Do not put integrated graphics as part of any mac including the mac mini. Use a separate video card like you do now. Even though Intel may be the biggest provider of integrated graphics and it may be tempting to use it on low end models like the mac mini please don't do it. Performance hits are too great and drivers are sub-par at best.
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.
Plea to Apple on new Intel Mac designs.
- Thread starter dvdiva
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
zim said:also... no intel stickers please
Yes, no "evil inside" (oops, I meant "intel inside" ) sticker(s) on any new Macs.
I was thinking about this earlier. I'd really hate to see the Intel Macs have integrated graphics, even though I don't use my Mac for gaming. (I prefer consoles)
I agree. For some reason I don't see Apple using the integrated graphics on any of their machines. The only machine I see it being used on is possibly the Mac mini and the only way I would be okay with it is if they could lower the price by a reasonable amount. I would love to see an intel mini at $400. I don't know if it will happen but it may in time.FadeToBlack said:
While my general rule is "integrated graphics == death"*, I could see not getting particularly upset if Apple uses it in the mini. I wouldn't be surprised to see Radeon 9600 class hardware in integrated solutions relatively soon, so they could even have Q2DX support. It'd make *me* not want to use it, but I'm not their intended market with the mini.
*I was forced to use an eMachines for a while, and I hope it ends up in the deepest pit of hell... integrated graphics, WinXP, no antivirus software, and a willamette-core Celeron. What a POS.
*I was forced to use an eMachines for a while, and I hope it ends up in the deepest pit of hell... integrated graphics, WinXP, no antivirus software, and a willamette-core Celeron. What a POS.
The integrated graphics of some Intel chips may play very well into the desire of Apple for a "closed" system that would allow OS X to be so stable and easy to use.
Lets face it - Apple and OS X has succeeded because of the "closed" nature of the hardware. And the major issue for Windows is that M$ has to support so many different pieces of hardware.
What I see is Intel working with Apple to "beef" up the integrated graphics of the sub-system. As long as Apple could be the first in that game.
Lets face it - Apple and OS X has succeeded because of the "closed" nature of the hardware. And the major issue for Windows is that M$ has to support so many different pieces of hardware.
What I see is Intel working with Apple to "beef" up the integrated graphics of the sub-system. As long as Apple could be the first in that game.
Xtremehkr said:
I havn't seen an actual "intel inside" sticker in a while. Mostly they are stickers for the type of procesor, i.e. "Intel Pentium III" or something. Personally I wouldn't mind having an iBook that has a Pentium M mark on it. I don't think it will be in sticker form; more likely it will just be screened on like the models are now. Stickers are really tacky and I'd bet Apple knows that. I think it looks so stupid when people walk around with their Vaios and they keep all 12 of the stickers on there that tell you how to use the trackpad, that is has wireless, etc.
lol, I find it funny that you mention that one of the reasons is that it has crappy drivers. If Apple used it then they'd write their own drivers like they do with ATI and nVidia cards. Also integrated graphics wouldn't be too terribly bad - it's the shared RAM. Hell, even the GFX cards in the iBooks, Powerbooks, Mac minis, iMacs, and eMacs are considered integrated. THe difference is that those GFX cards are made by ATI or nVidia and have their own dedicated RAM separate from system RAM. Apple has no reason to use Intel integrated graphics - unless it's a part of some Intel deal. ATI and nVidia's offerings are more than adequate.
video cards on all macs, excluding the powermac g5, are intergrated..
i think what you mean are intel's own integrated graphics..i think you'll find that won't happen in the end..
i think what you mean are intel's own integrated graphics..i think you'll find that won't happen in the end..
I never understood why Apple didn't use a mobile graphics chip in the Mini (or even the iMac or Cube). You can get mobile chips for just about any range of power (ATI is coming out with a mobility chip based on the X850). It seems like their space-saving and power-saving designs, combined with pretty decent power, would make them perfect for such applications. The only thing I can think of is it's a price issue.Catfish_Man said:
hehe, anyone remember the days when all mac's had integrated video? I'm talking the Mac Plus, Mac SE and Mac Classic machines here.
It's not so much integrating the graphics processor into the chipset that the problem. It's the lack of dedicated, high speed video RAM on these solutions that gives such bad performance. Integrated graphics with high speed dedicated RAM would be able to give similar performance to what we have now with 1 less chip on the board and 1 less supplier to deal with.
If you have an integrated graphics proc, you can always put a vid card in there if you have an open port. You could do that with the old macs and a friend of mine did it last year with his Wintel.
i don't think you would see intel intergrated graphics in any Mac UNLESS it can utilize core imaging
The developer x86 machines use integrated graphics and they can run quartz extreme fine. They also appear to have a card in a graphics slot and this could be dedicated vram for the integrated graphics. Also Apple doesnt write their video drivers from what I read. They just submit bug reports.
The mini will be most people's introduction to macs. Currently it has a !GB max on memory. I don't really know much about macs but I build pc's including servers. Even in servers where the video doesn't really matter they use a crappy ATI card on the motherboard rather than integrated graphics. The massive hit that any integrated graphics card takes has to due more with memory resources and sharing on top of the poor performance of any integrated solution.
If most peoples introduction is a 512 mb ram mini with 32-64 used by integrated graphics than they would just go back to using a low end Dell. Yes the OS would be different but the slowness and lack of any response would not. It would be crappy on both the mini and the Dell. By having a graphics solution with it's own memory any memory management is only for the OS plus whatever apps/games the person is using.
If most peoples introduction is a 512 mb ram mini with 32-64 used by integrated graphics than they would just go back to using a low end Dell. Yes the OS would be different but the slowness and lack of any response would not. It would be crappy on both the mini and the Dell. By having a graphics solution with it's own memory any memory management is only for the OS plus whatever apps/games the person is using.