Why is HD4000 not good enough on 2012 mini?

[jibberyjabbery]

Who in the right mind buys a $600 mac for gaming?

The discrete-graphics Mini (2011 version) is a great low-to-mid gaming rig for a television. Mine plays modern enough games (Just Cause, Fallout NV, Portal 2, Skyrim, Arkham City, Dishonored) at mid-to-high settings in Win 7, 1080p on a big flat-panel TV. It is a really nice "console" when coupled with wireless keyboard, joystick and Steam's Big Picture UI.

Expensive, sure, but there's no PC you can buy or build that is even close to as small and quiet, not even at twice the cost. You can make "better" gaming rigs, but they tend to be big and loud and hot and ugly and expensive... and you can't boot them into OSX when you want to use them for other things, either.

I just ordered another 2011 mini from the refurb page ($499) once I saw that the 2012 didn't have a real graphics option.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Believe it or not... I am still running an original PowerMac (power pc based) G5 tower from like circa 2003. I remember it being a top of the line beast back in the day. It was and still is quite a physical beauty.. but it's definitely served it's purpose and it's time to pull the plug.

I told myself i wasn't going to buy a new power mac to replace it until I actually had time to "make money" off of it doing video editing at home.

I work all day editing for a living and the last thing i usually want to do is go home and edit some more. But i do need the option to take some work home with me.. and I'd like to do some home movie editing and such.

So I think the mac mini is the way to go for me... I was pissed when i found out it doesn't have any discrete graphics options, but the more i read the more I think the INTEL 4000 integrated gfx will be fine for some light Avid, FCP, and Adobe Premiere HD video editing. Curious how it will handle 3D plugins for After Effects or even BCC boris effects in Avid.

But i guess that's what Apple's 14 day return policy is for... I'd go with the new 21.5 inch IMAC.. but no user upgradeable RAM is a deal breaker.

I can buy 16 GB of RAM online for $82 bucks.. add that to the $799 mac mini quad core.. and I should have a very capable video editing and family machine for my home office for under $1000.

I had the last Mac mini with the dedicated GPU and the current Mac Air. The intel 4000 compares to the dedicated GPU just fine. I guess people had bad experiences with Integrated graphics of the past. Maybe the Amiga and its 512k chip ram and HAM mode and needing the flicker fixer card in high res is the root of the complaints.

 

[Poki]

I had the last Mac mini with the dedicated GPU and the current Mac Air. The intel 4000 compares to the dedicated GPU just fine. I guess people had bad experiences with Integrated graphics of the past. Maybe the Amiga and its 512k chip ram and HAM mode and needing the flicker fixer card in high res is the root of the complaints.

In fact, I'm still stunned how fast the 9400M GT in my MacBook is (which complements the 9600M GT), it's just that we loose any possibility to play games -- although as far as I've seen SC2 and Diablo 3 seem to run just fine on low.

 

[Westyfield2]

Yes, but what software that runs on OS X supports the Intel HD GPUs hardware decoder? I use Plex all the time on my 3 year old MacBook and get full GPU hardware video decoding, but it's not supported on Intel HD GPUs...yet...

Even in OpenCL on Mountain Lion the Intel HD GPU's are not yet supported:

2012-09-05 16:10:08.059 TestOpenCL[44960:303] No GPU support!
2012-09-05 16:10:08.061 TestOpenCL[44960:303] Vendor = Intel
2012-09-05 16:10:08.061 TestOpenCL[44960:303] Device = Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2620M CPU @ 2.70GHz
2012-09-05 16:10:08.062 TestOpenCL[44960:303] Profile = FULL_PROFILE
2012-09-05 16:10:08.063 TestOpenCL[44960:303] Version = OpenCL 1.2
2012-09-05 16:10:08.063 TestOpenCL[44960:303] Image support = YES
2012-09-05 16:10:08.064 TestOpenCL[44960:303] Compute units = 4

Maybe at some point down the road it'll be acceptable to stick us with only integrated Intel GPUs, but we're not there yet.

 

[throAU]

Whilst HD4000 is indeed a big leap when compared to HD3000, the fact remains why put a decent chip in a Mac Mini and cripple its graphics performance by abandoning the discrete GPU option.

The mac mini is not and never will be a gaming machine.

If you want a high end gaming system, build one.

The mini is intended for low power, low cost applications and for those purposes it performs just fine.

