Quite true!millypede said:I was right!! I'm not usually wrong on these things, but just to put both our minds at rest, Im still right
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
carfac said:
What interests me right now is what configuration would be ideal for a living room Mac Mini connected to my TV. This is my considerations:
1) I have all my music, photos and movies on a different mac with external HDs so I would use the living room Mac just to play it all (Front Row streaming). This is exactly how I want it, since I use my "home office iMac" (Intel 20") to organize everything, make playlists, rip music, handle photos and movies and so on. It's great NOT to have it all stored on a living room mac really.
2) It would not be used as a computer at all (well maybe some surfing but that's it). It would be a media player with the possibility of surfing on the net, can't see what else I would do from my sofa.
3) It would be connected to my AV Receiver with optical audio out
4) It would be connected to my (old) TV but to an LCD/Plasma in the near future
I think that's about it. Hard drive space is not important to me at all, as I wouldn't store much on it anyway. Would I be happy with the lowest end Mac Mini for this kind of use?
Wender said:
All of this sounds like you're a prime candidate for the low-end mini. Since you don't want anything other than playback for this device, you have no particular need for the faster CPU. The SuperDrive and larger HDD are also superfluous to your uses. With the socketed processor, you can always upgrade later if you decide you want to do content creation or intensive DVR activities.
64-bit x86
Hattig hits the nail on the head, this is the biggest point about the EM64T / amd64 architecture. It is not the 64-bit that will make things a lot faster, it is all those general purpose registers. With a proper compiler, this gets us a speed boost, that would be hard to ignore even if your app doesn't go over 4gig.
Also, a lot of media apps would do well in the +4gig space.
Also, OS wise, the 64-bit arch has the NXE bit. We could see some additional security measures (see the OpenBSD project - although it looks like Intel did not do as good a job as AMD in this regard).
I wonder if we will see triple binaries (PowerPC / 32-bit x86 / 64-bit x86)?
Hattig said:
Hattig hits the nail on the head, this is the biggest point about the EM64T / amd64 architecture. It is not the 64-bit that will make things a lot faster, it is all those general purpose registers. With a proper compiler, this gets us a speed boost, that would be hard to ignore even if your app doesn't go over 4gig.
Also, a lot of media apps would do well in the +4gig space.
Also, OS wise, the 64-bit arch has the NXE bit. We could see some additional security measures (see the OpenBSD project - although it looks like Intel did not do as good a job as AMD in this regard).
I wonder if we will see triple binaries (PowerPC / 32-bit x86 / 64-bit x86)?
I would say so: DVD isn't high res--even G3s can play DVDs totally smoothly. And even the old G4 Mac Minis are often displayed hooked up to big TVs. My MicroCenter did that.PetRock said:
My G4 700 Mhz handles GB surprisingly well if you tweak the settings. My also-ancient 1.42 Ghz G4 does REALLY well. Core Solo is light years ahead of what I have. GB will run great!Brother Michael said:
Don't count on Merom--the pins may change making it incompatibe, like with Pentium M -> Core Duo. However, if Core becomes the low-end after Merom, and keeps getting faster versions, it may also get cheap. So a faster Core chip in a year seems possible at least. Just don't count on anything (cooling issues etc.) until someone else tries it firstjoebells said:
I think I read that merom is pin compatible but I'm not completely sure about that. I will have to look it up tomorrow
EDIT: as of october they were saying it would be pin compatible
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html
Someone would possibly need to make an efi update? not sure how efi works compared to bios as far as updates and such. I know apple wouldn't make it available for the current mini's unless they just keep the same exact mini setup and put in a merom at a later date then we could probably just copy the efi thing.
EDIT: as of october they were saying it would be pin compatible
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html
Someone would possibly need to make an efi update? not sure how efi works compared to bios as far as updates and such. I know apple wouldn't make it available for the current mini's unless they just keep the same exact mini setup and put in a merom at a later date then we could probably just copy the efi thing.
The only thing that I find disappointing about the new Mini is the new price point, but gotta understand that the new Intel chips (incuding the Solo) are much more expensive than the antiquated G4, so something had to give. All the extra gizmos that have been thrown in the new Mini (more USB ports, BT, etc) are there to make the price hike more bearable.
