asencif said:
i hope so. some of us want to max out the RAM to allow more juice to the GPU. considering it could potentially go up to 224 along with the socketed CPU, this could give a mini a pretty decent lifespan.
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.
report by macworld on intel mac mini gpu
- Thread starter thies
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i hope so. some of us want to max out the RAM to allow more juice to the GPU. considering it could potentially go up to 224 along with the socketed CPU, this could give a mini a pretty decent lifespan.
tjwett said:
Yeah I'm curious on the socketed CPU deal, this potentially can make it very expandable(ok not GPU wise) as maybe we can put a 2.0CD or really stretching it to a 2.16 in the future. Not sure if enough juice or even ventilation is in that thing for this to be possible. Still the thought is exciting. I'm thinking about getting this CD mini to experiment and tweak. Being a tech consultant it can be beneficial. Of course it's still a bit pricey for a guinea pig.
asencif said:
i hear that. tech consultant here as well, among other things. i've already got clients asking about these. anyway, i'm really dying to see someone try to slot a Core Duo into a stock Core Solo model. now that would be cool for the peeps who bought the Solo. knowing in a year they can plop a Duo in there later is just really cool. i was about to say "Apple would probably squash it if it became popular" but then again, it probably won't be that popular with the average user. personally i'd be all over it though. hell, i put it in a different case if i need to.
tjwett said:
Always good to find a fellow consultant and I see you are from NYC. Same here. I just started picking up a lot of clients as I joined a new team of consultants. Anyway, which system did you order? I apologize if I didn't read that if you posted it already.
p0intblank said:
Er, except by APPLE of course. We can debate the relative capabilities of the GMA950, but let's not stoop to being untruthful or try to rewrite history. Apple did very much so claim gaming as one of the features of the G4 Mini. This is a fact. They bragged about not having integrated graphics.
--Eric
asencif said:
oh cool! the mac market is better than ever in town right now. this past few years i've been able to completely get away from the residential house call scene and focus on commercial solutions. AppleScript, FileMaker, some web design and one remote help desk gig that is my steady thing for two hours a day. roll out of bed and into my office in the next room. it's great but i can spend a whole week in my pajamas before noticing it. so being out in the field has its good points that i miss as well.
anyway, i ordered up the Core Duo with 1 GB RAM. after reading about the RAM slots being moved to under the drive cage and seeing that third party 2GB kits were no bargain i tried to call and change it to 2 GB and perhaps even fully max out the HDD as well but my machine had already been CTO'd and was sitting on the loading dock. too late. ah well, when it arrives i'll make a call to the local Apple Stores and if they have a maxed out model then i'll swap it out. not gonna go through the headache of shipping it back and waiting for my credit card refund etc.
Apple should just provide three models. A extreme Mini with high-end graphics, a Standard Mini with medium level dedicated graphics card, and a Budget Mini with integrated graphics and perhaps a low-end CPU. Make the standard Mini only a few dollars more.
Just wait for Revision B.
Just wait for Revision B.
cube said:
Oy Smeghead...
There is not Integrated Graphics on the iMac, that is still ATI, with dedicated RAM. Perhaps you should do some more research before saying something stupid. But too late....
TEG
At least now Apple probably doesn't have to worry about the Mac Mini eating into iMac sales.
I always thought the concept of the Mini was a little foolish. Why not just make the thing a tad bit bigger so you can put actual desktop components into it (like a 3.5" HD), make the RAM easier to access and upgrade, and fit in a stand alone graphics card. I think I saw something saying the intel Mini was packed so tight that there actually wasn't room to fit a graphics card. Form over function indeed. Especially considering the Mini was likely designed around the PPC and not intel.
Maybe Apple will introduce a redesigned form factor in the rev. B
I sincerely hope the intel PowerMac has a better case than the G5. The G3/G4 case was the best.
I always thought the concept of the Mini was a little foolish. Why not just make the thing a tad bit bigger so you can put actual desktop components into it (like a 3.5" HD), make the RAM easier to access and upgrade, and fit in a stand alone graphics card. I think I saw something saying the intel Mini was packed so tight that there actually wasn't room to fit a graphics card. Form over function indeed. Especially considering the Mini was likely designed around the PPC and not intel.
