adamcz said:
No, you need an DVI to ADC adapter. you may be able to find one used in our Market Place
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Intel Mac mini
- Thread starter drift1492
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, you need an DVI to ADC adapter. you may be able to find one used in our Market Place
Wow. Excuses aplenty for a less-for-more update. I especially loved the "In defence of GMA9xx" posts, comparing it to a 3-year old GPU. Only managed 4 pages of this though.
I was genuinely in the market for an upated Mini, Intel or no, at the previous price point for media PC usage, but having used the GMA900-based development machine, no. This isn't a refresh, this is a change in philosophy (and a good old laugh if you read the old Apple blurb about integrated VGA being awful).
But, feel free to remind me it's 'only' a consumer machine, with all those related caveats. Consumers do nothing but read email, after all.
I was genuinely in the market for an upated Mini, Intel or no, at the previous price point for media PC usage, but having used the GMA900-based development machine, no. This isn't a refresh, this is a change in philosophy (and a good old laugh if you read the old Apple blurb about integrated VGA being awful).
But, feel free to remind me it's 'only' a consumer machine, with all those related caveats. Consumers do nothing but read email, after all.
SaddY said:
well i haven't seen any benchmarks, nor tried it myself, so i can't tell 😛
(goeie nacht, slaap zacht 😉 )
New Thought...
Guys, the Yonah has only just been introduced. I predict that by the end of the year, after Merom has had some time to make it's way into the Notebooks and Conroe into the PowerMac, the Yonahs will increase in speed and see a noticable dip in price. I think then, the MacMini will become a 'trio' option again and we should see:
Entry level 1.66Ghz 'Duo' with Int Graphics 80Gig HD Combi @ $499
Mid level 1.66Ghz 'Duo' with 64Mb entry GPU 80Gig HD Superdrive @ $599
Top level 1.83Ghz 'Duo' with 128Mb entry GPU 100Gig HD Superdrive @ $699
Apple have rushed the transition and as a consequence the pricing is high at the moment, because the intel technology is new. Remember how expensive the Cube was with the G4 and even then the G4 had more time to settle than the Yonah has had...we really couldn't expect the $499 this time round.
I'd say wait for Rev B on this one...the software transition will have got better as well and we may even see a Rosetta 2.0 with Leopard that is even better than this one..who knows?
Guys, the Yonah has only just been introduced. I predict that by the end of the year, after Merom has had some time to make it's way into the Notebooks and Conroe into the PowerMac, the Yonahs will increase in speed and see a noticable dip in price. I think then, the MacMini will become a 'trio' option again and we should see:
Entry level 1.66Ghz 'Duo' with Int Graphics 80Gig HD Combi @ $499
Mid level 1.66Ghz 'Duo' with 64Mb entry GPU 80Gig HD Superdrive @ $599
Top level 1.83Ghz 'Duo' with 128Mb entry GPU 100Gig HD Superdrive @ $699
Apple have rushed the transition and as a consequence the pricing is high at the moment, because the intel technology is new. Remember how expensive the Cube was with the G4 and even then the G4 had more time to settle than the Yonah has had...we really couldn't expect the $499 this time round.
I'd say wait for Rev B on this one...the software transition will have got better as well and we may even see a Rosetta 2.0 with Leopard that is even better than this one..who knows?
matticus008 said:
Actually it HUGELY WILL when CoreImage/Video is entirely adopted for these Apps, then it will just be core GPU power for realtime rendering...(it already makes a difference)
I really wanted to buy a mini today, but now I'll try and buy my neighbor's G4 mini
I was all set to buy a mini today. But because the price went up at least $100, I'll pass and get a used G4 mini. And someone please tell me why the dual core is $200 more than the single core when the chip costs only $38 more in bulk. Apple is sticking it to us on this one. As far as the integrated graphics, my complaint isn't with the performance. The graphics on this mini should easily outperform the ATI 9200 in the G4 mini. But 512MB of memory is a minimum and the integrated graphics is using a minimum of 80MB of that memory. For the increased price, Apple should have made 1GB of memory standard. Otherwise, they should have found a way to have a separate video ram.
