Any PCs comparable to new mini?

[jsw]

Since people seem to be complaining so much about the huge mistake Apple made in using integrated graphics and by bumping the price, I can only assume that there must be comparable products in the PC world that they're using for comparison.

So, would someone please post links to PC products which have the same volume (roughly) as the mini, include Core Duo chips (or faster) and have non-integrated graphics?

I'll ignore the remote control which was added. I'll ignore the value of the OS and the suite of bundled apps. I'll even ignore the styling.

I'd just like links to PCs which are as fast, as small, at least as cheap, and which include better graphics solutions.

Thanks! I'm sure there must be many examples, because otherwise people wouldn't be complaining so much.

[Eidorian]

Wait, do we have to take into account physical size? I don't think there are many Windows desktops using the Yonah CPU line. I've only seen them in laptops. One more thing, does it have to be Intel too? :D

[jsw]

Wait, do we have to take into account physical size?
Of course - to me, the defining characteristic of the mini is, well, the mini size.

And I don't need Yonah chips - just something as fast as the Core Duo.

[Timepass]

Wait, do we have to take into account physical size? I don't think there are many Windows desktops using the Yonah CPU line. I've only seen them in laptops. One more thing, does it have to be Intel too? :D

well the size restriction just made it impossible to beat. minus a laptop noughting is made that small.

I going to declear it unfair and state the goal should be for the same amount of money find a PC that has the same specs at least for the price.

Sorry the size is a plus to the mini but it selling point is the cost of it compared to the other macs.

[Eidorian]

Of course - to me, the defining characteristic of the mini is, well, the mini size.

And I don't need Yonah chips - just something as fast as the Core Duo.Umm...yeah you're not going to fine dual core chips in anything less than $799 on the PC side. That's off of HP using Intel Pentium D. Dell offers the XPS 200 with Intel Pentium D as well for $999 with a 17" LCD included.

The HP tower is huge and the Dell one is barely expandable. The HP Media monster comes with a 6200se and the Dell comes with a GMA 900 stock. You either have to get the $1499 model to get an X600 or upgrade the $999 model.

But but, $1299 for an iMac with a X1600? :rolleyes:

[jsw]

well the size restriction just made it impossible to beat. minus a laptop noughting is made that small.
Sounds like you're conceding that the Apple mini is unbeatable. Surely the PC makers have a better example for less?
I going to declear it unfair and state the goal should be for the same amount of money find a PC that has the same specs at least for the price.

Sorry the size is a plus to the mini but it selling point is the cost of it compared to the other macs.
No, the size is not something you can discount. People who are complaining about the price and the components need to find an example that is in the same catagory as the mini. We all know that reduced size results in compromises and increased costs - witness notebooks. The selling point of the mini is not cost. Apple was not trying to produce the cheapest possible Mac. Apple was trying to produce a lower-end Mac with Apple style.

[Timepass]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions. Problem is computer PC that size are designed for a differnt market than the mini that why you will not find something like it.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.

I say lets look at the market the mini plays in first and that is agaist cheap dells. Find something there first and we move on.

[Eidorian]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions. Problem is computer PC that size are designed for a differnt market than the mini that why you will not find something like it.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.

I say lets look at the market the mini plays in first and that is agaist cheap dells. Find something there first and we move on.In the consumer store Dell only offers dual core CPU's in the XPS line. That starts off at $999 with 17" LCD but Intel GMA 900 graphics.

XPS 200 Dimensions: (H x W x D): 12.2" x 3.6" x 14.3"

Intel Mac Mini Dimensions: (H x W x D) 2" x 6.5" x 6.5"

[jsw]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions. Problem is computer PC that size are designed for a differnt market than the mini that why you will not find something like it.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.

I say lets look at the market the mini plays in first and that is agaist cheap dells. Find something there first and we move on.
OK, first, find a dual-core system for under $800.

Then, show me why it's better.

Then, justify why the improvement justifies the vastly larger and uglier case.

