Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Feb 2006 18:51 UTC
Apple At a special press event today, Apple introduced various new products. Besides the usual iPod/iTunes chit-chatter, they introduced a new Mac Mini with either a dual-core or single-core Intel processor. The new Mini sports the same form factor as the old one, and comes with an improved Front Row (support for playing streamed content using Bonjour), TV-out, and more. Note: Thanks go out to iLounge, MacCentral, and Engadget for providing live feeds.
Order by: Score:
Nice
by aaronb on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:09 UTC
aaronb
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is what I was waiting for.

£599.00
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor
2MB L2 Cache
667MHz Frontside Bus
512MB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
80GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote

£449.00
1.5GHz Intel Core Solo processor
2MB L2 Cache
667MHz Frontside Bus
512MB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
60GB Serial ATA hard drive
Combo drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice
by chrish on Wed 1st Mar 2006 14:28 UTC in reply to "Nice"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

Note, however, the horrible Intel video on them. There goes my plan to buy one for my wife.

- chrish

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice
by ApproachingZero on Wed 1st Mar 2006 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice"
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

Note, however, the horrible Intel video on them. There goes my plan to buy one for my wife

I really doubt your wife knows anything about integrated video or cares about it at all. Just what kind of hardcore 3d games is your wife planning on running? Most females I know use their computers to buy things online, IM, listen to music, and watch DVDs. Just what kind of monster video card do you think someone needs to perform those tasks?

Reply Score: 1

Higher price?
by Peragrin on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:13 UTC
Peragrin
Member since:
2006-01-05

Okay so they are raising the ram to 512. The but raising the price too?

Oh well I have been looking for a second machine. I was hoping this would be the Intel Mini. Nice form factor, with front and a remote. replace my dvd player, and music box. Well maybe. I am still looking for a decent tablet as well. I basically want a 10" screened palm OS device.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Higher price?
by CaptainPinko on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:12 UTC in reply to "Higher price?"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

Acer TravelMate. That's what you are looking for. I got one right now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Higher price?
by MikeGA on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:56 UTC in reply to "Higher price?"
MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

Um, the RAM was 512Mb on the previous model. I'd quite like to know if this still has only the one RAM slot. If so, I honestly think you may as well pony up a little more and get the iMac.

Reply Score: 2

SHARED MEMORY!!!!!
by GrapeGraphics on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:13 UTC
GrapeGraphics
Member since:
2005-07-07

"Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory1"

I guess we can't claim no shared memory any longer... too bad.

Jb

Reply Score: 5

RE: SHARED MEMORY!!!!!
by BlackJack75 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:09 UTC in reply to "SHARED MEMORY!!!!!"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

On a positive note, look at the pixel shader perfs as opposed to an nvidia card. It's slower but still decent. And this is the core of Core Image if I say so.

I look forward to testing some CoreImage apps with these beasts.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821812,00.asp

Reply Score: 1

RE: SHARED MEMORY!!!!!
by Mellin on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:21 UTC in reply to "SHARED MEMORY!!!!!"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

if you like dell you will like mac mini with shared memory ;)

Reply Score: 1

a little pricey IMO
by ZaNkY on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:13 UTC
ZaNkY
Member since:
2005-10-18

Too expensive IMO. The whole Mac Mini is a neat idea, but at that price.... yeah.

Hopefully the prices come down.
--ZaNkY

Reply Score: 5

RE: a little pricey IMO
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "a little pricey IMO"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

It's only $100 more than the PPC Mac Mini -- and worth it IMO, because you get the standard Airport Extreme, Bluetooth 2.0, Apple Remote, and much faster processor.

The graphics card blows goats, though. Freaking integrated shared Intel crap ... gah.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: a little pricey IMO
by Get a Life on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE: a little pricey IMO"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

The Radeon 9200 in the PPC Mini blew goats, too. This is pretty much the Mini I wanted when they released the first Mini, except with Yonah in place of a previous version of the Pentium M and a slightly crappier video option. I consider the option of getting a Core Duo to be a nice bonus, since I suspected there would only be a choice of Core Solo processors to make the iMac more attractive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: a little pricey IMO
by chrish on Wed 1st Mar 2006 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: a little pricey IMO"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

The thing is, computers are supposed to improve over time, and that video is a serious step backwards. I can't wait to see benchmarks of the new mini vs. the PowerPC mini.

- chrish

Reply Score: 1

Rip off!
by nicholas on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:18 UTC
nicholas
Member since:
2005-07-07

There is no way that this can be considered a decent price.

Give it 2 weeeks for a Windows machine with same specs and £100 cheaper.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Rip off!
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "Rip off!"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

*sigh* Some of you simply don't get it.

Yes, I can build a WIndows machine with MUCH better specs, and still save money over the Mac Mini.

Now ... can I build a Windows machine with better specs for a lower price *in the same form factor*? No. It was tried. And it's uber-expensive.

Get a clue.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Rip off!
by Moulinneuf on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Rip off!"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06
RE[3]: Rip off!
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rip off!"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, and now compare the specs/price vs. the Mac Mini -- not to mention the fact that the Mini is still better looking.

Oh, and you get OS X and a truckload of other great software. What do you get with the AOpen? A Windows XP Home and Norton Anti-virus bundle?

Please.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Rip off!
by Moulinneuf on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Rip off!"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

In last year hardware spec the Mac mini add the advantage of graphic card. This year that advantage is lost.

I whas replying to this :

"can I build a Windows ... it's uber-expensive."

I have to agree that on this year model with :

Software

* Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger (includes Spotlight, Dashboard, Mail, iChat AV, Safari, Address Book, QuickTime, iCal, DVD Player, Xcode Developer Tools)

* iLife ’06 (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, iWeb, GarageBand), Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Test Drive, iWork (30-day trial), Quicken 2006 for Macintosh, Big Bang Board Games, Comic Life, Omni Outliner, and Apple Hardware Test

* Front Row

Its a really great offer , but you whont get me to agree that windows/linux counterpart on hardware are twice that price.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Rip off!
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Rip off!"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

When the AOpen was released, it was extremely expensive, and you still had to buy a hard drive, RAM, and CPU for it (AFAIK). Then you still had to buy an OS.

The first Mac Minis shipped with Panther and iLife '05, but then when Tiger was released, Apple threw in Tiger upgrade kits into all Mac Mini packages.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Rip off!
by Moulinneuf on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Rip off!"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Could be that you where only looking at barebones. OEM get volume pricing and special deal. Apple make incredible deal that are often matched after they have been out for months. Or like your suggesting there is no comparaison with the software offer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Rip off!
by rayiner on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rip off!"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The machines you pointed to are both lower-specced than the new Mac Mini (no dual core on the top model), and more expensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Rip off!
by Moulinneuf on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Rip off!"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Its last year models , its not an uber difference.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Rip off!
by Dullin on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rip off!"
Dullin Member since:
2006-02-28

Both of those are higer priced than the mac mini with a lot less features (wifi, bluethoot, second processor) so I don't see why you would want to point those out.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Rip off!
by proforma on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Rip off!"
proforma Member since:
2005-08-27

>*sigh* Some of you simply don't get it.

>Yes, I can build a WIndows machine with MUCH better ?>specs, and still save money over the Mac Mini.

>Now ... can I build a Windows machine with better
>specs for a lower price *in the same form factor*?
>No. It was tried. And it's uber-expensive.

You can't get better than these specs in a small PC laptop that has no screen, keyboard, or mouse?

