Graphics comparison

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by mentaluproar, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. mentaluproar macrumors 68000

    mentaluproar

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    #1
    How does the performance of the Intel HD 4000 in the new macbook air compare to the Radeon HD 6630m in my mini?
     
  2. justin216 macrumors 6502

    justin216

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #2
    The 6630 will still hold an edge over the HD 4000 for most tasks. It's not dramatically different, but the AMD chip should still edge out the Intel one. Around 250pt difference in 3DMark 11 for the 6630 over the HD 4000.
     
  3. mentaluproar thread starter macrumors 68000

    mentaluproar

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
  4. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #4
    Here's some benchmarks by Anandtech.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5772/mobile-ivy-bridge-and-asus-n56vm-preview/6

    Obviously the CPU's are/will be different than what are in the Mac Mini's, but it gives you an idea. The 6630M beats the HD4000, but the gap has definitely closed comparing the 6630M to the HD3000. In some benchmarks, the difference is slight and some it is still 2x more powerful. It's still a huge improvement over the HD3000. Is it enough power that Apple might drop the discrete Mini? I doubt it, but then again I've never been able to guess what Apple is going to do with any of their computers....
     
  5. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #5
    Drop the discrete Mini? And loosing the ability to charge 200 premium for a graphic chip that costs 90 on amazon? Nope, they won't drop it.
     
  6. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #6
    Umm, sure they could. The 2009 and 2010 series the only difference was a bump in processor speed but they charged $200 ($150 for the 2010 "mid-range" but the base started at $700) more. All models had the same integrated graphics chip. Here's some links to specifications if you need a refresher....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_mini#Specifications_2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_mini#Specifications_3

    (okay I'll admit, there technically was no "mid-range 2010" it was a processor speed bump to the base and the prices were actually 700 for base, 850 for base + processor speed bump, 1000 for server, but it is close enough).
     
  7. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #7
    Well, yeah, that wasn't the first time Apple charged insanely high premium prices for 100 or 200 MHz more CPU clock. But the number of users buying the pricier model for sure has increased since they are using a dedicated graphic chip.

    This may just be hope, but after seeing how much power they cramp into their whole Mac lineup since 2011, I'm very confident. Remember 2010 and earlier? The Macs back then weren't even close to the performance of the competition at the same prices (my MBP from 2009 was slower than a much cheaper, one year old notebook from a friend back then ...).
     
  8. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #8
    I'm with you on the hope. I bought a 2011 Base Mac Mini, and kick myself for not going with the Mid-range model for the discrete card (only so I can run 3 monitors), when/if Apple introduces a new Mac Mini line up, I'm going with a Mid-model with discrete graphics IF they offer it. If they don't, I guess I will just stick to my dual monitors and my 2011 base Mac Mini....
     
  9. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #9
    Just out of curiosity: Which monitors do you use? I imagine 3 27" displays to be quite huge on a normal desktop?

    Yeah, I also definitely need a discrete graphics. Not really for gaming - Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 should run fine even with the HD4000, but Aperture is so much faster with a proper graphic card that I just can't go without one.
     
  10. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #10
    I used to have a 27" iMac but the desktop was too small/dpi too small that it bothered me when staring at it for long periods of time. I ended up selling it and going to 23" LG IPS 1080P displays. They aren't nearly as nice as the iMac's 27" display but they aren't as hard on my eyes at native resolution. Plus I like to have documents open on different displays when comparing them. 2 27" displays (or 3 for that matter) is just too much real estate for me. I'm probably in the minority on this one. Now if the 27" displays Suddenly got Retina displays, I could see myself running them at maybe an effective display of something between 1080P and 2560 x 1440 (maybe like 2240 x 1260 or something). That would be ideal for me. Then I might go back to the Apple displays.
     
  11. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #11
    I ran my 2009 27 inch iMac at 720p I had pretty good results reading the dock.
     

Share This Page