The mini does not play in the same market as cheap Dells. It plays in a more upscale market. People seem to want it to play in the bottom of the market, but it's not intended for there. People who want to spend $400 on a computer should just buy the ugly Dells. They work fine for low-end and non-stressful apps.

This is like saying the Porsche Carrera sucks because a Chevy Suburban has the same powered engine for less.

[emw]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions.Isn't the size part of the specs? Besides, we all know that style plays into perceived value.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.I doubt that. His original post summed up what he was looking for - a better PC than the mini for the same (or similar) price. If indeed there is nothing out there that comes close, then, well, Apple did right here. It's easy to complain that an upgrade "wasn't good enough" but unless you're comparing to other real alternatives, then it's just bitching for bitching's sake.

[Nickygoat]

Shuttle (http://eu.shuttle.com/en/DesktopDefault.aspx/searchcall-12/searchcategory-272/noblendout-1/tabid-171/310_read-11955/) PCs come close (as close as any I can think of).
Minuses: it's not a Core Duo (don't think so anyway) but it is 1.73GHz, is larger than the mini's 16.5x16.5x5 at 31x20x18.5 and costs (here at least) £840 vs £599 for the mini.
Tough one :p

[cube]

Who cares about competing products? Apple is supposed to make good, well balanced machines even if it costs a little more.

And it didn't have to cost more, just replace the bad choice of Core Solo (costing about 10% less than a Duo) for a perfectly serviceable Celeron M and use the savings to put some nice graphics.

[stonyc]

Hmm, I'd have to side the OP on the parameters of this "contest"... the size of the mini is inherent to part of its appeal. That would be like saying...

Let's take the specs of the new iMacs and part by part try to match it with a PC solution. Of course you could more than likely build a PC with specs that meet or even beat those of the iMac at that price point (especially if we bring in AMD chips into the mix). But that ignores the all-in-one nature of the iMac (which I personally don't like all that much, but many others do).

Similarly, I could easily build a PC with specs that meet or beat the mini's, but would be hard-pressed to compete with its size... I think placing a size constraint on this exercise is perfectly valid.

[Eidorian]

Ok I'm going to go all out for this post. :mad:

Apple Intel Mac Mini Duo Core $799

Dimensions: (H x W x D) 2" x 6.5" x 6.5"

Intel Cuo Core 1.67 Ghz
512 MB Dual Channel RAM
80 GB Hard Drive
667 MHz Front Side Bus
x8 Super Drive
Intel GMA 950
Front Row Remote
Built-In 802.11g/Bluetooth
Optical Audio In/Out
Mac OS X
iLife 06


Dell XPS 200 Small Form Factor PC $1018

Dell XPS 200 Dimensions: (H x W x D): 12.2" x 3.6" x 14.3"

Intel Pentium® D Processor 820 (2.8 GHz)
512 MB Dual Channel RAM
80 GB Hard Drive
533 MHz Front Side Bus
x8 DVD-Burner (Upgrade from Combo Drive)
Intel GMA 900
Remote (Add-on)
USB 802.11g Dongle
No Bluetooth Option
No 17" LCD Bundled
No Keyboard
Dell USB Mouse (Cannot be removed from price)
7.1 Audio
Windows XP Media Center 2005 Edition

[gekko513]

I think placing a size constraint on this exercise is perfectly valid.
And noise.

[Josh]

Note to Mini-evangalists: There are barebones PC cases roughly the size of the mini.

[Eidorian]

Note to Mini-evangalists: There are barebones PC cases roughly the size of the mini.Find me one that's not Mini-ITX. They only support Pentium-M chips and won't be out in force until next month.

[mkrishnan]

Intel Pentium® D Processor 820 (2.8 GHz)

So the Core Duo is quite a bit faster than this, correct? Or incorrect? I don't completely understand the Pentium D line. :(

Have any of the PCs that were supposed to be invigorated by the Intel campaign to help manufacturers develop Mac Mini - esque form factors, ever get launched?

[Timepass]

OK, first, find a dual-core system for under $800.