----------

The discrete-graphics Mini (2011 version) is a great low-to-mid gaming rig for a television. Mine plays modern enough games (Just Cause, Fallout NV, Portal 2, Skyrim, Arkham City, Dishonored) at mid-to-high settings in Win 7, 1080p on a big flat-panel TV. It is a really nice "console" when coupled with wireless keyboard, joystick and Steam's Big Picture UI.

HD4000 or even HD3000 will do most if not all of that.

If a HD4000 is too slow for you, chances are some crappy low end mobile AMD chipset like the 6630 (which is roughly what you'd get again at this price point and power consumption) isn't going to be fast enough either.

edit:
I've played high def content just fine using HD3000 on my MBP 15 in 1680x1050. the GPU is "good enough" for pretty much anything other than gaming.

Anyone using an MBA for games (and I know a few who did, with HD3000) will be in the same boat. It can be done. It won't run current AAA titles in full detail, but neither will a cheap discrete GPU.

 

[Fifemacuser]

just another view that although it would be nice to have the Quad Core i7 ivy bridge in the mini, my 2010 Mac Pro hexacore xeon with 12 threads, (with system activity monitor on permanently,) shows very often just a single thread running whilst I'm doing simple Word2010 typing. e.g a 67 page select all text + graphics , then copy & paste to a new blank Word document maxed out one CPU thread for 3 seconds, with another thread popping along at 10% load.

(and I was burning a DVD at the same time + iTunes was open with a docked iPhone + Mail)

For single threaded applications the actual gigahertz of the processor is more important than the parallelity of the CPU cores, hence the base 2.5GHz dual should crank through average simple stuff faster than the 2.3Ghz quad! That's the reason I bought a hex-core 3.33GHz Pro, because 3.33GHz is the fastest MP CPU.

I'm personally thinking to get the base mini + add a Dell U2412m e-IPS display from Amazon (costing just over that £200) and upgrade the mini later as needed. First would be 8GB RAM, then maybe later a 750Gig hybrid Seagate Momentum XT once iFixit works out what the HDD quirks and upgradeability will be of the 2012 mini?

Thanks a lot for your considered response.

I didn't appreciate that so many things don't utilise those extra cores, and it seems games don't either. Going to go with the low end and upgrade along the way as necessary. The drive size may be a squeeze, but should be fine for what it's for.

Cheers

 

[cyclotron451]

....I didn't appreciate that so many things don't utilise those extra cores (*), and it seems games don't either.
Going to go with the low end and upgrade along the way as necessary. The drive size may be a squeeze, but should be fine for what it's for.

Cheers

Yep, the base Mini is quite decent, the dual cores do have 4 threads available which should handle everything for a while. (*) Yet! the programs will start to become more multi-threaded. I personally have decided to get the middle Mini as the Geekbench synthetic benchmarking scores have revealed that the
base Mini = Macmini6,1 and has a Geekbench2 score of 6741
middle Mini = Macmini6,2 and has a Geekbench2 score of 10773

my 'retiring' iMac 20" that I'm passing to my 11yr old daughter has a Geekbench2 score of 3360 - from a Core2Due with two cores but just two threads; that will be fine for her with its upgraded 6GB RAM and 1.5TB HDD.

 

[jibberyjabbery]

HD4000 or even HD3000 will do most if not all of that.

No, it won't.

I have both versions of the 2011 Mini, one with HD3000 and one with the discrete 6630. The discrete 6630 version can play all the games I mentioned well at 1080i. The integrated (HD3000) video version cannot, and absolutely CRAWLS in comparison whenever a game is involved.

I just ordered a second 2011 model with discrete video for this reason, for the TV in the guest room (and for gaming). All the (3D and gaming) benchmarks out there show that it outperforms the crippled HD4000.

 

[Poki]

No, it won't.

I have both versions of the 2011 Mini, one with HD3000 and one with the discrete 6630. The discrete 6630 version can play all the games I mentioned well at 1080i. The integrated (HD3000) video version cannot, and absolutely CRAWLS in comparison whenever a game is involved.

I just ordered a second 2011 model with discrete video for this reason, for the TV in the guest room (and for gaming). All the (3D and gaming) benchmarks out there show that it outperforms the crippled HD4000.

After all, the HD 4000 is almost as fast as the 9600M GT Apple used in the 2009 MacBook Pros, which was a mid-class graphic card back then. Not too bad for just three years I'd say. Give Intel another three years and we can get GT 650M performance from a onboard graphics chip, which is absolutely awesome!

