Oh Dear, intel integrated graphics

[generik]

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.

Stop spreading fud, where does it say it will use at least 80mb of memory? You share 64mb, 64mb it shall be. Some of these counter claims seem more and more overblown, so one goes around wailing "ZOMG! Integrated graphics steals 80mb from OSX!!" and other goes "Will someone please think of OSX? 228 mb!!!"

Jeez.

I've used integrated graphics solutions before on PCs, in fact a very old PC. It works ok. Heck, in fact I can play games on it.

Enough said.

 

[AlmostThere]

80 Mb is footnote 2 on the UK Mac Mini Page, http://www.apple.com/uk/macmini/

I think the point should also be made that there are decent and suitable integrated graphics available. Nvidia's 61xx series and to a lesser extent ATI's X200 give decent performance. The Intel version though really is the lowest of the low and there are several benchmarks showing this.

While obviously we await (Mac Mini) benchmarks, people are going to be disappointed in what they see as a quality computer maker, that prides itself on the fact, going for the bargain basement option.

 

[Rocksaurus]

For everyone out there who is supporting Apple and its move to Intel Integrated graphics, I think it's important that you acknowledge two facts about Intel Integrated graphics. You don't have to change your opinion, at least just acknowledge the following facts:

1. A dedicated graphics chip, such as the Radeon 9200 with 64MB of dedicated graphics memory found in the last Mac Mini provides superior performance compared to the GMA 950.

2. Earlier today, on the PPC Mac Mini's own webpage, prior to the release of the Intel Mac Mini, Apple boasted that its use of a dedicated graphics chip provided the aforementioned performance edge over Intel Integrated solutions (yes, they specifically called Intel out - look at the image, it's posted here in this thread). Apple is fully aware of the performance hit their machines are taking by using this hardware.

These are two inescapable facts, no matter what side you're arguing or what you believe. So the next time someone decides to go on a rant about how wrong everyone who is flaming this decision by Apple is (despite the fact that Apple has essentially already flamed its own decision, see above), consider the above facts, and then please, for god's sake save us all time by acknowledging these truths in your argument.

 

[isgoed]

It's bad but not because of the graphics

I think the specs of the mini are good. I actually anticipated the use of integrated graphics. I develop games for the mac myself and although the mini will be absolutely unable to play any shader intensive game, it will be good at playing OpenGL 1.5 type games. I guess it is at similar performance to the ATI 9200 or nVidia FX5200. It even has CoreImage support. As a development box for me it is ideal, because I can test shader graphics without having a top of the line system. The fact that you can use main memory is actually nice when dealing with a lot of textures. Nevertheless I was silently hoping for a turbocache nVidiacard or an hypermemory ATI card.

The Mini's real problem is it's price. The price difference between the 1.66Ghz Core Solo (underclocked to 1.5Ghz?) and the Core Duo is only $241 - $209 = $32.
So why is it so EXPENSIVE? (and the $100 1Gb memory upgrade is a must)

I think the price points should be at:

$599 // Core Solo - 60Gb - Combo
$699 // Core Duo - 80Gb - Super

Edu:

$549 // Core Solo - 60Gb - Combo
$649 // Core Duo - 80Gb - Super

If you still want some benchmarks on the GMA 950, I have selected:

• Tweakers.net (Dutch), Lists technical improvements from previous extreme graphics chipset (which really sucked; the GMA is not that bad). and there is one 3dmark03 benchmark, where it is compared to an FX5200, which it actually beats.
• Anandtech (see images below)

PS: sorry for posting a half message. I actually pressed tab-spacebar, which resulted in my message getting posted while I was not finished.

 

[FarSide]

mac mini Pro (ATI Radeon X1400 graphics)

Great product Steve (?) - but who is gonna buy it? (Specially the Intel Core Solo) Those, who didn't get a mac mini G4 1.5GHz ? Let's waste some money folks - it's still stylish at least...

*confused*

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

Great product Steve (?) - but who is gonna buy it? ...

Me ... to get my kids off one of their Windows machines (they now have a PS for games) and onto a reliable easy to use machine that does photos, music, videos and DVDs out of the box.

 

[MRU]

Me ... to get my kids off one of their Windows machines (they now have a PS for games) and onto a reliable easy to use machine that does photos, music, videos and DVDs out of the box.

But your missing the point. The idea that Apple wanted was to make your Apple the center of your Digital Entertainement HUB...

Apple have introduced things like Front Row and movie services as they want your mac to be the digital hub. The machine that does everything, surfs the net, downloads your music, gets your TV shows off the net and streams movies (sure to happen eventually) and each revision brings that end closer and closer.. Video iPod etc....