Then, show me why it's better.

Then, justify why the improvement justifies the vastly larger and uglier case.

The mini does not play in the same market as cheap Dells. It plays in a more upscale market. People seem to want it to play in the bottom of the market, but it's not intended for there. People who want to spend $400 on a computer should just buy the ugly Dells. They work fine for low-end and non-stressful apps.

This is like saying the Porsche Carrera sucks because a Chevy Suburban has the same powered engine for less.

Never stated that. It was more I just wanted to see a more even test. But going after the hardware specs and it not being able to be beaten would at least give you all that ground to fight on and dont have to use things like opinans on the form factor of X is better than Y.

Oh and lets add to the ground no custom building. I pretty sure self building a PC I could beat it but home builts are a different ball park and there high degree of customization is what makes me love them.

[gekko513]

Find me one that's not Mini-ITX. They only support Pentium-M chips and won't be out in force until next month.
And they're more expensive and have worse specs than the mini, when you add it all up, aren't they? Then you have to add labour for researching, putting it all together and being your own service person.

[stonyc]

I think AOpen's mini PC has been discussed/villified here before. :)

But if we're talking about the size factor, AOpen's mini rip-off comes close (roughly 6.5"x6.5"x2"). According to this site (http://www.evesham.com/PCs/Info.asp?e=555EA051-AF4B-471E-A146-F02AB41D2723) though a dual-core option doesn't seem to be available... neither is BT or wireless networking (from what I could see). Integrated graphics in this one as well.

Price point is 499GBP ($871.90) for a lower-speced version, to 699GBP ($1,221.36) for the version I linked above... those numbers include VAT according to that website, however.

[Josh]

Find me one that's not Mini-ITX. They only support Pentium-M chips and won't be out in force until next month.

There are several AMD Athlan 64 dual-core 2.0ghz systems in barebones cases.

[Eidorian]

There are several AMD Athlan 64 dual-core 2.0ghz systems in barebones cases.Link me.

[jsw]

Since we seem to be having problems coming up with systems which are as small, cheap, fast, and graphically powered, how about 3 out of 4 to start? Any three would do. I'm pretty sure people could find something as cheap, as fast, and with better graphics (and, again, we'll discount the remote and the superior bundled software, because, of course, this thing is really apparently supposed to play games :rolleyes:).

I'd be more interested in 3-of-4 comparisons that take size into account. I'd be interested in the AMD links as well.

[Eidorian]

Since we seem to be having problems coming up with systems which are as small, cheap, fast, and graphically powered, how about 3 out of 4 to start? Any three would do. I'm pretty sure people could find something as cheap, as fast, and with better graphics (and, again, we'll discount the remote and the superior bundled software, because, of course, this thing is really apparently supposed to play games :rolleyes:).

I'd be more interested in 3-of-4 comparisons that take size into account. I'd be interested in the AMD links as well.All of the Mini-ITX systems either use the VIA C3 processor or a Pentium-M one. I still haven't seen one without integrated graphics. Note: They're worse than the GMA 950.

[QCassidy352]

people aren't complaining because there are comparable PCs. They are complaining 1) because they expect more from apple, and 2) because compared to the old mini, which was 13 months old, this was not exactly an inspired update.

If it takes a year to revise a product, I think the expectations for the new version can reasonably be pretty high. If this had been a 6 month update, I, for one, would be a lot happier. but the G4 mini was ancient, and I expected to see the intel mini be leaps and bounds better.

[MacTruck]

For $399 (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=319662&pfp=BROWSE)


For $799 (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=335938&pfp=BROWSE)

[Eidorian]

For $399 (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=319662&pfp=BROWSE)


For $799 (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=335938&pfp=BROWSE)The $399 model is single core and discounted.

[Josh]

$777 (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1638821&Sku=S451-3204%20E)

Dual-core AMD 2.0ghz, 1gb of ram, includes mouse, keyboard, and the game Far Cry.