You are kidding right?

If they can pack power in a 3-4 pound notebook then why can't they do one without a screen, keyboard and mouse using an Intel motherboard?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Rip off!
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rip off!"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you on crack?

1. No one said it was impossible, beacause the evidence of it being possible is in front of our eyes: the Mac Mini.

2. The discussion is about buying a system with faster hardware for less, all while maintatining the same form factor as the Mini. I don't care that there are *laptops* out there with better specs. The Mac Mini isn't a laptop. AOpen is currently the only other manufacturer selling a computer in the same form factor, and their solution is considerably weaker and costs as much, if not more, after parts/software.

I really don't see what you're trying to say here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Rip off!
by alcibiades on Wed 1st Mar 2006 07:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Rip off!"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The argument seems to be that it is going to be impossible for anyone else to make a machine in the same form factor with the same or better specs, and cheaper.

Now, why would this be so impossible? We know they are standard Intel chipsets, standard components, assembled by an OEM who has already produced the same form factor machine. We also know that Apple will have margins of 15 percentage points higher than the OEM. So why should the OEM not be able to sell for the same or a lower price? Why would his costs be higher? Or put it another way, what is Apple's advantage?

Surely the answer may be that Apple can count on a revenue stream the OEM cannot: they can count on charging a hundred or so a year for OS upgrades for the indefinite future, and also can expect to charge for iLife and other software upgrades.

The result is that the Apple buyer is paying more over the life of the product, and more of it is going to Apple. This willingness on the part of the Apple buyer to continue funding over time, means that Apple can manage what appears to be impossible: charge a lower or comparable price at purchase time, use standard components, and make higher margins. It seems impossible but it is not: they key is just to take blood from the left arm as well as from the right arm....

If XP were as secure as OSX, and incurred no anti-virus subscriptions, the total lifetime cost of ownership of XP machines would be dramatically lower.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Rip off!
by Morty on Wed 1st Mar 2006 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Rip off!"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

The argument seems to be that it is going to be impossible for anyone else to make a machine in the same form factor with the same or better specs, and cheaper.

Wrong interpretation, the argument is that no one has done it. And those who have gone for the same or close to the same form factor are all more expensive and have less power. It's not like it's impossible, but it is evedently hard.

Or put it another way, what is Apple's advantage?

Apples advantage are simply numbers shipped. On totall number of units there are a few companies like Dell and HP who are ahead of Apple, but Apple has the advantage of fewer and longer product life for their models. Not many can compete with Apple on the number of units shipped per modell.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Rip off!
by Moulinneuf on Wed 1st Mar 2006 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Rip off!"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apples advantage are simply numbers shipped."

No , because more often then not there number shipped is far lower then what cheap OEM will ship. Apple as an advantage over technology inclusion ( remote control and Media center exist in many shape and form ) , the total solution ( Hardware + software + service ), the percentage of profit per box since there is no real competition ( I recall something like 60% markup ) , really great design team and best marketing money can buy. It also as a monopoly control over on Mac OS X.

Most people dont realize this but PC OEM dont have control over the price per unit of the OS and what it will do , they have to buy it from another company namely Microsoft.

There is also a good chance that people will whant to buy stuff from I-tune store.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Rip off!
by Morty on Wed 1st Mar 2006 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Rip off!"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apples advantage are simply numbers shipped."

No , because more often then not there number shipped is far lower then what cheap OEM will ship.


If we still are talking about the mini form factor, none of the cheap OEMs ship anything close to the numbers Apple does. Making that particular argument void until they do.

And those numbers become somewhat irrelevant anyway since none of those cheap OEMs have a direct retail channel to consumers, forcing everthing to go through companies of various sizes. Who brand and sell it through their retail channels, leading to increased price for consumers. Since their individual numbers shipped are smaller than Apples, Apple get a better deal with their cheap OEM. Negating most of the potential lower cost caused by the higher number produced by the OEM.

Apples advantage because of their total solution, superior branding and Monopoly for MacOS X does help them in the marketplace and give them the possibility to maintain higher profit margins. But it does not help give them the better price/performance they have in the mini segment. That's simply given by numbers shipped.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Rip off!
by jamesrdorn on Wed 1st Mar 2006 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rip off!"
jamesrdorn Member since:
2005-07-27

I am sure it has a lot to do with cooling design, Apple is King here.

Have you ever taken apart a dell laptop? The heat sink is about the same size as the mini (width wise anyhow).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Rip off!
by nicholas on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Rip off!"
nicholas Member since:
2005-07-07

I recently paid the best part of £2k for a iMac Core Duo, so I am not averse to spending money, but only when I see it as value for money.

This I do not.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Rip off!
by Morty on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:42 UTC in reply to "Rip off!"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no way that this can be considered a decent price.

Give it 2 weeeks for a Windows machine with same specs and £100 cheaper.


Right, like the Aopen minis? The only ones coming close in power and formfactor. Currently they are even lower speced with only PentiumR M 740 and Celeron M CPUs, and cost something like 350-450$(depending on configuration) without OS and bundled SW.

The initial offering was starting at just $399 for Linux-based version running Linspire and $499 for Windows XP-based computer for base configurations.

So $499 gives you 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo + MacOSX or Celeron M + Win XP. Not even considering the rest of the specs, I'd say the Mac is a fair bargain.

Edited 2006-02-28 19:44

Reply Score: 4

RE: Rip off!
by DevL on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:04 UTC in reply to "Rip off!"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Replacing Mac OS X with Windows can't justify any purchase no matter how much cheaper such a machine would be...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Rip off!
by Tuishimi on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:53 UTC in reply to "Rip off!"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Everytime someone says this I say "Well why doesn't aopen sell their mac-mini-look-alike for less than the Apple mac mini????"

Aopen sells there's for more. Try speccing out a shuttle that is as quiet as the mini... you can't get one for under $1000.

It is NOT a bad deal for the form factor, the silence, the software that comes bundled with it... and now more speed and coreimage/quartz extreme.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Rip off!
by Tuishimi on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Rip off!"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry... brain fart... I was thinking the shuttle and the voodoo, not aopen. On the other hand, aopen specs are not even as good as the mini's.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Rip off!
by dr_gonzo on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:46 UTC in reply to "Rip off!"
dr_gonzo Member since:
2005-07-06
RE: Rip off!
by damnhandy on Wed 1st Mar 2006 12:30 UTC in reply to "Rip off!"
damnhandy Member since:
2006-02-20

Those Windows machines have been out for a while. And while they do cost less, they are several time larger and louder than a MacMini. I have a 1.5 Mini w/ a stackable Lacie Drive. Together, they both sit on my desk and consume about a 1/6th of the space my HP tower. That tower was $200 cheaper than the Mini and has a better video card. But it's also loud as hell. So it depends on what cheaper gets you.

Reply Score: 1

Integrated Graphics?
by tbcpp on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:22 UTC
tbcpp
Member since:
2006-02-06

Okay, now I'm ticked. The old mac minis were nice because they had a (and I quote from a apple page):

" ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB of DDR SDRAM with AGP 4X support"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the old card was a better buy. Just the fact that I could get a mac that small with a AGP card in it made me like it.

Guess I'll have to wait until they come down on ebay.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Integrated Graphics?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:25 UTC in reply to "Integrated Graphics?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, the integrated graphics with shared memory is a downgrade. That's a really bad choice, I think. Of course it makes sense (it's an Intel thing), but still.

