Intel Reports Fix Coming for Flickering on Monitors Connected to 2012 Mac Mini via HDMI

[noidpr]

Same Issue on iMac 27" mid 2011

[leroypants]

You're plugging it in wrong.
Signed
Steve Jobs

[SeattleMoose]

Silence on issues like this alienate both users and potential users. Whereas being upfront and acknowledging that 1) there is indeed an issue and 2) it will be fixed, increase consumer confidence in the integrity of a company and its willingness to stand behind the quality of its products.

And in this case, some folks (like me) can now go forward with their Mac Mini purchase. I can use a MDP to HDMI cable/adapter as a workaround until the fix is ready. After which I will hookup my monitor via HDMI and free-up the TB port for other functions or a 2nd monitor.

Everyone makes mistakes but not everyone is honest about it.

Thank you Apple/Intel for being honest about this.

[mariusaz]

What about the graphics corruption problem with the Intel HD video? They gonna fix that too? Quick example I've seen on almost every mac using intel video is to look at the iCloud storage space bar in iCloud Preferences in Sys Prefs. Usually there'll be black specs all over the bar, sometimes it's much worse in other apps.

[Lancer]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

Not exactly sure which model that is, but to people like me the ability to attach one or two good NEC screens, for example, is one of the main reasons to buy a Mac Mini over an iMac. This is the kind of stuff that is important for instance for photographers. The Apple screens are not well suited for that kind of stuff. And a lot of people will say similar things about the fancy looking keyboards and mice. In that the picture is very representative of people who are moving over to the Mac world for pretty practical reasons and not for how the stuff looks that is piled up on or under my desk. Take the wireless Apple keyboard for instance. Beautiful, but useless for anyone who a) needs or wants a numbers pad (and that's not just the fat account from the old arrogant Apple commercials but also for creatives who use a lot of shortcuts) or b) anyone who actually types a lot

I agree with all of this.

I would never buy a Mini and Apple LCD but not for their function. For me it comes down to cost, do the math it would cost about the same as and 27" iMac and I'd rather the iMac or save a tone of money on something much cheaper like the BenQ 24" I currently use.

As for the KB I agree again, I'll be ordering the wired KB for my new iMac and a touch pad.

I guess the whole point of the Mini is you can use you current PC extras like the KB, Mouse and LCD or buy what you need.

[7enderbender]

Originally Posted by SeattleMoose

Silence on issues like this alienate both users and potential users. Whereas being upfront and acknowledging that 1) there is indeed an issue and 2) it will be fixed, increase consumer confidence in the integrity of a company and its willingness to stand behind the quality of its products.

Good points. Even more important at a time when their stock price is on the fence. If that tanks because of something like this turning into a major news story for no good reason I won't be buying a Mac any time soon just for financial reasons...

----------

Originally Posted by Lancer

I agree with all of this.

I would never buy a Mini and Apple LCD but not for their function. For me it comes down to cost, do the math it would cost about the same as and 27" iMac and I'd rather the iMac or save a tone of money on something much cheaper like the BenQ 24" I currently use.

As for the KB I agree again, I'll be ordering the wired KB for my new iMac and a touch pad.

I guess the whole point of the Mini is you can use you current PC extras like the KB, Mouse and LCD or buy what you need.

For me its actually reverse. The iMac is likely out of the question because of the screen (not to mention the fact that FW is gone on the new one). There is a chance that my screens that I want to set the Mini up with are turning out to be more expensive then the 27" iMac. For more serious photo editing I don't want a shiny screen that is too bright and has no wide color gamut option available. And I prefer the real estate of two 24" screens over one 27".

The other reason to prefer the Mac Mini is the slightly easier access to the drives in there. Not happy there with the Apple stock options either. So yes, such a tricked out Mini with two really good screens is as expensive or more expensive than a top shelf 27" iMac. So that wouldn't be right for most people I guess. I look at it more as a poor-men's Mac Pro - just to test the waters in the Mac world and then later upgrade to the next generation Mac Pro - if it ever materializes. At which point an investment in pro grade screens would pay off.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by bedifferent

Integrated graphics are ridiculous for a desktop. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of space in order to replace the card, repair it, upgrade it or simply have an independent card with its own RAM and better performance.

Mobile devices I can understand, but this obsession with "thin" iMac's and small Mac Mini's at the sacrifice of function is getting out of hand. How is Intel proposing to fix this issue? What if this had been a bad logic board w/ integrated graphics?

