Tek_No Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Thx for the quick reply, cyrana So, what is the cheapest videocard I could buy (ebay) to install into my AMD based pc to get QE and CI? I'm currently using 10.4.5 on my Centrino based HP widescreen laptop in VESA mode (ugly stretched 1024x768 desktop) so I'd like to get a decent picture on my 19" tft connected to my desktop pc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idotel Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I am also not feeling the GMA graphics. Can anyone find a direct comparison between the GMA 900 vs Radeon 9200? Also the price has been jacked up, but hey could have at least included a keyboard and mouse. Also there is no comparison between the 1.47PPC and the 1.5Ghz Pentium M, but I feel this would be a close comparison with the Pentium edging out the G4 but in now way smoking it like the DUO 1.6Ghz vs 1.47G4. I think apple F'd up on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I wasn't expecting a downgrade. I think that's a slight exageration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikos Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(VaiOSX @ Feb 28 2006, 08:24 PM) * The GMA950 is a low end gpu, i can't believe Apple is using this for the Mini. Er, because the mini is a low end Mac? These aren't machines for hard core gamers - they are introductory level machines for PC switchers who want to get a taste of OS X and the iLife; they are cheap macs for schools and offices. At least they will finally support core image/video and they apparently have 2 RAM slots now too. Having a powerful CPU doesn't mean much when the GPU is {censored}. It's like driving an elite sports car with a Ford Malibu engine. I can understand the argument that the price is high due to the new processor, but they crippled any benefit of the new CPU by using a {censored} integrated shared-memory GPU that is not upgradable. If the machines are intended for switchers and for schools, then why not just buy a bunch of G4 mini's for less. The functionality between a G4 mini and the graphics-crippled intel mini is about the same. Check this test between several GPUs. http://www.hardware.fr/articles/579-5/comp...lieu-gamme.html The GMA950 is a low end gpu, i can't believe Apple is using this for the Mini. EDIT > English Version http://www.behardware.com/articles/579-2/1...phic-cards.html Did anyone check those benchmarks out? Assuming the benchmarks are credible, the intel mini GPU is a huge handicap. Look how far it lags behind the the GeForce 6600 that was released in Fall 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macintox Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Well, at least, all the people with 915/945 (GMA900/950) motherboards will have graphics support granteed for the next versions of OSX. I have plans to buy an ATI or NVidia PCIX in the future, but only when "street" models are true "fully supported" by Mac OSX (no artifacts, res/refresh problems, etc). My GMA 900 runs CI+QE with no bugs, all resolutions/refresh rates and the speed is more than required for my kind of work (desktop publishing / video & audio editing). And its cheap! I really think Apple will send high-end Geforces/ATIs only with the new Intel Power Macs. Intel P4 2.8GHz 521 (HT/SSE2/NX/PAE/EMT64) Intel D915GUX Motherboard 1 Gb DDR Dual Channel Memory 80Gb SATA HD Mac OS X 10.4.4 (video/sound/lan working) XBench results: ~66. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plat Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 My point is for a few more bucks, it would have been better to put a "real" gpu (e.g X1300 with the Avivo* support). This Mini is not supposed to be a media center ? *Avivo is a technology which let the ATI gpu decode the H264 (mpeg4) videos, and I know that the mini is not designed for hardcore gamers. And for god sake, GPU doesn't only mean GAMES ! My conclusion is that INTEL gets rid of those GMA because they won't be supported for VISTA. Mac mini's real name should be Intel mini. Avivo hardly works on PCs, it doesn't work at all on Macs. I am also not feeling the GMA graphics. Can anyone find a direct comparison between the GMA 900 vs Radeon 9200? Also the price has been jacked up, but hey could have at least included a keyboard and mouse. Also there is no comparison between the 1.47PPC and the 1.5Ghz Pentium M, but I feel this would be a close comparison with the Pentium edging out the G4 but in now way smoking it like the DUO 1.6Ghz vs 1.47G4. I think apple F'd up on this one. GMA950 is leaps and bounds better then a Radeon 9200. The 9200 does not even support basic stuff such as Core Image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Avivo hardly works on PCs, it doesn't work at all on Macs. GMA950 is leaps and bounds better then a Radeon 9200. The 9200 does not even support basic stuff such as Core Image. Yeah, I concur here. Apple offloads that sort of stuff to the CPU. And the 9200 isn't great in the OS as you say. The only 'real' option would have been an x1300 or so, and I highly doubt they could have done it at this price point. Who knows what PCB space it also needs, heat it generates, etc. (this is a 6.5" square that is 2" tall) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbz Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 hey um i dont know why everyone hates intel integrated graphics so much... the ram is fast enough to allow 128mb to be taken away and still keep the syetem running quickly, and the graphics are good enough to support above and beyond QE and CI. my GMA900 runs very nicely in Mac: i get all the accelerations and everything. i can't say i've tried any games (no sse3...ill just wait for a universal game!) but photoshop works fine and videos never skip. It should be noted that the integrated graphics rely very much on the processor. Comparing the mini-base-model to my 1.73ghz sonoma, i would say the sppeds as far as raw processing power are pretty much neck-in-neck, but graphics will be faster because of the faster FSB. And i can't believe how expensive it is. It's nice to know you're getting a nice little package with enough power to handle much more than ordinary tasks, but i can get an all-in-one dell for the same price. This is ridiculous. I wouldn't have bought a mini before, but i definetly wont buy one know. And that's too bad, because i was actually going to: i wanted a mac and wanted it cheap. I wanted it new and wanted Intel. I wanted the Mac mini to be cheaper dammit!