Just wondering: do you think the newest low-end Mac mini is enough to play Halo?
Thats about all the heavy gaming I do
Thats about all the heavy gaming I do
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Mini gaming
- Thread starter SkyBell
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't imagine the mini with on board graphics could play Halo with any reasonable frame rate. I don't have a mini so I can't say for sure, but it just doesn't seem to have the horsepower. Anyone done serious 3D gaming on a mini?
I play Halo on my MacBook (essentially the same GPU), and it works, but not well. Very grainy graphics, and teh FPS isn't anything to wow about. If you can cope with that though, its fine.
Just make sure you have at least a gig of RAM in your system; the more the merrier.
Just make sure you have at least a gig of RAM in your system; the more the merrier.
well, I could play Halo at 800x600 on my Dell latop with a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (much slower CPU) and Intel GM850 graphics (quite a bit slower than the 950). So I bet the mini could play Halo at 1024x768 or so with medium or medium-low detail settings. Keep in mind Halo for PC turned three years old on Monday. It's not exactly incredibly demanding on modern hardware, so even Intel's junk cards can handle it.
The 1.66GHz Core Duo Mac Mini will be able to play Halo, just don't expect it to a great gaming experience. As Scarlet Fever has suggested, go for some extra RAM if at all possible.
There is one thing that holds down that Mini and it isnt the Cpu its the GMA950. In gaming terms its garbage, In costs terms its the cheapist chip Apple could find and I almost think that Apple crippled that machine on purpose. A 9200 driven by a duo1.66 would have been pretty sweet but the bottom line is the gma 950 cant do many things that even the cheapist"real gpu's can perform. Its Mini's handicap and Apple themself even busted on Integrated graphics. Man if Apple would mate a X1300 pro with the 1.66 or 1.83 it would be super sweet but then they play the move up game meaning Imac and perhaps a display you dont need or want. Apple Games in marketing suck.
Tests performed with a 2.0 GHz MacBook with 1 GB RAM and stock 60 GB HDD:
640x480, all eye candy off: 30-80 fps.
640x480, all eye candy on: 20-60 fps.
1280x800, all eye candy off: 10-35 fps.
I didn't try 1280x800 with eye candy on, but it wouldn't make much difference, since the eye candy really don't matter much. If you got a 1.66 GHz Mini with 2 GB RAM, you could get and awesome framerate at 640x480 with all eye candy on. It looks very awesome®, and it is definiantly® a good gaming machine.
640x480, all eye candy off: 30-80 fps.
640x480, all eye candy on: 20-60 fps.
1280x800, all eye candy off: 10-35 fps.
I didn't try 1280x800 with eye candy on, but it wouldn't make much difference, since the eye candy really don't matter much. If you got a 1.66 GHz Mini with 2 GB RAM, you could get and awesome framerate at 640x480 with all eye candy on. It looks very awesome®, and it is definiantly® a good gaming machine.
Josias said:
Yeah, you go ahead and keep your registered trademark on that...no one else wants to spell it like that
mrogers said:Yeah, you go ahead and keep your registered trademark on that...no one else wants to spell it like that
Well, go on and copy ØMG®, and we'll see. Defiant+definitly= Definiantly.
But seriously, do I have a SupermanBook, or do others get equal results?
Don't worry, I don't expect too much. I used to have an HP with an integrated graphics card, which is what I used to play halo on. Can you say 24 colors only?