Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Intel Mac mini

the graphics

Don't whine too quickly people... Here are some specs from the intel site.
---------------------------
intel 950/

256-bit graphics core running at 400MHz

Up to 10.6 GB/sec memory bandwidth with DDR2 667 system memory

1.6 GPixels/sec and 1.6 GTexels/sec fill rate

Up to 224 MB maximum video memory

2048x1536 at 75 Hz maximum resolution

Up to 4 pixels per clock rendering

Microsoft* DirectX* 9 Hardware Acceleration Features:
Pixel Shader 2.0

Volumetric Textures

Shadow Maps

Slope Scale Depth Bias

Two-Sided Stencil

Microsoft* DirectX* 9 Vertex Shader 3.0 and Transform and Lighting supported in software through highly optimized Processor Specific Geometry Pipeline (PSGP)

Texture Decompression for DirectX* and OpenGL*

OpenGL* 1.4 support plus ARB_vertex_buffer and EXT_shadow_funcs extensions and TexEnv shader caching
---------------------
Fair enough it uses system memory but there is nothing stopping you putting more ram in the mini. I think it compares well to the entry model nvidia series 6 graphics cards.

Another thing is that the Mac mini is shipping today - good job Apple!!


aussie_geek
 
Cool! An Apple event that will leave my wallet intact! I wonder how long the press will keep biting on these special events if this is all there is...

So much for everyone who thought Intel meant cheaper Macs, eh?
 
Lord Blackadder said:
[...] - The Radeon 9200 64MB in the old Mini is clearly a superior video card for running 3D games. The GMA950 is just as good on paper but in reality ATI/nVidia cards in the same price class are worlds better.[...]
Click to expand...

Actually the Mac mini G4 had a Radeon 9200/32MB. Apple never officially announced the "new model", so only a few people have a Mac mini with 64MB on their Radeon 9200.
 
NatronB said:
-can the mini support HDMI output to my Dell?...

-N
Click to expand...

A friend of mine has a G4 Mini connected to a 37" HDTV with a DVI -> HDMI adapter, so yeah, I'm pretty sure.

Yvan256 said:
Actually the Mac mini G4 had a Radeon 9200/32MB. Apple never officially announced the "new model", so only a few people have a Mac mini with 64MB on their Radeon 9200.
Click to expand...

I understand that but I'm using the 64MB model (which is common enough now anyhow) to give an apples-to-apples comparo. The 32MB 9200 will probably match or beat the GMA950 the majority of the time too as far as 3D apps go.
 
Diatribe said:
You mean like non-upgradeable Mac minis...🙄
Click to expand...

I never said Minis were more upgradeable. However if my monitor develops some dead pixels or something it does not affect the whole thing. Would you buy one of those TVs with a built-in DVD player? It's similar.

Take a look at a good stereo system. Components. You want a good stereo system with flexibility, you buy components and connect them all together. That is the philosophy by which I design both my stereo system and my computer. If you don't agree, that's fine, but if you compare integrated vs. components it is apples and oranges, simple as that.

And besides, who wants to use a windows keyboard on a Mac anyway 😉
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? The Apple keyboard is one of the most horrible keyboards I've ever used. Just like every low-end keyboard made today. With my PC I use nothing but IBM Model M keyboards. That will be annoying on a Mac so I'll probably wind up getting one of these.
 
joeboy_45101 said:
Blah, blah, blah. My girlfriend is hot and does shop at the Gap. I'm a techie and this Mini crap system seems more like a step back for Apple.
Click to expand...

And do you think she actually cares what type of graphics card is in the new mini?

I really don't see the big deal about the integrated graphics as Mac gaming still and will continue to suck and that it will surely handle 95% of the tasks most users will throw at it. Heck the ****ty 8megs of VRam in my Powerbook is enough for most of Quartz's screen effects.
 
NatronB said:
There's a lot of rhetoric on this thread, but if someone could please answer some pointed questions, that'd be great.

I really wanted a media machine that could handle DVDs/iTunes as well as do some light Photoshop work at the same time. Right now I have my 3+ yr. old PowerBook G4 12" overextended doing all this (plus it outputs VGA to my Dell 26" LCD-TV, and non-digital audio to my receiver).

Questions:

-can the mini support HDMI output to my Dell?

-can the mini support spanning across two monitors, VGA and the aforementioned HDMI (I have a feeling this is a stretch)?

-if I upgrade the RAM is the Intel Integrated graphics gonna be enough?

Any help is appreciated,

-N
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have a similar setup as me...I have a 2 year old loaded 12" Powerbook and connect it to my HT receiver and an old 30" gateway monitor at 800x600 much of the time...I also sometimes hook it to my ED plasma and watch downloaded content. Since you are used to having two monitors anyway...I think that the iMacs are actually a much better deal than this. They aren't as compact but the graphics chip will be much better for your purposes. Is this for a bedroom/office or a living room setup? For a living-room I would get an mini just so that I don't have to take up the space with an iMac. The mini has DVI...From what I understand, HDMI is basically DVI with integrated digital audio. I'm sure there are adaptors that can be used to achieve your goals but at what cost?