I was all set to buy a mini today. But because the price went up at least $100, I'll pass and get a used G4 mini. And someone please tell me why the dual core is $200 more than the single core when the chip costs only $38 more in bulk. Apple is sticking it to us on this one. As far as the integrated graphics, my complaint isn't with the performance. The graphics on this mini should easily outperform the ATI 9200 in the G4 mini. But 512MB of memory is a minimum and the integrated graphics is using a minimum of 80MB of that memory. For the increased price, Apple should have made 1GB of memory standard. Otherwise, they should have found a way to have a separate video ram.
matticus008
macrumors 68040
Chundles
macrumors G5
AussieStu said:
Yeah, it's 0.08GHz faster, so what? you ask? Well, the 2MB cache is way better than 256k, the 667MHz bus is way better than 167MHz. Those two boosts alone make it a much faster chip.
You'd still go for a 1.42GHz G4 over a Dual Core 1.66GHz? Crazy in my books.
Yeah, onboard graphics is a bit dodgy but MacFixit have some stats that show the 950GMA to be a more capable performer than the 9200 - now, that's all well and good if it's true but I agree that the 950GMA smacks of cost cutting.
The Mac mini has never been portrayed as a gaming system. Most gamers out there know what they need and won't buy something that won't work. You couldn't play Doom 3 on the old one, why would you expect it to run on the new one? It's a machine built for average joe consumer who wants a bit of style and stability in his computing requirements, and, on occasion, the ability to impress people with the tiny machine plugged into his big telly with the cool effects for playing music.
Erm, I for one would want as much bandwidth as possible if I were streaming 720p HD movies around the house - not available now but in the future it will be. You have to build in some future proofing now, bandwidth is going to become far more important as the years go on.
I don't mind about shared graphics, I'm no gamer. All I want from the new iBook is a big boost in speed (the GMA950 is fully Core Image compliant so working with the level of graphic processing I need won't be a problem) so these two processors would be a fine low and high-end replacements for the geriatric G4.
That's gonna cost a fortune to do, not to mention the 2.0GHz G4 doesn't exist. You'd be looking at a bigger increase in price than we got (and I agree, it's a bit much to swallow but what can you do? We'll have to wait till the prices come down) the Core Solo is still quite expensive and the Core Duo even more so.
God I hope your whole post is being slightly sarcastic. Those $399 PC's have integrated graphics, slow-arse processors and Vista would be awful running on one. You can run OS X on the new Intel Mac mini with all the effects and eye-candy it provides. You'd have to run Vista in "classic" mode in which it would look and behave something like a flashy version of Windows 2000. Yak.
mrgreen4242
macrumors 601
jocknerd said:
I'm guessing that they are making almost nothing on the base model mini. As you mention, the Duo is only $38 more, so the cost to build these machines is almost the same. I'm betting they are breaking even on the base model, in order to have something cheap out there, and hoping to recoup this on selling a good number of the Duos at a more traditional Apple markup.
This makes me really curious if the mini will have a replaceable CPU... might be able to turn a Solo into a Duo and save a few bucks.
EDIT: Er, you also get a DL SuperDrive and bigger HDD... DL SD thin/laptop drives aren't cheap, so that's a pretty good chunk of the price I'd guess.
matticus008
macrumors 68040
Legacy said:
No, it won't. Having a CoreImage-ready GPU is something that requires support at the OS level and the application, and even if you consider Core technologies (which aren't ready yet), all it does is take work from the CPU to the GPU. Everything can still be done with the CPU if your GPU can't handle it...you won't cripple Photoshop or lose functionality because of an underpowered GPU. But all of that does not currently apply, as there is no native Intel version of Photoshop and there are no CoreImage/Video applications.
As for now, rendering is done with the CPU. It has zero performance impact now and for the near future.
Evan_11 said:
Ok, so an ATI Radeon X300 with 64MB only belongs in a 2000$ computer now?
Evan_11 said:
Yes, the price went up. We know the Core Duo is more expensive than a G4. But what is SPDIF and Bluetooth 2.0 doing in a 600$ computer anyway? And a dual-layer DVD writer? I'm not saying the new Mac mini is not a good deal for the price, I'm just saying the money didn't go into the right place.
