new Mini with Intel GMA 950 + WoW = ???

[DougTheImpaler]

Anybody have any speculation on how well the new Mac Mini will run with World of Warcraft? Basically, my Dell PC has become a WoW machine...that's all it's good for at this point...it's a 2.8GHz P4 with an Radeon X600 Pro with 128MB of memory. I don't think I'd really be losing anything.

What I want to do is sell my upgraded Sawtooth and my Dell and buy a new Mini with the money...it should be a great upgrade all the way around compared to my current Mac, and it will also net me a copy of iLife '06 (which I was going to get anywya just for iWeb) along with it.

I've done some GMA 950 research and according to Intel's website, it supports fragment shaders (which should also support Core Image, unlike my GeForce 2 MX) and alot of more advanced features. Also, it appears that the Mac Mini makes use of dual-channel SDRAM (as you can only buy it with pairs of DIMMs) so that should mean a full 10.6GB of bandwidth, with half of it being dedicated to the graphics chip. 5.3GB of bandwidth with the 64MB shared RAM should be somewhat similar to my Radeon X600, right (with the obvious 64MB loss in "dedicated" VRAM)?

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

[mrgreen4242]

Can't say for certain, but my guess is that it will run like a dog, if it runs at all. The 950 is a decent GPU for media and desktop work, but by all accounts it's absolute rubbish for 3D games.

If you really want a Mac for gaming, I'd stick with an iMac (not much more money than the Core Duo mini, really), or get a second hand/refurb DP G5 PowerMac.

[Abulia]

The new mini threads in the rumor section are up in arms over the mini's new graphics chip. In short, gaming performance should be just horrible. No one knows for certain, but you might want to wait for some firsthand reports on gaming performance on the mini before pulling the trigger.

I agree with the other poster; sell your monitor and spend just a little bit more for the iMac. Much better value.

[grabberslasher]

Well, on an Intel GMA 900 on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 running Mac OS X, Unreal 2004 is virtually unplayable except on LOWEST settings. This is with the universal binary. Don't expect much from these minis.

[robbieduncan]

It'll be bad. Check out these benchmarks (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821811,00.asp).

And remember you have less system RAM available too.

[amholl]

i'd most certainly go for an iMac. It is common knowledge WoW flies on them.

[GFLPraxis]

I was all excited about the Mac Mini until I was scrolling through the specs and hit the graphics card.

I looked up PC benchmarks and almost threw up.

[mjstew33]

Apple advertised on the Mac mini page how bad the built-in Intel Graphics were bad, now, there using them. :rolleyes:

[Cougarcat]

I imagine playing WoW on a mini will make you very sad very quickly, but MacFixit says that it'll probably be better than an ATI 9200:


The GMA950 uses "Dynamic Video Memory Technology" (DVMT) to support up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically. It has 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM of its own, shared with main memory

Still, on paper, the GMA950's specs best those of the Radeon 9200 card used by the PowerPC-based Mac mini. For instance, the GMA950 claims 1.6 billion pixels per second vs. 1.1 billion pixels per second for the Radeon 9200. And the GMA950 includes a 256-bit graphics core running at 400MHz while the Radeon 9200 uses a 400 Mhz 128-bit core.

Again, benchmarks have yet to be recorded, but we wouldn't be surprised if the new Intel-based Mac mini's integrated graphics performance exceeds that of the previous PowerPC-based generation with a separate graphics card for most tasks.

I wonder if the minis have full core image support?

[Eric5h5]

5.3GB of bandwidth with the 64MB shared RAM should be somewhat similar to my Radeon X600, right (with the obvious 64MB loss in "dedicated" VRAM)?

Not even close, sorry. Among other things, vertex shading has to be done by the CPU. Kinda sad that Apple bragged about the G4 Mini having a real graphics card (even if the 9200 wasn't cutting edge), and now this....

--Eric

[applekid]

Not even close, sorry. Among other things, vertex shading has to be done by the CPU. Kinda sad that Apple bragged about the G4 Mini having a real graphics card (even if the 9200 wasn't cutting edge), and now this....

--Eric

My thoughts exactly. Bad play by Apple.

[bookofjames]

off-topic: seems to me that every time a new Mac comes out there's always a thread on how it will perform in WoW.

just a funny thing to me. :D

[Haoshiro]

off topic: the book of james is awesome!

[2nyRiggz]

Don't bother getting a mini for games...it won't work out...apple made sure you guys will buy the top end for games...good move apple.


Bless

[HiRez]

How much can it cost to put something like an old Radeon 9700 Mobility into a Mini (which is, incidentally, no longer a $500 computer)? Bleh...why, Apple, WHY?

[centrollc]

Haha I love how everyone considers iLife "free" now. The price of the mini has increased $100, which I understand there are better components, but come on.... free? You know iLife hardly costs them anything in overhead.

