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

[dpaanlka]

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.

You specifically said Xbench. Those are Cinebench results. Those are completely different, and have to do with rendering 3D images for eventual use in a movie file or what-not. From Maxon's web site, I get the impression Cinebench is far more processor dependant, rather than GPU dependant as a game would be. We can see that by the huge difference in score the dual processor systems have in that test. Remember, unlike Cinebench, games do far more than just render images. They have to compute things like collision detection, movement, artificial intelligence, etc...

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

I'm not bragging. I do not own any of comptuers we've been talking about today. I have a Mac Pro 2.66. I've never owned an iMac, a MacBook, or a Mac mini. I have no personal reason to care what the performance of any of the lower end Macs is.

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 don't know what this means. But to be clear, I said a few times that the GMA 950 is trash. But I would prefer the GMA 950 over the Radeon 9200 any day.

and finally, I don't see why 9200 doesn't support core image leads to 950 is a better card for mini

That's probably because you don't know what core image is, or what fun apps use it.

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?

I'm not sure what the above means.

other comparison of mini ppc with 9200 and mini solo with GMA
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/...le-opengl.html

Directly from that site: "Cinebench OpenGL test may not be representative of gaming performance." Funny, I thought I just said that.

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?

Yes. I said that a couple of times. That was never in question. Its funny how, every couple of posts, you insist on forgetting that I agree with that statement fully. This is not a GMA 950 vs current Radeon or GeForce debate. This is all about GMA 950 vs Radeon 9200, and whether or not the original poster should consider it an upgrade.

and read this
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...-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?

I'm really glad you pointed me to that page, as I think it makes the case for the GMA 950 versus the Radeon 9200, with the following quotes:

Intel's website concurs that the GMA950 graphics processor is capable of a "1.6 GPixels/sec and 1.6 GTexels/sec fill rate". This compares to a "1.0 GPixels/sec fill rate" for the ATI Radeon 9200.

Cinemark 9.5 benchmarks released by MacInTouch shows the GMA950 in the Intel-based Mac mini "Core Solo" 1.5 to be faster than the ATI Radeon 9200 in last year's Mac mini G4 in three out of four tests.

Overall, it likely seems that the "integrated graphics" provided by the Intel-based Mac mini "Core" systems are modestly faster, or at least no slower, than the dedicated graphics provided with last year's Mac mini G4. Neither are particularly high-performance.

So once again, I've taken everything you've given me and showed you logic and reason. I can't wait until the next round!

 

[clevin]

I can't wait until the next round!

next round? hehe, no, since i listed all i wanna say, and u think u already prove the Intel 950 is better than 9200 and apple's update of 9200 to intel 950 is right, i wouldn't have the patience to convince the biggest fanboy here, so, enjoy

 

[dpaanlka]

i wouldn't have the patience to convince the biggest fanboy here, so, enjoy

Oh, nevermind...

 

[clevin]

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.

sounds like 14 years old? plz, debating issue is ok, u wanna discuss my age? i don't care if you are 200 or 300 yo, so no matter how old you guess im, plz leave it to urself.

since your reasoning is exactly same as another big fanboy, all you said are just copy from his, i think i should not waste time and resource of this forum any more.

for ur pleasure of faulting me of first saying 9200 is better than 950. I think its fair to point out that was my response to the biggest fanboys's assertion that "intel gma 950 is a far superior card than ATi 9800". I guess u don't mind he making stunning assertion while i shouldn't be allow to oppose that. plz, if thats your attitude, I can't engage you in any discuss then.

 

[dpaanlka]

sounds like 14 years old? plz, debating issue is ok, u wanna discuss my age? i don't care if you are 200 or 300 yo, so no matter how old you guess im, plz leave it to urself.

plz, stp lvng out all da vwls 'n caps frm ur sntnces

since your reasoning is eaxctly same as another big fanboy, all you said are just copy from his, i think i should not waste time and resource of this forum any more.

