Just to point out something, since there has been so much talk about gamers on this thread. Most PC gamers do not build there own computer or even upgrade there video cards. The majority of PC gamers buy a new computer when their current one can not run new games that they want to play. People here are confusing the over-clocker tech nerds with gamers (and while a lot of them are gamers the reverse is not true. From my experience less then 1% of the gamer population over- clocks their system).
Whether you think it is good or bad, a decent GPU is becoming necessary for even turn based strategy games like heros of might and magic (the new one has gone 3d in a serious way). My sister who loves to play games like that will be more then somewhat disappointed if her new Mac cannot play it. She is the type of person that would be more then happy to spend an extra $50-$100 to have a better GPU
Hopefully The next generation of integrated graphics will be a lot better than what is offered today. we will just have to wait and see.
I saw a report that 80% of new laptops and 55% of new desktops sold today have integrated graphics. Between 2003 and 2005 300 million of 500 million computers sold had integrated graphics.
Its clear that integrated graphics is fine for the far majority of the computer market. IG saves money, uses less power, and create less heat. Apple is going along with a trend that has obvious advantages.
That sounds about right (of course that counts all of the corporate computers that are used for nothing but word processing and spreadsheets etc.). So that means that consumers wanted a non-integrated GPU for at least 20% of their laptops and 45% of their desktops -- that is not a small segment of the market at all, and should not be ignored.
Its not ignored. Out of Apple's current line up of five machines two have integrated graphics - three have dedicated graphics - one you can replace the graphics card.
DX9 support on a GMA900 allows me to run World Wind on a Motion Computing Tablet PC. Its not useless to have DX9 compliance on the 950.
Since the 950 + Core Duo can handle 1080p without dropping frames the Mini has a credible niche as a home machine and provides adequate 3D support.
Vinea
to be a HTPC, it has to do more than handle 1080p without dropping frames.... What's the point of smooth frames with crappy PQ?...... I'm considering mac mini for this sole purpose as a HTPC, but the current GMAgarbage just won't cut it for media playback. GMA960 supposed to add the motion adaptive deinterlacing, but it's still comes too short to be acceptable compared to what's being offered(or what had offered a year ago) by ATI or Nvidia in media playback. The current macmini is a great CD/DVD ripper and a fast internet browser, and oh... it also runs MS office...... hm, that's about it.
What's the point of smooth frames with crappy PQ?......I'm considering mac mini for this sole purpose as a HTPC, but the current GMAgarbage just won't cut it for media playback. GMA960 supposed to add the motion adaptive deinterlacing, but it's still comes too short to be acceptable compared to what's being offered(or what had offered a year ago) by ATI or Nvidia in media playback. The current macmini is a great CD/DVD ripper and a fast internet browser, and oh... it also runs MS office...... hm, that's about it.
This is all totally biased opinion. Bring us some facts, benchmarks, shootouts, something.
If you want facts.... go google for GMA950 specs. If you know how to read the spec sheets, you wouldn't be defending such a crappy IGM that is so out dated. Just go look on the specs of the low end but upto date designed graphics chip and crappy intel IGM....... you know will what's missing.... Intel made a graphic memeory buffer module...... not a graphic accelerator.
That URL doesn't work in your favour. It says Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmarks slower on an Intel Mini than on a G4 Mini.
The Intel Mini is faster at CPU stuff (not Rosetta stuff), this we already know. We are talking purely about graphics performance.
Someone already pointed out that you have to be careful when comparing a bad GPU in a fast machine with a better one in a slow machine. The Core Duo chips are a fair bit faster than the G4s and some 3D benchmarks use both the CPU and GPU.
Quote:
In the sake of genearal consumers, the macmini G4 was a good machine with ATI 9200 backing it up.
This is the whole point. I bought a G4 Mini for this reason. I used to have an ibook G3 with a Radeon 7500 16MB and I saw the G4 Mini with 32MB Radeon 9200 and decided that I could pretty much trade one for the other and I did so except £100 on a 1GB Ram upgrade.
