1. you put a 6600GT or 7600GT in a Mac Mini and boy, that is going to have some real kick ass graphics, also for openGL accelerated stuff, Motion, and the like, not just for games.
2. you would also have to tell me why the nVidia-Apple relationship sucks balls -- is there something they are just not seeing eye-to-eye? some aspect of synergy swooshing by?
3. i agree that the mac mini per se is only meant to be used for gaming 5% of the time (the 3D gaming kind). 25% of the time if gaming is used it will be those puzzle kinds (non 3d)
4. given point 3 above though intel integrated graphics is a cynical move on apple's part. 64mb x1300 pci express would have covered the bases nicely.
5. as an above poster mentioned, even better, a special edition with GeForce Go 6200 would be just nice.
6. for a second, lets consider, nevermind ati, nvidia, and intel integrated graphics, a plug-in daugtercard for sony playstation 2 would be you know, perfectomundo.
So far benchmarking of the Intel mini shows its fair with 2D gaming and suffers at 3D gaming. What barometer has gauged that 3D gaming is an absolute must for any modern computer?
If that were true Dell would not be able to sell its XPS 600 Extreme Gaming box for $4200.
I wouldn't exactly call it as having to guage 3d gaming performance on a macmini, but 3d gaming is used for guaging shader 2.0 & 3.0/OGL 2.0 performance which is part of the desktop feature engine built into the OS X or soon to be used. I'm sure Vista will also have these requirements as well once it's released, and larger/denser pixel displays will require faster 3d performance. However, those features happened to help with 3d gaming as well.....
Who knows when all the websites will turn into 3D pages or 3d engine will be required to run parts of the page. Having said that.... new macmini was a deja vu of the G4 macmini. I remember the time when Tiger was released and the need of shader 2.0...... then revised macmini with ati 9200 where imac g5 gets ATI x00 line. What a strategy by apple.
going for the console gaming market as well as the personal home computer entertainment market would be some good synergy there. i agree that PC/read:Windows gaming is too messy a market to really stuff around with....
1. you put a 6600GT or 7600GT in a Mac Mini and boy, that is going to have some real kick ass graphics, also for openGL accelerated stuff, Motion, and the like, not just for games.
Yeah, it would also make it really hot. I believe that using IG has to do with the amount of heat they can dissipate without needing a fan and/or larger casework.
And before you tell me "well, the G4 mini had dedicated GPU", that was with the G4 processor. Whilst "Core" is a low power (and hence heat) chip, it isn't as low as the G4. Even with IG instead of dedicated GPU, the Intel Mac Mini's power requirements are greater than the G4 version.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
4. given point 3 above though intel integrated graphics is a cynical move on apple's part. 64mb x1300 pci express would have covered the bases nicely.
Could you clarify: are you talking about the same price points, or do you think dedicated GPU should be available at a higher price?
Yeah, it would also make it really hot. I believe that using IG has to do with the amount of heat they can dissipate without needing a fan and/or larger casework.
And before you tell me "well, the G4 mini had dedicated GPU", that was with the G4 processor. Whilst "Core" is a low power (and hence heat) chip, it isn't as low as the G4. Even with IG instead of dedicated GPU, the Intel Mac Mini's power requirements are greater than the G4 version.
Could you clarify: are you talking about the same price points, or do you think dedicated GPU should be available at a higher price?
I thought Apple switched to Intel because their chips generated less heat and could be used in laptops, as opposed to the G5?
I thought Apple switched to Intel because their chips generated less heat and could be used in laptops, as opposed to the G5?
Yes, keyword here being G5. The G5 consumes a lot of power (and therefore generates a lot of heat).
The G4 is a much lower-power (in terms of electricity) chip, but also has lower performance than a G5.
"Core" has slightly higher performance than a G5 (except, probably, in vector calculations), but a power requirement similar to the G4. The "Core" has lots of nifty power-saving features, so can achieve similar or better "average" power usage compared to a G4, but only under light to medium processing loads. At higher loads, the power requirement of the "Core" is higher than G4. Apple must of course design the mini so that it is able to cope with the maximum heat generation of all the internal components, or face very high warranty servicing costs.
