Intel Mac mini Disassembly and Details

[nagromme]

I only have the standard 512MB RAM, and I would bet that the drop to 0 fps was more about memory than GPU. The WOW stats are at 1280x720, but I did play briefly on 1024x768 on my normal monitor for comparison. My subjective take is "I'll stay on my PowerBook G4, thanks".

A lot of people game at 640x480 (especially with consoles of course, but also for performance on low-end hardware). How low can WoW go in screen size? Whatever the true minimum settings are, those should be used to judge whether a given game is playable on a given low-end computer.

There are so many Apple Fan-bois here it makes me ill to be a Mac person myself. You people do realize that Apple, like any company, screws up?

Instead of making the case slightly bigger to accommodate a larger, faster, cheaper HDD and a decent video card for the same price they decided to go with a case that adds no benefit to anybody at all? To fit the larger components would have only taken AT MOST an inch in each direction.

Your name-calling is quite rational and persuasive

At the risk of sounding crazy and making you ill I'll suggest that different people have different needs/wants. The ideal Mac Mini for YOU (and no, you're not alone in your desires) isn't the same as the ideal for some other people.

Some people would rather keep the Mini small. I'm sorry Apple has no model that meets YOUR desires, but the Mini meets many people's needs extremely well.

And a 1" bigger Mini in all dimensions would surely have generated just as much howling and whining (and even lost sales) as integrated graphics. Probably more, since real-world use might show the new Mac Mini to be a perfectly good performer... but no tests will make a bulkier machine tiny again.

Tiny is the POINT of the Mac Mini. It's not what YOU want from a computer, but some people do.

 

[JustADecoy]

A lot of people game at 640x480 (especially with consoles of course, but also for performance on low-end hardware). How low can WoW go in screen size? Whatever the true minimum settings are, those should be used to judge whether a given game is playable on a given low-end computer.

True enough. Just because I wouldn't accept it doesn't mean others won't.

I'll give it another whirl this evening at 640x480, and I'll even join a battleground. Then I'll report back. (There, that was hard. Twist my arm, why doncha?)

 

[deadturtle]

Originally Posted by jared_kipe
Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something???

Of course, dont you know that more RAM = Better!! Seriously though I have 2gb in my Dual 1.8, and its been more than enough for just about everything except Aperture, which is fine. Most folks just need the amount required by the OS + the ammount required by the heaviest application on their system. On most Mac's this varies between 512mb to 1gb (esp in the mini where the target is the internet, iPhoto, iMovie crowd, and not the I want the Dual SLI video crowd) 6gb DOES come in handy when you are crunching full frame video, making pixar films, plotting world domination etc. but who is to complain! My 1.25 rev A mini is running 10.3 server just ducky with 512mb, course its not running more than LAMP (well in this case DAMP) with some DNS/DHCP, but seeing as that is all I need it to it has no complaints.

 

[Hattig]

I don't care about Doom. I wanted the mini for X-Plane, which doesn't require too much CPU.

Ah. Well the same point still applies (good graphics requires a significantly good GPU), and the GMA's main negative is made up for with all that spare CPU you'd have.

 

[cube]

Ah. Well the same point still applies (good graphics requires a significantly good GPU), and the GMA's main negative is made up for with all that spare CPU you'd have.

I'm not sure it will be enough for a couple of years (or even just now). And I don't buy CPUs for interactive rendering.

 

[jared_kipe]

Actually, yeah. I have 4.5 in my quad right now, and the only thing stopping me from going higher is the fact that most single apps can't access more than 4.

The socketed thing is WAY cool, in my opinion it adds a bunch to the value of the machine. Wonder when we'll see the first report of someone buying a solo for $599 and swapping in a duo 2.16 or 2.33?

Umm yeah, I said you meaning the guy who was considering the Mini, WTF would you want a mini for? And if you answer something like kids computer or HTPC or something then you DON'T need more than 4GB of ram.

 

[jared_kipe]

Of course, dont you know that more RAM = Better!! Seriously though I have 2gb in my Dual 1.8, and its been more than enough for just about everything except Aperture, which is fine. Most folks just need the amount required by the OS + the ammount required by the heaviest application on their system. On most Mac's this varies between 512mb to 1gb (esp in the mini where the target is the internet, iPhoto, iMovie crowd, and not the I want the Dual SLI video crowd) 6gb DOES come in handy when you are crunching full frame video, making pixar films, plotting world domination etc. but who is to complain! My 1.25 rev A mini is running 10.3 server just ducky with 512mb, course its not running more than LAMP (well in this case DAMP) with some DNS/DHCP, but seeing as that is all I need it to it has no complaints.