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaryn Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 My point is for a few more bucks, it would have been better to put a "real" gpu (e.g X1300 with the Avivo* support). ... My conclusion is that INTEL gets rid of those GMA because they won't be supported for VISTA. Mac mini's real name should be Intel mini. You might wonder what the point is of putting all the engineering effort into the 3D core, if it sucks so badly at games? The answer is pretty simple: Longhorn. Intel's new GMCH will probably run Longhorn's upper tier Aero Glass interface pretty well. And Intel certainly wants that, because its OEMs sell truckloads of systems with integrated graphics into businesses. So businesses whose users want to use the Aero Glass interface will have a solution that works, but the IT budget won't be severely impacted http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821807,00.asp Also can someone tell me, this card is or isn't an upgrade from the 9200 in the old minis? You have shared memory, but you also have 64MB instead of 32MB right? It doesn't make sense that they would put a {censored}tier card in a newer model... I guess we'll have to wait for benchmarks or something but I am thinking that this mini is a lot better than the old one and people are just bitching for nothing... I mean if Apple was going to put in a separate card it would just be junk like the 9200 wouldn't it? One way or the other we aren't playing games on it, and it does support CoreGraphics now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VK Sefirosu Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 http://www.us.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=17021 Comparing form factor to form factor, this one is more expensive overall than the new Intel Mini if you consider that there is no wireless, no bluetooth, a "slower" single core processor, weaker graphics (gma915 ?) and no included OS. I guess the Mini sells at somewhat of a premium considering it's "esoteric" shape, but it is a Mac. Since I don't think we will ever see Apple sell OSX for all PCs, it would be really nice if Apple would consider building a lower end "tower" Mac, an iMac without the screen or something. 800$ for an upgradeable machine is much more valuable IMHO than 800$ on a Mini as it is and the iMac is more powerful but still not really upgradeable. Without the added cost of the form factor that should be quite affordable, maybe not as much as a Dell but at least less ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatMusak Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Just went to read specs on the new mini on Apple's site and found something rather strange. The new Mac Mini burns double layer discs! Why can a Mac Mini, which is supposed to be an entry level, non-pro system, burn double layer discs while the MacBook Pro, emphases on the Pro, can't. I'm so glad I bought a PowerBook. Hopefully by next year, Apple will revise the CrapBook or whatever it's called... Oh, and why do you people care about the GPU of the mini. If we want to play games, the latest games, on a mac, we need to get XP, or VISTA booting. While I wouldn't really want to defile my system like that it's the only way we'er going to play great games like Half Life 2. One more thing, and by the way I loathe Windowzzz just so you don't get the wrong idea, but I heard on IGN that Halo 2 was coming soon to VISTA. Weird huh? Guess Micro$oft wants more attention than they've been getting recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 i wanted a mac and wanted it cheap. I wanted it new and wanted Intel. I wanted the Mac mini to be cheaper dammit!! Your asking the Mac to be something it just isn't. It's not intended to be cheap. Nor, in anwer to other posts, is it intended to be upgradable. I think a lot of the time Macs have more in common with those expensive chrome appliances you find in designer kitchens. Your paying for something a little out of the ordinary - and sure it may not have all the different spin cycles that the white models do, but who cares - it's chrome! Your certainly not going to want to upgrade the drum to a faster one in 6 months time! The mac mini is unique. I don't care how many people witter on about equivelent pc hardware or form factors and then say the mini is underpowered or a rip-off. I challenge anyone to show me a mini knock of that comes close to the real thing in terms of looks. The fact is some of us are prepared to pay the extra for a machine that looks that good, even if it doesn't have amazing performance - and Apple knows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severnya Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I have to say this...... <rant>WTF is that price all about! </rant> I cannot see how Apple can say that a mac mini is worth that much. Esp with a flippin DVD-ROM combo. Definate thumbs-down to Apple on that move Just my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VK Sefirosu Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Your asking the Mac to be something it just isn't. It's