..........Yeah, it would also make it really hot. I believe that using IG has to do with the amount of heat they can dissipate without needing a fan and/or larger casework.....
not if they use a mobile variant then (eg. nVidia go 6200)
Originally posted by Mr. H
............Could you clarify: are you talking about the same price points, or do you think dedicated GPU should be available at a higher price?
Yes, keyword here being G5. The G5 consumes a lot of power (and therefore generates a lot of heat).
The G4 is a much lower-power (in terms of electricity) chip, but also has lower performance than a G5.
"Core" has slightly higher performance than a G5 (except, probably, in vector calculations), but a power requirement similar to the G4. The "Core" has lots of nifty power-saving features, so can achieve similar or better "average" power usage compared to a G4, but only under light to medium processing loads. At higher loads, the power requirement of the "Core" is higher than G4. Apple must of course design the mini so that it is able to cope with the maximum heat generation of all the internal components, or face very high warranty servicing costs.
Why don't they just make the Mini bigger and stop with all the silly limitations? Oh I forgot, this is Apple we're talking about
I cannot understand why this conversation continues.
So why do people continue to look at the Mac mini and the GMA950 and be disappointed with its gaming benchmarks when neither were conceived to be made for gaming?
Every time Apple releases anything, the same crowd will appear with the complaints
1. OMG U CAN'T UPGRADE TEH VID3O CARD !!!!!
or if you can upgrade the video card, they will complain that the video card isn't a "DECENT" video card, and that the Mac versions of cards are "two and three generations behind". Of course, if you sat them down in front of identical Macs with different GPUs, they couldn't tell the damn difference. It's all the excitement of getting that new card and installing it.
Repeat this about 4000 times and you have the history of the GPU-obsessed clan.
Every time Apple releases anything, the same crowd will appear with the complaints
1. OMG U CAN'T UPGRADE TEH VID3O CARD !!!!!
or if you can upgrade the video card, they will complain that the video card isn't a "DECENT" video card, and that the Mac versions of cards are "two and three generations behind". Of course, if you sat them down in front of identical Macs with different GPUs, they couldn't tell the damn difference. It's all the excitement of getting that new card and installing it.
Repeat this about 4000 times and you have the history of the GPU-obsessed clan.
Ah, but the question is, how much of the market is "GPU-obsessed", or indeed, care whether they are buying outdated GPU hardware (slightly different groups, with some obvious overlap)?
Personally, I don't really care too much about the GPU in my Mac, because I never play games. But, when I talk about how Apple should offer options, it is in recognition that not everyone thinks like me, or wants the same things out of their hardware. I'm sure that it is the same for some others around here. Some will be complaining because Apple isn't making exactly what they want for their personal use, others will lament the fact that, in their opinion, Apple aren't making computers that appeal to enough people.
Video cards are not required just for gaming, or looking at framerates - actual people, professionals, need them for heavy image editing or heavy video work.
How many people editing video all day long, at work, do you see with $7 dollar cards? The mini is not for them, granted, but the iMac may be. It certainly has one of the better performing chips available to "normal" users, it has a pretty big harddrive, decent RAM, big screens and is a great performer.
Why not be able to upgrade the iMacs card 2 years from now?
Video cards are not required just for gaming, or looking at framerates - actual people, professionals, need them for heavy image editing or heavy video work.
How many people editing video all day long, at work, do you see with $7 dollar cards? The mini is not for them, granted, but the iMac may be. It certainly has one of the better performing chips available to "normal" users, it has a pretty big harddrive, decent RAM, big screens and is a great performer.
Why not be able to upgrade the iMacs card 2 years from now?
Cannibalisation of Power Mac sales? Apple want Pros to buy the Power Mac, not the iMac.
Cannibalisation of Power Mac sales? Apple want Pros to buy the Power Mac, not the iMac.
