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

[iW00t]

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.

The Mac Pro is very good value, I agree. It is scarcely more expensive than a Macbook Pro (a Pro laptop with a grainy screen... go figure, but that's a discussion for another day). But the good question is, is it worth paying 4 grand just for the ability to upgrade your video card?

What if I don't agree with Apple's choice of video cards in the stock configurations for the iMacs?

 

[Jht]

I don't really know much on the tech side of things, so keep that in mind. I've been watching this thread develop and seeing as lots of people are chipping in, I'd best have a go. And I've basically come to this conclusion, Clevin (sp?), shut up, you sound like an idiot, you asked a question and your now arguing over the answer/s you received. And as for the whole mac mini/gpu/whatever debate, it costs £400, regardless of what the previous mini could do, the power/gpu in the mini (imo) is fine for the money, and any self respecting gamer (again imo) wouldn't really be playing, or be expecting to be able to play 3d games etc etc on a gma 950, its not intended for gaming, and is more suited to media (not cs etc) and other such light user tasks, hence the HD support, and just because a few of you see it as pointless, doesn't mean everyone does, I for one often make use of the HD capability, and when push comes to shove I'm sure apple have done a lot more research in this subject, evaluated the +/- and generally know a shhit load more than any of us, so the introduction of the 950 and HD support imo is obviously telling us something about the targeted user base. Feel free to argue with my points, you won't get a response, simply because its a ***** debate, and I can't be bothered getting dragged in to owt, happy new year, innit

 

[840quadra]

Wow,

This discussion is more heated than the Canon v.s. Nikon debate going on in the photography forum!

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.

Amen to that!

I just sold my Powermac G5, and I want to replace it with something smaller, but upgradable, and have it utilize my monitor, keyboard and mouse. It needs to be somewhat expandable, and offer me close to the speed (if not the exact same) as the Mac Pro.

I am holding out a bit longer, but if I have to take the plunge on a new home system, I would prefer it not be a mini. I really don't want to have to buy enclosures for my SATA drives, nor do I really want to drop the coin to buy a new Mac Pro (even at base model prices)

Apple give us another Quadra 840av / 8500 sized mac tower again, and give it the good industrial design of the Mac Pro, at a lower cost!!

 

[dpaanlka]

Apple give us another Quadra 840av / 8500 sized mac tower

You all know I would be up for that!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The Mac Pro is very good value, I agree. It is scarcely more expensive than a Macbook Pro (a Pro laptop with a grainy screen... go figure, but that's a discussion for another day). But the good question is, is it worth paying 4 grand just for the ability to upgrade your video card?

What if I don't agree with Apple's choice of video cards in the stock configurations for the iMacs?

I don't know...but that's life for a Mac user right now. If you need to get an upgradeable machine for $600-$1000, you must get a 3-5 year old PowerMac and upgrade as necessary.

Personally, I've become a video card snob. After experimenting with different video cards in my G4 tower, I've become convinced that I need a machine with an upgradeable video card on my desktop. Right now I have a GeForce 6800GT in there...it came with a GeForce 2MX. Being able to upgrade the CPU allowed me to take advantage of Core Image and play games like Call of Duty that would be absolutely out of the question with the 2MX.

So I agree with you that Apple should sell a more affordable tower. But the problem is that it doesn't fit their paradigm - Apple's vision of a consumer PC is a machine that trades upgradeability for space efficiency and good ergonomics.

The Mac Pros are towers only because professionals absolutely demand a level of upgradeability that only a tower can support. If Apple could do an all-iMac desktop lione they would I think.

 

[Maxx Power]

Displaying HD content relies a lot on CPU power, the new core cpu's have loads of them, the old G4 just couldn't keep up. You can render HD definition content many times faster than real time if you have a fast CPU, drawing all that pixel to the screen is done by the GPU, which, it doesn't matter if its a Radeon 9200 or GMA950, as long as it has enough 2D pixel rasterizing power, you'll see the frames, and anything in the last 3 or 4 years has this ability. The Radeon 9200 featured full DVD decoding capabilities on the hardware, not sure about the GMA950. The Radeon 9200 also supported ATI's "Video Smoothing" (smoothstream ? can't remember the name) via video shaders, hence the name VPU for the longest time.

You can't compare GMA950 and Radeon 9200 if they are housed on different processors, one of which is way faster than the other. At least under windows, with the same fast cpu, the Radeon 9200 and GMA950 both plays HD content easily, and, the Radeon series have always been known for their low CPU utilization during 2D-drawing, DVD's, etc.

For 2D comparison, its more valid to compare in windows, since the driver structures, API's are all more mature and has a much larger developer base and history.

 

[clevin]

ahhh, discussion still going on?,,,,

I don't know if you are right, but I sure forgot that CPU part when discussing 9200 v 950 before, but no matter what, fanboys can't be convinced with reasoning. I learned it, and I won't repeat my mistake, lol. good luck

 

[dpaanlka]

ahhh, discussion still going on?,,,,

I don't know if you are right, but I sure forgot that CPU part when discussing 9200 v 950 before, but no matter what, fanboys can't be convinced with reasoning. I learned it, and I won't repeat my mistake, lol. good luck

lol, oh fanboys, lol, oh lol u plz, lol... HD is a new fangled technology lol... what is 2D?