not intended to be cheap. Nor, in anwer to other posts, is it intended to be upgradable. I think a lot of the time Macs have more in common with those expensive chrome appliances you find in designer kitchens. Your paying for something a little out of the ordinary - and sure it may not have all the different spin cycles that the white models do, but who cares - it's chrome! Your certainly not going to want to upgrade the drum to a faster one in 6 months time! The mac mini is unique. I don't care how many people witter on about equivelent pc hardware or form factors and then say the mini is underpowered or a rip-off. I challenge anyone to show me a mini knock of that comes close to the real thing in terms of looks. The fact is some of us are prepared to pay the extra for a machine that looks that good, even if it doesn't have amazing performance - and Apple knows this. I agree that in terms of design and I'd say overall reliability and build quality, Macs are the best right now. But for me, as I already have a PPC Mini, I would'nt buy another Mini. I'll be waiting for the PowerMac replacement, however I still believe that choice is sometimes a good thing. Also the comparison I made with the Aopen thingy was to compare oranges to oranges; conclusion the Intel Mini is cheaper and better IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaryn Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Your asking the Mac to be something it just isn't. It's not intended to be cheap. Nor, in anwer to other posts, is it intended to be upgradable. I think a lot of the time Macs have more in common with those expensive chrome appliances you find in designer kitchens. Your paying for something a little out of the ordinary - and sure it may not have all the different spin cycles that the white models do, but who cares - it's chrome! Your certainly not going to want to upgrade the drum to a faster one in 6 months time! The mac mini is unique. I don't care how many people witter on about equivelent pc hardware or form factors and then say the mini is underpowered or a rip-off. I challenge anyone to show me a mini knock of that comes close to the real thing in terms of looks. The fact is some of us are prepared to pay the extra for a machine that looks that good, even if it doesn't have amazing performance - and Apple knows this. Yes, you hit the nail on the head. And here's something else to think about, you spend 2 grand on a souped up PC. 2 years later, how much is it worth? You spend the same amount on a Mac, 2 years later, how much is the Mac worth? A little bit more than the PC? A lot more? So who ends up losing money in the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calista Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 >The thing the baffles me is why Apple are still selling a mac mini with a combo drive! Even the lowest of the low in the pc world come with dvd-rw's these days. Because they cost another $50? They would do better adding another DVI port to let us drive two monitors or one monitor and a plasma/projector/whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaryn Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Having a powerful CPU doesn't mean much when the GPU is {censored}. It's like driving an elite sports car with a Ford Malibu engine. I can understand the argument that the price is high due to the new processor, but they crippled any benefit of the new CPU by using a {censored} integrated shared-memory GPU that is not upgradable. Did anyone check those benchmarks out? Assuming the benchmarks are credible, the intel mini GPU is a huge handicap. Look how far it lags behind the the GeForce 6600 that was released in Fall 2004. Do you really think Apple would design it so poorly? Just to clarify, are you implying that this model is a step back from the older mini for performance overall (or just graphics-wise)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomblame Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Wow I've never read that many complaints in that short a period of time, you guys are a bunch of complainers! The original mac mini was underpowered in terms of it's cpu, it's memory, it's gpu, it's everything! It was underpowered as hell but apple made it because of it's form factor. It's small and it's cool. This new one is one hell of an upgrade, even if you just get the core solo you're paying 100 dollars more for a MUCH faster processor, faster ram, and faster graphics that actually support all the effects of mac os x. If you go for the core duo you've got yourself one very fast machine indeed. I cant wait till somebody puts together some benchmarks that compares the speeds of the original power pc based macs to their intel brothers. You'll see that the price hike is WORTH it. For your information I'm running the GMA900 in my dell xps m140 notebook and it screams, never have I experianced a slow down in mac os or xp due to graphics. The GMA 950 includes many tweaks and improvements to the gma900 and it has a faster fsb to communicate with the faster cpu with. It supports pixel shader 2.0 and guess what it DOES support vertex shaders, it has the cpu compute vertex shading and with two cpus thats not likely to slow you down. It's not made for gaming, but it does a much better job of it than the previous mac mini gpu. Power consumption is way down over the last mini also, so this is cheaper to run, and it runs colder and likely quieter. A whitebox mini-itx type intel system in a similar form factor would cost you between 1000 and 2000 dollars and it probably would be based on some horrible via chip, you're getting a hell of a machine at a price thats MORE than fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb_gmd Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I think the people that say