Intel Mac mini Disassembly and Details

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With the release of the Intel Mac mini, several sites have already taken the new Mac apart.

Macworld posts some photos (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/03/minicsi/index.php) disassembling the new Intel Mac mini, revealing that the 2.5" hard drive is SATA and the RAM slots are now horizontal, making them less accessible than previous models.

Another user (http://nak.journalspace.com/) also posts more detailed photos with some interesting observations:

- 110 Watt Power Supply (vs 85 Watt)
- Packed tighter and no room for a seperate video card
- The Intel Processor appears socketed - which means it is potentially upgradable in the future by a simple chip replacement. The Intel iMac also has a socketed chip, while the MacBook Pro processor is soldered on.

Finally, Applefritter posts (http://www.applefritter.com/Mac_Mini_Take_Apart_Guide) a detailed guide on the dissembly with step by step photos.

[sunfast]

Very tidy! Would be trouble fitting much more in there...

[superleccy]

Does it support CoreImage?

[Seasought]

The Intel iMac also has a socketed chip, while the MacBook Pro processor is soldered on.

It would have been neat if the MacBook Pro also had the socketed chip. Now that I think about it, has there ever been a line of Mac laptops that did allow one to upgrade the processor?

I was under the impression that most laptops didn't permit this.

[Eidorian]

Wow, and I thought the PowePC Mac Mini was packed tight as it was.

Does it support CoreImage?Yes it does

[iGary]

At least the logic boards are still blue.

[jsw]

Very tidy! Would be trouble fitting much more in there...Yes, I'd like to see where the nay-sayers would put that GPU they keep clamoring for.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Awesome!! Upgradeable CPUs!!! :D :D

That means you could probably buy a 2.13 Ghz Core Duo if you really wanted to and put it straight into a 1.5Ghz Core Solo Machine. Now I wonder how that would perform?!!

[DND82]

woah.. these guys aren't wasting anytime.

[Spock]

i wonder if the chip in the core-duo iMac could be used inside the Mac mini??

[anonicon]

Yes, I'd like to see where the nay-sayers would put that GPU they keep clamoring for.

Exactly, thank you. If they want a Mac Mini with a full-blown GPU, they can buy one. It's called an iMac, and it has a heck of a lot more space for components than the Mini does.

While the CowCase and the HiFi were disappointents to me the other day, I thought the Mini really kicked *** for its price and components.

[Max on Macs]

It would have been neat if the MacBook Pro also had the socketed chip. Now that I think about it, has there ever been a line of Mac laptops that did allow one to upgrade the processor?

I was under the impression that most laptops didn't permit this.
Yes. Most, if not all, PC laptops have the chips soldered onto the motherboard. There has only been one Apple laptop I'm aware of with a socketed chip and that was one of their old G3 models.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

So, after all that wailing, it turns out Apple uses integrated graphics because of purely technical reasons. And you get much more upgradeable machine than before, to boot. I think it is not that big of a tradeoff. Plus, next iteration will potentially get a better logic board design and maybe a discrete graphics chip.

[Spanky Deluxe]

I wonder how long it'll take for the guy(s) over at Nakfull Propaganda to open up their Intel iMac and switch the chip with the Intel Mini. They've got both they're and they're not afraid to take things apart... I give it 24 hours. :rolleyes:

[rickvanr]

Moved to laptop sized RAM. Neat.

[mikemodena]

i wonder if the chip in the core-duo iMac could be used inside the Mac mini??

I'm sure we'll find out soon... can't be that long till someone tries to swap it for a test run.

[yg17]

Awesome!! Upgradeable CPUs!!! :D :D

That means you could probably buy a 2.13 Ghz Core Duo if you really wanted to and put it straight into a 1.5Ghz Core Solo Machine. Now I wonder how that would perform?!!

I'd be worried about cooling. A 2.13 dual core has got to produce a lot more heat than the 1.5 single core and there just isn't any room in there for cooling.

[Spanky Deluxe]

I'm sure a 2.13Ghz chip would work in there fine although the fan would be on a lot more. I'm assuming the Core Solo and Core Duo models have identical cooling systems btw.

What will be *really* interesting to see is if Meroms will work in these minis when they come out. That is if Merom shares the same pinout as these chips - I don't know that.

[JustADecoy]

Okay, time for some answers, based upon my experience with one at the Apple Store and at home last night (I am so Steve Jobs' bitch):

From the Quicktime HD Gallery (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/), I used the Higher Ground trailer as a guide to its H.264 decoding capabilities:

720p played the first 40 seconds with no noticable frame drops
1080p did skip frames occasionally -- enough to be noticable

I bought the thing anyway and was able to watch the IMAX Deep Sea 3D 720p trailer without noticable frame dropping.
The new Mac Mini is capable of displaying in my Sony CRT at 1080i (and 720p, though mine upsamples it).
World of Warcraft loads, updates, and plays -- but not very well. I do not have a Mini G4 to compare against, so here's what I know: It's subjectively worse than my (Mobile) Radeon 9600-based PowerBook G4, which I use all the time. Running at 720p, it starts losing fps very quickly and I would not attempt PvP combat on a Mini Core Duo. During a flight from Stormwind to Ironforge, even with all of the Video Options tweaked down, I was able to drop the fps to 0 by swinging the camera around. Standing in Stormwind's auction house gave me 29 fps. Standing outside Stormwind's bank gave me 25fps max.

Front Row is great at 1080i, though. :D

[iGary]

I'm sure a 2.13Ghz chip would work in there fine although the fan would be on a lot more. I'm assuming the Core Solo and Core Duo models have identical cooling systems btw.

What will be *really* interesting to see is if Meroms will work in these minis when they come out. That is if Merom shares the same pinout as these chips - I don't know that.

What about the FSB speed, though?

[Spanky Deluxe]

What about the FSB speed, though?

I thought that at launch Merom will maintain the 667Mhz FSB of the Yonahs but this will be upped to 800Mhz later on. Kind of like the Dothan's coming in to replace the Banias breed of Pentium-Ms. They were initially announced with the same FSB as the Banias chips (400Mhz) which was later upped to 533Mhz.

[Trebz]

I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?

[cube]

Even if really there's no space if the current configuration for a discrete gfx, it's a case of form over function. Apple prefers to make a bad machine instead of a good one and just very slightly bigger.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

Okay, time for some answers, based upon my experience with one at the Apple Store and at home last night (I am so Steve Jobs' bitch):

From the Quicktime HD Gallery (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/), I used the Higher Ground trailer as a guide to its H.264 decoding capabilities:

720p played the first 40 seconds with no noticable frame drops
1080p did skip frames occasionally -- enough to be noticable

I bought the thing anyway and was able to watch the IMAX Deep Sea 3D 720p trailer without noticable frame dropping.
The new Mac Mini is capable of displaying in my Sony CRT at 1080i (and 720p, though mine upsamples it).
World of Warcraft loads, updates, and plays -- but not very well. I do not have a Mini G4 to compare against, so here's what I know: It's subjectively worse than my (Mobile) Radeon 9600-based PowerBook G4, which I use all the time. Running at 720p, it starts losing fps very quickly and I would not attempt PvP combat on a Mini Core Duo. During a flight from Stormwind to Ironforge, even with all of the Video Options tweaked down, I was able to drop the fps to 0 by swinging the camera around. Standing in Stormwind's auction house gave me 29 fps. Standing outside Stormwind's bank gave me 25fps max.

Front Row is great at 1080i, though. :D

How much RAM do you have in the mini? Could the 1080 playback be choppy, because of occasional HDD reading? Are the WOW stats at 1024x768 or 1280x720 (or a higher/lower resolution)?

[mrgreen4242]

I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?

TO early to say... hold out for some extensive benchmarking. My guess is it'll be good for non-Motion based video editing, especially with an added high speed FW HDD.

[Spanky Deluxe]

I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?

If you're planning on using iMovie then the Mini CD would be more than enough with 1-2GB of RAM. If you want to use FinalCut Pro then you'd do best to wait a while until Universal Binaries come out for all of the pro apps. But when they do, the Core Duo mini should be great for that too.

Edit: You will want to have a decent sized and fast external HD for any decent amounts of video though.

[jsw]

Even if really there's no space if the current configuration for a discrete gfx, it's a case of form over function. Apple prefers to make a bad machine instead of a good one and just very slightly bigger.
Many would disagree with your assessment that this is a bad machine. Also, using the same case allowed them to get the product out sooner. There's always a rev B waiting, but it was nice to see this so soon.

[mattyturner]

I disagree cube. There are very few SFF PCs at this size and as has been stated, Apple do make full size computers too.

Mac Mini is ideal for some scenarios, not for others.

I'm not so impressed by SODIMMS, i think that along with Bluetooth make the base configuration too expensive for it's target market. With 4 USB ports anyone that REALLY wanted a BT keyboard/mouse could use a BT key. Maybe apple could have made a small apple styled one.

However, as BT is standard, i think Apple should include a BT App for frontrow so that you could control frontrow from your mobile phone keypad for when you lose the remote! That would be a fairly trivial software update.

[roland.g]

I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?

My question and problem exactly. I spoke to a Apple Store Manager this morning and he was sketchy on it. I told him I would be using iMovie but also thinking about using Final Cut Express at some point too, though both in SD since I don't have an HD camcorder. He wasn't sure whether the graphics would pull more then 64Mb if necessary or if it was limited. He said by Monday they would have some Core Duo units on display with max RAM and to come by then to test it. This guy was the 1st Mac Genuis hired by Apple prior to opening any stores and really knows his tech, so I value his opinion. He said there isn't enough data yet on the Mini to know.

[joeboy_45101]

I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price. 2)Integrated Graphics, at first I was totally against this but the more I learn about this chipset the better it feels. Apple needs to post some kind of comparison between the performance of the new chipset and the old Radeon 9200. 3)No 64-bit, none of these Intel Core chips are 64-bit capable. That's right, the iMac's lost their 64-bit capability with this transistion. It's not to say that the Intel Core processors are underpowered, but Apple has been hyping 64-bit processing technology for a couple of years now. I don't know what I would use 64-bit processing for anyway, but if I'm going to invest my money in a new computer I would like it to actually be "new" and designed with the future in mind.

It's seems to me that Apple has become a victim of it's own hype machine here. I might just continue to wait until the Merom-class processors arrive. These things have all the benefits of the Yonah-class processors plus 64-bit processing and better power consumption margins. Unfortunately, it's anybody's guess as to when these will make it into the Mac mini. :confused:

[cube]

I disagree cube. There are very few SFF PCs at this size and as has been stated, Apple do make full size computers too.


