark numbers out of your arse.
UT2004 is an old game with dated graphics. Hell I get like 100-150fps on my Dual G5 in that game at maxed settings.
The PPC Mini is doing good to get over 15fps in any modern game at low res. Hardly anything to get worked up over.

[Eug Wanker]

The only reason the PPC Mini had dedicated graphics is because they used retro-fitted iBook logic boards.

No they didn't.

And anyways, the iBook is a low end Mac too, and it does have dedicated graphics (including a Radeon 9550 in the latest iteration).

[Dork.]

Apple is making a clear statement with their Intel Minis: don't buy these if you want to play games on them. For pretty much every other non-professional activity, the chipset is fine. I don't do as much research into this as other people, but from everything I've read this chipset will decode a HD video stream in real-time. Really, what else would the average Joe User need?

I'm a little concerned that the integrated graphics would make its way into an iBook, too. I'm looking to upgrade my 12" iBook this year, but I have two requirements:
- cheap! (closer to $1000 than $1500)
- Able to play Civ IV.

If the Intel iBooks have integrated graphics, then I may need to buy a used or refurb'ed G4 PB instead. I'm not sure if a pro-level 12" MBP would be in my budget.

[Eug Wanker]

I've read this chipset will decode a HD video stream in real-time.

No it doesn't. The CPU does.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

No it doesn't. The CPU does.

Well, there's some special sauce in there that makes TV watching happy, isn't there?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Well, there's some special sauce in there that makes TV watching happy, isn't there?

? I don't follow.

[Dork.]

From http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

If you want to watch video on your PC, then utilize Intel GMA 950 graphics for smooth video playback, native 16:9 format support for wide screen flat panels, motion compensation for smooth DVD playback and support for popular HDTV display formats. The media experience is even better when your PC also includes Intel® High Definition Audio (Intel® HD Audio) .

now, that's just marketing, but the graphics card does have a role to play in viewing HD streams, right? It was my assumption that the GMA 950 does this really well (for its price), but does the things you need to do to play games poorly.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dork.

From http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

now, that's just marketing, but the graphics card does have a role to play in viewing HD streams, right? It was my assumption that the GMA 950 does this really well (for its price), but does the things you need to do to play games poorly.

? Basically all this GPU chipset does is display it on screen, but all the significant decode work is done by the CPU. While it may do some MPEG-2 decode assist, that's no big deal since basically all current GPU chipsets do MPEG-2 decode assist, and Apple's HD is not MPEG-2 anyway. It's H.264. This Mac mini chipset is definitely not doing H.264 decode assist.

Fortunately, the Core Duo is a very fast chip, and most H.264 1080p material can be decoded cleanly with the CPU alone. Core Duo 1.66 does have problems decoding some of the more difficult 1080p H.264 material though.

As for ATI GPUs, the X300 doesn't do H.264 decode assist either, but the X1300 does. However, I'm not sure if it only does 480p H.264 assist, or if it can do partial assist for 1080p as well. I do think asking for an X1300 in a Mac mini is pushing it though. OTOH, the X300 is a decidedly low end GPU and is reasonable for a Mac mini in terms of cost IMO. Not only is it low end, but it only requires 32 MB on-board memory (hence the cheapness), and like the Intel chipset it can make use of system memory. So, it can use the speedy 32 MB on-board for games, but if necessary can use system RAM for a total of up to 128 MB. While using system RAM for games isn't ideal, this is very beneficial for stuff that isn't as intensive like Quartz Extreme for Exposé on large screens.

Which reminds me... I don't understand why Apple chose to limit the Mac mini's GPU RAM usage to 64 MB (or 80 MB after accounting for overhead). The Intel chipset can use up to over 200 MB. It would have been ideal if that chipset would be limited to 64 MB when there is 512 MB system RAM, but could use up to 128 MB RAM when there is 1 GB system RAM. I guess Apple figures most people with a Mac mini aren't going to be running a 24" screen with a bazillion windows open, which is probably true most of the time. OTOH, I've already seen posts from several people who have the Dell 24" screens and a Mac mini, and others who have their Mac minis hooked up to their 1080p home theatre screens. That said, 64 MB is enough for most light usage even on a 1080p screen. It's just when you're running a bazillion windows or running other GPU-intensive software does the memory become more important I guess.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Do you know how old those games are? And what's more, 1024x768 resolution is by no means "just fine," it's sub-par. Games look like total shyte at that low of a resolution, even the old ones.