Yes, I agree. I love my 8 core MacPro. It's been perfect. The Nvidia card died on me, but I was able to bake it in the oven for 10 minutes @ 400 degrees and it's been working fine ever since. (Knock on wood). I have 6 hard drives (4 built in and 2 on an ATA PCIe card) it's been a dream come true.

[FakeWozniak]

Originally Posted by FakeWozniak

This [anti-Intel statement] doesn't seem fair to me. A GPU is actually a performance optimized CPU. Intel has been in the *PU business for a long time.

Originally Posted by jav6454

Not sure if serious or trying to troll hard. Intel has always been a CPU manufacturer. That is how they started and that's how it is. Their core business is CPUs. Now, as per the GPU being just a CPU is inherently, borderline dumb. Why?

Check this out and notice the first company in the history section. Also note in the explanation at the top, that when paraphrased, says GPUs are performance optimized processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPU

You effectively said I was dumb. I've cited a reasonable reference for my statement. I think people will see you as patronizing and arrogant.

[Milquetoast]

FWIW, I have seen the same problem on my late 2012 Mini 2-monitor setup over the HDMI connection. The screen goes black for about 100-200mS, then returns to normal immediately.

It's happened 4-5 times over a week or two. Running 1920x1080 from HDMI to a Samsung's single-link DVI connection.

The problem is not seen on the DisplayPort connection (driving an identical Samsung also over a single-link DVI connection).

[djdover]

My early 2011 15" mbp flickers with a blue hue (used to just go to a completely blue screen before 10.8). Related, or not?

[jav6454]

Originally Posted by FakeWozniak

Check this out and notice the first company in the history section. Also note in the explanation at the top, that when paraphrased, says GPUs are performance optimized processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPU

You effectively said I was dumb. I've cited a reasonable reference for my statement. I think people will see you as patronizing and arrogant.

Yes, thank you, your entire post consisted on a entry in Wikipedia which stated what I said.... at the beginning and doesn't support your 'optimized CPU' argument.

A graphics processing unit (GPU), also occasionally called visual processing unit (VPU), is a specialized electronic circuit designed to rapidly manipulate and alter memory to accelerate the building of images in a frame buffer intended for output to a display. GPUs are used in embedded systems, mobile phones, personal computers, workstations, and game consoles. Modern GPUs are very efficient at manipulating computer graphics, and their highly parallel structure makes them more effective than general-purpose CPUs for algorithms where processing of large blocks of data is done in parallel. In a personal computer, a GPU can be present on a video card, or it can be on the motherboard or—in certain CPUs—on the CPU die. More than 90% of new desktop and notebook computers[when?] have integrated GPUs, which are usually far less powerful than those on a dedicated video card.[1]

The term GPU was popularized by Nvidia in 1999, who marketed the GeForce 256 as "the world's first 'GPU', or Graphics Processing Unit, a single-chip processor with integrated transform, lighting, triangle setup/clipping, and rendering engines that are capable of processing a minimum of 10 million polygons per second". Rival ATI Technologies coined the term visual processing unit or VPU with the release of the Radeon 9700 in 2002.

Emphasis mine...

Also, may I add one thing? It seems you also tried to edit the article to suit your needs. Which got changed by Wikipedia administrators right back. I checked the edit history. Curious... the times of editing and your post are eerily close.

Proof (click on it for larger)

[RG129]

Yay!! About time!

Now what am I gonna do with all the cheap DVI-HDMI, miniDP-DVI, miniDP-HDMI cables and adapters that I bought to bypass this issue?!?

[WolfJLupus]

Hopefully this mean they will be fixing this for ALL of the other effected computers. My Retina MBP does the same thing, it rather annoying.

[madrag]

Originally Posted by dr_lha

I fixed this problem weeks ago by spending $6 on this:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2

You don't use two monitors, do you?

Not fixed.

[fhall1]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

Good points. Even more important at a time when their stock price is on the fence. If that tanks because of something like this turning into a major news story for no good reason I won't be buying a Mac any time soon just for financial reasons.

Macs are now a small (percentage-wise) contributor to Apple's bottom line...and the Mini is only one of many Macs they sell. The stock price isn't going to tank because of this issue.