[dmw007]

So the Core Duo is quite a bit faster than this, correct? Or incorrect? I don't completely understand the Pentium D line. :(

Have any of the PCs that were supposed to be invigorated by the Intel campaign to help manufacturers develop Mac Mini - esque form factors, ever get launched?

The Core Duo is a faster chip than the Pentium D which is essentially a dual-core Pentium 4 (Yuck!!!).

[emw]

$777 (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1638821&Sku=S451-3204%20E)

Dual-core AMD 2.0ghz, 1gb of ram, includes mouse, keyboard, and the game Far Cry.
Interesting. Of course, you have to build it yourself.

[cube]

The Core Duo is a faster chip than the Pentium D which is essentially a dual-core Pentium 4 (Yuck!!!).

How do you know it is faster, if the Pentium D has a quite higher clock rate?

[dmw007]

Interesting. Of course, you have to build it yourself.

And it does not appear to include a Hard Drive or OS.

[dmw007]

How do you know it is faster, if the Pentium D has a quite higher clock rate?

Remember the MHz Myth? This is a case of it existing in the world of Intel.

The Pentium D = dual-core Pentium 4
Core Duo = dual-core Pentium M

The Pentium M has long outperformed P4 based computers that run at a much higher clock speed.

[Eidorian]

$777 (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1638821&Sku=S451-3204%20E)

Dual-core AMD 2.0ghz, 1gb of ram, includes mouse, keyboard, and the game Far Cry.Close to Mini size but you're using Micro-ATX components.

And it does not appear to include a Hard Drive or OS.Yeah, that's $90 for OEM Windows XP Home, $50-80 more for a hard drive, $40-70 for an optical drive. Let's not forget our little friend called tech support and warranty. It's a built-it-yourself and off of Tigerdirect but I'll let it slide.

[emw]

And it does not appear to include a Hard Drive or OS.
So it will work as well out of the box as most other PCs, then? ;)

I'm just kidding. I use a PC as well as my Mac and like them both for different reasons.

[dmw007]

Let's not forget our little friend called tech support and warranty. It's a built-it-yourself and off of Tigerdirect but I'll let it slide.

Very true. :)

[dmw007]

So it will work as well out of the box as most other PCs, then? ;)

I'm just kidding. I use a PC as well as my Mac and like them both for different reasons.

Excellent point! :D ;)

[Eraserhead]

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0848T (one on far left)
with Windows XP home is £550, for nVidia 6600GT graphics, 250GB HD, 6 USB, 16x Dual Layer DVD Burner, Athlon 64 3200 (big case though), no monitor, no extra software.

Expensive Mini is £599 in the UK.

Or
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0876T (one on right)
With Windows XP Home is £499, same features as above, except 3Ghz P4 instead.

Cheap Mini is £449 in the UK.

Neither come with software, you be hard pressed to beat these prices...

[Eidorian]

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0848T (one on far left)
with Windows XP home is £550, for nVidia 6600GT graphics, 250GB HD, 6 USB, 16x Dual Layer DVD Burner, Athlon 64 3200 (big case though), no monitor, no extra software.

Expensive Mini is £599 in the UK.

Or
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0876T (one on right)
With Windows XP Home is £499, same features as above, except 3Ghz P4 instead.

Cheap Mini is £449 in the UK.

Neither come with software, you be hard pressed to beat these prices...Fails due to non-dual core and size restrictions.

[cube]

Remember the MHz Myth? This is a case of it existing in the world of Intel.


I know about that. I don't know what factor relates them, given the same cache, so I don't think you can just say "Core Duo is faster".

[Josh]

Fails due to non-dual core and size restrictions.
It may be a single-core, but I bet it still out performs the mini.

Honestly - what applications that users will run on a Mini will even make use of the dual-core where a single core would not suffice?

Anything like video editting, heavy Photoshop, Aperture, ect is not going to be done on the mini, especially with integrated graphics.

[Eidorian]

It may be a single-core, but I bet it still out performs the mini.

Honestly - what applications that users will run on a Mini will even make use of the dual-core where a single core would not suffice?