You would barely notice the difference if you rearranged this for discrete gfx.
Even if you made room for a 3.5" hard disk, it would still be an awesome little form factor.

[jared_kipe]

What in the hell are those little PCB things sticking up in the corners on springs??

[jared_kipe]

I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price. 2)Integrated Graphics, at first I was totally against this but the more I learn about this chipset the better it feels. Apple needs to post some kind of comparison between the performance of the new chipset and the old Radeon 9200. 3)No 64-bit, none of these Intel Core chips are 64-bit capable. That's right, the iMac's lost their 64-bit capability with this transistion. It's not to say that the Intel Core processors are underpowered, but Apple has been hyping 64-bit processing technology for a couple of years now. I don't know what I would use 64-bit processing for anyway, but if I'm going to invest my money in a new computer I would like it to actually be "new" and designed with the future in mind.

It's seems to me that Apple has become a victim of it's own hype machine here. I might just continue to wait until the Merom-class processors arrive. These things have all the benefits of the Yonah-class processors plus 64-bit processing and better power consumption margins. Unfortunately, it's anybody's guess as to when these will make it into the Mac mini. :confused:
There is no such thing as 64bit processing, its a freaking marketing ploy. The only thing 64bit processors do is allow acess to greater than 4GB or RAM. Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something??? You couldn't even put that much in a G5 imac, so whats the point of it being 64bit??

[roland.g]

3)No 64-bit, none of these Intel Core chips are 64-bit capable. That's right, the iMac's lost their 64-bit capability with this transistion. It's not to say that the Intel Core processors are underpowered, but Apple has been hyping 64-bit processing technology for a couple of years now. I don't know what I would use 64-bit processing for anyway, but if I'm going to invest my money in a new computer I would like it to actually be "new" and designed with the future in mind.

It's seems to me that Apple has become a victim of it's own hype machine here. I might just continue to wait until the Merom-class processors arrive. These things have all the benefits of the Yonah-class processors plus 64-bit processing and better power consumption margins. Unfortunately, it's anybody's guess as to when these will make it into the Mac mini. :confused:

I had been thinking the same thing about 64-bit, with the whole hullabaloo that Apple made a couple years ago and it made me want to wait for a Merom too. But I looked into it a bit more - you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM to use 64-bit. Right now a tower is the only thing you can load that with.

[jared_kipe]

I had been thinking the same thing about 64-bit, with the whole hullabaloo that Apple made a couple years ago and it made me want to wait for a Merom too. But I looked into it a bit more - you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM to use 64-bit. Right now a tower is the only thing you can load that with.
you need MORE than 4GB ram to need 64bit processor. Basically 64 bit processors are not necessary unless you're going to be doing really really hard core video and photo editing. Or if you're gonna run Vista ;)

[chaos86]

its been dugg.
http://digg.com/apple/Opening_up_the_Intel_Mac_Mini_2

[dont24]

I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?
I do video editing now with my G4 mini. 1GB of memory. Don't have any problems. Rendering the final product takes awhile, but I start up the process before going to bed.

Edit: Should have also noted I have an external 300GB FW drive and use the iLife suite of applications. I have heard the G4 mini has no problems running Final Cut Express.

[joeboy_45101]

I had been thinking the same thing about 64-bit, with the whole hullabaloo that Apple made a couple years ago and it made me want to wait for a Merom too. But I looked into it a bit more - you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM to use 64-bit. Right now a tower is the only thing you can load that with.

Thanks for not biting my head off like the last guy. Like I said earlier Apple has become a victim of their own marketing hype here. Is 64-bit really neccessary? Right now I don't know. One day people are saying it's the next big thing, the next day people are acting like it's just a waste of time. I guess I'll just have to wait and see. Macworld should be posting some test results soon, maybe that will be more encouraging to me.

[thies]

Okay, time for some answers, based upon my experience with one at the Apple Store and at home last night (I am so Steve Jobs' bitch):

From the Quicktime HD Gallery (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/), I used the Higher Ground trailer as a guide to its H.264 decoding capabilities:

720p played the first 40 seconds with no noticable frame drops
1080p did skip frames occasionally -- enough to be noticable

I bought the thing anyway and was able to watch the IMAX Deep Sea 3D 720p trailer without noticable frame dropping.
The new Mac Mini is capable of displaying in my Sony CRT at 1080i (and 720p, though mine upsamples it).
World of Warcraft loads, updates, and plays -- but not very well. I do not have a Mini G4 to compare against, so here's what I know: It's subjectively worse than my (Mobile) Radeon 9600-based PowerBook G4, which I use all the time. Running at 720p, it starts losing fps very quickly and I would not attempt PvP combat on a Mini Core Duo. During a flight from Stormwind to Ironforge, even with all of the Video Options tweaked down, I was able to drop the fps to 0 by swinging the camera around. Standing in Stormwind's auction house gave me 29 fps. Standing outside Stormwind's bank gave me 25fps max.

Front Row is great at 1080i, though. :D

Hm, that is better than what I feared in regards to WoW. The way I understand you the game was running at 720p when you looked at the framerate in stormwind? Just curious now, did you have the graphics settings on standard apart from the resolution or down to the lowest possible settings?

[jsw]

You would barely notice the difference if you rearranged this for discrete gfx.
Even if you made room for a 3.5" hard disk, it would still be an awesome little form factor.
Sure. Why don't you go get a mini and show us how you'd fit a 3.5" HDD and discrete graphics into the same case. I'm sure it's simple enough to do. I mean, look at all the extra room!
I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price.
That would be nice, but given that the $599 model includes AirPort and Bluetooth, and that the Intel chips - I believe - cost a fair amount more than the G4s, I suspect you won't see a price drop until the Rev B's ship, if even then.

[nagromme]

The eternal pattern is true again :D

1. New Apple product announced.

2. Much whining. Rants and obscenities hurled about how it doesn't cost 5 bucks and doesn't cure cancer (though this one could, see sig).

3. Mostly negative votes at MR.

4. Naps and bottles all around.

5. Follow-up articles. Discussion becomes more rational. Less is assumed, and more is investigated.

6. Now mostly POSITIVE votes at MR.

7. Sun somehow rises again after all. Life finds a way to struggle on.

8. Great reviews.

9. Massive sales.

10. Repeat.

:p

I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price.
I wish you could still get a sub-$500 Mac and I'm sure that day will come again. But consider all that Apple has added (without increasing the size) for your $100:

* Audio input

* Digital/optical audio (in and out)

* Wi-Fi now standard

* Bluetooth 2.0 now standard

* Gigabit Ethernet

* More flexible support for TVs and displays with odd resolutions

* Faster (5400 rpm) drive

* 50% more hard disk space (and new double-layer SuperDrive on the high end)

* Twice the USB ports

* Two RAM slots

* MUCH faster (and future-proof) processor that nearly rivals a G5 (and duals on the high end!)

* Front Row remote

That's a LOT of improvements over the old models. And LOT of specs that other low-end PCs lack.

[zelet]

There are so many Apple Fan-bois here it makes me ill to be a Mac person myself. You people do realize that Apple, like any company, screws up?

Instead of making the case slightly bigger to accommodate a larger, faster, cheaper HDD and a decent video card for the same price they decided to go with a case that adds no benefit to anybody at all? To fit the larger components would have only taken AT MOST an inch in each direction.

This would have solved every bitch that people have about this machine. It would be the same price, it would have a great, fast, cheap HDD, and it would have a discrete video card that doesn't suck away all your memory and bus speeds.

Tell me, why would this have been bad?

[milo]

Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something???

Actually, yeah. I have 4.5 in my quad right now, and the only thing stopping me from going higher is the fact that most single apps can't access more than 4.

The socketed thing is WAY cool, in my opinion it adds a bunch to the value of the machine. Wonder when we'll see the first report of someone buying a solo for $599 and swapping in a duo 2.16 or 2.33?

[jsw]

There are so many Apple Fan-bois here it makes me ill to be a Mac person myself. You people do realize that Apple, like any company, screws up?

Instead of making the case slightly bigger to accommodate a larger, faster, cheaper HDD and a decent video card for the same price they decided to go with a case that adds no benefit to anybody at all? To fit the larger components would have only taken AT MOST an inch in each direction.

This would have solved every bitch that people have about this machine. It would be the same price, it would have a great, fast, cheap HDD, and it would have a discrete video card that doesn't suck away all your memory and bus speeds.

Tell me, why would this have been bad?
(a) It would have altered the form factor, meaning reengineering costs and time lost getting it out the door.

(b) It would have negated many of the mini-sized 3rd party accessories which depend on that form factor.

(c) An inch in each dimension would have doubled the volume. (7.5"x7.5"X3" as opposed to 6.5"x6.5"x2" = twice the volume, to three digits of precision).

[Hattig]

Even if really there's no space if the current configuration for a discrete gfx, it's a case of form over function. Apple prefers to make a bad machine instead of a good one and just very slightly bigger.
Conversely, they're keeping a consistent form factor. One that many third parties have designed and made products to match.

Get over the damn discrete graphics issue! It isn't all that bad. How well does Doom III run on a G4 Mac Mini anyway?

[JustADecoy]

How much RAM do you have in the mini? Could the 1080 playback be choppy, because of occasional HDD reading? Are the WOW stats at 1024x768 or 1280x720 (or a higher/lower resolution)?

I only have the standard 512MB RAM, and I would bet that the drop to 0 fps was more about memory than GPU. The WOW stats are at 1280x720, but I did play briefly on 1024x768 on my normal monitor for comparison. My subjective take is "I'll stay on my PowerBook G4, thanks".

Hm, that is better than what I feared in regards to WoW. The way I understand you the game was running at 720p when you looked at the framerate in stormwind? Just curious now, did you have the graphics settings on standard apart from the resolution or down to the lowest possible settings?

Yes, my TV is only really happy at 720p (edit: or 1080i, which 720p upsamples to -- but WoW at 1080i seemed worse), so that's what I used. I started with standard settings and the frequently stuttering framerate bothered me enough to tweak down the settings to the lowest. I can't say it stuttered less (I didn't play with it for very long, honestly), but that's close to where I have my PowerBook set anyway. I'll probably use this for checking auctions and in-game mail. The chat box font is a little small for a TV.