[iHeartTheApple]

Quote:
The GMA950 uses "Dynamic Video Memory Technology" (DVMT) to support up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically. It has 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM of its own, shared with main memory


Yes, but doesn't this mean that 224MB (maximum) will be available, if needed, to the GPU? I mean, isn't that better than a dedicated 128MB card? Assume I get 2GB of system ram, then with the max of 224MB being taken by the video card, that leaves me with ~1.75GB for the rest of the system...I've already asked this question like 3 times, and noone seems to be able to answer it...furthermore, what does the x16 PCI expansion technology mean in the Intel description?

Thanks for the help!

[mrgreen4242]

Quote:
The GMA950 uses "Dynamic Video Memory Technology" (DVMT) to support up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically. It has 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM of its own, shared with main memory


Yes, but doesn't this mean that 224MB (maximum) will be available, if needed, to the GPU? I mean, isn't that better than a dedicated 128MB card? I've already asked this question like 3 times, and noone seems to be able to answer it...furthermore, what does the x16 PCI expansion technology mean in the Intel description?

Thanks for the help!

No, not really. First off there is the obvious effect of stealing memory from the main system (leaving it less to work with). Then the fact that you are using the system bus to shuffle data from the GPU to RAM and back, rather than using an "internal" memory system on the GPU board. This is generally also slower (and leaves less bandwidth for the rest of the system to work with).

There is also some overhead involved in managing the allocation of RAM and managing other features of an integrated video chip. It's not much, but it is more than a stand alone GPU needs.

The GMA950 also lacks [some of] the hardware features a full fledged GPU offers. The 950 isn't going to be all bad, it'll be an upgrade, over all, from the 9200 we have in the G4 mini's. It'll do better with 2D multimedia acceleration, if I had to guess, plus it is CoreImage compatible.

It's 3D gaming abilities are going to be probably about the same as the 9200 (in that games that work on a current mini will probably keep on working, but we're not going to get anything new with it), depending on the game and what hardware features it uses/needs.

[shortyjj]

to put it another way:

WoW on a mini = teh suxxorz

[iHeartTheApple]

No, not really. First off there is the obvious effect of stealing memory from the main system (leaving it less to work with). Then the fact that you are using the system bus to shuffle data from the GPU to RAM and back, rather than using an "internal" memory system on the GPU board. This is generally also slower (and leaves less bandwidth for the rest of the system to work with).

There is also some overhead involved in managing the allocation of RAM and managing other features of an integrated video chip. It's not much, but it is more than a stand alone GPU needs.

The GMA950 also lacks [some of] the hardware features a full fledged GPU offers. The 950 isn't going to be all bad, it'll be an upgrade, over all, from the 9200 we have in the G4 mini's. It'll do better with 2D multimedia acceleration, if I had to guess, plus it is CoreImage compatible.

It's 3D gaming abilities are going to be probably about the same as the 9200 (in that games that work on a current mini will probably keep on working, but we're not going to get anything new with it), depending on the game and what hardware features it uses/needs.


Sweet! Thank you a bunch for explaining that MrGreen...Your description doesn't paint as bloody of a picture as the big thread in the main forum.

So, in short, the video card has the ability to use more memory than a lesser equipped (<224), dedicated card (which helps the video card); however, the infrastructure required to do so takes away from the performance of the cpu/frontside bus? In the end, it's performance won't be stellar or equal to that of a dedicated 224MB card, but it will certainly be able to handle everyday OS X and multimedia stuff?

Well, that's at least how I understand it now...Any thoughts on the expansion description on the Intel site (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/)?

"Upgradeability: PCI Express* x16 port available. Single platform can be deployed for broad range of client user needs, allowing upgrades to higher performance 3D graphics cards if required."

Thanks again! :)

[Airforce]

it's performance won't be stellar or equal to that of a dedicated 224MB card, but it will certainly be able to handle everyday OS X and multimedia stuff?

That extra memory won't do a bit of good for it.


Well, that's at least how I understand it now...Any thoughts on the expansion description on the Intel site (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/)?

"Upgradeability: PCI Express* x16 port available. Single platform can be deployed for broad range of client user needs, allowing upgrades to higher performance 3D graphics cards if required."


A feature of the chipset that has nothing to do with the one in the mini.

[mrgreen4242]

Sweet! Thank you a bunch for explaining that MrGreen...Your description doesn't paint as bloody of a picture as the big thread in the main forum.

So, in short, the video card has the ability to use more memory than a lesser equipped (<224), dedicated card (which helps the video card); however, the infrastructure required to do so takes away from the performance of the cpu/frontside bus? In the end, it's performance won't be stellar or equal to that of a dedicated 224MB card, but it will certainly be able to handle everyday OS X and multimedia stuff?

Well, that's at least how I understand it now...Any thoughts on the expansion description on the Intel site (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/)?

"Upgradeability: PCI Express* x16 port available. Single platform can be deployed for broad range of client user needs, allowing upgrades to higher performance 3D graphics cards if required."

Thanks again! :)

Like Airforce said, the extra memory won't help much for that, but the GPU itself will handle all the everyday OS X eyecandy (you'll get Dashboard ripples :p ). Also, with the way that OS X distributes processing load for video effects and work the Core Duo should pick up the slack just fine for multimedia stuff and also for applications that use CoreImage for realtime effects; the Core Duo is a pretty big jump in raw power from the <1.5ghz G4 the mini used to have.