intel gma 950 is this greatest thing ever are deluded Apple fanboys. You could put a celeron in a mac and suddenly it would be the best thing ever for these guys. PCs have had better hardware for a long time hence the change by apple. I think most people here are more impressed with the operating system than the hardware. Yes macs have had cool designs for a long time but cool designs don't support the latest software hardware etc. I applaud apple for making the move because their claims just weren't cutting mustard. Now they have machines that are on par with dell and like. The mac mini has a great design and to price out one of the small form factor optiplexes it comes to around 800-900 and it also has intel gma. I think a lot of people here either need to 1. Quit being so damn cheap or 2. Get a better job I know I'll get flamed for this but just wanted to put my ideas out there I don't think its overpriced at all. I'm still waiting for the next processor/dvd upgrade for the macbook pro though seeing that my $1300 dell inspiron still outperforms it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Ok so the Mac Mini has fallen victim to Apple's "core-duo madness." Not even the more expensive model has 1gb of ram, which is a big disappointment. I'm going to take a wild guess and bet the MacBook (iBook replacement) and whatever machine replaces the PowerMac will also remain 99% the same in appearance and bear core duos under the hood. Apple's creativity is somewhat lacking. The thrill of seeing what rolls out from Apple is pretty much gone because it's so predictable at this point. What really surprised me (in a negative way) was the new "Hi-Fi boombox." Personally, it's simplistic. Simplistic as a big brick. Seriouslly, I wouldn't trade in my sterio system for that thing. People were talking about a sound system that would integrate itself with the iPod's GUI and use it in ways it has never been before. In fact, even the position the iPod mount is disagreeable. The iPod basically sits on the top like some awkward appendage. Not very good at all. It only adds to the amount of space this thing take up, which is a lot. Compared to the full-size iPod that they show in their pics, this thing isn't something you can easily put just anywhere. Plus there's the whopping price tag. Usually I try to be optimistic with new Apple products, but there's really no reason why anybody would get the "Hi-Fi Boombox" unless it's for the sake having comfort in knowing it's an official Apple product and not a 3rd party item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Just a quick note. The Extremetech review shows a GMA950 getting 7483 on a 3.6GHz P4 in 3DMark2001. It also gets 684 in 3DMark2005. They didn't run 03 for some reason. I used Futuremark's ORB to try to find a 3.6GHz system with less than 128MB of RAM on it (hard). I found a 128MB version of the 9200 that got 7420 in 3DMark2001. The card doesn't have the capability to even -run- 2005. OS X needs shaders for CI, so be thankful we at least have that. Some 64MB 9200's get like 4000, so lord knows what a 32MB (the old one had that) would get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammar Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Nooooo! I hate intel graphics. The performance sucks compared to ati and nvidia, but that´s not the biggest problem. I bought a dell sx280 (tiny desktop with a p4 and intel i915) to use with my projector (sanyo z3/1280x720). Osx86, windows and linux all work great on it (except for networking in osx), but the intel crapcard doesn´t support custom resolutions (such as 1280x720), so it´s completely useless for me (and most other people with projectors). I hope the newer 950 graphics have solved that problem. Not for my own sake (never buying intel graphics again), but for that of all the people that will buy a mac mini supposing that it just works with their standard home cinema equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 http://web.archive.org/web/20050401054016/...i/graphics.html Found that on digg. It's a snapshot on their page for the Mac Mini before the Intel switch, and it boasts: "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." Oh how the tables have turned. Suck it up Apple, suck it all up... *sarcastic sigh* Hate to be the bearer of even more bad news, but with the topic of the products I thought I'd mention one product people expected to possibly see: the "true" video iPod http://web.mac.com/christianwedlock/iWeb/Christian/fake.mov As you can see, it's not available in stores. But with a little more gossip, maybe it will if you use your imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scousi Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 http://web.archive.org/web/20050401054016/...i/graphics.html Found that on digg. It's a snapshot on their page for the Mac Mini before the Intel switch, and it boasts: "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." Oh how the tables have turned. Suck it up Apple, suck it all up... *sarcastic sigh* Hate to be the bearer of even more bad news, but with the topic of the products I thought I'd mention one product people expected to possibly see: the "true" video iPod http://web.mac.com/christianwedlock/iWeb/Christian/fake.mov As you can see, it's not available in stores. But with a little more gossip, maybe it will if you use your imagination. And the Boombox? WTF is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Ok, more spam from me. I don't think they could fit discrete graphics on the new mini. Here is a pic of the old Mini motherboard: http://www.mini-itx.com/news/13909018/ The new one needs room for Intel's Northbridge, Southbridge, and also a second DIMM slot. Plus the Duo takes up more space on the board I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts