Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Oh Dear, intel integrated graphics
- Thread starter Macmadant
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, they don't have integrated graphics. The have dedicated graphics chips with their own RAM and are soldered onto the motherboard. The motherboard integration is where it ends. The Intel Mac Mini uses CPU time and shares system RAMmunkees said:
jsw said:
I correct that. Apple marketing is among the worse out there. They have been more times in lieing and doing massive over blowing the specs in both directions. When the G5 iMacs first came out they stated that where x4 faster fram rates in games than the g4 iMac when even under the same condition they were hardly any faster.
As much as I dont like M$ and how they go about stuff they are quite a bit more honest in their marketing. They dont make fact looking valid test. Apple is more likely to show false comparision than M$. M$ does not general do that. They do not mud sling. Yeah they over blow stuff but they lack the mud slinging of apple and then lieing that apples does on the test. It just apple is among the worse and they get away with it so much.
So, any of the Chicken Littles in this thread have any benchmarks on the new Mini's that they'd like to share w/the rest of us? Or is everyone's ASSumption machine just running overtime?
Lethal
Lethal
Mac Mini not a gaming machine...At least not the new one
Many defenders of the Integrated GPU state...What did you expect? A Mac Mini is not a gaming system?
While this is true, I think people are upset, not because it isn't an Alienware machine, instead it can't even play a casual game here and there. What's wrong with playing the occasional Sims 2 type game. Is this too much to ask? There's a lot of casual computer users who play a game or two. Maybe not to the level of Doom 3 at 40fps, but they do. Another point, why was Apple using a 3D gaming example to prove their reasoning why a dedicated GPU is better than using an integrated chip? Now they are using one. So the old mini can play 3D games too? I see Intel really loves putting more than their chips in any computer.
Thanks to a user who copied this image from the old G4 mini site. (Apologize to anyone who read this on another thread).
Many defenders of the Integrated GPU state...What did you expect? A Mac Mini is not a gaming system?
While this is true, I think people are upset, not because it isn't an Alienware machine, instead it can't even play a casual game here and there. What's wrong with playing the occasional Sims 2 type game. Is this too much to ask? There's a lot of casual computer users who play a game or two. Maybe not to the level of Doom 3 at 40fps, but they do. Another point, why was Apple using a 3D gaming example to prove their reasoning why a dedicated GPU is better than using an integrated chip? Now they are using one. So the old mini can play 3D games too? I see Intel really loves putting more than their chips in any computer.
Thanks to a user who copied this image from the old G4 mini site. (Apologize to anyone who read this on another thread).
Attachments
just looking at Intel's spec page and it says that the GPU will suck anywhere from 80 to 224 MB of system memory for graphics, depending on what you are doing. so on an everyday single core PC with say 512 MB of RAM i could see where taking 224 of the system memory and some processor power could hurt. but i'd think a dual core CPU with 2 GB of memory would react a bit differently in this situation. of course still EVERYTHING, both the good and bad, is still nothing but speculation as no one has gotten their hands on one yet.
Airforce said:
those benchmarks are for heavy games on Windows XP. what does that have to say about how this chip will run A) in a Mac, B) in OS X, C) in iLife (what the mini is intended for) and D) alongside the Intel Core chips? not much.
So what are you guy saying that the intel GPU is in the same die as the CPU ?
IF so I recall my integrate comment. Else if it is a seperate chip soldier onto the mother board, then it no different than my iMac, because my iMac has an integrate GPU (it soldier on to the motherboard, hense integrate, if it was not then I guess it would be on a PCI, AGP etc bus plug into a port).
IF so I recall my integrate comment. Else if it is a seperate chip soldier onto the mother board, then it no different than my iMac, because my iMac has an integrate GPU (it soldier on to the motherboard, hense integrate, if it was not then I guess it would be on a PCI, AGP etc bus plug into a port).
Very simplistically, integrated graphics means the CPU handles the graphic component whereas a dedicated graphics card has its own CPU-equivilent to do they same, reducing the load on the regular CPU. The same applies for RAM. 
Learn some tact. It'll be good for the social life.
