>Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available.<
P.S. And they are charging $79 for iWork!? PC makers include Microsoft Works for free, Apple should be including iWork for free also.
I'll say this about integrated graphics, my mother's sempron powered HP came with integrated graphics. When I was able to get my hands on a lowly 64mb GeForce2 and put it in, the system performed much better. Sure GMA950 is far more advanced than the SIS graphics in that HP, but integrated graphics and shared memory hog the CPU and system memory. Apple only included them because they're already on the 945gm chipset.
As for iWork, I think Apple more dropped Appleworks than replaced it with iWork. Normal everyday tasks are too mundane for Apple. I think the decision not to release an updated AW will come back to bite Apple squarely in the rear when it's all said and done.
I just looked at my DP 2.5, it has 3 USB ports: 1 in front, 2 in back. Those keyboard ports don't count and you know it
Read my post again, I specifically listed the keyboard ports seperately. Looks like you have the last gen G5, right? The newer ones have 4 USB ports, 3 on the back and one on the front.
I'll say this about integrated graphics, my mother's sempron powered HP came with integrated graphics. When I was able to get my hands on a lowly 64mb GeForce2 and put it in, the system performed much better. Sure GMA950 is far more advanced than the SIS graphics in that HP, but integrated graphics and shared memory hog the CPU and system memory. Apple only included them because they're already on the 945gm chipset.
Some of the cheap celeron and sempron systems with XP have only 256MB of RAM and integrated graphics. Using a card makes a big difference to the performance of XP not because of the card, but because you've given the OS extra RAM.
On the other end, Apple seem to be using paired RAM to get 10.6GB/s bandwidth. There's plenty spare there for most users. Extra RAM over the 512MB minimum always helps though. Anything less than 1GB I find a little confining.
Elgato also has a $149 box without hardware compression. The Duo should be able to handle the compression. I don't know if it can pause live TV.
Intel's VIIV spec lists the Core Duo as a minimum requirement if I remember corectly, and since the integrated video is an Intel product as well I would imagine that this should work fine for compressing/decompressing video as well as "pausing" live TV. If the system is being taxed by other tasks then there may be a problem though.
What do you think Quartz uses to accelerate the WindowServer?
What makes you think Quartz needs openGL *2* to be accelerated?
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
i think apple is basically saying, now, we don't want that kind of customer -- too "low value"(low margin) to be worth the support, sales, etc. etc. costs. For the record, I was hoping that at least the $499 price point would be maintained.
Not at all. If you were aware of intel's chip roadmap, you would have seen this coming. The cheapest intel chip in this socket is about $200. They have lower end chips coming out in a few months, plus prices always drop. The only way for apple to make a $499 or less computer today would be to kludge together a "yikes" mobo to support old intel chips soon to be discontinued.
The $599 price is only temporary. As this new line of chips progresses, $499 and cheaper machines will again be possible.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
But they've seen a PC that costs $399.
But how many people actually buy those $399 machines? I've always heard that $699 machines outsell $399 machines by a wide margin. People perk up when they see such a low price tag, but when they read the fine print and see how crappy that machine is, they pony up the bucks for a nicer one.
I'd love to see stats saying what big sellers the $399 machines are. Until I do, I'm skeptical. There's no question there's a market for the cheapest machine possible, I'm just not convinced that market is "huge".
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Are people supposed to be impressed with a 1.5 Ghz Intel Chip while PCs are at 3Ghz?
That's why the upsell to the dual 1.6 is so appealing. 2x1.6 vs 3? I'm impressed with that.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Then read up on how lame Pentium 4s are despite the big 3+Ghz number.
But they're still a fair bit faster than a core solo at 1.5. Right?
But they're still a fair bit faster than a core solo at 1.5. Right?
Nope, the equasion 1.5 Core GHz = 1 Pentium 4 GHz. So the 3GHz P4 would be a bit faster, but not a whole lot. Cedar Mill chips are a little better AFAIK, but Prescott and Northwood P4s are trash. Don't even compare them to a Core.
In retail there's really nothing magical about a $499 price point. In my years of sales anything over say $200 was, for most people, beyond an impulse buy.
