New Intel Mac mini

[thunng8]

See the MacIntouch benchmarks compared to G4 mini

http://www.macintouch.com/#tips.2006.03.01;)

scroll halfway down or click on notes and tips

Those number are very low for an iMac G5 iSight

I get:


CINEBENCH 9.5
****************************************************

Tester:

Processor : iMac G5
MHz : 2100
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OSX 10.4.5

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X600XT
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 286 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 303 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 847 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1616 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.33

 

[~Shard~]

ATTN: Mod

Buyer's Guide still needs updating. Still says last update was 9/2005. 🙂

Best if you PM a Mod instead of posting it here. That way it is brought to their attention for sure. 😎

 

[slooksterPSV]

Yeah, but this wasn't as cool:

Time to Convert DV file to MPEG4 (seconds)
58 PowerBook
66 iMac Core Duo
37 iMac G5
63 PowerPC Mini
96 Mini Solo

Intel GMA Video card = Piece of SH*T, ATI = Best Video Card. Wonder why the MPEG does better on the G4? The ATI Card handles those instructions instead of a complicated instruction set on a CPU. I'd rather have a G4 Mini than an Intel Mini

 

[steelfist]

OK OK OK... STOP BITCHIN EVERYONE.

I have asked many people who I assume would know a thing or 2 about the graphics capabilites of the new Mac Mini.... they ALL AGREE that why it seems "fundamentally wrong" for Apple to use integrated graphics... it will prove to be better than the graphics used in the previous minis. BETTER... you hear that... not whoppingly X1600 better... but better more so along the lines of a 1.33 GHz computer getting bumped to a 1.42 GHz one. Not thaaaat much better... but still.. BETTER. Why is everyeone so up in arms about this announcement? One of the guys I asked didnt think it was even physically possibly to put an X1300 in the mini given its heat and the actual card size, and the fact that the older ATI 9200s were technically still integrated into the logic board, they just had their own memory.

I deal with people and computers all the time.. and the conclusion that I have come to is probably the EXACT same one that Apple probably concluded.... and it is: "People seeking an entry level computer to do e-mail, internet, and a few media related things DONT CARE ABOUT THE GRAPHICS CARD.. if they even know what a graphics card is! Now i do agree that its a bad feeling i get when i hear "intergrated graphics" just as a lot of people got a bad feeling when they first heard "Intel chip" last June.... but i dont hear anyone screaming for Apple to go back to PowerPC!

Besides.. everyone ... dare i say, 95% of people reading and posting on this site are NOT the AVERAGE CONSUMER... you are the computer savvy tech type... who, if you were buying a dell, wouldnt go and buy a cheap-ass one unless it was your 2nd or 3rd. Which this Mac Mini would be perfect for... a 2nd or 3rd computer for a computer person like yourself... or a new one for someone who is NOT LIKE YOU and DOESNT CARE!

Final things to remember....
1. People buying a mac mini arent looking to play intense games... and people looking to play intense games shouldnt be looking at a mac mini!
2. The graphics card that was in the old mini was enough for handling most video decoding and playback even in HD. Thats right... HD. Gaming in HD, maybe not so much... playback in HD... of course. My 2 year old powerbook plays 1080i content more than fine from my EyeTV with 2 or 3 other things going on...and there isnt even that much 1080p content that exists (yet). The core solo, and especially the core duo mini will be more than enough from a processor standpoint to play HD, b/c the processor can make up for what the graphics card lacks... to a degree.
3. Shared memory shmared memory.... its bad.. it sucks... whatever... its more video memory than the 32MB they used to have (64MB which ive heard is capable of up to 94MB) and faster memory. GET AT LEAST 1GB ram and QUIT COMPLAINING. Hell, its got 2 slots, bump it to 1.5 GB and your str8.
4. Price going up always sucks... but when you think... Airport, bluetooth, more expensive and much faster processor, SPDIF digital audio out and in, faster bus, more USB, faster RAM technology, front row, remote, and a few other things.... $100 doesnt sound all that bad. ANd how man other brands of entry level computers can achive all that.. dual core.. and be 6x6x2 inches? and run OS X?

If you disagree .. well i'm sorry. But no matter how you look at it.. the mac mini now is MUCH better that it was.... PERIOD

i second this. 😛

 

[golfstud]

Frontrow with VideoTS folders

Wow, 40 pages of posts.

