Oh Dear, intel integrated graphics

[Woutje]

Okay, in the past, integrated graphics haven't been that great, but now we have dual core cpu's and to be honest (i have the new iMac), most of the time the core duo isn't stressed at all. So what if the integrated graphics uses up some performance? You're not going to notice it.

And furthermore, the GMA950 supports DirectX 9 on Windows, which is a standard for videocards. That doesn't mean it's fast, but it can accelerate stuff (probably the CoreImage etc) while with the ATI 9200, it had to be done in software (the 9200 was DirectX 8.1, I believe).

Finally, the ATI 9200 had a lower output voltage than the VGA standard, causing problems on some displays (blur). Switchers with CRT displays won't need to worry.

 

[dwd3885]

Okay, in the past, integrated graphics haven't been that great, but now we have dual core cpu's and to be honest (i have the new iMac), most of the time the core duo isn't stressed at all. So what if the integrated graphics uses up some performance? You're not going to notice it.

And furthermore, the GMA950 supports DirectX 9 on Windows, which is a standard for videocards. That doesn't mean it's fast, but it can accelerate stuff (probably the CoreImage etc) while the ATI 9200 had to do it in software.

Finally, the ATI 9200 had a lower output voltage than the VGA standard, causing problems on some displays (blur). This should be fixed now.

it doesn't stress the cpu anyway, it takes away from the valuable system ram that mac people say stock up on!

That's the whole point. So for more money, you get a graphics unit that isn't as good AND it hampers system performance by stealing memory as well. WHERE DO I SIGN UP!??!

 

[chaosbunny]

Hm, I really think there is something missing in apples lineup. Ok, you have the mac mini for low end users, and for those it will perform more than good, and the imac for people who want a more power and a screen.

Look at the systems in my sig. I have an excellent screen and do not need an imac. But I want to buy an intel mac by the end of this year and I want it to become my main graphic design machine. I don't want to get a mbp, since my current powerbook will last me at least 2 more years. What I would like to see is a 1000 - 1200 € G4 Cube sized box with the specs of the imacs. Now wouldn't that be great? For a little cheaper than the imac you would get upgradeability instead of a screen. There would be enough space for 4 ram slots and a graphics card that can be changed. It would still be smaller than most pcs and I'm sure it would look awesome and I'm sure these would sell good. But unfortunately I know why apple never will release my dream machine, because it would draw sales from powermacs.

But I can dream, right?

 

[jsw]

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.

(1) No, most computer buyers are not gamers who require separate GPUs. Certainly most Mac buyers are not gamers - or at least not gamers who would be affected by non-integrated graphics.

(2) Someone please provide evidence that use of non-integrated graphics would not have boosted heat output or size requirements to a point that the mini form factor would no longer be usable.

Look, I'd be as happy as anyone if there was a phenomenal GPU in the mini. I don't think anyone is arguing that they prefer integrated graphics over a faster GPU. I think many of us are simply saying that the tradeoffs were worth it.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I have no doubt that Apple has someone reading these forums. I bet Rev B will have the dedicated graphics. Just wait for Rev B. The reviews should also point this problem out with real benchmarks instead of just all talk.

I didn't know people used the Mac Mini for hard core gaming anyways. I thought the G4 they used was just too slow and the dedicated graphics also too weak for gaming.

 

[tjwett]

it doesn't stress the cpu anyway, it takes away from the valuable system ram that mac people say stock up on!

That's the whole point. So for more money, you get a graphics unit that isn't as good AND it hampers system performance by stealing memory as well. WHERE DO I SIGN UP!??!

this GPU maxes out at taking 224 MB of RAM. these minis can take 2GB of RAM. doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

 

[Kingsly]

IMO if Steve (being the perfectionist that he is) would not let the Mac Mini out of Apple HQ if it did not at least meet the GPU standard set by the previous MM. The only thing that worries me is the shared memory. On the other hand... there is room for 2Gbytes of RAM now. (It was 1.5 before, right )
And besides... upgrading RAM would be kind of like upgrading VRAM. So the mac mini can have a maximum of 224 Mb of VRAM, up from 32!

