Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Mac mini Disassembly and Details
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And on top of all that, a white box notebook is meant to be assembled in pieces like a white box PC...so having the socket is a feature that allows a great deal more flexibility in your configuration options. You can buy motherboard X and CPU Y might be $100...then later you can drop in CPU Z that's 2.5 times faster, all while not ruining your computer with reckless soldering. I'd bet that whitebox notebooks would be much less popular if you had to buy the mobo/CPU as a single unit.balamw said:
I opened my intel mini last night, to find out that it doesnt take the old ram. DANG IT! I bought a 1gb chip just for that. I cant even see where I can upgrade it with the new ram, can someone show me?
carfac said:
I don't like the integrated graphics either, but I'm not sure if +1 inch of hight would do the trick. For one, you can't stick the graphics chip in an arbitrary place in the box, even if it is on a separate circuit board. Then you'd have heat dissipation issues - I guess Apple had a lot of troubles cooling even laptop grade components in such crammed space(this point is even more valid for a 3.5" HDD).
Anyway, the Mac mini is very suitable for a media center even in it's current form. And by "even" i mean - optical digital in/out, DVI, Gigabit Ethernet, internal DVD drive (or recorder), bluetooth, IR remote.(Honestly, what else would you need?) With enough RAM (say 1GB) I believe it would run great. Integrated graphics or not, the CPU alone (even the Core Solo) should have enough juice to render 1080p. And for storage, well, you can hook up a ridiculous amount of storage to the mini through Firewire (or USB). All that in a tiny, stylish and quiet package.
There seems to be a lot of "Oh, the computer is so tightly constructed that there simply was no room for a dedicated graphics controller" going around here. I guess people are trying to find a reason why Apple would choose to go with an intergrated graphics solution as opposed to the dedicated graphics that have been used up until now. I am sure that you realize that the GMA950 takes up as much room on the logic board as the 9200, x600 or x1600. It was simply a cost saving measure. I don't think the GMA950 is so bad but losing 80+MB to your graphics controller is a big pain in the butt especially when you only have 512MB to start and you are using Rosetta.
Also, I have never had a PC laptop (I have had 4; 2 Gateways, a Dell and an HP) that didn't have a socketed CPU including my new ultra-thin Gateway with the Pentium M.
Also, I have never had a PC laptop (I have had 4; 2 Gateways, a Dell and an HP) that didn't have a socketed CPU including my new ultra-thin Gateway with the Pentium M.
Read the other thread. You'll find the GMA950 is part of the Northbridge, and is thus there for "free".topgunn said:
B
topgunn said:
Actually, the space required is substantial. The current chipset is integrated with a lot of the logic functions (specifically the northbridge), so a lot of it is on-chip on non-optional components. A totally discrete graphics chip would be larger and would also require its own traces on the board. Beyond that, the dedicated memory would also take up a great deal of space. Add to that the expansion of the cooling apparatus, which takes up a chunk of volume in addition to the added surface area of the chips, and you now have a serious space problem.
I very much doubt that all of those notebooks have a socketed CPU in the sense the word is intended wrt to laptop computers. Are you saying that you can open up those machines right now and press tabs and pop out the CPU? I have never known an HP notebook (except DTR models) to use a socketed CPU...ever. Obviously, if your notebooks all use desktop CPUs, there's a higher probability that a socket is used.
Apple engineer:
Hey Steve. That GMA950 in the Intel North Bridge performs better then the Ati card in the old PPC mini. Not only that, if we use the GMA950 we won't have to try and squeeze in a decicated chip.
Steve: So we get better performing Video for Free and it will save on R&D and manufacturing costs. Let's Do it.
Hey Steve. That GMA950 in the Intel North Bridge performs better then the Ati card in the old PPC mini. Not only that, if we use the GMA950 we won't have to try and squeeze in a decicated chip.
Steve: So we get better performing Video for Free and it will save on R&D and manufacturing costs. Let's Do it.
mdavey said:
If you check out the the second set of pictures linked to from the macrumors.com front page, you will see that Intel Minis do have a socketed CPU. (In fact the CPU is missing from some of the photos because it has been removed from its socket, along with the heat sink).
anonicon said:
Honestly, this issue has been debated to death: the iMac is an all in one and some (me) who have witness an apple LCD flicker and then die,
don't wanna have an integrated solution: I would have rather liked a sligthly larger mini sporting 3,5" drive and a decent video cardYeh, Applecare, sure, they lost the display and it took them seven weeks to get me a new one...
The real reason Apple didn't include a real GPU...
Is competition with the iMac. As much as I love my G4 widescreen iMac, I'll never buy another computer with a captive monitor again. When the mini came out, I wanted to buy one but didn't because there just wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant the purchase. And yes, I wanted better graphics.