Frankly the difference between $499 and $599 is rather small. Sure some people would be limited by the extra C-Note but many would just toss the extra bit on the credit card and take the puppy home.
$100 makes a big difference when 1 dollar converts to big number in some other countries ...
$499 Mac Mini - the trick Apple forgot!. Mainly many bought this without upgrading anything!, just they ordered it!
But how many people actually buy those $399 machines? I've always heard that $699 machines outsell $399 machines by a wide margin. People perk up when they see such a low price tag, but when they read the fine print and see how crappy that machine is, they pony up the bucks for a nicer one.
I'd love to see stats saying what big sellers the $399 machines are. Until I do, I'm skeptical. There's no question there's a market for the cheapest machine possible, I'm just not convinced that market is "huge".
Obviously that depends upon your definition of "huge". Having not seen any market analysis on these low-end machines, I don't know exactly how many $399 machines get sold. My suspicions, like you, is that it isn't "huge"; but I would suggest it is "significant".
Another issue, as others mentioned, is that those $399 (or, in fact, $299 in the case of Dell for its cheapest desktop) "get people in the door". What you must realise is the vast majority of people aren't going to do that much research, so they see the $399/$299 price point at Dell and go there. Once there, they may realise that perhaps the cheapest of the cheap isn't for them, but just go for a more expensive Dell. This is less time-consuming than configuring the more expensive Dell, and then going to look at other brands to see what they offer at that price point.
Maybe but I doubt person A is anyone on this site that is complaining. I'm out of the pc loop now though what kind of pc can you get for 399? Is it as good as the baseline mini?
While there are a variety of $400 PCs using the Dell and HP as examples:
Intel Celeron D Processor 325 (2.53 Ghz, 533 FSB)
Windows XP Home
512MB DDR SDRAM @ 400Mhz
80GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM drive
48x CD-RW drive
15" Analog Flat Panel
Dell USB Keyboard and Mouse
2 channel audio
10/100 Ethernet
56K Modem
Intel Extreme Graphics 2
3 PCI slots
The HP Pavilion a1310 ($349 after rebate) has:
Intel Pentium 4 417 (2.9Ghz)
Windows XP Home
512MB DDR2-533 Mhz SDRAM
40 GB 7200 SATA drive
48x CD-RW drive
Intel Integrated GMA 900
Integrated 7.1 (Intel) Audio
HP Keyboard and Mouse
Micro ATX
4 DIMM slots
3 PCI slots
6 USB 2.0
2 Firewire
56K modem
10/100 Ethernet
There is a Athlon 64 version of the HP.
Are they as good as a baseline mini? It depends. For the mini that is expected to be placed near a large screen TV/monitor the bluetooth is nice. Likewise the built in airport since my cable router comes with 802.11g. No wires to run. Between those, iLife and OSX its worth a $200 premium for me to get my Dad.
Reduces my expected tech support for his current 3 Ghz P4 PC that it will replace. If I get .mac then we can share photos without him getting confused about attachments. They should simply show up via photocast/iPhoto and he can send them out to relatives the same way.
As someone who has been waiting specifically for this upgrade to purchase, I decided to mull things overnight before commenting on why the new mini is so disappointing and why I won?t be buying one.
The biggest problems with the old ?advertised? mini was that the graphics just weren?t up to snuff and the processor technology was so 3 years ago. With the stealth upgrade to the 64 MB 9200 the graphics became adequate but, similar to a lot of folks I?d bet, I decided to wait for the Intel switch based upon the rumors that the mini would be one of the first and that a core duo was possible. Understand that I?m not talking about a computer to play Doom on, but something that can be used for some of the less graphics intensive games would be nice.
It never occurred to me that Apple would actually release a machine with degraded graphics performance versus the G4 mini. People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close. Maybe it?s just me, but when waiting for the new model I just expected it to be better than, or at least equal to the previous generation in all respects.
So Apple wants people to spend $100 on a machine that in one very import aspect will not perform as well as the previous model. It?s just so Microsoftian that I can?t condone it with my dollars. So, I will waddle along with my upgraded Sawtooth PowerMac pining for the day that Apple releases a product for which I am in the target market ($1,200 Core Duo mini tower anyone)?
People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close.
