Intel Mac Mini.. is it better than my G4 System? [Archive]

roland.g

Dec 29, 2006, 08:57 PM

I just upgraded my sawtooth 450 to a Mac Mini.

The Sawtooth 450, 768MB RAM, 120GB WD SE 8MB Cache HDD, original AGP graphics.

The Mini 1.66 Core Duo Super-Drive (early 2006 high end), upgraded RAM to 2GB and added newertech v2 miniStack (case only) and threw a Seagate 500GB 7200.10 16MB Cache HDD in there.

It flat out smokes my old sawtooth and my wife's 12" PB 867 640MB RAM 60GB HDD. Video playback is awesome. DVD ripping is fast in both Handbrake and MTR. Burning backups with DVD2One is very fast.

All that and I only got it to tide me over till I get a Leopard loaded 24" iMac.

BTW, I got the Mac Mini as an Apple refurb for $649, added the 2GB RAM for $250 from OWC, added a Wireless KB & MM $128 and a Canon Printer (for which the refurb DID qualify for the perfect companion rebate $100), the ministack case was $75 and I got the Seagate drive from Newegg.com on their Black Friday sale for $149 (normally $229).

Archmagination

Dec 29, 2006, 09:21 PM

So in effect it would be a tie or worse on programs(namely games) that are 3D? Everything else it would be faster in.. its tough choice. Even though I don't use 3D games a lot on my computer I still play WoW and I occasionally play Halo, KOTOR, etc.

Its been about a year since the Intel Mac Mini has been released hasn't it? Do you think they will be updated at MacWorld?

dpaanlka

Dec 29, 2006, 09:45 PM

Far superior? thats a laugh.

Well, Video acceleration certainly is. How could you deny that? Do you even know what video acceleration is?

JAT

Dec 29, 2006, 11:17 PM

He's probably never even seen a Mini, let alone its graphics capability. The people on this forum that mock the integrated graphics and want 10 year old tech are absolutely hilarious.

AppleIntelRock

Dec 29, 2006, 11:42 PM

With the exception of graphic processing capabilities, the mac mini will be a substantially better system.

Brandon Sharitt

Dec 30, 2006, 05:10 AM

As long as you're not into gaming(not that there's much of that on a Mac) the Mac mini will be a nice upgrade. For 3D performance, the GMA 950 does as well as or out performs r200(Radeon 9200) and below, but beyond that, it doesn't do so well, but for not 3D performance(mostly games and 3D rendering). Contrary to popular whining around here, integrated graphics aren't going to affect your Photoshop performance.

Archmagination

Dec 30, 2006, 11:47 AM

Great.. my Samsung Syncmaster 740B LCD monitor just went out.. I am now using my backup.. an old and huge Compaq S910 until I recieve my replacement monitor from Samsung.

Irish Dave

Dec 30, 2006, 11:49 AM

( Question is would it be worth it to get the Mini? Would it outperform the G4?

Almost certainly yes (for most tasks) :) :)

Dave :)

livingfortoday

Dec 30, 2006, 11:58 AM

Well, here's the results of a Core Solo Mini vs. a similar clock speed G4:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=262719

So you'll definitely be much better off with memory and CPU, though I don't know about graphics.

Jht

Dec 30, 2006, 03:00 PM

Cassie

Dec 30, 2006, 03:13 PM

The 950 isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It actually has fairly good quality. Think mid-end PC graphics.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 30, 2006, 03:26 PM

The 950 isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It actually has fairly good quality. Think mid-end PC graphics.The 950 is a $4 graphic chip for petes sake and no it doesnt come close to mid grade stuff like the 7600 or X1600 class of gpu's. Those are true Mid Grade Graphics.

For JAT, I have had 2 Mini's and have 1 at the moment.

The 950 holds the bottom for graphics,rock bottom so lets not let the fan club spin 950 graphics into something its not. Its great for mail,looking through photo's,and the net but start doing real 3d and it blows.

QCassidy352

Dec 30, 2006, 04:29 PM

The 950 is a $4 graphic chip for petes sake and no it doesnt come close to mid grade stuff like the 7600 or X1600 class of gpu's. Those are true Mid Grade Graphics.

For JAT, I have had 2 Mini's and have 1 at the moment.

The 950 holds the bottom for graphics,rock bottom so lets not let the fan club spin 950 graphics into something its not. Its great for mail,looking through photo's,and the net but start doing real 3d and it blows.

he's right. I have a macbook and totally love it, but the 950 does totally suck for 3d apps. Compared to the x1600 it's utter crap, and I won't even discuss the 7600 because that's a different universe of power from the GMA 950.

clevin

Dec 30, 2006, 04:34 PM

He's probably never even seen a Mini, let alone its graphics capability. The people on this forum that mock the integrated graphics and want 10 year old tech are absolutely hilarious.

Intel GMA 950
* 3DMark01: 1300 points
* 3DMark03: 1300 points
* 3DMark05: 450 points
* 3DMark06: 170 points

Ati 9800 Mobile
# 3DMark01: 17800 points
# 3DMark03: 6500 points

its absolutely crap, and somebody dare to compare 950 to Ati 9800? its purely ignorant.

Chundles

Dec 30, 2006, 04:38 PM

Intel GMA 950
* 3DMark01: 1300 points
* 3DMark03: 1300 points
* 3DMark05: 450 points
* 3DMark06: 170 points

Ati 9800 Mobile
# 3DMark01: 17800 points
# 3DMark03: 6500 points

its absolutely crap, and somebody dare to compare 950 to Ati 9800? its purely ignorant.

Yeah, it's crap in 3D stuff but in terms of H.264 movie playback and 2D stuff (ie. stuff your average Joe Bloggs does - if you game you're not an average Joe Bloggs) it's very good.

clevin

Dec 30, 2006, 04:41 PM

cant edit my post (connection problem, lol)
so i give the link of the test here
GMA 950 numbers
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-950.2177.0.html
Ati 9800 Mobile numbers
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-9800.2168.0.html

also, noticed the 3DMark 06's number for 9700? its 280, and remember 9800 is better than 9700.

again, compare intel 950 to Ati 9800? not a chance.

clevin

Dec 30, 2006, 04:43 PM

Yeah, it's crap in 3D stuff but in terms of H.264 movie playback and 2D stuff (ie. stuff your average Joe Bloggs does - if you game you're not an average Joe Bloggs) it's very good.

well, its the distinguishable part ppl are comparing, for those part that are not distinguishable, like 2D part, its really meaningless tho.

yes, you are right
if users only doing 2D work, its not a problem even to think of.

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 11:55 AM

People need to understand that massive 3D performance is not used in basically anything. What's important to the regular user is video acceleration and 2D peformacne, which the GMA 950 has plenty of.

So give the anti-GMA 950 stuff a rest. Considering it's $4 price tag, it's the best bang for the buck anywhere.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 31, 2006, 12:15 PM

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 12:30 PM

Whether you want to believe it or not, the 950 is a better card than the Radeon 9200 for what people buying Mac minis want to do and see, and I'm sure glad Apple has it now.

What Xbench should do is toss in a test of a computer's ability to play HD content. Perhaps something extreme like a 60fps full HD video clip and measure the framerate.

Of course, a better video card (such as the ones used in the iMacs and MBPs) would always be better, but then you'd have a higher price.

Lord Blackadder

Dec 31, 2006, 12:32 PM

I think Apple should ditch the GMA graphics - I think most consumers would be willing to pay more for a Radeon X1300 or GeForce 7300, and it would make a big difference for 3D apps.

With that said, I'd recommend that the OP get that Mini...the CPU is soooo much more powerful than the G4. The Radeon 9800 absolutely spanks the GMA 950 for 3D apps but there really isn't much difference for anything else, so unless all you care about are games you'll be glad you got the Mini.

