What is Digg?82 Comments
- Sal42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10this is why apple sued that applekeynotes.com site... they don't want us to remember things they told us long ago... like 3 GHz in a year or iTools is free for life... shhhh.... forget! you are under the power of Steve... you are mesmerized... forget!
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To be fair, the 945/915 chipset has an awesome intergrated graphics chip, and the 845 chipset had an awful one. When the mac mini was first released, it was probably not unreasonable to compare against the 845.
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9apple has so many of these 'below the belt' comments and campaigns, i guess their marketing isn't as amazing as people make it seem, especially since it hasn't been able to win back the desktop for over 10 years, with their apparent superior product(s).
- whiskeyclone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It seems 'Integrated Graphics' is still a dirty word.
Funny, because this integrated chipset I'm sure outperforms the G4 Mac Mini by a long shot - but if they has used the same graphics card in the new Mac Mini (which I assume they didn't for space reasons) people would have been happy.
With all the new harware they have crammed into the new mini a seperate graphics chipset would probably make it run hot (or louder), force the unit to be bigger, more expensive (in chip productions, manufacturing and posibly using a 2.5inch HDD to fit it all in) or mean losing out on the additional things like additional USB ports, infra-red port, TV output, Digial audio-out - which are all far more important to the target audience - people who will either switch or put this in their living room - than making games look pretty.
Just goes to show that even apparently clued up and intelgent consumers still listen for buzz words rather than actually looking at performace and what it will actually be used for. For all the stick Apple gets for going with features/hardware that sounds cool its ironic that when they actually go for what is best in the situation they get ripped for it.
Its integrated yes, but its better than the previous card. What is the problem? - stilesja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This story is technically inaccurate. The original apple specs state that the mac mini has a dedicated graphics processor so that the G4 doesn't have to worry with layering windows...etc. The Mini still has a dedicated graphics processor so that the Core Duo doesn't have to worry with layering windows. What it doesn't have is dedicated memory. Apple does tout the 32MB of dedicated video memory as an advantage over a system with shared memory, no doubt they would certainly still agree with you. That being said I'm sure the new Mini trounces the old Radeon 9200 with 32mb of ram graphics wise so they probably deserve some leeway here. Plus they upped the max RAM to 2GB so you don't even have to worry about have 64 less than advertised..
- MaxDrax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This comparison is for guys who read Digg, tech mags, etc. In other words, this assumes you build your own PC. That said, I priced parts on NewEgg. I chose Micro ATX as a comparison only because a lot of people justify the Mini due to its size. And let's not forget that OS X on generic X86 is now possible.
I love Macs. I'm a zealot. But the new Mac Mini is simply too hard to justify when it comes to price.
Core Solo Mini + 1GB RAM + 100GB HD + Wired Keyboard and Mouse + "Superdrive" = $927.
Micro ATX nForce4 (PCI-E, Firewire, Gigabit Ethernet, USB 2.0, On Board Sound, SATA) + Aspire Micro ATX Case w/450 Watt PS + SATA 250GB HDD @ 7200rpm + 939 Athlon 64 3000 Venice + "Superdrive" + 1GB RAM + GeForce 7800GT 256MB + Windows XP OEM + Keyboard and Mouse = $928
Add $100 for dual core Mini, $140 for dual core AMD. - MikhoohkiM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I too Criticizing Intel Integrated Graphics, and apple for this one, I know it is better then the last card in the mini but Integrated Graphics is just kind of saying we care a little less then before
- gohepcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ahhh Mac fans. Gotta love the loose grip they have on the nuts and bolts of the hardware.
Onboard graphics are going to show absolutly no difference in performance of this machine unless you are playing a 3D game...and for gods sake what the hell are you doing trying to play a game on a mac in the first place?
Good god. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Come on guys.
Give this thing a chance before you shoot it down. Not, it's not going to be a great gaming machine. But it has a 667MHz FSB compared to the 533MHz FSB in the test everyone quotes. That means the video card has 25% more bandwidth to its memory than that test. And look at test of other graphics cards to see how video memory bandwidth matters. It also means that even though this thing steals bandwidth from the system, there just might be plenty left over for some good performance.
Yeah, it's gonna take 1GB to make this work well, since it is stealing memory from the system, but there's a chance it'll satisfy a lot of people.
Let's see some tests and find out.
And who says Apple is anti-Firewire now? The Mac Mini had Firewire before, it has Firewire now. Jeez. Just stop making stuff up, people.
