Jump to content


Apple Unveils Mac Mini with Intel Core Duo


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#21 WSTE_M

WSTE_M

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1159 posts
  • Location:six feet under

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:33 PM

As far as I am concernde, Apple tried to piss in a cup today.
And missed.

W
blowing stuff up in the virtual world since 1994

#22 bookman

bookman

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1580 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:56 PM

They better not put that rubbish in the MacBook - if that has shared graphics memory, I'm going back to a peecee at work. Yuck indeed!
Work: MacBook - 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM - X3100 graphics.
Home: Mini - 2.0 Ghz Core2Duo - 2 GB RAM - GeForce 9400 graphics.

#23 calroth

calroth

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:12 PM

View Posteasy4lif, on March 1st 2006, 09:52 AM, said:

Congrats Apple, you really missed the mark this time.  any processor improvement is neutralized by the shared memory of the GPU.
Right. So it doesn't matter that Apple added a second CPU, nor that either of the two cores alone would kick ass over the old G4.

People, when you look at integrated graphics, remember what the Mac mini had before. A Radeon 9200 with 32MB. Nobody was ever using this for any kind of serious gaming, as if you could with a 1.42GHz G4 anyway.

Now as a PVR... an Intel Core Duo surely has enough grunt to decode HD, even without GPU assistance. That would be cool.

#24 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:27 PM

View Postnagromme, on February 28th 2006, 11:53 AM, said:

I wonder how it could handle, say , UT2004 with the details low? My old eMac can handle that and it's 700 MHz which doesn't even meet specs. Bring on the tests :) It may not be the Mac for me, but I want to know who I should recommend it to.

UT2004 @ 640x480, low detail: 30 fps

#25 krex725

krex725

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:50 PM

View PostEric5h5, on February 28th 2006, 05:29 PM, said:

Maybe if Apple, with the G4 Mini, hadn't bragged so much and said basically "neener neener, those cheapo PCs have junky integrated graphics but the Mini has a REAL graphics card, nyah nyah!", people would be inclined to give them more of a break.

--Eric

And we all know Apple has stuck their foot in their mouth before (3 GHz G5's by...) but I'm cutting them slack because they have to start somewhere.  In many ways, this is a Rev A so Apple will soon find out if they need to rethink their GPU on the Mini.  If I were looking to do what I imagine Apple believes their target audience wants to do, I don't think I'd ever even notice.

#26 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17376 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:20 PM

View PostWSTE_M, on February 28th 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

As far as I am concernde, Apple tried to piss in a cup today.
And missed.

W
Most likely missed on purpose because they didn't want to have their urine tested.  But hey, it's not a gaming machine nor was it ever intended to be.  It was created to help lure PC users over with a low price.  They just plug their PC keyboards and monitor into it and get a tasty chunk of that meaty morsel called OSX.  I don't think the people it is marketed to cares about integrated graphics as long as their email client and text editor look pretty.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#27 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:22 PM

View Postthe Battle Cat, on February 28th 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

look pretty.

and everything in os x looks pretty.

#28 Starfish

Starfish

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:25 PM

Any idea how the integrated Intel GMA950 compares versus the old ATI 9200?

#29 Frank the Tank

Frank the Tank

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:30 PM

View Postkrex725, on February 28th 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

Outside of gamers, who else is going to walk into the Apple store and scoff at the GPU?

Anyone that wants to do video editing, deals with high-res pics, any kind of 3D modeling, etc.

I'm pissed they actually took a step backwards.  Isn't this Intel stuff supposed to make things cheaper for Apple?  Why would $800 for an Intel machine with integrated graphics???

Apple's supposed to be top-of-the-line, even in their "low-end" models.  That's why it costs more.

And anyone who buys an Apple not for any kind of gaming really seems to be in the wrong forum...   :blink:

#30 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:31 PM

View Postbookman, on February 28th 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

They better not put that rubbish in the MacBook - if that has shared graphics memory, I'm going back to a peecee at work. Yuck indeed!

I'd wager really strongly that that is indeed what Apple will do with the "iBook-MacBooks". Integrated graphics (yuch) will indeed be the norm on the non-pro laptops to keep the prices down. Maybe a higher end one with a token lower-end 128MB video card. Maybe.

Tough to live in a world where I can snag a (PC) laptop with a nVidia 7800 256MB video card for less than CDN$2,000, huh?

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#31 calroth

calroth

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:31 PM

View PostStarfish, on March 1st 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

Any idea how the integrated Intel GMA950 compares versus the old ATI 9200?
Compares in what way?

If you're doing everyday computing, dragging windows around, hitting the Dashboard or Expose key, scrolling through web pages or spreadsheets, watching DVDs: no practical difference in performance. You will lose something like 64MB of your main memory though; that's diverted to the GMA950.

If you're into gaming, the Radeon 9200 is like a 125cc motor and the GMA950 is like a two-stroke engine. It's technically a downgrade but you're so close to the low-end that you wouldn't be playing games on it anyway. Anybody expecting Apple to put the equivalent of a V8 engine in a Mac mini is deluding themselves.