Does anybody know if Frontrow can access VIDEO TS folders like Apple's DVD player can. I love storing my GREAT DVDS on my hard drive for backups. If I could get a second HD with my mini and hook it up to my SAMSUNG 61" DLP 1080P ready tv and use FRONTROW to access the VIDEO TS folders I have tucked away..that would be cool.

Also, the whole HD thing is not there yet. If the DVD player in the MINI doesn't UPSAMPLE regular DVDs they will look like crap on a HD TV. Trust me...I had to get a good upsampling DVD and I NOTICED the difference big time on the 61" DLP.

The MINI as your DVD player hooked up to a TV is not a bad deal..gives you a second computer to surf web and check email...and watch and listen to your content. CAN'T wait for the BLU-RAY Mac MINI one year from now😀

 

[dogstar]

My Experience with Intel Mac Mini

I ordered a stock $599 mini yesterday afternoon. To my surprise, by 6pm the same day, I got a email from apple that it had shipped fedex. Got it this morning at 9:00 AM at my work.

I also btw bought the original 1.2GHZ mini with 256M of ram the day that was released. I upgraded it to 1 GB but after a few months I ebayed it off because it seemed too pokey.

Now I can tell you, for a fact, that this is a MUCH faster system than that last mini. I am running on a 1600 x 1200 lcd monitor using dvi. Apps load instantly. Tiger has all the graphic riches. Silky smooth graphics. The integrated graphics uproar is totally overblown - fact. This system is so much more usable - forget about it. You will love this system. I am going to use this system for my living room with my 42" Bravia LCD, but now I may buy a dual core with 2GB and use that as my main system in my office.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

... It is so silent I really can't believe it. Hell I can't even tell its on except for that light.

... It is a beautifully engineered piece of kit just like the last mini. Expect nothing less.

... The remote control works great and is fun to use. I haven't even tried that frontrow yet, this is just from using quicktime pro in full screen

... The bleeding edge will hurt a bit. There's a bunch of stuff that isn't working yet for intel. I couldn't get Azereus to work (even the one that should work with intel) and none of the ppc quicktime codecs work so it was tough finding a divx/xvid codec that worked (finally did though).

... The graphics appear to be blindingly fast. Much faster than my windows pc with a year or two old ati card.

MY TEST

I completed an H.264 test. I first tried playing a 480P file, then the 720P version and then finally the 1080P version. At the time of the test I was downloading two torrents using (rosetta-emulated) Tomato Torrent at over 100K/s each. (I thought this was a realistic load test for my purposes).

So first the 480P file...
In a window, it played flawlessly - silky smooth
At fullscreen 1600x1200, it played flawlessly as well

Then tried the 720P file...
In a window, it played flawlessly - silky smooth
At fullscreen 1600x1200, it played flawlessly as well

Finally got the courage to try 1080P file...
In a window, it stuttered - unwatchable
At fullscreen 1600x1200, it stuttered - unwatchable

But not bad at all! My Bravia is only 720P/1080I so I am a very happy camper. Furthermore, perhaps if I upgrade the ram and close all other apps and tweak some settings, it just might run smoothly. It would be interesting to see if the core duo could handle the 1080P file. But anyway my Athlon windows pc can't run a fullscreen hd movie worth crap (with $100 ATI card purchased maybe 1.5-2 years ago), so the mini is impressive to me.

Anyway, for just spending one night with a product, I give this baby a 9/10, but just watch out for the bleeding edge, it hurts a little. Like I said, I will not hesitate to buy an upgraded one for my main office computer. It is really, really now a sweet little computer.

 

[balamw]

Now I can tell you, for a fact, that this is a MUCH faster system than that last mini.

Anyway, for just spending one night with a product, I give this baby a 9/10, but just watch out for the bleeding edge, it hurts a little.

Great review, and good news. Thanks for posting your first hand experience.

B

 

[cwerdna]

Intel GMA Video card = Piece of SH*T, ATI = Best Video Card. Wonder why the MPEG does better on the G4? The ATI Card handles those instructions instead of a complicated instruction set on a CPU. I'd rather have a G4 Mini than an Intel Mini

ATI has some really crappy video chipsets (by today's standards) out there, the 9200 was one of them.

You sure about your latter statement? Look at the numbers again, the iMac Core Duo has ATI X1600 video which is a HELL of a lot faster than anything on any PowerBook and on the PoewrPC Mini. It's also a lot faster than the X600 XT on the fastest iMac G5.

 

[50548]

Great review, and good news. Thanks for posting your first hand experience.

