Intel Mac Mini.. is it better than my G4 System?

[Archmagination]

I am looking to upgrade from my old Sawtooth.. I have upgraded it to:
1ghz G4
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb
Superdrive
80gb HD(Its been awile but I seem to remember its got a larger cache size to increase permormance)

I am looking to get a new mac(I have never actually had a new mac before).. unfortunatly only the Mac Mini is within my price range Question is would it be worth it to get the Mini? Would it outperform the G4?

 

[jsw]

For CPU-only processes on Universal apps, it would blow away your G4. Also, video playback would be dramatically superior for H.264 video (and similar).

Everything else would be similar to what you're used to, and the 9800 would give your G4 the edge in graphically-challenging apps.

 

[AHDuke99]

graphically porbably not .. the GPU in the mac mini is that crappy GMA 950. however, it will be mcuh much faster with its core duo over that old G4.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

The 9800 pro video card still blows away Mini's crapbutt integrated graphics. Cpu blows away your G4. Dont you wish Mini had a real GPU? Your stuck between a rock and a hardplace. Perhaps another CPU upgrade?

 

[dpaanlka]

Actually, both 2D and Video acceleration performance of the GMA 950 is far superior to the Radeon 9800. Only 3D gaming is inferior - but of course you do have the incredibly faster new dual-core Intel chips. It's still good enough for Marble Blast and simple games like that, though.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Actually, both 2D and Video acceleration performance of the GMA 950 is far superior to the Radeon 9800. Only 3D gaming is inferior - but of course you do have the incredibly faster new dual-core Intel chips. It's still good enough for Marble Blast and simple games like that, though.

Far superior? thats a laugh.

 

[roland.g]

I just upgraded my sawtooth 450 to a Mac Mini.

The Sawtooth 450, 768MB RAM, 120GB WD SE 8MB Cache HDD, original AGP graphics.

The Mini 1.66 Core Duo Super-Drive (early 2006 high end), upgraded RAM to 2GB and added newertech v2 miniStack (case only) and threw a Seagate 500GB 7200.10 16MB Cache HDD in there.

It flat out smokes my old sawtooth and my wife's 12" PB 867 640MB RAM 60GB HDD. Video playback is awesome. DVD ripping is fast in both Handbrake and MTR. Burning backups with DVD2One is very fast.

All that and I only got it to tide me over till I get a Leopard loaded 24" iMac.

BTW, I got the Mac Mini as an Apple refurb for $649, added the 2GB RAM for $250 from OWC, added a Wireless KB & MM $128 and a Canon Printer (for which the refurb DID qualify for the perfect companion rebate $100), the ministack case was $75 and I got the Seagate drive from Newegg.com on their Black Friday sale for $149 (normally $229).

 

[Archmagination]

So in effect it would be a tie or worse on programs(namely games) that are 3D? Everything else it would be faster in.. its tough choice. Even though I don't use 3D games a lot on my computer I still play WoW and I occasionally play Halo, KOTOR, etc.

Its been about a year since the Intel Mac Mini has been released hasn't it? Do you think they will be updated at MacWorld?

 

[dpaanlka]

Far superior? thats a laugh.

Well, Video acceleration certainly is. How could you deny that? Do you even know what video acceleration is?

 

[JAT]

He's probably never even seen a Mini, let alone its graphics capability. The people on this forum that mock the integrated graphics and want 10 year old tech are absolutely hilarious.

 

[AppleIntelRock]

With the exception of graphic processing capabilities, the mac mini will be a substantially better system.

 

[brandon6684]

As long as you're not into gaming(not that there's much of that on a Mac) the Mac mini will be a nice upgrade. For 3D performance, the GMA 950 does as well as or out performs r200(Radeon 9200) and below, but beyond that, it doesn't do so well, but for not 3D performance(mostly games and 3D rendering). Contrary to popular whining around here, integrated graphics aren't going to affect your Photoshop performance.

 

[Archmagination]

Great.. my Samsung Syncmaster 740B LCD monitor just went out.. I am now using my backup.. an old and huge Compaq S910 until I recieve my replacement monitor from Samsung.

 

[Irish Dave]

( Question is would it be worth it to get the Mini? Would it outperform the G4?

Almost certainly yes (for most tasks)

Dave

 

[livingfortoday]

Well, here's the results of a Core Solo Mini vs. a similar clock speed G4:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/262719/

So you'll definitely be much better off with memory and CPU, though I don't know about graphics.