I bet that the margins on the new Mini are actually lower for Apple.
Similarly, I doubt that the future iBooks will remain at the same price point. All will get back to normal if/when the Core Solo prices go down, which, if I udnerstand correctly, are a matter of ramping up the production of the Duos and as a result getting more defective second cores...
I bet that the margins on the new Mini are actually lower for Apple.
Similarly, I doubt that the future iBooks will remain at the same price point. All will get back to normal if/when the Core Solo prices go down, which, if I udnerstand correctly, are a matter of ramping up the production of the Duos and as a result getting more defective second cores...
nagromme said:The eternal pattern is true again
1. New Apple product announced.
2. Much whining. Rants and obscenities hurled about how it doesn't cost 5 bucks and doesn't cure cancer (though this one could, see sig).
3. Mostly negative votes at MR.
4. Naps and bottles all around.
5. Follow-up articles. Discussion becomes more rational. Less is assumed, and more is investigated.
6. Now mostly POSITIVE votes at MR.
7. Sun somehow rises again after all. Life finds a way to struggle on.
8. Great reviews.
9. Massive sales.
10. Repeat.
Voice of Reason! Thank you.
balamw said:
Which makes Apple's decision to go with a socket in the mini perplexing. The mini is a tight box. If they soldered the CPU to the board, they might have squeezed enough space to put a GPU on there (not likely, but we really don't know what the limiting factor was in this case).
Don't get me wrong -- I like the socket. Hopefully, there is enough cooling in there to go up to a faster CPU in a year or so.
IMHO it's unlikely that the cost or space savings of removing the socket would have enabled a separate GPU at this time.SmileyDude said:
The other reason they probably have it socketed is the same reason as the white boxes. They don't want to inventory boards that will only work for the $599 or $799 models. They want some flexibility to adjust the mix depending on demand, and this will also allow them to adjust/update the CPUs they use in the boxes more frequently.
B
The third reason is that a dead mobo can be replaced without the expense of the CPU, and a dead CPU can be replaced without the expense of the mobo. (This is a "spares/repair inventory" issue, not quite the same as the manufacturing inventory point that you've made.)balamw said:
Most likely the socketed CPU was a key factor in Apple's decision to bump the MBP's CPU speeds up a notch.
FYI, early Xbench results show the new dual-core Mini beating the old (no surprise) and sometimes by a large margin:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=158732&doc2=146457
(How much does Xbench actually take advantage of the second core, though?)
Note the MUCH better graphics scores by the NEW Mini. Especially for OpenGL and User Interface.
That does NOT translate to game performance, which is more complex (I look forward to tests of that). And system RAM is still reduced by the new system. But people worrying that the new Mini is "good for nothing" may be surprised.
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=158732&doc2=146457
(How much does Xbench actually take advantage of the second core, though?)
Note the MUCH better graphics scores by the NEW Mini. Especially for OpenGL and User Interface.
That does NOT translate to game performance, which is more complex (I look forward to tests of that). And system RAM is still reduced by the new system. But people worrying that the new Mini is "good for nothing" may be surprised.
It's surprising that the Core Duo Mac Mini outperforms the G4-based Mini on graphics tests with only 512 MB of RAM, considering the fact that the new Mini uses integrated graphics with shared memory. I would have thought that the new Mini would need at least 1 GB of RAM for decent graphics results, due to the issue of shared memory, considering how poorly OS X performs with 512 MB of memory. Just imagine how well the Mini could perform with 2 GB of RAM!nagromme said:
I already added a disclaimer about Xbench not indicating game performance... I'll add another general disclaimer about Xbench: I've seldom found it very useful, merely interesting. Real-world tests are what we need, and they will come.
Which is not to say the new Mini is NOT faster for graphics (or at least in some situations) than the old, but Xbench alone is not the final word.
I'm still playing "wait and see."
(And if the Mini is not good for any but casual gaming, it's still a great machine for most low-end buyers.)
Which is not to say the new Mini is NOT faster for graphics (or at least in some situations) than the old, but Xbench alone is not the final word.
I'm still playing "wait and see."
(And if the Mini is not good for any but casual gaming, it's still a great machine for most low-end buyers.)
xbench
The growing list of Xbench results for the new mini is pretty interesting to me.