Make all those fancy things BTO options and put a real GPU with dedicated RAM, Apple.
Evan_11 said:
So what? Not everyone wants to have a Windows box in their home (especially "just for games"). I play World of Warcraft on my G4 Mac mini, I was simply expecting a real GPU with dedicated memory on the next version of the Mac mini. Apple really did make a step backward with this shared memory GPU.
What's especially sad is the huge step in GPU between the iMac G5 and the Core Duo iMac didn't translate to the low-end (usually, the low-end just couldn't get better because the mid and high-end models were also under-powered in the GPU department).
What's sad is the fact that Intel keeps on making "shared memory" GPUs...
hechacker1
macrumors member
heh... games on a mac...
sorry, i just had too. your complaining about the lack of a graphics card on a small and relatively cheap machine.
sorry, i just had too. your complaining about the lack of a graphics card on a small and relatively cheap machine.
Anonymous Freak
macrumors 603
FocusAndEarnIt
macrumors 601
😱mrgreen4242 said:
Time will tell! Somethings telling me it won't be, though. I mean... think about it - they're trying to keep it as small as possible, right? Well, I doubt they would just put removable processors in, that must take up a wee-bit more space. Hmmmm....
mrgreen4242 said:
That's what I'm thinking. Get the Solo now, and drop in a Duo 2.0+Ghz when they get cheap and cooler
matticus008 said:
Yes support at OS level is complete and support at Application level, at least for iMovie and Final Cut is complete. It is a matter of time before Adobe start to code their app too. The GPU handles processes far quicker than the CPU hence the whole idea so a core image capable GPU would be able to render in real time whereas the CPU would have to stress itself to get a few frames per second of rendering.
In reality a GMA system may support Core Image, but like the 9550 w/ 32Mb VRAM on the iBook thats as far as it goes - support. In real life it would be inadequate and a Core Duo would be faster. However, put a 6800/7800 in there and you will get substantially faster results than any CPU Intel has to offer for rendering - thats why we have GPU's and not CPU's for gaming and hence dedicated GPU's and not integrated one's this is where the MacMini point I think, makes itself.
it's all about marketing and product positioning
Hallelujah!!!
Finally someone understands!!!
This mac mini is all about positioning.
I'm amazed at the # of people who want to play games on the mini. The mini is not intended for that. Neither are comparable pc counterparts. The manufacturer's dont' want you playing games on cheap pc's - pre-packaged game systems are not cheap. This mini isn't intended for you, nor is it intended for users who want good graphics capabilities. And let's be honest - everyone on this post is at an advanced user (compared to the regular joe). You're gonna want more.
This mini is being marketed for the regular consumer - to be integrated into the living room. It's pretty obvious - just look at the feature set.
digital + 5.1 audio capability (home stereo integration)
easy audio / video playback across multiple computers (audio / video jukebox)
remote control
fast fast ethernet
tv connectivity (I think they're shooting for a decent 720 resolution, not 1080)
What else do you need for a killer digital media solution? Not much - the pieces are being put into place - software software software.
The key question is - will the hardware be good enough to satisfy the regular consumer's expectations for video playback on a tv. It looked that way from the presentation (let's hope they up the quality when they go whole hog on the video). If the graphics processor can handle 720 on it's own - it'll probably be enough to make it a hit in the living room.
If that's the case - then this mini fits very nicely into a HUGE slice of the market. If you're gonna complain about graphics - then the iMac is the obvious choice. If you want more - go with the PRO level machines.
It makes sense. Apple's taking small steps and differentiating the product lines to align with their introduction into the media marketplace. We're just whining because we're not getting as much bang for our buck. In reality we should be happy that they're balacing leading edge technology with cost-effectiveness. Apple's got a chance to make it's digital media strategy work - but only if they get the formula right, the right blend of technology and manage their customer's expectations.
___________________stcanard said:
Hallelujah!!!
Finally someone understands!!!
This mac mini is all about positioning.
I'm amazed at the # of people who want to play games on the mini. The mini is not intended for that. Neither are comparable pc counterparts. The manufacturer's dont' want you playing games on cheap pc's - pre-packaged game systems are not cheap. This mini isn't intended for you, nor is it intended for users who want good graphics capabilities. And let's be honest - everyone on this post is at an advanced user (compared to the regular joe). You're gonna want more.