 

[tjwett]

IMO if Steve (being the perfectionist that he is) would not let the Mac Mini out of Apple HQ if it did not at least meet the GPU standard set by the previous MM. The only thing that worries me is the shared memory. On the other hand... there is room for 2Gbytes of RAM now. (It was 1.5 before, right )

i agree. and the PPC mini was maxed at 1GB of RAM.

 

[chaosbunny]

IMO if Steve (being the perfectionist that he is) would not let the Mac Mini out of Apple HQ if it did not at least meet the GPU standard set by the previous MM. The only thing that worries me is the shared memory. On the other hand... there is room for 2Gbytes of RAM now. (It was 1.5 before, right )

Nope, was 1gb ram before.

 

[dwd3885]

this GPU maxes out at taking 224 MB of RAM. these minis can take 2GB of RAM. doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

anybody putting in 2gb right now? The thing is, it comes stock with 512. Which means 512-224. Not 2,000-224.

Have you ever run integrated graphics before? Mac users are blessed not to have run it, but once you find out how bad it really stinks, you'll then be complaining

 

[Eidorian]

anybody putting in 2gb right now? The thing is, it comes stock with 512. Which means 512-224. Not 2,000-224.

Have you ever run integrated graphics before? Mac users are blessed not to have run it, but once you find out how bad it really stinks, you'll then be complaining

That's 64-80 MB of shared video RAM. Only Intel mentions the maximum allocation of 224 MB.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

You're all working under the assumption that the GMA950 will take 224MB of RAM all the time. Its not. In fact it will very rarely go over the minimum usage. What exactly would it be using all of that 224MB for?!! The only need for that much GPU memory is for high resolution textures. The 9200 or the GMA950 are *both* *way* too slow for running any games with high resolution textures. Any game is going to be set to the lowest possible graphics settings without a doubt. So we're going to be losing 64MB (or is it 80MB) tops. That's it. Even 512-64 is virtually negligable. I do agree that 1GB is the minimum that should really be used in Core Duo machines that run OS X.

 

[danny_w]

I have no doubt that Apple has someone reading these forums. I bet Rev B will have the dedicated graphics. Just wait for Rev B. The reviews should also point this problem out with real benchmarks instead of just all talk.

I didn't know people used the Mac Mini for hard core gaming anyways. I thought the G4 they used was just too slow and the dedicated graphics also too weak for gaming.

Certainly not for hard core gaming, but for moderate gaming the (previous) mini is just fine (I and many others use it that way). A little gaming makes for a nice diversion once in a while. The new mini may be a step backwards in this area; we will just have to wait and see, but it doesn't look good from here. Personally I can't imagine putting 2GB of RAM in a mini, because it just makes the mini way too expensive for its (presumed) intended market; I know that if I were spending that kind of money, I would not even consider the mini.

 

[MacTruck]

this GPU maxes out at taking 224 MB of RAM. these minis can take 2GB of RAM. doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

LOL, thats because you already forked over the $$ for one. Its horrible period.

 

[MacTruck]

anybody putting in 2gb right now? The thing is, it comes stock with 512. Which means 512-224. Not 2,000-224.

Have you ever run integrated graphics before? Mac users are blessed not to have run it, but once you find out how bad it really stinks, you'll then be complaining

Prosecution RESTS!

 

[tjwett]

anybody putting in 2gb right now? The thing is, it comes stock with 512. Which means 512-224. Not 2,000-224.

Have you ever run integrated graphics before? Mac users are blessed not to have run it, but once you find out how bad it really stinks, you'll then be complaining

i ordered mine with a GB. if it feels like the graphics are hogging it then i'll up it to 2GB. we'll see. and yeah, i've used integrated graphics on a Athlon 2600 PC that had 1GB of RAM and it wasn't bad at all. but i wasn't playing Doom 3. i was using it for regular, every day crap and some audio apps.

everyday users, who the mini and entry-level PCs are designed for, do not want, need or buy $300 graphics cards to play Doom 3 on. then people ask "well why does a Mac mini cost so much more than an entry-level PC?". the answer is because it is a Mac. they have been and always will be more expensive. this isn't new. just because they have Intel inside now (which btw are more expensive than the PPC chips) doesn't mean they are going to look, act or cost like a PC. they aren't going to start making them out of crappy thin spray painted metal or plastic with little plastic door flaps that hide USB ports. and you won't see parts inside from 200 different crappy manufacturers. they will continue be more expensive, and more pretty than PCs. that's just the way it is.