You know, this isn't making your stance on 9200 vs GMA 950 any less false. Nor your appearance as a 14 year old.

for ur pleasure of faulting me first saying 9200 is better than 950. I think its fair to point out that was my response to the biggest fanboys's assertion that "intel gma 950 is a far superior card than ATi 9800". I guess u don't mind he making stunning assertion while i shouldn't be allow to oppose that. plz, if thats your attitude, I can't engage you in any discuss then.

First of all, I was very specific in citing the GMA 950 as being superior to the Radeon 9800 in video and 2D only. After first teaching you what 2D is, I retracted the 2D part of the statement, simply because I cannot find any reliable results. From personal experience, my Radeon 9800-equipped 2ghz G4 played HD video at about one frame per five seconds. So I still hold a belief that the GMA 950's QuickTime (video) acceleration is superior to the Radeon 9800s.

And regardless, this entire thread was about whether or not the GMA 950 in a new Mac mini would be an "ugprade" compared to the Radeon 9200 in the original poster's current Mac mini - the response to which is "yes."

 

[clevin]

You know, this isn't making your stance on 9200 vs GMA 950 any less false.

First of all, I was very specific in citing the GMA 950 as being superior to the Radeon 9800 in video and 2D only. After teaching you what 2D was, I retracted the 2D part of the statement, simply because I cannot find any reliable results. From personal experience, my Radeon 9800-equipped 2ghz G4 played HD video at about one frame per five seconds. So I still hold a belief that the GMA 950's QuickTime acceleration is superior to the Radeon 9800s.

And regardless, this entire thread was about whether or not the GMA 950 in a new Mac mini would be an "ugprade" compared to the Radeon 9200 in the original poster's current Mac mini - the response to which is "yes."

seems like ur nevermind means nothing
and i can't believe you are making this ridiculous lie again,
I just proved to u 950's 2D isn't better than 9200, and u said urself that they are on "par", now u jump back again to say 950's 2D is superior than 9800? do you have any consistency?

what would be an "upgrade"? some part is better, some part is worse, is that a good upgrade?

and to you, now i say,, nevermind, enjoy urself.

 

[jamesi]

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.

haha, i can always count on you to set ppl straight on video cards Dont Hurt Me

as for the person who started the thread, if you are not doing any graphics works get the mini. if you do some work that requires a decent video card, then hang onto the G4 until you have enough for an imac

 

[dpaanlka]

u said urself that they are on "par", now u jump back again to say 950's 2D is superior than 9800[/B]? do you have any consistency?

What? Where did I say that?

 

[sushi]

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?

I understand your dilemma. I have a PowerMac 933 (Quicksilver 2002) that I am considering updating as well since I am still using Classic Apps and the PM933 can boot directly into System 9.

Sonnet Technologies has some good upgrades.

I am currently looking at getting one of these for my PM933 as I want to keep using it for another 2-3 years.

Getting a Mac mini is a good solution as well. It all depends on your needs.

 

[dpaanlka]

I understand your dilemma. I have a PowerMac 933 (Quicksilver 2002) that I am considering updating as well since I am still using Classic Apps and the PM933 can boot directly into System 9.

Sonnet Technologies has some good upgrades.

I am currently looking at getting one of these for my PM933. I want to keep using it for another 2-3 years.

Getting a Mac mini is a good solution as well. It all depends on your needs.

For needs of someone as yourself, who may be used to the expandability of the tower, you might be good option sticking to it. I actually owned that exact upgrade you just linked, and was very pleased with it (in combination with a Radeon 9800 and a gig of ram) for the entire time I had it.

 

[sushi]

For needs of someone as yourself, who may be used to the expandability of the tower, you might be good option sticking to it. I actually owned that exact upgrade you just linked, and was very pleased with it (in combination with a Radeon 9800 and a gig of ram) for the entire time I had it.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yep, I do like my Quicksilver because I can modify/change things so easily and quickly.