 

[kdoug]

No, it won't.

I have both versions of the 2011 Mini, one with HD3000 and one with the discrete 6630. The discrete 6630 version can play all the games I mentioned well at 1080i. The integrated (HD3000) video version cannot, and absolutely CRAWLS in comparison whenever a game is involved.

I just ordered a second 2011 model with discrete video for this reason, for the TV in the guest room (and for gaming). All the (3D and gaming) benchmarks out there show that it outperforms the crippled HD4000.

Crippled is probably a little over the top.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33642_7-57418061-292/at-long-last-a-credible-3d-gaming-chip-from-intel/

 

[DeepIn2U]

The mac mini is not and never will be a gaming machine.

If you want a high end gaming system, build one.

The mini is intended for low power, low cost applications and for those purposes it performs just fine.

I'm sorry but if not a HIGH End gaming system, at least to be able to play modern games at "acceptable" frame rates 30fps should be the minimum on high/ultra to be acceptable. Apple did advertise before the 6630M was used and during.

 

[Poki]

I'm sorry but if not a HIGH End gaming system, at least to be able to play modern games at "acceptable" frame rates 30fps should be the minimum on high/ultra to be acceptable. Apple did advertise before the 6630M was used and during.

Am I too tired or is this really crippled english?

The Mini never was able to play current games on their highest setting, and it was never built for gamers. If you want more than playing some less demanding games on low details, you obviously should look somewhere else.

And honestly, I far prefer a good CPU over a decent GPU 'cos it makes the Mini a good machine to work on. You know, this thing that earns you money.

 

[z06gal]

Am I too tired or is this really crippled english?

The Mini never was able to play current games on their highest setting, and it was never built for gamers. If you want more than playing some less demanding games on low details, you obviously should look somewhere else.

And honestly, I far prefer a good CPU over a decent GPU 'cos it makes the Mini a good machine to work on. You know, this thing that earns you money.

Lol

 

[Yebubbleman]

For me,

Some light photo and video editing, a ton of pro audio work and general web stuff -- maybe a movie

So for the last 10 years, every graphics card I have used (mostly lowly) have been 100% up to the task. HD4000 seems perfectly capable of delivering again... plus triple monitor support if I need it (I I always have at least two mirrored ones)

So... help me understand... I see SO much complaining about this... What is the negative impact to "YOU" of HD4000 graphics. What exactly will be the cost? A little slower screen redraws? A little slower filter application in photoshop? ... Some monitors not work at all? Is it just all about games??

Games, video editing software, and advanced rendering software/3D Effects/modeling software like AutoCAD. If none of that sounds like you, the Intel HD 4000 will be more than sufficient.

The only other reason to consider a discrete GPU versus an Intel integrated GPU is longevity of Software support. Case in point: if you bought a MacBook or Mac mini (both of which used Intel integrated graphics at the time) in March of 2008, that Mac couldn't run Mountain Lion today and will thusly soon stop receiving software updates that are compatible with that machine. Whereas if you bought a MacBook Pro or iMac (both of which used discrete graphics) in March of 2008, that Mac can run Mountain Lion today and is thusly still supported today.

But otherwise, assuming the above tasks are not what you do, you will have absolutely zero complaints with the Intel HD 4000 in the Mac mini.

 

[Poki]

Games, video editing software, and advanced rendering software/3D Effects/modeling software like AutoCAD. If none of that sounds like you, the Intel HD 4000 will be more than sufficient.

The only other reason to consider a discrete GPU versus an Intel integrated GPU is longevity of Software support. Case in point: if you bought a MacBook or Mac mini (both of which used Intel integrated graphics at the time) in March of 2008, that Mac couldn't run Mountain Lion today and will thusly soon stop receiving software updates that are compatible with that machine. Whereas if you bought a MacBook Pro or iMac (both of which used discrete graphics) in March of 2008, that Mac can run Mountain Lion today and is thusly still supported today.

But otherwise, assuming the above tasks are not what you do, you will have absolutely zero complaints with the Intel HD 4000 in the Mac mini.

Actually, the Intel GMA series were the worst graphic chips ever, no wonder they're no longer supported. The HD4000 is worlds above them ...

And I think plain video editing will work quite well on a quad-core Mac Mini. With animating... well, let's see what Intel did there.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Am I too tired or is this really crippled english?

The Mini never was able to play current games on their highest setting, and it was never built for gamers. If you want more than playing some less demanding games on low details, you obviously should look somewhere else.

