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

[dpaanlka]

Whether you want to believe it or not, the 950 is a better card than the Radeon 9200 for what people buying Mac minis want to do and see, and I'm sure glad Apple has it now.

What Xbench should do is toss in a test of a computer's ability to play HD content. Perhaps something extreme like a 60fps full HD video clip and measure the framerate.

Of course, a better video card (such as the ones used in the iMacs and MBPs) would always be better, but then you'd have a higher price.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I think Apple should ditch the GMA graphics - I think most consumers would be willing to pay more for a Radeon X1300 or GeForce 7300, and it would make a big difference for 3D apps.

With that said, I'd recommend that the OP get that Mini...the CPU is soooo much more powerful than the G4. The Radeon 9800 absolutely spanks the GMA 950 for 3D apps but there really isn't much difference for anything else, so unless all you care about are games you'll be glad you got the Mini.

All in all, the Mini is a great computer. I consider the GMA 950 a weak point, but it isn't THAT big of a flaw. The main reason I criticize the GMA is that an embedded GPU (like the X1300 or 7300) would not cost much more and offer a real performance benefit.

 

[Aniej]

I think Apple should ditch the GMA graphics - I think most consumers would be willing to pay more for a Radeon X1300 or GeForce 7300, and it would make a big difference for 3D apps.

With that said, I'd recommend that the OP get that Mini...the CPU is soooo much more powerful than the G4. The Radeon 9800 absolutely spanks the GMA 950 for 3D apps but there really isn't much difference for anything else, so unless all you care about are games you'll be glad you got the Mini.

Thank you finally someone with some sense to push for this aspect instead of ohh i don't know a 72'' apple tv...

 

[clevin]

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.

i was just wondering about that too, i searched google for a long time, couldn't find any benchmark of 2D comparison of graphic cards.

whoever trying to say Intel GMA 950 is better than ATi 9800, oh, no, now is 9200 in 2D performance, plz show some data and link?

 

[dpaanlka]

i was just wondering about that too, i searched google for a long time, couldn't find any benchmark of 2D comparison of graphic cards.

whoever trying to say Intel GMA 950 is far better than ATi 9800, oh, no, now is 9200 in 2D performance, plz show some data and link?

Why do I think the GMA 950 is a better card for the Mac mini than the Radeon 9200? Because it can play HD content. Can you play full HD content on a Radeon 9200 mini? No! So what point are you trying to get at? And why can't you type clear sentences that are easy to read and understand?

And if you don't know what 2D is, you probably shouldn't be posting smug-sounding remarks about this subject. For your clarification, 2D is still very important. When people describe a computer as "feeling snappier" - they are usually talking about faster 2D acceleration. They just aren't aware of what it is or what it's called. But it is there, and it is still important.

I have to retract my previous statement of 2D on the GMA 950 being better than the Radeon 9800, because of this I do not know. The Xbench results site is down at this time. It would be the "Quartz Graphics Test" portion of the Xbench tests, and I belive also the "User Interface Test" (although I don't get why they would make that a different test). Try it on your own systems and see how Quartz 2D performs.

Video acceleration means accelerating video playback. It does not mean accelerating 3D graphics. GMA 950 is far superior than the 9200 (and even the 9800) when it comes to this, and this I know for sure. Go use a Mini core solo and a Mini G4 for yourself, and see which one accelerates video (QuickTime) content faster.

If I had to guess who had faster 2D acceleration, I would probably give it to the card that has faster video acceleration. It could be the opposite, and I guess we just won't know until somebody goes and downloads Xbench 1.3 and runs it on a GMA 950 system, and then a Radeon 9200 or 9800 system.

EDIT: Since you wanted a link to something (anything) here is Wikipedia's article on Quartz 2D and explains how it handles 2D graphics.