One other interesting fact: The lower left options area in Video Options was disabled. A couple options are checked (Death 'glow' effect, maybe), but you cannot change any of them. I expect WoW is not yet optimized for the 950 chipset. I'm also wondering (away from WoW, where I can't confirm) if the 'full screen glow' option is forced on and may be slowing performance slightly. I expect it will get slightly better over time, but I still won't jump in a Battleground on the Mini.

[danielwsmithee]

What in the hell are those little PCB things sticking up in the corners on springs??
The smaller one is the bluetooth antenna the larger one is the Airport antenna

[cube]

Get over the damn discrete graphics issue! It isn't all that bad. How well does Doom III run on a G4 Mac Mini anyway?

I don't care about Doom. I wanted the mini for X-Plane, which doesn't require too much CPU.

[Spanky Deluxe]

I wonder how a Core Duo mini would compare to a stock G5 Dual 1.8 Powermac from 2004 (with a FX5200 as standard) on native apps. Now *that* would be interesting to see. I'm not really thinking about games as much as I am general system performance.

[Hattig]

There is no such thing as 64bit processing, its a freaking marketing ploy. The only thing 64bit processors do is allow acess to greater than 4GB or RAM. Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something??? You couldn't even put that much in a G5 imac, so whats the point of it being 64bit??
Apart from the support for 64-bit integers, which do help in some tasks (encryption/decryption/signing in particular).

However x86 got additional benefits from the move to 64-bits, such as many more GPRs which can really aid performance if the compiler is aware of them and can make use of them. 64-bit on x86 is actually useful for far more people than 64-bit on PowerPC.

[nagromme]

I only have the standard 512MB RAM, and I would bet that the drop to 0 fps was more about memory than GPU. The WOW stats are at 1280x720, but I did play briefly on 1024x768 on my normal monitor for comparison. My subjective take is "I'll stay on my PowerBook G4, thanks".

A lot of people game at 640x480 (especially with consoles of course, but also for performance on low-end hardware). How low can WoW go in screen size? Whatever the true minimum settings are, those should be used to judge whether a given game is playable on a given low-end computer.


There are so many Apple Fan-bois here it makes me ill to be a Mac person myself. You people do realize that Apple, like any company, screws up?

Instead of making the case slightly bigger to accommodate a larger, faster, cheaper HDD and a decent video card for the same price they decided to go with a case that adds no benefit to anybody at all? To fit the larger components would have only taken AT MOST an inch in each direction.
Your name-calling is quite rational and persuasive ;)

At the risk of sounding crazy and making you ill :p I'll suggest that different people have different needs/wants. The ideal Mac Mini for YOU (and no, you're not alone in your desires) isn't the same as the ideal for some other people.

Some people would rather keep the Mini small. I'm sorry Apple has no model that meets YOUR desires, but the Mini meets many people's needs extremely well.

And a 1" bigger Mini in all dimensions would surely have generated just as much howling and whining (and even lost sales) as integrated graphics. Probably more, since real-world use might show the new Mac Mini to be a perfectly good performer... but no tests will make a bulkier machine tiny again.

Tiny is the POINT of the Mac Mini. It's not what YOU want from a computer, but some people do.

[JustADecoy]

A lot of people game at 640x480 (especially with consoles of course, but also for performance on low-end hardware). How low can WoW go in screen size? Whatever the true minimum settings are, those should be used to judge whether a given game is playable on a given low-end computer.

True enough. Just because I wouldn't accept it doesn't mean others won't. :)

I'll give it another whirl this evening at 640x480, and I'll even join a battleground. Then I'll report back. (There, that was hard. Twist my arm, why doncha?)

[deadturtle]

Originally Posted by jared_kipe
Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something???

Of course, dont you know that more RAM = Better!! :p Seriously though I have 2gb in my Dual 1.8, and its been more than enough for just about everything except Aperture, which is fine. Most folks just need the amount required by the OS + the ammount required by the heaviest application on their system. On most Mac's this varies between 512mb to 1gb (esp in the mini where the target is the internet, iPhoto, iMovie crowd, and not the I want the Dual SLI video crowd) 6gb DOES come in handy when you are crunching full frame video, making pixar films, plotting world domination etc. but who is to complain! My 1.25 rev A mini is running 10.3 server just ducky with 512mb, course its not running more than LAMP (well in this case DAMP) with some DNS/DHCP, but seeing as that is all I need it to it has no complaints.

[Hattig]

I don't care about Doom. I wanted the mini for X-Plane, which doesn't require too much CPU.
Ah. Well the same point still applies (good graphics requires a significantly good GPU), and the GMA's main negative is made up for with all that spare CPU you'd have.

[cube]

Ah. Well the same point still applies (good graphics requires a significantly good GPU), and the GMA's main negative is made up for with all that spare CPU you'd have.

I'm not sure it will be enough for a couple of years (or even just now). And I don't buy CPUs for interactive rendering.

[jared_kipe]

Actually, yeah. I have 4.5 in my quad right now, and the only thing stopping me from going higher is the fact that most single apps can't access more than 4.

The socketed thing is WAY cool, in my opinion it adds a bunch to the value of the machine. Wonder when we'll see the first report of someone buying a solo for $599 and swapping in a duo 2.16 or 2.33?
Umm yeah, I said you meaning the guy who was considering the Mini, WTF would you want a mini for? And if you answer something like kids computer or HTPC or something then you DON'T need more than 4GB of ram.

[jared_kipe]

Of course, dont you know that more RAM = Better!! :p Seriously though I have 2gb in my Dual 1.8, and its been more than enough for just about everything except Aperture, which is fine. Most folks just need the amount required by the OS + the ammount required by the heaviest application on their system. On most Mac's this varies between 512mb to 1gb (esp in the mini where the target is the internet, iPhoto, iMovie crowd, and not the I want the Dual SLI video crowd) 6gb DOES come in handy when you are crunching full frame video, making pixar films, plotting world domination etc. but who is to complain! My 1.25 rev A mini is running 10.3 server just ducky with 512mb, course its not running more than LAMP (well in this case DAMP) with some DNS/DHCP, but seeing as that is all I need it to it has no complaints.
Again I was talking about the guy who was actually interested in the mini, I see no reason for average joe who can't afford a PMG5 to need more than 4GB of ram.

[thies]

I expect WoW is not yet optimized for the 950 chipset. I'm also wondering (away from WoW, where I can't confirm) if the 'full screen glow' option is forced on and may be slowing performance slightly. I expect it will get slightly better over time, but I still won't jump in a Battleground on the Mini.

From what I remember the devkits used the same chipset so I fear this might already pretty much be the optimum. Only curious at this point how much of the bad performance is due to lack of ram. It's bad at 512mb where even good cards crap out totally in griffon flight and busy cities as they need to load so many armor sets and whatnot that the swapping gets really bad and the data just isn't there to render new frames. And with the shared memory for the gpu you have even less. Waiting for how things look on BTOed ones with 1 or 2gb.

A lot of people game at 640x480 (especially with consoles of course, but also for performance on low-end hardware). How low can WoW go in screen size? Whatever the true minimum settings are, those should be used to judge whether a given game is playable on a given low-end computer.

I'd consider any resolution below 1024x768, respectively the corresponding widescreen resolution, to be an insult. Entry or not, for undemanding games as far as GPUs go like WoW it to me is a minimum requirement that such games run ok on entry level machines in that resolution. Otherwise you could argue that 1080i movies are ok at being downscaled to 800x600 on entry level machines ;)

[ScottB]

Wow! That is on tightly compacted computer. I guess it has to earn it's name somehow.

[milo]

Umm yeah, I said you meaning the guy who was considering the Mini, WTF would you want a mini for? And if you answer something like kids computer or HTPC or something then you DON'T need more than 4GB of ram.

Don't worry, I won't. I AM considering a mini, and I'll be maxing out the ram. I want it to run Logic, should run really well on that box. And it absolutely can max out the 4 gig limit.

If the mini could hold 4 gigs, I'd likely put that in. The ram limit is my only real complaint about the box.

[milo]

I'd consider any resolution below 1024x768, respectively the corresponding widescreen resolution, to be an insult. Entry or not, for undemanding games as far as GPUs go like WoW it to me is a minimum requirement that such games run ok on entry level machines in that resolution.

What's the equivalent computer resolution of NTSC? It's pretty low, isn't it?

If you're going to hook the mini to a standard TV (good match for an entry level box), you'll probably be fine running that lower resolution, right? Is there any quality gain from going past that?

[deadturtle]

Again I was talking about the guy who was actually interested in the mini, I see no reason for average joe who can't afford a PMG5 to need more than 4GB of ram.

Right you dont need more than 4gb... however it my lexicon its not often need as want :D (course i could only max my mini @ 2gb atm, and I dont have enough for a pair for the 5... but still the thought is there). I mean come on have you every looked at the ASP and felt all sad inside when it only says 256mb. Its just begging to be upgraded!

[thies]

What's the equivalent computer resolution of NTSC? It's pretty low, isn't it?

If you're going to hook the mini to a standard TV (good match for an entry level box), you'll probably be fine running that lower resolution, right? Is there any quality gain from going past that?

I'm quite sure the Bravia they demoed the mini on was not at running ntsc equivalent resolution. the intention is to go for high def content.

[milo]

I'm quite sure the Bravia they demoed the mini on was not at running ntsc equivalent resolution. the intention is to go for high def content.

Not sure who you're refering to with the Bravia. There will be some people who will hook this up to their HDTV's, but there will be many more people (like me) who will hook this up to a plain old NTSC television. The intention of the user will vary, and we have no way of knowing Apple's intention for its use.

[joeboy_45101]

Ugh! I was just checking the Apple Store and for some reason they have raised the price of the Mac mini. Yesterday, I configured a Mac mini with 1GB RAM and a 120GB HD, with the Edu. discount it came to $959.00. Today, I go back to the Apple store and I see that the Mini I configured is flagged as unavailable. I configure a new one with the same specs as the earlier one and now the price goes up to $982.00.

What gives?

[thies]

Not sure who you're refering to with the Bravia. There will be some people who will hook this up to their HDTV's, but there will be many more people (like me) who will hook this up to a plain old NTSC television. The intention of the user will vary, and we have no way of knowing Apple's intention for its use.

As I said, they did demo the new mini on a high def bravia flatscreen, the intention is thus quite obvious.

[joeboy_45101]

I just configured a third one and it came to $914.00. Huh?:confused:

[carfac]

>>> An inch in each dimension would have doubled the volume. (7.5"x7.5"X3" as opposed to 6.5"x6.5"x2" = twice the volume, to three digits of precision).