The new Mini would cost me about £400 to upgrade and for that I get a very fast processor sure, but a worse GPU because it sucks my RAM. I would even have considered it if it had a Radeon 9200 again but since the prices have dropped a fair bit, Apple could've and should've used something better.
It's not a question of what everybody else is doing - who cares if other manufacturers use integrated chips. Apple are betraying their 'Think Different' attitude.
Does "Video output capabilities of the GMA X3000 are limited to a native VGA output." mean that I think that it means?
It seems there will be an X3000 as well as a 3000, the latter of which will have more features. Also:
Quote:
The video capabilities of the chip are still limited to VGA, but HDMI, DVI, UDI, component, composite, and S-Video can be added through the SVDO port or an expansion card as was the case with the previous GMA900/GMA950.
to be a HTPC, it has to do more than handle 1080p without dropping frames.... What's the point of smooth frames with crappy PQ?...... I'm considering mac mini for this sole purpose as a HTPC, but the current GMAgarbage just won't cut it for media playback. GMA960 supposed to add the motion adaptive deinterlacing, but it's still comes too short to be acceptable compared to what's being offered(or what had offered a year ago) by ATI or Nvidia in media playback. The current macmini is a great CD/DVD ripper and a fast internet browser, and oh... it also runs MS office...... hm, that's about it.
Mac has always had relatively crappy picture quality vis a vis Windows HTPCs as the Apple DVD player sucks in comparison to ffdshow + ZoomPlayer or TheaterTek.
The better deinterlacers on ATI and NVidia are unused on the mac if I recall correctly because of Apple's decoder nor did it use any of the hardware assist in DVD decoding in the Radeon 9200 (motion comp., iDCT support, etc) in the G4.
The 950 isn't the current weak link in this video chain.
For playback of saved HD content from EyeTV and the occasional HD trailer or other content the mini works about as well as any another mac* as stopgap until a real media mac with BR or HD-DVD appears.
Vinea
* assuming you aren't going to bootcamp to Windows at which point you might as well just buy a SFF windows box.
That URL doesn't work in your favour. It says Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmarks slower on an Intel Mini than on a G4 Mini.
Of course you would point out the 3D game that is PPC native. The only two tests the core duo mini was beat by the PPC mini was in the UT2004 and Photoshop only because they are not Universal.
Quote:
and the new macmini coreduo's capability is as limited to the G4 macmini....
This is what the link was in response to, this is what I said was untrue.
Of course you would point out the 3D game that is PPC native. The only two tests the core duo mini was beat by the PPC mini was in the UT2004 and Photoshop only because they are not Universal.
This is what the link was in response to, this is what I said was untrue.
Well UT2004 is now Universal Binary if you download the latest update, however, I very much doubt the Duo would be beaten by the G4 Mini. Just load UT2004 in windows on a Duo and see the results then.
Mac has always had relatively crappy picture quality vis a vis Windows HTPCs as the Apple DVD player sucks in comparison to ffdshow + ZoomPlayer or TheaterTek.
The better deinterlacers on ATI and NVidia are unused on the mac if I recall correctly because of Apple's decoder nor did it use any of the hardware assist in DVD decoding in the Radeon 9200 (motion comp., iDCT support, etc) in the G4.
The 950 isn't the current weak link in this video chain.
For playback of saved HD content from EyeTV and the occasional HD trailer or other content the mini works about as well as any another mac* as stopgap until a real media mac with BR or HD-DVD appears.
Vinea
* assuming you aren't going to bootcamp to Windows at which point you might as well just buy a SFF windows box.
Yup, you got it. I wouldn't use MacOS for media playback unless there're third party softwares available under MacOS. I would likely do the bootcamp route, however, not with the current model of Macmini because the GMA950 would be the weakest link for the media playback in windows or linux. I would actually not mind paying $100/$150 extra for proper media functional Macmini. You have to give apple credit for the casing design and the form factor, though.
What are you talking about? The GMA 950 is more than enough for virtually any media you throw at it to play. It supports two distinct 1080p H.264 streams, for instance.