Exactly. "Heavy image editing or heavy video work" isn't the target market for an iMac. Putting a slot in there would be ignored by 95% of the people buying it, and it would add cost and thickness.
People doing that kind of work get paid, and they can afford the Pro machine.
Gamers get off on "building" their own machine with an AMD processor and an OMG UPRAD3ABL3 VID3O CARD!!! so I fail to see why they want to bitch about Apple in the first place.
professionals, need them for heavy image editing or heavy video work.
Actually in discussions I have with people configuring desktop editing systems the graphics card is one of the last parts discussed. Depending on what type of video you need to edit RAM, storage, and I/O speed are of paramount importance.
But most of the time people in film or video don't sit around looking at computer hardware spec complaining they wish Apple would do this or that.
The concentration is more on actual work and not so much on the computer.
Most everyone knows without question if you want heavy duty performance you have to pay for it.
Most people I know who edit by profession on the Mac own a PowerMac. They don't want an iMac or wish a Mac mini had a replacable GPU. Because Apple has designed the PowerMac for what they need.
Quote:
People doing that kind of work get paid, and they can afford the Pro machine.
Yes that's another part of it. People who are getting paid for their work don't focus so much on the price of their tools. What they focus more on is the productivity of their tools.
I suppose this is why gaming people are complaining. Because gaming is a leisure activity which for most people provides no income or return on investment of expensive gear.
the fact that i get three times the frame rates with my own video card which i bought for one third the cost of the mac video card (x800-crappo-xt) makes me feel like i have big, big balls. that's the truth of the matter. overclocking my 6600GT past 550mhz, having dedicated 128mb vram at 1.2ghz, and pushing 1800 3dMark06's makes me feel like THE MAN. (not the g-Man, but a MAN). never mind if games are too much for me that i'd rather play puzzle stuff and most japanese-3d-anime-game-things-on-ps2- are well beyond my comprehension. 1800 3dMark06s. BIG BALLS. YEAH. That's what 3D graphics is about.
yeah personally i never figured out why i would need 256mb or 512mb in my video card alone. seriously. because at most pushing out 1280x1024 having that 128mb vram is more than enough. really.
Comments
1. you put a 6600GT or 7600GT in a Mac Mini and boy, that is going to have some real kick ass graphics, also for openGL accelerated stuff, Motion, and the like, not just for games.
2. you would also have to tell me why the nVidia-Apple relationship sucks balls -- is there something they are just not seeing eye-to-eye? some aspect of synergy swooshing by?
3. i agree that the mac mini per se is only meant to be used for gaming 5% of the time (the 3D gaming kind). 25% of the time if gaming is used it will be those puzzle kinds (non 3d)
4. given point 3 above though intel integrated graphics is a cynical move on apple's part. 64mb x1300 pci express would have covered the bases nicely.
5. as an above poster mentioned, even better, a special edition with GeForce Go 6200 would be just nice.
6. for a second, lets consider, nevermind ati, nvidia, and intel integrated graphics, a plug-in daugtercard for sony playstation 2 would be you know, perfectomundo.
Originally posted by TenoBell
So far benchmarking of the Intel mini shows its fair with 2D gaming and suffers at 3D gaming. What barometer has gauged that 3D gaming is an absolute must for any modern computer?
If that were true Dell would not be able to sell its XPS 600 Extreme Gaming box for $4200.
I wouldn't exactly call it as having to guage 3d gaming performance on a macmini, but 3d gaming is used for guaging shader 2.0 & 3.0/OGL 2.0 performance which is part of the desktop feature engine built into the OS X or soon to be used. I'm sure Vista will also have these requirements as well once it's released, and larger/denser pixel displays will require faster 3d performance. However, those features happened to help with 3d gaming as well.....
Who knows when all the websites will turn into 3D pages or 3d engine will be required to run parts of the page. Having said that.... new macmini was a deja vu of the G4 macmini. I remember the time when Tiger was released and the need of shader 2.0...... then revised macmini with ati 9200 where imac g5 gets ATI x00 line. What a strategy by apple.
