The reason for integrated graphics on the mini...

solsunsolsun
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Lot's of complaints of the integrated graphics on the mini... However, there is a logical explanation..



Apple is obviously trying to market the mini as a media center... Using integrated video with shared memory is the only way to keep costs at $600 yet still allow the graphics engine to use as much Ram as needed for movies and HD video content...



Movies are the next step for Apple folks.. Hi-def movies require A LOT of video RAM.. Apple is certainly not going to include a 256 mb graphics card in a Mini and still be able keep the price at $600... Integrated video with shared Ram was the solution...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Correct it's the price that is the primariy inhibitor.



    The mini is a very small form factor. While this is cool it certainly isn't cheap.



    80GB 7200 RPM desktop drive $59

    80GB Travelstar laptop drive $ 130



    The Intel Core Duo and Solo chips aren't that cheap either.



    Funny thing is we now have support for Core Graphic yet because it's not "dedicated" people are flipping out.



    I'd rather have the extra core. It's going to benefit me almost %100 of the time whilst a faster GPU would benefit me..but likely less.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Correct it's the price that is the primariy inhibitor.



    The mini is a very small form factor. While this is cool it certainly isn't cheap.



    80GB 7200 RPM desktop drive $59

    80GB Travelstar laptop drive $ 130



    The Intel Core Duo and Solo chips aren't that cheap either.



    Funny thing is we now have support for Core Graphic yet because it's not "dedicated" people are flipping out.



    I'd rather have the extra core. It's going to benefit me almost %100 of the time whilst a faster GPU would benefit me..but likely less.



    I agree.



    Gamers shouldn't be looking at the mini. They should be looking at the iMac Core Duo or the upcoming PowerMacs (or however they're going to be called).



    But for everything else, this computer should be perfect. It should be able to handle 1080 almost perfectly 720 for sure.



    As a media center...this thing is perfect.



    I'm a little disappointed by the price but as soon as the mini Duo drops below 600, I'm getting one, slapping a few console emulators (NES, SNES) into it and I'm gonna game like it's 1986 and 1992.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by solsun

    Lot's of complaints of the integrated graphics on the mini... However, there is a logical explanation..



    Apple is obviously trying to market the mini as a media center... Using integrated video with shared memory is the only way to keep costs at $600 yet still allow the graphics engine to use as much Ram as needed for movies and HD video content...



    Movies are the next step for Apple folks.. Hi-def movies require A LOT of video RAM.. Apple is certainly not going to include a 256 mb graphics card in a Mini and still be able keep the price at $600... Integrated video with shared Ram was the solution...



    Um, nice idea, but ever since AGP was introduced, all graphics cards, including those with dedicated VRAM, could use system RAM as VRAM if they wanted to.



    So, Apple could include a graphics chip with 64 MB VRAM, which could then increase by using system RAM if need be.



    Also, HD does not require a lot of VRAM if the decoding is happening on the CPU. A Full HD frame (which is the only thing that has to be stored in VRAM) requires 1920 x 1080 x 24 bits = 49766400 bits = 5.932 MB.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    johnnysmithjohnnysmith Posts: 180member
    If they wanted this to be a great media center they should have put the power button on the front. I hate having to reach around to the back to turn equipment and hard-drives on. I'm sure it would be a nightmare for someone who has their equipment up above their tvs.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. H

    Um, nice idea, but ever since AGP was introduced, all graphics cards, including those with dedicated VRAM, could use system RAM as VRAM if they wanted to.



    So, Apple could include a graphics chip with 64 MB VRAM, which could then increase by using system RAM if need be.



    Also, HD does not require a lot of VRAM if the decoding is happening on the CPU. A Full HD frame (which is the only thing that has to be stored in VRAM) requires 1920 x 1080 x 24 bits = 49766400 bits = 5.932 MB.



    Again, cost is the consideration...



    The new Mac mini and it's additional features like the faster processor, bigger hd, faster hd, gigabit ethernet, digital audio in and out, additional usb ports, remote... all these little things cut into the profit..



    The graphics card was one way to cut costs and still enable the computer to play high definition content... At least the new mini is capable of displaying core graphics..



    For an entry level sub $600 Mac, the new mini is nothing to complain about..
  • Reply 6 of 15
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by solsun

    Again, cost is the consideration...



    The new Mac mini and it's additional features like the faster processor, bigger hd, faster hd, gigabit ethernet, digital audio in and out, additional usb ports, remote... all these little things cut into the profit..



    The graphics card was one way to cut costs and still enable the computer to play high definition content... At least the new mini is capable of displaying core graphics..



    For an entry level sub $600 Mac, the new mini is nothing to complain about..



    Did I complain about the cost?