Mac has always had relatively crappy picture quality vis a vis Windows HTPCs as the Apple DVD player sucks in comparison to ffdshow + ZoomPlayer or TheaterTek.
The better deinterlacers on ATI and NVidia are unused on the mac if I recall correctly because of Apple's decoder nor did it use any of the hardware assist in DVD decoding in the Radeon 9200 (motion comp., iDCT support, etc) in the G4.
Yeah, what's with the deinterlacing? I tried to deinterlace some video footage for use in a presentation and Quicktime and even Final Cut Pro produced awful output. I had to use mpeg2enc and ffmpeg to do it properly.
I also noticed DVD Player isn't too good at deinterlacing either whereas VLC is fine on blend mode. Maybe Apple needs to start using more of this open source technology. It's not like they make a profit from the encoders/decoders.
Quote:
Well UT2004 is now Universal Binary if you download the latest update, however, I very much doubt the Duo would be beaten by the G4 Mini. Just load UT2004 in windows on a Duo and see the results then.
Quote:
Of course you would point out the 3D game that is PPC native.
According to this, the Macworld tests used the Universal version:
"Now, the older Mac mini was no speed demon when it came to playing games: We clocked the 1.42GHz PowerPC G4-based Mac mini at about 12 frames per second when we benchmarked it using Unreal Tournament 2004. The new Core Solo Mac mini averaged about 10 frames per second using the same test, running a Universal Binary of Unreal Tournament 2004."
What are you talking about? The GMA 950 is more than enough for virtually any media you throw at it to play. It supports two distinct 1080p H.264 streams, for instance.
I would prefer one proper media playback, not just fast or two of bad streaming playback.
Comments
Whether you think it is good or bad, a decent GPU is becoming necessary for even turn based strategy games like heros of might and magic (the new one has gone 3d in a serious way). My sister who loves to play games like that will be more then somewhat disappointed if her new Mac cannot play it. She is the type of person that would be more then happy to spend an extra $50-$100 to have a better GPU
Hopefully The next generation of integrated graphics will be a lot better than what is offered today. we will just have to wait and see.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I saw a report that 80% of new laptops and 55% of new desktops sold today have integrated graphics. Between 2003 and 2005 300 million of 500 million computers sold had integrated graphics.
Its clear that integrated graphics is fine for the far majority of the computer market. IG saves money, uses less power, and create less heat. Apple is going along with a trend that has obvious advantages.
That sounds about right (of course that counts all of the corporate computers that are used for nothing but word processing and spreadsheets etc.). So that means that consumers wanted a non-integrated GPU for at least 20% of their laptops and 45% of their desktops -- that is not a small segment of the market at all, and should not be ignored.
Originally posted by slughead
I was trying to point out how pointless DX 9 is on a GMA .... screen door on a submarine? ... tits on a bull? ...
Am I getting through to you at all?
DX9 support on a GMA900 allows me to run World Wind on a Motion Computing Tablet PC. Its not useless to have DX9 compliance on the 950.
Since the 950 + Core Duo can handle 1080p without dropping frames the Mini has a credible niche as a home machine and provides adequate 3D support.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
DX9 support on a GMA900 allows me to run World Wind on a Motion Computing Tablet PC. Its not useless to have DX9 compliance on the 950.
Since the 950 + Core Duo can handle 1080p without dropping frames the Mini has a credible niche as a home machine and provides adequate 3D support.
Vinea
to be a HTPC, it has to do more than handle 1080p without dropping frames.... What's the point of smooth frames with crappy PQ?...... I'm considering mac mini for this sole purpose as a HTPC, but the current GMAgarbage just won't cut it for media playback. GMA960 supposed to add the motion adaptive deinterlacing, but it's still comes too short to be acceptable compared to what's being offered(or what had offered a year ago) by ATI or Nvidia in media playback. The current macmini is a great CD/DVD ripper and a fast internet browser, and oh... it also runs MS office...... hm, that's about it.
