New Intel Mac mini

[VanNess]

...it's not for gaming, that the mini is essentially just for media playback - err, you need a processor five times faster than the old mini for that? really? wow.

Why, yes you do. Actually five times faster is arguably a little on the lean side for H.264 HD video, which, by the way, is a technology Apple is going full steam ahead with.

HD video decompression is extremely processor intensive. Really.

Because Apple boasts about having a CPU in there which is five times faster yet I don't see a progression from a Radeon 9200 to an equally more up to date graphics solution.

Depends on the GPU you had in mind and whether it could thermally live inside the mini's form factor, among other considerations.

But if someone is going to scrutinize the graphics card of any computer that closely, it's likely that someone is a either gamer or a pro who has intensive 3d graphics programs that need to be addressed. In either case, neither would ever have had the mini on their radar as a viable candidate.

 

[thies]

Hardly. The Radeon 9200 isn't even Core Video compatible. It's a rinky dink entry level card. I'm not a fan of int. video, but let's face it, the main marketing target of the mini is not going to be pushing their computer to the limits. They are going to be writing emails, surfing the web, and viewing their digi pics. If they need a more robust system then they can jump up to the iMac. Besides, the specs for the int. video chipset look better than any other int. video chipset I've seen. Marginal, yes. But the mini is meant to be a marginal computer. Always has been.

Again, you need a five times faster CPU to get your email reading done? Or to watch a DVD? Sorry, but I really don't see any tangible benefit of the faster CPU compared to the old one for such use. On the other hand you have people who do casually play games and they would certainly benefit more from a better GPU. And as there are better solutions available than the Intel chip I do have little understanding for this choice.

 

[thies]

Why, yes you do. Actually five times faster is arguably a little on the lean side for H.264 HD video, which, by the way, is a technology Apple is going full steam ahead with.

HD video decompression is extremely processor intensive. Really.



Depends on the GPU you had in mind and whether it could thermally live inside the mini's form factor, among other considerations.

But if someone is going to scrutinize the graphics card of any computer that closely, it's likely that someone is a either gamer or a pro who has intensive 3d graphics programs that need to be addressed. In either case, neither would ever have had the mini on their radar as a viable candidate.

Oh but I can use equally narrow minded argumentation as everyone else here has so far and simply say that the mini has no HDMI connector or YUV output and is thus not meant for playing HD quality video 😀 and ofcourse anyone having such scrutiny as to wanting a HD playback device would certainly buy a dedicated media center and not a mini which is for reading mails and watching DVDs.

Or we could just agree that the GPU is crap and a letdown compared to alternatives which could have been used instead.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

When people set up the new Mini and see the ripple effect in dashboard I bet they'll be exctatic LOL 😀 😀

You do realize that Core Video is MUCH more than that? Like giving users the ability to see real time special effects in iMovie. No, I guess you don't 🙄 Oh, and I don't believe I said the Intel mini was Core Video compatible, because I don't think it is. It's Core Graphics compatible, and I'm SURE you realize that Core Graphics = Quartz, not Core Video. No, I guess you don't. 🙄

 

[50548]

u might not but the radeon blows the water out of any intergrated card. its facts. also, that means share memory, another downer and thus showing lack of quality in the intergrated card

Sorry, but you know nothing about that; the 9200 doesn't even show up in GPU comparisons anymore.

GMA950 (945G)
Core frequency 400MHz
Pixel rate 1.6 gigapixels per second
Memory bandwidth 10.9GB/sec
Pixel shader support Up to 2.0

Radeon 9200 (this one with 64Mb!!)
Core frequency 250MHz
Pixel rate 1.0 gigapixels per second
Memory bandwidth 6.4GB/sec
Pixel shader support N/A

The 9200 is a piece of junk compared to this newest IIG, even though I don't fancy integrated graphics either...but at least it's better than the Radeon, that's for sure. MOVE ALONG, CITIZENS...

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Or we could just agree that the GPU is crap and a letdown compared to alternatives which could have been used instead.

Sure and we can also agree a Honda Civic is crap and a letdown compared to a BMW M3. Again, again, again, the mini is an ENTRY level computer.