Who needs an inch on all sides- wouldn't just an inch in hight alone accomidated a larger hard drive, plenty of room for a real graphics card, and left room over? Plus, by not changing the footprint, no third-party devices would be effected.

Honestly, I had hoped for much more... I do want a living room computer... and this does not cut it at all (not meant to, I know). But a larger HD and a real graphics card would have been a long way toward a good MC.

I have had experience with PC's with shared memory. Enough to know that I will not buy anything with shared... YMMV.

dave

[legacyb4]

Agreed; the GPU issue aside, it's got almost every feature you could ask for in a small form factor and with the higher-end model, plenty of horsepower for the short term!

I wish you could still get a sub-$500 Mac and I'm sure that day will come again. But consider all that Apple has added (without increasing the size) for your $100.

[nagromme]

True enough. Just because I wouldn't accept it doesn't mean others won't. :)

I'll give it another whirl this evening at 640x480, and I'll even join a battleground. Then I'll report back. (There, that was hard. Twist my arm, why doncha?)
Thanks!

I think about when I hame on my 700Mhz G4 eMac: it stutters some and the details must be set low, but at the end of the day I'm still gaming and having fun. Just not as much as on my PowerBook :)

So when people say "the Mac Mini cannot play games" and Apple says "the Mac Mini CAN play games," the fact is that people have different standards.

And on an entry-level machine, your standards for gaming may have to be low. (Which doesn't mean you can't play games--to say nothing of the many games that don't even USE 3D.)

[legacyb4]

I'm also cringing at seeing the comparison specs against the "low end" G5s... :-(

I wonder how a Core Duo mini would compare to a stock G5 Dual 1.8 Powermac from 2004 (with a FX5200 as standard) on native apps. Now *that* would be interesting to see. I'm not really thinking about games as much as I am general system performance.

[milo]

As I said, they did demo the new mini on a high def bravia flatscreen, the intention is thus quite obvious.

You didn't answer my question, who is they? Apple?

[balamw]

What's the equivalent computer resolution of NTSC? It's pretty low, isn't it?
Standard NTSC is usually referred to as 480i, so it has 480 visible lines that are interlaced. Some argue that since only 240 lines are ine each frame, it should be called 240i. VHS resolution is also only about 240 lines, while S-VHS gets closer to the full NTSC resolution. The horizontal resolution is analog, but it usually equivalent to around 320-720 pixels.

Most DVDs however, and other digital MPEG compressed NTSC including SVCD are really 480p (480 to 720x480) that is downgraded to 480i for display.

BTW screen resolution is actually one of the main reasons I am now leaning towards an iMac instead of a mini for the living room, since I'd like to leave it permanently hooked up to the TV to act as a media box, and I don't intend to replace my 32" Sony CRT until either it dies or 40"+ LCD HDTVs become affordable (<$2K). For some reason I don't want a plasma or projection unit despite the fact that LCD performance may be lower. But, the resolution of the TV isn't high enough for me to actually use the computer for anything else, like my kids playing games online at pbskids.org or nickjr.com. Disconnecting & reconnecting is not an option.

Thre recent performance reviews of the Core Duo Mini, do make me wonder if one might do well in replacing the 2.8 GHz Dell box in the office as our "always on" centralized desktop though...

B

[strydr]

Yes. Most, if not all, PC laptops have the chips soldered onto the motherboard. There has only been one Apple laptop I'm aware of with a socketed chip and that was one of their old G3 models.


Actually, I built laptops (among other things) for a local PC reseller for almost 4 years- all our units had a socketed chip, that had a range of upgrade-ability. I doubt and customers ever thought to change it, but it is very possible.

[balamw]

Actually, I built laptops (among other things) for a local PC reseller for almost 4 years- all our units had a socketed chip, that had a range of upgrade-ability. I doubt and customers ever thought to change it, but it is very possible.
Sockets are more available in white boxes like the one you built, but much less so in "brand name" laptops like Sony Vaio and higher end Dells where form factor is a big concern. (I'm including good brands like Asus in the white boxes).

The reason is obvious. a socket will add to the thickness of the motherboard, and thus, likely to the overall thickness of the laptop. So they tend to sacrifice field reconfigurability for size.

B

[thies]

You didn't answer my question, who is they? Apple?

they in that case is apple

[matticus008]

Sockets are more available in white boxes like the one you built, but much less so in "brand name" laptops like Sony Vaio and higher end Dells where form factor is a big concern. (I'm including good brands like Asus in the white boxes).

The reason is obvious. a socket will add to the thickness of the motherboard, and thus, likely to the overall thickness of the laptop. So they tend to sacrifice field reconfigurability for size.

B
And on top of all that, a white box notebook is meant to be assembled in pieces like a white box PC...so having the socket is a feature that allows a great deal more flexibility in your configuration options. You can buy motherboard X and CPU Y might be $100...then later you can drop in CPU Z that's 2.5 times faster, all while not ruining your computer with reckless soldering. I'd bet that whitebox notebooks would be much less popular if you had to buy the mobo/CPU as a single unit.

[philipcolett]

I opened my intel mini last night, to find out that it doesnt take the old ram. DANG IT! I bought a 1gb chip just for that. I cant even see where I can upgrade it with the new ram, can someone show me?

[Lurch_Mojoff]

>>> An inch in each dimension would have doubled the volume. (7.5"x7.5"X3" as opposed to 6.5"x6.5"x2" = twice the volume, to three digits of precision).

Who needs an inch on all sides- wouldn't just an inch in hight alone accomidated a larger hard drive, plenty of room for a real graphics card, and left room over? Plus, by not changing the footprint, no third-party devices would be effected.

Honestly, I had hoped for much more... I do want a living room computer... and this does not cut it at all (not meant to, I know). But a larger HD and a real graphics card would have been a long way toward a good MC.

I have had experience with PC's with shared memory. Enough to know that I will not buy anything with shared... YMMV.

dave

I don't like the integrated graphics either, but I'm not sure if +1 inch of hight would do the trick. For one, you can't stick the graphics chip in an arbitrary place in the box, even if it is on a separate circuit board. Then you'd have heat dissipation issues - I guess Apple had a lot of troubles cooling even laptop grade components in such crammed space(this point is even more valid for a 3.5" HDD).

Anyway, the Mac mini is very suitable for a media center even in it's current form. And by "even" i mean - optical digital in/out, DVI, Gigabit Ethernet, internal DVD drive (or recorder), bluetooth, IR remote.(Honestly, what else would you need?) With enough RAM (say 1GB) I believe it would run great. Integrated graphics or not, the CPU alone (even the Core Solo) should have enough juice to render 1080p. And for storage, well, you can hook up a ridiculous amount (http://flickr.com/photos/29379500@N00/95455508/in/pool-tuawrigs/) of storage to the mini through Firewire (or USB). All that in a tiny, stylish and quiet package.

[topgunn]

There seems to be a lot of "Oh, the computer is so tightly constructed that there simply was no room for a dedicated graphics controller" going around here. I guess people are trying to find a reason why Apple would choose to go with an intergrated graphics solution as opposed to the dedicated graphics that have been used up until now. I am sure that you realize that the GMA950 takes up as much room on the logic board as the 9200, x600 or x1600. It was simply a cost saving measure. I don't think the GMA950 is so bad but losing 80+MB to your graphics controller is a big pain in the butt especially when you only have 512MB to start and you are using Rosetta.

Also, I have never had a PC laptop (I have had 4; 2 Gateways, a Dell and an HP) that didn't have a socketed CPU including my new ultra-thin Gateway with the Pentium M.

[mdavey]

i wonder if the chip in the core-duo iMac could be used inside the Mac mini??

I don't think so. The old mini had the CPU soldered onto the logic board and the Intel version looks to be the same (thought I can't tell for certain from the photos).

[balamw]

I am sure that you realize that the GMA950 takes up as much room on the logic board as the 9200, x600 or x1600. It was simply a cost saving measure.
Read the other thread. You'll find the GMA950 is part of the Northbridge, and is thus there for "free".

B

[matticus008]

There seems to be a lot of "Oh, the computer is so tightly constructed that there simply was no room for a dedicated graphics controller" going around here. I guess people are trying to find a reason why Apple would choose to go with an intergrated graphics solution as opposed to the dedicated graphics that have been used up until now. I am sure that you realize that the GMA950 takes up as much room on the logic board as the 9200, x600 or x1600. It was simply a cost saving measure. I don't think the GMA950 is so bad but losing 80+MB to your graphics controller is a big pain in the butt especially when you only have 512MB to start and you are using Rosetta.

Also, I have never had a PC laptop (I have had 4; 2 Gateways, a Dell and an HP) that didn't have a socketed CPU including my new ultra-thin Gateway with the Pentium M.

Actually, the space required is substantial. The current chipset is integrated with a lot of the logic functions (specifically the northbridge), so a lot of it is on-chip on non-optional components. A totally discrete graphics chip would be larger and would also require its own traces on the board. Beyond that, the dedicated memory would also take up a great deal of space. Add to that the expansion of the cooling apparatus, which takes up a chunk of volume in addition to the added surface area of the chips, and you now have a serious space problem.

I very much doubt that all of those notebooks have a socketed CPU in the sense the word is intended wrt to laptop computers. Are you saying that you can open up those machines right now and press tabs and pop out the CPU? I have never known an HP notebook (except DTR models) to use a socketed CPU...ever. Obviously, if your notebooks all use desktop CPUs, there's a higher probability that a socket is used.

[jamin]

Apple engineer:
Hey Steve. That GMA950 in the Intel North Bridge performs better then the Ati card in the old PPC mini. Not only that, if we use the GMA950 we won't have to try and squeeze in a decicated chip.

Steve: So we get better performing Video for Free and it will save on R&D and manufacturing costs. Let's Do it.

[admanimal]

I don't think so. The old mini had the CPU soldered onto the logic board and the Intel version looks to be the same (thought I can't tell for certain from the photos).

If you check out the the second set of pictures linked to from the macrumors.com front page, you will see that Intel Minis do have a socketed CPU. (In fact the CPU is missing from some of the photos because it has been removed from its socket, along with the heat sink).

[mdavey]

If you check out the the second set of pictures linked to from the macrumors.com front page, you will see that Intel Minis do have a socketed CPU. (In fact the CPU is missing from some of the photos because it has been removed from its socket, along with the heat sink).

Blimey (http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42332&d=1141336039). Well, I am pleasently surprised. After learning about the MacBook Pro's chip being soldered and given the space limitations of the mini, I thought it was unlikely that the CPU would be socketed and the initial photos seemed to confirm my suspicions. Great find!

