Jump to content


New Mac Mini, integrated video?


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#1 Fourth Horseman

Fourth Horseman

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Location:On your six, 1.2nm... and I have tone!

Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:24 PM

Any speculation or educated guesses on how the integrated video in the new Intel Mac Minis is going to peform for gaming? Is it a write-off? Any hope of playing Doom3 at lower resolutions, for example?
- FH -
MacBook Pro 15" (2010): 2.53 GHz Core i5, 8 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD, Hi-Res (1680x1050) display, MacOS X 10.7.1
PowerMac G5: dual 1.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, Radeon 9600 PC & Mac Edition, Dell U2410 24" LCD, MacOS X 10.5.8
PC: Core i7 960 3.6 GHz, Asus P6X58D mobo, 12 GB DDR3-2000MHz RAM, Radeon HD5970, Samsung 245BW 24" LCD, Win 7 64bit

#2 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:37 PM

Dunno, but it's ironic considering that Apple was bragging about having a real graphics card in the old Mac Mini....

--Eric

#3 Hippieman

Hippieman

    Freeverse Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Location:Freeverse HQ, NYC

Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:54 PM

I'd like to know how well it handles high def video.  And not just apples codec, but like a 720p avi.
Marathon: Durandal
The Ultimate Marathon experience
Reverof Nohtaram

#4 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 28 February 2006 - 02:11 PM

With the GMA 950, you're not going to be playing any 3D games, unless they're really old.

Extremetech did a test, although they didn't mention whether these are timedemo numbers (GMA950 tested with a 3.6 GHz P4 with 1 GB RAM):

UT2004 @ 640x480, low detail: 30 fps
Half Life 2 @ 640x480, low detail:  6.4 fps
Doom 3 @ 640x480, low detail:  16.20 fps

UT2004 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 18.2 fps
Half Life 2 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 6.3 fps
Doom 3 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 10.4 fps
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#5 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 28 February 2006 - 02:48 PM

View PostQuicksilver, on March 1st 2006, 07:11 AM, said:

With the GMA 950, you're not going to be playing any 3D games, unless they're really old.

On the other hand, it's hardly a downgrade. The 9200 was atrocious.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#6 Brad Oliver

Brad Oliver

    Awesome Developer Dude Guy

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1692 posts
  • Steam Name:hoserama99
  • Steam ID:hoserama99
  • Location:Glendale, AZ
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 28 February 2006 - 03:03 PM

View PostRandyWang, on February 28th 2006, 01:48 PM, said:

On the other hand, it's hardly a downgrade. The 9200 was atrocious.

I guess that depends on your perspective. The 9200 could at least offload vertex programs to the GPU - the 950 runs it on your CPU. Worse, the 950 shares RAM with the system, so it's eating into that too. I suppose if you got a new Mini with a Core Duo and lots of RAM, you could compensate for most of the 950's shortcomings relative to the PowerPC Mini.
Brad Oliver
bradman at pobox dot com

#7 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 - 03:08 PM

OMG, I find I'm agreeing with RandyWang here. Whatever is the world coming to?

View PostQuicksilver, on February 28th 2006, 03:11 PM, said:

With the GMA 950, you're not going to be playing any 3D games, unless they're really old.

Extremetech did a test, although they didn't mention whether these are timedemo numbers (GMA950 tested with a 3.6 GHz P4 with 1 GB RAM):

UT2004 @ 640x480, low detail: 30 fps
Half Life 2 @ 640x480, low detail:  6.4 fps
Doom 3 @ 640x480, low detail:  16.20 fps

UT2004 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 18.2 fps
Half Life 2 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 6.3 fps
Doom 3 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 10.4 fps

Ugh.

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


#8 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 28 February 2006 - 04:41 PM

I get better UT2004 performance on my current Mac Mini than those benchmarks. =p
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#9 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:51 PM

View PostQuicksilver, on February 28th 2006, 12:11 PM, said:

With the GMA 950, you're not going to be playing any 3D games, unless they're really old.

Extremetech did a test, although they didn't mention whether these are timedemo numbers (GMA950 tested with a 3.6 GHz P4 with 1 GB RAM):

UT2004 @ 640x480, low detail: 30 fps
Half Life 2 @ 640x480, low detail:  6.4 fps
Doom 3 @ 640x480, low detail:  16.20 fps

UT2004 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 18.2 fps
Half Life 2 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 6.3 fps
Doom 3 @ 1024x768, medium detail: 10.4 fps

those numbers (except for the half life 2) look to be about the same as my ibook that i owned, its specs were:
1.07GHz
radeon 9200
512 RAM

View PostDaveyJJ, on February 28th 2006, 01:08 PM, said:

Whatever is the world coming to?

i have been wondering the same question for a long time.

