Oh Dear, intel integrated graphics

[Cybix]

I dont really see why people are getting so worked up about intel and Apple, in my opinion I think it's the best thing they've done in a long time. Infact it's made me convert from generic PC to apple.... It's probably the best way they can release powerful machines for the future, ppc = dead.

then there's all the bickering about how apps will run slower because of rosetta. at least we will have rosetta at all. Any established software co is going to do universal / intel version of their applications, it's the future.

as for the graphics in the new mini. it's obvious apple and intel have an 'arrangement'. thus the introduction of intel gfx in apple machines. Perhaps it's just all to easy for apple.. who knows. I never personally considered the mac mini as a 'power' or 'games' machine, it's more just a general use machine (type doc's, manage pics, surf net, etc) but then again it seems to be targeted to 'families' in which families have kids, and kids play games (even us big kids) hehe.. It's certainly dissapointing they have gone with integreated gfx, but it's obviously to keep costs down, consider the new cool things that have been added to the system... (dual-core, remote, ram capability, etc)

I'm starting to get sick of the 'im keeping my powerbook coz macbook pro sucks' and 'I'll wait till revision B of <whatever product>' threads... what a laugh. 06 is a big year for Apple no question. We're going to see some really damn cool stuff... (eg. MBP is a great start)

I'm sure Apple spend a lot of time researching their sales, product usage, etc.. they haven't made many mistakes recently with what they are doing...

Oh, and I'll finish by saying I think the new iPod hi-fi is COOL. it looks awesome, and if it sounds as good as they say, It'll sell well. I'll be keeping my eyes on ilounge for a review

 

[NeuronBasher]

Amen, Cybix, amen. The whole "the sky is falling" attitude gets pretty tiring. While I'm not overwhelmed by the new Mini, the fact of the matter is that the GMA950 is at least as fast as the existing Mobility 9200, and the CPU in the lower end model is pretty equivalent to the higher end G4 Mini. The upgraded CPU, while not a bargain, is significantly faster still.

Overall, it's a decent product that is at least as good as what it replaces. It's not the giant step into the void that some are trying to portray it as.

 

[Cybix]

Indeed. I think people are just on edge, waiting for some fantastic ground breaking releases... all in good time

Perhaps it's easier to bag new apple products than praise them?

I think everything new that Apple releases gets drilled on the forums.. until the product goes out, people get to experience and report their findings.. things eventually settle down. hehe..

Still, everyone has a right to post their thoughts.. thats what we're here for afterall.

I'm still patiently waiting on my MBP.. It always feels like we (australia) seem to be last in line for, ummm, everything.

 

[dmw007]

While I am disappointed that Apple has put integrated graphics into one of their computers, I will wait to pass judgement until after there have been some benchmarks done. For what the Mac Mini is designed to do, integrated graphics are probably going to suffice.

The big news is front row and a fast new cpu (the 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo to be specific).

Now, if Apple puts integrated graphics into the upcoming iBook/MacBook, then I will definitely be purchasing a MacBook Pro (it will provide me the perfect excuse to spend the extra $$$ ).

 

[iHeartTheApple]

Ok, I have a question regarding the details of the GMA950:

Intel GMA950 Specifications

It says that it's a 64MB card and uses a min. of 80MB of RAM for video, but can take up to 224MB from the sytem RAM. Does this mean that the 950 has 64MB of dedicated memory on the mobo and will draw extra from the system RAM when needed? Furthermore, it will do so up to 224MB total? So, yeah...what am I missing? If i get a 1.67GHz Duo with 2GB of RAM, that leaves me 2048 - 224 = ~1.75GB for the rest of the system...what's the problem? This also gives you *up to* 224MB of RAM allocated to video processes. How is this a terrible thing? Isn't it at least as good if not better than a dedicated 64MB card? I mean the 17" PB (rev.E) in my sig has a 128MB dedicated ati card and 224>128... I don't get it...

Can someone with knowledge about this, please explain? I'm no graphics card expert...Thanks a bunch for the help!

Also, while you're at it, can you explain this whole "expansion x16 PCI thing"? Thanks!

PS: I posted a similar message in the big MacRumors Intel Mini discussion, but I fear that it was absorbed by the massive flow of other posts...in short, apologies if you've seen this already.

 

[zap2]

in fact i'm typing this from my mac mini (1.42ghz 80gb 7200rpm 1gig ddr2700) its running front row and I got a $15.00 wireless keyboard & mouse off newegg for it... so lets see upgrade to the intel version why? for two more usb ports, a sata drive, an extra ram slot, and most importantly a six button remote.... \

please, the Graphics card might be bad, but the Core Duo is faster then the PPC G4 Mac Mini, for eMail, Internet, Pages, ect, all others then games

 

[segundo]

This is a huge mistake on Apple's part

This is just crap. There is no other way to slice it or justify it. I never recommended integrated graphics machines to entry level pc buyers, why does Apple think I'm going to recommend their offering? Integrated graphics are inherently slow. System RAM is not as fast as Video RAM. CPU processing cycles are used up with integrated graphics. Why would anyone want to spend big money on a name brand CPU and then have it hobbled because Apple won't spend $20-$40 on a decent graphics solution?