 

[aswitcher]

Again, you need a five times faster CPU to get your email reading done? Or to watch a DVD? Sorry, but I really don't see any tangible benefit of the faster CPU compared to the old one for such use. On the other hand you have people who do casually play games and they would certainly benefit more from a better GPU. And as there are better solutions available than the Intel chip I do have little understanding for this choice.

When Apple start offering H264 movies in more than the current lame resolution, you will need a decent machine to play them without dropping frames or having artefacts.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Again, you need a five times faster CPU to get your email reading done? Or to watch a DVD? Sorry, but I really don't see any tangible benefit of the faster CPU compared to the old one for such use. On the other hand you have people who do casually play games and they would certainly benefit more from a better GPU. And as there are better solutions available than the Intel chip I do have little understanding for this choice.

Well, last time I checked, encoding songs was fairly processor intenstive. GarageBand is also a processor hog. Lots of other processor intensive programs that don't need a strong video card. On the other hand, most gamers don't have a use for an entry level machine to play games. If you want a game machine go buy a PS2.

 

[gunm]

Being a current Mini owner, I'll probably hold off on an immediate upgrade, at least until the latter half of the year. The specs are a definite step up overall, but there's enough room for improvement that I think I'm better off seeing where they go from here before making a purchase.

Besides, I need to save up for the inevitable MacBook announcement for the 30th anniversary...😎

 

[lord_flash]

Seen the video?

Has anyone seen the video on CNet?

http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6044210.html?tag=ne.vid

It might just be the poor sound recording, but I'd say that Steve (oh lord and god of all things Apple, praise be, repeat until psycologist arrives). Oh, sorry, where was I?

Yeah, I thought that Steve looked more than a little bit embarassed by the his offerings. He spoke more quietly, and with a lot less enthusiasm than usual. Tired? More excited by goings-on at Disney now he's a bigger fish? Or does he just know that these are overpriced, underwhelming offerings?

 

[MacSA]

You do realize that Core Video is MUCH more than that? Like giving users the ability to see real time special effects in iMovie. No, I guess you don't 🙄 Oh, and I don't believe I said the Intel mini was Core Video compatible, because I don't think it is. It's Core Graphics compatible, and I'm SURE you realize that Core Graphics = Quartz, not Core Video. No, I guess you don't. 🙄

Dont roll your emoticon eyes at me you fool.

 

[caveman_uk]

Dont roll your emoticon eyes at me you fool.

Any chance of keeping this discussion civil? You know? Without resorting to name calling?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Dont roll your emoticon eyes at me you fool.

Heh. Takes one to know one. 😀 (I hope a big fat grin suits you better).

 

[gnasher729]

The thing is, I have all of you getting their panties in a twist that it's not for gaming, that the mini is essentially just for media playback - err, you need a processor five times faster than the old mini for that? really? wow.

Download "Handbrake", convert a two hour DVD to high quality H.264, and then post again and tell us if you want a machine that is five times faster or not.

 

[steelfist]

it's funny, that steve jobs still like the word "powerbook". he accidentally said it 😛

one thing that annoyed me is the lowest price of the mini isn't as low as before. i woulden't mind if he released a 499 one with a slower processor like 1.33 or something to fill the gap.

 

[mixel]

Well, personally I'm really happy with this upgrade and don't see any reason to be upset about it.. I'd be very interested to see the real benchmarks, and don't really mind about the integrated graphics.

I'm glad they kept the form factor too for all the people who've bought weird dock-like things for their old minis. 🙂

Ok, so the price is slightly higher, but it'll drop very quickly I bet, and you'll have your sub $500 mac again. There's some pretty expensive components in there..

Also I thought those were pretty 'fun' products.. They never said 'fun products for crazy macheads' - and the media thing wasn't actually meant for the public in the way we saw it. it was a suitably low-key introduction, you guys are the ones who hyped it up. 🙂

 

[Little Endian]

Sorry, but you know nothing about that; the 9200 doesn't even show up in GPU comparisons anymore.