All in all, the Mini is a great computer. I consider the GMA 950 a weak point, but it isn't THAT big of a flaw. The main reason I criticize the GMA is that an embedded GPU (like the X1300 or 7300) would not cost much more and offer a real performance benefit.

Aniej

Dec 31, 2006, 12:34 PM

I think Apple should ditch the GMA graphics - I think most consumers would be willing to pay more for a Radeon X1300 or GeForce 7300, and it would make a big difference for 3D apps.

With that said, I'd recommend that the OP get that Mini...the CPU is soooo much more powerful than the G4. The Radeon 9800 absolutely spanks the GMA 950 for 3D apps but there really isn't much difference for anything else, so unless all you care about are games you'll be glad you got the Mini.

Thank you finally someone with some sense to push for this aspect instead of ohh i don't know a 72'' apple tv... :rolleyes:

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 12:40 PM

2d performance what is that? does anyone even measure or care about 2d performance anymore? sounds like something they use to measure in the 80s? GMA950 was saturated by dualcore chips so when Apple went to dualcore2 the 950 was allready maxed out. Apple use to bust on those machines that used Integrated graphics because every single Mac used a real GPU. Those good old days of real gpu's are over. But at least the good old days of stagnated G4s is over so it was 1 step forward with cpu's and one step backwards with its "consumer" graphics.

i was just wondering about that too, i searched google for a long time, couldn't find any benchmark of 2D comparison of graphic cards.

whoever trying to say Intel GMA 950 is better than ATi 9800, oh, no, now is 9200 in 2D performance, plz show some data and link?

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 01:19 PM

i was just wondering about that too, i searched google for a long time, couldn't find any benchmark of 2D comparison of graphic cards.

whoever trying to say Intel GMA 950 is far better than ATi 9800, oh, no, now is 9200 in 2D performance, plz show some data and link?

Why do I think the GMA 950 is a better card for the Mac mini than the Radeon 9200? Because it can play HD content. Can you play full HD content on a Radeon 9200 mini? No! So what point are you trying to get at? And why can't you type clear sentences that are easy to read and understand?

And if you don't know what 2D is, you probably shouldn't be posting smug-sounding remarks about this subject. For your clarification, 2D is still very important. When people describe a computer as "feeling snappier" - they are usually talking about faster 2D acceleration. They just aren't aware of what it is or what it's called. But it is there, and it is still important.

I have to retract my previous statement of 2D on the GMA 950 being better than the Radeon 9800, because of this I do not know. The Xbench results site is down at this time. It would be the "Quartz Graphics Test" portion of the Xbench tests, and I belive also the "User Interface Test" (although I don't get why they would make that a different test). Try it on your own systems and see how Quartz 2D performs.

Video acceleration means accelerating video playback. It does not mean accelerating 3D graphics. GMA 950 is far superior than the 9200 (and even the 9800) when it comes to this, and this I know for sure. Go use a Mini core solo and a Mini G4 for yourself, and see which one accelerates video (QuickTime) content faster.

If I had to guess who had faster 2D acceleration, I would probably give it to the card that has faster video acceleration. It could be the opposite, and I guess we just won't know until somebody goes and downloads Xbench 1.3 and runs it on a GMA 950 system, and then a Radeon 9200 or 9800 system.

EDIT: Since you wanted a link to something (anything) here is Wikipedia's article on Quartz 2D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_2D) and explains how it handles 2D graphics.

Of course, it would be nice to have a more modern 3D graphics card in the Mini. But I'm confused by the people bashing the GMA 950 and pointing to how great the Radeon 9200 was. What I'm really trying to understand is, who here would really rather dump the GMA 950 and return to the Radeon 9200 in the Mac mini? I hope nobody, beause if the Mini still had the Radeon 9200 (with it's inability to play HD content) - nobody in the world would be buying them. Not even if it was a Radeon 9800.

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 01:40 PM

oh, im sorry, i m not sure if your quartz test is a complete "2D" standard
but for your pleasure, i found this page of xbench for you.
http://www.macintouch.com/specialreports/perfpack02/

for mini's Ati 9200 the Qz test is 52, mini solo is 53, macbook is 54, mac book pro is 54. WOW yes, better, it is better. like 2% better? or is that a bottle neck of CPU?

oh, again. surprising, surprising. im glad u retracted your statement of
Actually, both 2D and Video acceleration performance of the GMA 950 is far superior to the Radeon 9800.

video aceleration, is this tested by xbench too? if not, a link plz.

finally, 950 is a better card than 9200? i guess u ignored 3D part totally in this statement, right?

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 01:46 PM

WOW yes, better, it is better. like 2% better? or is that a bottle neck of CPU?

Likely a slim combo. Essentially, this tells us the cards are on par.

video aceleration, is this tested by xbench too? if not, a link plz.

No, because they assume people aren't going to see a GMA 950 playing video faster than a Radeon, and then be stupid enough to want to see proof in numbers. Stop asking for a link - just do the test yourself or ask anybody with a GMA 950 if they can play HD stuff. I don't have an Intel mini on hand to give you exact framerates... if that's really what you want.

finally, 950 is a better card than 9200? i guess u ignored 3D part totally in this statement, right?

Well, you must be ignoring the video part. I assume most people who buy minis probably would prefer better video acceleration to 3D acceleration. In fact, I think anybody would. Why would you want to play 3D games and not be able to watch HD video? Wouldn't that just be infuriating?

You know what, just forget about it. You obviously don't even grasp what 2D and video acelleration actually is, so why are you even posting in this thread?

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 01:51 PM

thats stupid, is there anyone whose mac's gma 950 can play HD-DVD yet? it wasnt even supported yet!
and when did the HD begin to gain stream? when was Ati 9200 out? were u asking a card to support a vague tech who was not even fully born at that time?
stop ask you for a link? u make a statement, and don't wanna give a data to back your statement?

on par? i thought u said better, or far superior, didn't you?

be honest, u just like to exaggerate things and describe apple's products' shortcomes as "non-important", while its "ok" part as far better, is that a fair attitude in discussing problems?

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 01:57 PM

thats stupid, is there anyone whose mac's gma 950 can play HD-DVD yet? it wasnt even being supported yet!
and when did the HD begin to gain stream? when was Ati 9200 out? were u asking a card to support a vague tech who was not even fully born at that time?

HD is not a technology. "HD" is simply a resolution. The Radeon supports QuickTime acceleration - this does not change with new versions of QuickTime. The Radeon cannot play the huge resolution HD files at even a reasonable framerate. The GMA 950 can. That should be the end of this debate.

blah blah blah

Will somebody out there please give us some HD framerates for both a GMA 950 and a Radeon 9200 so this person is satisfied?

EDIT: In fact, I had a 2.0ghz G4 tower with a Radeon 9800 in it for about a year, and even that couldn't play HD video at any sort of framerate. I got about one frame every four seconds out of it.

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 02:06 PM

wow, admire ur debating skill, totally ignore the flaw, only shouting the good or ok part,

yeah, can somebody show this person a data and let him understand a video card is not only a video playback card?

and can somebody show me with their mini with GMA 950 playing a HD movie plz. It would be interesting to see and greatly enhance that person's debate.

In fact, I had a 2.0ghz G4 tower with a Radeon 9800 in it for about a year, and even that couldn't play HD video at any sort of framerate. I got about one frame every four seconds out of it.
and how many times you gonna ask a graphic card to support a future tech? and do u think u are reasonable at all on this?

and just for a HD video playback, u gonna decide a card is good or not? let me ask you, do u do anything other than watching video with your mac? and do u expect other people to do nothing other than watching video?

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 02:15 PM

wow, admire ur debating skill, totally ignore the flaw, only shouting the good or ok part,

For you, a simple question. Would you rather have the Radeon 9200 or the GMA 950?

yeah, can somebody show this person a data and let him understand a video card is not only a video playback card?

A few minutes ago you didn't even know what 2D graphics were. Now you're suggesting I don't know what the purpose of a video card is?

and can somebody show me with their mini with GMA 950 playing a HD movie plz. It would be interesting to see and greatly enhance that person's debate.