Maybe Apple will introduce a redesigned form factor in the rev. B
I sincerely hope the intel PowerMac has a better case than the G5. The G3/G4 case was the best.
cube said:
Cool. Bye.
BTW if nobody's noticed Apple's currently giving the user the biggest choice they ever have! Two choices for processors in iMacs, choice of G4 or Core processors in the laptop line. Three different desktop model lines, a total of 8 desktops currently offered. That's loads. (2 minis, 2 intel imacs, 1 g5 imac, 3 powermacs)
So is there really a huge amount of forcing going on?
i just submitted a feedback letter to Apple regarding the intentional throttling down of the mini graphics to cap off at 80MB. i encourage others to do the same. believe it or not, they do read every letter that comes in. it's worth letting them know. and it just so happens that they don't have a feedback page for the mini (or the iMac or iBook for that matter) so i had to send it through the Power Mac feedback page, where i left them some additional feedback about how they should have a feedback page for the others as well. 
feedback.
feedback.Spanky Deluxe said:
Careful there. The iMac G3's had 3 CPU speed choices (for all intents and purposes, matching what they currently have), you dont' get your choice of G4 or Core Duo in any laptop size; you have to match your size to your CPU...but yeah, bailing on Apple over this is retarded: where are you going to go? To another x86 vendor?
benbondu said:
DING DING DING DING! Someone give this man a non-alcoholic beer.
Would I have loved a Mini with a X1300 or something? Of course. But if that was the case Apple would be hard pressed to sell any iMacs.
The Mini gives the entry level user a good machine.
For all those who are complaining how the PPC Mini was better for gaming should remember that Apple knows the numbers. At some point someone said, "Well, we get this integrated graphics thing for cheap-as-free and it saves us space on the board and gamers are not buying Mini's anyhow... Do it!"
benbondu said:
I agree. I like my G5, but the G4 was such a fantastic design!
thies said:
the only area that it didn't cream it was the hardware lighting. did you look at the rest of the results though? it's hard to argue that the new mini isn't leaps ahead of the previous. good numbers all across otherwise.
tjwett said:
you miss the point, this thread was about hardware acceleration, and in that regard it appears that the gma950 is worse than a g4 mini. You'll have a hard time running even old undemanding 3d games on this crap at decent framerates, You better complately forget about todays casual games.
thies said:
guess i posted this in the wrong thread. just wanted to show some new bench results. i'm not into the whole graphics argument. my bad.
So let's recap...
Significant price increase, but a mixed bag as far as increased performance? WTF? If anything, I'm going to find a used or demo mini G4 for cheap. If the mini is a computer for "casual" users, then I see no reason to spring for Apple's low-value "improvements".
Feh.
Significant price increase, but a mixed bag as far as increased performance? WTF?
If anything, I'm going to find a used or demo mini G4 for cheap. If the mini is a computer for "casual" users, then I see no reason to spring for Apple's low-value "improvements". Feh.
bighairydoofus said:Significant price increase, but a mixed bag as far as increased performance? WTF?
Feh.
Significant price increase? Not really for the solo version. It comes with airport and bluetooth standard which would have been an extra $100 on the old Mini. Mixed bag as far as increased performance? While the duo version is certainly more expensive, I don't think there's any arguing that it's a much faster processor than the G4. Also, the speed and capacity of the RAM both doubled. It's really just the graphics that are hurting with this thing.
For applications that don't require a high end graphics card (which is most applications I think) the new intel Mini will be a much better computer. At least it will be as soon as the apps run on intel natively. Users of iLife will immediately see the added benefit of the new intel processors.
And in the graphics department, I think smooth playback of 1080i video is key. That will be the most intensive thing that a lot of users try to put to their graphics card. My PowerBook now can't do it and it's really the only thing that disappoints me. (I don't play many computer games these days) If both versions of the Mini can do that okay, then it's a beautiful thing. Especially if it's taking the role of home media computer.
The more I think about it, the more the intel mini is starting to grow on me. However, I'm still waiting for the rev B of any intel Mac.