For any sort of 3D games the min iis going to (still) be the suxor. For video playback and encoding, normal day to day usage, it's probably going to rock.

[bookofjames]

off topic: the book of james is awesome!
why thank you. *shameless blush*

[Lord Blackadder]

WoW on the new Mini will at best run the same as on the current G4 Mini - but it will probably run worse.

You're better off getting a G4 Mini, an iBook or an iMac (G5 or Intel).

[bluebomberman]

WoW on the new Mini will at best run the same as on the current G4 Mini - but it will probably run worse.

You're better off getting a G4 Mini, an iBook or an iMac (G5 or Intel).

I feel the need to offer a partial dissent. Buying a G4 Mini is a BAD idea. Sure, the new Mac Mini has integrated graphics, but it's got a faster processor (come on, those G4s were dirt cheap) and a much faster bus. So even though you''re shuttling data back and forth more often than with a dedicated graphics controller, you got much bigger pipes.

Frankly, I'd stick to the Dell as your WOW machine unless:

1) You want to be the guinea pig with the Mac Mini, or
2) You can afford (and actually want) a new Intel iMac, or
3) You absolutely, positively can't wait for the Mac Mini to become more affordable or a better gaming machine.

[SpaceMagic]

It'll be bad. Check out these benchmarks (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821811,00.asp).

And remember you have less system RAM available too.

from that site...

You might wonder what the point is of putting all the engineering effort into the 3D core, if it sucks so badly at games? The answer is pretty simple:

Longhorn.


Intel's new GMCH will probably run Longhorn's upper tier Aero Glass interface pretty well. And Intel certainly wants that, because its OEMs sell truckloads of systems with integrated graphics into businesses. So businesses whose users want to use the Aero Glass interface will have a solution that works, but the IT budget won't be severely impacted. If you're buying a system for the home with the intent of running the occasional 3D game, drop an extra $60 and get an add-in board.


Interesting. So its a good card for, say, CoreImage, but RUBBISH for games.

[mrgreen4242]

from that site...


Interesting. So its a good card for, say, CoreImage, but RUBBISH for games.

Yup. That's what seems to be the case anyway... the Core Duo mini may shape up to be good for CoreImage apps, like Motion, simply because a dual core 1.66ghz Yonah is fast enough to take up the slack left by the lack of high end hardware features in the graphics subsystem. (Remember that CoreImage is designed to produce the same results with any graphics card, even if it lacks the needed hardware features by moving the load to the CPU - or vice versa when possible).

The extra core should pick up a lot of slack, when you are running universal binaries, but it's too bad that had to saddle the CPU with a bag of rocks, so to speak.

[crazzyeddie]

Let's face it guys, Apple is turning the Mac mini into a media hub, not a gaming machine. For anything 2D or 2D shaders, this thing is going to beat the old Mac mini simply because of the added processor speed. They aren't expecting you to use Motion or Aperture on this thing, or even game.

For all those slightly confused by the card with more VRAM being slower than the old mini for graphics, think of it this way:

You had a Radeon 9200 with 32MB, but then you replaced it with a Radeon 7000 with 128MB (or even 224MB). Sure you have more memory, but its still going to be slower.

[DougTheImpaler]

Interesting. So its a good card for, say, CoreImage, but RUBBISH for games.

Hmmm...good GUI acceleration I can get from any current Mac.

Looks like I'm going to have to avoid the new Mini like the plague. I don't want to spend more money on G4 stuff...it's a totally dead-end CPU. Sigh...I was looking forward to going Intel in my upgrade but it looks like the Mini isn't the way to go.

[Marathon4ever]

Let's face it guys, Apple is turning the Mac mini into a media hub, not a gaming machine. For anything 2D or 2D shaders, this thing is going to beat the old Mac mini simply because of the added processor speed. They aren't expecting you to use Motion or Aperture on this thing, or even game.

Not quite true. It all depends on what kind of gaming you are talking about.

The Mac Mini would be the perfect machine to use for game emulators. Hook it up to your TV, connect 2-4 USB gamepads, and load it up with NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Playstation, N64, and Arcade emulators and ROMs and you have the coolest old school console system in the world !!!!

[Lord Blackadder]

The Mini is great for older games like the Myth series, Diablo II, Warcraft 3, and newer games that don't demand a lot from the video card. But I doubt that UT2K4, Call of Duty, WoW and such will run well. The CPU is up to the challenge, but the GPU, not so much.

[madmax_2069]

Like i said about the intel mini some people cant afford the top of the line Mac to play games they should have put a better GPU in the mini thinking about the less fortunate people. i know i like to play games but cant afford a new Mac or even a mini. but there is people that might be able to swing just enuff for a mini and have teen's that would like to play a game but cant cause suck butt GPU in the new mini. they did a bad thing of moving away from ATI from the mini they should have put a better GPU in the new mini thats better then the G4 mini