Integrated graphics is the future. Integrated graphics keep getting better and better. NVidia knows it. They laughed their asses off at 3dfx over SLI. Then over having to have extra hard drive power connectors to run their video cards. Then 3dfx's proposed quad-SLI. Well, guess what, after next month. NVidia will have done all of this. Why do they have to go to these extents? Because it's getting more and more difficult to show an advantage over internal graphics for 98% of the people.
The only market left who demands all that power is the hardcore gamer. Well, guess what, hardcore gamers who are used to spending $300+ on a graphics card perhaps aren't well suited to an all-in-one machine. So don't buy one. But don't expect Apple is going to put extra cost into a machine that most people won't see the advantage of.
If you're a gamer, you're in the minority. This machine isn't for you. Move on. - Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think we should all reserve our judements until the first performance reviews come in. I've been waiting for the Intel Mini but I need to hear how the performance of the graphics are, how much Ram I'm gonna need to make it usable, and whether it's worth the extra 200 bucks for the Core Duo. It's a pricey computer for what you're getting but I think it's still worth some premium if you like the mac experience. I just haven't yet decided. I don't know about the rest of you but it seems like Apple's prices are always just at the point where it's a tough call. It's never a no brainer on if it's worth it or not.
- celticeric, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have an i845 chipset and the integrated graphics blows! I can't play anything beyond Quake 2.
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"this is why apple sued that applekeynotes.com site... they don't want us to remember things they told us long ago... like 3 GHz in a year or iTools is free for life... shhhh.... forget! you are under the power of Steve... you are mesmerized... forget!"
You have no idea how right you are;) - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Congratulations, you've discovered marketing. Now grow up a little. Don't act like such a n00b.
- gumpy5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This Intel switch must be hard on their marketers, if all they could do before is bash that architecture.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To Xorvious, re: your "lots" comment about bandwidth.
If you have a 1920x1200 (Apple 23" display) display running at 60Hz, 24-bit (32-bit). That's 9.2MB/frame, or 552MB/sec of bandwidth stolen.
The aggregate RAM bandwidth in this device is 8bytes*667 million*2 or 10.6GB/sec.
The display steals 5% of bandwidth if you have that display. Nearly any other display will take less. For example, 1080p would take 4%, 1080i or 720p: 2%.
It's not "lots". - Swamphhh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0cbreaker says:
"They can fit some really decent video chips into notebook computers these days; you can't possibly expect me to believe they couldn't have fit something better in the MacMini."
I think that's my point as well. Yea, the 950 is OK as far as integrated graphics go but the benmarks I've seen show that even the weakest discrete card just owns the GMA. A cheap 64MB ATI x300 mobile graphics card would totaly own the 950 and should have fit well in the Mini. Going integrated on the mini, after raising the price, is just a really bad move by Apple. - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My “integrated Intel graphics” chip stole power from my CPU and siphoned off memory from my system-level RAM and all I got was this lousy Tee shirt.
- ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The G4 Mac Mini is a slow piece of ***** (I own one and like OS X but not the Mini). But then they priced the Intel Mac Mini's too high. Maybe we'll see a price drop in the summer.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I have an i845 chipset and the integrated graphics blows! I can't play anything beyond Quake 2."
Good thing that's not even COMPARABLE to the GMA950. It's a completely new graphics chip (new as in Core Duo new), that supports Pixel Shaders 2.0 (something not even the 9200 that used to be in the Mini supports), has it's own dedicated ram (as well has shares ram with the CPU), and actually can run games like UT2004 at playable FPSs.
If you want to pick on the Mini, I'm sorry but the graphics chip just isn't the place. Pick on its lack-luster HD and optical drive, its default RAM configuration (2x256MB; upgrading means a pointless waste of chips), or even the fact that now it only has one firewire port where in the past it had two. However, coming in at $600 for a machine with its stats is pretty impressive... Stack it up next to a $600 Dell and you'll see it's pretty inline (though the Dell won't be wireless, will be much larger, etc. All of which may or may not be boons to you, depending on who you are and how you use your computer).