FWIW, I also have a 17 inch Intel iMac sitting beside my Quicksilver. Best of both Mac worlds for me!

 

[iW00t]

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?

The big irony is for the same money as a mac mini "Joe Bloggs" can get his tech savvy nephew to build him a computer with a real graphics card, and won't stall for 2-3 seconds when you do Expose on it.

Smoother HD videos? What the hell do you do every day? Watch QT movie previews downloaded from Apple's site? Who cares if that 3 minute video clip is HD or not.

Apple cheaped out when they use the GMA 950, it is that simple. For the price of the mac mini Apple could have very well put even a basic low end graphic card in... one that doesn't sap > 10% out of your already pathetic stock memory configuration.

 

[iW00t]

for ur pleasure of faulting me of first saying 9200 is better than 950. I think its fair to point out that was my response to the biggest fanboys's assertion that "intel gma 950 is a far superior card than ATi 9800". I guess u don't mind he making stunning assertion while i shouldn't be allow to oppose that. plz, if thats your attitude, I can't engage you in any discuss then.

Nobody cares if the 9200 is better than the 950, but the fact remains that back in its day the 9200 is a much better GPU relative to the rest of the market card than the GMA is today.

Ignoring this fact is just blind fanboism, nothing more.

I might as well say the Mac Mini is such a steal because it has 2 cores, is faster than the G4, and costs 150% more. Oh yeah, I forgot to take into account that a full year of progress separated the two releases, my bad!

 

[dpaanlka]

Nobody cares if the 9200 is better than the 950, but the fact remains that back in its day the 9200 is a much better GPU relative to the rest of the market card than the GMA is today.

Ignoring this fact is just blind fanboism, nothing more.

You must have missed all the parts where I said the GMA 950 is not a good card. I agreed to this analysis like 5 times now in this very thread. Here they are:

Of course, a better video card (such as the ones used in the iMacs and MBPs) would always be better

Of course, it would be nice to have a more modern 3D graphics card in the Mini.

my point is not to defend the GMA 950 against current cards. I thought I mentioned that a few times.

Look, we all know integrated graphics suck, but the Radeon 9200 sucks too

Yes, a Radeon X1900 would be an awesome option

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

to be clear, I said a few times that the GMA 950 is trash. But I would prefer the GMA 950 over the Radeon 9200 any day.

This is not a GMA 950 vs current Radeon or GeForce debate. This is all about GMA 950 vs Radeon 9200, and whether or not the original poster should consider it an upgrade.

*****​

Smoother HD videos? What the hell do you do every day? Watch QT movie previews downloaded from Apple's site? Who cares if that 3 minute video clip is HD or not.

HD is so common now that this should be a minimum requirement of a "basic" comptuer system - one aimed squarley at the new user market. This is mom, dad, grandma, your sister, your neighbor, etc... IMHO. Yes, they may watch a LOT of video content. What if Apple soon unveils an HD iTunes store? I know most of those people are probably not going to be playing many 3D games, though. Thats why I would rather have anything else besides the GMA 950 or Radeon 9200. But if I have to pick from those two evils, the GMA 950 would have to be my choice.

 

[lord patton]

this is the worst new years eve ever.

That said, this shoutdown is gonna sound better after some more beers.

Cheers, baby '07, may you have no interest in video cards, politics, or religion!

 

[livingfortoday]

I personally think this is all silly, as the Mini isn't meant to be a graphics powerhouse, but a entry-level budget Mac. For any use past that, you should look for an iMac or Mac Pro.

Regardless, in the link I had posted on the first page of this thread, you can go compare "Selene" and "Mr. Doom" on the XBench webpage, and see how the 1.5Ghz G4 stacks up to the 1.5Ghz Core Solo in graphics. The GMA950 doesn't completely destroy the 9200, but it's ahead in all tests by a decent margin.

