New Intel Mac mini

[50548]

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!

Sorry, but leaving aside your shallow arguments on the GPU for a while (which in the end didn't mean anything anyway, technically speaking), what is wrong about playing Doom 3 at 800x600? Do you really think most people have 23"/30" Cinema Displays at home?

Do I really need to play Doom 3 at 1600x1200 on my iMac Rev. B, which has a max resolution of 1440x900? What about the Mini, then? Get a grip, please.

 

[50548]

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.

That is correct; if you have enough RAM, the 950 will be able to access up to 224Mb of RAM, with the pixel fill/clock rates already mentioned above.

And considering the much higher bandwidth of the Core Duo and the new Intel chipset (in comparison with the G4), the impact on normal operations (even sharing the memory interface and so on) will be minimal, I am sure. That is why the 950 is, AT LEAST, a sizeable improvement over the poor Radeon 9200.

 

[Raukodur]

seems to make sense.

When i first heard about the integrated graphics it immediately made me think of crap graphics. But that association is not a correct one to make, since integrated normally means crap because its actually a crap graphics card that is integrated, not because the fact that its integrated turns all graphics cards into crap.

Therefore, i dont think people should immediately jump to the conclusion that the mini has a crap graphcis card, instead its probably better to look at the stats of the 950 card and what it is capable off. Surely because of the space constraints in the mini, whatever card would have been in there would have been integrated. They couldnt have put in one of the newer ones due to the large heatsinks and fans they require and the amount of heat they produce, surely?

 

[thies]

Sorry, but leaving aside your shallow arguments on the GPU for a while (which in the end didn't mean anything anyway, technically speaking), what is wrong about playing Doom 3 at 800x600? Do you really think most people have 23"/30" Cinema Displays at home?

Do I really need to play Doom 3 at 1600x1200 on my iMac Rev. B, which has a max resolution of 1440x900? What about the Mini, then? Get a grip, please.

Haven't seen anything more worthwile in regards to the GPU posted by you.
Do you think people have 800x600 res monitors at home still? And why not get down to 320x240? Why talk about HD movies and 1080p playback when standard resolution works? And fasst intel chips when G3 cpus work as well? Get a grip please. There are ootimal environments for everything. Just as scaling HD content to SD resolution is rather stupid so is playing games at the lowest possibly resolution.

 

[thies]

That is correct; if you have enough RAM, the 950 will be able to access up to 224Mb of RAM, with the pixel fill/clock rates already mentioned above.

And considering the much higher bandwidth of the Core Duo and the new Intel chipset (in comparison with the G4), the impact on normal operations (even sharing the memory interface and so on) will be minimal, I am sure. That is why the 950 is, AT LEAST, a sizeable improvement over the poor Radeon 9200.

You are still not on par with a dedicated card as the memory bandwidth is usually shared unless you get another controller on there as well. You also with this GPU have the problem that part of the shader work is not done by the GPU but the data needs to be passed to the CPU and the calculations be done there. In all you have a lot of data being needlessly passed around between components.

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

When i first heard about the integrated graphics it immediately made me think of crap graphics.

Gee, I wonder where you would get that idea ... could it be ... Apple's previous Mac Mini information??!!??

But that association is not a correct one to make

Yep, now we're going to see a spin of how this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, now that Apple is actually using integrated graphics themselves.

 

[Raukodur]

lol, funny you should look at my comments that way, i dont own a mac, have never used a mac, i own a PC, and im not planning to buy a mac until the summer or maybe even later.

 

[g.x]

I ordered a stock $599 mini yesterday afternoon.

I completed an H.264 test.

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

Thank you so much for this. It is difficult at times to rely on published specs. When they come from Apple itself, they seem to me to be more reliable.

But a real world test, even if it's with just one sample file, is much more valuable.

Thanks again.

 

[isgoed]

funiest post

When i first heard about the integrated graphics it immediately made me think of crap graphics. But that association is not a correct one to make, since integrated normally means crap because its actually a crap graphics card that is integrated, not because the fact that its integrated turns all graphics cards into crap.

How often can you use the word crap. It is hilarious when you speak it out loud in combintaion with "graphics card". I think you win the price for the crapiest explanation of the crapness of crapy graphics cards.

No offense intended. Just having fun.

 

[AidenShaw]

not a "card", GPU is part of the Northbridge

...since integrated normally means crap because its actually a crap graphics card that is integrated, not because the fact that its integrated turns all graphics cards into crap.

The GMA950 isn't a "card" - it isn't even an embedded chip soldered to the motherboard (like the NVIDIA® GeForce® Go and Mobility™ Radeon® offerings).

The GMA is literally part of the Northbridge - in other words, it's part of the same chip as the FSB and the memory controller. This helps make it a cheap, low-power, compact solution.

In the following diagram, the GMA950 is in the middle red box. It has three video outputs, in the diagram those are shown as "TV", "LVDS Flat Panel" (a standard used to connect the internal display on a laptop), and "CRT" (probably really means VGA). Other combinations are possible (like dual DVI) depending on what driver chips are connected to the three video output ports.