Of course, it would be nice to have a more modern 3D graphics card in the Mini. But I'm confused by the people bashing the GMA 950 and pointing to how great the Radeon 9200 was. What I'm really trying to understand is, who here would really rather dump the GMA 950 and return to the Radeon 9200 in the Mac mini? I hope nobody, beause if the Mini still had the Radeon 9200 (with it's inability to play HD content) - nobody in the world would be buying them. Not even if it was a Radeon 9800.

 

[clevin]

oh, im sorry, i m not sure if your quartz test is a complete "2D" standard
but for your pleasure, i found this page of xbench for you.
http://www.macintouch.com/specialreports/perfpack02/

for mini's Ati 9200 the Qz test is 52, mini solo is 53, macbook is 54, mac book pro is 54. WOW yes, better, it is better. like 2% better? or is that a bottle neck of CPU?

oh, again. surprising, surprising. im glad u retracted your statement of

Actually, both 2D and Video acceleration performance of the GMA 950 is far superior to the Radeon 9800.

video aceleration, is this tested by xbench too? if not, a link plz.

finally, 950 is a better card than 9200? i guess u ignored 3D part totally in this statement, right?

 

[dpaanlka]

WOW yes, better, it is better. like 2% better? or is that a bottle neck of CPU?

Likely a slim combo. Essentially, this tells us the cards are on par.

video aceleration, is this tested by xbench too? if not, a link plz.

No, because they assume people aren't going to see a GMA 950 playing video faster than a Radeon, and then be stupid enough to want to see proof in numbers. Stop asking for a link - just do the test yourself or ask anybody with a GMA 950 if they can play HD stuff. I don't have an Intel mini on hand to give you exact framerates... if that's really what you want.

finally, 950 is a better card than 9200? i guess u ignored 3D part totally in this statement, right?

Well, you must be ignoring the video part. I assume most people who buy minis probably would prefer better video acceleration to 3D acceleration. In fact, I think anybody would. Why would you want to play 3D games and not be able to watch HD video? Wouldn't that just be infuriating?

You know what, just forget about it. You obviously don't even grasp what 2D and video acelleration actually is, so why are you even posting in this thread?

 

[clevin]

thats stupid, is there anyone whose mac's gma 950 can play HD-DVD yet? it wasnt even supported yet!
and when did the HD begin to gain stream? when was Ati 9200 out? were u asking a card to support a vague tech who was not even fully born at that time?
stop ask you for a link? u make a statement, and don't wanna give a data to back your statement?

on par? i thought u said better, or far superior, didn't you?

be honest, u just like to exaggerate things and describe apple's products' shortcomes as "non-important", while its "ok" part as far better, is that a fair attitude in discussing problems?

 

[dpaanlka]

thats stupid, is there anyone whose mac's gma 950 can play HD-DVD yet? it wasnt even being supported yet!
and when did the HD begin to gain stream? when was Ati 9200 out? were u asking a card to support a vague tech who was not even fully born at that time?

HD is not a technology. "HD" is simply a resolution. The Radeon supports QuickTime acceleration - this does not change with new versions of QuickTime. The Radeon cannot play the huge resolution HD files at even a reasonable framerate. The GMA 950 can. That should be the end of this debate.

blah blah blah

Will somebody out there please give us some HD framerates for both a GMA 950 and a Radeon 9200 so this person is satisfied?

EDIT: In fact, I had a 2.0ghz G4 tower with a Radeon 9800 in it for about a year, and even that couldn't play HD video at any sort of framerate. I got about one frame every four seconds out of it.

 

[clevin]

wow, admire ur debating skill, totally ignore the flaw, only shouting the good or ok part,

yeah, can somebody show this person a data and let him understand a video card is not only a video playback card?

and can somebody show me with their mini with GMA 950 playing a HD movie plz. It would be interesting to see and greatly enhance that person's debate.

