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
Interesting. I'm amazed that Apple's lawyers never stopped that copycat. EDIT: or did they? Can you still get the Mac Mini clone design or not?theonly said:
(And they have iBook-alikes too, I see, as well as a Cube. Good luck trying to find the MiniPC on their weird site: http://xc.aopen.com.tw )
Hands on part II
OK--just got back from Microcenter where they let me try UT2004 (3369-2) on a stock Core Duo machine (512 RAM). I used near-minimum quality settings.
Verdict for UT2004: it runs, but I'd recommend it for casual use only, and not vehicle matches. (Meaning that Apple's claim of "the latest 3D games" is not defensible--no surprise.)
If you're a UT fan and interested in some casual fun at low detail, UT2004 is a great game and worth owning for the Mini. But performance is in the same ballpark as my older eMac that is at the bottom of the sys reqs. Which to me means it's still fun, but serious gamers won't accept the performance/detail.
How much would more RAM help? I can't say. How much would Core Solo hurt? Ditto. Additional reports are welcomed
Specific results (rough estimates using "stat fps")
Resolution: 640x480, 32-bit.
Video detail options: all turned off or set to minimum.
Low Sound Detail and music turned down.
Fog at 33%, Gore at full, all other settings at default.
Each bot different (I didn't test making them all the same).
6-player botmatch in DM-1-on-1-Desolation: framerates in 30s (sometimes higher), dipping to 20s and even teens in the heat of battle.
8-player Onslaught botmatch in ONS-Torlan (vehicles): framerates in mid teens dipping to around 10.
Your mileage may vary, but there you have it. Now, the Intel Mini was GOOD in certain surprising ways:
* With only 512 RAM, and graphics cutting into that, AND running off of a slow iPod HD, it still started matches MUCH more quickly than my PowerBook G4 1.24 (64 VRAM) can manage with 512. My PB is fine with 1 GB, but with 512 there's a very long pause the moment the match starts--loading bots I assume. The Mini did not have this pause.
* Cranking up the detail to medium settings at 1024x768 (in Onslaught) caused surprisingly little slowdown. Just a couple frames per second lost. If I tried that on my 32 VRAM eMac I'd have a slideshow. (This parallels what MW found with Nanosaur: higher detail levels not having much penalty.)
* Adding bots (which have CPU-heavy AI) had surprisingly little effect. I want from 6 player DM to 12, and lost maybe 5 or so fps--which could have been due simply to more action on-screen. My G4 Macs would take a real hit from doubling the bots like that, but the Core Duo took it well. (Correct me if I'm wrong--I don't think UT2004 uses the second core to offer any benefit to additional bots, but I do think the game makes SOME use of the second core.)
This is the same machine I ran other Open GL tests on (Front Row, Keynote effects with big images, OpenGL screensavers) and found quick, flawless performance.
Clearly, there's no simple way to categorize the new Mini's graphics system. For gaming it's strictly for casual use, and gamers will want to look beyond the Mini. But outside of games--and even for games in some limited aspects--it's a great performer.
I won't hesitate to recommend this machine--just not to 3D gamers.
OK--just got back from Microcenter where they let me try UT2004 (3369-2) on a stock Core Duo machine (512 RAM). I used near-minimum quality settings.
Verdict for UT2004: it runs, but I'd recommend it for casual use only, and not vehicle matches. (Meaning that Apple's claim of "the latest 3D games" is not defensible--no surprise.)
If you're a UT fan and interested in some casual fun at low detail, UT2004 is a great game and worth owning for the Mini. But performance is in the same ballpark as my older eMac that is at the bottom of the sys reqs. Which to me means it's still fun, but serious gamers won't accept the performance/detail.
How much would more RAM help? I can't say. How much would Core Solo hurt? Ditto. Additional reports are welcomed
Specific results (rough estimates using "stat fps")
Resolution: 640x480, 32-bit.
Video detail options: all turned off or set to minimum.