There's also a PCIe x16 output, so that a mobo manufacturer could make a system that could accept a real graphics card. Presumably this output is unused on the MiniMacIntel.

See also http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm

 

[punkmac]

Thank you so much for this. It is difficult at times to rely on published specs. When they come from Apple itself, they seem to me to be more reliable.

But a real world test, even if it's with just one sample file, is much more valuable.

Thanks again.

It is good to know that it can handle 720p. But what about 1080p?

i know Apple says at least a 2ghz, but I went to the Apple store in King of Prussia and played 1080 trailer on a 17" iMac 1.83 and it played fine.

Maybe it's the same deal with Mini.

 

[whooleytoo]

<snip>
Yep, now we're going to see a spin of how this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, now that Apple is actually using integrated graphics themselves.

😛 Very good!

I think this falls into the "Hoisted by one's own petard" category!

 

[Legacy]

It is good to know that it can handle 720p. But what about 1080p?

i know Apple says at least a 2ghz, but I went to the Apple store in King of Prussia and played 1080 trailer on a 17" iMac 1.83 and it played fine.

Maybe it's the same deal with Mini.

That was a 1.5Ghz Core Solo handling 720p. Im quite positive a 1.66Ghz Duo should play 1080...

 

[Undecided]

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.

That's a fair point, though it was never released with that lower spec. That's why I think the Apple QT specs only reflect actually shipping products (and lags shipping by a bit...). I was actually being too conservative - another poster successfully played 720p on the SOLO. So, I expect Apple to update the QT page changing the 720p min. to a 1.5 Ghz solo.

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

But the Mac Mini can access up to 224 MB of (shared video) RAM. 😕

 

[50548]

The GMA950 isn't a "card" - it isn't even an embedded chip soldered to the motherboard (like the NVIDIA® GeForce® Go and Mobility™ Radeon® offerings).

The GMA is literally part of the Northbridge - in other words, it's part of the same chip as the FSB and the memory controller. This helps make it a cheap, low-power, compact solution.

In the following diagram, the GMA950 is in the middle red box. It has three video outputs, in the diagram those are shown as "TV", "LVDS Flat Panel" (a standard used to connect the internal display on a laptop), and "CRT" (probably really means VGA). Other combinations are possible (like dual DVI) depending on what driver chips are connected to the three video output ports.

There's also a PCIe x16 output, so that a mobo manufacturer could make a system that could accept a real graphics card. Presumably this output is unused on the MiniMacIntel.

See also http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm

Sorry, but the fact that it's contained in the main chipset DOESN'T mean it's not embedded...the right graphic is as follows:

Here you may clearly see that the GMA950 constitutes a DIFFERENT core...it's not just some ancillary, matrioshka-like thing...

 

[Hugh]

Quicksilver 1.2ghz G4 vs New MacMini round #2

This might be off topic, but since we are talking about the MacMini, I figure this thread is fine to post my questions. 😎

So here is the question, would I be moving up from my quicksilver if I got the CoreSolo Mini. I'm looking at the Dual, but might have to get the solo instead.

Guys, I know there is some chatter about the Graphics chip in the Mini not up to snuff compaired to other cards. Some one already said that this graphics chip will beet my GeForce2 (32mb) on a Dual. What about a solo?

What are your thoughts?

-Hugh

 

[Raukodur]

IMO Hugh, don't consider buying anything atm based on opinions of people who think they can predict what the mini is going to be able to do. Wait a few days until reviews start coming online from people with hands on experience of the new minis and all will become very clear. Right now pretty much everything being said is bias and speculation.

 

[AidenShaw]

One minor point...

Sorry, but the fact that it's contained in the main chipset DOESN'T mean it's not embedded...the right graphic is as follows:

<image not repeated>

Here you may clearly see that the GMA950 constitutes a DIFFERENT core...it's not just some ancillary, matrioshka-like thing...

One minor point - the 945G chipset is for Netburst-based chips, the 945GM (the one that I posted the diagram of) is for the Mobile Core Solo/Duo chips....

Also, if you'd read http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30921901.pdf you'll see repeated references to the "internal graphics device" - it is part of the Northbridge, as I said.

Finally, if you look at http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/30750203.pdf you'll not only see the same "internal graphics device" verbiage, and a diagram of the chip (see thumb) that shows that the IGD is inside the single 1202 "pin" package of the 82945G circuit. The marketing artwork that you posted for the 945G shows the functional components of the chip, not the physical layout. (For example, the audio device is in the Southbridge, but it's shown as an external blue box.)

Sorry, but your post is confused - and wrong.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

One minor point - the 945G chipset is for Netburst-based chips, the 945GM (the one that I posted the diagram of) is for the Mobile Core Solo/Duo chips....

Also, if you'd read http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30921901.pdf you'll see repeated references to the "internal graphics device" - it is part of the Northbridge, as I said.

Finally, if you look at http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/30750203.pdf you'll not only see the same "internal graphics device" verbiage, and a diagram of the chip (see thumb) that shows that the IGD is inside the single 1202 "pin" package of the 82945G circuit. The marketing artwork that you posted for the 945G shows the functional components of the chip, not the physical layout. (For example, the audio device is in the Southbridge, but it's shown as an external blue box.)

