integrated Intel GMA950 graphics

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by simie, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. simie macrumors 6502a

    simie

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Sitting
    #1
  2. yoda13 macrumors 65816

    yoda13

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    I wonder if Apple's take on drivers and OSX will make any difference in the performance of this chip?
     
  3. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #3
    Probably no.. if anything MacOS drivers will make performance worse.

    For instance WC3 players really really well on a PC with a Radeon 9550 but on my former PB with a 9700 Pro it was really ****.

    I'd probably touch games on a Mac with a 30 foot pole... :p
     
  4. bigandy macrumors G3

    bigandy

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Location:
    Murka
    #4

    you're making this assumption after comparing a laptop (9700) chip with a desktop one?
     
  5. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #5
    Yeah.
     
  6. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #6
    And also you have to bear in mind that the G4 processor is seriously underpowered when compared to its modern x86 counterparts.
     
  7. paperinacup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    #7
    What people are failing to remember is the the Mac Mini is a STARTER computer and not a GAMING computer. The GMA950 is perfectly fit for what this computer is. The last card they had in the Mac Mini wouldn't push a 30" display either.

    I mean seriously what did people expect.... an X600 XT? Its a $600 machine. I doubt you could find very many PCs without the same graphics for that price. Be VERY glad you aren't stuck with the GMA900 which is ALOT worse.
     
  8. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #8
    Oh, you can pretty easily, but it's the form factor that you won't get.
     
  9. yoda13 macrumors 65816

    yoda13

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    Well the fsb for sure, and of course the dual core blows away the G4, but what about the core solo, wouldn't that be a similar performing chip if the G4 wasn't hobbled by the slow fsb?

    Hell, I am no chip expert, that is just what I have deduced by reading these boards after the intel announcement was made...:)
     
  10. lssmit02 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    #10
    The core solo still has a 2mb L2 cache, which is better than the G4.
     
  11. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #11
    And the pipeline length is 14, which is worse than the G4 7.

    The Core has better branch prediction, though.
     

Share This Page