Intel mac

Discussion in 'Games' started by b0tt094, Sep 17, 2006.

  1. b0tt094 macrumors 6502


    Sep 2, 2006
    Ya i have a Mac mini with 512ram Intel core... and the games run I hate to say medeocer at best.... If I could spell medeocer:p anyways whats so great about intel cores and can anyone give advice on how to speed up games because before this mac I had a I think a 128 ram Dell Laptop wich Im still dumbstruck to Ran better than this On the game topic but sucked at everything else:cool:
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    You need more ram but fact is Apple is using theGMA 950 and it is last in graphics and there isnt much you can do about it except right Apple a nasty letter for selling such junk. The ati 9200 was a better gpu.
  3. yoda13 macrumors 65816


    Sep 26, 2003
    Upgrade the RAM, it will help. The graphics chip is the bottleneck and there isn't anything you can do about it, short of buying a new computer. Some people have had enough sucess upgrading the RAM to find some games playable though. I believe there are multiple threads on it. Anyway, your best bet is to up the RAM.
  4. Mackilroy macrumors 68040


    Jun 29, 2006
    Wrong, actually. ;) I had an iBook with an ATI 9200 and the GMA 950 blows it away.

    Anyways, to answer the OP: are you trying to play more-graphically intensive games? While the GMA 950 is adequate for games such as Empire at War and such, playing Quake 4 is out of the question. Your Intel mini is indeed much better than your old laptop. As for what's great about the Core processor, well, it's fast, uses very little energy, is much cooler than previous Intel processors, etc.
  5. kered22 macrumors 6502


    May 26, 2006
    Torrance, CA
    Mediocre. :D

    The GMA950 integrated graphics aren't bad, integrated graphics have a bad reputation, but the 950 itself is decent. It won't match the X1900 in my MacPro of course, but it's not a terrible chip or anything.

    For the best game performance, you sort of need to get certain games. Most will run okay, I've run Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 on mine. Albeit with both running at pretty low settings. Quake 3 based games seem to run very well (Jedi Knight II I can run at maxiumum settings, Jedi Academy just a notch below).

    Upgrading the RAM to a minimum of 1GB would really help too. BTW, do you have the Core solo model? That will really hinder performance.
  6. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601


    Feb 10, 2004
    ERM. Go look at the barefeats benchmarks ( of the PPC mini vs. the Intel mini. Check the framerates for UT2k4, etc. The GMA950 barely keeps up with the 9200. I'm not saying it's crap, it's not bad... I might still get a Mac with one. But, saying it "blows away" the 9200 is just nonsense. The computer itself is much, much faster than the PPC mini, so you are removing pretty much any CPU bottleneck which will make most games play faster.
  7. Mackilroy macrumors 68040


    Jun 29, 2006
    And, of course, barefeats is perfect. :p

    I'm speaking from my own experience. I've used computers with the 9200 and with the GMA 950, and the 950 was consistently faster.
  8. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601


    Feb 10, 2004
    Ok, so your "the 950 runs faster than the 9200" is somehow more accurate than the numerical benchmarks from a well respected Mac testing site? :rolleyes:

    I'm not calling the 950 a slouch, it's a pretty decent little chip... but it's not as fast at most 3d graphics tasks as the 9200 is. Period. It's better at 2d desktop work and video decoding, sure. It holds its own in 3D gaming applications, but even if you :feel: it's faster, it's not.

    Your overall gaming experience may have improved, but that's going to be a result of the overall faster system; dual core CPU, faster memory, faster FSB, faster HDD most likely... everything in a new Intel Mac is going to be faster than a G4 iBook - except the GPU.

    Again, I'm not knocking the 950 - I'm on the fence of a Core Duo and a 20" iMac at the moment, trying to decide if the extra money is worth the GPU upgrade or not... the 950 would likely be enough for my needs (but barely). It's just not a great piece of hardware is all.
  9. eXan macrumors 601


    Jan 10, 2005
    Yes, thats it, you said it yourself. You used computers with 9200 and GMA950, bu the same computer with 9200 and 950. Mac mini that had 9200 in it also had a 167 MHz FSB, a UltraATA 4200 RPM HD and 1.25/1.42 GHz G4 Processor

    The new mini has 1.66/1.83 GHz Core Duo processor, much faster FSB, SATA HD, but GMA950. So, if you, hypothetically snap in 9200 in the intel-mini, you'll notice a big performace bump.

    The only reason GMA is better than 9200 is that it supports Core Image.
  10. Mackilroy macrumors 68040


    Jun 29, 2006
    Luckily for you and the person after you, I realize that the rest of the computer is better, as well. :p I just don't want people to spread FUD. I know the MacBook would be better with a dedicated graphics chip. ;)
  11. miniConvert macrumors 68040


    Mar 4, 2006
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    The Mac mini just isn't a gamers' machine. Sure, it's ok for basic bits and bobs, but certainly nothing graphics intensive - and neither should anyone expect it to be. I love mine for web browsing, email, watching DVD's and TV etc, but WoW is just horrible on it and for a machine at this level that isn't surprising.

    iMac's are a much better solution for such usage, and probably better value given what you get included.
  12. Mackilroy macrumors 68040


    Jun 29, 2006
    miniConvert speaks truth.

    Of course, a Mac Pro would be even better, but an iMac is easier for most budgets, I'd think.

Share This Page