Low Sound Detail and music turned down.
Fog at 33%, Gore at full, all other settings at default.
Each bot different (I didn't test making them all the same).
6-player botmatch in DM-1-on-1-Desolation: framerates in 30s (sometimes higher), dipping to 20s and even teens in the heat of battle.
8-player Onslaught botmatch in ONS-Torlan (vehicles): framerates in mid teens dipping to around 10.
Your mileage may vary, but there you have it. Now, the Intel Mini was GOOD in certain surprising ways:
* With only 512 RAM, and graphics cutting into that, AND running off of a slow iPod HD, it still started matches MUCH more quickly than my PowerBook G4 1.24 (64 VRAM) can manage with 512. My PB is fine with 1 GB, but with 512 there's a very long pause the moment the match starts--loading bots I assume. The Mini did not have this pause.
* Cranking up the detail to medium settings at 1024x768 (in Onslaught) caused surprisingly little slowdown. Just a couple frames per second lost. If I tried that on my 32 VRAM eMac I'd have a slideshow. (This parallels what MW found with Nanosaur: higher detail levels not having much penalty.)
* Adding bots (which have CPU-heavy AI) had surprisingly little effect. I want from 6 player DM to 12, and lost maybe 5 or so fps--which could have been due simply to more action on-screen. My G4 Macs would take a real hit from doubling the bots like that, but the Core Duo took it well. (Correct me if I'm wrong--I don't think UT2004 uses the second core to offer any benefit to additional bots, but I do think the game makes SOME use of the second core.)
This is the same machine I ran other Open GL tests on (Front Row, Keynote effects with big images, OpenGL screensavers) and found quick, flawless performance.
Clearly, there's no simple way to categorize the new Mini's graphics system. For gaming it's strictly for casual use, and gamers will want to look beyond the Mini. But outside of games--and even for games in some limited aspects--it's a great performer.
I won't hesitate to recommend this machine--just not to 3D gamers.
nagromme said:
Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know (I note the MacWorld benchmarks also now include the Duo and report much the same thing, with the Core Duo about 18% poorer than the machine it (officially, not the 1.5GHz) replaced.
*sigh*
What I hope is that Apple will see fit to produce a third model of the Mac mini, with better graphics. As long as one's in the line-up, I'm happy. (For those recommending the iMac or PowerMac, sorry people, but those aren't Mac minis, the PowerMac being close but a little big and, most importantly, $1,200 (150%) more expensive for the cheapest model. And no, I don't want an *$%@ing X-Box 360! I don't even know if UT exists for that platform but if it does, how, exactly, do I install UMods be they maps or Jailbreak on it? Bad enough the map editor doesn't exist for Mac OS...)
Yep--a console doesn't cut it for many kinds of games.
I like my mods (JB especially), and I like the ability to edit my ini files, and I like my free online multiplayer, and I like my downloadable demos, and I like my sharp, high-DPI computer screen for gaming. Most importantly I like to aim naturally, by pointing in the direction I want to shot! I tried Halo with a gamepad. I'm sure you could adapt, but it will never be as natural as point and click.
UT does exist for consoles, under the name Unreal Championship, but it focusses on melee combat (swords etc.) instead of vehicles. (You may think I'm kidding but I'm not!)
I do think Apple could successfully sell a mid-range headless, below the PowerMac.
I like my mods (JB especially), and I like the ability to edit my ini files, and I like my free online multiplayer, and I like my downloadable demos, and I like my sharp, high-DPI computer screen for gaming. Most importantly I like to aim naturally, by pointing in the direction I want to shot! I tried Halo with a gamepad. I'm sure you could adapt, but it will never be as natural as point and click.
UT does exist for consoles, under the name Unreal Championship, but it focusses on melee combat (swords etc.) instead of vehicles. (You may think I'm kidding but I'm not!)
I do think Apple could successfully sell a mid-range headless, below the PowerMac.