Oh well, we'll see how the benchmarks turn out.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?
by EmmEff on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Integrated Graphics?"
EmmEff Member since:
2005-09-16

Yeah, the integrated graphics with shared memory is a downgrade. That's a really bad choice, I think. Of course it makes sense (it's an Intel thing), but still.

This machine is not intended as a high-performance graphics workstation, nor a gaming machine. The graphics chipset will make absolutely no difference to the target market- people who want to put a Mac in their living room to use iTunes, iPhoto, etc. on their television set.

Please stop trying to make the Mini into a full-featured desktop with a SFF at an entry level price.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by BlackJack75 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Any entry level user would still like to be able to play some games. Any 9600 or newer radeon card would run circles around those intel integrated chipsets, and certainly are not that expensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by korpenkraxar on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

>This machine is not intended as a high-performance graphics workstation, nor a gaming machine. The graphics chipset will make absolutely no difference to the target market- people who want to put a Mac in their living room to use iTunes, iPhoto, etc. on their television set.

Well, there might be truth to your statement, but making that sort of assumption about customers' wishes and behaviour is pretty much why Apple has never gotten my money. I expect being able to do A LOT of stuff with the hardware I buy, and therefore also expand it as my requirements change...

This IS a very expensive and non-flexible little fcuker that is not quite there just yet. My two year old or so AMD Shuttle box is a bit bigger, but sports AGP and PCI slots, and has room for a full-size harddrive and CD/DVD-player. Given that living room speakers, stereo's and TV's are mostly quite large, I find this tiny non-portable Mac mini a strange product - I mean, there is not soo much space wasted from a much more versatile machine twice the size of this one but offering four times the functionality...

Edited 2006-02-28 22:14

Reply Score: 1

RE: Integrated Graphics?
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:27 UTC in reply to "Integrated Graphics?"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

The Mac Mini doesn't have a "card" in it any more than most laptops do. The Radeon GPU is soldered on, along with the dedicated 32 MB of VRAM. The "AGP" part refers to the bus used between the GPU and the rest of the system.

The same applies to the new GMA950 graphics on the Intel Mini, except that the bus being used is probably PCI Express.

In other words, it makes no difference. The video wasn't upgradeable before, and it isn't upgradeable now. The only negative is that it's Intel integrated and shared graphics ... eww.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Integrated Graphics?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In other words, it makes no difference. The video wasn't upgradeable before, and it isn't upgradeable now. The only negative is that it's Intel integrated and shared graphics ... eww.

Exactly. Which means less system RAM, as the 64 is taken off of the 512. Which means a downgrade, as the previous model did not have this deduction.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

No one talked about a downgrade in terms of available system RAM -- not going up this line of posts, or any posts currently attached to this story.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Integrated Graphics?
by Morty on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

No one talked about a downgrade in terms of available system RAM -- not going up this line of posts, or any posts currently attached to this story.

Using a solution where you share the system RAM with the video card is always considered a performance downgrade as opposed to dedicated video RAM. You can verify that at every place they do testing and reviews of laptops.

Yes the new model will have increased performance, but it will be less compared to what non shared solution would have had.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Integrated Graphics?
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Integrated Graphics?"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I know that. I'm a hardware reviewer, so you don't exactly have to lecture me about integrated video solutions. :-P

My question is, though, who was talking about shared vs. dedicated VRAM and the performance hits related to it? The original poster talked about the new video not being an "AGP card", to which I replied and corrected him.

Thom threw in something unrelated about memory, and then I replied to Thom saying that there was nothing about that earlier in this thread. Now you're replying further reinforcing Thom's statement, as if I'd disagreed with him in the first place.

There seems to be some miscommunication here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Integrated Graphics?
by Morty on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Integrated Graphics?"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

I know that. I'm a hardware reviewer, so you don't exactly have to lecture me about integrated video solutions. :-P

There seems to be some miscommunication here.


Probably:-) looking at the tread you and Thom answered the same comment with your initial reply. He lost it after that and started talking nonsens, I agree.

But I guess we alos agree on the initial one, "the integrated graphics with shared memory is a downgrade". But that it is a system downgrade, rather than a raw performance downgrade.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Integrated Graphics?
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Integrated Graphics?"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

In English, a downgrade is a downgrade, and Intel graphics are Intel graphics. They go hand-in-hand.

'Nuff said. :-P

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Integrated Graphics?
by binarycrusader on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Integrated Graphics?"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06


Using a solution where you share the system RAM with the video card is always considered a performance downgrade as opposed to dedicated video RAM. You can verify that at every place they do testing and reviews of laptops.


Anyone that makes such a flat statement without reassessing the integrated graphics in question doesn't know much about video cards or performance.

First of all, the latest editions of ATi and nVidia's integrated graphics solutions prove that even when using system memory, very good performance for the price can be achieved.

A video chipset integrated such as the one noted here *can* provide better performance than a dedicated solution in some cases. As others noted, this chipset actually supports core image, while the older graphics card did not.

If you want to argue otherwise, provide hard benchmarks. Otherwise, I'll have to consider your post wild conjecture.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by jtfolden on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Exactly. Which means less system RAM, as the 64 is taken off of the 512. Which means a downgrade, as the previous model did not have this deduction.

I will, GLADLY, take a minor memory hit (and memory can be upgraded) on the new system given the fact it's now a 64MB Core Image supporting video system vs the previous 32MB non-supported model. This is anything but a downgrade when you look at the overall picture.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by tmouton on Wed 1st Mar 2006 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?"
tmouton Member since:
2006-03-01

In PC games at least, most of the resources you have in graphics memory are mirrored in system ram and managed by you or your graphics library (Maybe only DirectX does this for you, I dont know OpenGL) so you can restore them in case they are removed/lost from graphics memory. On consoles where shared memory is more common, you will not have this duplication and so your system memory use is really the same in both situations. Im not sure how this compares to this particular chipset or OsX but I would not be surprised if its the same. The point I'm trying to make is that you might not be spending any more ram on graphics than you already were.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Integrated Graphics?
by jtfolden on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:29 UTC in reply to "Integrated Graphics?"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Sorry, you are wrong. :-)

The old mini did NOT have an an AGP "card". The video was still integrated onto the motherboard just as the new one is... the big difference is that the new one allows more video memory AND it supports OS X 10.4's Core Image, which the old mini didn't.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?
by BlackJack75 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Integrated Graphics?"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Anyone has any idea how a GMA 950 performs with Core Image? AFAIK a GMA 950 is slower than a 60$ Radeon 9600... at least for games. But if it does support pixel shaders at a decent speed it's definitely an upgrade from the 9200.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by miscz on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Intel integrated graphics are not that bad. My notebook has a 855gm and it is a disaster but my friend has GMA 915 and Half Life 2 was kinda playable (low details but ~30fps). It's not hard to guess that GMA 950 is better.

Reply Score: 1

thebackwash
Member since:
2005-07-06

The title pretty much sums it up: I think it's great what they're doing with the Intel line, but I'm skeptical about the iPod Hi-Fi. I for one would love the convenience of such a device, but I'm not going to play tinny mp3s on a stereo. If the capacity of the iPod were large enough to be feasible for a large collection of losslessly compressed music, and if I could hook up the ipod to my stereo via a digital interface, they'd have my fickle consumer loyalty for at least a week!

Seriously though, if Apple wants to be the center of the monied digital lifestyle, either they're going to have to make everything themselves, of higher quality than their competitors, or they're going to have to continue to cultivate a rich third-party market. I think history has taught Apple the importance of not trying to make everything themselves, and I would hope to see Apple open up further to other device manufacturers who could make products that are amazingly great in concert with Apple's wares.