Well, two seconds of Googling found this review, which says the GMA 950 even smacks the Radeon 9200 at 3D:

http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=140

As Apple's senior director of desktops, Tom Boger, explains, the new graphics system is actually a significant upgrade for the mini. Unlike the ATI chipset used in the previous mini, the GMA950 is programmable, allowing the new units to support Mac OS X Tiger's Core Image realtime graphics features for the first time. Boger also indicates that the new mini seems to hit about 10-40% higher framerates in 3D games as compared to the G4 models. (It's unclear whether we're talking Rosetta or Universal apps, or just which Intel mini is being compared to which G4 model, etc.) Xbench tests show that, on native code, OpenGL is over twice as fast on the new minis vs. old.

I guess we don't even need to touch on any of my other points, as the GMA 950 is even better at 3D than the Radeon 9200 was.

and how many times you gonna ask a graphic card to support a future tech? and do u think u are reasonable at all on this?

HD is not a technology!!! HD is a resolution!

and just for a HD video playback, u gonna decide a card is good or not? let me ask you, do u do anything other than watching video with your mac? and do u expect other people to do nothing other than watching video?

Well, so far I've shown that the GMA 950 is better at 2D, better at video, and better at 3D than the Radeon 9200. Even with links!

Do you expect people to buy a computer that is only able to play games? And not even that well?

Sheesh, forget that. Why do I continue talking to someone that doesn't even know what half this crap means?

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 31, 2006, 02:16 PM

Its just a shame Apple doesnt offer a real GPU in Mini as a option. Instead its the old lets get em into iMac if we can. A $50 or $100 option for some middlegrade mobile GPU would solve this. Not able to play modern games with playable frames is criminal.

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 02:21 PM

lmao, u are actually saying intel GMA 950 is 3D better than ATI 9200.

Im not gonna judge that statement, just keep it here for ppl to think for themselves

actually i have a better idea for you, since u obviously kept trying to compare two cards from different generations.

My suggestion would be, go compare intel GMA 950 and ATi xpress200, they are both current popular integrated graphic card, and more fair than u compare a father generation and gradson generation's tech.

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 02:26 PM

lmao, u are actually saying intel GMA 950 is 3D better than ATI 9200.

Im not gonna judge that statement, just keep it here for ppl to think for themselves

Ok...

actually i have a better idea for you, since u obviously kept trying to compare two cards from different generations.

Look, clevin person, you do not know what any of this stuff even means. HD is not a technology, HD is simply a resolution. Why don't we make some HD resolution Cinepak movies for both a Radeon 9200 and GMA 950 to play, and see which one does it better? I mean, obviously they both should play 1993-era codec encoded video well, right? Wait, you probably do not know what anything I just said means...

And, my point is not to defend the GMA 950 against current cards. I thought I mentioned that a few times. But it is better with the GMA 950 than with the Radeon 9200. That is my point.

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 02:31 PM

Ok...

actually i have a better idea for you, since u obviously kept trying to compare two cards from different generations.

Look, clevin person, you do not know what any of this stuff even means. HD is not a technology, HD is simply a resolution. Why don't we make some HD resolution Cinepak movies for both a Radeon 9200 and GMA 950 to play, and see which one does it better? I mean, obviously they both should play 1993-era codec encoded video well, right? Wait, you probably do not know what anything I just said means...
look, [your name here],
you are just being ignorance all the times, i repeatedly told you u were comparing different generation's stuff, u don't wanna call it a tech? fine, plz find a HD movie released in 2001, and plz find a mac that can play HD video in 2001.

its that fulfilling for you to know your video card is better (if in any aspect) than its father generation's products? not to mention its 2D isn't better, and 3D is even worse. are you just bluntly saying its better? its just unbelievably fanboy style.

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 02:34 PM

And, my point is not to defend the GMA 950 against current cards. I thought I mentioned that a few times. But it is better with the GMA 950 than with the Radeon 9200. That is my point.

but again, are u making that statement in assuming that other ppl only care about HD video playback? coz it isn't better in any other aspect.

edit: and if a user want to upgrade, why shouldn't he expect something better than this?

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 02:38 PM

you are just being ignorance all the times, i repeatedly told you u were comparing different generation's stuff, u don't wanna call it a tech? fine, plz find a HD movie released in 2001, and plz find a mac that can play HD video in 2001.

Ok, in the above statement, you just said I am insane for comparing a GMA 950 to the slightly older Radeon 9200 in terms of QuickTime acceleration... because the GMA 950 is newer and so obviously would be so much better.

its that fulfilling for you to know your video card is better (if in any aspect) than its father generation's products? not to mention its 2D isn't better, and 3D is even worse. are you just bluntly saying its better? its just unbelievably fanboy style.

Now, in the above statement, you're saying I'm insane for saying the GMA 950 is a better card (overall), because the Radeon 9200 is clearly so much better at 3D graphics (which I'm not even sure about).

Look, we all know integrated graphics suck, but the Radeon 9200 sucks too, and even worse. So while we all want to puke on the GMA, we have to at least acknolwedge that it was a better choice than the Radeon 9200 in the older systems.

but again, are u making that statement in assuming that other ppl only care about HD video playback? coz it isn't better in any other aspect.

Think of what the target Mac mini market is. It is people with not a lot of money, who really want to buy a Mac, or want to buy a Mac in a teeny tiny package, or both. A lot of mini buyers are even buying it for a second or third computer. Yes, a Radeon X1900 would be an awesome option, but entirely unrealistic for any of the above situations. And these people, buying this system, are probably far more likely to want to play smoother video rather than smoother 3D games. Don't you think?

Plus, Core Image (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/) support too! Why do I keep forgetting to mention that? The GMA 950 supports that, the Raeon 9200 did not.

edit: and if a user want to upgrade, why shouldn't he expect something better than this?

Well, it is an upgrade compared to the Radeon 9200.

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 02:44 PM

Ok, in the above statement, you just said I am insane for comparing a GMA 950 to the slightly older Radeon 9200 in terms of QuickTime acceleration... because the GMA 950 is newer and so obviously would be so much better.

Now, in the above statement, you're saying I'm insane for saying the GMA 950 is a better card (overall), because the Radeon 9200 is clearly so much better at 3D graphics (which I'm not even sure about).

its 3d benchmark is in the same page of xbench result page i gave u, check for yourself.

Look, we all know integrated graphics suck, but the Radeon 9200 sucks too, and even worse. So while we all want to puke on the GMA, we have to at least acknolwedge that it was a better choice than the Radeon 9200 in the older systems.

well, thats a reasonable question, i guess its because
1. its been two years, why not a better graphic card? even ATi Xpress200 is better, altho another integrated one.
2. 9200 doesn't occupy your 64MB system memory. while GMA 950, sucks while use your system memory.

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 02:46 PM

oh plz, core image was introduced in 2004, what, do u want a 2002 graphic card to support it? remember 9200 is a modified 8500, as a old fighter, he is doing much more than you give it credit for.

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 03:00 PM

its 3d benchmark is in the same page of xbench result page i gave u, check for yourself.

What, this?

65139

Now, to be fair, I think Xbench is flawed. I really find it hard to believe the GMA 950 has twice the 3D performance of a Radeon 9200. However, I do believe, if nothing else, it should be on par (and probably slightly better). Perhaps this has been addressed in the current version 1.3...

But regardless, since you're pointing to those results as your backup - doesn't that clearly say the Radeon 9200 is inferior to the GMA 950? I circled them in red to help you pick it out.

oh plz, core image was introduced in 2004, what, do u want a 2002 graphic card to support it? remember 9200 is a modified 8500, as a old fighter, he is doing much more than you give it credit for.

So, the Radeon 9800 is a modified 9700 PRO, which was released in 2002. The Radeon 9800 (itself released in early 2003 - still before Core Image) fully supports Core Image.