What's the point of smooth frames with crappy PQ?......I'm considering mac mini for this sole purpose as a HTPC, but the current GMAgarbage just won't cut it for media playback. GMA960 supposed to add the motion adaptive deinterlacing, but it's still comes too short to be acceptable compared to what's being offered(or what had offered a year ago) by ATI or Nvidia in media playback. The current macmini is a great CD/DVD ripper and a fast internet browser, and oh... it also runs MS office...... hm, that's about it.
This is all totally biased opinion. Bring us some facts, benchmarks, shootouts, something.
Here is a Macworld test: http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firs...inal/index.php
However, as you all know intel GMAxxxx is far from having upto date features.....
What up to date features are you talking about?
and the new macmini coreduo's capability is as limited to the G4 macmini....
This is just plain false. http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firs...arks/index.php
Originally posted by TenoBell
This is all totally biased opinion. Bring us some facts, benchmarks, shootouts, something.
Here is a Macworld test: http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firs...inal/index.php
What up to date features are you talking about?
This is just plain false. http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firs...arks/index.php
If you want facts.... go google for GMA950 specs. If you know how to read the spec sheets, you wouldn't be defending such a crappy IGM that is so out dated. Just go look on the specs of the low end but upto date designed graphics chip and crappy intel IGM....... you know will what's missing.... Intel made a graphic memeory buffer module...... not a graphic accelerator.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't want to read specs, I want to see real world use.
Well.... How many people do you know with HTPC set up who uses Intel IGM GMA950 for their HD/SD playback on HiDef TV?....
Originally posted by TenoBell
This is just plain false. http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firs...arks/index.php
That URL doesn't work in your favour. It says Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmarks slower on an Intel Mini than on a G4 Mini.
The Intel Mini is faster at CPU stuff (not Rosetta stuff), this we already know. We are talking purely about graphics performance.
Someone already pointed out that you have to be careful when comparing a bad GPU in a fast machine with a better one in a slow machine. The Core Duo chips are a fair bit faster than the G4s and some 3D benchmarks use both the CPU and GPU.
In the sake of genearal consumers, the macmini G4 was a good machine with ATI 9200 backing it up.
This is the whole point. I bought a G4 Mini for this reason. I used to have an ibook G3 with a Radeon 7500 16MB and I saw the G4 Mini with 32MB Radeon 9200 and decided that I could pretty much trade one for the other and I did so except £100 on a 1GB Ram upgrade.
The new Mini would cost me about £400 to upgrade and for that I get a very fast processor sure, but a worse GPU because it sucks my RAM. I would even have considered it if it had a Radeon 9200 again but since the prices have dropped a fair bit, Apple could've and should've used something better.
It's not a question of what everybody else is doing - who cares if other manufacturers use integrated chips. Apple are betraying their 'Think Different' attitude.
Originally posted by Schlaefer
Does "Video output capabilities of the GMA X3000 are limited to a native VGA output." mean that I think that it means?
It seems there will be an X3000 as well as a 3000, the latter of which will have more features. Also:
The video capabilities of the chip are still limited to VGA, but HDMI, DVI, UDI, component, composite, and S-Video can be added through the SVDO port or an expansion card as was the case with the previous GMA900/GMA950.
Originally posted by bitemymac
to be a HTPC, it has to do more than handle 1080p without dropping frames.... What's the point of smooth frames with crappy PQ?...... I'm considering mac mini for this sole purpose as a HTPC, but the current GMAgarbage just won't cut it for media playback. GMA960 supposed to add the motion adaptive deinterlacing, but it's still comes too short to be acceptable compared to what's being offered(or what had offered a year ago) by ATI or Nvidia in media playback. The current macmini is a great CD/DVD ripper and a fast internet browser, and oh... it also runs MS office...... hm, that's about it.
Mac has always had relatively crappy picture quality vis a vis Windows HTPCs as the Apple DVD player sucks in comparison to ffdshow + ZoomPlayer or TheaterTek.
The better deinterlacers on ATI and NVidia are unused on the mac if I recall correctly because of Apple's decoder nor did it use any of the hardware assist in DVD decoding in the Radeon 9200 (motion comp., iDCT support, etc) in the G4.
The 950 isn't the current weak link in this video chain.