B

Exactly. I hope your great hands-on review finally shuts the mouth of wannabe whiners and Windows fanboys around here. The Mac Mini IS a GREAT upgrade over the previous model, including the GPU, period. There is no reason to complain whatsoever, apart from the totally understandable price increase (as the 499 model was a BARE-BONES Mini).

Thanks again.

 

[Hugh]

Upgraded Quicksilver vs Intel Mini

I have a Quicksilver upgraded to a 1.2Ghz G4 with the original video card which is Nvidia GeForce2 MX (AGP) with 32mb of ram.

I am thinking of selling my Quicksilver and getting a Mini (dual core), however I have a few questions. I've been reading in this thread that people are not in favor of the intergrated video on the new mini.

So how bad is this video card on the new Mini compared to what I got? I have no use of HD stuff and as for games, the only games I play so far is Starcraft,Warcraft,Command & Conquer. I am guessing playing DOOM3 on this computer would be out of the question but that doesn't matter for I have DOOM3 for my X-Box. I am more important of speed of operations.

You ask why I looking at the mini, because I've noticed that this machine is starting to show it's age on rendering videos and other stuff.

What's your thoughts?

-Hugh

 

[matticus008]

I have a Quicksilver upgraded to a 1.2Ghz G4 with the original video card which is Nvidia GeForce2 MX (AGP) with 32mb of ram.

I am thinking of selling my Quicksilver and getting a Mini (dual core), however I have a few questions. I've been reading in this thread that people are not in favor of the intergrated video on the new mini.

So how bad is this video card on the new Mini compared to what I got? I have no use of HD stuff and as for games, the only games I play so far is Starcraft,Warcraft,Command & Conquer. I am guessing playing DOOM3 on this computer would be out of the question but that doesn't matter for I have DOOM3 for my X-Box. I am more important of speed of operations.

You ask why I looking at the mini, because I've noticed that this machine is starting to show it's age on rendering videos and other stuff.

What's your thoughts?

-Hugh

The integrated graphics on the new mini is a vastly superior graphics chip to a GeForce 2 MX...or a GeForce 2 anything for that matter. You should see a substantial improvement in overall usage, and in your case, it's a clear upgrade for your video card, too.

 

[50548]

I have a Quicksilver upgraded to a 1.2Ghz G4 with the original video card which is Nvidia GeForce2 MX (AGP) with 32mb of ram.

I am thinking of selling my Quicksilver and getting a Mini (dual core), however I have a few questions. I've been reading in this thread that people are not in favor of the intergrated video on the new mini.

So how bad is this video card on the new Mini compared to what I got? I have no use of HD stuff and as for games, the only games I play so far is Starcraft,Warcraft,Command & Conquer. I am guessing playing DOOM3 on this computer would be out of the question but that doesn't matter for I have DOOM3 for my X-Box. I am more important of speed of operations.

You ask why I looking at the mini, because I've noticed that this machine is starting to show it's age on rendering videos and other stuff.

What's your thoughts?

-Hugh

Your GeForce is roughly equivalent to the G4 Mini's ATI 9200 with 32Mb; as clearly proven here and elsewhere, this new GMA950 is superior to the old Radeon 9200 (and surely your GPU as well). Besides, any potential bottleneck in terms of IIG is compensated by (at least in the Core Duo model) a vastly superior CPU power.

The problem is that whiners saw comparisons between the GMA950 and NEWER GPUs, forgetting the fact that the Radeon 9200 IS the standard of comparison for the new Mini against the G4 model...and as per the above hands-on review, the new Mini is MORE than able to cope with most ordinary tasks, even in its Core Solo offering...

For more positive info, check www.macsonly.com, they also have a good review; and last but not least, buy as much RAM as you can...this is the key for good performance in the Mini.

 

[thies]

The problem is that whiners saw comparisons between the GMA950 and NEWER GPUs, forgetting the fact that the Radeon 9200 IS the standard of comparison for the new Mini against the G4 model...and as per the above hands-on review, the new Mini is MORE than able to cope with most ordinary tasks, even in its Core Solo offering...