No one is buying a mini for a hardcore gaming computer. Heck, hardcore gamers don't use Macs, period. But I wanted a PASSABLE one, something that I could play WOW on reasonably well. This ain't it. It's not a bad computer, it's just a bad value.
Is competition with the iMac. As much as I love my G4 widescreen iMac, I'll never buy another computer with a captive monitor again. When the mini came out, I wanted to buy one but didn't because there just wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant the purchase. And yes, I wanted better graphics.
No one is buying a mini for a hardcore gaming computer. Heck, hardcore gamers don't use Macs, period. But I wanted a PASSABLE one, something that I could play WOW on reasonably well. This ain't it. It's not a bad computer, it's just a bad value.
Upgraded mini on the way
Well I got the single core upgraded to the SuperDrive and its on its way already. So I'll be glad to add another mac to the family and await the time for me to install a Yonah chip in there.
The earlier user reports here don't seem to live up to the integrated graphics hype either. Okay, we got a new mini computer with duo core chip capability so what are the whiners going to cry about now?
Well I got the single core upgraded to the SuperDrive and its on its way already. So I'll be glad to add another mac to the family and await the time for me to install a Yonah chip in there.
The earlier user reports here don't seem to live up to the integrated graphics hype either. Okay, we got a new mini computer with duo core chip capability so what are the whiners going to cry about now?
The sad thing is that most Windows Home Theater/Media Center PC's come with integrated graphics. They're going to be plugged into a TV 24/7 and used to watch movies. Several people on my dorm floor have HP Media Centers and they either have the GMA 900 or 915 in them. I haven't heard any complaints from them from their monsters.carfac said:
bighairydoofus said:Is competition with the iMac. As much as I love my G4 widescreen iMac, I'll never buy another computer with a captive monitor again. When the mini came out, I wanted to buy one but didn't because there just wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant the purchase. And yes, I wanted better graphics.
No one is buying a mini for a hardcore gaming computer. Heck, hardcore gamers don't use Macs, period. But I wanted a PASSABLE one, something that I could play WOW on reasonably well. This ain't it. It's not a bad computer, it's just a bad value.
Same. a mac with integrated monitor is just as useless for me to put next to my flatscreen tv in the livingroom as is a big tower. and while I mostly play movies and music from whatever I'll hook up I do want to play WoW every now and then.
Hoping that the earlier report of it running rather ****** is mostly due to the less than 512mb ram and that a mini with 1gb can run it decently... standard settings and consistent 25fps would be enough really.
thies said:
The more I think about it, the more I think that even teh Core Solo version should run WoW better than the Mini it replaces, integrated graphics and all. The G4 was so starved for bandwidth (because of the SDR 167MHz bus) that it couldn't be kept busy enough to feed the 9200. Here there's nothing starving the CPU for bandwidth, but lamer graphics.
I've played WoW on a Dell with the GMA 900 (slower version of the 950) with only 8MB dedicated to the graphics chip, and on standard-to-low settings, I could play it at 1024x768 with a steady 30fps. That's all I am really asking for from this game.
I keep going back and forth, and I won't spend any money until I decide. Sure, an X300, X600, or X1300 would be a no-brainer and I'd buy the Mini, but this might be better than it seems, especially considering that most people belive it will be unplayable altogether.
See that to me is a big plus.nagromme said:
How well does Garageband run on this little guy? How many instruments can I use?
Seriously, what is the verdict on this point? How does it look when plugged into HDTV's, or regular TV's for that matter?PetRock said:
Brother Michael said:
Amen. The intel Mini Duo looks like a great gigging companion. Throw in a 7" or 8" portable LCD screen, and I can sit my Presonus Firebox on top of it. I only need a mouse when I gig, and the extra USB ports on the new Mini will allow me to use all my USB MIDI controllers without any additional power.
The only game I care about would be WarCraft III -- I currently play it just fine on my Rev A 1.42 mini w/1GB RAM (1024x768). When I upgrade to an Intel mini, it's going to be the core duo model w/2GB RAM. Considering my experience with the 20" Intel iMac @ work, I would think that WC3 would run just fine on that machine. Anyone want to give WC3 a try on one of the new minis?
Personally, I think this is going to be a great little box -- especially with the socketed CPU. Gives this machine an expanded life that the old one didn't have. While I love my G4 mini, the new Intel mini is a big improvement.
Personally, I think this is going to be a great little box -- especially with the socketed CPU. Gives this machine an expanded life that the old one didn't have. While I love my G4 mini, the new Intel mini is a big improvement.
I was pretty upset by the lack of better graphics and that the dual was 800 bucks but knowing that I can upgrade the processor later has me seriously thinking about the solo and then maybe a merom when they've been out for a bit and the price of one is down to 100 or so.