I decided to compare the new intel iMac with the new Mac mini (CD) results:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=154912&doc2=159092
There are a striking number of similarities in the results; User Interface and Quartz results are worse on the mini (of course), though the Quartz results aren't overwhelmingly lower. It's interesting that the Open GL results on the mini are so much higher than on the iMac... though "spinning squares" is probably not the fullest extent to which people use their Macs' 3D capabilities.
However, looking at the iMac vs. Mac mini (CS) results shows quite a few similarities, as well:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=154912&doc2=159011
Does anyone know how well-tuned Xbench really is for the Intel machines and/or for multiprocessor machines?
I'm especially curious to see some "real" benchmarking results now. The Core Duo mini's Xbench score is twice what I usually see from my own G4 1.42GHz mini, which is still perfectly usable for most of my purposes. (iMovie is near-agony, of course.)
The growing list of Xbench results for the new mini is pretty interesting to me.
I decided to compare the new intel iMac with the new Mac mini (CD) results:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=154912&doc2=159092
There are a striking number of similarities in the results; User Interface and Quartz results are worse on the mini (of course), though the Quartz results aren't overwhelmingly lower. It's interesting that the Open GL results on the mini are so much higher than on the iMac... though "spinning squares" is probably not the fullest extent to which people use their Macs' 3D capabilities.
However, looking at the iMac vs. Mac mini (CS) results shows quite a few similarities, as well:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=154912&doc2=159011
Does anyone know how well-tuned Xbench really is for the Intel machines and/or for multiprocessor machines?
I'm especially curious to see some "real" benchmarking results now. The Core Duo mini's Xbench score is twice what I usually see from my own G4 1.42GHz mini, which is still perfectly usable for most of my purposes. (iMovie is near-agony, of course.)
If the "Thread Test" is any indication, XBench does take the second processor into account.nagromme said:
Note that XBench results can vary wildly from machine to machine depending on the system settings. Also, different runs of XBench often generates different scores.theonly said:
lets put something to rest:
as a general rule in the past, intergrated graphics could be roughly translated to mean "the cheapest graphics processing hardware available"
in recent times, however, intel seems to have been developing good powerful intergrated graphics hardware, and with the increasing amounts of RAM, taking some from the processor isnt as much of an issue any more. the Intel GMA950 is a powerful graphics processor, despite being intergrated, and shouldnt be considered in the same league as the crap that comes with $250 dell machines.
as a general rule in the past, intergrated graphics could be roughly translated to mean "the cheapest graphics processing hardware available"
in recent times, however, intel seems to have been developing good powerful intergrated graphics hardware, and with the increasing amounts of RAM, taking some from the processor isnt as much of an issue any more. the Intel GMA950 is a powerful graphics processor, despite being intergrated, and shouldnt be considered in the same league as the crap that comes with $250 dell machines.
nagromme said:
I dont know what FUD means but if it's something like "speculation lacking research" then yeah, I got the impression that theyre talking FUD.
EDIT: and the non-professional benchmarks tend to back me up that the GMA950's are worth something more than the dell "oh what we need a GPU in a computer? find the cheapest one!" crap
nagromme said:
Dell's lowest-level model is the B110, featuring "Intel Extreme Graphics 2," at $349. (Before a $50 mail-in rebate.) It has: Celeron D 2.5GHz, 256MB RAM, 80GB HD, CD-ROM drive, 17" CRT, basic keyboard & mouse, 10/100 Ethernet, 56K modem, and a 90-day warranty.
The "Extreme Graphics 2" (as referred to as "i845G" in various reviews) seems to be either 2 or 3 generations prior to the GMA950.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1409368,00.asp
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2143&p=11
I'd call the "lower than the worst" accusations FUD. I'm not particularly thrilled about the integrated GPU. However, I do think it's reasonable to wait and see how it performs.
FUD is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. A tactic often used by naysayers to sway opinion to they way they think things should be. So, yeah your definition works OK.chaos86 said:
Since the GMA950 is apparently built into the Northbridge of Intel's current chipset for Core Solo/Duo machines, it's about to become Dell's choice for being the cheapest option.
B