But did those sites test the 950 running on a system with dual-channel DDR2 system RAM? That could make a huge difference.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Intel mini outperforms the G4 mini in all graphics areas.
So Apple wants people to spend $100 on a machine that in one very import aspect will not perform as well as the previous model. It?s just so Microsoftian that I can?t condone it with my dollars.
Despite the fact that nobody has been able to play with this thing yet and actually see how absolutely terrible this integrated graphics thing is. Let's at leasyw ait until we see how Apple has integrated it with everything else before we label it the worst computer ever. Seriously ... cite test X form Lab A or Person B all you want ... they really don't mean shit till you have used the computer and see what's up. That has ALWAYS been my experience with Apple machines. I just kinda have to ignore so-called benchmarks and tests and see how the machine performs compared to what I need it for.
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
So, I will waddle along with my upgraded Sawtooth PowerMac pining for the day that Apple releases a product for which I am in the target market ($1,200 Core Duo mini tower anyone)?
You'll be waiting a long time my friend. Apple just insn't into mini towers. Also, at the price range you're talking about, you can get a Core Duo iMac (display, mouse and keyboard included...)
Ok, first off the EyeTV things, the cheap ones rely all on your computer, where the more expensive ones have their own hardware to take care of most of the processing.
as far as the Intel Integrated 950, its about on par with a Radeon 9200 that was in the old mac Minis. I did some searching around for some benchmark scores (under windows at least) for both chips. I found some testing from 3DMark 2001SE for both cards. both at 1024x768x32 the intel 950 was getting a 7483, which a radeon 9200 64mb was getting a 7208. Those are both VERY LOW scores, and very close. I dont think Apple has downgraded anything with these graphics, but i dont think its an upgrade really either, just a cheap solution
It never occurred to me that Apple would actually release a machine with degraded graphics performance versus the G4 mini. People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close. Maybe it?s just me, but when waiting for the new model I just expected it to be better than, or at least equal to the previous generation in all respects.
Where are your tests showing the GMA 950 to be worse than a 9200?
I had a quick google and was finding it hard to find definitive tests as the 9200 doesn't even run the newer benchmarks and is a few years old.
I wanted to weigh in on this integrated graphics ordeal, you see I just sold a Toshiba laptop that I used for work (to order my MBP) and this Toshiba had the same integrated graphics card. I have to tell you that it was not that bad. In fact I can honestly say that it was more than sufficient for many of the things I was doing (including playing games). I think way too much is being made of this. Someone earlier said that many people are upset because it's not the machine for them, but you really need to take a second look at what you're getting at the $599 price point. I'd love to see this thing drop $100 off the price but it wouldent effect my decision to buy one, but it would help the arguement that Macs are affordable on the entry level side.
From what I've been reading, the PS3 might cost Sony $800 to build!
Then they would be selling it for $300-$400 below cost.
Actually from all the news i've read the PS3 cost $900 to make and that they plan to sell the system for $500.
If they sold it for that $300-$400 Sony would loose a lot of money!
Not to mention they are having a lot of problems and that the PS3 release date is being pushed back and some analyst say as far back as 2007... or very late 2006!
Anyways I'm going to wait until the Mac mini is tested and see how it performs, then I'll pass on judgement.
Edit: Here is some news..
Quote:
Business 2.0
New Sony PlayStation to break the bank
Monday February 27, 12:24 pm ET
In the videogame business, hardware makers generally sell new consoles at a loss, making their profits by charging licensing fees to videogame publishers. But according to an analysis by News.com, Sony is paying an unusually steep bill for its upcoming PlayStation 3 console. The system's components cost between $725 and $905, analysts estimate. The biggest culprit: Sony's new Blu-Ray disc drive, which will play high-definition movies as well as games. With the PS3 console expected to sell between $299 and $399, Sony will lose hundreds of dollars per console. Of course, if the PS3 is a hit, the move could still pay off. Component prices usually drop sharply as a console continues production, and the more consoles Sony sells, the more licensing fees it will garner from videogames sold for the PS3.
Quote:
\t
Sony may delay PS3 launch
Correspondents in Tokyo
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
SONY may have to delay the long-awaited launch of its PlayStation 3 console until the autumn because certain specifications were not set on time.