Well, if you're using the "they're old games" argument, surely it's even more embarassing that the new Mini plays them so poorly?

[Dark Helmet]

How much of a cost savings is there between integrated graphics and a low end video card?

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by greenamp

No look. Just because you can manage to squeeze out some game at a ridiculously low res like 800x600, does not mean it automatically becomes a "gaming machine" worthy of mentioning in benchmarks. If you can do and are happy playing it fine, but don't come here thinking you have a computer which needs to be mentioned.

Up until about 6 months ago, I had a very high end gaming machine -- and then I sold it because I lost interest in high-end gaming. That doesn't mean I don't mind firing up Q3 every now and then on my iBook. Don't be such a snob.

Originally Posted by greenamp

My standards simply say that it is moronic to worry about gaming on an entry level computer. And the Mac Mini is an entry level Mac. The only reason the PPC Mini had dedicated graphics is because they used retro-fitted iBook logic boards. And even then it still sucked at games. Anything that gets less than 20 fps on modern games is not worth crying over.

So older games can't be fun? Give me an effing break. If it can't play modern games, it's not worth playing games on *at all*? Come on, fanboy ... grow up.

Originally Posted by greenamp

The cpu and video card alone for a system that can play at full settings, full resolution, and get 50+ fps will run you $600+. Good luck with you quest I'll be interested in the results.

I dare say I've got more experience with PC gaming hardware than you do -- seeing as how ... well, I guess I review it and deal with it every day of the week? I'm not sure you want to challenge me with this one.

Originally Posted by greenamp

Don't even much come here trying to pull benchmark numbers out of your arse. UT2004 is an old game with dated graphics. Hell I get like 100-150fps on my Dual G5 in that game at maxed settings.

So what if the game is older and has dated graphics? Suddenly no one can enjoy it simply because some fanboy out there says the game is old, and that everyone needs a $1500 machine to "game properly"? Haha. How old are you ... 14?

Oh, as for pulling numbers out of my ass ... http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

So much for the Intel Mini being as fast as the PPC Mini eh?

Originally Posted by greenamp

The PPC Mini is doing good to get over 15fps in any modern game at low res. Hardly anything to get worked up over.

My PPC Mini gets me between 70 and 120 FPS in Quake 3 at 1024x768 with max settings. Dated game, yes. Dated graphics, yes. Fun and extremely playable? Yes.

Grow up.

Right now I'm sitting beside a dual-core Athlon 64 FX-60 and two GeForce 7900 GTX OCs in SLI ... and you know what? I don't care. This system would not allow me to enjoy my time any better than my iBook does.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Do you know how old those games are? And what's more, 1024x768 resolution is by no means "just fine," it's sub-par. Games look like total shyte at that low of a resolution, even the old ones.

Yeah, right.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

Yeah, right.

Indeed. Some people don't have screens that go above 1024x768!



BTW, the relevant graphic from the above link:



25 FPS (the PPC mini) is playable. I have such a mini and play UT2k4 online, and it's fine. Not as nice as my G5, but still perfectly acceptible. But 7 FPS? I've not tried, but I imagine you'd struggle to enjoy a game at that speed!

Amorya

[krillbee]

I love how this was supposed to be just a thread about integrated graphics in general, and then it turned into an intel mac mini thread

Note: this was not posted in the mini forum, this was posted in the lounge!

I'm disturbed that PC notebooks are doing this too. Now i bought a notebook for $600 after rebates 1.5 years ago, which aint bad, since I was able to upgrade it to a Pentium M cpu. But it came with integrated intel graphics. It barely plays guild wars, which sucks cuz that game is a lot of fun.

The think about PC games, is that I think its becoming more popular, and when you cripple low end computers it stunts the growth of something that many people want to do.

