How does the performance of the Intel HD 4000 in the new macbook air compare to the Radeon HD 6630m in my mini?
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.
Graphics comparison
- Thread starter mentaluproar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here's some benchmarks by Anandtech.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5772/mobile-ivy-bridge-and-asus-n56vm-preview/6
Obviously the CPU's are/will be different than what are in the Mac Mini's, but it gives you an idea. The 6630M beats the HD4000, but the gap has definitely closed comparing the 6630M to the HD3000. In some benchmarks, the difference is slight and some it is still 2x more powerful. It's still a huge improvement over the HD3000. Is it enough power that Apple might drop the discrete Mini? I doubt it, but then again I've never been able to guess what Apple is going to do with any of their computers....
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5772/mobile-ivy-bridge-and-asus-n56vm-preview/6
Obviously the CPU's are/will be different than what are in the Mac Mini's, but it gives you an idea. The 6630M beats the HD4000, but the gap has definitely closed comparing the 6630M to the HD3000. In some benchmarks, the difference is slight and some it is still 2x more powerful. It's still a huge improvement over the HD3000. Is it enough power that Apple might drop the discrete Mini? I doubt it, but then again I've never been able to guess what Apple is going to do with any of their computers....
Umm, sure they could. The 2009 and 2010 series the only difference was a bump in processor speed but they charged $200 ($150 for the 2010 "mid-range" but the base started at $700) more. All models had the same integrated graphics chip. Here's some links to specifications if you need a refresher....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_mini#Specifications_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_mini#Specifications_3
(okay I'll admit, there technically was no "mid-range 2010" it was a processor speed bump to the base and the prices were actually 700 for base, 850 for base + processor speed bump, 1000 for server, but it is close enough).
Well, yeah, that wasn't the first time Apple charged insanely high premium prices for 100 or 200 MHz more CPU clock. But the number of users buying the pricier model for sure has increased since they are using a dedicated graphic chip.
This may just be hope, but after seeing how much power they cramp into their whole Mac lineup since 2011, I'm very confident. Remember 2010 and earlier? The Macs back then weren't even close to the performance of the competition at the same prices (my MBP from 2009 was slower than a much cheaper, one year old notebook from a friend back then ...).
This may just be hope, but after seeing how much power they cramp into their whole Mac lineup since 2011, I'm very confident. Remember 2010 and earlier? The Macs back then weren't even close to the performance of the competition at the same prices (my MBP from 2009 was slower than a much cheaper, one year old notebook from a friend back then ...).
I'm with you on the hope. I bought a 2011 Base Mac Mini, and kick myself for not going with the Mid-range model for the discrete card (only so I can run 3 monitors), when/if Apple introduces a new Mac Mini line up, I'm going with a Mid-model with discrete graphics IF they offer it. If they don't, I guess I will just stick to my dual monitors and my 2011 base Mac Mini....
Just out of curiosity: Which monitors do you use? I imagine 3 27" displays to be quite huge on a normal desktop?
Yeah, I also definitely need a discrete graphics. Not really for gaming - Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 should run fine even with the HD4000, but Aperture is so much faster with a proper graphic card that I just can't go without one.
I used to have a 27" iMac but the desktop was too small/dpi too small that it bothered me when staring at it for long periods of time. I ended up selling it and going to 23" LG IPS 1080P displays. They aren't nearly as nice as the iMac's 27" display but they aren't as hard on my eyes at native resolution. Plus I like to have documents open on different displays when comparing them. 2 27" displays (or 3 for that matter) is just too much real estate for me. I'm probably in the minority on this one. Now if the 27" displays Suddenly got Retina displays, I could see myself running them at maybe an effective display of something between 1080P and 2560 x 1440 (maybe like 2240 x 1260 or something). That would be ideal for me. Then I might go back to the Apple displays.