[ScubaDuc]

Exactly, thank you. If they want a Mac Mini with a full-blown GPU, they can buy one. It's called an iMac, and it has a heck of a lot more space for components than the Mini does.

While the CowCase and the HiFi were disappointents to me the other day, I thought the Mini really kicked *** for its price and components.

Honestly, this issue has been debated to death: the iMac is an all in one and some (me) who have witness an apple LCD flicker and then die, :rolleyes: don't wanna have an integrated solution: I would have rather liked a sligthly larger mini sporting 3,5" drive and a decent video card

Yeh, Applecare, sure, they lost the display and it took them seven weeks to get me a new one... :eek:

[bighairydoofus]

Is competition with the iMac. As much as I love my G4 widescreen iMac, I'll never buy another computer with a captive monitor again. When the mini came out, I wanted to buy one but didn't because there just wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant the purchase. And yes, I wanted better graphics.

No one is buying a mini for a hardcore gaming computer. Heck, hardcore gamers don't use Macs, period. But I wanted a PASSABLE one, something that I could play WOW on reasonably well. This ain't it. It's not a bad computer, it's just a bad value.

:(

[Romanesq]

Well I got the single core upgraded to the SuperDrive and its on its way already. So I'll be glad to add another mac to the family and await the time for me to install a Yonah chip in there. :cool:

The earlier user reports here don't seem to live up to the integrated graphics hype either. Okay, we got a new mini computer with duo core chip capability so what are the whiners going to cry about now?

:p

[Eidorian]

>>> An inch in each dimension would have doubled the volume. (7.5"x7.5"X3" as opposed to 6.5"x6.5"x2" = twice the volume, to three digits of precision).

Who needs an inch on all sides- wouldn't just an inch in hight alone accomidated a larger hard drive, plenty of room for a real graphics card, and left room over? Plus, by not changing the footprint, no third-party devices would be effected.

Honestly, I had hoped for much more... I do want a living room computer... and this does not cut it at all (not meant to, I know). But a larger HD and a real graphics card would have been a long way toward a good MC.

I have had experience with PC's with shared memory. Enough to know that I will not buy anything with shared... YMMV.

daveThe sad thing is that most Windows Home Theater/Media Center PC's come with integrated graphics. They're going to be plugged into a TV 24/7 and used to watch movies. Several people on my dorm floor have HP Media Centers and they either have the GMA 900 or 915 in them. I haven't heard any complaints from them from their monsters.

[thies]

Is competition with the iMac. As much as I love my G4 widescreen iMac, I'll never buy another computer with a captive monitor again. When the mini came out, I wanted to buy one but didn't because there just wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant the purchase. And yes, I wanted better graphics.

No one is buying a mini for a hardcore gaming computer. Heck, hardcore gamers don't use Macs, period. But I wanted a PASSABLE one, something that I could play WOW on reasonably well. This ain't it. It's not a bad computer, it's just a bad value.

:(


Same. a mac with integrated monitor is just as useless for me to put next to my flatscreen tv in the livingroom as is a big tower. and while I mostly play movies and music from whatever I'll hook up I do want to play WoW every now and then.
Hoping that the earlier report of it running rather ****** is mostly due to the less than 512mb ram and that a mini with 1gb can run it decently... standard settings and consistent 25fps would be enough really.

[PetRock]

Safe to assume that the video performance is at least good enough to use it as a DVD player with my big screen high-def TV?

[DougTheImpaler]

Hoping that the earlier report of it running rather ****** is mostly due to the less than 512mb ram and that a mini with 1gb can run it decently... standard settings and consistent 25fps would be enough really.

The more I think about it, the more I think that even teh Core Solo version should run WoW better than the Mini it replaces, integrated graphics and all. The G4 was so starved for bandwidth (because of the SDR 167MHz bus) that it couldn't be kept busy enough to feed the 9200. Here there's nothing starving the CPU for bandwidth, but lamer graphics.

I've played WoW on a Dell with the GMA 900 (slower version of the 950) with only 8MB dedicated to the graphics chip, and on standard-to-low settings, I could play it at 1024x768 with a steady 30fps. That's all I am really asking for from this game.

I keep going back and forth, and I won't spend any money until I decide. Sure, an X300, X600, or X1300 would be a no-brainer and I'd buy the Mini, but this might be better than it seems, especially considering that most people belive it will be unplayable altogether.

[Brother Michael]

* Audio input

* Digital/optical audio (in and out)

See that to me is a big plus.

How well does Garageband run on this little guy? How many instruments can I use?

Safe to assume that the video performance is at least good enough to use it as a DVD player with my big screen high-def TV?
Seriously, what is the verdict on this point? How does it look when plugged into HDTV's, or regular TV's for that matter?

[millypede]

Laptop Memory??

I was right!! I'm not usually wrong on these things, but just to put both our minds at rest, Im still right :p

[evilbert420]

See that to me is a big plus.

How well does Garageband run on this little guy? How many instruments can I use?
?


Amen. The intel Mini Duo looks like a great gigging companion. Throw in a 7" or 8" portable LCD screen, and I can sit my Presonus Firebox on top of it. I only need a mouse when I gig, and the extra USB ports on the new Mini will allow me to use all my USB MIDI controllers without any additional power.

[bigandy]

I'd be worried about cooling. A 2.13 dual core has got to produce a lot more heat than the 1.5 single core and there just isn't any room in there for cooling.

i wouldn't be as much worried about cooling as the damn thing melting to my desk! :rolleyes:

[bigandy]

I don't think so. The old mini had the CPU soldered onto the logic board and the Intel version looks to be the same (thought I can't tell for certain from the photos).


look again :rolleyes:

[SmileyDude]

The only game I care about would be WarCraft III -- I currently play it just fine on my Rev A 1.42 mini w/1GB RAM (1024x768). When I upgrade to an Intel mini, it's going to be the core duo model w/2GB RAM. Considering my experience with the 20" Intel iMac @ work, I would think that WC3 would run just fine on that machine. Anyone want to give WC3 a try on one of the new minis?

Personally, I think this is going to be a great little box -- especially with the socketed CPU. Gives this machine an expanded life that the old one didn't have. While I love my G4 mini, the new Intel mini is a big improvement.

[joebells]

I was pretty upset by the lack of better graphics and that the dual was 800 bucks but knowing that I can upgrade the processor later has me seriously thinking about the solo and then maybe a merom when they've been out for a bit and the price of one is down to 100 or so.

[matticus008]

I was right!! I'm not usually wrong on these things, but just to put both our minds at rest, Im still right :p
Quite true! :)

[Choppaface]

BOOO laptop RAM too expensive :( :( :( :( :(

YAY socketed processor

I am so sold

[Wender]

Honestly, I had hoped for much more... I do want a living room computer... and this does not cut it at all (not meant to, I know). But a larger HD and a real graphics card would have been a long way toward a good MC.

I have had experience with PC's with shared memory. Enough to know that I will not buy anything with shared... YMMV.
dave

What interests me right now is what configuration would be ideal for a living room Mac Mini connected to my TV. This is my considerations:

1) I have all my music, photos and movies on a different mac with external HDs so I would use the living room Mac just to play it all (Front Row streaming). This is exactly how I want it, since I use my "home office iMac" (Intel 20") to organize everything, make playlists, rip music, handle photos and movies and so on. It's great NOT to have it all stored on a living room mac really.

2) It would not be used as a computer at all (well maybe some surfing but that's it). It would be a media player with the possibility of surfing on the net, can't see what else I would do from my sofa.

3) It would be connected to my AV Receiver with optical audio out

4) It would be connected to my (old) TV but to an LCD/Plasma in the near future

I think that's about it. Hard drive space is not important to me at all, as I wouldn't store much on it anyway. Would I be happy with the lowest end Mac Mini for this kind of use?

[matticus008]

What interests me right now is what configuration would be ideal for a living room Mac Mini connected to my TV. This is my considerations:

1) I have all my music, photos and movies on a different mac with external HDs so I would use the living room Mac just to play it all (Front Row streaming). This is exactly how I want it, since I use my "home office iMac" (Intel 20") to organize everything, make playlists, rip music, handle photos and movies and so on. It's great NOT to have it all stored on a living room mac really.

2) It would not be used as a computer at all (well maybe some surfing but that's it). It would be a media player with the possibility of surfing on the net, can't see what else I would do from my sofa.

3) It would be connected to my AV Receiver with optical audio out

4) It would be connected to my (old) TV but to an LCD/Plasma in the near future

I think that's about it. Hard drive space is not important to me at all, as I wouldn't store much on it anyway. Would I be happy with the lowest end Mac Mini for this kind of use?

All of this sounds like you're a prime candidate for the low-end mini. Since you don't want anything other than playback for this device, you have no particular need for the faster CPU. The SuperDrive and larger HDD are also superfluous to your uses. With the socketed processor, you can always upgrade later if you decide you want to do content creation or intensive DVR activities.

[Wender]

All of this sounds like you're a prime candidate for the low-end mini. Since you don't want anything other than playback for this device, you have no particular need for the faster CPU. The SuperDrive and larger HDD are also superfluous to your uses. With the socketed processor, you can always upgrade later if you decide you want to do content creation or intensive DVR activities.

Thanks! Excellent reply, that's what I figured. It will be so cool...

[mccoma]

Apart from the support for 64-bit integers, which do help in some tasks (encryption/decryption/signing in particular).

However x86 got additional benefits from the move to 64-bits, such as many more GPRs which can really aid performance if the compiler is aware of them and can make use of them. 64-bit on x86 is actually useful for far more people than 64-bit on PowerPC.

Hattig hits the nail on the head, this is the biggest point about the EM64T / amd64 architecture. It is not the 64-bit that will make things a lot faster, it is all those general purpose registers. With a proper compiler, this gets us a speed boost, that would be hard to ignore even if your app doesn't go over 4gig.

Also, a lot of media apps would do well in the +4gig space.

Also, OS wise, the 64-bit arch has the NXE bit. We could see some additional security measures (see the OpenBSD project - although it looks like Intel did not do as good a job as AMD in this regard).

I wonder if we will see triple binaries (PowerPC / 32-bit x86 / 64-bit x86)?

[nagromme]

Safe to assume that the video performance is at least good enough to use it as a DVD player with my big screen high-def TV?
I would say so: DVD isn't high res--even G3s can play DVDs totally smoothly. And even the old G4 Mac Minis are often displayed hooked up to big TVs. My MicroCenter did that.