Anything like video editting, heavy Photoshop, Aperture, ect is not going to be done on the mini, especially with integrated graphics.Actually video editing and Photoshop are more CPU based than the graphics card. You have Core Image support and dual cores. It'll be killer for video encoding.

[Josh]

Actually video editing and Photoshop are more CPU based than the graphics card. You have Core Image support and dual cores. It'll be killer for video encoding.
A mini will be horrible at the above tasks.

Core image means nothing for Photoshop and Final Cut, which are extensive GPU users.

Seems a lot of people have fallen into the trap that everyone *needs* dual-core chips.

Unless you're doing video/graphics/sound editing, software development, extensive calculations and graphing, or gaming, a dual-core is a wasted resource.

The mini is not designed, nor targetted, for that type of work.

[Eidorian]

A mini will be horrible at the above tasks.

Core image means nothing for Photoshop and Final Cut, which are extensive GPU users.

Seems a lot of people have fallen into the trap that everyone *needs* dual-core chips.And yet people are still running Photoshop and iLife on iMac G3/G4's. I never said Aperture. iMovie, Handbrake, and iSquint DON'T rely on the GPU for video encoding. Since we have Quartz Extreme and Core Image support Photoshop shouldn't be hampered. Core Image supports real time transformations and if the GPU supports it, it's going to be done by the GPU. The GMA 950 IS a separate GPU chip. It simply doesn't have it's own dedicated RAM and has to call on the CPU for T&L effects.

[BornAgainMac]

I see tons of PCs with integrated graphics at the low end.

I tried playing some games with a Pentium4 HT 3 Ghz with integrated graphics and it wasn't that bad as people say. I could see the problems with Grand Theft Auto with framerate speeds but not with many other games. Command & Conquer Renegade and Star Trek Armada ran fine. I don't have any recent PC games. I had 1 GB of ram and limited the graphics to 64 MB. Grand Theft Auto wasn't very usable on my PC laptop with a ATI dedicated graphics controller with 32 MB of ram. It was blurry and low quality. Integrated graphics was 10 times better on my desktop.

[dmw007]

I know about that. I don't know what factor relates them, given the same cache, so I don't think you can just say "Core Duo is faster".

Here is one place for some CPU performance comparisons-
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

But I am basing my remarks over benchmarks that I have seen performed by multiple sources which all tend to show the Pentium M (now with dual-cores called the Core Duo) as a super-fast performer that lays waste to the Pentium 4 (now with dual-cores called Pentium D).

Now I realize that I cant say that a 1.66GHz Core Duo = A *GHz Pentium D. But if I were to choose between the two chips, I would almost certainly buy a system with a Core Duo over a Pentium D.

[Eraserhead]

Fails due to non-dual core and size restrictions.
:rolleyes: why? its a good PC? anyway the cheap Mac Mini isn't dual core. If you do this then the mac mini will win even with 3 out of 4,

as a

virtually no pc's are the size of the mini

b

virtually no pc's in that price range have dual core chips as for PC's they are much more rare than in macs where they have had 2 processors for years...

Using rough equivalences from http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=18483

The 1.5Ghz Core Solo=2.8Ghz P4
The Core Duo 1.66GHz - 3.2GHz Pentium 4HT

EDIT

to meet the dual core requirement
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0877T with XP home comes to £620

[Mr Paw]

I didn't check every link in this thread but compared to what I have seen so far this is the best. Prices are Canadian dollars. I don't profess to know much about processor speeds so I don't know if it is "better" or "worse". You guys can debate it.

I had a 1.5 GHz G4 mini with a 80GB 5400 RPM drive, 1GB memory and it cost me $899 canadian plus $130 for the memory upgrade ($1029 in total).

Hopefully the attached file is legible but if anyone wants more details let me know.

[sunfast]

Since people seem to be complaining so much about the huge mistake Apple made in using integrated graphics and by bumping the price, I can only assume that there must be comparable products in the PC world that they're using for comparison.