How does this make the Radeon 9200 better than the GMA 950 anyway? How does this support your argument? Yes, I am fully aware that the Radeon 9200 is an older generation card that does not support some of the latest stuff. That's why the GMA 950 is a better card for the Mac mini.

Kashchei

Dec 31, 2006, 04:04 PM

The 950 isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It actually has fairly good quality. Think mid-end PC graphics.

Does anyone know when the X3000 is going to replace the 950? Could we expect this at the same time that the mini is upgraded to C2D? If so, this might make the mini a better deal (especially if the price goes back down to its original $499 price).

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 04:54 PM

What, this?

65139

well, i was expect u have the patience to read that whole test and make a good judgment, but apparent you are too eager to find a pretty number to support you that you didn't really understand what you were citing.
look carefully, i won't circle pretty data as you did, reader can read for themselves to decide which data means what.
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4512/picture2oz3.png

about if 9200 should support core image, u can brag as you want. I don't really have the reasoning to convince u not to brag it, since u really doesn't care how apple put a crap in there, as long as its apple, u can always use their maybe 1 highlight spot to cover all other craps of theirs.

I will find more test for you about 3D performance of 950 and 9200, if u want, and when i get time.

and finally, I don't see why 9200 doesn't support core image leads to 950 is a better card for mini, is there any other product in the market in your mind? you are not locked into two choices, aren't you? or its just you gonna defend any apple's choice, no matter why they did it, and how crap it is?

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 05:10 PM

read here to find out the downside of GMA 950
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/gameroom/2006/03/minigamer/index.php

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 05:14 PM

other comparison of mini ppc with 9200 and mini solo with GMA
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/2006/03/intel-gma-950-terrible-opengl.html

and this is comparison between GMA 950 and Xpress200.
even if you think mini ppc's graphic card need upgrade, wouldn't be nicer for the user that apple upgrade it to a better choice?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1

and read this
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/faq_core/mac-mini-intel-integrated-graphics-inferior.html
apple is just so business style, flip flop all around, in pushing their product, they can lie or confuse user about anything. is honesty so difficult right now? if 950 cant play new 3D game, how about stop saying "can play latest 3D games" for a change?

Evangelion

Dec 31, 2006, 05:43 PM

and how many times you gonna ask a graphic card to support a future tech? and do u think u are reasonable at all on this?

Like it was already said, HD is not "future tech", it's just a resolution. It's becoming quite obvious that you simply do not understand the subject-matter at all. And you aren't even making any sense in your "arguments". First you say that GMA950 sucks when compared to 9200. Then you say that it's unfair to compare GMA950 to 9200, since GMA950 is newer technology and therefore better.

GMA950 might be slower than 9200 on some apps (some games come to mind). But it might be faster in some other apps (like some other games). It's also a lot better at video-playback (not 3D-graphics, but video), and it has more advanced features than 9200 has (core image etc.).

Want to test HD-playback? Go watch some HD-content (like trailers at apple.com). And before you say "But there was no HD-content back when 9200 was released!": so what? Does that mean that it is to be expected that 9200 is not as good as GMA950? If that is the case, how can you claim that 9200 is better of the two? Because it might be a bit faster in some 3D-games?

And BTW: It's "you", not "u". Saying "u" makes you sound like a 14-year old.

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 05:57 PM

well, i was expect u have the patience to read that whole test and make a good judgment, but apparent you are too eager to find a pretty number to support you that you didn't really understand what you were citing.
look carefully, i won't circle pretty data as you did, reader can read for themselves to decide which data means what.

You specifically said Xbench. Those are Cinebench results. Those are completely different, and have to do with rendering 3D images for eventual use in a movie file or what-not. From Maxon's web site, I get the impression Cinebench is far more processor dependant, rather than GPU dependant as a game would be. We can see that by the huge difference in score the dual processor systems have in that test. Remember, unlike Cinebench, games do far more than just render images. They have to compute things like collision detection, movement, artificial intelligence, etc...

about if 9200 should support core image, u can brag as you want. I don't really have the reasoning to convince u not to brag it

I'm not bragging. I do not own any of comptuers we've been talking about today. I have a Mac Pro 2.66. I've never owned an iMac, a MacBook, or a Mac mini. I have no personal reason to care what the performance of any of the lower end Macs is.

since u really doesn't care how apple put a crap in there, as long as its apple, u can always use their maybe 1 highlight spot to cover all other craps of theirs.

I don't know what this means. But to be clear, I said a few times that the GMA 950 is trash. But I would prefer the GMA 950 over the Radeon 9200 any day.

and finally, I don't see why 9200 doesn't support core image leads to 950 is a better card for mini

That's probably because you don't know what core image is, or what fun apps use it.

is there any other product in the market in your mind? you are not locked into two choices, aren't you? or its just you gonna defend any apple's choice, no matter why they did it, and how crap it is?

I'm not sure what the above means.

other comparison of mini ppc with 9200 and mini solo with GMA
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/...le-opengl.html

Directly from that site: "Cinebench OpenGL test may not be representative of gaming performance." Funny, I thought I just said that.

even if you think mini ppc's graphic card need upgrade, wouldn't be nicer for the user that apple upgrade it to a better choice?

Yes. I said that a couple of times. That was never in question. Its funny how, every couple of posts, you insist on forgetting that I agree with that statement fully. This is not a GMA 950 vs current Radeon or GeForce debate. This is all about GMA 950 vs Radeon 9200, and whether or not the original poster should consider it an upgrade.

and read this
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...-inferior.html
apple is just so business style, flip flop all around, in pushing their product, they can lie or confuse user about anything. is honesty so difficult right now? if 950 cant play new 3D game, how about stop saying "can play latest 3D games" for a change?

I'm really glad you pointed me to that page, as I think it makes the case for the GMA 950 versus the Radeon 9200, with the following quotes:

Intel's website concurs that the GMA950 graphics processor is capable of a "1.6 GPixels/sec and 1.6 GTexels/sec fill rate". This compares to a "1.0 GPixels/sec fill rate" for the ATI Radeon 9200.

Cinemark 9.5 benchmarks released by MacInTouch shows the GMA950 in the Intel-based Mac mini "Core Solo" 1.5 to be faster than the ATI Radeon 9200 in last year's Mac mini G4 in three out of four tests.

Overall, it likely seems that the "integrated graphics" provided by the Intel-based Mac mini "Core" systems are modestly faster, or at least no slower, than the dedicated graphics provided with last year's Mac mini G4. Neither are particularly high-performance.

So once again, I've taken everything you've given me and showed you logic and reason. I can't wait until the next round!

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 06:03 PM

I can't wait until the next round!
next round? hehe, no, since i listed all i wanna say, and u think u already prove the Intel 950 is better than 9200 and apple's update of 9200 to intel 950 is right, i wouldn't have the patience to convince the biggest fanboy here, so, enjoy :p

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 06:08 PM

i wouldn't have the patience to convince the biggest fanboy here, so, enjoy :p

Oh, nevermind...

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 06:14 PM

Like it was already said, HD is not "future tech", it's just a resolution. It's becoming quite obvious that you simply do not understand the subject-matter at all. And you aren't even making any sense in your "arguments". First you say that GMA950 sucks when compared to 9200. Then you say that it's unfair to compare GMA950 to 9200, since GMA950 is newer technology and therefore better.

GMA950 might be slower than 9200 on some apps (some games come to mind). But it might be faster in some other apps (like some other games). It's also a lot better at video-playback (not 3D-graphics, but video), and it has more advanced features than 9200 has (core image etc.).

Want to test HD-playback? Go watch some HD-content (like trailers at apple.com). And before you say "But there was no HD-content back when 9200 was released!": so what? Does that mean that it is to be expected that 9200 is not as good as GMA950? If that is the case, how can you claim that 9200 is better of the two? Because it might be a bit faster in some 3D-games?

