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.
Thread beginning with comment 100046
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: Integrated Graphics?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:31 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 Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by Tom K on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:39 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 Parent Bookmark Score: 0

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by jtfolden on Tue 28th Feb 2006 19:46 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 Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[3]: Integrated Graphics?
by tmouton on Wed 1st Mar 2006 04:03 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 Parent Bookmark Score: 1