How well does Garageband run on this little guy? How many instruments can I use?
My G4 700 Mhz handles GB surprisingly well if you tweak the settings. My also-ancient 1.42 Ghz G4 does REALLY well. Core Solo is light years ahead of what I have. GB will run great!


I was pretty upset by the lack of better graphics and that the dual was 800 bucks but knowing that I can upgrade the processor later has me seriously thinking about the solo and then maybe a merom when they've been out for a bit and the price of one is down to 100 or so.
Don't count on Merom--the pins may change making it incompatibe, like with Pentium M -> Core Duo. However, if Core becomes the low-end after Merom, and keeps getting faster versions, it may also get cheap. So a faster Core chip in a year seems possible at least. Just don't count on anything (cooling issues etc.) until someone else tries it first :)

[joebells]

I think I read that merom is pin compatible but I'm not completely sure about that. I will have to look it up tomorrow

EDIT: as of october they were saying it would be pin compatible
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html
Someone would possibly need to make an efi update? not sure how efi works compared to bios as far as updates and such. I know apple wouldn't make it available for the current mini's unless they just keep the same exact mini setup and put in a merom at a later date then we could probably just copy the efi thing.

[DrEasy]

The only thing that I find disappointing about the new Mini is the new price point, but gotta understand that the new Intel chips (incuding the Solo) are much more expensive than the antiquated G4, so something had to give. All the extra gizmos that have been thrown in the new Mini (more USB ports, BT, etc) are there to make the price hike more bearable.

I bet that the margins on the new Mini are actually lower for Apple.

Similarly, I doubt that the future iBooks will remain at the same price point. All will get back to normal if/when the Core Solo prices go down, which, if I udnerstand correctly, are a matter of ramping up the production of the Duos and as a result getting more defective second cores...

[sunfast]

The eternal pattern is true again :D

1. New Apple product announced.

2. Much whining. Rants and obscenities hurled about how it doesn't cost 5 bucks and doesn't cure cancer (though this one could, see sig).

3. Mostly negative votes at MR.

4. Naps and bottles all around.

5. Follow-up articles. Discussion becomes more rational. Less is assumed, and more is investigated.

6. Now mostly POSITIVE votes at MR.

7. Sun somehow rises again after all. Life finds a way to struggle on.

8. Great reviews.

9. Massive sales.

10. Repeat.

Voice of Reason! Thank you.

[SmileyDude]

The reason is obvious. a socket will add to the thickness of the motherboard, and thus, likely to the overall thickness of the laptop. So they tend to sacrifice field reconfigurability for size.

Which makes Apple's decision to go with a socket in the mini perplexing. The mini is a tight box. If they soldered the CPU to the board, they might have squeezed enough space to put a GPU on there (not likely, but we really don't know what the limiting factor was in this case).

Don't get me wrong -- I like the socket. Hopefully, there is enough cooling in there to go up to a faster CPU in a year or so.

[balamw]

Which makes Apple's decision to go with a socket in the mini perplexing. The mini is a tight box. If they soldered the CPU to the board, they might have squeezed enough space to put a GPU on there (not likely, but we really don't know what the limiting factor was in this case).

Don't get me wrong -- I like the socket. Hopefully, there is enough cooling in there to go up to a faster CPU in a year or so.
IMHO it's unlikely that the cost or space savings of removing the socket would have enabled a separate GPU at this time.

The other reason they probably have it socketed is the same reason as the white boxes. They don't want to inventory boards that will only work for the $599 or $799 models. They want some flexibility to adjust the mix depending on demand, and this will also allow them to adjust/update the CPUs they use in the boxes more frequently.

B

[AidenShaw]

IMHO it's unlikely that the cost or space savings of removing the socket would have enabled a separate GPU at this time.

The other reason they probably have it socketed is the same reason as the white boxes. They don't want to inventory boards that will only work for the $599 or $799 models. They want some flexibility to adjust the mix depending on demand, and this will also allow them to adjust/update the CPUs they use in the boxes more frequently.

B
The third reason is that a dead mobo can be replaced without the expense of the CPU, and a dead CPU can be replaced without the expense of the mobo. (This is a "spares/repair inventory" issue, not quite the same as the manufacturing inventory point that you've made.)

Most likely the socketed CPU was a key factor in Apple's decision to bump the MBP's CPU speeds up a notch.

[nagromme]

FYI, early Xbench results show the new dual-core Mini beating the old (no surprise) and sometimes by a large margin:

http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=158732&doc2=146457
(How much does Xbench actually take advantage of the second core, though?)

Note the MUCH better graphics scores by the NEW Mini. Especially for OpenGL and User Interface.

That does NOT translate to game performance, which is more complex (I look forward to tests of that). And system RAM is still reduced by the new system. But people worrying that the new Mini is "good for nothing" may be surprised.

[milo]

Most likely the socketed CPU was a key factor in Apple's decision to bump the MBP's CPU speeds up a notch.

But the MBP does NOT have a socketed CPU.

iMac: socketed
MPB: soldered
mini: socketed

[MacinDoc]

FYI, early Xbench results show the new dual-core Mini beating the old (no surprise) and sometimes by a large margin:

http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=158732&doc2=146457
(How much does Xbench actually take advantage of the second core, though?)

Note the MUCH better graphics scores by the NEW Mini. Especially for OpenGL and User Interface.

That does NOT translate to game performance, which is more complex (I look forward to tests of that). And system RAM is still reduced by the new system. But people worrying that the new Mini is "good for nothing" may be surprised.
It's surprising that the Core Duo Mac Mini outperforms the G4-based Mini on graphics tests with only 512 MB of RAM, considering the fact that the new Mini uses integrated graphics with shared memory. I would have thought that the new Mini would need at least 1 GB of RAM for decent graphics results, due to the issue of shared memory, considering how poorly OS X performs with 512 MB of memory. Just imagine how well the Mini could perform with 2 GB of RAM!

[Evan_11]

Note the MUCH better graphics scores by the NEW Mini. Especially for OpenGL and User Interface.


Well that should just about **** all the nayslayers. I was just amazed at all of the idiocy on these boards after the announcement.

[nagromme]

I already added a disclaimer about Xbench not indicating game performance... I'll add another general disclaimer about Xbench: I've seldom found it very useful, merely interesting. Real-world tests are what we need, and they will come.

Which is not to say the new Mini is NOT faster for graphics (or at least in some situations) than the old, but Xbench alone is not the final word.

I'm still playing "wait and see."

(And if the Mini is not good for any but casual gaming, it's still a great machine for most low-end buyers.)

[theonly]

The growing list of Xbench results for the new mini is pretty interesting to me.

I decided to compare the new intel iMac with the new Mac mini (CD) results:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=154912&doc2=159092

There are a striking number of similarities in the results; User Interface and Quartz results are worse on the mini (of course), though the Quartz results aren't overwhelmingly lower. It's interesting that the Open GL results on the mini are so much higher than on the iMac... though "spinning squares" is probably not the fullest extent to which people use their Macs' 3D capabilities.

However, looking at the iMac vs. Mac mini (CS) results shows quite a few similarities, as well:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=154912&doc2=159011
Does anyone know how well-tuned Xbench really is for the Intel machines and/or for multiprocessor machines?

I'm especially curious to see some "real" benchmarking results now. The Core Duo mini's Xbench score is twice what I usually see from my own G4 1.42GHz mini, which is still perfectly usable for most of my purposes. (iMovie is near-agony, of course.)

[dongmin]

FYI, early Xbench results show the new dual-core Mini beating the old (no surprise) and sometimes by a large margin:

http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=158732&doc2=146457
(How much does Xbench actually take advantage of the second core, though?)

[snip]If the "Thread Test" is any indication, XBench does take the second processor into account.

The growing list of Xbench results for the new mini is pretty interesting to me.

I decided to compare the new intel iMac with the new Mac mini (CD) results:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=154912&doc2=159092

There are a striking number of similarities in the results; User Interface and Quartz results are worse on the mini (of course), though the Quartz results aren't overwhelmingly lower. It's interesting that the Open GL results on the mini are so much higher than on the iMac... though "spinning squares" is probably not the fullest extent to which people use their Macs' 3D capabilities.
[snip]Note that XBench results can vary wildly from machine to machine depending on the system settings. Also, different runs of XBench often generates different scores.

[chaos86]

lets put something to rest:

as a general rule in the past, intergrated graphics could be roughly translated to mean "the cheapest graphics processing hardware available"

in recent times, however, intel seems to have been developing good powerful intergrated graphics hardware, and with the increasing amounts of RAM, taking some from the processor isnt as much of an issue any more. the Intel GMA950 is a powerful graphics processor, despite being intergrated, and shouldnt be considered in the same league as the crap that comes with $250 dell machines.

[nagromme]

lets put something to rest:

as a general rule in the past, intergrated graphics could be roughly translated to mean "the cheapest graphics processing hardware available"

in recent times, however, intel seems to have been developing good powerful intergrated graphics hardware, and with the increasing amounts of RAM, taking some from the processor isnt as much of an issue any more. the Intel GMA950 is a powerful graphics processor, despite being intergrated, and shouldnt be considered in the same league as the crap that comes with $250 dell machines.
You may be right (I hope so) but some people in these threads have stated that the Intel GMA950 is lower than the worst PCs out there. FUD or fact?

[chaos86]

You may be right (I hope so) but some people in these threads have stated that the Intel GMA950 is lower than the worst PCs out there. FUD or fact?

I dont know what FUD means but if it's something like "speculation lacking research" then yeah, I got the impression that theyre talking FUD.

EDIT: and the non-professional benchmarks tend to back me up that the GMA950's are worth something more than the dell "oh what we need a GPU in a computer? find the cheapest one!" crap

[theonly]

You may be right (I hope so) but some people in these threads have stated that the Intel GMA950 is lower than the worst PCs out there. FUD or fact?

Dell's lowest-level model is the B110, featuring "Intel Extreme Graphics 2," at $349. (Before a $50 mail-in rebate.) It has: Celeron D 2.5GHz, 256MB RAM, 80GB HD, CD-ROM drive, 17" CRT, basic keyboard & mouse, 10/100 Ethernet, 56K modem, and a 90-day warranty.

The "Extreme Graphics 2" (as referred to as "i845G" in various reviews) seems to be either 2 or 3 generations prior to the GMA950.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1409368,00.asp
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2143&p=11

I'd call the "lower than the worst" accusations FUD. I'm not particularly thrilled about the integrated GPU. However, I do think it's reasonable to wait and see how it performs.