And BTW: It's "you", not "u". Saying "u" makes you sound like a 14-year old.

sounds like 14 years old? plz, debating issue is ok, u wanna discuss my age? i don't care if you are 200 or 300 yo, so no matter how old you guess im, plz leave it to urself.

since your reasoning is exactly same as another big fanboy, all you said are just copy from his, i think i should not waste time and resource of this forum any more.

for ur pleasure of faulting me of first saying 9200 is better than 950. I think its fair to point out that was my response to the biggest fanboys's assertion that "intel gma 950 is a far superior card than ATi 9800". I guess u don't mind he making stunning assertion while i shouldn't be allow to oppose that. plz, if thats your attitude, I can't engage you in any discuss then.

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 06:20 PM

sounds like 14 years old? plz, debating issue is ok, u wanna discuss my age? i don't care if you are 200 or 300 yo, so no matter how old you guess im, plz leave it to urself.

plz, stp lvng out all da vwls 'n caps frm ur sntnces

since your reasoning is eaxctly same as another big fanboy, all you said are just copy from his, i think i should not waste time and resource of this forum any more.

You know, this isn't making your stance on 9200 vs GMA 950 any less false. Nor your appearance as a 14 year old.

for ur pleasure of faulting me first saying 9200 is better than 950. I think its fair to point out that was my response to the biggest fanboys's assertion that "intel gma 950 is a far superior card than ATi 9800". I guess u don't mind he making stunning assertion while i shouldn't be allow to oppose that. plz, if thats your attitude, I can't engage you in any discuss then.

First of all, I was very specific in citing the GMA 950 as being superior to the Radeon 9800 in video and 2D only. After first teaching you what 2D is, I retracted the 2D part of the statement, simply because I cannot find any reliable results. From personal experience, my Radeon 9800-equipped 2ghz G4 played HD video at about one frame per five seconds. So I still hold a belief that the GMA 950's QuickTime (video) acceleration is superior to the Radeon 9800s.

And regardless, this entire thread was about whether or not the GMA 950 in a new Mac mini would be an "ugprade" compared to the Radeon 9200 in the original poster's current Mac mini - the response to which is "yes."

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 06:26 PM

You know, this isn't making your stance on 9200 vs GMA 950 any less false.

First of all, I was very specific in citing the GMA 950 as being superior to the Radeon 9800 in video and 2D only. After teaching you what 2D was, I retracted the 2D part of the statement, simply because I cannot find any reliable results. From personal experience, my Radeon 9800-equipped 2ghz G4 played HD video at about one frame per five seconds. So I still hold a belief that the GMA 950's QuickTime acceleration is superior to the Radeon 9800s.

And regardless, this entire thread was about whether or not the GMA 950 in a new Mac mini would be an "ugprade" compared to the Radeon 9200 in the original poster's current Mac mini - the response to which is "yes."

seems like ur nevermind means nothing
and i can't believe you are making this ridiculous lie again,
I just proved to u 950's 2D isn't better than 9200, and u said urself that they are on "par", now u jump back again to say 950's 2D is superior than 9800? do you have any consistency?

what would be an "upgrade"? some part is better, some part is worse, is that a good upgrade?

and to you, now i say,, nevermind, enjoy urself.

jamesi

Dec 31, 2006, 06:28 PM

The 950 is a $4 graphic chip for petes sake and no it doesnt come close to mid grade stuff like the 7600 or X1600 class of gpu's. Those are true Mid Grade Graphics.

For JAT, I have had 2 Mini's and have 1 at the moment.

The 950 holds the bottom for graphics,rock bottom so lets not let the fan club spin 950 graphics into something its not. Its great for mail,looking through photo's,and the net but start doing real 3d and it blows.

haha, i can always count on you to set ppl straight on video cards Dont Hurt Me

as for the person who started the thread, if you are not doing any graphics works get the mini. if you do some work that requires a decent video card, then hang onto the G4 until you have enough for an imac

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 06:41 PM

u said urself that they are on "par", now u jump back again to say 950's 2D is superior than 9800[/B]? do you have any consistency?

What? Where did I say that?

sushi

Dec 31, 2006, 07:00 PM

I am looking to upgrade from my old Sawtooth.. I have upgraded it to:
1ghz G4
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb
Superdrive
80gb HD(Its been awile but I seem to remember its got a larger cache size to increase permormance)

I am looking to get a new mac(I have never actually had a new mac before).. unfortunatly only the Mac Mini is within my price range :( Question is would it be worth it to get the Mini? Would it outperform the G4?
I understand your dilemma. I have a PowerMac 933 (Quicksilver 2002) that I am considering updating as well since I am still using Classic Apps and the PM933 can boot directly into System 9.

Sonnet Technologies (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/default.html) has some good upgrades.

I am currently looking at getting one of these (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/encore_st_duet.html) for my PM933 as I want to keep using it for another 2-3 years.

Getting a Mac mini is a good solution as well. It all depends on your needs.

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 07:04 PM

I understand your dilemma. I have a PowerMac 933 (Quicksilver 2002) that I am considering updating as well since I am still using Classic Apps and the PM933 can boot directly into System 9.

Sonnet Technologies (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/default.html) has some good upgrades.

I am currently looking at getting one of these (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/encore_st_duet.html) for my PM933. I want to keep using it for another 2-3 years.

Getting a Mac mini is a good solution as well. It all depends on your needs.

For needs of someone as yourself, who may be used to the expandability of the tower, you might be good option sticking to it. I actually owned that exact upgrade you just linked, and was very pleased with it (in combination with a Radeon 9800 and a gig of ram) for the entire time I had it.

sushi

Dec 31, 2006, 07:24 PM

For needs of someone as yourself, who may be used to the expandability of the tower, you might be good option sticking to it. I actually owned that exact upgrade you just linked, and was very pleased with it (in combination with a Radeon 9800 and a gig of ram) for the entire time I had it.
Thanks for the feedback.

Yep, I do like my Quicksilver because I can modify/change things so easily and quickly.

FWIW, I also have a 17 inch Intel iMac sitting beside my Quicksilver. Best of both Mac worlds for me! :)

iW00t

Dec 31, 2006, 09:59 PM

Think of what the target Mac mini market is. It is people with not a lot of money, who really want to buy a Mac, or want to buy a Mac in a teeny tiny package, or both. A lot of mini buyers are even buying it for a second or third computer. Yes, a Radeon X1900 would be an awesome option, but entirely unrealistic for any of the above situations. And these people, buying this system, are probably far more likely to want to play smoother video rather than smoother 3D games. Don't you think?

The big irony is for the same money as a mac mini "Joe Bloggs" can get his tech savvy nephew to build him a computer with a real graphics card, and won't stall for 2-3 seconds when you do Expose on it.

Smoother HD videos? What the hell do you do every day? Watch QT movie previews downloaded from Apple's site? Who cares if that 3 minute video clip is HD or not.

Apple cheaped out when they use the GMA 950, it is that simple. For the price of the mac mini Apple could have very well put even a basic low end graphic card in... one that doesn't sap > 10% out of your already pathetic stock memory configuration.

iW00t

Dec 31, 2006, 10:06 PM

for ur pleasure of faulting me of first saying 9200 is better than 950. I think its fair to point out that was my response to the biggest fanboys's assertion that "intel gma 950 is a far superior card than ATi 9800". I guess u don't mind he making stunning assertion while i shouldn't be allow to oppose that. plz, if thats your attitude, I can't engage you in any discuss then.

Nobody cares if the 9200 is better than the 950, but the fact remains that back in its day the 9200 is a much better GPU relative to the rest of the market card than the GMA is today.

Ignoring this fact is just blind fanboism, nothing more.

I might as well say the Mac Mini is such a steal because it has 2 cores, is faster than the G4, and costs 150% more. Oh yeah, I forgot to take into account that a full year of progress separated the two releases, my bad!

dpaanlka

Dec 31, 2006, 10:20 PM

Nobody cares if the 9200 is better than the 950, but the fact remains that back in its day the 9200 is a much better GPU relative to the rest of the market card than the GMA is today.