So, would someone please post links to PC products which have the same volume (roughly) as the mini, include Core Duo chips (or faster) and have non-integrated graphics?

I'll ignore the remote control which was added. I'll ignore the value of the OS and the suite of bundled apps. I'll even ignore the styling.

I'd just like links to PCs which are as fast, as small, at least as cheap, and which include better graphics solutions.

Thanks! I'm sure there must be many examples, because otherwise people wouldn't be complaining so much.

Great post! You've got the complainers over a barrel here ;)

[DougTheImpaler]

Note to Mini-evangalists: There are barebones PC cases roughly the size of the mini.
You mean like the Shuttle XPC series that's 3x taller, a bit wider, and 1.5" deeper? Yeah, I guess that's close. :rolleyes:

[Mr Paw]

I discovered that the Intel Pentium M Processor 740 is:

90nm architecture, 2MB L2 cache, 1.73 GHz clock speed, 533Mhz front side bus.

The cheaper version has the Celeron M Processor 360:

90nm, 1MB L2, 1.40 GHz, 400 Mhz.

I am pretty sure the mini's, I mean the Mac Mini's, are still the better machines, but someone sure sat up and took notice at Seanix.

Mike

[DougTheImpaler]

I am pretty sure the mini's, I mean the Mac Mini's, are still the better machines, but someone sure sat up and took notice at Seanix.

Mike
Yeah, I posted before I saw that ad too, that's actually a reasonable machine (almost) and even after the exchange rate conversion, you're still looking at the Celeron M being probably 699 or 649, so it loses to the Mini, and the Pentium M 1.7 isn't dual-core

[weg]

Find me one that's not Mini-ITX. They only support Pentium-M chips and won't be out in force until next month.

http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/SD31P.asp

These things have the advantage that they can be upgraded. If your DVD-drive dies, you don't have to throw away the whole computer (yeah, I know that Apple will repair your mini - for the price of a new computer).

[MacRumorUser]

There is an Aopen XC cube that's about the same height as the mini. It requires a slot loaded drive obviously.

it has all the features of the mini, except it GMA900 rather than 950

I priced one up with Pentium M 1.73Ghz, 512mb Ram, 200Gb SATA, NEC DVDRW total was 830 Euro......

[Airforce]

So, would someone please post links to PC products which have the same volume (roughly) as the mini, include Core Duo chips (or faster) and have non-integrated graphics?

Well, if you really want to beat the mini's size/performance, just jump to a cheap laptop.

Compaq's V5000Z series outperforms the mini for under $800 (go to customize, highest chip avaliable, up the system memory, wireless)

There you go. A Cheaper solution with similar volume :)

Probably aren't going to find a nonintegrated graphics choice for the size/price though.

[thies]

Since people seem to be complaining so much about the huge mistake Apple made in using integrated graphics and by bumping the price, I can only assume that there must be comparable products in the PC world that they're using for comparison.

So, would someone please post links to PC products which have the same volume (roughly) as the mini, include Core Duo chips (or faster) and have non-integrated graphics?

I'll ignore the remote control which was added. I'll ignore the value of the OS and the suite of bundled apps. I'll even ignore the styling.

I'd just like links to PCs which are as fast, as small, at least as cheap, and which include better graphics solutions.

Thanks! I'm sure there must be many examples, because otherwise people wouldn't be complaining so much.

And I to some degree ignore the size. Your average Shuttle which can be placed next to a livingrooom flatscreen is small, looks better next to the screen than a tower or imac, has the same capabilities as a mini and a pcie16 slot to take the fastest currently available gfx cards.

[jsw]

http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/SD31P.asp

These things have the advantage that they can be upgraded. If your DVD-drive dies, you don't have to throw away the whole computer (yeah, I know that Apple will repair your mini - for the price of a new computer).
That case is 325mm x 220mm x 210mm, or ~15000 cm^3.

The mini is 50.8mm x 165.1mm x 165.1mm, or less than 1400 cm^3.

Less than one tenth the size!

Please. That isn't even remotely close.