This mini is being marketed for the regular consumer - to be integrated into the living room. It's pretty obvious - just look at the feature set.
digital + 5.1 audio capability (home stereo integration)
easy audio / video playback across multiple computers (audio / video jukebox)
remote control
fast fast ethernet
tv connectivity (I think they're shooting for a decent 720 resolution, not 1080)
What else do you need for a killer digital media solution? Not much - the pieces are being put into place - software software software.
The key question is - will the hardware be good enough to satisfy the regular consumer's expectations for video playback on a tv. It looked that way from the presentation (let's hope they up the quality when they go whole hog on the video). If the graphics processor can handle 720 on it's own - it'll probably be enough to make it a hit in the living room.
If that's the case - then this mini fits very nicely into a HUGE slice of the market. If you're gonna complain about graphics - then the iMac is the obvious choice. If you want more - go with the PRO level machines.
It makes sense. Apple's taking small steps and differentiating the product lines to align with their introduction into the media marketplace. We're just whining because we're not getting as much bang for our buck. In reality we should be happy that they're balacing leading edge technology with cost-effectiveness. Apple's got a chance to make it's digital media strategy work - but only if they get the formula right, the right blend of technology and manage their customer's expectations.
magi.sys said:
Doubt it, I bet theyre soldered like the MacBook Pro muhahaha cumon people.. Apple needs to make money!
Best advice from this guy regarding upgrades:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=659868888687687821&q=mac+games
Simplicity..dont you love it?
balamw said:
Indeed. Same motherboard, same parts, etc. Just need to make a new casing, new packaging and a new webpage.
A headless iMac Core Duo? With an ATI X1600/128MB and a 3.5" drive? I'll buy that!
Problem is, the high-end Mac mini is now so expensive, there's not really any room left in terms of prices for such a device...
Go to apple store, then mac mini, then select a model, and now you're at the build to order page... If you click "learn more" next to hard drive, it says that all hard drives are 7200.mrgreen4242 said:
matticus008
macrumors 68040
Yvan256 said:
It's not really sad. From an objective standpoint, now is an excellent time to push onboard graphics for mainstream and low-end use. Modern CPUs, while not increasing in clock speed as rapidly, have more power than the average user needs. RAM is relatively inexpensive and it's possible exceed what's necessary by a huge margin. Software publishers are guilty of feature creep and general bloating because they have the luxury of a glut of clock cycles and memory. It makes a great deal of sense to save money on expensive GDDR memory and space-consuming, power-hungry add-in cards when you've got free cycles and resources to handle it.
Upsides are good performance for typical tasks, reduced heat and power consumption, and making customers happy with smaller machines. The downside to this approach is that computers of this design will suffer under load because of a virtual traffic jam. But 95% of day-to-day computer use puts remarkably little strain on hardware.
And someone please tell me why the dual core is $200 more than the single core when the chip costs only $38 more in bulk. Apple is sticking it to us on this one.
-------
the problem is that it if they bump up the memory and processor specs without a price increase, they'll sacrifice sales of iMacs. With the price jump, it brings it into the price range of the iMac.
You see apple doing the same thing with the entire ipod line. there's a price range for everyone - and the upgrade is only 50 bux less than the next line up. It's classic marketing, cross-sell and up-sell. And it works - look at their success with the ipod.
-------
the problem is that it if they bump up the memory and processor specs without a price increase, they'll sacrifice sales of iMacs. With the price jump, it brings it into the price range of the iMac.
You see apple doing the same thing with the entire ipod line. there's a price range for everyone - and the upgrade is only 50 bux less than the next line up. It's classic marketing, cross-sell and up-sell. And it works - look at their success with the ipod.
timon
macrumors member
No you just need a DVI to HDMI cable, nothing else.
Also see: http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/DVIHDMI.php
Also see: http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/DVIHDMI.php
matticus008 said:
photomaniac said:
I think that was he's saying is that you don't need a "converter". You need an "adapter". A simple cable. It doesn't cost 150$.