Ignoring this fact is just blind fanboism, nothing more.

You must have missed all the parts where I said the GMA 950 is not a good card. I agreed to this analysis like 5 times now in this very thread. Here they are:

Of course, a better video card (such as the ones used in the iMacs and MBPs) would always be better

Of course, it would be nice to have a more modern 3D graphics card in the Mini.

my point is not to defend the GMA 950 against current cards. I thought I mentioned that a few times.

Look, we all know integrated graphics suck, but the Radeon 9200 sucks too

Yes, a Radeon X1900 would be an awesome option

Now, to be fair, I think Xbench is flawed. I really find it hard to believe the GMA 950 has twice the 3D performance of a Radeon 9200. However, I do believe, if nothing else, it should be on par

to be clear, I said a few times that the GMA 950 is trash. But I would prefer the GMA 950 over the Radeon 9200 any day.

This is not a GMA 950 vs current Radeon or GeForce debate. This is all about GMA 950 vs Radeon 9200, and whether or not the original poster should consider it an upgrade.

*****

Smoother HD videos? What the hell do you do every day? Watch QT movie previews downloaded from Apple's site? Who cares if that 3 minute video clip is HD or not.

HD is so common now that this should be a minimum requirement of a "basic" comptuer system - one aimed squarley at the new user market. This is mom, dad, grandma, your sister, your neighbor, etc... IMHO. Yes, they may watch a LOT of video content. What if Apple soon unveils an HD iTunes store? I know most of those people are probably not going to be playing many 3D games, though. Thats why I would rather have anything else besides the GMA 950 or Radeon 9200. But if I have to pick from those two evils, the GMA 950 would have to be my choice.

lord patton

Dec 31, 2006, 10:52 PM

this is the worst new years eve ever.

That said, this shoutdown is gonna sound better after some more beers.

Cheers, baby '07, may you have no interest in video cards, politics, or religion!

livingfortoday

Dec 31, 2006, 10:55 PM

I personally think this is all silly, as the Mini isn't meant to be a graphics powerhouse, but a entry-level budget Mac. For any use past that, you should look for an iMac or Mac Pro.

Regardless, in the link I had posted on the first page of this thread, you can go compare "Selene" and "Mr. Doom" on the XBench webpage, and see how the 1.5Ghz G4 stacks up to the 1.5Ghz Core Solo in graphics. The GMA950 doesn't completely destroy the 9200, but it's ahead in all tests by a decent margin.

PodHead

Dec 31, 2006, 10:56 PM

sushi

Dec 31, 2006, 11:07 PM

Seriously, all B.S. aside. What self respecting "power user" would be using a mac mini in the first place. It goes without saying if you do heavy lifting to not use this machine. It's a starter system with "age appropriate" internals, period.
To me, the Mac mini is ideal for those who already have a PC and want to try out a Mac. With a KVM, you can share your keyboard, mouse and monitor so it is a cheap way to test the waters.

stumper

Dec 31, 2006, 11:14 PM

Counterfit

Dec 31, 2006, 11:43 PM

this is the worst new years eve ever.

That said, this shoutdown is gonna sound better after some more beers.

Cheers, baby '07, may you have no interest in video cards, politics, or religion!

AMEN!

But really, clevin, do us all a favor, and buy one of these (http://www.amazon.com/Merriam-Webster-Dictionary/dp/087779930X/sr=8-2/qid=1167629987/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-8547738-2259964?ie=UTF8&s=books), then read this (http://www.amazon.com/Homework-Building-Reading-Comprehension-Fluency/dp/0439271649/sr=8-1/qid=1167630014/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8547738-2259964?ie=UTF8&s=books).

clevin

Dec 31, 2006, 11:50 PM

AMEN!

But really, clevin, do us all a favor, and buy one of these (http://www.amazon.com/Merriam-Webster-Dictionary/dp/087779930X/sr=8-2/qid=1167629987/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-8547738-2259964?ie=UTF8&s=books), then read this (http://www.amazon.com/Homework-Building-Reading-Comprehension-Fluency/dp/0439271649/sr=8-1/qid=1167630014/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8547738-2259964?ie=UTF8&s=books).

ahhh, i would if u leave ur address here...:p

11 minutes to go, happy new year!

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/6682/picture1nm6.png

jamesi

Jan 1, 2007, 12:33 AM

wow this thread really went south

iW00t

Jan 1, 2007, 04:50 AM

Seriously, all B.S. aside. What self respecting "power user" would be using a mac mini in the first place. It goes without saying if you do heavy lifting to not use this machine. It's a starter system with "age appropriate" internals, period.

The trouble is while the Mac Mini is pretty powerful, it is also damned limited.

Many has said it before but I'll say it again, it'd really be nice if Apple would introduce a mid range machine with some limited hard drive bays, and no damned built in monitor so it can be chucked under the desk.

Alternatively the 8 core Mac Pros should come out soon so the current Mac Pro prices could drop.

Paying 4 grand for a computer? This is 2006, computers can be had for little more than a grand in this era.

iW00t

Jan 1, 2007, 04:54 AM

regardless of the graphics chip debate (a never ending one too) the fact still remains that the mini will be much fater than your tooth

if you have waited this long -- then another month or so wont kill you -- and the mini should be updated to a core 2 duo chip and *possibly* a faster GM3000 graphics chip

it will be worth the wait anyway, as iLife 07 will most certainly come out at MWSF and you would get taht with any new mac...

I doubt the Mini will come with the faster integrated chips so soon.

What will probably happen is when Santa Rosa comes, we will see the iMacs go over asap as per history.. then the Macbook Pros to soak up the suckers in the mobile market, and when the big money has been made, the Macbooks will be released with the new "GM3000" card, and then when the cheap mobile suckers have been mopped up, then and only then, maybe the Mac Mini will get a tiny speed bump using the then previous generation Core 2 chips to clear out Apple's warehouses full of that stuff.

It really seems like the Mac Mini is some red headed step child in Apple's family. A refurbished CD 2.0Ghz Macbook can be had for the price of a Mac Mini... mobility, built in display and keyboard, sans 20GB of hard drive storage less, for the same money. Really makes the Mac Mini looks hideously expensive.

The small form factor is stupid anyway. It is supposed to be cheap. What Apple ends up doing is making it limited, expensive, and that said, small in a desktop is an oxymoron anyway. If not for the fact that they look so cute I'd stop buying each revision of these and get a Mac Pro instead.

Lord Blackadder

Jan 1, 2007, 02:41 PM

Paying 4 grand for a computer? This is 2006, computers can be had for little more than a grand in this era.

The Mac Pro is worth its high asking price...any similar Dell Xeon-based machine will cost pretty much the same, and I'd take the Mac Pro over the Dell due to its ability to run Windows and OS X.

It would be nice if Apple came out with a Core 2 Duo-based tower at a lower price point than the Mac Pro, but that won't happen because the iMac fills that slot right now.

iW00t

Jan 1, 2007, 04:58 PM

The Mac Pro is worth its high asking price...any similar Dell Xeon-based machine will cost pretty much the same, and I'd take the Mac Pro over the Dell due to its ability to run Windows and OS X.

It would be nice if Apple came out with a Core 2 Duo-based tower at a lower price point than the Mac Pro, but that won't happen because the iMac fills that slot right now.

The Mac Pro is very good value, I agree. It is scarcely more expensive than a Macbook Pro (a Pro laptop with a grainy screen... go figure, but that's a discussion for another day). But the good question is, is it worth paying 4 grand just for the ability to upgrade your video card?

What if I don't agree with Apple's choice of video cards in the stock configurations for the iMacs?