Just my two cents. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

Reply Score: 2

Axord Member since:
2005-06-30

I for one would love the convenience of such a device, but I'm not going to play tinny mp3s on a stereo

iTunes supports lossless codecs, does it not? Stream from iTunes to the Hi-Fi using AirTunes. As suggested by a sidebar on this page:
http://www.apple.com/ipodhifi/hifiyourhome.html

Reply Score: 2

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

He touts how wonderful it sounds, and the bass reproduction, and so forth. It's not much more than a Bose Wave Radio. I don't know if you've heard them, but they do sound *nice* but it's nothing more than a ported speaker box. Physics comes into effect though. Go look at the specs. Offhand from memoryu, 56Hz-16kHz frequency range +-3db. I didn't read any further than that. Converting metric to english, 130mm (I know why they went with metric when they sell primarily to the US) - is a 5 1/4" driver roughly - to produce BASS. You must be kidding!

It is generally accepted human hearing is 15/20Hz to 20kHz [1]. This means lacking treble, and huge decible drops in bass production (read: non-audible bass/LFE). They specify a +-3db margin over that *limited* frequency range. Uh. 3db on the logarithmic scale is a BIG change. So yeah, go spend that 300+$ on a decent reciever, and a couple hundred on some middle of the road speakers, and you'll be WAY better off. Maybe he meant room filling as in an apartment room in Japan. Heh.

[1] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml

Oh, the mini looked pretty cool, but I was hoping for a lot more. Oh well, the MacBooks are good enough news for me this year, Apple has already pleased me enough. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Media Centre
by tiiim on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:24 UTC
tiiim
Member since:
2005-09-02

The new mac mini does actually look good in spec wise. Sure its not the top of the top with that shared graphics but for the price you do get a good first comp or a great second computer. We can see Apple pushing towards that living room position. Now all we want is TV input with front row 2.0 with recording and EPG (electronic program guide).

Edited 2006-02-28 19:27

Reply Score: 2

RE: Media Centre
by BlackJack75 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:49 UTC in reply to "Media Centre"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that if they just added a decent GPU in there it would definitely kill all the other desktop products.

Reply Score: 3

And this time...
by jtinz on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:36 UTC
jtinz
Member since:
2006-02-06

the Mac mini features a line in.

Reply Score: 2

“My 2 Cents” – Where's The TV Tuner?
by Gr8Scott on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:37 UTC
Gr8Scott
Member since:
2005-10-25

“Where's the TV tuner?”, I too was hoping to get a Mac Mini for a DVD replacement and entertainment center piece. However, I really would like to have a TV tuner integrated, I know there are third party items and I'm asking for a bit much, but it is after all “my 2 cents”. That way I could possibly replace my TiVo as well. As for the the price, I think it far for a Mac and comparing it to a PC is just NOT fair, because you are NOT comparing “Apples to Apple” ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

Just plug in an USB TV tuner (analogic or DVB-T) and you are set!

IIRC there are even some that do the mpeg2 encoding on the fly for you!

Reply Score: 1

Not a steal
by Hank on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:47 UTC
Hank
Member since:
2006-02-19

I'm aching to get one of the new Mac's. This is not a steal as a replacement machine. I just compared the prices of the Mac Mini and 17" iMac to see how much I could save. I put 1GB of Memory in each of them, and at least 160 GB of HD space (Mini only goes to 120) and a SuperDrive. The 1.5GHz Mini costs $924 and the 1.66 GHz Mac Mini costs $1024. With the same memory configuration the 17" iMac costs $1399. Now for the extra $300-$400 you get a faster processor, bigger hard disk (160GB) and a real 3D video card and a 17" LCD screen. I'm going with the iMac. Obviously this has a place in some markets, but not as a desktop machine. Certainly not on my desktop. iMac here we come!

Reply Score: 2

Price hike was expected
by pxa270 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:57 UTC
pxa270
Member since:
2006-01-08

The Core Duo costs $241, the Solo 1.66Ghz costs at least $209 for 1000+ quantities (didn't see the 1.5Ghz Solo in Intels list http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/ ).
I don't know Freescale's prices for the PPC 7447a, but you can bet it wasn't $200+

Reply Score: 5

pricing
by cutterjohn on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:58 UTC
cutterjohn
Member since:
2006-01-28

big deal. there are already other similarly specced machines for less, and with expansion options to boot. The Intel integrated graphics is just about the worst "modern" GPU, and made worse via "shared" memory. (The only thing missing from a similar machine would be the airport/wifi card...)

Ah. Just think of all those x86 mac mavens who proclaimedd x86 would mean lower prices... heh heh heh

Also, I really don't get why they are shipping it with lower clocked procs than the macbooks... Lastly, I can't wait to see the x86 powermacs and what the price increase on those will be.

Reply Score: 1

RE: pricing
by Morty on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:01 UTC in reply to "pricing"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

big deal. there are already other similarly specced machines for less, and with expansion options to boot.

Where? Please give a link, I would really like one of those.

Ah. Just think of all those x86 mac mavens who proclaimedd x86 would mean lower prices

Those was clueless indeed, since the price difference between PPC and intel processors have never been that big. The decisive factors when it comes to price is not the processor alone, but the cost of the whole system and the profit margin Apple want on each system sold.

Edited 2006-02-28 20:08

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: pricing
by kaiwai on Wed 1st Mar 2006 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE: pricing"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Those was clueless indeed, since the price difference between PPC and intel processors have never been that big. The decisive factors when it comes to price is not the processor alone, but the cost of the whole system and the profit margin Apple want on each system sold.

True, but at the same time, no one ever said lower prices; they said a better price/performance/features ratio - given the marked speed improvement over the PPC version, I'd say that right now Apple is sitting pretty much in the middle of the vendors right now; they're not exactly the best, but they're not the worst.

Reply Score: 1

korpenkraxar
Member since:
2005-09-10

should definitely be able to do:
* 5.1/7.1 audio output (incl digital/optical i/o)
* 720p/1080i video output over DVI or component
* OpenGL 3D games in highdef

and perhaps:
* Analog/Digital Cable TV in for HD recording

I do not have personal experience with these machines. I guess the audio should be ok, but how about playing highdef wmv/ts/avi content and games like UT in full or nearly full high def resolution, like 1920x1080? To get HD TV recordings I guess one would have to go USB/Firewire. No, although it has a nice form factor and casing (whatever happened to the promising ITX PC-scene!?), this is not a media computer for me...

Reply Score: 1

makc Member since:
2006-01-11

forget about opengl highdef games. intel isn't the GPU for that.
of course games will run, but it's not the point of the mac mini (:

Reply Score: 1

wtf!
by broken_symlink on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:59 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

i just bought a 20in. imac g5 like 2 weeks ago! if i had known i probably would of waited and got a mac mini with a core duo instead. the imac was a steal on ebay though. $1200. and i have 1.5gb ram in it now. this is also the front row version not the older one.

Reply Score: 1

Highly disappointed
by tyrione on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:00 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

The graphics decision to offset the Duo costs, the increase of $100 lost my interest in purchasing this system.

I'd rather pay $150 more than the original $499 if it meant they wouldn't use the 950 chipset.

Reply Score: 1

price
by thedeerhunter270 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:12 UTC
thedeerhunter270
Member since:
2005-10-04

599.00 USD = 341.525 GBP

Not 449 GBP

Why is it 100 quid dearer in the UK?