    I think that for what you get the mini is fairly priced. I was just saying that the proposed reason for integrated graphics (cheaper VRAM) was inaccurate. The CPU itself is cheaper, and you don't need any VRAM at all, at that's why we got it over a GPU with dedicated VRAM.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    FROM APPLE.COM ...UNTILL TODAY



    Quote:

    Lock the Target

    Or one 3D game. 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/200504010.../graphics.html



    My how soon we forget.



    Thanks wayback machine
  • Reply 8 of 15
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    FROM APPLE.COM ...UNTILL TODAY



    My how soon we forget.



    Thanks wayback machine



    Apple will never use integrated Intel crap!11oneone!111
  • Reply 9 of 15
    officerdigbyofficerdigby Posts: 343member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    FROM APPLE.COM ...UNTILL TODAY







    http://web.archive.org/web/200504010.../graphics.html



    My how soon we forget.



    Thanks wayback machine



    This is where the differential BS principle comes into play...



    Basically it's the differntial between how the old BS, about using 3 year old video cards is great, is better or worse than the new BS that the intel core processors are 3-5X+ faster than the old "super fast and powerful G4 processors". It's all BS it's just a question of degree.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    bitemymacbitemymac Posts: 1,147member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by solsun

    Lot's of complaints of the integrated graphics on the mini... However, there is a logical explanation..



    Apple is obviously trying to market the mini as a media center... Using integrated video with shared memory is the only way to keep costs at $600 yet still allow the graphics engine to use as much Ram as needed for movies and HD video content...



    Movies are the next step for Apple folks.. Hi-def movies require A LOT of video RAM.. Apple is certainly not going to include a 256 mb graphics card in a Mini and still be able keep the price at $600... Integrated video with shared Ram was the solution...



    I think the true reason for integrated graphics on the mini is because apple rushed out mini at the last minute and they had no option but use intel's reference design. Basically, you are buying a Dell in the Mac mini case. I'll bet mini will soon be updated within 6 months with decent stand alone GPU for the $799 CD model. I still think $799 is too steep for a mini.....
  • Reply 11 of 15
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. H

    Did I complain about the cost?



    I think that for what you get the mini is fairly priced. I was just saying that the proposed reason for integrated graphics (cheaper VRAM) was inaccurate. The CPU itself is cheaper, and you don't need any VRAM at all, at that's why we got it over a GPU with dedicated VRAM.



    I didn't say you did complain about cost... However, the whole point to my original post is that there was a reason that Apple went with integrated graphics and cost is a big part of it..



    The new mac mini is much more expensive to make than the G4 mini...
  • Reply 12 of 15
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bitemymac

    I think the true reason for integrated graphics on the mini is because apple rushed out mini at the last minute and they had no option but use intel's reference design. Basically, you are buying a Dell in the Mac mini case. I'll bet mini will soon be updated within 6 months with decent stand alone GPU for the $799 CD model. I still think $799 is too steep for a mini.....



    Seriously, someone trots out the "apple rushed product xyz at the last minute so they had to do abc" line every time apple has a new product/significant upgrade.



    It is what it is, and people just have to accept that
  • Reply 13 of 15
    k squaredk squared Posts: 608member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Flounder

    Seriously, someone trots out the "apple rushed product xyz at the last minute so they had to do abc" line every time apple has a new product/significant upgrade.



    It is what it is, and people just have to accept that



    So true. It's as if Apple hasn't been working on these things for the past 6 months, as if they woke up last week and asked themselves if they should produce a Mac mini. The 1000/100/10, AirPort, Bluetooth, Optical, 5.1 specs were all rushed too.



    Mac users set themselves up for disappoint over and over again.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bitemymac

    I still think $799 is too steep for a mini.....



    Why because it's small? that's silly..



    For $799 you are getting a dual core machine, with a dual layer dvd drive and a 120 gig hard drive... All in a six inch box.. That's a pretty sweet deal if you've already got the display...



    The dual core mini will be more than sufficient to run processor intensive apps like photoshop once the universal version is released..
  • Reply 15 of 15
    peepeeseepeepeesee Posts: 100member
    Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High-Definition (HD) Playback



    To play high-definition video, a large amount of data must be processed by your computer. A powerful system will deliver the best playback experience.

    For 852x480 (480p) video at 24 frames per second:

    (Windows)



    * 2.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or faster processor

    * At least 512MB of RAM

    * 64MB or greater video card

    * Windows 2000 or XP



    For 1280x720 (720p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

    (Macintosh)



    * 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 or 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo or faster Macintosh computer

    * At least 256MB of RAM

    * 64 MB or greater video card



    (Windows)



    * 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 or faster processor

    * At least 512MB of RAM

    * 64MB or greater video card

    * Windows 2000 or XP
Sign In or Register to comment.