Any PCs comparable to new mini?

[QCassidy352]

people aren't complaining because there are comparable PCs. They are complaining 1) because they expect more from apple, and 2) because compared to the old mini, which was 13 months old, this was not exactly an inspired update.

If it takes a year to revise a product, I think the expectations for the new version can reasonably be pretty high. If this had been a 6 month update, I, for one, would be a lot happier. but the G4 mini was ancient, and I expected to see the intel mini be leaps and bounds better.

 

[MacTruck]

For $399


For $799

 

[Eidorian]

For $399


For $799

The $399 model is single core and discounted.

 

[Josh]

$777

Dual-core AMD 2.0ghz, 1gb of ram, includes mouse, keyboard, and the game Far Cry.

 

[dmw007]

So the Core Duo is quite a bit faster than this, correct? Or incorrect? I don't completely understand the Pentium D line.

Have any of the PCs that were supposed to be invigorated by the Intel campaign to help manufacturers develop Mac Mini - esque form factors, ever get launched?

The Core Duo is a faster chip than the Pentium D which is essentially a dual-core Pentium 4 (Yuck!!!).

 

[emw]

$777

Dual-core AMD 2.0ghz, 1gb of ram, includes mouse, keyboard, and the game Far Cry.

Interesting. Of course, you have to build it yourself.

 

[cube]

The Core Duo is a faster chip than the Pentium D which is essentially a dual-core Pentium 4 (Yuck!!!).

How do you know it is faster, if the Pentium D has a quite higher clock rate?

 

[dmw007]

Interesting. Of course, you have to build it yourself.

And it does not appear to include a Hard Drive or OS.

 

[dmw007]

How do you know it is faster, if the Pentium D has a quite higher clock rate?

Remember the MHz Myth? This is a case of it existing in the world of Intel.

The Pentium D = dual-core Pentium 4
Core Duo = dual-core Pentium M

The Pentium M has long outperformed P4 based computers that run at a much higher clock speed.

 

[Eidorian]

$777

Dual-core AMD 2.0ghz, 1gb of ram, includes mouse, keyboard, and the game Far Cry.

Close to Mini size but you're using Micro-ATX components.

And it does not appear to include a Hard Drive or OS.

Yeah, that's $90 for OEM Windows XP Home, $50-80 more for a hard drive, $40-70 for an optical drive. Let's not forget our little friend called tech support and warranty. It's a built-it-yourself and off of Tigerdirect but I'll let it slide.

 

[emw]

And it does not appear to include a Hard Drive or OS.

So it will work as well out of the box as most other PCs, then?

I'm just kidding. I use a PC as well as my Mac and like them both for different reasons.

 

[dmw007]

Let's not forget our little friend called tech support and warranty. It's a built-it-yourself and off of Tigerdirect but I'll let it slide.

Very true.

 

[dmw007]

So it will work as well out of the box as most other PCs, then?

I'm just kidding. I use a PC as well as my Mac and like them both for different reasons.

Excellent point!

 

[Eraserhead]

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0848T (one on far left)
with Windows XP home is £550, for nVidia 6600GT graphics, 250GB HD, 6 USB, 16x Dual Layer DVD Burner, Athlon 64 3200 (big case though), no monitor, no extra software.

Expensive Mini is £599 in the UK.

Or
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0876T (one on right)
With Windows XP Home is £499, same features as above, except 3Ghz P4 instead.

Cheap Mini is £449 in the UK.

Neither come with software, you be hard pressed to beat these prices...

 

[Eidorian]

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0848T (one on far left)
with Windows XP home is £550, for nVidia 6600GT graphics, 250GB HD, 6 USB, 16x Dual Layer DVD Burner, Athlon 64 3200 (big case though), no monitor, no extra software.

Expensive Mini is £599 in the UK.

Or
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0876T (one on right)
With Windows XP Home is £499, same features as above, except 3Ghz P4 instead.

Cheap Mini is £449 in the UK.

Neither come with software, you be hard pressed to beat these prices...

Fails due to non-dual core and size restrictions.

 

[cube]

Remember the MHz Myth? This is a case of it existing in the world of Intel.

I know about that. I don't know what factor relates them, given the same cache, so I don't think you can just say "Core Duo is faster".

 

[Josh]

Fails due to non-dual core and size restrictions.

It may be a single-core, but I bet it still out performs the mini.

Honestly - what applications that users will run on a Mini will even make use of the dual-core where a single core would not suffice?

Anything like video editting, heavy Photoshop, Aperture, ect is not going to be done on the mini, especially with integrated graphics.

 

[Eidorian]

It may be a single-core, but I bet it still out performs the mini.

