Oh Dear, intel integrated graphics

[MacTruck]

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.

I love how people can justify paying more, makes them feel better I guess. Fact is you bought a PC plain and simple, and a crappy one at that with integrated graphics. The fact it runs OSX is a mute point.

Its kind of like apple charging $99 for a lame leather case with no window on it. When will people snap out of it?

 

[TaKashMoney]

I apologize in advance to not reading all previous posts, but will the integrated graphics affect final cut pro performance?

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I love how people can justify paying more, makes them feel better I guess. Fact is you bought a PC plain and simple, and a crappy one at that with integrated graphics. The fact it runs OSX is a mute point.

Its kind of like apple charging $99 for a lame leather case with no window on it. When will people snap out of it?

The new Mini is by no stretch of the imagination a crappy PC. Its an order of magnitude better than the G4 mini. The graphics are comparable to the previous Mini and pretty much everything else is faster. You said earlier the following to someone that had ordered a new mini:

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

I'm sorry but it seems pretty clear to me that the only reason you're being so aggressive about the Intel Mini is because you've got one of the previous G4s that are clearly inferior.

 

[MacTruck]

What's the big deal? A 9200 is barely better than a GMA950, especially the crippled one that apple used, hell at least it has core image now, this is really an upgrade this GMA950 will work with typical OSX apps a lot better due to core image.

Yeah and we hated the 9200 too. The problem is that the mini needs a decent graphics card and this was apples chance to make good on the crap 9200 card and they decided to make it worse. I don't care if the integrated graphics are better than the 9200 it still sucks.

Just because they gave us a crippled turtle in the PPC mini and now they gave us a turtle without crutches doesn't make me like it. Its still a turtle.

 

[MacTruck]

I'm sorry but it seems pretty clear to me that the only reason you're being so aggressive about the Intel Mini is because you've got one of the previous G4s that are clearly inferior.

You should be sorry. I'm not upset about the intel mini because I have the PPC one, I'm upset because the intel mini is no better or marginally better. If it was so much greater I would buy one but I won't because its a waste of money. If they graphics are the same why upgrade? You can get a PPC mini for half the price.

Were'nt we all talking about how much cheaper the intel macs would be now since they are the same as regular PCs? Now they are more expensive than the PPC ones.


Is that coffee I smell? Yep, you should take a whiff.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I apologize in advance to not reading all previous posts, but will the integrated graphics affect final cut pro performance?

No. Apple's requirements are:

AGP Quartz Extreme or PCI Express graphics card

Apple mention nothing of graphics card acceleration other than that and Quartz Extremem is ancient.

 

[Morn]

The problem with you people is that you are expecting a low end powermac out of a budget machine.

 

[cube]

The graphics are comparable to the previous Mini

The only way the new graphics could be comparable to the old one is by loading the faster CPU for 3D operations. We'll have to see real app benchmarks.

 

[Eidorian]

No. Apple's requirements are:


Apple mention nothing of graphics card acceleration other than that and Quartz Extremem is ancient.

Does anyone know if Transform and Lighting abilities are needed for Core Image?

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

You should be sorry. I'm not upset about the intel mini because I have the PPC one, I'm upset because the intel mini is no better or marginally better. If it was so much greater I would buy one but I won't because its a waste of money. If they graphics are the same why upgrade? You can get a PPC mini for half the price.

Is that coffee I smell? Yep, you should take a whiff.

So you only upgrade because of graphics cards?? The processor is WAY better!! How can you not see that?? It has much faster memory, a much faster FSB and a much faster processor!! You have the previous top spec model, 1.42, Superdrive, Airport Extreme, Bluetooth. That compares to the current top spec (Core Duo) model. Yes its more expensive but not that much more. Its not just a bit faster. Its LOADS faster!! The G4 is pitifully slow when compared to modern standards. Why do you think the Intel switch is happening? A huge factor was because the G4 processors used in Intel's laptops were a joke compared to their PC counterparts!!

 

[cube]

The problem with you people is that you are expecting a low end powermac out of a budget machine.

We are not expecting a PowerMac, but a headless iMac.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Does anyone know if Transform and Lighting abilities are needed for Core Image?

I'm not sure if it is or not - it may be ok to use software Transform & Lighting. The GMA950 is Core Image compliant though and it doesn't have hardware T&L. So I'd say that Hardware T&L is *not* required for Core Image.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

I'm curious as to why anyone would be considering these a "gaming machine" - they aren't. They're small little add-on computers for people that already have a PC (or, I suppose, another Mac) and/or they're little DVRs (with the addition of a $150 Elgato EyeTV EZ USB). They most assuredly are not - and were never intended to be - gaming systems.

well obviously if you want to play a game and have decent performance you must spend $4k+.

they're little DVRs? so you would spend $6-800 on a mac mini, then buy a $150 device to allow you to create a PSEUDO DVR? or you would just buy this because you already have a computer and it would be a 'because i can' computer? you're funny .

 

[cube]

The GMA950 is Core Image compliant though and it have hardware T&L.

doesn't have hardware T&L

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

doesn't have hardware T&L

Edited, cheers - missed out that word!

 

[Morn]

We are not expecting a PowerMac, but a headless iMac.

Do you also expect sudan like leg room in a tiny low end hatchback?

 

[jsw]

or you would just buy this because you already have a computer and it would be a 'because i can' computer?

Of course. All of my real computing needs are met by my BeBox.