Reply Score: 1

RE: price
by Get a Life on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:16 UTC in reply to "price"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Well part of that is probably from your VAT, and some of the other might be to offset the expense of selling machines in an environment Apple sees fewer sales in. This scenario happens with every single release from Apple, so it shouldn't be new to you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: price
by Kroc on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: price"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Sees fewer sales in? The London store is the second highest grossing store worldwide! Steve Jobs said so personally at MacWorld.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: price
by kaiwai on Wed 1st Mar 2006 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: price"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Sees fewer sales in? The London store is the second highest grossing store worldwide! Steve Jobs said so personally at MacWorld.

The price difference would be due to VAT (I almost fell of my seat when I saw 17%, thank god when I pay my GST, it isn't going to some jerk off sitting on a tractor on a farm thats inefficient and ridden with foot and mouth with the occasional hit of mad cows disease) and the fact that Apple normally includes a buffer to take into account the currency fluctuations that occur; it sometimes works in favour of Apple, whilst other times it doesn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE: price
by marbiol on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:19 UTC in reply to "price"
marbiol Member since:
2006-01-20

$599 + up to 8% sales tax = $647 = £370

£449 - 17.5% VAT = £382

(If you are a business or use it for work you can get a VAT refund but as far as I know, not a sales tax one...)

If you take into account fluctuations in currency then the differences in price can basically be attributed to taxation rather than Apple's pricing...

Reply Score: 4

re: price
by polaris20 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:40 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

big deal. there are already other similarly specced machines for less, and with expansion options to boot.

really? where can you get this OSX Mac for less? Oh wait. You can't. You have to run Windows or Linux.

Also, I really don't get why they are shipping it with lower clocked procs than the macbooks... Lastly, I can't wait to see the x86 powermacs and what the price increase on those will be.

Maybe they're lower clocked processors because they're.....wait for it...... less than half of the price of a MacBook Pro?

Reply Score: 1

two questions
by Eugenia on Tue 28th Feb 2006 20:47 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

1. Is the hard drive a 3.5" one, or a 2.5" again?
2. Can the "combined optical digital audio input/audio line in" be also used as a microphone jack, using a common microphone (the ones that sell for $10)?

If the answer is "no" to both of them, I won't be happy. If the answer is "yes" to both, then this is a good system, at least for my personal needs.

Reply Score: 5

RE: two questions
by polaris20 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:05 UTC in reply to "two questions"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Is the hard drive a 3.5" one, or a 2.5" again?
2. Can the "combined optical digital audio input/audio line in" be also used as a microphone jack, using a common microphone (the ones that sell for $10)?


I'd assume it's still a 2.5in drive, since it's the same chassis as before. I don't see how they'd fit all that in there with a 3.5. Plus, it's available only up to 120gig, which is the max size currently of notebook hard drives.

The line in would likely lack the proper impedance for a microphone, but I could be wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE: two questions
by Tuishimi on Wed 1st Mar 2006 05:04 UTC in reply to "two questions"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

5400rpm? I'd guess 2.5".

Reply Score: 1

Europe?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:13 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

We Europeans are getting screwed by Apple once again, so it seems. The low-end model used to cost EUR 499 here in The Netherlands (iirc), and now the low-end model is EUR 649. That's a price raise of 150E (180$), contrary to the US price being raised by only 99$. Have fun explaining that, mr Jobs.

Seriously now, the price raise on at least this side of the Atlantic is completely unjustified, and rules out the Mac Mini as an entry-level computer. EUR 649 is NOT an entry-level price, (especially taking into account you only get a computer, and no keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc), no matter how much I like OSX and iLife.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Europe?
by hraq on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:39 UTC in reply to "Europe?"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

"Seriously now, the price raise on at least this side of the Atlantic is completely unjustified,"

Well, that's because Europeans charge Apple Stores and Apple Houses too much, not the same they charge local Manufacturers.

"and rules out the Mac Mini as an entry-level computer"

It is still an entry level computer on Apple product line, and remember buying a computer is not a yearly or biyearly experience; You buy the computer and It will work 5 years with no problems, which means 120 $ yearly, which equals the money you will pay to get your windows box protected every year, so overall your system will be for FREE.
Besides, you will have features in mac mini you will never ever have anywhere else in the computer industry in this small form factor; DVI port for sharp text and graphics, wireless G connectivity, gigabit ethernet connectivity, super small, super quite elegant box, super easy prodcutivity software,...and the list goes on.
Thom Holwerda, please be rational when you talk about Apple, and talk more rational when you talk about Microsoft; and always remember Europe found MS guilty in their courts while Apple was never accused of that.

Reply Score: 1

Still not buying one.
by robojerk on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:32 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

The shared memory blows.

Does anyone know of a USB/1394 external TV Tuner one could use to turn this puppy into a media center?

I would probably buy one if there was a TV Tuner card (even external), the video wasn't shared and someone ports MythTV to the mac.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still not buying one.
by pojo on Tue 28th Feb 2006 21:40 UTC in reply to "Still not buying one."
pojo Member since:
2005-10-05

I have a Plextor ConvertX TV402U which works nice on my PC. I haven't tried it on my mac yet, but I just did order the Core Duo version of the Mac Mini.

The Mac version of the Plextor tv-tuner It comes with a copy of EyeTV too.

Reply Score: 1

And this places the future intel iBooks...
by Gryzor on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:26 UTC
Gryzor
Member since:
2005-07-03

... in a price range bewteen 1000 - 1500 or perhaps even more?

Too bad if that number goes too high.

Reply Score: 1

dont really know about cheaper pc's
by dizzey on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:27 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

here in sweden often are quite expensive compared to the us. but a similar specd aopen minipc costs a little bit more.

Reply Score: 1

The perfect machine for me
by Omega Penguin on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:37 UTC
Omega Penguin
Member since:
2006-02-12

You people here are very negitive.You think of all the things the Mac mini can't do,but it only costs $700,what do you expect?Do you think the Dell Demension for $700 can do hi-def gaming and has a super-powerful GPU?No,it can't,and no,it doesn't.The Mac mini is good for older games,such as Quake 3 or Super Tux.It comes with Wi-Fi,Bluetooth,and Front Row.It even has a duel core processor.That's some pretty positive aspects.I think that you all are either negitive or expect so much from Apple just because it's Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The perfect machine for me
by Get a Life on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:11 UTC in reply to "The perfect machine for me"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

I guess the problem is that the Mini falls into one of the problems a lot of budget OEM PCs fall into: pairing a fast processor with low-end graphics. The GMA950 in the Mini is noticeably crappier than the ATi X600 or even the NVIDIA 6200 TC. People are complaining because they want balance that would maximize the utility of a brand-new computer purchase that's going to have trouble playing Enemy Territory respectably.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The perfect machine for me
by proforma on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:50 UTC in reply to "The perfect machine for me"
proforma Member since:
2005-08-27

I hate to say this, but I can buy a Dimension E510 with a 256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon X600 SE HyperMemory and 512 megabytes of ram
for slightly less than $700.

If I choose 128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon X300 SE HyperMemory (which is the default)

I can add other options in and still come up with less than $700

Reply Score: 1

Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

>ATI Radeon X600 SE HyperMemory

FYI..

HyperMemory === ATI codeword for "shared memory" just like this graphics on the new Mini.

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

It still offers better performance.

