Agreed. I am not asking them for an ungodly amount to hurt profits but to me it also hurts profits by shorting customers.
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.
Why is HD4000 not good enough on 2012 mini?
- Thread starter propower
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. I am not asking them for an ungodly amount to hurt profits but to me it also hurts profits by shorting customers.
Balderdash and piffle.
I'm running 2 x 20" Apple Cinema Displays on my 2012 Mini. So that's 1680 x 1050 twice (3,528,000 pixels). A TB display has 2560 x 1440 = 3,686,400 pixels, which just a fraction bigger.
I see absolutely no slow down in system animation. As said earlier, I run 3D graphics software with no lag and Open GL games with high frame rates. Photoshop is frighteningly fast.
I have yet to see any problem with any graphics on this rig, which so far have been near instantaneous throughout.
You're going to have to point me o benchmarks showing the OPenGL portion if cinebench varies by CPU because I can't find any. The rendering numbers definitely vary because those tests are CPU bound, but no websites I can find show varying OpenGL numbers!
I don't understand why people still game on their PCs. In my opinion, playing on an Xbox or Playstation is so much more enjoyable.
If I had limited living space I would get a mini and a generic monitor that I could hook up to an Xbox. Boom! Gears of War and Call of Duty in all it's glory.
Back around 2002 I gamed heavily on a PC but once the Xbox 360 hit the market it was a no brainer to switch over to the console platform. I don't know, maybe I just don't get it.
If I had limited living space I would get a mini and a generic monitor that I could hook up to an Xbox. Boom! Gears of War and Call of Duty in all it's glory.
Back around 2002 I gamed heavily on a PC but once the Xbox 360 hit the market it was a no brainer to switch over to the console platform. I don't know, maybe I just don't get it.
OK show me where I can obtain a copy of say, Falcon BMS for the Xbox or Playstation.
how about DCS Blackshark? DCS: A10?
Borderlands2?
The PS3 or Xbox are fine for certain types of games - but for flight simulation or first person shooters - they suck.
I love FPS's on console. Much more then PCs.
Let's put it this way... if I was a hardcore PC gamer you could bet your butt I wouldn't have a Mac or even attempt to run Windows through Bootcamp. I'd have a dedicated, hard core gaming rig built from the ground up to suit my gaming needs. However, since I'm not 'hardcore', I'll stick with consoles and just have fun without worrying about all this hardware crap.
Good luck.
I love FPS's on console. Much more then PCs.
Let's put it this way... if I was a hardcore PC gamer you could bet your butt I wouldn't have a Mac or even attempt to run Windows through Bootcamp. I'd have a dedicated, hard core gaming rig built from the ground up to suit my gaming needs. However, since I'm not 'hardcore', I'll stick with consoles and just have fun without worrying about all this hardware crap.
Good luck.
Oh well I guess there is no market for PC gaming then if you don't happen to like it.
Oh well I guess there is no market for PC gaming then if you don't happen to like it.
I just feel that consoles offer a more user friendly platform for most types of games.
Happy gaming.
Last edited:
I have the 2012 mini w/ the 27 " TB display. It works great for OS X animations and all that. I'm very happy. I only have a single monitor though and don't know how it would handle 2 TB displays. I find the HD 4000 plenty capable for my gaming needs. I get 9,000,000 FPS in solitaire.
So where are we with the screen print? I still haven't found a website that provides OpenGL benchmarks for various CPU's that run HD4000's. They only report the number once.
I am in the camp that the HD4000 is not a horrible card though Apple should offer a little more.
So where are we with those numbers. Per Cinebench's 11.5 press release:
The CINEBENCH test scenario uses all of a system's processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene from "No Keyframes", the viral animation by AixSponza. This scene makes use of various different algorithms to stress all available processor cores.
The OpenGL graphics card testing procedure uses a complex 3D scene depicting a car chase with which the performance of your graphics card in OpenGL mode is measured. During the benchmark tests the graphics card is evaluated by way of displaying an intricate scene that includes complex geometry, high-resolution textures and a variety of effects to evaluate the performance across various real-world scenarios.