Airforce said:Dedicated VS integrated......look it up, learn some info. It will be healthy for the brain
Learn some tact. It'll be good for the social life.
munkees said:
the integrated or "shared" GPU doesn't have its own memory like a standalone GPU. instead it uses some of your RAM and processor power to do its work. which may not be such a huge deal on a core duo with up to 2GB of RAM. the ONLY fact going on around here is that nobody here knows how the mini performs. time will tell.
wheezy said:
Well no, see, you're just wrong. The macbook pro and intel imac both got very positive responses, overall, at their release. As did the nano, the 5th generation ipod, the last ibook revision... etc.
I'm not sure why you're so upset, but calm down, really. If you're happy, then great, good for you. But try to understand that a lot of people have very good reason to think this was a very bad move on apple's part.
Personally, I'm not too worked up over it. I'm not going to buy one, and I might have if there had been a 64 MB X1300, but I'm not crying about it either. It wasn't a good decision by apple, but then again, there are other macs you can buy, and this will be updated at some point.
There's a picture of the northbridge chip on the new iMac Core Duo:
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/01141172.jpg
The iMac, and presumably the MBP, use the 945GM chipset, so they actually do have integrated graphics, but just don't use it. We should have seen this coming, since Apple probably got a deal on a whole boatload of 945GM chipsets so they could use it on everything. If they weren't planning on using integrated graphics at all, they could have saved a few bucks on each chipset and just went with the 945PM. But by only using the 945GM so far, they also wasted a few bucks by using it in the iMacs and MBP's.
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/01141172.jpg
The iMac, and presumably the MBP, use the 945GM chipset, so they actually do have integrated graphics, but just don't use it. We should have seen this coming, since Apple probably got a deal on a whole boatload of 945GM chipsets so they could use it on everything. If they weren't planning on using integrated graphics at all, they could have saved a few bucks on each chipset and just went with the 945PM. But by only using the 945GM so far, they also wasted a few bucks by using it in the iMacs and MBP's.
*Grabs wheezy by the shoulders and shakes him/her violently*wheezy said:
Dude! Have you even read these forums during the last few product releases?
The response to the Core Duo iMac was generally positive.
The response to the last iMac G5 was generally positive.
The response to the MacBook Pro was generally positive.
The response to the iPod 5G was generally positive.
The response to the iPod nano was generally positive.
The response to the Dual-Core PowerMac G5 was generally positive.
Do you think that just maybe there's a reason why this product is so disappointing? Have you tried using OS X with some widgets running, Mail, iChat, Word, and Safari running, iTunes playing on a Mac with less than 512 MB of RAM (remember, this integrated chip will eat at least 80 MB of RAM, and perhaps more depending on the situation)? Compound the hobbled graphics system with a slower hard drive, and Rosetta which eats RAM like a crack fiend and you're asking for pain.
Yes, it's a low-end system. Yes, it's irrational to expect a PowerMac-caliber machine for $600 (which, by the way, is $100 more than the previous mini base price, though you are getting some added niceties). But the fact of the matter is that Mac users expect more out of their systems than they expect from a Dell. That means dedicated GPUs across the board, among other things. It's a loss of a fairly major selling point for Apple.
Airforce said:No, it isn't on the cpu....It ISNT the same. No matter how you argue it.
Dedicated VS integrated......look it up, learn some info. It will be healthy for the brain
You should think before you speak. If you search under google "integrated graphics", then you will see the definition of "integrated graphics" means included on the logic board.
SO PAUSE A WHILE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BEFORE SLAMMING PEOPLE
wheezy said:
I work at Apple, and resent your tone. I reserve the right to point out the fact that the new Mac Mini was designed to function as a HD media server, but Apple kind of cheaped out on the capability to decode HD media fast enough to send it to a TV. It's a dealkiller for many, many people. Not me, though, since I'll wait for TiVo functionality in a Mac Mini before making it my home media hub.
Not to mention that weeks ago, Apple's own site openly mocked Intel Integrated Graphics on the Mac Mini page, as was pointed out several times earlier.
mad jew said:Very simplistically, integrated graphics means the CPU handles the graphic component whereas a dedicated graphics card has its own CPU-equivilent to do they same, reducing the load on the regular CPU. The same applies for RAM.
Looking forward to the tests results to really see how it performs with H264 playback. If it performs as many expect - that is poorly - then its not much good for a PVR...