Reply Score: 1

And expandibility?
by Omega Penguin on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:38 UTC
Omega Penguin
Member since:
2006-02-12

Do you really expect non-geeks to try internal expansion?

Reply Score: 1

RE: And expandibility?
by Get a Life on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:47 UTC in reply to "And expandibility?"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Unless your bar for "geek" is so low as to exclude people of questionable reading skills, then yes it's not unusual to find non-geeks that have enough interest in computers that they can swap out a HDD, RAM, or an expansion card. This is especially true of younger people that aren't afraid of computers, that still aren't especially well-educated in the inner-workings of computers. It's not like the people in assembly lines that assemble PCs for OEMs are geeks.

More than that, people are quite willing to have their cousin that is "a computer genius" "upgrade" their computer for them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And expandibility?
by Get a Life on Tue 28th Feb 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE: And expandibility?"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

"not exclude" I have questionable writing skills.

Reply Score: 0

GMA950 is fine
by ronaldst on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:04 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

This is an entry PC for Media Center duties and the GMA950 is quite a capable video card. That and GMA900 is the only video card I come in contact with and it's fine. Just don't load up WoW on it that's all.

And with a VNCServer installed... Makes nice little 24h BitTorrent Download server. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Well, this is what I was waiting for...
by Tuishimi on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:04 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...and I was pleasantly surprised by the core duo. I thought for sure the lineup would only be with core solo. I also thought the prices would remain on the low side. :/ Oh well.

I kept freshing the Apple Store page as they were updating it at noon and as soon as it came back... I saw "Core Duo" and pulled the trigger.

Bought myself the $799 version with extra ram, wireless keyboard/mouse, then zipped over to Dell and picked up a nice wide aspect 20.1" monitor.

I cannot wait to see how it compares to my old G4 mini, and even to my current G5 iMac 20"...

Reply Score: 1

Only disappointment
by ronaldst on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:13 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

It amazes me how no one mentionned this but the new chips are >32-bits only<. The world is kinda moving towards 64-bit CPUs.

Instead, you retards are whining about a bargain, the new Mac Mini, like Steve was rippin' off your families but then again most of you are cheap bastards. Here's a site for most of you: http://www.quitwhining.com/

Reply Score: 1

Yuck!
by D3M0N on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:18 UTC
D3M0N
Member since:
2005-07-09

Shared graphics memory? No thanks Apple.

The new Mac Mini is over priced and the integrated Intel graphics with shared memory, IMO was a stupid, stupid, stupid decision.

Reply Score: 1

Mini
by sp29 on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:46 UTC
sp29
Member since:
2006-01-04

I wonder if it will run Apple Motion, does anyone know?

Thanks

Reply Score: 1

Regarding Apple Motion
by tyrione on Tue 28th Feb 2006 23:57 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21


I wonder if it will run Apple Motion, does anyone know?

Thanks


http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/motion/specs.html

Recommended Graphics Cards

* ATI Radeon X850 XT
* ATI Radeon X800 XT
* ATI Radeon X600 XT or X600 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9600 XT or 9600 Pro
* ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
* ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
* NVIDIA GeForce Quadro FX 4500
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
* NVIDIA GeForce 6600 and 6600 LE
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce Go5200 or FX 5200 Ultra

Reply Score: 1

Integrated Graphics
by smitty on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:01 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

If you are upset about the Intel graphics in the new Mac Minis, then you aren't the target Apple is trying to sell them to anyway. They want you to buy an iMac, at least, and hopefully something even more expensive.

Reply Score: 2

Performance? Hmmnnnn
by thingi on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:04 UTC
thingi
Member since:
2006-02-28

I'd be interested to see exactly what a single core intel processor can do against my mac mini........

My Mini is only just over a month old. It came with a 1.5Ghz processor and a Radeon 9200 with 64mb video ram, Airport Extreme + Bluetooth 2.0... Most recent Mini's have had upgraded specs but Apple have never officially annouced the upgrades.

Now if I'm not mistaken a single 1.5Ghz intel processor is going to run SLOWER than a PPC 1.5Ghz processor because the PPC does more instructions per clock..........

thingi

Reply Score: 1

RE: Performance? Hmmnnnn
by smitty on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:13 UTC in reply to "Performance? Hmmnnnn"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Now if I'm not mistaken a single 1.5Ghz intel processor is going to run SLOWER than a PPC 1.5Ghz processor because the PPC does more instructions per clock..........

You are mistaken. A P4 would be slower, but a Core Single (I think that's what they are called) is a much different architecture. It might not beat a G5 clock for clock, but it would beat a G4.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Performance? Hmmnnnn
by thingi on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance? Hmmnnnn"
thingi Member since:
2006-02-28

It's true that the new intel chips have a higher ipc than the netburst architecture chips........

But the IPC of intels new chips is around the athlon64 level - i.e. around the same level as the Pentium III (which is all this new intel chip is + a large cache + a few refinements to it's pipeline and x86-to-micro-op unit).

So my arguement holds true, the IPC of a ppc processor at 1.5Ghz is going to be better.

Plus there's the fact that Altivec blows sse3 out of the water in FP performance terms.

Then there's the fact that there's far more register's to play with in a ppc chip. There simply arn't enough register's in the x86 architecture - it causes alot of pipeline stalls which seriously hurts performance, these issue really don't show in in SPEC benches etc. They only show in real world usage.

Edited 2006-03-01 00:35

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Performance? Hmmnnnn
by smitty on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance? Hmmnnnn"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I don't know about specific IPC (its going to change depending on the exact instruction mix anyway) but going by a direct comparison between performance the 1.5Ghz Core Solo is comparable to a 1.5Ghz G5, which is going to be better than a 1.5Ghz G4. There may be some heavy fp code which would run better on the G4 due to Altivec, but for almost anything I would give the advangtage to Intel. Remember that the Intel chip is going to have several other factors working in its favor, like a much larger cache and much better loop prediction.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Performance? Hmmnnnn
by rayiner on Wed 1st Mar 2006 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance? Hmmnnnn"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

1) The IPC of the Core Duos is about 70% higher than that of the PIII's in integer code. The faster bus, large cache, and better branch predictor improve things very significantly.

2) The G4 has about the same IPC as the PIII.

3) How many people are going to be running FFTs on a Mac Mini?

4) The scarcity of registers is mostly eliminated by register renaming.

5) SPEC benchs are based on real-world applications. They show register availability issues very well. Indeed, they are pretty much the standard for measureing the improvement of various register allocation algorithms in compilers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Performance? Hmmnnnn
by henrikmk on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance? Hmmnnnn"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

Now if I'm not mistaken a single 1.5Ghz intel processor is going to run SLOWER than a PPC 1.5Ghz processor because the PPC does more instructions per clock..........

You are mistaken. A P4 would be slower, but a Core Single (I think that's what they are called) is a much different architecture. It might not beat a G5 clock for clock, but it would beat a G4.


Also not to forget a much faster memory bus (667 Mhz vs. 167 MHz) in the Intel Mini and the ability to fully utilize DDR2 memory. On top of that it can use 2 GB memory, where the PPC Mini only supports 1 GB.

It's quite a little powerhouse... :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Performance? Hmmnnnn
by rayiner on Wed 1st Mar 2006 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance? Hmmnnnn"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

For the things one would use a Mac Mini for, a Core Duo is *substantially* faster than a G5, clock for clock. Yonah's per-clock IPC is 40% higher than the G5's per-clock IPC going by SPECint. This should surprise no-one. The G5 has certain design features (two-cycle ALU, group dispatch, long pipeline), that keep its IPC relatively low compared to an Opteron or P-M.

