Who wants a Mac Mini with a dedicated graphics card?

[August West]

I sure don't want or need a high end graphics card in my mini. In fact, if it would have been equipped with one I probably wouldn't have purchased it. I wanted something that was small, unobtrusive, quiet, cool running and energy efficient. The mini fits these these requirements perfectly as it is.

It would be nice thought if Apple would come out with something between the mini and the pro that isn't an all-in one-unit like the imac. I can see where people who don't like the all-in-one packaging are faced with the mini which is too little and the pro which is too much.

 

[njean777]

You're missing the point. They're doing just fine as is, meaning they're satisfying the needs of their intended target well enough for those people to buy. If that isn't well enough for you, that your problem, not Apple's.

I thought i was the intended target? If they want to appeal to the market they need to appeal to more then just apple fanboys. They want to gain market share, why not try to appeal to more people? With giving people choices they would appeal to more then just the apple faithful for computers.

 

[TheHumphries]

I thought i was the intended target? If they want to appeal to the market they need to appeal to more then just apple fanboys. They want to gain market share, why not try to appeal to more people? With giving people choices they would appeal to more then just the apple faithful for computers.

They are gaining market share with what they have now

It is called the Mac Mini. Keyword: MINI. I don't think it would be called the mini with a graphics card and a larger case unless..

Apple announces the New Mac Not So Mini!

I don't think that has the right ring to it. The system is designed for the regular general computer user (which is the VAST majority of consumers). So infact, Apple designed this system perfect for who it is supposed to sell to. For those that want more (who will spend more) they have the iMac (and an option to upgrade graphics.)

While sure it would be nice to have a dedicated graphics card in the mini, it just doesn't fit (sweet pun) into who the mac mini is designed for nor the design of the mac mini.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I thought i was the intended target? If they want to appeal to the market they need to appeal to more then just apple fanboys. They want to gain market share, why not try to appeal to more people? With giving people choices they would appeal to more then just the apple faithful for computers.

The point is Apple don't want the mass market.

They are all about design and premium products.

The Mini is the cheapest mac in the range, yet it is the equal of the 13" MacBook.

The extra room for the extra ram chips and the 9600m chipset to make a dedicated solution could produce another issue. heat. In the mini, all components are stacked on top of each other, meaning that heat could spread from one component to the next, whereas in the 15"/17" MBP they are spread out allowing better heat dissipation

 

[njean777]

The point is Apple don't want the mass market.

They are all about design and premium products.

The Mini is the cheapest mac in the range, yet it is the equal of the 13" MacBook.

The extra room for the extra ram chips and the 9600m chipset to make a dedicated solution could produce another issue. heat. In the mini, all components are stacked on top of each other, meaning that heat could spread from one component to the next, whereas in the 15"/17" MBP they are spread out allowing better heat dissipation

If they didnt want mass market they would not be gloating about their iphone numbers, every company wants mass market. NO COMPANY would ever say we dont want to sell our products. Especially in the apple commercials they talk about switchers, well i wonder who they are going for THE MASS WINDOWS MARKET .

Are you people really fighting more choice? Do you guys get money from defending apple in their stupidity?

And yes their could be a dedicated gpu in the mini, we have discussed this earlier on page 1.

 

[fa8362]

I thought i was the intended target?

If you don't want what they have, then you're definitely not the target.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If they didnt want mass market they would not be gloating about their iphone numbers, every company wants mass market. NO COMPANY would ever say we dont want to sell our products. Especially in the apple commercials they talk about switchers, well i wonder who they are going for THE MASS WINDOWS MARKET .

Apple would be happy with a couple more percentage points. They are not after every single user, believe me.

The iPhone and iPod are different markets. They dominate their market which in most cases is consumer orientated.

If Apple were about the mass market for the mac, they would be targeting businesses more than consumers. Most PC sales are not to consumers but to businesses, who want cheap and cheerful.

They have no answer to the likes of Dell and HP in that respect, and to be quite frank they couldn't care less.

They are about premium, high margin lower volume.

Which company makes more money? Apple.

 

[fa8362]

If they didnt want mass market they would not be gloating about their iphone numbers, every company wants mass market. NO COMPANY would ever say we dont want to sell our products. Especially in the apple commercials they talk about switchers, well i wonder who they are going for THE MASS WINDOWS MARKET .

Are you people really fighting more choice? Do you guys get money from defending apple in their stupidity?