Well, that's just ********. The comparison is reasonable against current entry level radeon or nvidia cards. You know, one as was used in the old mini back in its day. Apparently the X1300 is the integrated entry level GPU from ATI these days. The GMA950 needs to be measured against that one and be on par. And either way, what can be expected for a casual use computer is that it plays casual games. Everyone and their mom plays Sims2 and World of Warcraft has 6 Million subscribers. You put out a switcher mac like the new mini it better be able to play those games on standard settings without trouble. Initial reports meant the GMA950 would not even be able to do that. Right now it appears it might be able to. I was close to buying a shuttle last evening, now I hold out until I hear what those who got their mini say in regards to games. If WoW plays fine at 1280x720 on standard settings they get my money. Otherwise Apple has to try harder next time.

 

[punkmac]

New Mac Mini Core Duo and 1080 H.264...

Has Anyone tested 1080p H.264 with a Core Duo Yet? This will be the tie breaker for me, I think.

Thanx,


I.

 

[isgoed]

for the headless iMac dreamers: Here's a wake-up call.

Well, that's just ********. The comparison is reasonable against current entry level radeon or nvidia cards. You know, one as was used in the old mini back in its day. Apparently the X1300 is the integrated entry level GPU from ATI these days. The GMA950 needs to be measured against that one and be on par. And either way, what can be expected for a casual use computer is that it plays casual games. Everyone and their mom plays Sims2 and World of Warcraft has 6 Million subscribers. You put out a switcher mac like the new mini it better be able to play those games on standard settings without trouble. Initial reports meant the GMA950 would not even be able to do that. Right now it appears it might be able to. I was close to buying a shuttle last evening, now I hold out until I hear what those who got their mini say in regards to games. If WoW plays fine at 1280x720 on standard settings they get my money. Otherwise Apple has to try harder next time.

Well, I just take you as an example, but there are loats of people just like you in this thread. You want an headless iMac with an upgradable graphics card. Since the Macmini falls short on the graphics part you reject the mini as a whole. The truth is that apple indeed does provide a headless iMac. It's the PowerMac and the features on it (upgradable graphics, ram, big hard disk) are actually more expensive than cheaper. The mini is an excellent little kicker, mostly because they got that core duo in.

Sure for a long time I was also whining that the iMac's game performance was poor and the PowerMac too expensive. But now that I have come to my senses, I realised that the best path to follow is to buy a mac mini and a microsoft xbox (PPC and Ati Xenos in there 🙂 yum, yum 🙂 ) OR buy a powermac. Face it apple is quite expensive. If, at any point in time, you expected to get a top notch gaming experience on the mac mini, regardless of whether they actually put a geforce FX 5200 or even a geForce 7300 turbocache in it you were seriously mistaken.

BTW: I will buy the core duo mini within a month.

 

[Raukodur]

how much system RAM can the graphics card use? looking for an upper end figure, i'm thinking it pulls however much it needs until it reaches a maximum limit? Am i right?

 

[isgoed]

how much system RAM can the graphics card use? looking for an upper end figure, i'm thinking it pulls however much it needs until it reaches a maximum limit? Am i right?

Post 151 in this thread. The answer is 224 MB

 

[Raukodur]

wow, isnt that quite impressive?

Apart from the fact that this would seriously decrease the amount of RAM your CPU had (which can be helped by adding more RAM, something apple should do, 1 gig minimum would be nice), doesnt this mean the graphics card can function 'well' (dunno how else to put it).

Doesnt this basically mean you have a 224 mb graphics card in the mini? Or have i got it all wrong...

 

[thies]

Well, I just take you as an example, but there are loats of people just like you in this thread. You want an headless iMac with an upgradable graphics card.

I have talked about upgradeable graphics cards where exactly? hint: I haven't.

Since the Macmini falls short on the graphics part you reject the mini as a whole. The truth is that apple indeed does provide a headless iMac. It's the PowerMac and the features on it (upgradable graphics, ram, big hard disk) are actually more expensive than cheaper. The mini is an excellent little kicker, mostly because they got that core duo in.

laughable. imacs always used and still use entry level components which specs to match. the powermacs always were the upper end hardware. and the mac mini? was positioned alongside the imac with comparable specs in the last generation

Sure for a long time I was also whining that the iMac's game performance was poor and the PowerMac too expensive. But now that I have come to my senses, I realised that the best path to follow is to buy a mac mini and a microsoft xbox (PPC and Ati Xenos in there 🙂 yum, yum 🙂 ) OR buy a powermac. Face it apple is quite expensive. If, at any point in time, you expected to get a top notch gaming experience on the mac mini, regardless of whether they actually put a geforce FX 5200 or even a geForce 7300 turbocache in it you were seriously mistaken.

face it, as an entry level switcher machine the general publics expectation will be that casual games like Sims2 will run on the mini just as it did on their dell. right now that looks doubtful with the gma950.