I was ready to purchase my fourth mac today. I wanted a nice dvd player I could use to stream music and videos to along with moderate computing tasks. A wireless keyboard and mouse combo for $100 and I would have been set. Not going to happen. God forbid the equivalent ibook portable have integrated graphics. My sig other and I have a powerbook and a G5 dualie with airport express (2) around the house. We like our Mac's. Why go backwards with the hardware? Can't Apple at least make it a purchasable upgrade? Argh.

I lost two sales* for Apple today because I told people they should really consider switching to the new mac mini. After the announcement, I couldn't tell them that any longer. I've sold a lot of Apple gear these past 5 years and they've never let me down . . . until today. There was a whole lot of nothing announced today.


* By 'sales' and 'sold' I mean convinced others to purchase Apple goods. This was to friends, family, and associates. I received nothing in return.

 

[tjwett]

so does anyone actually know how this GPU is going to perform under the conditions at hand? meaning, i don't think anyone in the world has seen this chip running A) in a Mac and B) alongside the Core Duo. i'm sorry but Doom 3 benchmarks from Windows XP is not enough to convince me of the suckage. i know historically that integrated graphics is not ideal but this is a miniature computer. and it's a Mac. you will never, ever, never, don't even bother, ever, never get the specs of a generic PC for the same price. ever. the fact that this is a shock is what baffles me. haven't we been paying a premium for 20 years now?

 

[LethalWolfe]

I was ready to purchase my fourth mac today. I wanted a nice dvd player I could use to stream music and videos to along with moderate computing tasks.

And how is an integrated GPU going to hamper any of that? Nothing there says "Hey, I need 3D acceleration."


Lethal

 

[risc]

And how is an integrated GPU going to hamper any of that? Nothing there says "Hey, I need 3D acceleration."


Lethal

DVD playback is horrible on Intel integrated video, the picture quality is absolute crap.

 

[tjwett]

DVD playback is horrible on Intel integrated video, the picture quality is absolute crap.

have you actually seen this particular chip playing back a DVD in an Intel Mac mini?

 

[segundo]

And how is an integrated GPU going to hamper any of that? Nothing there says "Hey, I need 3D acceleration."

Agreed, but where an integrated graphics card bites you is in overall system performance. 1.) You're losing system RAM to the graphics allotment and 2.) you're losing cpu power to run it. This will not matter in some cases which you've noted. However, there are a lot of cases where you'll be wondering why things are slowing to a crawl or why 3D performance isn't there at all. What effect will this have when multitasking with one app that needs 3D processing and another that needs memory?

My point here is not that Apple is selling a non-functioning system. My point is that they needlessly hobbled their key "switch" computer to save a few bucks.

 

[brap]

have you actually seen this particular chip playing back a DVD in an Intel Mac mini?

Of note: both Nv and ATI have dedicated DVD decoders (in PC land), designed to work with their GPUs to improve DVD playback. Apple's DVD player does it all in software, reference Anand's HTPC evaluation of a year or so back.

So, in theory, there should be no difference in DVD playback. 'Night.

 

[tjwett]

this really cracks me up. people are pissed because the bottom-of-the-line Mac sort of resembles well, a bottom-of-the-line PC by having integrated graphics.

firstly the price comparison to a PC issue is moot because Macs will always be more expensive than PCs. been that way since the very first Mac. it will never change. second, if the machine you've been waiting for is a Mac mini then you probably don't need or can't afford the power you were hoping for to begin with. and lastly, if you came to the Mac platform from the PC world expecting to get the same "bang for your buck" well, i hate to be the one to break the news but it isn't going to happen.

some other things that won't happen as well: you won't have to run Windows. your computer won't be made of spray painted tin. you won't need to call India to unlock your operating system. your computer won't be covered with advertisement stickers. you won't have a little dog running around your screen telling you that you have icons on your desktop that you haven't used in 30 days. you can surf the web on a machine not hobbled with malware protection. you can look at non-pixelated text. just a few of the annoyances that come with switching.

 

[macrants]

I'm really concerned about HD playback with integrated graphics. I have a sinking feeling. 1080p is ROCK SOLID on the MacBooks, but I think 1080p is not really going to work on these "home media" machines.

 

[NYmacAttack]

I'm really concerned about HD playback with integrated graphics. I have a sinking feeling. 1080p is ROCK SOLID on the MacBooks, but I think 1080p is not really going to work on these "home media" machines.

I would highly doubt any Mini G4 or Intel could do 1080p well.

 

[TheMonarch]

My credit card was ready...


No dedicated graphics... No deal...
I guess my HDTV will have to wait...

 

[Eidorian]

I'm really concerned about HD playback with integrated graphics. I have a sinking feeling. 1080p is ROCK SOLID on the MacBooks, but I think 1080p is not really going to work on these "home media" machines.