Honestly - what applications that users will run on a Mini will even make use of the dual-core where a single core would not suffice?

Anything like video editting, heavy Photoshop, Aperture, ect is not going to be done on the mini, especially with integrated graphics.

Actually video editing and Photoshop are more CPU based than the graphics card. You have Core Image support and dual cores. It'll be killer for video encoding.

 

[Josh]

Actually video editing and Photoshop are more CPU based than the graphics card. You have Core Image support and dual cores. It'll be killer for video encoding.

A mini will be horrible at the above tasks.

Core image means nothing for Photoshop and Final Cut, which are extensive GPU users.

Seems a lot of people have fallen into the trap that everyone *needs* dual-core chips.

Unless you're doing video/graphics/sound editing, software development, extensive calculations and graphing, or gaming, a dual-core is a wasted resource.

The mini is not designed, nor targetted, for that type of work.

 

[Eidorian]

A mini will be horrible at the above tasks.

Core image means nothing for Photoshop and Final Cut, which are extensive GPU users.

Seems a lot of people have fallen into the trap that everyone *needs* dual-core chips.

And yet people are still running Photoshop and iLife on iMac G3/G4's. I never said Aperture. iMovie, Handbrake, and iSquint DON'T rely on the GPU for video encoding. Since we have Quartz Extreme and Core Image support Photoshop shouldn't be hampered. Core Image supports real time transformations and if the GPU supports it, it's going to be done by the GPU. The GMA 950 IS a separate GPU chip. It simply doesn't have it's own dedicated RAM and has to call on the CPU for T&L effects.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I see tons of PCs with integrated graphics at the low end.

I tried playing some games with a Pentium4 HT 3 Ghz with integrated graphics and it wasn't that bad as people say. I could see the problems with Grand Theft Auto with framerate speeds but not with many other games. Command & Conquer Renegade and Star Trek Armada ran fine. I don't have any recent PC games. I had 1 GB of ram and limited the graphics to 64 MB. Grand Theft Auto wasn't very usable on my PC laptop with a ATI dedicated graphics controller with 32 MB of ram. It was blurry and low quality. Integrated graphics was 10 times better on my desktop.

 

[dmw007]

I know about that. I don't know what factor relates them, given the same cache, so I don't think you can just say "Core Duo is faster".

Here is one place for some CPU performance comparisons-
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

But I am basing my remarks over benchmarks that I have seen performed by multiple sources which all tend to show the Pentium M (now with dual-cores called the Core Duo) as a super-fast performer that lays waste to the Pentium 4 (now with dual-cores called Pentium D).

Now I realize that I cant say that a 1.66GHz Core Duo = A *GHz Pentium D. But if I were to choose between the two chips, I would almost certainly buy a system with a Core Duo over a Pentium D.

 

[Eraserhead]

Fails due to non-dual core and size restrictions.

why? its a good PC? anyway the cheap Mac Mini isn't dual core. If you do this then the mac mini will win even with 3 out of 4,

as a

virtually no pc's are the size of the mini

b

virtually no pc's in that price range have dual core chips as for PC's they are much more rare than in macs where they have had 2 processors for years...

Using rough equivalences from http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=18483

The 1.5Ghz Core Solo=2.8Ghz P4
The Core Duo 1.66GHz - 3.2GHz Pentium 4HT

EDIT

to meet the dual core requirement
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/pcsextra.html?PC-0877T with XP home comes to £620

 

[Mr Paw]

If this one doesn't take the cake I don't know what does

I didn't check every link in this thread but compared to what I have seen so far this is the best. Prices are Canadian dollars. I don't profess to know much about processor speeds so I don't know if it is "better" or "worse". You guys can debate it.

I had a 1.5 GHz G4 mini with a 80GB 5400 RPM drive, 1GB memory and it cost me $899 canadian plus $130 for the memory upgrade ($1029 in total).

Hopefully the attached file is legible but if anyone wants more details let me know.

 

[sunfast]

Since people seem to be complaining so much about the huge mistake Apple made in using integrated graphics and by bumping the price, I can only assume that there must be comparable products in the PC world that they're using for comparison.

So, would someone please post links to PC products which have the same volume (roughly) as the mini, include Core Duo chips (or faster) and have non-integrated graphics?

I'll ignore the remote control which was added. I'll ignore the value of the OS and the suite of bundled apps. I'll even ignore the styling.

I'd just like links to PCs which are as fast, as small, at least as cheap, and which include better graphics solutions.

Thanks! I'm sure there must be many examples, because otherwise people wouldn't be complaining so much.

Great post! You've got the complainers over a barrel here