The launch could be delayed from the scheduled debut in the spring because of the failure to set the specifications of the Blue-ray DVD technology, a Sony Computer Entertainment spokesman said, according to Kyodo News.
The Blu-ray DVD technology is "indispensable" for PlayStation 3 consoles which feature high-definition, movie-quality graphics, the Sony spokesman reportedly said.
A group of about 80 Blu-ray DVD manufacturers, including Sony and Matsushita Electric Industrial, failed to set specifications for the advanced DVD format by the end of last year, Kyodo said.
Mass manufacturing is finally set to begin at the end of the month, the news agency said, citing industry sources.\t
Officials at the producer of the popular PlayStation game console series could not be reached for comment on the report.
Sony Computer Entertainment has apparently been behind schedule in taking orders for the new PlayStations from retailers, Kyodo said.
Hirokazu Hamamura, president of Enterbrain, a leading publisher of computer game magazines, told Kyodo that it would be difficult for Sony to release the new console as scheduled.
"Sony has not begun taking orders early this month, that means that it would be difficult for the company to begin sales in May," he said.
Sony is now likely to shift its focus on product sales from the spring to the year-end sales period, promotion for which begins in October, industry analysts said.
The expected delay may pressure the Sony group's earnings, the news servie reported.
The PlayStation series has been one of the major pillars of the Sony group's earnings.
Total global shipments of its PlayStation 2 game console had exceeded 100 million units by last November since its launch in March 2000.
The original PlayStation took nine years and six months to clock up similar numbers.
Comments
Originally posted by MacGregor
For that money you are waiting for a low-level iBook, not a MacBook.
He meant the upcoming MacBooks.
MacBook = iBook
MacBook Pro = PowerBook
Originally posted by steve666
>Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available.<
P.S. And they are charging $79 for iWork!? PC makers include Microsoft Works for free, Apple should be including iWork for free also.
I'll say this about integrated graphics, my mother's sempron powered HP came with integrated graphics. When I was able to get my hands on a lowly 64mb GeForce2 and put it in, the system performed much better. Sure GMA950 is far more advanced than the SIS graphics in that HP, but integrated graphics and shared memory hog the CPU and system memory. Apple only included them because they're already on the 945gm chipset.
As for iWork, I think Apple more dropped Appleworks than replaced it with iWork. Normal everyday tasks are too mundane for Apple. I think the decision not to release an updated AW will come back to bite Apple squarely in the rear when it's all said and done.
Originally posted by slughead
I just looked at my DP 2.5, it has 3 USB ports: 1 in front, 2 in back. Those keyboard ports don't count and you know it
Read my post again, I specifically listed the keyboard ports seperately. Looks like you have the last gen G5, right? The newer ones have 4 USB ports, 3 on the back and one on the front.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's NOT the only option.
http://www.miglia.com/
Elgato also has a $149 box without hardware compression. The Duo should be able to handle the compression. I don't know if it can pause live TV.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
I'll say this about integrated graphics, my mother's sempron powered HP came with integrated graphics. When I was able to get my hands on a lowly 64mb GeForce2 and put it in, the system performed much better. Sure GMA950 is far more advanced than the SIS graphics in that HP, but integrated graphics and shared memory hog the CPU and system memory. Apple only included them because they're already on the 945gm chipset.
Some of the cheap celeron and sempron systems with XP have only 256MB of RAM and integrated graphics. Using a card makes a big difference to the performance of XP not because of the card, but because you've given the OS extra RAM.
On the other end, Apple seem to be using paired RAM to get 10.6GB/s bandwidth. There's plenty spare there for most users. Extra RAM over the 512MB minimum always helps though. Anything less than 1GB I find a little confining.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Elgato also has a $149 box without hardware compression. The Duo should be able to handle the compression. I don't know if it can pause live TV.
Intel's VIIV spec lists the Core Duo as a minimum requirement if I remember corectly, and since the integrated video is an Intel product as well I would imagine that this should work fine for compressing/decompressing video as well as "pausing" live TV. If the system is being taxed by other tasks then there may be a problem though.