In fact, I had a 2.0ghz G4 tower with a Radeon 9800 in it for about a year, and even that couldn't play HD video at any sort of framerate. I got about one frame every four seconds out of it.

and how many times you gonna ask a graphic card to support a future tech? and do u think u are reasonable at all on this?

and just for a HD video playback, u gonna decide a card is good or not? let me ask you, do u do anything other than watching video with your mac? and do u expect other people to do nothing other than watching video?

 

[dpaanlka]

wow, admire ur debating skill, totally ignore the flaw, only shouting the good or ok part,

For you, a simple question. Would you rather have the Radeon 9200 or the GMA 950?

yeah, can somebody show this person a data and let him understand a video card is not only a video playback card?

A few minutes ago you didn't even know what 2D graphics were. Now you're suggesting I don't know what the purpose of a video card is?

and can somebody show me with their mini with GMA 950 playing a HD movie plz. It would be interesting to see and greatly enhance that person's debate.

Well, two seconds of Googling found this review, which says the GMA 950 even smacks the Radeon 9200 at 3D:

http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=140

As Apple's senior director of desktops, Tom Boger, explains, the new graphics system is actually a significant upgrade for the mini. Unlike the ATI chipset used in the previous mini, the GMA950 is programmable, allowing the new units to support Mac OS X Tiger's Core Image realtime graphics features for the first time. Boger also indicates that the new mini seems to hit about 10-40% higher framerates in 3D games as compared to the G4 models. (It's unclear whether we're talking Rosetta or Universal apps, or just which Intel mini is being compared to which G4 model, etc.) Xbench tests show that, on native code, OpenGL is over twice as fast on the new minis vs. old.

I guess we don't even need to touch on any of my other points, as the GMA 950 is even better at 3D than the Radeon 9200 was.

and how many times you gonna ask a graphic card to support a future tech? and do u think u are reasonable at all on this?

HD is not a technology!!! HD is a resolution!

and just for a HD video playback, u gonna decide a card is good or not? let me ask you, do u do anything other than watching video with your mac? and do u expect other people to do nothing other than watching video?

Well, so far I've shown that the GMA 950 is better at 2D, better at video, and better at 3D than the Radeon 9200. Even with links!

Do you expect people to buy a computer that is only able to play games? And not even that well?

Sheesh, forget that. Why do I continue talking to someone that doesn't even know what half this crap means?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its just a shame Apple doesnt offer a real GPU in Mini as a option. Instead its the old lets get em into iMac if we can. A $50 or $100 option for some middlegrade mobile GPU would solve this. Not able to play modern games with playable frames is criminal.

 

[clevin]

lmao, u are actually saying intel GMA 950 is 3D better than ATI 9200.

Im not gonna judge that statement, just keep it here for ppl to think for themselves

actually i have a better idea for you, since u obviously kept trying to compare two cards from different generations.

My suggestion would be, go compare intel GMA 950 and ATi xpress200, they are both current popular integrated graphic card, and more fair than u compare a father generation and gradson generation's tech.

 

[dpaanlka]

lmao, u are actually saying intel GMA 950 is 3D better than ATI 9200.

Im not gonna judge that statement, just keep it here for ppl to think for themselves

Ok...

actually i have a better idea for you, since u obviously kept trying to compare two cards from different generations.

Look, clevin person, you do not know what any of this stuff even means. HD is not a technology, HD is simply a resolution. Why don't we make some HD resolution Cinepak movies for both a Radeon 9200 and GMA 950 to play, and see which one does it better? I mean, obviously they both should play 1993-era codec encoded video well, right? Wait, you probably do not know what anything I just said means...

And, my point is not to defend the GMA 950 against current cards. I thought I mentioned that a few times. But it is better with the GMA 950 than with the Radeon 9200. That is my point.

 

[clevin]

Ok...

actually i have a better idea for you, since u obviously kept trying to compare two cards from different generations.