Originally posted by sunilraman
1. you put a 6600GT or 7600GT in a Mac Mini and boy, that is going to have some real kick ass graphics, also for openGL accelerated stuff, Motion, and the like, not just for games.
Yeah, it would also make it really hot. I believe that using IG has to do with the amount of heat they can dissipate without needing a fan and/or larger casework.
And before you tell me "well, the G4 mini had dedicated GPU", that was with the G4 processor. Whilst "Core" is a low power (and hence heat) chip, it isn't as low as the G4. Even with IG instead of dedicated GPU, the Intel Mac Mini's power requirements are greater than the G4 version.
Originally posted by sunilraman
4. given point 3 above though intel integrated graphics is a cynical move on apple's part. 64mb x1300 pci express would have covered the bases nicely.
Could you clarify: are you talking about the same price points, or do you think dedicated GPU should be available at a higher price?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Yeah, it would also make it really hot. I believe that using IG has to do with the amount of heat they can dissipate without needing a fan and/or larger casework.
And before you tell me "well, the G4 mini had dedicated GPU", that was with the G4 processor. Whilst "Core" is a low power (and hence heat) chip, it isn't as low as the G4. Even with IG instead of dedicated GPU, the Intel Mac Mini's power requirements are greater than the G4 version.
Could you clarify: are you talking about the same price points, or do you think dedicated GPU should be available at a higher price?
I thought Apple switched to Intel because their chips generated less heat and could be used in laptops, as opposed to the G5?
Originally posted by steve666
I thought Apple switched to Intel because their chips generated less heat and could be used in laptops, as opposed to the G5?
Yes, keyword here being G5. The G5 consumes a lot of power (and therefore generates a lot of heat).
The G4 is a much lower-power (in terms of electricity) chip, but also has lower performance than a G5.
"Core" has slightly higher performance than a G5 (except, probably, in vector calculations), but a power requirement similar to the G4. The "Core" has lots of nifty power-saving features, so can achieve similar or better "average" power usage compared to a G4, but only under light to medium processing loads. At higher loads, the power requirement of the "Core" is higher than G4. Apple must of course design the mini so that it is able to cope with the maximum heat generation of all the internal components, or face very high warranty servicing costs.
..........Yeah, it would also make it really hot. I believe that using IG has to do with the amount of heat they can dissipate without needing a fan and/or larger casework.....
not if they use a mobile variant then (eg. nVidia go 6200)
Originally posted by Mr. H
............Could you clarify: are you talking about the same price points, or do you think dedicated GPU should be available at a higher price?
same price point ideally.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Yes, keyword here being G5. The G5 consumes a lot of power (and therefore generates a lot of heat).
The G4 is a much lower-power (in terms of electricity) chip, but also has lower performance than a G5.
"Core" has slightly higher performance than a G5 (except, probably, in vector calculations), but a power requirement similar to the G4. The "Core" has lots of nifty power-saving features, so can achieve similar or better "average" power usage compared to a G4, but only under light to medium processing loads. At higher loads, the power requirement of the "Core" is higher than G4. Apple must of course design the mini so that it is able to cope with the maximum heat generation of all the internal components, or face very high warranty servicing costs.
Why don't they just make the Mini bigger and stop with all the silly limitations? Oh I forgot, this is Apple we're talking about
Originally posted by sunilraman
not if they use a mobile variant then (eg. nVidia go 6200)
Possibly good point. Might still be pushing it with the Core Duo mini.
Originally posted by sunilraman
same price point ideally.
Well, of course. Ideally (from a customer point-of-view), Apple would give away it's computers for free. But is your suggestion realistic?
Originally posted by TenoBell
I cannot understand why this conversation continues.
So why do people continue to look at the Mac mini and the GMA950 and be disappointed with its gaming benchmarks when neither were conceived to be made for gaming?