Hold on, mac mini will be revised ASAP!. that will be once merom out and Intel starts to give BIG discount for Core Duo! (Oct 06?)
mac mini price is now NOT targeted to serve its original purpose when it invented!.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
What do you think Quartz uses to accelerate the WindowServer?
What makes you think Quartz needs openGL *2* to be accelerated?
Originally posted by sunilraman
i think apple is basically saying, now, we don't want that kind of customer -- too "low value"(low margin) to be worth the support, sales, etc. etc. costs. For the record, I was hoping that at least the $499 price point would be maintained.
Not at all. If you were aware of intel's chip roadmap, you would have seen this coming. The cheapest intel chip in this socket is about $200. They have lower end chips coming out in a few months, plus prices always drop. The only way for apple to make a $499 or less computer today would be to kludge together a "yikes" mobo to support old intel chips soon to be discontinued.
The $599 price is only temporary. As this new line of chips progresses, $499 and cheaper machines will again be possible.
Originally posted by Mr. H
But they've seen a PC that costs $399.
But how many people actually buy those $399 machines? I've always heard that $699 machines outsell $399 machines by a wide margin. People perk up when they see such a low price tag, but when they read the fine print and see how crappy that machine is, they pony up the bucks for a nicer one.
I'd love to see stats saying what big sellers the $399 machines are. Until I do, I'm skeptical. There's no question there's a market for the cheapest machine possible, I'm just not convinced that market is "huge".
Originally posted by steve666
Are people supposed to be impressed with a 1.5 Ghz Intel Chip while PCs are at 3Ghz?
That's why the upsell to the dual 1.6 is so appealing. 2x1.6 vs 3? I'm impressed with that.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Then read up on how lame Pentium 4s are despite the big 3+Ghz number.
But they're still a fair bit faster than a core solo at 1.5. Right?
Originally posted by minderbinder
But they're still a fair bit faster than a core solo at 1.5. Right?
Nope, the equasion 1.5 Core GHz = 1 Pentium 4 GHz. So the 3GHz P4 would be a bit faster, but not a whole lot. Cedar Mill chips are a little better AFAIK, but Prescott and Northwood P4s are trash. Don't even compare them to a Core.
Originally posted by hmurchison
In retail there's really nothing magical about a $499 price point. In my years of sales anything over say $200 was, for most people, beyond an impulse buy.
Frankly the difference between $499 and $599 is rather small. Sure some people would be limited by the extra C-Note but many would just toss the extra bit on the credit card and take the puppy home.
$100 makes a big difference when 1 dollar converts to big number in some other countries ...
$499 Mac Mini - the trick Apple forgot!. Mainly many bought this without upgrading anything!, just they ordered it!
Originally posted by minderbinder
But how many people actually buy those $399 machines? I've always heard that $699 machines outsell $399 machines by a wide margin. People perk up when they see such a low price tag, but when they read the fine print and see how crappy that machine is, they pony up the bucks for a nicer one.
I'd love to see stats saying what big sellers the $399 machines are. Until I do, I'm skeptical. There's no question there's a market for the cheapest machine possible, I'm just not convinced that market is "huge".
Obviously that depends upon your definition of "huge". Having not seen any market analysis on these low-end machines, I don't know exactly how many $399 machines get sold. My suspicions, like you, is that it isn't "huge"; but I would suggest it is "significant".
Another issue, as others mentioned, is that those $399 (or, in fact, $299 in the case of Dell for its cheapest desktop) "get people in the door". What you must realise is the vast majority of people aren't going to do that much research, so they see the $399/$299 price point at Dell and go there. Once there, they may realise that perhaps the cheapest of the cheap isn't for them, but just go for a more expensive Dell. This is less time-consuming than configuring the more expensive Dell, and then going to look at other brands to see what they offer at that price point.
Originally posted by ecking
Maybe but I doubt person A is anyone on this site that is complaining. I'm out of the pc loop now though what kind of pc can you get for 399? Is it as good as the baseline mini?