GMA950 (945G)
Core frequency 400MHz
Pixel rate 1.6 gigapixels per second
Memory bandwidth 10.9GB/sec
Pixel shader support Up to 2.0

Radeon 9200 (this one with 64Mb!!)
Core frequency 250MHz
Pixel rate 1.0 gigapixels per second
Memory bandwidth 6.4GB/sec
Pixel shader support N/A

The 9200 is a piece of junk compared to this newest IIG, even though I don't fancy integrated graphics either...but at least it's better than the Radeon, that's for sure. MOVE ALONG, CITIZENS...

The 9200 is still the better option in comparison to the 950G. Check out benchmarks here: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1

The 9200 is not listed in the benchmarks and is hard to find listed anywhere because it is old and this particular benchmark and others are only comparing Integrated Graphics. However it is safe to say that the 9200 is still faster than the ATI Xpress 200 which beats the Intel GMA950 in most cases quite easily. In fact the 9200 should place right below the Nvidia Geforce 6200 in terms of performance.

You grossly underestimate the speed penalty that shared VRAM memory imposes on a system, reducing available RAM to the system is bad enough what's worse is how it also will bog down the CPU.

A better choice for Apple would have been to use the 9550 as found in the ibook but with 64MB of RAM it would have given us Core Image support as well as being much faster than the 950GMA.

 

[VespR]

It is way too expensive for a system that DOESN'T include Display/Mouse/Keyboard.

You can say what you want about this not being designed as a 'Games' machine. But when was it ever designed with the idea that consumers shouldn't be able to play games on it?

I was under the impression that the Mac Mini was released with a view to inticing people to 'Switch' (a campaign long abandoned) for those who already owned a display/keyboard/mouse.

Therefore, removing those peripherals you could create and comparitively competitive machine at a much lower cost for the 'Switchers'.

Core Duo/Core Solo - pfft.. It's an upgrade from the a G4 so who cares what it is?!

I think the extra USB ports are great, gigabit ethernet? Is that even necessary, it's not a PRO machine (as so many people keep saying...). The idea that technology is forever evolving and what you buy today is worthless in six months should apply here. That Integrated graphics chip is old technology and the Mini should pack a decent nVidia/ATi card.

I'm sorry but I'm agreeing with the masses here, Apple is merely trying to bump up their margins so to make money off their brand. You know they're getting those chips from Intel for pennies. And if I want to play games on a Mac, but already own a kickass wireless keyboard/mouse and a 20" display, then I want the mini to perform. I don't need the iMac or (outdated) PowerMac.

 

[photomaniac]

Oh for the love of God! DVI IS THE SAME THING AS HDMI, without the audio! You do not need a converter! And if you go to the store and insist that they give you one, they will laugh you out of there!

Can I ask you a question? Do you have a cable to plug your Mac mini into your TV already? If you don't, then you have to buy one. So, when you go to your electronics store, you'll say to the nice man "can I have one of those DVI-HDMI cables, please?" And he'll give you one. And it will be the EXACT SAME THING as the "regular" HDMI-HDMI cables, just one side will be bigger than the other! The price will be the same! They do the exact same thing! If you still insist on buying a "converter", I can make you one for only twice the price of a DVI-HDMI cable. Then, I would like to sell you a bridge.

no sh*t! but why the hell would you insist I buy a new cable???? obviously I already have a cable because I am currently using my TV. I spent $400 on my 25' HDMI to HDMI cable... I'm not gonna spend another $400 to get a HDMI to DVI cable - that would be pretty stupid right... so actually, I think they would "laugh me out of there" if I didn't buy the converter for a 1/10 of the price. ...I guess some people just like to spend more money when they don't have to...??🙄

 

[50548]

Has anyone seen the video on CNet?

http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6044210.html?tag=ne.vid

It might just be the poor sound recording, but I'd say that Steve (oh lord and god of all things Apple, praise be, repeat until psycologist arrives). Oh, sorry, where was I?

Yeah, I thought that Steve looked more than a little bit embarassed by the his offerings. He spoke more quietly, and with a lot less enthusiasm than usual. Tired? More excited by goings-on at Disney now he's a bigger fish? Or does he just know that these are overpriced, underwhelming offerings?

One thing is true...I saw y-day the presentation on the original iMac in iTube...the guy was on fire and with a perfectly cunning attitude...that presentation was simply flawless, really...