Jht

Jan 1, 2007, 05:25 PM

I don't really know much on the tech side of things, so keep that in mind. I've been watching this thread develop and seeing as lots of people are chipping in, I'd best have a go. And I've basically come to this conclusion, Clevin (sp?), shut up, you sound like an idiot, you asked a question and your now arguing over the answer/s you received. And as for the whole mac mini/gpu/whatever debate, it costs £400, regardless of what the previous mini could do, the power/gpu in the mini (imo) is fine for the money, and any self respecting gamer (again imo) wouldn't really be playing, or be expecting to be able to play 3d games etc etc on a gma 950, its not intended for gaming, and is more suited to media (not cs etc) and other such light user tasks, hence the HD support, and just because a few of you see it as pointless, doesn't mean everyone does, I for one often make use of the HD capability, and when push comes to shove I'm sure apple have done a lot more research in this subject, evaluated the +/- and generally know a shhit load more than any of us, so the introduction of the 950 and HD support imo is obviously telling us something about the targeted user base. Feel free to argue with my points, you won't get a response, simply because its a ***** debate, and I can't be bothered getting dragged in to owt, :) happy new year, innit

840quadra

Jan 1, 2007, 07:15 PM

Wow,

This discussion is more heated than the Canon v.s. Nikon debate going on in the photography forum!

Many has said it before but I'll say it again, it'd really be nice if Apple would introduce a mid range machine with some limited hard drive bays, and no damned built in monitor so it can be chucked under the desk.

Amen to that!

I just sold my Powermac G5, and I want to replace it with something smaller, but upgradable, and have it utilize my monitor, keyboard and mouse. It needs to be somewhat expandable, and offer me close to the speed (if not the exact same) as the Mac Pro.

I am holding out a bit longer, but if I have to take the plunge on a new home system, I would prefer it not be a mini. I really don't want to have to buy enclosures for my SATA drives, nor do I really want to drop the coin to buy a new Mac Pro (even at base model prices)

Apple give us another Quadra 840av / 8500 sized mac tower again, and give it the good industrial design of the Mac Pro, at a lower cost!!

dpaanlka

Jan 1, 2007, 07:48 PM

Apple give us another Quadra 840av / 8500 sized mac tower

You all know I would be up for that!

Lord Blackadder

Jan 1, 2007, 08:07 PM

The Mac Pro is very good value, I agree. It is scarcely more expensive than a Macbook Pro (a Pro laptop with a grainy screen... go figure, but that's a discussion for another day). But the good question is, is it worth paying 4 grand just for the ability to upgrade your video card?

What if I don't agree with Apple's choice of video cards in the stock configurations for the iMacs?

I don't know...but that's life for a Mac user right now. If you need to get an upgradeable machine for $600-$1000, you must get a 3-5 year old PowerMac and upgrade as necessary.

Personally, I've become a video card snob. After experimenting with different video cards in my G4 tower, I've become convinced that I need a machine with an upgradeable video card on my desktop. Right now I have a GeForce 6800GT in there...it came with a GeForce 2MX. :eek: Being able to upgrade the CPU allowed me to take advantage of Core Image and play games like Call of Duty that would be absolutely out of the question with the 2MX.

So I agree with you that Apple should sell a more affordable tower. But the problem is that it doesn't fit their paradigm - Apple's vision of a consumer PC is a machine that trades upgradeability for space efficiency and good ergonomics.

The Mac Pros are towers only because professionals absolutely demand a level of upgradeability that only a tower can support. If Apple could do an all-iMac desktop lione they would I think.

Maxx Power

Jan 1, 2007, 09:07 PM

Displaying HD content relies a lot on CPU power, the new core cpu's have loads of them, the old G4 just couldn't keep up. You can render HD definition content many times faster than real time if you have a fast CPU, drawing all that pixel to the screen is done by the GPU, which, it doesn't matter if its a Radeon 9200 or GMA950, as long as it has enough 2D pixel rasterizing power, you'll see the frames, and anything in the last 3 or 4 years has this ability. The Radeon 9200 featured full DVD decoding capabilities on the hardware, not sure about the GMA950. The Radeon 9200 also supported ATI's "Video Smoothing" (smoothstream ? can't remember the name) via video shaders, hence the name VPU for the longest time.

You can't compare GMA950 and Radeon 9200 if they are housed on different processors, one of which is way faster than the other. At least under windows, with the same fast cpu, the Radeon 9200 and GMA950 both plays HD content easily, and, the Radeon series have always been known for their low CPU utilization during 2D-drawing, DVD's, etc.

For 2D comparison, its more valid to compare in windows, since the driver structures, API's are all more mature and has a much larger developer base and history.

clevin

Jan 1, 2007, 09:19 PM

dpaanlka

Jan 1, 2007, 09:32 PM

ahhh, discussion still going on?,,,,

:D I don't know if you are right, but I sure forgot that CPU part when discussing 9200 v 950 before, but no matter what, fanboys can't be convinced with reasoning. I learned it, and I won't repeat my mistake, lol. good luck :D

lol, oh fanboys, lol, oh lol u plz, lol... HD is a new fangled technology lol... what is 2D?

The video card has a lot more to do with displaying HD than the above poster would think. As much as clevin would like to believe he is the ultimate authority of logic and reason, anyone can rest assured the Mac mini Intel (every part of it) is an upgraded compared to a Mac mini G4.

You're overall a complete idiot if you would pass on an Intel mini to take a G4 mini. Thats all there is to it.

clevin

Jan 1, 2007, 09:35 PM

lol, oh fanboys, lol, oh lol u plz, lol... HD is a new fangled technology lol... what is 2D?

are u chasing me? sry, not interested.:p

iW00t

Jan 1, 2007, 09:35 PM

lol, oh fanboys, lol, oh lol u plz, lol... HD is a new fangled technology lol... what is 2D?

Seriously, out in the real world nobody cares about HD.

With all this newfangled nonsense and content protection restrictions, I won't be surprised if there are plenty of families out there watching "HD" on their new "HDTV" without that HDMI cable and not realising that they are actually watching downsampled content.

Nevermind the fact that in at least 90% of all homes people are still using normal SD TVs.

dpaanlka

Jan 1, 2007, 09:37 PM

Seriously, out in the real world nobody cares about HD.

With all this newfangled nonsense and content protection restrictions, I won't be surprised if there are plenty of families out there watching "HD" on their new "HDTV" without that HDMI cable and not realising that they are actually watching downsampled content.

Nevermind the fact that in at least 90% of all homes people are still using normal SD TVs.

That's not the point - the point is the GMA 950 minis are better than the Radeon 9200 minis. So who cares if somebody doesn't watch HD... I'm sure they still would rather have the better computer.

are u chasing me?

No, I'm mocking you. Completely different.

You can't compare GMA950 and Radeon 9200 if they are housed on different processors, one of which is way faster than the other.

I don't think a 1.5ghz single core Intel is "way faster" than a 1.42ghz single core G4. Or a 2ghz G4 (like I had - which also couldn't play H.264 HD faster than one frame per five seconds) for that matter.

fanboys can't be convinced with reasoning

Do you even know what "fanboy" means? It means someone who is a fan of something. I said a gazillion times I do not like the GMA 950. I do not own one, and I will never own one. I have no reason to defend it, other than your infuriating inability to recognize it is slightly better than an even worse card.

Hell, I think my GeForce 7300 GT is a tad crappy. I wish I had gone for the X1900 in my Mac Pro.

Jacksteruk309

Jan 1, 2007, 09:41 PM

ahhh, discussion still going on?,,,,

:D I don't know if you are right, but I sure forgot that CPU part when discussing 9200 v 950 before, but no matter what, fanboys can't be convinced with reasoning. I learned it, and I won't repeat my mistake, lol. good luck :D

That guy really isn't a fanboy, he was able to counter pretty much everything you said with some sort of evidence, and I think it's pretty safe to say that more people probably disagree with you than agree with you.