And honestly, I far prefer a good CPU over a decent GPU 'cos it makes the Mini a good machine to work on. You know, this thing that earns you money.

^ For the bad english, sorry I'm drunk as a skunk (and using Win7; no auto correct or suggestions like OSX from what I recall its been 2.5mths since the ex left me for somebitchelse, so like the good guy I am I'm paying 2 rents at once ... after all my son still lives with her; hopefully just for now.

To be honest I'd rather have BOTH CPU & GPU ... because OpenGL or is it OpenCL is not supported on Intel HD gfx internal cpu chips ... this means less work that the GPU could be doing along with the processor. You know being highly efficient at the work that makes you money ... have two brains working on the same task (like multi-threading does for us now).

 

[Yebubbleman]

Actually, the Intel GMA series were the worst graphic chips ever, no wonder they're no longer supported. The HD4000 is worlds above them ...

And I think plain video editing will work quite well on a quad-core Mac Mini. With animating... well, let's see what Intel did there.

The GMA, for those who weren't gaming or doing serious video-editing/CAD/3D work, was plenty sufficient for 2007/2008 standards, and Apple supported them through the release of Lion. And yes, I recognize that someone using either an old version of Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro would have little complaint on them and similarly, they would have minimal complaint in doing that kind of work today. Get into Motion and/or start doing color correction, and they will stop being sufficient.

Either way, the OP doesn't appear to be doing video work at all, nor 3D/CAD work, nor gaming. Therefore, save for potential longevity concerns down the road, the Intel HD 4000 will be plenty sufficient for his needs.

 

[iPhonePunker]

I own a base model mac mini late 2012 and my experience is rather good and it not let me down in gaming yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tACGdYYS6f0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4Fy2UO5hE

 

[53x12]

I own a base model mac mini late 2012 and my experience is rather good and it not let me down in gaming yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tACGdYYS6f0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4Fy2UO5hE

Thanks for sharing the videos!

 

[ee13lbp]

Here's some more gaming tests I did to test out the new iMovie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KopD0Qqi9Ko

As others have said before, I like to switch the mini from my desk to under the tv when I feel like playing a few games. The fact that the power source is built into the mini plus the size of the thing mean that it only takes about a minute to swap the setups, and the mini fits snug under my tv. I just swap the hdmi cable from the ps3 to the mini and away I go.

The hd4000 is better than I anticipated, and for the few games I play I've been happy with its performance.

 

[MultiFinder17]

I tend to not be terribly concerned with the video card in my machines - most of my usage is not very graphically-intensive, so whatever they slap in there is good enough for me. I'm ecstatic with the HD4000 in my Air, and I'm still extremely pleased with the Nvidia 9400M in my mini

 

[tejota1911]

The HD 4000 is working well for me.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

For single threaded applications the actual gigahertz of the processor is more important than the parallelity of the CPU cores, hence the base 2.5GHz dual should crank through average simple stuff faster than the 2.3Ghz quad! That's the reason I bought a hex-core 3.33GHz Pro, because 3.33GHz is the fastest MP CPU.

One caveat is that the CPUs in the Mac mini have "Turbo", which allows them to crank up their speed when they have power headroom. It cranks up higher the fewer active threads needed. So the dual-core 2.5 GHz CPU can turbo up to 3.1 GHz when a single core is active; but the quad-core 2.3 GHz CPU can turbo up to 3.3 GHz when only a single core is active. So for single-threaded workloads, the quad is still faster. And you can upgrade the quad-core model to a 2.6 GHz (turbo to 3.6 GHz) chip. (Of course, then you're looking at $200-$300 more for the CPU boost plus hard drive space doubling.)

 

[iPhisch]

How does that HD4000 compare to the GeForce 320M (256MB RAM) in my 2010 mini? I'd like to upgrade to the maxed out mini and just plug-and-play with my existing setup, but as I get more into digital photography and editing, i'm curious if I should get a big iMac instead.

 

[53x12]

How does that HD4000 compare to the GeForce 320M (256MB RAM) in my 2010 mini? I'd like to upgrade to the maxed out mini and just plug-and-play with my existing setup, but as I get more into digital photography and editing, i'm curious if I should get a big iMac instead.

Intel HD 4000 scores a 134
The nVidia GeForce 320M GT scores a 80
The nVidia GeForce 320M scores a 50

* Higher scores are better

http://novabench.com/gpuchart.php?a=1

Good chart with some comparisons of GPUs.