1920x1080 dvi/vga output ideal for your big HDTV, Optical 5.1 sound etc....

From introducing streamibng your media library around the house with airport express and each subsequent software update...

But by adding frontrow & a remote they've taken that idea one step forward, by introducing integrated graphics they have taken two steps back. Especially at the price point.

Just a wasted oportunity anyone can see that. Whether you play games or not, having a wasteful graphics chip, constantly drawing from the alreafy lame 512mb apple standard is simply pathetic.

There is room inside a mac mini because the dedicated gfx chip is soldered onto the motherboard, and at the price they could have got a x1300 64mb. And because they didnt they should be flamed.....

The mini is great in the office / granted.... But that is not the road apple are taking with it and hence for that reason.. It's a failure in my eyes.....

Apple used to pride itself on innovation

 

[isgoed]

For everyone out there who is supporting Apple and its move to Intel Integrated graphics, I think it's important that you acknowledge two facts about Intel Integrated graphics. You don't have to change your opinion, at least just acknowledge the following facts:

1. A dedicated graphics chip, such as the Radeon 9200 with 64MB of dedicated graphics memory found in the last Mac Mini provides superior performance compared to the GMA 950.

I think the performance is about equal. I have not found good benchmarks, but in the futuremark 3DMark01 Compare browser I found that the GMA scores about 5000-6000, while the radeon scores about 4000-7500 on a 3.2Ghz pentium 4. If I take the best test I could find for systems with 1024 mb ram; I found:

GMA 950: 5934 - http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8895170
Radeon 9200 (128mb): 7547 - http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7772558

Note that the mini only came with 32 mb videomem and knowing apple it was also underclocked (but i should not go into speculation, since I could find no evidence). The GMA 950 also does support CoreImage. So in all fairness, I don't think that you can state as a fact that the 3 year old radeon is better than the GMA.

2. Earlier today, on the PPC Mac Mini's own webpage, prior to the release of the Intel Mac Mini, Apple boasted that its use of a dedicated graphics chip provided the aforementioned performance edge over Intel Integrated solutions (yes, they specifically called Intel out - look at the image, it's posted here in this thread). Apple is fully aware of the performance hit their machines are taking by using this hardware.

Yeah, they said it, but... I guess that it was probably referring to the previous generation of integrated graphics: intel extreme graphics 2. the GMA (AKA extreme graphics 3) has specs up to 4 times as high (4 pixel pipelines) which gives it the same specs as the radeon 9200.
edit: Apple marketing is just the master of twisting words. They say "Some cheaper PC's don't even have an open slot to let you add one". Like the Mac Mini does have one!!

These are two inescapable facts, no matter what side you're arguing or what you believe. So the next time someone decides to go on a rant about how wrong everyone who is flaming this decision by Apple is (despite the fact that Apple has essentially already flamed its own decision, see above), consider the above facts, and then please, for god's sake save us all time by acknowledging these truths in your argument.

 

[NeuronBasher]

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.

Very simplistically, you're wrong. The Intel GMA950 has a GPU that is completely seperate from the CPU. The main difference is that integrated graphics solutions typically share memory with the CPU, while dedicated graphics have their own (faster) memory that they utilize. Historically, GPUs used in integrated solutions like this have had much lower performance than dedicated solutions, but we have to keep in mind that the dedicated solution we're comparing to (ie: the 9200 with 32mb of RAM in the previous Mini) is older than dirt.

The GMA950 is at least as capable as the previous Mini. I look forward to the benchmarks of the new Mini when they start to roll in.

 

[AlmostThere]

There is room inside a mac mini because the dedicated gfx chip is soldered onto the motherboard, and at the price they could have got a x1300 64mb. And because they didnt they should be flamed.....

Agree with just about all of that. Highlight this bit just so you can see the scrimping involved :

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28256

X1300 starting at $25.

 

[Timepass]

I always get a good laugh out of some things. This thread being one of them. It just how a lot of you seem to change your opinan on the matter of something like intergrated graphic cards being crap until the 2nd apple uses it. When apple does it a lot of you all instatantly change you opinan of it and thing it a great thing. Always find it intersting. (same goes for back during the intel chip change a a few other things)

That being said few things I like to poke holes in. First off the test on showing how crappy the card is on a computer running in windows is valid for showing truely how weak the card is since it comparing the graphic card on the same plateform testing it out compared to other graphic cards.

2nd 3Dmark01 is not a good way to try to argue how good the card is in numbers. Now use 3Dmark04. The 01 score is very heavy based off the CPU a much smaller % of the graphic carded. Now the 04 one is much heavier on testing out the Graphic card and comparing it.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Very simplistically, you're wrong. The Intel GMA950 has a GPU that is completely seperate from the CPU. The main difference is that integrated graphics solutions typically share memory with the CPU, while dedicated graphics have their own (faster) memory that they utilize. Historically, GPUs used in integrated solutions like this have had much lower performance than dedicated solutions, but we have to keep in mind that the dedicated solution we're comparing to (ie: the 9200 with 32mb of RAM in the previous Mini) is older than dirt.