Look, clevin person, you do not know what any of this stuff even means. HD is not a technology, HD is simply a resolution. Why don't we make some HD resolution Cinepak movies for both a Radeon 9200 and GMA 950 to play, and see which one does it better? I mean, obviously they both should play 1993-era codec encoded video well, right? Wait, you probably do not know what anything I just said means...

look, [your name here],
you are just being ignorance all the times, i repeatedly told you u were comparing different generation's stuff, u don't wanna call it a tech? fine, plz find a HD movie released in 2001, and plz find a mac that can play HD video in 2001.

its that fulfilling for you to know your video card is better (if in any aspect) than its father generation's products? not to mention its 2D isn't better, and 3D is even worse. are you just bluntly saying its better? its just unbelievably fanboy style.

 

[clevin]

And, my point is not to defend the GMA 950 against current cards. I thought I mentioned that a few times. But it is better with the GMA 950 than with the Radeon 9200. That is my point.

but again, are u making that statement in assuming that other ppl only care about HD video playback? coz it isn't better in any other aspect.

edit: and if a user want to upgrade, why shouldn't he expect something better than this?

 

[dpaanlka]

you are just being ignorance all the times, i repeatedly told you u were comparing different generation's stuff, u don't wanna call it a tech? fine, plz find a HD movie released in 2001, and plz find a mac that can play HD video in 2001.

Ok, in the above statement, you just said I am insane for comparing a GMA 950 to the slightly older Radeon 9200 in terms of QuickTime acceleration... because the GMA 950 is newer and so obviously would be so much better.

its that fulfilling for you to know your video card is better (if in any aspect) than its father generation's products? not to mention its 2D isn't better, and 3D is even worse. are you just bluntly saying its better? its just unbelievably fanboy style.

Now, in the above statement, you're saying I'm insane for saying the GMA 950 is a better card (overall), because the Radeon 9200 is clearly so much better at 3D graphics (which I'm not even sure about).

Look, we all know integrated graphics suck, but the Radeon 9200 sucks too, and even worse. So while we all want to puke on the GMA, we have to at least acknolwedge that it was a better choice than the Radeon 9200 in the older systems.

but again, are u making that statement in assuming that other ppl only care about HD video playback? coz it isn't better in any other aspect.

Think of what the target Mac mini market is. It is people with not a lot of money, who really want to buy a Mac, or want to buy a Mac in a teeny tiny package, or both. A lot of mini buyers are even buying it for a second or third computer. Yes, a Radeon X1900 would be an awesome option, but entirely unrealistic for any of the above situations. And these people, buying this system, are probably far more likely to want to play smoother video rather than smoother 3D games. Don't you think?

Plus, Core Image support too! Why do I keep forgetting to mention that? The GMA 950 supports that, the Raeon 9200 did not.

edit: and if a user want to upgrade, why shouldn't he expect something better than this?

Well, it is an upgrade compared to the Radeon 9200.

 

[clevin]

Ok, in the above statement, you just said I am insane for comparing a GMA 950 to the slightly older Radeon 9200 in terms of QuickTime acceleration... because the GMA 950 is newer and so obviously would be so much better.

Now, in the above statement, you're saying I'm insane for saying the GMA 950 is a better card (overall), because the Radeon 9200 is clearly so much better at 3D graphics (which I'm not even sure about).

its 3d benchmark is in the same page of xbench result page i gave u, check for yourself.

Look, we all know integrated graphics suck, but the Radeon 9200 sucks too, and even worse. So while we all want to puke on the GMA, we have to at least acknolwedge that it was a better choice than the Radeon 9200 in the older systems.

well, thats a reasonable question, i guess its because
1. its been two years, why not a better graphic card? even ATi Xpress200 is better, altho another integrated one.
2. 9200 doesn't occupy your 64MB system memory. while GMA 950, sucks while use your system memory.

 

[clevin]

oh plz, core image was introduced in 2004, what, do u want a 2002 graphic card to support it? remember 9200 is a modified 8500, as a old fighter, he is doing much more than you give it credit for.

 

[dpaanlka]

its 3d benchmark is in the same page of xbench result page i gave u, check for yourself.