Let's see I don't think ATI has released full support for VIVO on Mac or Windows for the X1600 so the iMac and MacBook Pro were doing 1080p via CPU only. It'll more than likely have to be on the dual core but expect something like 50/50 CPU usage.

 

[Rocksaurus]

Agreed, but where an integrated graphics card bites you is in overall system performance. 1.) You're losing system RAM to the graphics allotment and 2.) you're losing cpu power to run it. This will not matter in some cases which you've noted. However, there are a lot of cases where you'll be wondering why things are slowing to a crawl or why 3D performance isn't there at all. What effect will this have when multitasking with one app that needs 3D processing and another that needs memory?

My point here is not that Apple is selling a non-functioning system. My point is that they needlessly hobbled their key "switch" computer to save a few bucks.

I'm glad someone finally posted about this. All the arguments earlier about "people who buy minis don't need the dedicated GPU"... Here's how I think about it. The Mac Mini is the primary mode of switching people from PC -> Mac. OS X Tiger runs acceptably on 512 - barely. With the GPU cutting into the RAM, apps will have to head to the hard drive for virtual memory sooner. This will slow things down, especially considering the speed of the Mini's hard drive, and likely give these switchers a bad perception of the Mac, which I think we can all agree is not preferable. I haven't even mentioned Rosetta. I don't have an Intel mac, but I hear it eats RAM like crazy. I think it's really hard to argue that this isn't a mistake on Apple's part.

 

[wheezy]

This is the biggest group of ungrateful bitchers put together on the web. EVERYTHING that gets released anymore is instantly CRAP and APPLE IS STUPID. Say's who? You? Who are you? Do you work at Apple? Are you one of their creative geniouses? Are you Steve Jobs? Didn't think so! I'll trust the opinoins on the creators. Shut up about the complaining, ESPECIALLY because you haven't seen how this machine will work. Yes, Integrated isn't nearly as good as dedicated, but I really really really really doubt that Apple would take a step backwards in Graphics. And, as mentioned, this isn't a PowerMac, it's the exact opposite, a budget computer. There is no point in making a variety of computers (Mini, iMac, PowerMac) if they're all going to have the same insides now is there?

I'm just so sick of the instant blacklisting of a product because you don't like the description or written tech specs. You have no way to possibly complain about something until you've seen how it performs.

I don't know why I keep reading these forums! Most of you make me sick.

 

[rhsgolfer33]

Integrated isnt that bad, my compaq desktop is running 32mb nvidia integrated graphics and I can play Call of Duty and Medal of Honor on medium settings at over 30fps. The comp only has 256mb of ram to begin with, it runs fine and its about 4 years old. So long as you dont want to play Doom 3 at 60 fps on full settings youll be fine. Integrated graphics are perfect for who the mini was intended for: The entry level Mac buyer looking to do email, internet, dvds, music, etc. The iMac is Apples consumer machine, the Mini is the entry level machine.

 

[t^3]

I know it's not quite the same as the Mac mini's specs, but I just ran the X-Men 3 trailer in 1080p on a GMA900 system with a 3.6 GHz P4 and 1GB RAM running 10.4.4, and the result: it is watchable! By that, I do mean at full FPS. There was a little choppiness in a few places, but most of the time it ran great. The CPU was running pretty hard, though.

As far as gaming, check out the osx86project.org forums. One poster also with a GMA900 system mentions that the uni-bin of UT2004 runs at 30 fps at default settings, 40 fps with everything turned down, and another mentions that WoW runs at 10-20 fps with everything turned down. Since the GMA950 is obviously better than the GMA900, I expect that new Mac mini users to be able to play native games just ok, but only at the lowest settings.

 

[Eidorian]

Yeah, HD playback is still CPU based on the other Intel Macs. So yes, enjoy your 1080p on the Duo Core. It might be passable on the Solo.

Sauce: http://www.craigtheguru.com/reports/MacBook_Pro_Performance_Analysis.php

 

[Airforce]

It says that it's a 64MB card and uses a min. of 80MB of RAM for video, but can take up to 224MB from the sytem RAM. Does this mean that the 950 has 64MB of dedicated memory on the mobo and will draw extra from the system RAM when needed? Furthermore, it will do so up to 224MB total? So, yeah...what am I missing? If i get a 1.67GHz Duo with 2GB of RAM, that leaves me 2048 - 224 = ~1.75GB for the rest of the system...what's the problem? This also gives you *up to* 224MB of RAM allocated to video processes. How is this a terrible thing? Isn't it at least as good if not better than a dedicated 64MB card? I mean the 17" PB (rev.E) in my sig has a 128MB dedicated ati card and 224>128... I don't get it...

No, no, no! More GFX memory does not = better!

 

[munkees]

iMac and the MBP have integrated graphics too.

I here all this integrated graphics is bad, well my imac dc has integrated graphics, if not I would be able to swap it out. HELLO !

Still the proof of performance has yet to be seen, I being possitive, I planning on purchasing one int he near future, with my Another MAX out iMac 20" DC