 

[jsw]

Prosecution RESTS!

Odd how the prosecution can rest before any real evidence appears. No one has posted any benchmarks using the new mini, so no one - no one - outside of Apple and their partners know how it will perform.

And why the hell do people keep using the 224MB value?

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

I see. The reference to IBM threw me off your point.

I'll be seriously interested in seeing how the performance of the Intel graphics chipset compares to the Radeon 9200 in the original mini. I think we should know in a matter of days, as the new minis seem to be shipping already. I suspect Apple would not have gone with Intel graphics if the bottom-line video performance wasn't going to be at least on a par with the previous model. But again, we'll know soon.

 

[tjwett]

LOL, thats because you already forked over the $$ for one. Its horrible period.

forking over the money means nothing to me. it's a tax-deductable business expense any way. my point was that how is 224 MB of memory being used for graphics (and remember we are not talking 3D here) such a big deal if you've got 2GB, even 1GB, of RAM inside? who cares if it uses the memory if it's there to spare?

 

[Eidorian]

And why the hell do people keep using the 224MB value?

It's on Intel's specifications page for the GMA 950 chipset.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

On average I've only seen recent integrated graphics chips take 64 - 80 MB of system RAM.

Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically.

 

[jsw]

I see. The reference to IBM threw me off your point.

I'll be seriously interested in seeing how the performance of the Intel graphics chipset compares to the Radeon 9200 in the original mini. I think we should know in a matter of days, as the new minis seem to be shipping already. I suspect Apple would not have gone with Intel graphics if the bottom-line video performance wasn't going to be at least on a par with the previous model. But again, we'll know soon.

clayj has an older mini and is getting a new one very soon. I'm sure he will post reviews - he posted last night that Apple will let him return the mini he bought last week (his 2nd) for a new one with no restocking fee.

Odd that he'd do that, though, given how much the new minis are "guaranteed" to suck....

 

[tjwett]

Odd how the prosecution can rest before any real evidence appears. No one has posted any benchmarks using the new mini, so no one - no one - outside of Apple and their partners know how it will perform.

And why the hell do people keep using the 224MB value?

totally true. and the 224MB number comes from the Intel spec page for the GPU. it says that it can use UP TO 224MB of RAM if needed. Apple's page states a minimum of 80MB will be used for the GPU. it's on the bottom of the "what's inside" page for the mini.

 

[cube]

Everybody is talking about how the GMA950 does not have dedicated memory.
The SGI O2 didn't, and in 1996 it could dedicate up 1 GiB of system memory (OK, leave some for the OS and apps) to the graphics. This was an awesome machine for imaging, but just entry level for 3D.

I see as a more serious problem the fact that these Intel graphics are not a complete 3D engine, as I said before, and it taxes the CPU for transformation and lighting.

C'mon, how good could be some graphics that cost $4?

It's perfectly valid to want to do some 3D with the mini. The CPU is more than enough for X-Plane, for example. The gfx ruins it. Why do I have to spend $2K in a PowerMac that I don't really need? I have a better monitor than what comes with the iMac and I don't have the space for another one.

Now, if Apple would offer a midrange machine with upgradeable graphics (normal sized cards, not like the Cube), and 1 extra PCIe slot (for a SCSI card for backup) I wouldn't have considered the mini.

 

[jsw]

It's on Intel's specifications page for the GMA 950 chipset.

Yeah, I know:

• Up to 224 MB maximum video memory

I just don't see why many posters here seem to mentally convert "maxiumum" to "required". It's like saying I can't use Photoshop on a Mac with 2GB RAM because it can use a lot more than that....

 

[IJ Reilly]

clayj has an older mini and is getting a new one very soon. I'm sure he will post reviews - he posted last night that Apple will let him return the mini he bought last week (his 2nd) for a new one with no restocking fee.

Odd that he'd do that, though, given how much the new minis are "guaranteed" to suck....

Good. Also, Macintouch has been bench-testing the new Macs quite quickly after they're released. They use a standard series of tests, so I think their results are unbiased and reliable.