[balamw]

I dont know what FUD means but if it's something like "speculation lacking research" then yeah, I got the impression that theyre talking FUD.
FUD is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. A tactic often used by naysayers to sway opinion to they way they think things should be. So, yeah your definition works OK. ;)

Since the GMA950 is apparently built into the Northbridge of Intel's current chipset for Core Solo/Duo machines, it's about to become Dell's choice for being the cheapest option.

B

[chaos86]

FUD is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. A tactic often used by naysayers to sway opinion to they way they think things should be. So, yeah your definition works OK. ;)
thanks for the explanation, good to know

Since the GMA950 is apparently built into the Northbridge of Intel's current chipset for Core Solo/Duo machines, it's about to become Dell's choice for being the cheapest option.

its about to be the cheapest gpu option in Intel Core machines, but Dell's cheapest machines will still have celerons with the cheaper older crappier intergrated gpus for a while to come. they wont be putting Core chips in the entry level machines for a while now.

[theonly]

its about to be the cheapest gpu option in Intel Core machines, but Dell's cheapest machines will still have celerons with the cheaper older crappier intergrated gpus for a while to come. they wont be putting Core chips in the entry level machines for a while now.

Exactly. That's why one will find it difficult to create truly "comparable" BTO systems from the HP/Dell/Gateway companies, even ignoring the mini's form factor. If power consumption and compact size aren't attractive features for you, the mini isn't very interesting--for me, the reduced space and power consumption were selling points for the original Mac mini. It's a balanced approach to processing needs vs. power and space, which (if you don't live in a suburban McMansion) are considerations for a certain segment of the market.

I don't completely understand why those who wanted bigger ("I want it to be the size of my other home theater components"), cheaper ("Why'd they increase the price by $100? I wanted $3xx/$4xx!"), and stronger ("Why didn't they add nVidia's SLI with dual 6800 GPU's with a 2GHz Dual Core CPU?") were so interested in / disappointed by the new mini.

[Fabio_gsilva]

123 Mac Mini Site posted some benchmarks comparing the "old Mini" with the new one.

http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/451.html

Check it out!

[manu chao]

1) I have all my music, photos and movies on a different mac with external HDs so I would use the living room Mac just to play it all (Front Row streaming). This is exactly how I want it, since I use my "home office iMac" (Intel 20") to organize everything, make playlists, rip music, handle photos and movies and so on. It's great NOT to have it all stored on a living room mac really.

2) It would not be used as a computer at all (well maybe some surfing but that's it). It would be a media player with the possibility of surfing on the net, can't see what else I would do from my sofa.

3) It would be connected to my AV Receiver with optical audio out

4) It would be connected to my (old) TV but to an LCD/Plasma in the near future


In principle that is what thought was Apple's targeted usage (at least for those who put the mini in the living room as an additional computer).

But what of these things could not be done with an iPod and a separate DVD-player?

(One thing that comes to my mind is online radio stations.)

[manu chao]

720p played the first 40 seconds with no noticable frame drops
1080p did skip frames occasionally -- enough to be noticable

I bought the thing anyway and was able to watch the IMAX Deep Sea 3D 720p trailer without noticable frame dropping.


On my 1.67 PowerBook, HD is completely CPU bound (not RAM nor GPU), 480p is the maximum it plays.

However, for those with too much time on their hands, there is a workaround that plays 1080p in an acceptable manner on my Powerbook:
- save the HD content to your disk (e.g. a trailer from Apple)
- import it into iMovie HD
- export as 'Full Quality'
- play in Quicktime

According to Get Info, it does not drop any frames but it looks a bit jerky (720p is not CPU bound, less than 100% load, 1080p is at 100%) maybe it is GPU or GPU memory bound then. Interestingly, 720p and 1080p look equally jerky, which may point to GPU limitations.

(the explanation why this works is left as an exercise to the reader)

[Eidorian]

In case this hasn't been mentioned it seems that Apple is going with the smaller SO-DIMM RAM for ALL of its current Intel models. It's a space saving measure and a simplification of parts. Sadly, SO-DIMM's are more expensive to purchase and much harder to upgrade the Mac Mini.

Here's to regular DIMM memory for the Power Mac. :cool:

[theonly]

I'm curious about the image quality of the GMA950. I finally got to play with the Core Duo mini (stock config) at my local Apple store.

I was able to play 1080p h.264 clips from the Quicktime site, though I did see some frame-dropping (perhaps due to the 512MB of RAM). 720p clips, as already established, played beautifully. Everything I tried seemed notably snappier than my own 1.42GHz G4 mini, of course.

I did see a weird blurring of the widgets during the ripple effect in Dashboard. (Steps to reproduce: drag the Dictionary or any other widget with text off the 'shelf' into the Dashboard, watch the 'ripple.') Until the ripple/bobbing effect ends, the text on the widget is blurred. As soon as the eye-candy effects are finished, the widget looks perfectly normal and sharp. I walked to an iMac 17" and an iMac 20" to compare, and there is no such blurring of the text during the effect. It just looks like the normal widget, surrounded by the ripple and appearing to bob up and down on a water surface.

Has anyone else observed this in-store or at home?

[JJC80]

thanks for the explanation, good to know



its about to be the cheapest gpu option in Intel Core machines, but Dell's cheapest machines will still have celerons with the cheaper older crappier intergrated gpus for a while to come. they wont be putting Core chips in the entry level machines for a while now.

your right, Dell just introduced two more top models of their inspiron notebooks with core duos on Tuesday. they have the GMA 950 as the standard option, but can be upgraded with ATI.

[zelet]

I used a Mac Mini (Duo w/ 512) in the Apple store today and realize that it feels just as hoochi as the old one. Although, it launches things a little bit faster the interface responsiveness is slow. I know its subjective - but using that next to the 17" iMac Intel was depressing and made me realize that I don't want a Mini.

They might be good machines for something - but I can't figure out what. I suppose a media center? Although, I tried to do something while it was playing a trailer and the whole thing pretty much froze up. Spinning beach-balls were everywhere any time you launched anything or did anything specific. It didn't do an iPhoto slide show with transitions very well either - and those pictures are deliberately small pictures to improve iPhoto's performance.

I did all the same stuff on the 17" iMac and never had those problems.

Just thought I would post my subjective review.

zelet


edit: Let people know which model it was.

[miniConvert]

But which Mac mini? From what we're seeing the Solo and the Duo are very different beasts. There's RAM to factor in as well, of course.

[nagromme]

I used a Mac Mini (Duo w/ 512) in the Apple store today and realize that it feels just as hoochi as the old one. Although, it launches things a little bit faster the interface responsiveness is slow.
I just back from totally the opposite experience. I tried 6 or 8 apps and found everything to be quick and responsive. Huge pictures with huge transitions were lightning fast, and never a beachball to be seen.

Was someone rendering a DVD in the background or something on the one you tried? :o

I checked the new Mini out at Microcenter, looking for ways to test OpenGL. It had no 3D games on it, but I ran OpenGL screensavers, 3D transitions in Keynote, and also Front Row. All ran as smooth as glass at 1600x1050. And yes, the Core Image ripple effect is present :)

I plan to go back and try UT2004 sometime since I always carry UT04 on my iPod.

PS, I like Front Row a LOT better in person. It struck me as a "nice little extra" on paper--since I do play iTunes and DVDs on my PowerBook and have wanted a remote--but I REALLY like it now that I've tried it. Big, simple, always-available (like Dashboard) and the remote is great.

PPS, if the remote isn't on display, hit Command-Esc for Front Row, then navigate with arrows and Return.

PPS, Microcenter was PACKED with Windows people who had no clue about Macs but were having fun learning. The rest of the store wasn't nearly as crowded. I overheard some kids looking at Doom 3, saying they thought there were only 20 games ever made for Mac, and being impressed to find out it wasn't true. The Mac Mini and the 20" iMac seemed to be the big crowd pleasers.

[macEfan]

wow, the little mac mini certainly uses lots of power! 110 watts. Nice info on those sites.

[StealthRider]

As compared to the G5's 700+ watts, that's not too much :-)

[danr_97070]

I used a Mac Mini (Duo w/ 512) in the Apple store today and realize that it feels just as hoochi as the old one. Although, it launches things a little bit faster the interface responsiveness is slow. I know its subjective - but using that next to the 17" iMac Intel was depressing and made me realize that I don't want a Mini.

They might be good machines for something - but I can't figure out what. I suppose a media center?

I was at the Apple Store today playing with the new Mac Mini with 1Gbytes of RAM and the responsiveness/performance was just fine; I was ready to buy one after testing it out...

What do you mean you can't figure out what it's good for?! Hasn't
Apple already positioned this machine as a media center device
for hooking up directly to your TV.

Seems pretty clear to me what it's going to be used for.

Also, as Apple starts to sell HD videos via the iTunes store (don't you
think that's what their new data centre is for?), you'll want one of these
hooked up to your HDTV.

Is there any other way right now to rent and view HD quality movies? I
think it's pretty clear/obvious where Apple will be going with this in
the not-too-distant future.

[powerbook911]

I used a Mac Mini (Duo w/ 512) in the Apple store today and realize that it feels just as hoochi as the old one.

It's the memory. These Intel machines need a lot of it! :)

[zelet]

Well, I trust nagromme's opinion. There must have been something wrong with the machine because our experiences were completely different. It might have been the 512 of RAM. It could have been messed with before I got there. Either way, I was blown away by the performance of the Intel iMacs. I might have to sell my display and just get one of those.

[nagromme]

I'll go back and check the RAM specs (I didn't even notice if it was Duo and Solo). I doubt it was upgraded beyond 512 but I can check in a day or two.

My understanding was that Intel binaries use a little more RAM than PPC binaries, plus the GPU cuts into a Mini's RAM a little, but that RAM usage isn't HUGELY different unless you're using Rosetta.

I would expect the Mini and iMac to perform pretty similarly except for intensive OpenGL, and extended HD reads (because the Mini uses a laptop drive). I know beachballs are often caused by HD reads, so maybe that's a factor. Maybe something else was going on with that machine at the time. Spotlight indexing? Something running in another account?

My standards may be low since I'm used to G4 on a daily basis, but I really wasn't experiencing delays. Something to investigate then.

[tom_s]

It's interesting that the Open GL results on the mini are so much higher than on the iMac... though "spinning squares" is probably not the fullest extent to which people use their Macs' 3D capabilities.


In the Xbench FAQ section I've read is this interesting sentence: "Extremely high scores (over 200), appear to be due to particular machines that don't have hardware OpenGL support drawing "nothing" very quickly".