For playback of saved HD content from EyeTV and the occasional HD trailer or other content the mini works about as well as any another mac* as stopgap until a real media mac with BR or HD-DVD appears.
Vinea
* assuming you aren't going to bootcamp to Windows at which point you might as well just buy a SFF windows box.
That URL doesn't work in your favour. It says Unreal Tournament 2004 benchmarks slower on an Intel Mini than on a G4 Mini.
Of course you would point out the 3D game that is PPC native. The only two tests the core duo mini was beat by the PPC mini was in the UT2004 and Photoshop only because they are not Universal.
and the new macmini coreduo's capability is as limited to the G4 macmini....
This is what the link was in response to, this is what I said was untrue.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Of course you would point out the 3D game that is PPC native. The only two tests the core duo mini was beat by the PPC mini was in the UT2004 and Photoshop only because they are not Universal.
This is what the link was in response to, this is what I said was untrue.
Well UT2004 is now Universal Binary if you download the latest update, however, I very much doubt the Duo would be beaten by the G4 Mini. Just load UT2004 in windows on a Duo and see the results then.
Originally posted by vinea
Mac has always had relatively crappy picture quality vis a vis Windows HTPCs as the Apple DVD player sucks in comparison to ffdshow + ZoomPlayer or TheaterTek.
The better deinterlacers on ATI and NVidia are unused on the mac if I recall correctly because of Apple's decoder nor did it use any of the hardware assist in DVD decoding in the Radeon 9200 (motion comp., iDCT support, etc) in the G4.
The 950 isn't the current weak link in this video chain.
For playback of saved HD content from EyeTV and the occasional HD trailer or other content the mini works about as well as any another mac* as stopgap until a real media mac with BR or HD-DVD appears.
Vinea
* assuming you aren't going to bootcamp to Windows at which point you might as well just buy a SFF windows box.
Yup, you got it. I wouldn't use MacOS for media playback unless there're third party softwares available under MacOS. I would likely do the bootcamp route, however, not with the current model of Macmini because the GMA950 would be the weakest link for the media playback in windows or linux. I would actually not mind paying $100/$150 extra for proper media functional Macmini. You have to give apple credit for the casing design and the form factor, though.
Originally posted by vinea
Mac has always had relatively crappy picture quality vis a vis Windows HTPCs as the Apple DVD player sucks in comparison to ffdshow + ZoomPlayer or TheaterTek.
The better deinterlacers on ATI and NVidia are unused on the mac if I recall correctly because of Apple's decoder nor did it use any of the hardware assist in DVD decoding in the Radeon 9200 (motion comp., iDCT support, etc) in the G4.
Yeah, what's with the deinterlacing? I tried to deinterlace some video footage for use in a presentation and Quicktime and even Final Cut Pro produced awful output. I had to use mpeg2enc and ffmpeg to do it properly.
I also noticed DVD Player isn't too good at deinterlacing either whereas VLC is fine on blend mode. Maybe Apple needs to start using more of this open source technology. It's not like they make a profit from the encoders/decoders.
Well UT2004 is now Universal Binary if you download the latest update, however, I very much doubt the Duo would be beaten by the G4 Mini. Just load UT2004 in windows on a Duo and see the results then.
Of course you would point out the 3D game that is PPC native.
According to this, the Macworld tests used the Universal version:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/game...amer/index.php
"Now, the older Mac mini was no speed demon when it came to playing games: We clocked the 1.42GHz PowerPC G4-based Mac mini at about 12 frames per second when we benchmarked it using Unreal Tournament 2004. The new Core Solo Mac mini averaged about 10 frames per second using the same test, running a Universal Binary of Unreal Tournament 2004."
Originally posted by Chucker
What are you talking about? The GMA 950 is more than enough for virtually any media you throw at it to play. It supports two distinct 1080p H.264 streams, for instance.
I would prefer one proper media playback, not just fast or two of bad streaming playback.
Originally posted by bitemymac
I would prefer one proper media playback, not just fast or two of bad streaming playback.
I seriously doubt any Core Duo-based Mac is not good enough at playing back any 1080p content.