MacWorld Posts More Intel mini Benchmarks

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by tjwett, Mar 4, 2006.

  1. tjwett macrumors 68000

    tjwett

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    #1
    Shows some more realworld usage. At times performing close to the Core Duo iMac but others (non-Universal especially) gets beat by the G4. Both expected and unexpected results make it interesting. And it looks like a fairly substantial boost going from single core to duo in the Universal apps. cool.

    http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firstlooks/minibenchmarks/index.php
     
  2. Passante macrumors 6502a

    Passante

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Location:
    on the sofa
    #2
    Looks pretty good. Only 3-4 FPS slower than the G4 in Unreal- Like who cares about that. Like to see some iLife benches and HD decoding. The Intel Imac really cranks out HD at 30 fps. My powerbook chokes on it.

    All the whining about intel integrated graphics may be for naught.
     
  3. Arcus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    of my hand will get me slapped.
    #3
    I like the real world tests. The difference between the mini and the iMac really show on the UT tests. Man 50 FPS compared to 12. Thats huge.
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    So both the G4 and the Intel mini suck for 3D gaming. Now that's big news. Looks like the Core Duo is the way to go, for native binaries at least. Would have been interesting to have thrown a G5 into the testing mix, since that the processor Apple really abandoned for Intel.
     
  5. MacSA macrumors 68000

    MacSA

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    But surely you can see the issue that some people have with this? Sure the Mac mini sucked at 3D games..but shouldn't the updated Mini that comes out 14 months after the original "suck" slightly less - not more so ?
     
  6. mark88 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    #6
    The more benchmarks I see, the more it shows just what a good deal the Intel Imac is!!
     
  7. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #7
    Is UT available in UB yet then? I mean, if it were running through Rosetta of course it's going to suck on the Intel - integrated graphics need the CPU and if Rosetta's hogging it then it's going to be screwed. The great thing about the Intel mini (and all the new Intel Mac's) is that performance is actually going to improve over time as the new UB's come out. I think that's something of a first for any computer I've ever bought! ;)
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    LOL ha,ha,ha, thats just funny. So true yet so funny. Cpu got a big big boost, GPU is just cheapo lame, Spinmasters continue:D Almost like they dont want a Mini to be "better":eek:
     
  9. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #9
    I like to compare the Core Solo with the 1.42 GHz G4.

    Apart from the Pro-apps (G4 better at Photoshop, Core Single better at Cinema 4D), these two are acutally quite similar.
    That, IMHO is not good. Then throw in the Intel onboard grfx, and you get a worse deal.....
    Keep in mind that the latest Mac mini G4 is 1.5 GHz.

    The Core Single should have been priced at $ 449,-
     
  10. thies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #10
    You know how it is, if they would have put the latest and gratest GPU in there with the CPU being slightly worse than the G4 these guys would have called you a noob for not being able to see that the mini is a gaming machine and doesn't need a faster CPU. *shrug*
     
  11. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #11
    They should have put something like a Mobility X1300 128 MB VRAM into it.

    This is a nice card, not expensive and has H.264 hardware support.

    Brings me to another point....

    Does QuickTime player actually use the H.264 harware decoding capabilities of the X1600's in the iMac and Mac Book Pro?
     
  12. whooleytoo macrumors 603

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #12
    Not just that, but the updated, more suckieth Mini costs more too.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    Good point, more cash doesnt equal less frames,it should equal more frames. Guess since that cpu can be upgraded they had to kill something. So Apple killed the machines GPU by giving it what is rock bottom in performance:confused: Intel is giving these things away, buy 1 Intel cpu chip and get a free gpu,who cares that a Geforce3 from 5 years ago looks better and is faster then this imposter pretending to be a GPU. Integrated graphics still = garbage. Any Toms hardware graph can show that. Facts are Facts. Apple needs a $20 dollar option for any of the many little gpu chips that would fit in that same spot instead of the "freebie"

    Imac is now so much better , there is a huge gap in performance because of its good video vs Mini's terrible one. Add up the costs if you dont have old componets to use and there is little reason to purchase a new Mini System over a new iMac system. I would have rather seen another G4 bump,1.6 mated to a fx5200 class gpu:cool: Oh well history is history. PowerMac? think it will get a soldered on Gpu?;)
     
  14. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #14
    It would be amazing if that "oh so wonderful" blazingly fast GPU of yours would serve as a memory controller too don't you think? ;)
     

Share This Page