Could this bug have something to do with the good OpenGL performance of the intel Mac Mini?

[Shadow]

As compared to the G5's 700+ watts, that's not too much :-)
Was that the iMac or PowerMac?

[lvnmacs]

I just back from totally the opposite experience. I tried 6 or 8 apps and found everything to be quick and responsive. Huge pictures with huge transitions were lightning fast, and never a beachball to be seen.

.

Thank you for the info, Unfortunatley there are no Intel MacMinis in sight over at my local Apple Store. And I was a little worried about the previous review. My Core Duo MacMini is in order and will be here on the 8th:D mmmmmmmmmm.......

[Dont Hurt Me]

Just over at Macworld they had a bunch of benches posted on the new Mini, The UT2K4 scores took a hit and the chart was comparing the 1.25/1.4 to the new solo and dual cores. Never mentioned the 1.5 G4 with the 64mb 9200 which i guess would have 16 fps. About 15 fps to 10 on single core and 12 on dual core. Mixed bag of benches. Ill admit i have ran this game on my womans machine 1.4 with everything turned off and it was just playable. Now it wont be at 10 or 12 frames. I think the 1.5 G4 model with 64 mb 9200 makes a nice little computer.

(edit) just checked and that is with only 512 of memory. 1 Gig or more would help a lot.

[Lord Albrecht]

just checked and that is with only 512 of memory. 1 Gig or more would help a lot.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firstlooks/minibenchmarks/index.php

"All systems were running Mac OS X 10.4.5 with 1GB of RAM, with processor performance set to Highest in the Energy Saver preference pane when applicable."

Another point of interest :

"Some quick tests with minimum settings show that the both the Intel and PowerPC minis can achieve faster frame rates, but (at least with UT 2004) the PowerPC maintains its lead."

Apple doesn't seem to like OS X gamers who are on a budget. Guess this leaves me with not much of a choice but to look at other alternatives...

[nagromme]

"Some quick tests with minimum settings show that the both the Intel and PowerPC minis can achieve faster frame rates, but (at least with UT 2004) the PowerPC maintains its lead."
Even if the PPC keeps the lead, the new Mini could still be playable. Just jow MUCH faster do things get if you lower detail? Fast enough to be fun?

Notice Macworld's results only show the new Minis lagging behind the old G4s "by a couple of frames per second." And those results show UT2004 pretty much being unplayable on the G4 Mini too. Which I KNOW is not the case if you set your detail low enough, since I've found UT2004 playable (except for huge botmatches) on much SLOWER Macs than the Mini.

Also, big botmatches are what kill a low-end Mac's UT04 framerate--and that's CPU-dependent (all the AI). I wouldn't be surprised if the new Mac Mini could handle adding a lot of bots even BETTER than the old Mini, which could more than compensate for a tighter GPU bottleneck, once details were lowered.

Also encouraging from MW:

"A separate quick test with Nanosaur from Pangea software, tested with the Good settings at 16-bit, 1024-by-768 resolution, show the Intel Macs with an edge. Here’s something to note: The Intel minis didn’t suffer much of a hit at higher settings in Nanosaur, but the higher settings weren’t even available on the PowerPC minis, as those buttons were grayed out."

I assume they mean Nanosaur II, since Nanosuar I is SO old. (Was it even carbonized?) BTW the Nanosaur II Universal Binary came out in January, and may not have been ready in time for Apple to arrange to bundle it. ALL of the consumer Intel Macs simply come with Big Bang Board games currently, while the iMac G5 had two pretty slick 3D games, Nanosaur 2 and Marble Blast Gold. That may change: I wonder if 3D games will be bundled with Intel Macs again in future (at least the iMac, but it sounds like the Mini can handle these titles too), now that Universal options are appearing.

This is all speculation. I hope to have some informal hands-on results on this question today or tomorrow... I live half a block away from a display of Intel Macs :)

[zelet]

Okay guys,

I just got back from my second apple store and tried 3 different Mac Mini's with dual 1.66GHz and 512 of RAM. There weren't any other configurations at the store.

This time around the speed was better but still pretty dissappointing. I think the bottle neck is the HDD (5400 laptop drive) and total lack of memory. I had about 5 apps open. Safari, Firefox (compiled for Intel), Mail, iPhoto, and Word and I had 5 MB of memory free - which means the thing was swapping to the HDD like CRAZY and there was no memory left for the GPU.

I tried to play a HD movie at 720 from Apples site and it completely choked when I had safari, mail, and firefox open. Again, it was most likely from the HDD and the memory.

In conclusion, I would either SERIOUSLY pimp the RAM in the Mini (probably 2GB) because of the GPU or just get an iMac that did all those things I just mentioned with grace and no hiccups.

[Tupring]

Yes. Most, if not all, PC laptops have the chips soldered onto the motherboard. There has only been one Apple laptop I'm aware of with a socketed chip and that was one of their old G3 models.Yeah, the Wallstreet G3 but also the PowerBook 1400.

[Tupring]

However, as BT is standard, i think Apple should include a BT App for frontrow so that you could control frontrow from your mobile phone keypad for when you lose the remote! That would be a fairly trivial software update.That's a good idea, however we all know that Apple wants you to buy a new remote from them if you lose it. :D

[theonly]

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/03/06/aopen/index.php

AOpen said the new MiniPC will be available in two configurations, a single-core MP945 model for $699 and a dual-core MP945-V model for $899 — $100 more than Apple’s offerings. The computer is based on Intel’s 945GM core logic — the same Apple uses in the Mac mini — and houses a Pentium M socket that can accept either Core Solo or Core Duo processors. The system’s graphics acceleration comes from the same integrated Intel GMA 950 chip that the Mac mini uses.

[nagromme]

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/03/06/aopen/index.php
Interesting. I'm amazed that Apple's lawyers never stopped that copycat. EDIT: or did they? Can you still get the Mac Mini clone design or not?

(And they have iBook-alikes too, I see, as well as a Cube. Good luck trying to find the MiniPC on their weird site: http://xc.aopen.com.tw )

[nagromme]

OK--just got back from Microcenter where they let me try UT2004 (3369-2) on a stock Core Duo machine (512 RAM). I used near-minimum quality settings.

Verdict for UT2004: it runs, but I'd recommend it for casual use only, and not vehicle matches. (Meaning that Apple's claim of "the latest 3D games" is not defensible--no surprise.)

If you're a UT fan and interested in some casual fun at low detail, UT2004 is a great game and worth owning for the Mini. But performance is in the same ballpark as my older eMac that is at the bottom of the sys reqs. Which to me means it's still fun, but serious gamers won't accept the performance/detail.

How much would more RAM help? I can't say. How much would Core Solo hurt? Ditto. Additional reports are welcomed :)

Specific results (rough estimates using "stat fps")

Resolution: 640x480, 32-bit.
Video detail options: all turned off or set to minimum.
Low Sound Detail and music turned down.
Fog at 33%, Gore at full, all other settings at default.
Each bot different (I didn't test making them all the same).

6-player botmatch in DM-1-on-1-Desolation: framerates in 30s (sometimes higher), dipping to 20s and even teens in the heat of battle.

8-player Onslaught botmatch in ONS-Torlan (vehicles): framerates in mid teens dipping to around 10.

Your mileage may vary, but there you have it. Now, the Intel Mini was GOOD in certain surprising ways:

* With only 512 RAM, and graphics cutting into that, AND running off of a slow iPod HD, it still started matches MUCH more quickly than my PowerBook G4 1.24 (64 VRAM) can manage with 512. My PB is fine with 1 GB, but with 512 there's a very long pause the moment the match starts--loading bots I assume. The Mini did not have this pause.

* Cranking up the detail to medium settings at 1024x768 (in Onslaught) caused surprisingly little slowdown. Just a couple frames per second lost. If I tried that on my 32 VRAM eMac I'd have a slideshow. (This parallels what MW found with Nanosaur: higher detail levels not having much penalty.)

* Adding bots (which have CPU-heavy AI) had surprisingly little effect. I want from 6 player DM to 12, and lost maybe 5 or so fps--which could have been due simply to more action on-screen. My G4 Macs would take a real hit from doubling the bots like that, but the Core Duo took it well. (Correct me if I'm wrong--I don't think UT2004 uses the second core to offer any benefit to additional bots, but I do think the game makes SOME use of the second core.)

This is the same machine I ran other Open GL tests on (Front Row, Keynote effects with big images, OpenGL screensavers) and found quick, flawless performance.

Clearly, there's no simple way to categorize the new Mini's graphics system. For gaming it's strictly for casual use, and gamers will want to look beyond the Mini. But outside of games--and even for games in some limited aspects--it's a great performer.

I won't hesitate to recommend this machine--just not to 3D gamers.

[peharri]

OK--just got back from Microcenter where they let me try UT2004 (3369-2) on a stock Core Duo machine (512 RAM). I used near-minimum quality settings.

Verdict for UT2004: it runs, but I'd recommend it for casual use only, and not vehicle matches. (Meaning that Apple's claim of "the latest 3D games" is not defensible--no surprise.)

I won't hesitate to recommend this machine--just not to 3D gamers.

Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know (I note the MacWorld benchmarks also now include the Duo and report much the same thing, with the Core Duo about 18% poorer than the machine it (officially, not the 1.5GHz) replaced.

*sigh*

What I hope is that Apple will see fit to produce a third model of the Mac mini, with better graphics. As long as one's in the line-up, I'm happy. (For those recommending the iMac or PowerMac, sorry people, but those aren't Mac minis, the PowerMac being close but a little big and, most importantly, $1,200 (150%) more expensive for the cheapest model. And no, I don't want an *$%@ing X-Box 360! I don't even know if UT exists for that platform but if it does, how, exactly, do I install UMods be they maps or Jailbreak on it? Bad enough the map editor doesn't exist for Mac OS...)

[nagromme]

Yep--a console doesn't cut it for many kinds of games.

I like my mods (JB especially), and I like the ability to edit my ini files, and I like my free online multiplayer, and I like my downloadable demos, and I like my sharp, high-DPI computer screen for gaming. Most importantly I like to aim naturally, by pointing in the direction I want to shot! I tried Halo with a gamepad. I'm sure you could adapt, but it will never be as natural as point and click.

UT does exist for consoles, under the name Unreal Championship, but it focusses on melee combat (swords etc.) instead of vehicles. (You may think I'm kidding but I'm not!)

I do think Apple could successfully sell a mid-range headless, below the PowerMac.