Every time Apple releases anything, the same crowd will appear with the complaints
1. OMG U CAN'T UPGRADE TEH VID3O CARD !!!!!
or if you can upgrade the video card, they will complain that the video card isn't a "DECENT" video card, and that the Mac versions of cards are "two and three generations behind". Of course, if you sat them down in front of identical Macs with different GPUs, they couldn't tell the damn difference. It's all the excitement of getting that new card and installing it.
Repeat this about 4000 times and you have the history of the GPU-obsessed clan.
Originally posted by lundy
Every time Apple releases anything, the same crowd will appear with the complaints
1. OMG U CAN'T UPGRADE TEH VID3O CARD !!!!!
or if you can upgrade the video card, they will complain that the video card isn't a "DECENT" video card, and that the Mac versions of cards are "two and three generations behind". Of course, if you sat them down in front of identical Macs with different GPUs, they couldn't tell the damn difference. It's all the excitement of getting that new card and installing it.
Repeat this about 4000 times and you have the history of the GPU-obsessed clan.
Ah, but the question is, how much of the market is "GPU-obsessed", or indeed, care whether they are buying outdated GPU hardware (slightly different groups, with some obvious overlap)?
Personally, I don't really care too much about the GPU in my Mac, because I never play games. But, when I talk about how Apple should offer options, it is in recognition that not everyone thinks like me, or wants the same things out of their hardware. I'm sure that it is the same for some others around here. Some will be complaining because Apple isn't making exactly what they want for their personal use, others will lament the fact that, in their opinion, Apple aren't making computers that appeal to enough people.
How many people editing video all day long, at work, do you see with $7 dollar cards? The mini is not for them, granted, but the iMac may be. It certainly has one of the better performing chips available to "normal" users, it has a pretty big harddrive, decent RAM, big screens and is a great performer.
Why not be able to upgrade the iMacs card 2 years from now?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Video cards are not required just for gaming, or looking at framerates - actual people, professionals, need them for heavy image editing or heavy video work.
How many people editing video all day long, at work, do you see with $7 dollar cards? The mini is not for them, granted, but the iMac may be. It certainly has one of the better performing chips available to "normal" users, it has a pretty big harddrive, decent RAM, big screens and is a great performer.
Why not be able to upgrade the iMacs card 2 years from now?
Cannibalisation of Power Mac sales? Apple want Pros to buy the Power Mac, not the iMac.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Cannibalisation of Power Mac sales? Apple want Pros to buy the Power Mac, not the iMac.
Exactly. "Heavy image editing or heavy video work" isn't the target market for an iMac. Putting a slot in there would be ignored by 95% of the people buying it, and it would add cost and thickness.
People doing that kind of work get paid, and they can afford the Pro machine.
Gamers get off on "building" their own machine with an AMD processor and an OMG UPRAD3ABL3 VID3O CARD!!! so I fail to see why they want to bitch about Apple in the first place.
professionals, need them for heavy image editing or heavy video work.
Actually in discussions I have with people configuring desktop editing systems the graphics card is one of the last parts discussed. Depending on what type of video you need to edit RAM, storage, and I/O speed are of paramount importance.
But most of the time people in film or video don't sit around looking at computer hardware spec complaining they wish Apple would do this or that.
The concentration is more on actual work and not so much on the computer.
Most everyone knows without question if you want heavy duty performance you have to pay for it.
Most people I know who edit by profession on the Mac own a PowerMac. They don't want an iMac or wish a Mac mini had a replacable GPU. Because Apple has designed the PowerMac for what they need.
People doing that kind of work get paid, and they can afford the Pro machine.
Yes that's another part of it. People who are getting paid for their work don't focus so much on the price of their tools. What they focus more on is the productivity of their tools.
I suppose this is why gaming people are complaining. Because gaming is a leisure activity which for most people provides no income or return on investment of expensive gear.
The iMac G5 can edit all compressed SD formats and uncompressed SD formats. The iMac can handle HDV with no problem.
Once you get into DVC-Pro HD, HDCAM or anything above the PowerMac is a better choice for many reason other than just the graphics card.