While there are a variety of $400 PCs using the Dell and HP as examples:
Intel Celeron D Processor 325 (2.53 Ghz, 533 FSB)
Windows XP Home
512MB DDR SDRAM @ 400Mhz
80GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM drive
48x CD-RW drive
15" Analog Flat Panel
Dell USB Keyboard and Mouse
2 channel audio
10/100 Ethernet
56K Modem
Intel Extreme Graphics 2
3 PCI slots
The HP Pavilion a1310 ($349 after rebate) has:
Intel Pentium 4 417 (2.9Ghz)
Windows XP Home
512MB DDR2-533 Mhz SDRAM
40 GB 7200 SATA drive
48x CD-RW drive
Intel Integrated GMA 900
Integrated 7.1 (Intel) Audio
HP Keyboard and Mouse
Micro ATX
4 DIMM slots
3 PCI slots
6 USB 2.0
2 Firewire
56K modem
10/100 Ethernet
There is a Athlon 64 version of the HP.
Are they as good as a baseline mini? It depends. For the mini that is expected to be placed near a large screen TV/monitor the bluetooth is nice. Likewise the built in airport since my cable router comes with 802.11g. No wires to run. Between those, iLife and OSX its worth a $200 premium for me to get my Dad.
Reduces my expected tech support for his current 3 Ghz P4 PC that it will replace. If I get .mac then we can share photos without him getting confused about attachments. They should simply show up via photocast/iPhoto and he can send them out to relatives the same way.
He's switching whether he wants to or not.
Vinea
Originally posted by shanmugam
$100 makes a big difference when 1 dollar converts to big number in some other countries ...
$499 Mac Mini - the trick Apple forgot!. Mainly many bought this without upgrading anything!, just they ordered it!
True..my post is a bit US centric. And current exchange rates don't favor Mac pricing overseas.
Originally posted by hmurchison
True..my post is a bit US centric. And current exchange rates don't favor Mac pricing overseas.
Depends. In the UK and much of Europe they do. It rarely translates to Apple dropping prices here though.
The biggest problems with the old ?advertised? mini was that the graphics just weren?t up to snuff and the processor technology was so 3 years ago. With the stealth upgrade to the 64 MB 9200 the graphics became adequate but, similar to a lot of folks I?d bet, I decided to wait for the Intel switch based upon the rumors that the mini would be one of the first and that a core duo was possible. Understand that I?m not talking about a computer to play Doom on, but something that can be used for some of the less graphics intensive games would be nice.
It never occurred to me that Apple would actually release a machine with degraded graphics performance versus the G4 mini. People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close. Maybe it?s just me, but when waiting for the new model I just expected it to be better than, or at least equal to the previous generation in all respects.
So Apple wants people to spend $100 on a machine that in one very import aspect will not perform as well as the previous model. It?s just so Microsoftian that I can?t condone it with my dollars. So, I will waddle along with my upgraded Sawtooth PowerMac pining for the day that Apple releases a product for which I am in the target market ($1,200 Core Duo mini tower anyone)?
Originally posted by neumac
People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close.
But did those sites test the 950 running on a system with dual-channel DDR2 system RAM? That could make a huge difference.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Intel mini outperforms the G4 mini in all graphics areas.
Originally posted by neumac
So Apple wants people to spend $100 on a machine that in one very import aspect will not perform as well as the previous model. It?s just so Microsoftian that I can?t condone it with my dollars.
Despite the fact that nobody has been able to play with this thing yet and actually see how absolutely terrible this integrated graphics thing is. Let's at leasyw ait until we see how Apple has integrated it with everything else before we label it the worst computer ever. Seriously ... cite test X form Lab A or Person B all you want ... they really don't mean shit till you have used the computer and see what's up. That has ALWAYS been my experience with Apple machines. I just kinda have to ignore so-called benchmarks and tests and see how the machine performs compared to what I need it for.
Originally posted by neumac
So, I will waddle along with my upgraded Sawtooth PowerMac pining for the day that Apple releases a product for which I am in the target market ($1,200 Core Duo mini tower anyone)?