I'd get the mini as a main computer if I needed something that small or if I couldn't pony up a couple hundred more dollars for an iMac (and I understand that's the case for a number of people). But I'd never think of gaming on it (mainly because playing WCIII every few months is my idea of gaming... at best). I'd get 1GB or more in it also. I like the form factor, that's all. Would I use it as a DVR? No. I'd likely stream video from other Macs in the house and use it to let my kids play games with, and I'd use it with iChat.

 

[MacTruck]

The problem with you people is that you are expecting a low end powermac out of a budget machine.

Um its only a budget machine if its cheap. Just becaue they say its a budget machine doesn't mean they can give us crap and charge us for high end.

Take a look at the PC world conterparts. Yeah they are not as small but look at what you get. Now don't tell me it costs more to make a mini, it costs LOTS less.


For $399


For $799

Heck, that $799 will probably on spec with the Mac Pro when released.

I don't want to hear it.

 

[jsw]

Yeah they are not as small ....

Exactly.

Go buy the CompUSA system, then. Quit complaining that you can't get the features in a tiny form factor without paying more.

 

[munkees]

The fact it runs OSX is a mute point.

That is the only reason why I switched to Apple, Mac OS X is so much better than any stinking other OS around. It has great apps, it very stable, it very well integrated. The design time to implement software is fsat, so engineered, that apps are no longer so blotted. The OS is not a mute point. Apple may not have the lastest and greatest graphic etc etc, but what apple has is integrated apps, and system functionality that works well.

If you buy a low end PC, add a DVD-burner, Windose does not ever have burning capabilites built into the OS, you have to get that from so body else. Don't for get the codex for whating and decoding DVDs (my friend wipe is sony due to a windows problem, put on xp, and now with out that sony codex, he cannot watch the new dvds which require a codex to de-encript the dvd).

I think that the Intel graphics are not great, but I can live with it. I have a place for an Intel Mac mini, I will have a network at home where all media content is interchangeable with every machine, and as I move away from DVD to pure stored download content, I setting my system up for this. ( think in the future apple will build the device I replacing my TV with. My solution put a great 24" LCD, cheaper than a 24" LCD Tv, with a lot more. it can do email, iLife, play some games, web surf and other basic apps used at home, including using iMoves and iPhoto. This is all cheaper than buying a 24" TV which would not be as good as quality as this. The LCD for my solution has great response time, and also quality. plus I can run high resolution than HDTV. The current HDTV run 13XX x 884 (not 100% sure but in that ball park).

take alook at my home solution at http://www.planetresearch.com

I think Apple is tracking well with the way technology is moving. The home PC is on it last straight, with 6 core games machine (if they get more mem) and HDTV I see no need for a PC at home. It will be a media center, and Apple has now given me the tools to make one at home.

 

[MacTruck]

Exactly.

Go buy the CompUSA system, then. Quit complaining that you can't get the features in a tiny form factor without paying more.

I think you missed the point. The point is that apple could have given us a nice graphics card in the mini and they would have still made lots of money. But heh if you are happy with it then all the power to ya.

 

[jsw]

The point is that apple could have given us a nice graphics card in the mini ...

I am not convinced that they could have fit one in in a "Rev A" Intel version while keeping the same form factor - they need more time. Those who can deal with the IG can buy one now, others can wait. But to expect the same form factor with hotter chips and some additional items inside and a separate GPU... I think it was asking too much too soon.

 

[munkees]

I am not convinced that they could have fit one in in a "Rev A" Intel version while keeping the same form factor - they need more time. Those who can deal with the IG can buy one now, others can wait. But to expect the same form factor with hotter chips and some additional items inside and a separate GPU... I think it was asking too much too soon.

that seems like a good point, hope you are right. still i think the mac mini is great, such great form factor

 

[Rocksaurus]

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.

First of all, the Mini most recently came with 64MB, do some more research . Second of all, as you may or may not know, with slower video cards, often times less memory is better. Given the speed of the Radeon 9200, that 128 MB version may actually be hampered by its extra RAM. Read some anandtech - you'll see. Second of all, the numbers you posted just reinforced what I already said When you factor in that everyone here expected an UPGRADE from the last revision, even if we were to say something like "The GMA 950 is equal to or maybe just a hair worse than the Radeon 9200" I think our point still stands, with a new revision, give us an UPGRADE - especially over that 3 year old radeon you mention.

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!!

Yes, Apple marketing IS the master of twisting words - that's why you'll hear how great the GMA 950 is from now on. It's your choice to believe it. Did I mention the GMA 950 doesn't even have hardware T&L? I'm pretty sure the first Radeon ever released by ATi (named the "Radeon") years ago had hardware T&L. Yikes.

 

[MacTruck]

First of all, the Mini most recently came with 64MB, do some more research . Second of all, as you may or may not know, with slower video cards, often times less memory is better. Given the speed of the Radeon 9200, that 128 MB version may actually be hampered by its extra RAM. Read some anandtech - you'll see. Second of all, the numbers you posted just reinforced what I already said When you factor in that everyone here expected an UPGRADE from the last revision, even if we were to say something like "The GMA 950 is equal to or maybe just a hair worse than the Radeon 9200" I think our point still stands, with a new revision, give us an UPGRADE - especially over that 3 year old radeon you mention.

Yes, Apple marketing IS the master of twisting words - that's why you'll hear how great the GMA 950 is from now on. It's your choice to believe it. Did I mention the GMA 950 doesn't even have hardware T&L? I'm pretty sure the first Radeon ever released by ATi (named the "Radeon") years ago had hardware T&L. Yikes.

Thanks Rocksaurus. You have officially put this squable to rest. The new integrated graphics suck to no end period.