#10 Schmilled

Schmilled

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:00 PM

Doom 3 640x480  (timedemo demo1):
Mac mini 1.42 GHz G4 512 RAM 32 VRAM — 19.7 fps
Mac mini 1.33 GHz G4 512 RAM 32 VRAM — 19.6 fps
Mac mini 1.42 GHz G4 256 RAM 32 VRAM — 14.6 fps

I was going to buy this Mac mini Intel, but now i gave up.

#11 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:32 PM

The Mini is not a gaming computer. I thought that was agreed upon when it was first released. How did anyone expect Intel to come along and make it one?
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#12 Tomatocow

Tomatocow

    King of the Cows

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2377 posts
  • Location:A store near you.

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:51 PM

Well, not everyone can afford the higher priced models, but they still want to play games.

#13 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:59 PM

i think people were expecting a graphics card that isnt worse than a 9200 for gaming... I dont know, perhaps one of the X series from ATI? an X300? or a 6200 from Nvidia? twie as fast as 5200 on a PC. but integrated graphics has made me so annoyed now, and i wasnt even considering buying a mini anyway... Im annoyed.

not like itll even handle core image...
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#14 Schmilled

Schmilled

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 08:58 PM

Quote

The Mini is not a gaming computer. I thought that was agreed upon when it was first released. How did anyone expect Intel to come along and make it one?

But shouldn't the new mac mini be faster than the old one? (of corse, by now we just have a speculation).

#15 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 09:16 PM

View PostSiriusfox, on February 28th 2006, 08:32 PM, said:

The Mini is not a gaming computer. I thought that was agreed upon when it was first released. How did anyone expect Intel to come along and make it one?

Not a "gaming computer" per se, but at least a computer that will play games.  At all.  You know, like the old Mac Mini....

--Eric

#16 richmlow

richmlow

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:04 PM

The vice-president of Epic Games, maker of the Unreal engine was quoted as saying "what's the point of shipping dual-core processors, if you are using an integrated graphics chip?!"

I totally agree with this and I think that it was a big mistake for Apple to go with the integrated graphics chip.

Before any of you go on to say "the Mac Mini is not a gaming computer, blah blah blah.....", the processing advantage of the Intel chip is negated by a crippled graphics chip. This is just like Apple....always releasing crippled systems.

There is no way that I would even consider buying this new version of Mac Mini.

What a shame....maybe, the next iteration of Mac Mini will not be crippled.



richmlow
low@math.sjsu.edu




View PostFourth Horseman, on February 28th 2006, 01:24 PM, said:

Any speculation or educated guesses on how the integrated video in the new Intel Mac Minis is going to peform for gaming? Is it a write-off? Any hope of playing Doom3 at lower resolutions, for example?

Mac Pro (Late 2013)
3.7 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5
12 GB RAM
AMD FirePro D300 (Dual GPU, 2048MB VRAM each)
MacOS Sierra 10.12.3

#17 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:14 PM

Considering that Apple had to put the Mini up by $100 dollars anyway, they probably couldn't afford to put in a real graphics card.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#18 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:44 PM

i know a guy who plays Halo on his mac mini, and he said that it played "well" at most parts. this is obviously the PPC one not the intel.

#19 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:48 PM

Apple said:

Or one 3D game. Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.

Yeah, those damnable low-end unupgradeable PCs.

#20 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:45 PM

The main thing that brought me to the mac mini in the first place is it's form factor. But the ironic thing is that with the new video card they are going to have they might just end up being slower than my current mini when it comes to games or at the very least no improvement it seems so anyway when I see benchmarks of the uh... PC version. What about those people like me who love the mac mini for it's form factor? We are being forced to sacrifice form factor just to get a decent video card.

I like that quote from apple that was from the PPC Mac Mini product page.

Here's an interesting thought for me. Just who is a fully loaded core duo mac mini that costs 1,220 or so dollars and that's without a keyboard, display, mouse or apple care aimed at anyhow? I'm sure that it's not like such a configuration is not meant to be sold.......
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7