Personally the appeal of a mac mini media center to me would be if Apple got off their ***es and started offering higher quality content from a dedicated Front Row movie store for a rental fee.
 
Gotta agree with everyone else here, integrated graphics would be a big red flag for me. Also, I'm not impressed that Apple raised the price of its low end machine. That's the purpose of a low end machine, to be cheap!

That being said, all the other improvements are very nice to see. Hopefully the integrated graphics will be addressed in the Rev B models.
 
The new mini is an utter failure. Overpriced and the low end model is unusable as shipped and remains to be seen if it will be usable even with 2GB RAM when running Rosetta (AKA the vast majority of) apps. $800 for a low end Mini that needs another $300 thrown into it to make it usable?
 
Pure Crap...Very disapppointed

I guess I was guilty of thinking different. Mac Mini with integrated graphics, and a price bump? WTF, Apple? And the ridiculous lack of keyboard and mouse is just, well, dumb.

DUMB DUMB DUMB.
 
The second I saw "Integrated Graphics" I knew people would whine. It's not that bad really! If you want to play games, I for one wouldn't be spending sub-£750/sub-$1000.
 
rog said:
The new mini is an utter failure. Overpriced and the low end model is unusable as shipped and remains to be seen if it will be usable even with 2GB RAM when running Rosetta (AKA the vast majority of) apps. $800 for a low end Mini that needs another $300 thrown into it to make it usable?
Click to expand...

Might as well buy an iMac for that kind of $$$! Either that or wait for the Merom Mac mini next year... 😱 😎
 
It's a step in the right direction -- a mini w/ Front Row and moving towards the "digital convergence" of the living room -- but I'm underwhelmed. I'm trying to find some reason to buy this thing and keep coming up empty. The mini doesn't do anything that my Xbox 360 doesn't already do, if not better. I don't have a need to listen to iTunes music from my PM in my office, nor do I need to stream photos from my wife's PB to watch on our 60" HDTV. DVD player? Have two already and I daresay their output is probably better.

I think the mini needs to get some kind of DVR support before I can pull the trigger. Until then, it's just a novelty sitting on top of the TV.
 
this is the first apple announcement in about 2-3 years that I didn't buy anything right after apple.com update. I might buy the hi-fi after reading some reviews but mac mini is a major bummer.

what da heck happened to 3.5 inch HD? that would've at least mitigated this disaster. 2.5HD that only allows 120gb HD and no DVR....what's the point of hooking it up to TV if you don't have DVR function? to watch DVD? people have DVD players already.

i am not going to say anything about integrated video.

Apple just made a bad strategic choice. what they should've done was to put off updating mac mini until chip price falls in about 2 months. then they should've gone with the $499-$699 price tags (assuming they keep the same specs).

I sold one mac mini g4 couple weeks ago. I bought it for $599 and I sold it for $610 (with MS Office installed). there were still good demand for mac minis notwithstanding the update. they could've milked g4 for couple more months and then release intel version with cheaper chip price.

and this is got to be a bad news for those waiting for macbook. macbook's specs might be even worse than what I think it would be.
 
I was actually going to order one of these but there is no way I'm taking an Intel GMA950. This is amongst the cheapest of the cheap in the PC world. I'm doubtful that this is actually faster than the Radeon 9200 from the original Mac mini!

Also the low end model has a Core Solo! I am astounded that anyone would ever use this chip. Other than the system bus this probably offers little gain over the G4 in the original model.

Even the price has gone up! Now PC users really do have a reason to insult us Mac users.

I really hope that Apple do not lose to much market share over this product. It has to be the worst major Mac update in the last five years.
 
carlivar said:
I never said Minis were more upgradeable. However if my monitor develops some dead pixels or something it does not affect the whole thing. Would you buy one of those TVs with a built-in DVD player? It's similar.

Take a look at a good stereo system. Components. You want a good stereo system with flexibility, you buy components and connect them all together. That is the philosophy by which I design both my stereo system and my computer. If you don't agree, that's fine, but if you compare integrated vs. components it is apples and oranges, simple as that.



You're joking, right? The Apple keyboard is one of the most horrible keyboards I've ever used. Just like every low-end keyboard made today. With my PC I use nothing but IBM Model M keyboards. That will be annoying on a Mac so I'll probably wind up getting one of these.
Click to expand...

Always depends on the use. If I had an expensive TV I wouldn't get a $200 DVD-Player... just as I wouldn't get a mini then.
As I said, I never doubted that a mini has its place but if you're so concerned about the integrated monitor, an integrated graphics card is for sure worse.
As I said you can still connect another monitor to the iMac but I too would have appreciated a Mac mini with a decent graphics card. But as it looks now the iMacs just are the better deal, integrated monitor or not.
 