The video card has a lot more to do with displaying HD than the above poster would think. As much as clevin would like to believe he is the ultimate authority of logic and reason, anyone can rest assured the Mac mini Intel (every part of it) is an upgraded compared to a Mac mini G4.

You're overall a complete idiot if you would pass on an Intel mini to take a G4 mini. Thats all there is to it.

 

[clevin]

lol, oh fanboys, lol, oh lol u plz, lol... HD is a new fangled technology lol... what is 2D?

are u chasing me? sry, not interested.

 

[iW00t]

lol, oh fanboys, lol, oh lol u plz, lol... HD is a new fangled technology lol... what is 2D?

Seriously, out in the real world nobody cares about HD.

With all this newfangled nonsense and content protection restrictions, I won't be surprised if there are plenty of families out there watching "HD" on their new "HDTV" without that HDMI cable and not realising that they are actually watching downsampled content.

Nevermind the fact that in at least 90% of all homes people are still using normal SD TVs.

 

[dpaanlka]

Seriously, out in the real world nobody cares about HD.

With all this newfangled nonsense and content protection restrictions, I won't be surprised if there are plenty of families out there watching "HD" on their new "HDTV" without that HDMI cable and not realising that they are actually watching downsampled content.

Nevermind the fact that in at least 90% of all homes people are still using normal SD TVs.

That's not the point - the point is the GMA 950 minis are better than the Radeon 9200 minis. So who cares if somebody doesn't watch HD... I'm sure they still would rather have the better computer.

are u chasing me?

No, I'm mocking you. Completely different.

You can't compare GMA950 and Radeon 9200 if they are housed on different processors, one of which is way faster than the other.

I don't think a 1.5ghz single core Intel is "way faster" than a 1.42ghz single core G4. Or a 2ghz G4 (like I had - which also couldn't play H.264 HD faster than one frame per five seconds) for that matter.

fanboys can't be convinced with reasoning

Do you even know what "fanboy" means? It means someone who is a fan of something. I said a gazillion times I do not like the GMA 950. I do not own one, and I will never own one. I have no reason to defend it, other than your infuriating inability to recognize it is slightly better than an even worse card.

Hell, I think my GeForce 7300 GT is a tad crappy. I wish I had gone for the X1900 in my Mac Pro.

 

[JD92]

ahhh, discussion still going on?,,,,

I don't know if you are right, but I sure forgot that CPU part when discussing 9200 v 950 before, but no matter what, fanboys can't be convinced with reasoning. I learned it, and I won't repeat my mistake, lol. good luck

That guy really isn't a fanboy, he was able to counter pretty much everything you said with some sort of evidence, and I think it's pretty safe to say that more people probably disagree with you than agree with you.

And while we're discussing the GMA 950, I think it was a pretty good solution, Apple needed a low cost card which would fit into a small enclosure, I'm not sure if you can get much smaller than integrated graphics.

And I'm quite impressed with the GMA 950 on my Macbook, it's definitely very good for video playback and it seems to be able to do Core Image perfectly, although that may just amaze me since I just came from a 400MHz G3 with an ATI Rage card with 16mb VRAM

 

[clevin]

That guy really isn't a fanboy, he was able to counter pretty much everything you said with some sort of evidence, and I think it's pretty safe to say that more people probably disagree with you than agree with you.

And while we're discussing the GMA 950, I think it was a pretty good solution, Apple needed a low cost card which would fit into a small enclosure, I'm not sure if you can get much smaller than integrated graphics.

And I'm quite impressed with the GMA 950 on my Macbook, it's definitely very good for video playback and it seems to be able to do Core Image perfectly, although that may just amaze me since I just came from a 400MHz G3 with an ATI Rage card with 16mb VRAM

...i can only say i know that fanboy more than this post, started from him first obnoxiously called my name directly without i offended him,
he himself described as "tend to think all apple products are superior", i have to call that fanboy style.

I wouldnt want to waste resource and time on this post anyway, if readers more agree with him, thats totally find with me tho, discussing isn't bad, and if it can clear something, I don't care the result,

So, so long to this post, enjoy reading, and im glad u have good experience with your MB.

 

[iW00t]

That's not the point - the point is the GMA 950 minis are better than the Radeon 9200 minis. So who cares if somebody doesn't watch HD... I'm sure they still would rather have the better computer.

I won't deny that the GMA 950 Mini is better than the Radeon 9200 Minis, even if it is on account of the new ripple effect that you now get when adding a widget in dashboard, but I think what really stirs people up is that from the previous generation we have seen what... doubling of CPU capability, but yet when it comes to the GPU department we've actually taken a step backwards by adopting the very same Intel GMA chips that Apple has so enjoyed ribbing in the past.