#32 atari

atari

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Location:Vienna,Austria

Posted 28 February 2006 - 09:07 PM

View PostFrank the Tank, on March 1st 2006, 02:30 AM, said:

Anyone that wants to do video editing, deals with high-res pics, any kind of 3D modeling, etc.

I'm pissed they actually took a step backwards.  Isn't this Intel stuff supposed to make things cheaper for Apple?  Why would $800 for an Intel machine with integrated graphics???

Apple's supposed to be top-of-the-line, even in their "low-end" models.  That's why it costs more.

And anyone who buys an Apple not for any kind of gaming really seems to be in the wrong forum...   :blink:

You are convieniently neglecting the Core Duo chip and all the Intel chipset-goodness integrated now.
Most of the stuff you quoted is not even aware of a 3D-capable chip.

I am not saying I am thrilled with Apple´s choice here.
Come on,5-10 bucks more for some X1300 or below class stuff??
27 inch quad beastie ordered :)

#33 krex725

krex725

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 09:11 PM

View PostFrank the Tank, on February 28th 2006, 07:30 PM, said:

Anyone that wants to do video editing, deals with high-res pics, any kind of 3D modeling, etc.

Again, if you're planning on doing any serious video editing, rendering high-res pics, or constructing 3D modeling, you wouldn't even look at the Mini.  The Mini is even more for the home user than the iMac.  The Mini was never meant to target any switchers wanting to do those things (within limits).


Quote

And anyone who buys an Apple not for any kind of gaming really seems to be in the wrong forum...   :blink:

Exactly the reason I just upgraded to the X800 in my PowerMac: I love my FPS.  Hence the reason I am not the target audience for the Mini.  The people I mentioned who were targeted for the Mini probably wouldn't be in a gaming forum like this one, and therefore won't care about the lack of a upper end GPU in the Mini.

#34 Starfish

Starfish

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 09:44 PM

I'm not going to say that the new graphics card is teh awesome, but, I'd imagine it is certainly better than what the G4 had.

#35 Dark_Archon

Dark_Archon

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 28 February 2006 - 09:46 PM

View Postthe Battle Cat, on February 28th 2006, 08:20 PM, said:

Most likely missed on purpose because they didn't want to have their urine tested.

Maybe the reality distortion field is more of a reality distortion cloud. ;)
Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 7 GB RAM SONY DW-D150A SuperDrive

#36 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 09:54 PM

View PostStarfish, on February 28th 2006, 09:44 PM, said:

it is certainly better than what the G4 had

9800s?

#37 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:04 PM

View Postbobbob, on February 28th 2006, 10:54 PM, said:

9800s?

G4 Mac mini would be relevant to the discussion: 9200s. Not that I know how those stack up against the new integrated chips.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#38 kingarthur_kom

kingarthur_kom

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:13 PM

View Postthe Battle Cat, on February 28th 2006, 07:20 PM, said:

Most likely missed on purpose because they didn't want to have their urine tested.  But hey, it's not a gaming machine nor was it ever intended to be.  It was created to help lure PC users over with a low price.  They just plug their PC keyboards and monitor into it and get a tasty chunk of that meaty morsel called OSX.  I don't think the people it is marketed to cares about integrated graphics as long as their email client and text editor look pretty.

True it the Mac Mini was never intended to be a gaming machine. However this is indeed a step backwards.
They HAD a low price. $100 more now.
In the PC market there is a stigma against integrated graphics. Computers with integrated graphics are ones that you use at work all day. As discussed you also have less RAM to work with.
No the people they are trying to market to don't care about graphics. On the other hand it is now overpriced compared to similar cheap PCs.
G4 Cubes were a success for a limited time just as then now Mac Minis are "jumping the shark".

#39 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:06 PM

View PostDaveyJJ, on February 28th 2006, 05:31 PM, said:

I'd wager really strongly that that is indeed what Apple will do with the "iBook-MacBooks". Integrated graphics (yuch) will indeed be the norm on the non-pro laptops to keep the prices down.

i think that there will be a knew laptop: a middle of the rode imac sort of laptop. what i mean is for example the imac dose not have integrated graphics, but the video chip set is most defiantly not anywhere near to what the intel towers are going to have but still way better than the one that the mac mini has. so, there will be the ibook, then the "x-factor", and then the MacBook Pro.

#40 Drinniol

Drinniol

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1153 posts
  • Location:Perth, Australia
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 01 March 2006 - 02:42 AM

The integrated Intel has pixel shaders, the 9200 doesn't, and 64MB of shared memory is hardly worse than 32MB of dedicated memory. That's a pretty big advantage, everything else aside. Other than that it looks like a fairly standard upgrade. A surprising switch to be sure, but one that makes sense.

Remember, the original Mini used G4 chips when the G5 was standard. Now they've got the same top-end chips as the rest of the Mac line, and for not much more. It also has a bus speed of 667Mhz compared to 167Mhz, four times the L2 cache, DDR2 RAM instead of DDR, USB2 instead of USB, double the actual number of USB ports, and optical audio instead of a crappy old headphone socket.

Seriously, lighten up ;)
"If a bunch of actual adults suddenly found themselves trapped in high school, the first thing they'd do is form a union and renegotiate all the rules with the administration." Paul Walker