These features were compromises designed to allow the G5 to run at higher clockspeeds, but IBM hit power density limitations that prevented that from happening. POWER5 tweeked the design quite a bit, namely by adding an on-die memory controller, increasing the number of rename registers, and improving the group scheduling rules, which helped integer performance quite a bit. Unfortunatley, no iteration of the G5 ever got those improvements.

Reply Score: 1

Dear god!
by kaiwai on Wed 1st Mar 2006 00:58 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I saw this:

Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

Dear god, I shuddered so many times I wonder whether I was going to end having a seisure - please of all the possible graphics cards the could have chosen! good lord, anything but that!

Reply Score: 1

I bought a Mini a month ago...
by jtrapp on Wed 1st Mar 2006 02:55 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

And I don't regret the timing one bit. I bought what used to be the midrange...$600. And I can run photoshop and freehand...try that on the new mini and then come back and talk speed.

The only thing to say about the graphics in the new mini is to say that I am embarassed for Apple. For years and years the only computers that came with integrated shared RAM graphics were cheap and crappy--it pretty much defined the cheap crappy PC. I don't believe that that has changed today.

Reply Score: 1

Debunking the Apple myth?
by elsewhere on Wed 1st Mar 2006 04:17 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

I've seen numerous posts saying that based on the specs for the new mini, you may as well pay extra for an iMac. Well, I think that's the point. It's called branding and positioning.

If they spec'd it higher, particularly on the graphics front, then it would be an iMac without a built in display, and not a mini.

And it would cannibalize their own product sales.

I thought the original intent of the Mac Mini was to make use of some of their excess laptop components and create an entry level "introductory" OS X platform for home users with an existing PC. It was never intended as a cheaper alternative to an iMac. This is Apple we're talking about, remember. If anything, the mini is supposed to introduce customers to the Apple Experience(tm) and lead them to future higher-end hardware purchases. Sort of like a crack dealer giving out free samples; give it a taste, try it out, get hooked and then come back with some extra cash.

I think the comments about Intel's shared memory graphics being adequate are on the mark. If that's a dealbreaker, then you're not the target customer, pony up and pay more or shop somewhere else. As I said, this is Apple we're talking about.

To me, this just debunks the myth that Apple has magic elves in their engineering department granularly engineering every component to perfection. Apple uses off-the-shelf components like everyone else, they just tend to package them better than pretty much anyone else. Put another way, this is a standard Dell PC scrunched up and packaged in a slick looking case with one important differentiator: OS X. Let's not forget that is the real differentiator for 99% of their customers.

If you don't like the Mac Mini, don't buy one. If you need more than it offers, then buy something with more than it offers. In a free market, your wallet is the only vote that counts.

Personally, I'm not really an Apple fan but must grudgingly admit that I do admire their business savvy. And let's not forget that this is what it's all about: business. Pure and simple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Debunking the Apple myth?
by cerbie on Wed 1st Mar 2006 07:14 UTC in reply to "Debunking the Apple myth?"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

It's not just a cheaper introduction: it's a decent option. Most PC users don't want an integrated display. Ew. I would never think of getting anything higher in the Mac line than the Mini--but I'm all for the Mini becoming more powerful. I don't know anyone else interested in them who isn't the same way. The Mac Mini gets us people who wouldn't touch other Macs.

Full tower? For the cost, I could have a nice A64 dual-core with a P180, Nexuses all around, etc.. Sweet compared to a G5, unless you go so far as dual duals--but the P180 could fit some of those boards, too (but lose the cost advantage). Oh, and it would look better.

Integrated screen thingie? Why? I can see newb types getting one, and that's fine, but it's just...wrong! Things that might warrant semiregular replacing, like displays, should not be integrated (at least w/o a good way to replace them with something better). Many of us don't have the 'throw it out and get a new one' attitude.

SFF desktop: it's Shuttle and AOpen v. the Mac Mini. Want a lot of options? Shuttle. Want small? AOpen and Apple. Want small, cheap for the performance and features, and quiet? Hello, Apple!

Put another way, this is a standard Dell PC scrunched up and packaged in a slick looking case with one important differentiator: OS X. Let's not forget that is the real differentiator for 99% of their customers.

Please show me a Dell desktop with a Core Duo. I beg you. This is nowhere near a standard Dell desktop scrunched up. It is superior where it counts: performance for the noise, performance for the power, performance for the size, and feature compromises for the size. The only thing close are the Sunnicom (sp) Slimpro Pentium M boxes.

Note that I'm also not much of an Apple fan. This is the only product line mildly interesting to me.

Reply Score: 1

Bad Video
by smoke on Wed 1st Mar 2006 05:07 UTC
smoke
Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't know.. but to me it seems less of a free market if you can't buy what you want. I like the Mac Mini I have one and I love it but I have seen indication (reviews of the GM950 part) that for certain applications that rely on the video card the new mac mini will actually perform slower than the old mac mini because of the video card.

I kind of resent having to sacrifice form factor just to get a decent video card. There where two main reasons I bought my Mac Mini when they first came out and that is form factor and OS X. If I could pony up more and get the same form factor that would be what i would like. But the thing is with this new mac mini we are paying more and getting less as far as the video is concerned. I have tried my parents laptop with integrated intel graphics and my mac mini outperforms it in graphically intense programs.

Anyway who is the fully loaded core duo mac mini aimed at coming in at 1,220 dollars or so and that's without apple care monitor, keyboard, mouse or speakers? It'd be silly to say that that configuration isn't meant to be sold. =p

I think there should be other reasons that a person would want to get a iMac over a mac mini such as the all in one factor of the built in screen, iSIght, and mroe included peripherals that the mac mini and higher specs still (faster CPU for example). Same goes for the MacBook Pro. For a powermac (macpro?) the incentive would be way more upgradeability and higher speccd parts in general (Quadcore and SLI anyone?).

I actually didn't expect as high end a part as in the iMac or Macbook pro and in other places the new mac mini has exceeded my expectations but I expected it to at least sport some kind of core image capable ATI card.

Edited 2006-03-01 05:23

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bad Video
by smitty on Wed 1st Mar 2006 05:59 UTC in reply to "Bad Video"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

The GMA950 will give (maybe) half the performance of an X300 ATI card. If this bums you out, then Apple DOES NOT WANT YOU TO BUY A MINI. They want people who care about video performance to actually spend money on one of their more expensive machines. This is meant to be the very, very bottom of their line, not some secret steal all tech geeks are supposed to know about.

Also, I'm not so sure the GMA950 is worse than a 9200. I haven't been able to find any direct comparisons. Have you? Obviously only DX8 tests (or equivalent OGL) would apply since the 9200 doesn't even support DX9.

I don't know.. but to me it seems less of a free market if you can't buy what you want.

So it isn't a free market because I can't buy a solid gold laptop from Apple either? Apple has to make business decisions based on what the market is willing to pay for and how much it will cost them. If the demand was really there, so would the product.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bad Video
by smoke on Wed 1st Mar 2006 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Bad Video"
smoke Member since:
2005-07-08

I really think what I'm asking for is a lot more reasonable than a solid gold laptop (although there IS a company that will sell you a diamond studded luxury laptop ;) ). Everything is just fine except for the GPU. All I'm asking for is to maybe be able to as an option pony up more money for a better GPU.

