Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Macmadant, Mar 2, 2006.
i think yes, but how about you
In the basic model the GMA is fine. For the higher end model i'd have preferred a better graphics card.
ps: and "they're"
lol thanks, i didn't think that looked right
Considering people have been playing H.264 video at 1080p on the Core Duo I'd say it works perfectly for what it is.
My best friend from uni bought one yesterday, he said the 3D card wasn't as bad as expected.
Apple had to make his move. The Core processors cos a lot of money, hence the price hike. A better 3D card would have increased the price even more.
IMHO, Apple should have gone with a Pentium M or Centrino processors. Slower CPU, however cost saving is made in the CPU and better hardware can be made elsewhere in the machine to balance out the costs, for example, better 3D card.
Man people are overreacting to this one. The intel integrated graphics beats the old watered down 32MB Radeon 9200. This is an upgrade people! Be happy with it!
People are not over reacting. A digital media hub (is what Apple are targeting and making mac's these days - front row, remote control, optical 5.1, streaming music & movies) with a crap GPU (making the system moribund) at a price of 889 Euro (which equals $1,067) is what it costs on Apple store in Ireland is really taking the piss out of consumers.....
Fro $22 measly dollars they could have put in a ATI X1300 64mb dedicated or $34 for 128mb version.
If you guys in America were paying $1,067 for your's would you be happy with a ***** integrated graphics card????????
Its a stopgap. I expect that in the next few weeks we'll get lots of reports showing that the GMA is slightly better at most tasks than the Radeon 9200. We already know it supports Core Image and it seems to be very slightly better at H.264 than the 9200.
I think it is clear that Apple wanted to minimise risks by replacing (rather than superceding) their existing PPC range with Intel versions at the same price points and similar specifications (with the exception of CPU processing speed).
The price-points for the Mac mini are surprising, but I expect they are temporary until Merom and frends are available and the entire product range has transitioned.
With that in mind, I see the current Intel Mac mini as being subtly marketed at businesses and education rather than individual consumers. Switchers and enthusiasts will either be tempted by the iMac or wait for the rev.B and some actual innovation and evolution of the design.
I think that we may be seeing more things like this, evidence that many of the perceived problems with Wintel machines aren't in the hardware. Both Apple and intel hinted that we may see such things.
The least they could have done was have an option for a Radeon X1300 graphics card or something. Another case of Apple cheaping out on us again...
Agree with you 1000000%
People are way overreacting to this...considering the form factor, target market, and cost, it is not a huge deal.
And to the person that said for X amount of money they could have put in this or that. The mac mini doesn't use off the shelf components..anything that goes in there (except the optical drive), is specially made. That motherboard isnt in anything else...it doesnt have the normal PCI or AGP slots. If it truely does do "HD" @ 1080p, then great. It's not meant to play games on, its not meant for FCP, its not meant for pro level photoshop work. Get over it.
You should specify.You said the Mini costs 889 Euro, but that's the high end. The Mini starts at 659, or about 793 US dollars.
I doubt it just has to do with cost. I bet size of the GPU was a factor, along with price. I bet is was really hard to keep the Mini's size and squeeze a whole new system architecture in it.
I think the GPU is fine in the new Mini, not really a great GPU, but a low end GPU for a low-end machine. At least it does HD great.
coming from a company that marketed the first mini as "not just another low end pc with integrated graphics" or words to that effect, this blows.
and to think, they do this just when the want to start marketing it as a full blown media box, with streaming hd content and blah blah blah...
You mean Windows is crippling hardware? Shocker.
Cheap is cheap, they should have had a 20 dollar option for those that wanted a little more but didnt want an iMac. Fx5200s were as low 16 bucks at onepoint so come on Apple stop being cheapo on graphics while you are raking in billions in tune songs.
No they are not!!! Like the imac, ibook, powerbook etc.... most of apple's GPU's are grafted onto the motherboard. Hence an X1300 would not take up any extra space the GMA950 is utilising. You do not need an agp or pci slot.
Your argument, like apples decision to use integrated is moribund.
OK $1067 in Ireland for the $799 model in the US. $793 for the $599 version in the US?? Good value for european customers.. Like hell.....
Honest to god if you guys in the states had to fork out $793 or $1067 for a mac mini, would you not expect somthing better than integrated crap....
I would have liked to see a bto option to upgrade to a stand alone video card, but I am getting over it.
i said no, but not becuz the good, only because the are cheaper, and offer more space for more port on the Mini. Trade offs for me is worth it
The lack of decent graphics is why I'm not buying it. If other people want a computer to hook up to their teevee, fine, but I don't. Make the case 1/2" taller and put a larger, cheaper HD in it, and a GPU and I'll buy it the next day.
Alternative to Mac mini?
Let's see, I have an almost full page Wall Street Journal ad from HP/Compaq in front of me. They have a PC for sale, supposedly a great bargain, for $539. Hmm, this is $60 cheaper than Mac mini. Of course, no dedicated GPU. Let's see what else is the same 512MB RAM. Anything else? Pentium 4 2.8GHz (Is that better or worse than Core Solo in Mini?) 80 GB HD, but it does not really matter, as it has not got a DVD player (only CD-RW), no wireless, XP Home (which means a lot of networking stuff is not possible) no Bluetooth, I don't suppose it's got any Firewire either. I am not even gonna mention the size or iLife apps.
In short, I thought Apple is supposed to be high end, so more expensive. However, in this case it does not seem like it. If that's the competition, I don't see why people are whining so much. Maybe a $499 version without wireless or Bluetooth would suit some people better, but it is no death spell for Apple.