 

[Raukodur]

wow, isnt that quite impressive?

Apart from the fact that this would seriously decrease the amount of RAM your CPU had (which can be helped by adding more RAM, something apple should do, 1 gig minimum would be nice), doesnt this mean the graphics card can function 'well' (dunno how else to put it).

Doesnt this basically mean you have a 224 mb graphics card in the mini? Or have i got it all wrong...

would anyone be able to give me an informed reply on this?

 

[Synapple]

wow, isnt that quite impressive?

Apart from the fact that this would seriously decrease the amount of RAM your CPU had (which can be helped by adding more RAM, something apple should do, 1 gig minimum would be nice), doesnt this mean the graphics card can function 'well' (dunno how else to put it).

Doesnt this basically mean you have a 224 mb graphics card in the mini? Or have i got it all wrong...

That's also what I would like to know, as I am totally in the dark when it comes to video cards.
Anyone with a decent knowledge care to explain?

Thanks

 

[isgoed]

I have talked about upgradeable graphics cards where exactly? hint: I haven't.

I read it in your mind.

face it, as an entry level switcher machine the general publics expectation will be that casual games like Sims2 will run on the mini just as it did on their dell. right now that looks doubtful with the gma950.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say: "[…] be able to play those games on standard settings without trouble. Initial reports meant the GMA950 would not even be able to do that. Right now it appears it might be able to". Even earlier you said:

The Intel GPU has been bothering me quite a lot. I just shot messages back and forth with a friend who has a dev box running osx with a gma900 and 2gb ram. He tried doom3 on it. The frames per second were decent on medium quality settings and at 800x600. In other words, if you hook that mini up to a decent display really just forget about playing games. I'll wait for a revision or buy a shuttle x100 which is getting a radeon x1600 if they come out before.

Is there some reality distortion field that prevents you from even listening to yourself? I am a casual gamer and let me tell you that I played all 20 DooM3 levels on 800x600 ultra low quality and had no problems with it.

Having searched some of your posts, I only saw very negative post. It stroke me as odd, but now I get it. You are a troll! And by the tremendous amounts of posts you are making, I would say a troll on a payroll.

 

[thies]

I read it in your mind.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say: "[…] be able to play those games on standard settings without trouble. Initial reports meant the GMA950 would not even be able to do that. Right now it appears it might be able to". Even earlier you said: Is there some reality distortion field that prevents you from even listening to yourself? I am a casual gamer and let me tell you that I played all 20 DooM3 levels on 800x600 ultra low quality and had no problems with it.

Having searched some of your posts, I only saw very negative post. It stroke me as odd, but now I get it. You are a troll! And by the tremendous amounts of posts you are making, I would say a troll on a payroll.

I'd rather say that someone who comes back with arguments like "I read it in your mind" after trying to put words into my mouth is some lowlife I can not argue with as he will obviously at all times simply make **** up to suit his point of view.

And by the way, there exists no contradiction. If you read the comments in order and the context they were made in you might be able to see that. Or.. well, no you don't as you demonstrated.

If you consider playing doom3 at 800x600 to be a pleasurable experience I pity you.

Now I get it! You are a dimwit!

 

[g.x]

Everyone points out that the Mini duo specs are a little short of the 1.83 Ghz posted as the minimum for Quicktime H264 HD at 720p. However, I think that 1.83 notation is just because that was the minimum the iMac came out with. I suspect the dual mini could handle HD content and that that quicktime page will be updated to reflect the release of the mini.

I believe that the MacBook Pro and new iMac came out at the same time. At that time, the MacBook Pro (low end) was slower than 1.83 GHz.

Also, the system requirements are not limited to the CPU. Apple also says that 64 MB video RAM is required.

 

[Raukodur]

yes, ok, can we stop behaving like children now and use this thread like people with a brain larger than the size of a peanut might?

I am putting forward a question which i believe many people would like to know the answer to from someone who has some knowledge about how graphics cards (integrated ones in particular) work.

Originally Posted by Raukodur
wow, isnt that quite impressive?

Apart from the fact that this would seriously decrease the amount of RAM your CPU had (which can be helped by adding more RAM, something apple should do, 1 gig minimum would be nice), doesnt this mean the graphics card can function 'well' (dunno how else to put it).

Doesnt this basically mean you have a 224 mb graphics card in the mini? Or have i got it all wrong...