The GMA950 is at least as capable as the previous Mini. I look forward to the benchmarks of the new Mini when they start to roll in.

So this is why the 1.5 G4 with its 64 mb 9200 were not mentioned by Apple??? They knew what was coming and new a 64 mb 9200 was a better choice then 99 cent intel graphics. All of us were puzzled how could apple upgrade the cpu and gpu without a word? Why would Apple do this? because they were going to release Intels last in class 99 cent graphic chip special thats why. Oh well, Apple is making sure it pushes people into its ugly non upgradeable Imac. They have played this game for years, cripple one machine to make the higher priced machine look better. They did this kind of thing with G3/G4 imacs for yrs & yrs to push powermacs.
I think Mini is a cool machine and i have to wonder how great it could be if Apple stopped looking at its other makes and just made a great product. Shame on you Apple for using 99 cent graphics to push folks into Imac. Shame.

 

[Timepass]

I always get a good laugh out of some things. This thread being one of them. It just how a lot of you seem to change your opinan on the matter of something like intergrated graphic cards being crap until the 2nd apple uses it. When apple does it a lot of you all instatantly change you opinan of it and thing it a great thing. Always find it intersting. (same goes for back during the intel chip change a a few other things). I being learning and trying to remind myself to not really pay attention to most of people here because they dont have their own opinans and what they think is the best is what ever apple does. Now the ones who dont flip flop the 2nd apple does something I do respect and pay much more attention to what they say because I now there opinan is not being based on what apple does but there own.

That being said few things I like to poke holes in. First off the test on showing how crappy the card is on a computer running in windows is valid for showing truely how weak the card is since it comparing the graphic card on the same plateform testing it out compared to other graphic cards.

2nd 3Dmark01 is not a good way to try to argue how good the card is in numbers. Now use 3Dmark04. The 01 score is very heavy based off the CPU a much smaller % of the graphic carded. Now the 04 one is much heavier on testing out the Graphic card and comparing it.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I posted a detailed technical comparison between the G4 and Core Solo/Duo minis yesterday. Virtually nobody cared though. Why? Because people on here prefer to scream than look at the facts. In case anyone missed it I'll place a link to it here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/183562/

In a nutshell, the Core Solo/Duos are better in every feasable way technically apart from losing the modem port. In reality the processor is *vastly* faster and will probably at the least hold its own in non-native apps through Rosetta when compared its G4 counterparts. The Radeon 9200 has been roughly 1.9 times faster than the GMA950 but this is before decent driver optimisation has been put into work. Since technically the GMA950 is superior to the 9200 once drivers get fine tuned it should be equal or better. If it doesn't do that then Apple and Intel aren't working hard enough. Also the Core Duo should certainly be able to playback 1080p without any problems. If it doesn't, Microsoft will officially be better at writing software than Apple.
If you want to have a better clue what you're talking about spend a bit of time and read the technical comparison I did. It took a while to do after all!

 

[cube]

Very simplistically, you're wrong. The Intel GMA950 has a GPU that is completely seperate from the CPU. The main difference is that integrated graphics solutions typically share memory with the CPU, while dedicated graphics have their own (faster) memory that they utilize. Historically, GPUs used in integrated solutions like this have had much lower performance than dedicated solutions, but we have to keep in mind that the dedicated solution we're comparing to (ie: the 9200 with 32mb of RAM in the previous Mini) is older than dirt.

The GMA950 is at least as capable as the previous Mini. I look forward to the benchmarks of the new Mini when they start to roll in.

This GPU is very wimpy. It doesn't do transformation and lighting, so the CPU has to do that.
It is garbage for 3D.

With a Core Duo, this would be a perfectly capable midrange machine if it had adequate gfx hardware (well, soft of, as using a 2.5" hard disk also sucks).

There's no midrange offering from Apple. The iMac does not count, as it has an integrated monitor.

 

[jsw]

This GPU is very wimpy. It doesn't do transformation and lighting, so the CPU has to do that.
It is garbage for 3D.

With a Core Duo, this would be a perfectly capable midrange machine if it had adequate gfx hardware (well, soft of, as using a 2.5" hard disk also sucks).

There's no midrange offering from Apple. The iMac does not count, as it has an integrated monitor.

(a) if you need 3D, don't get a mini; this seems obvious and I fail to understand why people are even arguing the point - the whole "deal" with the mini is its size; once Apple finds out how to put in a better GPU in the same form factor, they will.