[7enderbender]

Originally Posted by fhall1

Macs are now a small (percentage-wise) contributor to Apple's bottom line...and the Mini is only one of many Macs they sell. The stock price isn't going to tank because of this issue.

I hope you're right. Investors sometimes look at weird things and very superficially. Especially given the large range that AAPL has been traded in over the last few months. Just think about the silly map issue that had an effect on the stock price. As if that was really that crucial. We all knew there'd be a fix for it - and there is always Google still.
I big headline that all the graphics adapters in the Mac Minis and iMacs go bust would not be good even if a fix is underway.

[chuckd83]

Originally Posted by SeattleMoose

Silence on issues like this alienate both users and potential users. Whereas being upfront and acknowledging that 1) there is indeed an issue and 2) it will be fixed, increase consumer confidence in the integrity of a company and its willingness to stand behind the quality of its products.

And in this case, some folks (like me) can now go forward with their Mac Mini purchase. I can use a MDP to HDMI cable/adapter as a workaround until the fix is ready. After which I will hookup my monitor via HDMI and free-up the TB port for other functions or a 2nd monitor.

Everyone makes mistakes but not everyone is honest about it.

Thank you Apple/Intel for being honest about this.

*just Intel.

[dr_lha]

Originally Posted by madrag

You don't use two monitors, do you?

Not fixed.

Fair point.

[majkom]

Originally Posted by Galatian

No one forces you to buy the new Macs

Please, this is the most stupid comment you can post, dont do that again

----------

Originally Posted by jav6454

Lol, I'll give you half true since in the end Apple was also arm bent to use Intel's crap.

Dont think so, they chose to build mini with only integrated intel GPU in 2012, crippling mini to GPU underpowered machine...

[SnowLeopard2008]

Originally Posted by sno1man

I did try the VGA connection and it helps but the image is fuzzy compared to HDMI. As I also said the monitor only had HDMI and VGA inputs.

Last but not least I called YOU arrogant specifically when YOU called my comments ignorant.

"The sentences highlighted in red just shows ignorance and incorrect assumptions". That makes you arrogant and insulting. What other way should that be read?

You asserted something about me being a fanboy and how you shouldn't have to buy a Thunderbolt display when I said nothing about a Thunderbolt display. It seemed like a response to someone telling you to buy a Thunderbolt display and how we all should only use Apple-only hardware. But no one did. It's ignorant and and an incorrect assumption because my comments was trying to help you fix your "problem". Didn't I say try changing color profiles in System Preferences? And try using the VGA connection directly instead of indirectly thru an HDMI->VGA adapter? Were these suggestions arrogant and insulting to you? Answer me that.

It should be read to mean that you cannot read, cannot comprehend, cannot differentiate suggestions from arrogance/insults. Because that's exactly what has happened.

Again, VGA is capable of FULL HD resolution. Read the FULL HD phrase again. It's NOT fuzzy. It's fuzzy because of your Dell's settings. Unless of course, the VGA port is also borked just like your very unscientific conclusion of the HDMI port malfunctioning.

[Galatian]

Originally Posted by majkom

Please, this is the most stupid comment you can post, dont do that again

Why? Just stop whining! You have plenty of options to chose from. The Mac Mini is perfect for 99% of users. The HD4000 is plenty fast for newer games on low setting. The Radeon 6630M was only slightly better, but then again it would only be a dual core.

If you need a faster Apple you can always get an iMac. If you want your own screen you can get an MacPro.

Not sure what you want the Mac Mini to be

Dont think so, they chose to build mini with only integrated intel GPU in 2012, crippling mini to GPU underpowered machine...

Again...it's not like the 6630M made the Mini an GPU powerhouse...

[majkom]

Originally Posted by Galatian

Why? Just stop whining! You have plenty of options to chose from.

I am fed up with trolls acusing anyone who is not 100 percent apple zealot of being whiner..

Originally Posted by Galatian

The Mac Mini is perfect for 99% of users. The HD4000 is plenty fast for newer games on low setting. The Radeon 6630M was only slightly better, but then again it would only be a dual core.

If you need a faster Apple you can always get an iMac. If you want your own screen you can get an MacPro.

It is like saying, if you want just a car, buy some 10 year old little russian car, or bus or ferarri, nothing in the middle... I would like to buy decent computer (in all areas - mac mini is decent except GPU) and my own display.. thats why iMac is not perfect for everyone and I understand, that if apple give mini decent gpu, many people would go this way with easily upgradable SSDs - less money for blood apple SSD upgrades..