What, this?



Now, to be fair, I think Xbench is flawed. I really find it hard to believe the GMA 950 has twice the 3D performance of a Radeon 9200. However, I do believe, if nothing else, it should be on par (and probably slightly better). Perhaps this has been addressed in the current version 1.3...

But regardless, since you're pointing to those results as your backup - doesn't that clearly say the Radeon 9200 is inferior to the GMA 950? I circled them in red to help you pick it out.

oh plz, core image was introduced in 2004, what, do u want a 2002 graphic card to support it? remember 9200 is a modified 8500, as a old fighter, he is doing much more than you give it credit for.

So, the Radeon 9800 is a modified 9700 PRO, which was released in 2002. The Radeon 9800 (itself released in early 2003 - still before Core Image) fully supports Core Image.

How does this make the Radeon 9200 better than the GMA 950 anyway? How does this support your argument? Yes, I am fully aware that the Radeon 9200 is an older generation card that does not support some of the latest stuff. That's why the GMA 950 is a better card for the Mac mini.

 

[Kashchei]

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

Does anyone know when the X3000 is going to replace the 950? Could we expect this at the same time that the mini is upgraded to C2D? If so, this might make the mini a better deal (especially if the price goes back down to its original $499 price).

 

[clevin]

What, this?

View attachment 65139

well, i was expect u have the patience to read that whole test and make a good judgment, but apparent you are too eager to find a pretty number to support you that you didn't really understand what you were citing.
look carefully, i won't circle pretty data as you did, reader can read for themselves to decide which data means what.

about if 9200 should support core image, u can brag as you want. I don't really have the reasoning to convince u not to brag it, since u really doesn't care how apple put a crap in there, as long as its apple, u can always use their maybe 1 highlight spot to cover all other craps of theirs.

I will find more test for you about 3D performance of 950 and 9200, if u want, and when i get time.

and finally, I don't see why 9200 doesn't support core image leads to 950 is a better card for mini, is there any other product in the market in your mind? you are not locked into two choices, aren't you? or its just you gonna defend any apple's choice, no matter why they did it, and how crap it is?

 

[clevin]

read here to find out the downside of GMA 950
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/gameroom/2006/03/minigamer/index.php

 

[clevin]

other comparison of mini ppc with 9200 and mini solo with GMA
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/2006/03/intel-gma-950-terrible-opengl.html

and this is comparison between GMA 950 and Xpress200.
even if you think mini ppc's graphic card need upgrade, wouldn't be nicer for the user that apple upgrade it to a better choice?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1

and read this
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-mini-intel-integrated-graphics-inferior.html
apple is just so business style, flip flop all around, in pushing their product, they can lie or confuse user about anything. is honesty so difficult right now? if 950 cant play new 3D game, how about stop saying "can play latest 3D games" for a change?

 

[Evangelion]

and how many times you gonna ask a graphic card to support a future tech? and do u think u are reasonable at all on this?

Like it was already said, HD is not "future tech", it's just a resolution. It's becoming quite obvious that you simply do not understand the subject-matter at all. And you aren't even making any sense in your "arguments". First you say that GMA950 sucks when compared to 9200. Then you say that it's unfair to compare GMA950 to 9200, since GMA950 is newer technology and therefore better.

GMA950 might be slower than 9200 on some apps (some games come to mind). But it might be faster in some other apps (like some other games). It's also a lot better at video-playback (not 3D-graphics, but video), and it has more advanced features than 9200 has (core image etc.).

Want to test HD-playback? Go watch some HD-content (like trailers at apple.com). And before you say "But there was no HD-content back when 9200 was released!": so what? Does that mean that it is to be expected that 9200 is not as good as GMA950? If that is the case, how can you claim that 9200 is better of the two? Because it might be a bit faster in some 3D-games?

And BTW: It's "you", not "u". Saying "u" makes you sound like a 14-year old.