~Shard~ said:
Gotta agree with everyone else here, integrated graphics would be a big red flag for me. Also, I'm not impressed that Apple raised the price of its low end machine. That's the purpose of a low end machine, to be cheap!
Click to expand...
Agreed. Apple's margins on all their other computer products are quite high. They need that low-cost, entry level product to entice users. The mini was it. Upping the price wasn't a good move.

Remember the big "pro" of going Intel was lower prices anyone?
 
i don't think the new mac mini's are pure crap... i think for what you get they are a great deal.. yes the integrated graphics is the shortfall, but that is why their is a dedicated graphics card in the imacs..
 
People complaining about the integrated graphics card - have you looked up the specs?

Nope. Probably not.

It doesn't seem that bad - its able to drive HD content.. which is saying something - that its not complete turd.

Yes, its a shame that it shares main memory- but what do you expect - for a machine of this price with a rather good processor?

Mac Mini is a really good buy.
 
Hold up!

Look at this a little more carefully. This Mac mini is equipped to plug into a TV and stream media from another Mac.



In other words, THIS IS THE MEDIA CENTER MAC MINI! Apple doesn't brag about it too much, but it shows the direction they're going in. I'm sure that the prices will drop later in the year. The reason they're up now is that Core chips (even Solo) are super-expensive, but Apple doesn't want to deal with the headache of concurrently using Celerons (slower, hotter, but higher gigahertz, different branding). So as soon as the Core line becomes cheap enough to fully replace the Celeron (which it will later on in the year), the Mac mini will most likely hit $499 again.

Everyone should complain about the graphics as much as possible, since then Apple will have to aknowledge it and put in at least 64MB of VRAM in.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Well, did a little digging to get some benchmarks on the GMA950 and all I can say is uh oh...

GMA950 vs GeForce6200TC

Tom's article on the GMA950

A lot of people in this thread are pulling statements out of their rear, but the article and benchmarks clearly show that

- The Radeon 9200 (old Mini) and GMA950 (new Mini) will probably render all the 3D stuff in OS X equally well.

- The Radeon 9200 64MB in the old Mini is clearly a superior video card for running 3D games. The GMA950 is just as good on paper but in reality ATI/nVidia cards in the same price class are worlds better.

In sum, you the new Mini will run non-gaming apps faster then ever before. But game performance is a big question mark - the GMA950 is not a good performer, but the new Mini does have a much faster FSB. These two may cancel each other out initially but in the long run the Mini will need a better video card than the GMA950 to make it a credible performer for newer games. Even a Radeon X300 would be a nice step up.

Another point to think about is that the current iBook has a Radeon 9550 - a GPU that is certainly an order of magnitude better than the GMA950. If the iBook replacement ships with integrated graphics it will be a massive step backwards. (Steve, are you hearing this?)

Time to put on your tinfoil hats everyone.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. I would never buy this mini, mostly because of the GPU and becasue the gamin would absolutly suck (even for some of the lesser games). I was going to recommend this to a friend so he can get rid of his PC and i still might. He wont be using the mini much as it will mainly be a family computer and he wants to get an iBook/MacBook whent hey come out. But if they come out with integreated graphic there is no way in hell i would recommend him to get one.

I think that apple would have been way further ahead had they put the 9550 in the minis and called it done...or at least given the option (for fairly cheap) to upgrade to a dedicated GPU.

Intel graphics suck people and they should be left in the dust. I mean, damn, you can get this card on newegg (for $35) that kills the integrated graphic...and that card is not that good. There is also the current Raadeon card (or close to) that is in the iBooks for about $50.

Integrated graphics should never have made it into the Mac as they are below standards that we (the mac community) are use to.

I was kinda hoping to buy the iBook/MacBook when they come out but if they come out with integrated graphics i will be holding off or buying a MBP (which is VERY unlikely).

Shame on Apple for going backwards on technology.
 
I would prefer a Mac Mini over my iMac Core Duo, in terms of space, since I just use my ACD.

However...

$799 Mac Mini Core Duo (slower speed)
$120 Lacie Firewire External (to have a 7200 RPM drive to boot from)
$170 2GB of Memory

and I'm then only $100-$200 from what my iMac cost, plus I would take some loss on selling it now. Seems like it would be stupid to change to the Mini. A shame though, for it would fit so much nicer.
 
stcanard said:
The Mac Mini is intended to be a media machine. And as you just said, as a media machine it will perform better than the older Mini.
Click to expand...
I doubt it will perform that much better with a Core Solo. (btw: Core Solo for 659 Euros - ridiculous)
Media machine - that's exactly why a X1300 with H.264 acceleration would have been the better graphics solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back