Sooooo, it seems I'm right unless you can prove me wrong. The HD4000 will perform the same across all processors with the HD4000 in the OpenGL test since as I previously stated it tests the GPU and NOT the CPU. That's what the Cinebench "test" scenario is for. I will grant you that there is a 100mhz variance in the turbo of the GPU of the HD4000 in various models, so there might be a frame or two difference, but nothing statistically significant.....
Edit: So IF I am right, then the 6% you showed in the OpenGL benchmark between the 6630M and the HD4000 means that you lose 6% in the GPU, but gain 100% in the CPU correct?
Ditto for strategy games, with most of the best ones like Total War not even being available for consoles. Hence why many Mac users, who are also gamers, understandably feel disappointed whenever Apple downgrades the graphical capability on newer Macs.
I think it depends how you define "great".
For context: I have the 2011 mini with HD3000 and a 2011 MBPro with HD3000. The mini CANNOT run Lion animations at 60fps (smoothly) on a 2560x1440 display at all. I get <20fps (using Quartz Debug to measure). Even the 2011 MBPro with 1680x1050 pixel display is sluggish (30fps) once there are more than a few windows open. The issue goes away if you switch to Discrete graphics on the 2011 MBPro. But in general, animations in Lion are less smooth than they are (on the same hardware) on Leopard/Snow Leopard. I know this because i have both 2011 models to dual boot into Snow Leopard with a hack for the Leopard Expose (This now becomes ALMOST smooth).
I then went to an Apple Store and tried out all the 2012 models on display. The ONLY model that gave consistent smooth UI was a 27 inch iMac. All the MBPros and MBAirs had very slightly jerky Mission Control animation once you have more than a few windows/apps open. Irrespective of display size. The issue was worse on the retina models (obviously), but still present on the hires 1680x1050 MBPro.
I conclude that until Apple pull their finger out of their arse and rewrite the core animations so that they can give 60fps on CURRENT hardware, the only truly smooth experience in OSX today is to use: Leopard, or Buy a top end iMac, MBPro, MPro with dedicated graphics.
[/COLOR]
And it is shame they did not use at least 512 MBV version... this is killing me with any mac computer, they always, ALWAYS use the lowest posible VRAM configs (except the high end imacs)...[/QUOTE]
Hmm.. Are you sure? my 2012 mac mini 2.6 i7 is running a Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB?
And it is shame they did not use at least 512 MBV version... this is killing me with any mac computer, they always, ALWAYS use the lowest posible VRAM configs (except the high end imacs)...[/QUOTE]
Hmm.. Are you sure? my 2012 mac mini 2.6 i7 is running a Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB?
The amount of VRAM depends on how much actual system RAM you have.
(mine is 768MB as well out of 16GB)
(mine is 768MB as well out of 16GB)
At 8GB or better, OSX allocates 768MB to VRAM. If you are running the stock 4GB, it will only allocate 512MB.
hi iv made a channel after getting my mac mini my self iv go about 10 videos on all different gaming give us a look up thanks
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuFY6DeGUGSpoPrMG5vVRAcCWIo5OhWRl
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuFY6DeGUGSpoPrMG5vVRAcCWIo5OhWRl
I love FPS's on console. Much more then PCs.
Let's put it this way... if I was a hardcore PC gamer you could bet your butt I wouldn't have a Mac or even attempt to run Windows through Bootcamp. I'd have a dedicated, hard core gaming rig built from the ground up to suit my gaming needs. However, since I'm not 'hardcore', I'll stick with consoles and just have fun without worrying about all this hardware crap.
Good luck.
I never really understood that argument. Just because someone isn't a "hardcore gamer" and plays games 6 hours a day every day, doesn't mean they can't want/expect a real expensive computer (mac $$) to look / perform great whenever they DO play those games.