You'll be waiting a long time my friend. Apple just insn't into mini towers. Also, at the price range you're talking about, you can get a Core Duo iMac (display, mouse and keyboard included...)
as far as the Intel Integrated 950, its about on par with a Radeon 9200 that was in the old mac Minis. I did some searching around for some benchmark scores (under windows at least) for both chips. I found some testing from 3DMark 2001SE for both cards. both at 1024x768x32 the intel 950 was getting a 7483, which a radeon 9200 64mb was getting a 7208. Those are both VERY LOW scores, and very close. I dont think Apple has downgraded anything with these graphics, but i dont think its an upgrade really either, just a cheap solution
Originally posted by neumac
It never occurred to me that Apple would actually release a machine with degraded graphics performance versus the G4 mini. People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close. Maybe it?s just me, but when waiting for the new model I just expected it to be better than, or at least equal to the previous generation in all respects.
Where are your tests showing the GMA 950 to be worse than a 9200?
I had a quick google and was finding it hard to find definitive tests as the 9200 doesn't even run the newer benchmarks and is a few years old.
However,
http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-535-x-9-9-x gives a 128MB 9200 a 3dMark03 benchmark of 1157 compared to an FX5200 getting 1232 at 1024x768
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=800 gives the GMA 950 a 3dMark03 benchmark of 1837 on a Pentium D 820 @ 2.8Ghz. The Core Duo 1.6 should be quicker than that.
The larger scores in that test above are using an Nvidia 6800GT btw - ie. not a cheap card.
Originally posted by melgross
From what I've been reading, the PS3 might cost Sony $800 to build!
Then they would be selling it for $300-$400 below cost.
Actually from all the news i've read the PS3 cost $900 to make and that they plan to sell the system for $500.
If they sold it for that $300-$400 Sony would loose a lot of money!
Not to mention they are having a lot of problems and that the PS3 release date is being pushed back and some analyst say as far back as 2007... or very late 2006!
Anyways I'm going to wait until the Mac mini is tested and see how it performs, then I'll pass on judgement.
Edit: Here is some news..
Business 2.0
New Sony PlayStation to break the bank
Monday February 27, 12:24 pm ET
In the videogame business, hardware makers generally sell new consoles at a loss, making their profits by charging licensing fees to videogame publishers. But according to an analysis by News.com, Sony is paying an unusually steep bill for its upcoming PlayStation 3 console. The system's components cost between $725 and $905, analysts estimate. The biggest culprit: Sony's new Blu-Ray disc drive, which will play high-definition movies as well as games. With the PS3 console expected to sell between $299 and $399, Sony will lose hundreds of dollars per console. Of course, if the PS3 is a hit, the move could still pay off. Component prices usually drop sharply as a console continues production, and the more consoles Sony sells, the more licensing fees it will garner from videogames sold for the PS3.
\t
Sony may delay PS3 launch
Correspondents in Tokyo
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
SONY may have to delay the long-awaited launch of its PlayStation 3 console until the autumn because certain specifications were not set on time.
The launch could be delayed from the scheduled debut in the spring because of the failure to set the specifications of the Blue-ray DVD technology, a Sony Computer Entertainment spokesman said, according to Kyodo News.
The Blu-ray DVD technology is "indispensable" for PlayStation 3 consoles which feature high-definition, movie-quality graphics, the Sony spokesman reportedly said.
A group of about 80 Blu-ray DVD manufacturers, including Sony and Matsushita Electric Industrial, failed to set specifications for the advanced DVD format by the end of last year, Kyodo said.
Mass manufacturing is finally set to begin at the end of the month, the news agency said, citing industry sources.\t
Officials at the producer of the popular PlayStation game console series could not be reached for comment on the report.
Sony Computer Entertainment has apparently been behind schedule in taking orders for the new PlayStations from retailers, Kyodo said.
Hirokazu Hamamura, president of Enterbrain, a leading publisher of computer game magazines, told Kyodo that it would be difficult for Sony to release the new console as scheduled.
"Sony has not begun taking orders early this month, that means that it would be difficult for the company to begin sales in May," he said.
Sony is now likely to shift its focus on product sales from the spring to the year-end sales period, promotion for which begins in October, industry analysts said.
The expected delay may pressure the Sony group's earnings, the news servie reported.
The PlayStation series has been one of the major pillars of the Sony group's earnings.
Total global shipments of its PlayStation 2 game console had exceeded 100 million units by last November since its launch in March 2000.
The original PlayStation took nine years and six months to clock up similar numbers.