Originally Posted by Galatian

Again...it's not like the 6630M made the Mini an GPU powerhouse...

Well, at least it was much better than Intel HD 3000. Let me ask you, why not to offer some better GPU in high mac mini? any rational reason except that one mentioned above? dont think so.. so stop being completely brainless apple zealot.

[Galatian]

Originally Posted by majkom

I am fed up with trolls acusing anyone who is not 100 percent apple zealot of being whiner..

It is like saying, if you want just a car, buy some 10 year old little russian car, or bus or ferarri, nothing in the middle... I would like to buy decent computer (in all areas - mac mini is decent except GPU) and my own display.. thats why iMac is not perfect for everyone and I understand, that if apple give mini decent gpu, many people would go this way with easily upgradable SSDs - less money for blood apple SSD upgrades..

Well, at least it was much better than Intel HD 3000. Let me ask you, why not to offer some better GPU in high mac mini? any rational reason except that one mentioned above? dont think so.. so stop being completely brainless apple zealot.

Back off and drink your cool aid!

First: again NOONE forces you to buy Apple hardware. If you don't like their way of building the hardware go ahead and put the computer together you would like to have!

Second: The Mac Mini is a pretty size constrained computer. For the 99,9% of potential Mac Mini owners it was much more important to get a quad core CPU then a discrete graphic. The Intel HD4000 is "only" about 15-20% slower then the Radeon 6630M on synthetical benchmarks. I guess real world performance will be even smaller. Games that are unplayable on an HD4000 will stay unplayable on Radeon 6630M

Third: I'm not an Apple Zealot. I tend to think before I make a purchase. No need to bitch at every other company just because they don't offer the product I want. If the 2012 Mac Mini is not for you why do you have to whine about it? You think that will change anything? It is physically not possible to put a better graphic card in there. Again if you care about a good graphic card I suggest you either get an iMac, MacBook Pro 15", Mac Pro or Hackintosh or just any other x86 machine out there...you have sooooooooooooo many options, why insist that the Mac Mini must have a graphic card? It is childish and whiney. Get a life!

[majkom]

Originally Posted by Galatian

Back off and drink your cool aid!

First: again NOONE forces you to buy Apple hardware. If you don't like their way of building the hardware go ahead and put the computer together you would like to have!

Same ****, another post... you are repating yourself

Originally Posted by Galatian

Second: The Mac Mini is a pretty size constrained computer. For the 99,9% of potential Mac Mini owners it was much more important to get a quad core CPU then a discrete graphic. The Intel HD4000 is "only" about 15-20% slower then the Radeon 6630M on synthetical benchmarks. I guess real world performance will be even smaller. Games that are unplayable on an HD4000 will stay unplayable on Radeon 6630M

First, dont speak for 99,9% of users as you dont know their needs.
Second, do not compare 6630M to Intel HD 4000, but to 3000 - same generation mini. And there is significant performance boost. Hope you do not believe there is no new and better card than 6630M that can be installed to mini - so again, it will boost performance significantly. And I hope, that you do not really believe, it is impossible to get some 6630M successor (or nvidia equivalent) into mini So again, why not to do so? Because apple said? that is pure zealotism.

Originally Posted by Galatian

Third: I'm not an Apple Zealot. I tend to think before I make a purchase. No need to bitch at every other company just because they don't offer the product I want. If the 2012 Mac Mini is not for you why do you have to whine about it? You think that will change anything? It is physically not possible to put a better graphic card in there. Again if you care about a good graphic card I suggest you either get an iMac, MacBook Pro 15", Mac Pro or Hackintosh or just any other x86 machine out there...you have sooooooooooooo many options, why insist that the Mac Mini must have a graphic card? It is childish and whiney. Get a life!

Excuse me? So you are saying that this forum may be used just to praise apple? I wrote you once, iMac is not for everyone, I do not want portable MB, mac pro is overkill for average user and hackintosh is infirnging os x license.. You call this whining, I call this discussion about apples fails.

To sum it up, you say asking apple for decent mini is childish and whiney. I say, defending every apples step, no matter how dumb it is, is simply stupid, brainless and pathetic.
Have a nice day.

[Carl%R]

Seems like Intel have edited the reply on their forum to just refer to "your OEM", doesn't look like they actually "acknowledge" the issue anymore... I hope this isn't bad news.