 

[PodHead]

Seriously, all B.S. aside. What self respecting "power user" would be using a mac mini in the first place. It goes without saying if you do heavy lifting to not use this machine. It's a starter system with "age appropriate" internals, period.

 

[sushi]

Seriously, all B.S. aside. What self respecting "power user" would be using a mac mini in the first place. It goes without saying if you do heavy lifting to not use this machine. It's a starter system with "age appropriate" internals, period.

To me, the Mac mini is ideal for those who already have a PC and want to try out a Mac. With a KVM, you can share your keyboard, mouse and monitor so it is a cheap way to test the waters.

 

[stumper]

regardless of the graphics chip debate (a never ending one too) the fact still remains that the mini will be much fater than your tooth

if you have waited this long -- then another month or so wont kill you -- and the mini should be updated to a core 2 duo chip and *possibly* a faster GM3000 graphics chip

it will be worth the wait anyway, as iLife 07 will most certainly come out at MWSF and you would get taht with any new mac...

 

[Counterfit]

this is the worst new years eve ever.

That said, this shoutdown is gonna sound better after some more beers.

Cheers, baby '07, may you have no interest in video cards, politics, or religion!

AMEN!


But really, clevin, do us all a favor, and buy one of these, then read this.

 

[clevin]

AMEN!


But really, clevin, do us all a favor, and buy one of these, then read this.

ahhh, i would if u leave ur address here...

11 minutes to go, happy new year!

 

[jamesi]

wow this thread really went south

 

[iW00t]

Seriously, all B.S. aside. What self respecting "power user" would be using a mac mini in the first place. It goes without saying if you do heavy lifting to not use this machine. It's a starter system with "age appropriate" internals, period.

The trouble is while the Mac Mini is pretty powerful, it is also damned limited.

Many has said it before but I'll say it again, it'd really be nice if Apple would introduce a mid range machine with some limited hard drive bays, and no damned built in monitor so it can be chucked under the desk.

Alternatively the 8 core Mac Pros should come out soon so the current Mac Pro prices could drop.

Paying 4 grand for a computer? This is 2006, computers can be had for little more than a grand in this era.

 

[iW00t]

regardless of the graphics chip debate (a never ending one too) the fact still remains that the mini will be much fater than your tooth

if you have waited this long -- then another month or so wont kill you -- and the mini should be updated to a core 2 duo chip and *possibly* a faster GM3000 graphics chip

it will be worth the wait anyway, as iLife 07 will most certainly come out at MWSF and you would get taht with any new mac...

I doubt the Mini will come with the faster integrated chips so soon.

What will probably happen is when Santa Rosa comes, we will see the iMacs go over asap as per history.. then the Macbook Pros to soak up the suckers in the mobile market, and when the big money has been made, the Macbooks will be released with the new "GM3000" card, and then when the cheap mobile suckers have been mopped up, then and only then, maybe the Mac Mini will get a tiny speed bump using the then previous generation Core 2 chips to clear out Apple's warehouses full of that stuff.

It really seems like the Mac Mini is some red headed step child in Apple's family. A refurbished CD 2.0Ghz Macbook can be had for the price of a Mac Mini... mobility, built in display and keyboard, sans 20GB of hard drive storage less, for the same money. Really makes the Mac Mini looks hideously expensive.

The small form factor is stupid anyway. It is supposed to be cheap. What Apple ends up doing is making it limited, expensive, and that said, small in a desktop is an oxymoron anyway. If not for the fact that they look so cute I'd stop buying each revision of these and get a Mac Pro instead.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Paying 4 grand for a computer? This is 2006, computers can be had for little more than a grand in this era.

The Mac Pro is worth its high asking price...any similar Dell Xeon-based machine will cost pretty much the same, and I'd take the Mac Pro over the Dell due to its ability to run Windows and OS X.

It would be nice if Apple came out with a Core 2 Duo-based tower at a lower price point than the Mac Pro, but that won't happen because the iMac fills that slot right now.