It all boils down to what you want. And if you want a small, quiet, cheap machine, the Mini has hit that mark. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've got an 855 integrated chipset, it actually doesn't do too bad, it plays most games up to 2003 (the system was released 2002). Anyway, I didn't buy it to play games, so whatever I can play on it is just a bonus. Though, nex time, I am sure, I will looking to avoid the Intel Extreme thing as far as I can.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Today was pretty good proof that Apple "fanboys" aren't as fanboyish as most people tend to think. Look at http://www.macrumors.com/ -- the posts concerning the Media Event today are all overwhelmingly (ie, 4:1 ratio) negative. Even the people defending the new graphics system openly express that it's a ***** chipset -- it just happens to be better in most regards than the 9200.
I'd rather Apple announced the Mac mini with a discrete chipset, not raised the price, and used the Pentium-M chip or similar to cut costs... but then, if I was running Apple, I sure as hell wouldn't be on Digg :) - mahoutie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I never did work out why they were using lyrics from "Headhunter" by Front 242 as some of the paragraph headings. Bizarre....
- oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CoreImage eye candy < actually running games
The 950 might have tons of awesome great features, but it still leeches system RAM. 32MB of dedicated video RAM beats stealing slower system RAM any day. - vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe all programmable GPU's generated too much heat for the mini? And/or intel had an interesting "Value Proposition"?
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What sort of idiot buys the lowest end product and expects it to have a good video card?
What sort of idiot buys a Mac for gaming? - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Huh? This page appears to be over a year-and-a-half old. Given the speed at which things change in computing, I don't see what the problem is with the claims on the page. When Jobs unveiled the Intel switch, he made it clear that (not try to follow along Apple-bashers) they weren't switching for what Intel offered at the time but for what Intel's roadmap looked like based on IBM's. In other words, what was written on that page was true at the time, for the technology that was current *then*. Is it hard to believe that things may have changed? Is that so hard to understand?
No digg and reported as lame. - MaxDrax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was worried that Intel graphics would show up in a Mac but the iMac and MacBook Pro gave me hope. I'm super disappointed now as I had considered a Mac Mini for the living room. I don't care what anybody tells you to the contrary, Intel integrated graphics suck big time...just wait for the benchmarks. Why bother updating the damn product if you're going to take a step backwards when it comes to graphics. I guess I was naive to expect an X1300 with dedicated memory. Jobs had better get his ***** head screwed on right. We Mac zealots are a fickle bunch...and we're noisy.
- Kazaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't understand why everyone is all Nazi over this integrated graphics thing...
Big deal. Who buys Macs to play games anyways? The most visually intensive thing I expect most Macs to do is play a large HD movie. And that's mostly CPU! - thecwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe this Mac mini Intel Integrated graphics won't suck ass... doubt it though.
- defylogik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1leave it to the fan boys to find this..lol
- longofest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jesus people! Yes, Apple uses fancy marketing just like every other company. The point is the integrated graphics on this mini are more powerful and offer more features than the 9200 dedicated graphics of the old mini, so it is an upgrade either way even if it is "integrated graphics."
Stop complaining that you won't be able to game on this machine. If you buy a Mac Mini for gaming, you're beyond help anyways. - Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I still wanna get one.. I would probably *only* use it as a media center.
Hell hook it up to the TV and have a party with music videos that only you can control via the remote, sure beats people screwing up the playlist when they stumble drunkenly over to my powerbook and click on random songs.
I think that comment earlier about the three types of computer is spot on. This is the lowest entry Macintosh. Don't expect to play WoW at 60fps.. It's meant to entice switchers, and those that want to do small tasks such as word processing and watching QT movies, it's not meant to appeal to the hardcore gamer and graphics enthusiast, and any advance is better than no advance, and the new graphics solution does that. Even if it's marginal.
JW - BlackStorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i just want to say, I'm not sure how long ago the mac mini was released, but at the time, I'm sure the Intel chips sucked a lot, and as stated before, since it wasn't an Intel board to begin with, there is no way that it was possible for that to work.
I'm not a fan boy of either in a sense. I really like my windows PC because I know most of the ins and outs of it so I can fix most problems I run into. I've used OSx86 on that same computer (yes, breaking the law) and it runs a little slow with a few problems here and there, but I'll definitely be getting a MacBook Pro in the near future.
- Dustin - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just FYI, you might be able to play some games on the 950 but it's still not even as good as an older nVidia card for $50 or $60 bucks.
Sure, MacMini might not be *made* to be a "Gaming PC" but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be one. Skimping out on the GPU is nothing more then cutting costs while passing none of those savings onto the customer. They can fit some really decent video chips into notebook computers these days; you can't possibly expect me to believe they couldn't have fit something better in the MacMini.
