PDA

View Full Version : GMA950 benchmarks compared to G4 Mini, better in 3 out of 4 tests




shrimpdesign
Mar 2, 2006, 12:51 PM
Cinebench 9.5 Processing Rates

PowerPC Based Mini

Rendering: 155
Rend.MP: n/a
Shading: 163
Soft GL Shad.: 427
Hard GL Shad.:530

Intel Based Mini

Rendering: 212
Rend.MP: n/a
Shading: 256
Soft GL Shad.: 869
Hard Gl Shad.: 438

So you can see that from 3 out of 4 tests the Intel-Based Core Solo Mini with 512mb of RAM performs better despite the fact that it is integrated. I canít wait for real life tests to show how they really perform. But for now, its looking to have very good potential.

http://thedailycup.acupo.com/?p=43



So it's better than the last's Mini's GPU ... I still find it funny that people are poop-pooing a low-end graphics chip in a low end computer.



TheMonarch
Mar 2, 2006, 12:53 PM
Synthetic benchmarks... :rolleyes:



Pop in Halo and count the FPS, then we'll talk...

yoda13
Mar 2, 2006, 01:06 PM
Yeah, that is what I am concerned about as well. We'll see when someone actually tries to play a game on the new one...:cool:

HungrySeacow
Mar 2, 2006, 01:08 PM
The Mini was never designed to be a gaming machine. I think the more important question is if it has core image support and if exposť is smooth.

Airforce
Mar 2, 2006, 01:12 PM
The Mini was never designed to be a gaming machine. I think the more important question is if it has core image support and if exposť is smooth.

The G4s were advertised as being able to play games, so that argument goes out the window ;)

cube
Mar 2, 2006, 01:14 PM
http://thedailycup.acupo.com/?p=43
So it's better than the last's Mini's GPU ... I still find it funny that people are poop-pooing a low-end graphics chip in a low end computer.

The average person does not raytrace. They want to run interactive 3D applications, and hardware rendering is used here. The Solo is worse at this.

plinden
Mar 2, 2006, 01:14 PM
Synthetic benchmarks... :rolleyes:



Pop in Halo and count the FPS, then we'll talk...
Just for comparison, what is the FPS for Halo on the G4 Mac Mini?

I've read some of the other Mac Mini threads but haven't found an answer for the question, has anyone tried playing HD, i.e. 1080p, content yet?

I'm probably going to go to the Apple store at lunch time to see if they have any there and try it out. I'm now in the market for a new computer for my wife now that our last Windows PC has fatally crashed (wow, two dead PCs in a month). We won't try to use it as a media hub, she just needs email, office, internet access, and she has even less interest in gaming than I do.

Edit: ok, someone answered my question about 1080p playback here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2193537#post2193537)

HungrySeacow
Mar 2, 2006, 01:16 PM
The G4s were advertised as being able to play games, so that argument goes out the window ;)

Sound I rephrase my statement to say "modern games", or maybe "a true gaming machine" :P.

Looks like people are able to play 1080p videos without dropping any frames :P. My 1.42 mini couldn't even play 720p videos, seems like a nice upgrade to me. :P

cube
Mar 2, 2006, 01:28 PM
Sound I rephrase my statement to say "modern games", or maybe "a true gaming machine" :P.


Nobody is asking for an ultimate gaming machine. Just a general purpose $800 computer whose graphics don't cost just $4.

MacRumorUser
Mar 2, 2006, 01:36 PM
Nobody is asking for an ultimate gaming machine. Just a general purpose $800 computer whose graphics don't cost just $4.

Exactly. Considering the ATI X1300 costs between $22-34, and were already paing more for the new mac minis.. there is no excuse....

thies
Mar 2, 2006, 02:20 PM
http://thedailycup.acupo.com/?p=43



So it's better than the last's Mini's GPU ... I still find it funny that people are poop-pooing a low-end graphics chip in a low end computer.

I find it funny that apparently next to no one realizes that the hardware GL operations, where according to your bencmarks the new mini does worse than it's predecessor, are the ones that matter most in regards to, lets say, gaming.

shrimpdesign
Mar 2, 2006, 02:49 PM
Okay, so I guess those benchmarks aren't really accurate for the graphics chip, but I'm sure the new Intel iMac would play Halo better than the G4 Mini.

But seriously, people are so whiney about the intergrated graphics chip. Apple chose it because of it's ability in HD playback ... although it won't play games as well as another cheap graphics chip, I bet it'll out-do the G4 Mini.

The Mini was never designed to be a gaming machine. I think the more important question is if it has core image support and if exposť is smooth.
From Apple.com:
Mac mini features a graphics processor integrated into the system, and one that's no slouch, to boot. The Intel GMA950 graphics supports Tiger Core Graphics and the latest 3D games. It shares fast 667MHz memory4 with the Intel Core processor, for an incredible value proposition.