Sorry, but your post is confused - and wrong.

Yup, you are right. Even on the desktop chipsets, the 'GMA 950' is integrated into the Northbridge. And yes, it does use main system memory, and yes, it does use the main system processor for the majority of the video processing.

Read Intel's 'Technical Product Specifications', and it all becomes clear.

 

[Raukodur]

I think without a shadow of a doubt the current graphics capabilities of the new minis will be better than the old minis, i think apples biggest failing is not necessarily the integrated graphis but the way they dont seem to have stressed how the new mini improves upon the old mini in terms of graphics. Especially since most people wouldnt understand a word of it, theyd just be reassured its improved in all areas apart from the price. The way that is it the word 'integrated' has got everyone wondering.


Cannot wait for an actual hand on review by someone to finally find out what the single core and dual core minis are capable off, end all this speculation.

Edit: found this review: http://blog.applekoolaid.com/2006/03/review-mac-mini-coreduo.html

 

[dogstar]

Cannot wait for an actual hand on review by someone to finally find out what the single core and dual core minis are capable off, end all this speculation.

I did, and I just placed my order for an $1100 2GB RAM, 120GB HD dual core mini. I'm going to use it in my office as a java development machine and for running some server apps. It will eventually be replacing two huge wintel boxes that make my office sound like a server room.

The mini is the real deal. My mac mini core solo has all the eye candy for tiger and all the speed that you expect in the UI. It runs H.264 720P fullscreen smoothly and it also runs DIVX/XVID movies fullscreen smoothly. I will try some more movies when I get home tonight. Will try HDTV DIVX and some other HDTV formats besides H.264. The system kicks the ass of my 2.4 GHZ Athlon with ATI card. The display is rock-solid steady and smooth and it really shows off the beauty of my 20" 1600x1200 lcd.

If you want this thing for 3d games though, what are you thinking? Buy an XBOX 360 for that, that's what I did. Nothing compares to it. Mac doesn't have any games anyway. I did download the Marble Blast Gold demo and it seemed like it runs faster than my old 1.2PPC Mini even though I think it is running under Rosetta.

I just wish it supported Visual Studio 2005 and then I could use it at work all day long.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yup, you are right. Even on the desktop chipsets, the 'GMA 950' is integrated into the Northbridge. And yes, it does use main system memory, and yes, it does use the main system processor for the majority of the video processing.

Read Intel's 'Technical Product Specifications', and it all becomes clear.

Where did you read that it uses the x86 Core processor for graphics?

Here (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm) it says that the GMA is a separate "256-bit graphics core running at 400MHz". On page 343 of http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30921901.pdf if describes the pipelined 2D and 3D engines of the IGD.

That makes a Core Duo a triple-core when you consider the GPU 😉

 

[Maxx Power]

You are still not on par with a dedicated card as the memory bandwidth is usually shared unless you get another controller on there as well. You also with this GPU have the problem that part of the shader work is not done by the GPU but the data needs to be passed to the CPU and the calculations be done there. In all you have a lot of data being needlessly passed around between components.

I was just typing up a reply to a similar post when my iBook decided to freeze for some reason.

Anyway, the bandwidth issue is reversed with respect to what you are saying, the R9200 has a maximum possible memory bus width of 128 bits when using 4 or 8 32Mbits BGA chips as it does in the desktop and faster notebook variants. If you ever opened up the Mac Mini before, and took a look at the lone 32MB 32Mbits BGA ram chip on the flipside, you'll know that the memory bus is restricted to access in 32 bits rather than 128. The similar thing happens on the PC side, so don't worry. The end of the story is, with 1/4 as much width, running at 200 or 183 Mhz DDR (if i recall corrrectly using ATI clock utilities for mac), the R9200 has nowhere near as much bandwidth compared to a dual channel 128bits access of the GMA950 at 667 Mhz, somewhere around 11 GB/s if you calculated or looked at the reviews elsewhere. Same deal goes for the iBook i was using, which is clocked at 200/183 for the R9550 using, and i'm guessing since I didn't take apart the iBook yet, 32 bits wide memory access. Also, remember the P-M core is narrow and efficient for the X86 execution units (Int, FPU), and along with a stellar implementation of extra low latency L2 cache, it doesn't need to fetch as much from the memory, and also due to the design of the Mac Mini, where you wouldn't be doing multimedia encoding all day, and hence memory bandwidth is left unused if not for the integrated GPU.

 

[jiv3turkey748]

$600.. wow bring ppc back if intel is going to be this expensive

apple just doesnt get it do they if anything the mac mini should be going down in price not up
at $600 at least include a keyboard and mouse

 

[srobert]

$600.. wow bring ppc back if intel is going to be this expensive

apple just doesnt get it do they if anything the mac mini should be going down in price not up
at $600 at least include a keyboard and mouse

Not sure but I would think the price increase is more related to the extras made standard (WIFI, Bluetooth, Digital In/Out, Gigabit Ethernet, Extra USB ports) than the change of processor. I could be wrong. I think these extras made standard have something to do with the role the Mini is meant to migrate to: in your living room.