I actually thought the (original) MacMini was the first step into more resonably priced Macintoshes, but I was dissapointingly incorrect. - frem001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0although the price of the mac mini went up and they used itegrated graphics it's still a pretty cool computer. what i'm pissed off about is hearing adobe photoshop elements 4 (yes the new version) will still not be a universal binary. WTF Adobe!
- chriis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It makes the whole system very very *****."
Well, they used to. The i945 chipsets are actually VERY good for 2D Applications. Faster than my X800GT in running XP w/cleartype. Of course, since OSX is 3D, I'm not quite sure how it will function, but I know that i've been able to play quite a few games, etc, on it. (see my earlier post) - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whoops! Above was me. This is what happens when you share a PC with a brother.. Grrr..
- NetSliderX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I can do everything I need to on my G4 Mac Mini: iTunes, Web, Photoshop, Digital Photography, etc. I really have no reason to upgrade yet, even with what they put out today. Sure, I'd love to have Front Row, but I'd honestly use it for a day or 2 and never touch it again, once the novelty wears off."
Sir, your prayers are to be aptly answered. You can use Front Row on your current Mac Mini. I do! In fact, you can even (get this..) hook your Mini to your TV with a 20 dollar adapter! Honestly, unless you truly need a core duo, get yourselves on eBay and pick up a nice G4 mini with the adapter. You'll save quite a bit of cash and get just about all the best the new minis have to offer! - muikano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's a huge mistake because there isn't a mainstream one out yet. The Mac Mini was always suppose to be a low end machine. It's a marketing thing.
Low End Consumers, Mainstream, Pro.
I really don't think Apple intends for the Mac Mini to be popular. *****, imagine the lines at the apple store if it was an Mactel/Front Row 2.0 with IRDA/with PCI express.
But seriously. ***** Apple. Integrated graphics are piss poor. It makes the whole system very very *****. - Ossuary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ugggh. A Mac dragged down to the level of a lowly Walmart PC, or even worse.. a Dell.
This Intel deal may have brought out new chips but it is also bringing some negatives:
Intel's bias against Firewire and for their own USB2.0.
Intel's bias towards their own graphics chips.
What's next pre-installed AOL on every Mac shipped? Blah. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But what they're saying is true. If I wanted to buy games PC I'd be looking at spending as much if not more for a machine as capable the mini in graphics and chip speed.
- ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I *love* (hate, really) the marketting geniuses out there..
"some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one."
They likely pointed the finger to detract from the fact that you can't even open a mac mini to add ram, let alone a better video card. Yeah I know this article is about Intel specifically, but Apple and many others are notorious for this - blaming a competator for a glaring shortcoming of your own product to distract from it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And we care about this because?
- elbeertardo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple was muckraking...all business do it..I know everyone here would like to keep their personal vision of apple completely "untarnished". Sorry -Grow up. If you think Steve Jobs cares about anything but his ego and selling units you are very naive. Apple cares about making money. Plain and simple. As does Microsoft. Plain and simple. And beleive it or not thats good..It keeps the economy turning..and a lot of people employed. Think about how awful it would be if your hipster ass couldn't buy any more japanese vinyl toys. There is a bigger picture out there than flag waving for your favorite company and lining the pockets of a washed up, ego-centric, zealot.
- eceres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0someone want to explain to me what apple added compared to the old g4 one that justifies the 100 price increase? This seems very weird for a company that usually prefers incremental changes than varying product pricing....
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> the 945/915 chipset has an awesome intergrated graphics chip
Cr*p. Try and get more than 85Hz refresh out of Intel's video driver. Got to use some other tools to do this... - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>60Hz refresh is important on CRTs. Of course, I don't use CRTs anymore. But on a CRT, I can still see a some flicker at 72Hz, am usually okay at 75Hz and am always okay at 85Hz.
On LCDs, you can't see the flicker at 60Hz since they don't flicker, well, not in the traditional way. - thejadedmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>>leave it to the fan boys to find this..lol
Uh..it was posted by an apple fanboy. - lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The 945 chipset in the mini is a pretty decent card. Intel's 8xx series has a deservedly bad rep though.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Mac mini features a graphics processor integrated into the system, and one that's no slouch, to boot. The Intel GMA950 graphics supports Tiger Core Graphics and the latest 3D games. It shares fast 667MHz memory4 with the Intel Core processor, for an incredible value proposition."
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is