(b) if the iMac doesn't count as mid-range simply because it has a monitor, put construction paper over it; the 17" iMac is quite the fast little system.

 

[dwd3885]

(a) if you need 3D, don't get a mini; this seems obvious and I fail to understand why people are even arguing the point - the whole "deal" with the mini is its size; once Apple finds out how to put in a better GPU in the same form factor, they will.

(b) if the iMac doesn't count as mid-range simply because it has a monitor, put construction paper over it; the 17" iMac is quite the fast little system.

they need to make a headless imac for $999 is what they need to do

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

There's no midrange offering from Apple. The iMac does not count, as it has an integrated monitor.

I beg to differ, the iMac most certainly does count. People who want their own monitors are meant to get PowerMacs. The iMacs aren't meant for professionals, that's what the PowerMacs are for. If you're a professional and you choose to use an iMac that's your decision.
The Mac Minis are the lowrange offerings and as they are, they are pretty darned good for low-end specs. They're meant as a second computer to connect to a TV or as an entry level model for new switchers. If you're a pro or mid-range user and decide you want a Mini that's your decision.

Entry level - Mac Mini
Mid range - iMac
Pro Range - PowerMac

If you choose to use them for a different class than they're designed for then that's up to you but as it stands Apple covers the entire ground.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

they need to make a headless imac for $999 is what they need to do

No they don't. If people want a midrange machine Apple wants you to buy an iMac. If you want a more powerful computer with a screen of choice Apple wants you to buy a PowerMac. Its not like the low end PowerMacs come with top graphics by default.

 

[iGary]

Let's deal in reality here for a mo'.

1. 95% of mac mini buyers are not interested in, do not plan to participate in or every see themselves being actively involved in gaming. Period.

2. The Mac platform has NEVER been a game platform, much less the fracking mini. Give me a break.

3. If you want to run iPhoto, e-mail, Word, a little Photoshop or any of the limited tasks most John Q. Customers want to perform, integrated graphics will have about a zip point squat net effect on your experience.

4. I think what most peple are "upset" by is that Apple went against something they've preached against for so long.

5. Take your $600.00 and buy an XBOX.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

4. I think what most peple are "upset" by is that Apple went against something they've preached against for so long.

Here here!! I also think that Apple would have used Integrated graphics years ago if IBM offered some that supported Core Image and Quartz Extreme (not that they offer anything). Apple have been waiting for this for a while. Do you really think the reason the iBook's graphics have always been better than its rivals Integrated Graphics is because Apple thought it would be nice?? No way!! Its because they couldn't get Integrated Graphics on their boards!!

 

[IJ Reilly]

IBM didn't fabricate Apple's motherboards before the move to Intel.

Anyway, everybody who puts any stock in any company's marketing and promotional campaigns, please raise your hands.

I thought so.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

IBM didn't fabricate Apple's motherboards before the move to Intel.

I understand that but the point is that they can now get an integrated solution of everything from Intel. Unless Apple designed and manufactured their own integrated graphics chips before, they had no way of using one hence why they always used ATI/nVidia chips.

 

[jsw]

The wonderful thing about a free market is that we all get to decide if this new mini is worthwhile. If Apple sells only a few of them, then they will revisit the design. If they sell millions of them, their approach will be shown to have been wise.

I suspect that they'll sell quite a few.

This all sort of reminds me of the initial bickering about the original iPods on this forum. Were they perfect? Is the new mini perfect? No on both counts. But people will buy them.

And, as has been said over and over, if you want to play games, why are you even looking at the mini? It's like bitching about the latest Porsche Boxster because it's terrible at off-roading. You miss the point.

And, as Spanky Deluxe posted so well in a different thread (referenced above by him), no one is even sure that the mini's graphics will be all that bad anyway.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Consumers are gamers anyone who says the consumer doesnt game is spinning, ignoring the facts or a apple zealot. Sure not everyone games but you have to remember this is now the nintendo generation and they game folks. Apple needed a real gpu mated to this hot cpu, perhaps they were being cheapo instead of spending another $25 bucks, or perhaps by sticking in a real GPU it would be to much performance for this segment in their view or they crippled this machine on purpose to move buyers into the stretch'ed screen iMacs. People a 9600 class gpu that is now what 3 yrs old? would have made this thing hot, even a fx5200 that are dirt, dirt, cheap would have made this thing a better machine then the integrated crap. There is no excuse not to have an option for a real gpu.
Everyone thats pissed should let Apple know how they feel. It only takes a minute or so to send them a letter. I have done so several times through the past 20 yrs
Would it have hurt for Apple to put in a $20 video chip?