Again I was talking about the guy who was actually interested in the mini, I see no reason for average joe who can't afford a PMG5 to need more than 4GB of ram.

 

[thies]

I expect WoW is not yet optimized for the 950 chipset. I'm also wondering (away from WoW, where I can't confirm) if the 'full screen glow' option is forced on and may be slowing performance slightly. I expect it will get slightly better over time, but I still won't jump in a Battleground on the Mini.

From what I remember the devkits used the same chipset so I fear this might already pretty much be the optimum. Only curious at this point how much of the bad performance is due to lack of ram. It's bad at 512mb where even good cards crap out totally in griffon flight and busy cities as they need to load so many armor sets and whatnot that the swapping gets really bad and the data just isn't there to render new frames. And with the shared memory for the gpu you have even less. Waiting for how things look on BTOed ones with 1 or 2gb.

A lot of people game at 640x480 (especially with consoles of course, but also for performance on low-end hardware). How low can WoW go in screen size? Whatever the true minimum settings are, those should be used to judge whether a given game is playable on a given low-end computer.

I'd consider any resolution below 1024x768, respectively the corresponding widescreen resolution, to be an insult. Entry or not, for undemanding games as far as GPUs go like WoW it to me is a minimum requirement that such games run ok on entry level machines in that resolution. Otherwise you could argue that 1080i movies are ok at being downscaled to 800x600 on entry level machines

 

[ScottB]

Wow! That is on tightly compacted computer. I guess it has to earn it's name somehow.

 

[milo]

Umm yeah, I said you meaning the guy who was considering the Mini, WTF would you want a mini for? And if you answer something like kids computer or HTPC or something then you DON'T need more than 4GB of ram.

Don't worry, I won't. I AM considering a mini, and I'll be maxing out the ram. I want it to run Logic, should run really well on that box. And it absolutely can max out the 4 gig limit.

If the mini could hold 4 gigs, I'd likely put that in. The ram limit is my only real complaint about the box.

 

[milo]

I'd consider any resolution below 1024x768, respectively the corresponding widescreen resolution, to be an insult. Entry or not, for undemanding games as far as GPUs go like WoW it to me is a minimum requirement that such games run ok on entry level machines in that resolution.

What's the equivalent computer resolution of NTSC? It's pretty low, isn't it?

If you're going to hook the mini to a standard TV (good match for an entry level box), you'll probably be fine running that lower resolution, right? Is there any quality gain from going past that?

 

[deadturtle]

Again I was talking about the guy who was actually interested in the mini, I see no reason for average joe who can't afford a PMG5 to need more than 4GB of ram.

Right you dont need more than 4gb... however it my lexicon its not often need as want (course i could only max my mini @ 2gb atm, and I dont have enough for a pair for the 5... but still the thought is there). I mean come on have you every looked at the ASP and felt all sad inside when it only says 256mb. Its just begging to be upgraded!

 

[thies]

What's the equivalent computer resolution of NTSC? It's pretty low, isn't it?

If you're going to hook the mini to a standard TV (good match for an entry level box), you'll probably be fine running that lower resolution, right? Is there any quality gain from going past that?

I'm quite sure the Bravia they demoed the mini on was not at running ntsc equivalent resolution. the intention is to go for high def content.

 

[milo]

I'm quite sure the Bravia they demoed the mini on was not at running ntsc equivalent resolution. the intention is to go for high def content.

Not sure who you're refering to with the Bravia. There will be some people who will hook this up to their HDTV's, but there will be many more people (like me) who will hook this up to a plain old NTSC television. The intention of the user will vary, and we have no way of knowing Apple's intention for its use.

 

[joeboy_45101]

Ugh! I was just checking the Apple Store and for some reason they have raised the price of the Mac mini. Yesterday, I configured a Mac mini with 1GB RAM and a 120GB HD, with the Edu. discount it came to $959.00. Today, I go back to the Apple store and I see that the Mini I configured is flagged as unavailable. I configure a new one with the same specs as the earlier one and now the price goes up to $982.00.

What gives?

 

[thies]

Not sure who you're refering to with the Bravia. There will be some people who will hook this up to their HDTV's, but there will be many more people (like me) who will hook this up to a plain old NTSC television. The intention of the user will vary, and we have no way of knowing Apple's intention for its use.

As I said, they did demo the new mini on a high def bravia flatscreen, the intention is thus quite obvious.