I have personally seen my mac mini G4 churn out higher frame rates in for example UT2004 than the benchmarks for the GMA950 show and that's coupled with a 3Ghz P4.

Again like I said I love the form factor. Is the only thing that differentiates the macs their specs? Like i said who in hell is a fully loaded ~1,200 dollar Mac Mini minus keyboard, mouse, display and apple care aimed at? Don't tell me that configuration is not meant for anyone.

Again I really like the form factor of the mac mini and to me it's a shame to have to sacrifice that for a better GPU. You can argue intented market at me until you are blue in the face but the fact is that I like everything else about the Mac Mini and I have seen lots of other people complain about the GPU in the new mac mini so I know I'm not alone.

Edited 2006-03-01 06:18

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Bad Video
by D3M0N on Wed 1st Mar 2006 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Bad Video"
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

I very well know that most people won't need a better video card, but come on. This was taken out of the marketing of the PPC Mac Mini:

"Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say theyre good for 2D games only. Thats because an integrated Intel graphics chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. Youd have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs dont even have an open slot to let you add one."

Shared graphics is simply unacceptable in a computer at the Mac Mini's price slot. Especially considering that the last Mac Mini, while weak in terms of processor and even the graphics card started at less than the current one. Shared memory should be in those $300.00 Dell computeres, not at $599.00+ computer. Shame on you Apple for doing the wrong thing after many years of doing it right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bad Video
by smoke on Wed 1st Mar 2006 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bad Video"
smoke Member since:
2005-07-08

Especially not in a computer that tops out at around 1,220 dollars at it's "high end". I mean who in their right mind would go for that? I paid around 800 for a fully topped out Mac Mini when they first came out.

Edited 2006-03-01 06:36

Reply Score: 1

jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

From internet archive cache:

"Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one."

http://web.archive.org/web/20050401054016/www.apple.com/macmini/gra...

Reply Score: 2

When I saw the Intel Mac Mini...
by Luposian on Wed 1st Mar 2006 07:13 UTC
Luposian
Member since:
2005-07-27

One of the first things I just HAD to find, were the system specs. And I found 'em. As soon as I saw "Intel GMA950" for graphics, I sighed sorrowfully. Then I did an immediate Google search to see reviews on that particular chipset.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821814,00.asp

There are others, but this one sums it up well enough.

Apple puts crap video hardware into their lowest-end Intel Mac, because now they CAN! When the Mac Mini was PPC, there was at least a LITTLE pride in the quality, even if it wasn't all that powerful. ATI, to me, means quality and performance. So would nVidia. But Intel? Pah!

If you buy an Intel Mac Mini... try playing some of those nice resource-hungry games like Quake 4 and Doom 3. Good luck! I'd bet my 1.8GHz G4 (Digital Audio) with Radeon 9800 Pro would spank the Intel GMA950 in the Mac Mini.

I can't wait til the Intel Mac Mini reviews start coming in... let the laughing begin!

Reply Score: 1

smoke Member since:
2005-07-08

And they will continue to do so as long as poor saps keep buying them and not vote with their wallets and defending apple no matter what they do as if they drank the apple kool-aid they have been passing around.

Reply Score: 1

dhazeghi Member since:
2005-11-18

Hrm...

Given that the old Mac Minis had Radeon 9200S in them, I'd say your comparison is a bit specious. The reality is that the mini is not intended to compete with a what was a top-of-the-line machine (upgraded DA G4). A Quake 4 machine it ain't (before or after).

Although, FYI, the new mini should have quite a leg up on that G4 when it comes to compiling in Fink. Everybody has there own favorite benchmark :-)

Reply Score: 1

smoke Member since:
2005-07-08

I have personally seen the PPC mac mini outperform PC's with intel graphics with twice as much vram allocated in certain things such as UT2004 or Doom 3.

Reply Score: 1

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Are you sure it was the Intel 950 though and not some older graphics?

While informal observations like yours have their place, I've found they're often swayed as much by preconceived notions as actual fact. Until I see actual proof, I'm going to continue thinking that a 9200se is probably about the same performance wise. In other words, absolutely horrible for any type of gaming, but more than enough for the average user.

Reply Score: 1

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

I bet my G4 spanks the Intel Core "Oh-no" and the Intel Core "Dunno", when it comes to RC5 key cracking (or whatever it's called). My friend found out his 1.25MHz G4 Mac Mini was beating both his top Intel and AMD multi-GigaHertz rigs (XP2100+ and a P4 2.5GHz) by a huge margin at that, also. If I recall correctly, even his lowly 500MHz G4 Sawtooth was giving both systems a run for their money...

Altivec... it's gotta be the Altivec.

Reply Score: 1

dtravis7 Member since:
2005-07-14

I am that friend you are talking about. I might point out that in NO OTHER REAL APPLICATION does the Mini beat down my XP2400+ or Intel 2.53Ghz. In any kind of video editing and compression they beat down the g4 by sometimes many hours. Hours wasted waiting while clients breath down my neck wanting their work done. The Core Duo is a WAY faster cpu than any G4, and in single core mode, it's at least the equal of any G5 per clock. I do not know why you are down on the Core Duo. It's a wonderfull CPU and the best around for low power applications like laptops and the Mini which after all is a laptop in a small desktop case.

Edited 2006-03-01 10:44

Reply Score: 1

dtravis7 Member since:
2005-07-14

My god, You are too much as usuall. Try Doom III on that Slow Bussed G4 Upgrade of yours. A G5 Dual with 2x the video GPU of your machine barely gets 30FPS which is not good at all.

The Mini is now a Machine to play video through your TV. At least the video will do Core Image. It's not and never was a gaming machine. My mini with the All Powerfull G4 will not play Doom III or Quake 4 to save it's life and either will your machine. The Core Duo CPU will blow your G4 out of the water doing REAL WORK. If you want a Game machine, get a XBox or build a REAL A64 system. The new Mini is fine for it's intended uses and will STOMP all over the older Mini. What more do you want in that small enclosure.

Reply Score: 1

ewinemiller Member since:
2006-01-20

>Good luck! I'd bet my 1.8GHz G4 (Digital Audio) with
>Radeon 9800 Pro would spank the Intel GMA950 in the Mac
>Mini.

Of course it will, but your machine takes up about 20x the space and sounds like a hairdryer while running. I know, I had a quicksilver with the same upgrades. For the mac user that doesn't play games, a developer, or as a business machine, this is really sweet. $800 for a dual processor mac is a steal.

Reply Score: 1

tuttle
Member since:
2006-03-01

Yes, of course. You won't be able to play the latest games on this machine. But for the target audience that is totally irrelevant.

And since the gfx card is probably connected via pci-x, the shared memory is not as bad as with AGP.

I am not interested in OSX, since I need to run Visual Studio.NET for my work. But I find this machine very attractive.

Reply Score: 1

Mac Min x 1 = Origami x ?
by moleskine on Wed 1st Mar 2006 16:12 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

This is Apple's first shot at the Mini with Intel inside and they've got it out fairly quickly. Bet they've sorted it out much better with regard to video in 6-12 months. Even so, the pricing doesn't look at all competitive where I live if they want to tempt in users new to Apple. It all sounds a bit rushed to be worth the money

ModMedowni, but the more interesting news this week is likely to be Microsoft's Origami project due for an airing tomorrow. Could be a dud, could be the start of something. At least it sounds original. We'll soon see. I wonder what the price will be - less than a Mini, I hope.

Reply Score: 1