I truly hope Jobs has some amazing products in the pipeline, so that he can be as excited as when the iMac was intro'ed by himself...

My favorite line (about beige PCs):

"These things are uuuuuuuugly"

hahahaha

 

[Passante]

"In other words, THIS IS THE MEDIA CENTER MAC MINI!"

Really? Good thing it has HDMI or Component video output. Right? Oh, it doesn't, so stop.

I'd probably have purchased one of these in a split second if it offered HDMI output. As it has DVI, I need an HDMI adapter, then I'd need a separate audio connection - so scratch that unless you have a separate sound system. At least it could have had component output - there are some "media extender" devices that are small and accomplish this by using a DVI port to deliver the signals through a cable that terminates with component plugs.

How is it that Apple has this push for HD with its software and system specs, yet the Mini only really supports S-Video without a lot of extra work and hardware?

It looks like a DVI-I connector which carries audio. DVI-D only carry the video. They lack the 4 connectors that are above and below the horizontal dash

 

[gnasher729]

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.

If you go to the Apple Store, you will find that there are more differences between the models. You can upgrade the cheap one to be identical except for the processor, and then the difference is $100.

On the other hand, the Core Solo is $100 cheaper, when the chip costs only $38 less in bulk, so you are getting a bargain...

 

[Hattig]

You grossly underestimate the speed penalty that shared VRAM memory imposes on a system, reducing available RAM to the system is bad enough what's worse is how it also will bog down the CPU.

Um, we've gone from a G4 with a 1.3GB/s FSB + a Radeon 9200 with a 6.4GB/s memory interface (32 or 64MB RAM) to a system with a total of over 10GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Even if the processor ate up 5GB/s of bandwidth, there'd still be 5GB/s for the graphics.

And the 9200 will suck at anything that uses Pixel Shaders, and that's a lot of modern stuff. In those respects even the GMA950 is a step up.

The max RAM capacity has doubled as well, up to 2GB. It is annoying that the available RAM is down from the last mini though, and Intel binaries use up more memory as well, nevermind Rosetta.

 

[50548]

The 9200 is still the better option in comparison to the 950G. Check out benchmarks here: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=1

The 9200 is not listed in the benchmarks and is hard to find listed anywhere because it is old and this particular benchmark and others are only comparing Integrated Graphics. However it is safe to say that the 9200 is still faster than the ATI Xpress 200 which beats the Intel GMA950 in most cases quite easily. In fact the 9200 should place right below the Nvidia Geforce 6200 in terms of performance.

You grossly underestimate the speed penalty that shared VRAM memory imposes on a system, reducing available RAM to the system is bad enough what's worse is how it also will bog down the CPU.

A better choice for Apple would have been to use the 9550 as found in the ibook but with 64MB of RAM it would have given us Core Image support as well as being much faster than the 950GMA.

Sorry, but I don't know how you think that the X200 is worse than a 32Mb 9200. I understand your point about sharing memory, but we must deal with the facts here:

Previous Mini:

256 standard plus 32 GPU
single G4 CPU

Current:

512 standard plus 0 (shared)
single Solo CPU with higher clock OR dual core Duo

Which one is better, considering that the 950 has better bandwidth and higher frequency, especially in the case of the Core Duo option (2 cores sharing the load)? CLEARLY the 950, as the Core Duo (or even the Solo) are MUCH more able to share their CPU power with graphics demands than the G4.

Besides, the comparison I put was for the 64mb 9200, which is not EVEN included with the previous Mini

 

[Hattig]

If you go to the Apple Store, you will find that there are more differences between the models. You can upgrade the cheap one to be identical except for the processor, and then the difference is $100.

On the other hand, the Core Solo is $100 cheaper, when the chip costs only $38 less in bulk, so you are getting a bargain...

Remember that Apple are using a 1.5GHz Core Solo, not a 1.66GHz Core Solo.

I don't know if it is a low power version, or a version made for Apple that is cheaper than the 1.66GHz variant. If it is the latter, then the $38 cheaper might not apply - Apple could be getting it for a lot less, maybe $60 less than the Core Duo in the high-end Mac Mini.