 

[joeboy_45101]

I just configured a third one and it came to $914.00. Huh?

 

[carfac]

>>> An inch in each dimension would have doubled the volume. (7.5"x7.5"X3" as opposed to 6.5"x6.5"x2" = twice the volume, to three digits of precision).

Who needs an inch on all sides- wouldn't just an inch in hight alone accomidated a larger hard drive, plenty of room for a real graphics card, and left room over? Plus, by not changing the footprint, no third-party devices would be effected.

Honestly, I had hoped for much more... I do want a living room computer... and this does not cut it at all (not meant to, I know). But a larger HD and a real graphics card would have been a long way toward a good MC.

I have had experience with PC's with shared memory. Enough to know that I will not buy anything with shared... YMMV.

dave

 

[legacyb4]

Agreed; the GPU issue aside, it's got almost every feature you could ask for in a small form factor and with the higher-end model, plenty of horsepower for the short term!

I wish you could still get a sub-$500 Mac and I'm sure that day will come again. But consider all that Apple has added (without increasing the size) for your $100.

 

[nagromme]

True enough. Just because I wouldn't accept it doesn't mean others won't.

I'll give it another whirl this evening at 640x480, and I'll even join a battleground. Then I'll report back. (There, that was hard. Twist my arm, why doncha?)

Thanks!

I think about when I hame on my 700Mhz G4 eMac: it stutters some and the details must be set low, but at the end of the day I'm still gaming and having fun. Just not as much as on my PowerBook

So when people say "the Mac Mini cannot play games" and Apple says "the Mac Mini CAN play games," the fact is that people have different standards.

And on an entry-level machine, your standards for gaming may have to be low. (Which doesn't mean you can't play games--to say nothing of the many games that don't even USE 3D.)

 

[legacyb4]

I'm also cringing at seeing the comparison specs against the "low end" G5s... :-(

I wonder how a Core Duo mini would compare to a stock G5 Dual 1.8 Powermac from 2004 (with a FX5200 as standard) on native apps. Now *that* would be interesting to see. I'm not really thinking about games as much as I am general system performance.

 

[milo]

As I said, they did demo the new mini on a high def bravia flatscreen, the intention is thus quite obvious.

You didn't answer my question, who is they? Apple?

 

[balamw]

What's the equivalent computer resolution of NTSC? It's pretty low, isn't it?

Standard NTSC is usually referred to as 480i, so it has 480 visible lines that are interlaced. Some argue that since only 240 lines are ine each frame, it should be called 240i. VHS resolution is also only about 240 lines, while S-VHS gets closer to the full NTSC resolution. The horizontal resolution is analog, but it usually equivalent to around 320-720 pixels.

Most DVDs however, and other digital MPEG compressed NTSC including SVCD are really 480p (480 to 720x480) that is downgraded to 480i for display.

BTW screen resolution is actually one of the main reasons I am now leaning towards an iMac instead of a mini for the living room, since I'd like to leave it permanently hooked up to the TV to act as a media box, and I don't intend to replace my 32" Sony CRT until either it dies or 40"+ LCD HDTVs become affordable (<$2K). For some reason I don't want a plasma or projection unit despite the fact that LCD performance may be lower. But, the resolution of the TV isn't high enough for me to actually use the computer for anything else, like my kids playing games online at pbskids.org or nickjr.com. Disconnecting & reconnecting is not an option.

Thre recent performance reviews of the Core Duo Mini, do make me wonder if one might do well in replacing the 2.8 GHz Dell box in the office as our "always on" centralized desktop though...

B

 

[strydr]

Yes. Most, if not all, PC laptops have the chips soldered onto the motherboard. There has only been one Apple laptop I'm aware of with a socketed chip and that was one of their old G3 models.

Actually, I built laptops (among other things) for a local PC reseller for almost 4 years- all our units had a socketed chip, that had a range of upgrade-ability. I doubt and customers ever thought to change it, but it is very possible.

 

[balamw]

Actually, I built laptops (among other things) for a local PC reseller for almost 4 years- all our units had a socketed chip, that had a range of upgrade-ability. I doubt and customers ever thought to change it, but it is very possible.

Sockets are more available in white boxes like the one you built, but much less so in "brand name" laptops like Sony Vaio and higher end Dells where form factor is a big concern. (I'm including good brands like Asus in the white boxes).

The reason is obvious. a socket will add to the thickness of the motherboard, and thus, likely to the overall thickness of the laptop. So they tend to sacrifice field reconfigurability for size.

B