And yes their could be a dedicated gpu in the mini, we have discussed this earlier on page 1.

If you had ever worked in marketing, you'd understand that companies don't target every prospect. Any market can be broken down into prime prospects, other prospects and non-prospects. By definition, you're currently in the non-prospect group for Apple desktops. In desktops, they're not marketing to you and others like you.

 

[dyn]

I thought i was the intended target? If they want to appeal to the market they need to appeal to more then just apple fanboys.

You thought wrong...twice They don't target you nor Apple fanboys with the mini. The target audience used to be people who weren't using a Mac but were wanting to use a Mac. The mini was the cheap Mac solution so that these people could replace their pc with Windows/Linux with a tiny and cheap Mac. Since the late 2009 model they also target people who want to use it as a htpc. In both cases a dedicated graphics card is not necessary, the GMA950 did its job greatly and the 9400m does it even better.

However, the mini is a very very great machine, even for existing Mac users. A lot of people who dislike the iMac and want a simple machine are buying the Mac mini. Again, the GMA950 and the 9400m will do, those people do not need or want something like the dedicated graphics in the MacBook Pro or iMac.

That leaves a very small amount of people who are dying for dedicated graphics in the mini. Most of those are actually more dying for a Mac Pro with a price tag somewhere between the mini and the iMac. A lot of the Mac Pro people would buy such a machine as well I think. Apple should try to fit the stuff they have in the high end 27" iMac in a case like the Mac Pro and sell that. I don't think there is a market for a Mac mini on steroids but I think there is one for a slimmed down Mac Pro.

 

[skye12]

The mini is pretty nice with the 9400m. My buddy has one
and it does everything very well that a normal user might want.

 

[The Hammer]

Steve doesn't agree. Anyway he gave you a 9400m, which isn't a bad graphics card, so what more do you want?

He wants a dedicated one.

 

[cjmillsnun]

He wants a dedicated one.

I suspect he won't get it.

 

[Pressure]

You aren't understanding the question. Dedicated video means one that has its own memory system. The 9400m is integrated because it must share video memory with system memory.

I am quite capable of grasping the question asked, even comprehending it.

The reason you have the 9400M in the Mac Mini is because it is a monolithic chip containing both the integrated graphic core, north- and southbridge. A 1-chip solution. It also means it is saving valuable real-estate on the tiny logic board.

You should check some other Apple products like for example the MacBook Pro and than redo your reality check. So yes, it is indeed possible to fit a dedicated graphics card into that tiny space of a Mac mini or a MacBook Pro. It most definitely is not a question of dimensions but about how it can cool the hardware effectively. I think that de mini could do with a 9600m as a dedicated graphics card when I'm checking the temperatures of my Mac mini (early 2009). The problem is that this would make the mini a bit more expensive as well as that such a videocard is beyond the scope of an entry level device (the mini still is the entry level Mac!). The Mac mini Server is an entry level device (it's the entry level version of the Xserve/Mac Pro servers) as well, it's targeted at small businesses and such.

See the above answer. And yes, I am aware of other Apple products and their innards.

 

[MacHamster68]

so to sum things up and come to a conclusion apple simply cant please everyone , as everyone wants something else
so if you want a build to order system a apple mini is not a option
even the macpros are limited to a extend
so you need to buy a pc if you are unhappy about what apple offers , but then you cant have the pleasure of osx, but thank god there is linux , so you dont need to work with windows ..0f course if you are forced to .....

 

[flopticalcube]

I am quite capable of grasping the question asked, even comprehending it.

The reason you have the 9400M in the Mac Mini is because it is a monolithic chip containing both the integrated graphic core, north- and southbridge. A 1-chip solution. It also means it is saving valuable real-estate on the tiny logic board.

+ cost savings
+ power savings (which lead to more cost savings)

It would be nice to have an option but that would require additional engineering which would eat into margins and possible compromise the current design.

 

[300D]

Even though the Mac Mini Core + GMA 950 blew it out the water, CPU and GPU wise?

That is 100% false. The Intel GPU was a tremendous step backwards in graphical power and the 1.5 Core Solo was no faster than the G4.

 

[TSE]

In my opinion, a G105m or perhaps a downclocked ATI 4330M HD isn't too much of a stretch if they offered it as an option, but I agree with most people. The 9400 is good enough for 95% of consumers.