 

[Jht]

So in effect it would be a tie or worse on programs(namely games) that are 3D? Everything else it would be faster in.. its tough choice. Even though I don't use 3D games a lot on my computer I still play WoW and I occasionally play Halo, KOTOR, etc.

Its been about a year since the Intel Mac Mini has been released hasn't it? Do you think they will be updated at MacWorld?

Well I got a duo mini for xmas with 512 ram, and it plays wow fine for me, fps of about 15-20 most of time, gets higher in places, really pleased.

 

[SkyBell]

The 950 isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It actually has fairly good quality. Think mid-end PC graphics.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

The 950 isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It actually has fairly good quality. Think mid-end PC graphics.

The 950 is a $4 graphic chip for petes sake and no it doesnt come close to mid grade stuff like the 7600 or X1600 class of gpu's. Those are true Mid Grade Graphics.

For JAT, I have had 2 Mini's and have 1 at the moment.

The 950 holds the bottom for graphics,rock bottom so lets not let the fan club spin 950 graphics into something its not. Its great for mail,looking through photo's,and the net but start doing real 3d and it blows.

 

[QCassidy352]

The 950 is a $4 graphic chip for petes sake and no it doesnt come close to mid grade stuff like the 7600 or X1600 class of gpu's. Those are true Mid Grade Graphics.

For JAT, I have had 2 Mini's and have 1 at the moment.

The 950 holds the bottom for graphics,rock bottom so lets not let the fan club spin 950 graphics into something its not. Its great for mail,looking through photo's,and the net but start doing real 3d and it blows.

he's right. I have a macbook and totally love it, but the 950 does totally suck for 3d apps. Compared to the x1600 it's utter crap, and I won't even discuss the 7600 because that's a different universe of power from the GMA 950.

 

[clevin]

He's probably never even seen a Mini, let alone its graphics capability. The people on this forum that mock the integrated graphics and want 10 year old tech are absolutely hilarious.

Intel GMA 950
* 3DMark01: 1300 points
* 3DMark03: 1300 points
* 3DMark05: 450 points
* 3DMark06: 170 points

Ati 9800 Mobile
# 3DMark01: 17800 points
# 3DMark03: 6500 points

its absolutely crap, and somebody dare to compare 950 to Ati 9800? its purely ignorant.

 

[Chundles]

Intel GMA 950
* 3DMark01: 1300 points
* 3DMark03: 1300 points
* 3DMark05: 450 points
* 3DMark06: 170 points

Ati 9800 Mobile
# 3DMark01: 17800 points
# 3DMark03: 6500 points

its absolutely crap, and somebody dare to compare 950 to Ati 9800? its purely ignorant.

Yeah, it's crap in 3D stuff but in terms of H.264 movie playback and 2D stuff (ie. stuff your average Joe Bloggs does - if you game you're not an average Joe Bloggs) it's very good.

 

[clevin]

cant edit my post (connection problem, lol)
so i give the link of the test here
GMA 950 numbers
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-950.2177.0.html
Ati 9800 Mobile numbers
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-9800.2168.0.html

also, noticed the 3DMark 06's number for 9700? its 280, and remember 9800 is better than 9700.

again, compare intel 950 to Ati 9800? not a chance.

 

[clevin]

Yeah, it's crap in 3D stuff but in terms of H.264 movie playback and 2D stuff (ie. stuff your average Joe Bloggs does - if you game you're not an average Joe Bloggs) it's very good.

well, its the distinguishable part ppl are comparing, for those part that are not distinguishable, like 2D part, its really meaningless tho.

yes, you are right
if users only doing 2D work, its not a problem even to think of.

 

[dpaanlka]

People need to understand that massive 3D performance is not used in basically anything. What's important to the regular user is video acceleration and 2D peformacne, which the GMA 950 has plenty of.

So give the anti-GMA 950 stuff a rest. Considering it's $4 price tag, it's the best bang for the buck anywhere.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

2d performance what is that? does anyone even measure or care about 2d performance anymore? sounds like something they use to measure in the 80s? GMA950 was saturated by dualcore chips so when Apple went to dualcore2 the 950 was allready maxed out. Apple use to bust on those machines that used Integrated graphics because every single Mac used a real GPU. Those good old days of real gpu's are over. But at least the good old days of stagnated G4s is over so it was 1 step forward with cpu's and one step backwards with its "consumer" graphics.