And while we're discussing the GMA 950, I think it was a pretty good solution, Apple needed a low cost card which would fit into a small enclosure, I'm not sure if you can get much smaller than integrated graphics.

And I'm quite impressed with the GMA 950 on my Macbook, it's definitely very good for video playback and it seems to be able to do Core Image perfectly, although that may just amaze me since I just came from a 400MHz G3 with an ATI Rage card with 16mb VRAM :rolleyes:

clevin

Jan 1, 2007, 09:50 PM

That guy really isn't a fanboy, he was able to counter pretty much everything you said with some sort of evidence, and I think it's pretty safe to say that more people probably disagree with you than agree with you.

And while we're discussing the GMA 950, I think it was a pretty good solution, Apple needed a low cost card which would fit into a small enclosure, I'm not sure if you can get much smaller than integrated graphics.

And I'm quite impressed with the GMA 950 on my Macbook, it's definitely very good for video playback and it seems to be able to do Core Image perfectly, although that may just amaze me since I just came from a 400MHz G3 with an ATI Rage card with 16mb VRAM :rolleyes:

...i can only say i know that fanboy more than this post, started from him first obnoxiously called my name directly without i offended him,
he himself described as "tend to think all apple products are superior", i have to call that fanboy style.

I wouldnt want to waste resource and time on this post anyway, if readers more agree with him, thats totally find with me tho, discussing isn't bad, and if it can clear something, I don't care the result, :D

So, so long to this post, enjoy reading, and im glad u have good experience with your MB. ;)

iW00t

Jan 1, 2007, 09:50 PM

That's not the point - the point is the GMA 950 minis are better than the Radeon 9200 minis. So who cares if somebody doesn't watch HD... I'm sure they still would rather have the better computer.

I won't deny that the GMA 950 Mini is better than the Radeon 9200 Minis, even if it is on account of the new ripple effect that you now get when adding a widget in dashboard, but I think what really stirs people up is that from the previous generation we have seen what... doubling of CPU capability, but yet when it comes to the GPU department we've actually taken a step backwards by adopting the very same Intel GMA chips that Apple has so enjoyed ribbing in the past.

dpaanlka

Jan 1, 2007, 09:55 PM

I won't deny that the GMA 950 Mini is better than the Radeon 9200 Minis, even if it is on account of the new ripple effect that you now get when adding a widget in dashboard, but I think what really stirs people up is that from the previous generation we have seen what... doubling of CPU capability, but yet when it comes to the GPU department we've actually taken a step backwards by adopting the very same Intel GMA chips that Apple has so enjoyed ribbing in the past.

A step backwards in principle - yes, I can agree with it. It would have been much better to replace the Radeon 9200 with a newer GPU with dedicated memory.

A literal step backwards? No, as crummy as both cards are, I firmly do not believe this is true.

he himself described as "tend to think all apple products are superior", i have to call that fanboy style

So... it appears you tend to think all Apple products are bad. So I guess I have to call you an overly pessimistic loon. I don't see how you're any better than me. You're just me, in reverse.

You were the first one to bust out the name-calling (fanboy this, fanboy that), so don't complain about me calling you pessimistic.

iW00t

Jan 1, 2007, 10:01 PM

A step backwards in principle - yes, I can agree with it. It would have been much better to replace the Radeon 9200 with a newer GPU with dedicated memory.

A literal step backwards? No, as crummy as both cards are, I firmly do not believe this is true.

Well perhaps now a literal step backwards since the performance of both cards are pretty much on par, but you must not forget that the G4 Mini sold for a lot less than the Intel Minis. For what it is worth what did we get? Bluetooth and wireless included standard now, Intel processors, and of course... the GMA 950 chip.

For what it is worth the Mac Mini is really poor value for what it gives, as I've posted on another thread it is possible to get a 2.0ghz Macbook in the refurbished store for $799 at one point, what's so outstanding about the Mac Mini that makes it so expensive for what it delivers?

It is not cheap, and for the money Apple could very well have put in even a basic x1300 GPU.

dpaanlka

Jan 1, 2007, 10:03 PM

For what it is worth the Mac Mini is really poor value for what it gives, as I've posted on another thread it is possible to get a 2.0ghz Macbook in the refurbished store for $799 at one point, what's so outstanding about the Mac Mini that makes it so expensive for what it delivers?

It is not cheap, and for the money Apple could very well have put in even a basic x1300 GPU.

Well, for $479 you can get a refurb Mini solo. But yes, I agree an X1300 would be much better and really add to the Mini's value. I would be overjoyed (even ecstatic) if they added that (even as an option).

Lord Blackadder

Jan 1, 2007, 11:17 PM

Here's another vote for a basic embedded GPU instead of an integrated one - an X1300 would make a real difference.

The Radeon 9200 was a nice card in it's day, which has long since passed as far as 3D stuff goes. I'd take an Intel Mini over a G4 Mini in a second, even with the :( GMA 950.

You need to remember that the Radeon 9200 is uses a slightly developed version of the R200 core, which dates back to the Radeon 8500. The GMA 950 is clocked similarly to some versions of the the 9200, but the GMA supports newer versions of DirectX and OpenGL and has programmable pixel shaders as well as better video playback. The ONLY advantage the Radeon 9200 offers is its dedicated DDR VRAM, which is useful - but the GMA is otherwise a superior chip - as it should be, since the 9200 is six years old!

With that said, the R300-based Radeon Xpress 200 integrated chipset from ATI is superior to the GMA 950, and the embedded Radeon X300 and X1300 chips with dedicated VRAM are an order of magnitude better than any integrated chip...

Just looking at the barefeats (http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html) benchmarks should show how meaningless the GMA vs 9200 debate is in the case of the Minis, because it's really all about PPC 7447 vs Intel Core, and the Core DOMINATES.

kalisphoenix

Jan 1, 2007, 11:29 PM

Well perhaps now a literal step backwards since the performance of both cards are pretty much on par, but you must not forget that the G4 Mini sold for a lot less than the Intel Minis. For what it is worth what did we get? Bluetooth and wireless included standard now, Intel processors, and of course... the GMA 950 chip.

Bluetooth, Airport Extreme, another entire processor core, a larger hard drive (iirc), a better video card, a remote control and media center software, and higher RAM capacity (iirc). For $100, that's a pretty good value.

For what it is worth the Mac Mini is really poor value for what it gives, as I've posted on another thread it is possible to get a 2.0ghz Macbook in the refurbished store for $799 at one point, what's so outstanding about the Mac Mini that makes it so expensive for what it delivers?

Perhaps the fact that it doesn't make a staggeringly lousy media center, like a laptop would? :P

pigwin32

Jan 2, 2007, 01:58 AM

It really seems like the Mac Mini is some red headed step child in Apple's family. A refurbished CD 2.0Ghz Macbook can be had for the price of a Mac Mini... mobility, built in display and keyboard, sans 20GB of hard drive storage less, for the same money. Really makes the Mac Mini looks hideously expensive.

The small form factor is stupid anyway. It is supposed to be cheap. What Apple ends up doing is making it limited, expensive, and that said, small in a desktop is an oxymoron anyway. If not for the fact that they look so cute I'd stop buying each revision of these and get a Mac Pro instead.
A classic line. Personally I think the mini is a great little machine with copious processing power in a very compact form factor. I'm currently using one as a web/database server (and yes I consider myself a "power user" despite not requiring a high performance graphics card). I guess the point though is that it's a very generic machine for which Apple has attempted to meet certain price/performance/feature criteria and as a consequence it isn't going to meet everyone's requirements. I think in the next revision we might see something more interesting and to me the biggest issue is lack of basic expansion options. I would love to see it incorporate an ExpressCard/34 slot for expansion and an eSATA port. Both of these are commodity items and I'm taking a wild guess that they would be unlikely to materially affect either the price or the form factor.

And dpaanlka, whilst entertaining, your discussion with clueless was never going to result in accord but 10/10 for trying.