 

[MacHamster68]

why do all intel owners tell the g4 /g5 processors are aged and just fast enough for light office work
the 1.5 core solo was actually a step backwards compared to the 1.42/1,5 g4
and the gma 950 graphics are hmm i say it polite just good enough for a netbook
and no match for the ati radeon 9200

 

[flopticalcube]

That is 100% false. The Intel GPU was a tremendous step backwards in graphical power and the 1.5 Core Solo was no faster than the G4.

The Core Solo benched quite a bit faster than the G4 it replaced. Not real world, however. The GMA950 was indeed a step backward from the G4's discrete GPU but its still with us today. Does it get points for longevity?

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I'd rather a mac mini that was only $500

 

[dyn]

I am quite capable of grasping the question asked, even comprehending it.

The reason you have the 9400M in the Mac Mini is because it is a monolithic chip containing both the integrated graphic core, north- and southbridge. A 1-chip solution. It also means it is saving valuable real-estate on the tiny logic board.

That is not the reason there is a 9400m inside the machine at all. Mac mini's have existed before the 9400m was released to the market. They didn't have any problems and the models haven't changed much. The only differences are in power and in the amount of usb ports. Those things have been achieved by simply using mini-dvi and mini displayport instead of 1 full dvi port. The architecture of the Core 2 Duo cpu that they used in the Intel minis also plays a key role in this. The 9400m is not a 1-chip solution because the Penryn C2D is a 3-chip solution. They only eliminated 1 chip, not 2 as you're suggesting. In the end you have a 3 -hip solution. With the new Arrandale this will be reduced to 2. The following picture explains it better:

The only reason why there is a 9400m inside it and not an Intel or dedicated graphics card is quite simple. The 9400m is a faster video chip than Intel can deliver. The mini is not aimed at a market that needs the dedicated video graphics which rules out such a solution. In the end the only possibility is the 9400m which they used. This way the mini is also able to be priced lower. If they want they can use a dedicated graphics in machines like the mini, simply because they do it in the iMac and the MacBook Pro. It's technically possible but it has other implications such as a higher price tag. The mini was always meant to be the entry level Mac for everyone to buy and use. In entry level devices you don't put high end gear like dedicated graphics because the price tag will grow beyond what the target audience are willing to pay, especially when you've got an iMac for a little bit more (this is a complete machine unlike the mini). It makes the device unsellable. So in the end it's all about marketing

I think there is just 1 part that is technical about the story: the upcoming Snow Leopard. At the time the early 2009 Mac mini with the 9400m was released, Snow Leopard was in development. One of its key features is OpenCL. They might have chosen the 9400m over any Intel solution because it could do OpenCL properly. But then again this is purely speculation, it doesn't mean they actually did.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple needs to build another cube or prosumer tower, Mini is not enough,iMac all in ones are just that ALL in ones, Give me a Quicksilver 2010/or new Cube.

 

[belltree]

Apple needs to build another cube or prosumer tower, Mini is not enough,iMac all in ones are just that ALL in ones, Give me a Quicksilver 2010/or new Cube.

Agreed, this would be the fabled "xMac" once again. I would love to see one as I refuse to have my system tied to the monitor so I will never buy an Mac. But I want more performance but not so much that I need to buy a Mac Pro.

The problem is though, that it becomes difficult for Apple to find an appropriate price point as everything is rather close in terms of price point.

 

[robeddie]

You should probably have a look at the dimensions of the Mac Mini and then a reality check afterwards.

What you are asking for is the xMac, which have been discussed to death for many years now...

This is amazing. Every time there's a discussion like this someone comes up and says 'there wouldn't be space for it'.

We heard the same thing when it was rumored the spring 2009 mini would have 5 usb ports AND a firewire port - 'there wouldn't be space for it in the case'.

We heard the same thing when it was rumored that the aluminum Macbook would get a firewire port - 'there wouldn't be space for it in the case'.

A few people like you, would show pics of the inside of the case to 'prove' their point.

Well guess what, Apple can redesign the insides, move things around, make a few things smaller - and MAKE space. They've done it before. Besides, even if there wasn't space, they could knock out one of the usb ports to create that space (isn't 4 usb ports enough for most of us anyway?).

So please, my friends, let's give this 'there wouldn't be enough space' b-s a burial once and for all.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I'd rather a mac mini that was only $500

Oh yes please.

Although I don't need one now...