A few years ago, barely any girls played games on PC, now its becoming more common. Its becoming more common for older people to play them too, for young kids to play them, etc.

Computer gaming ought to grow even more, and there shouldnt be crappy video-card notebooks made which discourage people to give it a try.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Amorya

Well, if you're using the "they're old games" argument, surely it's even more embarassing that the new Mini plays them so poorly?

Not at all. Because if you would've read what I said you would know I wasn't trying to compare benchmarks.

PS: If you insist on showing the benchmarks, you should show them all:
http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Up until about 6 months ago, I had a very high end gaming machine -- and then I sold it because I lost interest in high-end gaming. That doesn't mean I don't mind firing up Q3 every now and then on my iBook. Don't be such a snob.



So older games can't be fun? Give me an effing break. If it can't play modern games, it's not worth playing games on *at all*? Come on, fanboy ... grow up.



I dare say I've got more experience with PC gaming hardware than you do -- seeing as how ... well, I guess I review it and deal with it every day of the week? I'm not sure you want to challenge me with this one.



So what if the game is older and has dated graphics? Suddenly no one can enjoy it simply because some fanboy out there says the game is old, and that everyone needs a $1500 machine to "game properly"? Haha. How old are you ... 14?

Oh, as for pulling numbers out of my ass ... http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

So much for the Intel Mini being as fast as the PPC Mini eh?



My PPC Mini gets me between 70 and 120 FPS in Quake 3 at 1024x768 with max settings. Dated game, yes. Dated graphics, yes. Fun and extremely playable? Yes.

Grow up.

Right now I'm sitting beside a dual-core Athlon 64 FX-60 and two GeForce 7900 GTX OCs in SLI ... and you know what? I don't care. This system would not allow me to enjoy my time any better than my iBook does.

This isn't about gaming you blubbering idiot. This is about how stupid it is to be throwing around game benchmarks when comparing two Mac Minis. It is NOT A GAMING COMPUTER. IT IS AN ENTRY LEVEL MACHINE. It doesn't even come with a freaking keyboard or mouse.

If playing video games on a computer is so damned important to you, don't buy a Mac Mini. End of story.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Not at all. Because if you would've read what I said you would know I wasn't trying to compare benchmarks.

PS: If you insist on showing the benchmarks, you should show them all:
http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

They were all shown. The link was further up.

Just in things like Doom 3, the old mini couldn't play them acceptibly either, and Quake 3 is so old there's no difference. Only one game benchmark has a significant difference, and that is UT2k4.

Amorya

[Chuckit]

I understand how frustrating it can be talking to blubbering idiots, but let's try to remain civil, y'all. No sense in anybody getting banninated over this or anything.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Millennium

...which went up in price when they went with all this supposedly-cheaper technology?

Gotta love that Intel tech, man.

Actually, they just dropped the absolute low end configuration. With the $499 Mac mini with G4, to get built in wi-fi and bluetooth you would have paid $599.

The new Mac mini starts at $599 and has (ta-da) wi-fi and bluetooth standard. Same price.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Amorya

They were all shown. The link was further up.

Just in things like Doom 3, the old mini couldn't play them acceptibly either, and Quake 3 is so old there's no difference. Only one game benchmark has a significant difference, and that is UT2k4.

Amorya

I am not interested in talking about games with you beyond pointing out that benchmarking 2-5 year old games is silly on modern hardware, which I already havvvvvve.

Like I said to whats-his-face, if you are so concerned about playing video games on your computer, don't buy a Mac Mini. End of story.

The Intel Mini with integrated graphics is a bum-deal for more reasons than gaming. We may as well critique a stock Volkswagen Golf GL based on it's quarter-mile time. And if you don't get the analogy I just made then read it again.

[Eug Wanker]

if you are so concerned about playing video games on your computer, don't buy a Mac Mini.

Well, that's the point, isn't it?

P.S. All car analogies suck.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, that's the point, isn't it?

P.S. All car analogies suck.

Yep, totally the point. Let's critique the Intel Mini for something more relevant than how well it plays video games.