 

[dpaanlka]

I won't deny that the GMA 950 Mini is better than the Radeon 9200 Minis, even if it is on account of the new ripple effect that you now get when adding a widget in dashboard, but I think what really stirs people up is that from the previous generation we have seen what... doubling of CPU capability, but yet when it comes to the GPU department we've actually taken a step backwards by adopting the very same Intel GMA chips that Apple has so enjoyed ribbing in the past.

A step backwards in principle - yes, I can agree with it. It would have been much better to replace the Radeon 9200 with a newer GPU with dedicated memory.

A literal step backwards? No, as crummy as both cards are, I firmly do not believe this is true.

he himself described as "tend to think all apple products are superior", i have to call that fanboy style

So... it appears you tend to think all Apple products are bad. So I guess I have to call you an overly pessimistic loon. I don't see how you're any better than me. You're just me, in reverse.

You were the first one to bust out the name-calling (fanboy this, fanboy that), so don't complain about me calling you pessimistic.

 

[iW00t]

A step backwards in principle - yes, I can agree with it. It would have been much better to replace the Radeon 9200 with a newer GPU with dedicated memory.

A literal step backwards? No, as crummy as both cards are, I firmly do not believe this is true.

Well perhaps now a literal step backwards since the performance of both cards are pretty much on par, but you must not forget that the G4 Mini sold for a lot less than the Intel Minis. For what it is worth what did we get? Bluetooth and wireless included standard now, Intel processors, and of course... the GMA 950 chip.

For what it is worth the Mac Mini is really poor value for what it gives, as I've posted on another thread it is possible to get a 2.0ghz Macbook in the refurbished store for $799 at one point, what's so outstanding about the Mac Mini that makes it so expensive for what it delivers?

It is not cheap, and for the money Apple could very well have put in even a basic x1300 GPU.

 

[dpaanlka]

For what it is worth the Mac Mini is really poor value for what it gives, as I've posted on another thread it is possible to get a 2.0ghz Macbook in the refurbished store for $799 at one point, what's so outstanding about the Mac Mini that makes it so expensive for what it delivers?

It is not cheap, and for the money Apple could very well have put in even a basic x1300 GPU.

Well, for $479 you can get a refurb Mini solo. But yes, I agree an X1300 would be much better and really add to the Mini's value. I would be overjoyed (even ecstatic) if they added that (even as an option).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Here's another vote for a basic embedded GPU instead of an integrated one - an X1300 would make a real difference.

The Radeon 9200 was a nice card in it's day, which has long since passed as far as 3D stuff goes. I'd take an Intel Mini over a G4 Mini in a second, even with the GMA 950.

You need to remember that the Radeon 9200 is uses a slightly developed version of the R200 core, which dates back to the Radeon 8500. The GMA 950 is clocked similarly to some versions of the the 9200, but the GMA supports newer versions of DirectX and OpenGL and has programmable pixel shaders as well as better video playback. The ONLY advantage the Radeon 9200 offers is its dedicated DDR VRAM, which is useful - but the GMA is otherwise a superior chip - as it should be, since the 9200 is six years old!

With that said, the R300-based Radeon Xpress 200 integrated chipset from ATI is superior to the GMA 950, and the embedded Radeon X300 and X1300 chips with dedicated VRAM are an order of magnitude better than any integrated chip...

Just looking at the barefeats benchmarks should show how meaningless the GMA vs 9200 debate is in the case of the Minis, because it's really all about PPC 7447 vs Intel Core, and the Core DOMINATES.

 

[kalisphoenix]

Well perhaps now a literal step backwards since the performance of both cards are pretty much on par, but you must not forget that the G4 Mini sold for a lot less than the Intel Minis. For what it is worth what did we get? Bluetooth and wireless included standard now, Intel processors, and of course... the GMA 950 chip.

Bluetooth, Airport Extreme, another entire processor core, a larger hard drive (iirc), a better video card, a remote control and media center software, and higher RAM capacity (iirc). For $100, that's a pretty good value.

For what it is worth the Mac Mini is really poor value for what it gives, as I've posted on another thread it is possible to get a 2.0ghz Macbook in the refurbished store for $799 at one point, what's so outstanding about the Mac Mini that makes it so expensive for what it delivers?

Perhaps the fact that it doesn't make a staggeringly lousy media center, like a laptop would?

 

[pigwin32]

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.

A classic line. Personally I think the mini is a great little machine with copious processing power in a very compact form factor. I'm currently using one as a web/database server (and yes I consider myself a "power user" despite not requiring a high performance graphics card). I guess the point though is that it's a very generic machine for which Apple has attempted to meet certain price/performance/feature criteria and as a consequence it isn't going to meet everyone's requirements. I think in the next revision we might see something more interesting and to me the biggest issue is lack of basic expansion options. I would love to see it incorporate an ExpressCard/34 slot for expansion and an eSATA port. Both of these are commodity items and I'm taking a wild guess that they would be unlikely to materially affect either the price or the form factor.

And dpaanlka, whilst entertaining, your discussion with clueless was never going to result in accord but 10/10 for trying.