Gigabit- Do you know what happens when your NAS is connected via 100T? You get a max of 12MBps throughput theoretically and less in real world. The network is the limiting factor here. Gigabit gets rid of that and other network line bottlenecks.
2 memory slots- Finally you can upgrade the memory without removing the orginal memory.
Duo Core processing- Nuff said. You all would have loved a Dual G5 Mac mini. I see nothing negative here at all.
Graphics- I don't plan to game with a sub $800 computer.
Airport/Bluetooth- Wireless support up the yang.
Superdrive- Dual Layer support. What more do I really need?
This is a hot little box for the "right" person. Gamers need not apply. Anyone else can enjoy this box just fine.
Stupidest. Move. Ever. The Mac mini ALSO needs to be for entry level people that DON?T need gigabit Ethernet, or optical audio in or any of those other features that they added that make it 20% more expensive. It?s good that Apple added them? but they should be an OPTION, and people that want an ENTRY level Mac shouldn?t have to pay the extra $100 for a bunch of stuff they?ll never use.
Completely agree. They're really focusing on the wrong things in an entry level machine. The casing should be bigger, not huge, but somewhat larger (wider maybe), and it should have 3.5" Hard Drive and DVD(RW) drive, this would make the machine a little larger, but would offer MUCH cheaper components that perform even better than the more expensive ones, and would allow the Motherboard to be larger (think iBook size).
This would also leave the door open for perhaps a sideways AGP slot (I realize i'm dreaming, but its true) and even if they had integrated graphics, there would be a slot to make an upgrade if the user wanted to.
Cheapo,last in class garbage graphics are just that, why did Apple even bother? let Apple know how they screwed up yet again by crippling this machine with a 99 cent graphic chip by Intel. Apple you are a mess.
Well, the two models price out to $699 and $949 in Canadian dollars. I'm personally interested to see some benchmarks comparing the two, but I feel that the $949 model is a bit on the expensive side. Given the need to buy a keyboard and mouse, I think that the 17" iMac makes more sense than the Core Duo model of the Mini, unless you already own a monitor.
I'm going to be looking at getting the girlfriend a computer this summer, and I think that the $699 model plus a cheap third-party 19" LCD might be the way to go.
The interesting thing about today's Mini announcement is that it gives us a sense of what Apple's strategy will likely be for the forthcoming "Macbook" models. I suspect they will introduce two variants in the same manner that they have done with the Mini, one with Core Solo, and one with Core Duo. I would speculate that the Core Solo model could come in around $1100 CND, and the Core Duo somewhere around $1300-$1400 CND.
This is Apple's low end machine. It has SOME high-end specs, but you can't expect it to have ALL high-end specs. Other companies use integrated graphics on the low end too--and meanwhile a LOT about the Mac Mini was just upgraded. The Mac Mini is not a hard-core gamer's machine (what low-end PC is?) but it's an even better buy now than before, with a killer OS and software bundle (it can even read and save Word documents, with TextEdit).
I'll wait for real-world reports of the Mac Mini's graphics before I judge that. But I already know that most low-end users don't need the fastest 3D rendering.
I wish you could still get a sub-$500 Mac and I'm sure that day will come again. But I'd gladly pay the $100 increase for:
* Audio-in added
* Digital/optical audio (in and out)
* Wi-Fi now standard
* Bluetooth 2.0 now standard
* Gigabit Ethernet
* 5400 rpm drive
* 50% more hard disk space (and new double-layer SuperDrive on the high end)
* Twice the USB ports
* Two RAM slots
* MUCH faster (and future-proof) processor that nearly rivals a G5 (and duals on the high end!)
* Front Row remote
That's a LOT of improvements over the old models. And LOT of specs that other low-end PCs lack.
Apple is all about coolness and innovation. Unfortunately that also causes them to miss the big picture sometimes. Apple really needs two brand names: The innovative and Stylish Apple and something a little more conservative and practical that still delivers what Apple as a company has to offer.
Yes, Apple makes some cool looking computers, however, I don't think that's a priority on people's shopping requirements. Remember when Apple allowed clones and all that it did was eat away from Apple's hardware sales (I bought clones during that time instead of Apple computers)? They should've learned what the clone makers were doing to sell better than Apple's stuff and copy that rather than kill 'em off and continue with what they were doing.
I don't really care about having a cool looking computer since it sits under my desk out of sight anyways.
Apple did NOT raise the prices for the most part, they just got rid of the low end $499 model. Now if the $499 model was selling well, my guess is they would have kept it. You guys whined and whined for years that Apple needed a low cost model to compete with PCs, but the Mac Mini doesn't even sell that well compared to the way more expensive iMac. There was no huge market for cheaper Macs.
These Mac Mini's now have 5400 RPM hard drives, because I can tell you from my Mac Mini that the 4200 RPM hard drive was the main drawback and was slow as hell.
The $499 model didn't have Airport and Bluetooth, and today's $599 model does, just like the previous $599 model. The hard drive on the $599 model has gone down from 80GB to 60GB, which is bad, but you are getting a free Remote Control.
The Core Duo processor SHOULD add $100 to the price because it is a VERY expensive part at like $150. Lower end computers usually use $50 processors.
A $799 Mac Mini is now blazing fast and in no way comparable to what it is replacing.
I was waiting to buy a new mac mini, I really was but the integrated video card killed me. I would never buy one of these. My only hope that they will not make the same mistakes with the "low end" iBooks
The Core Solo is a VERY expensive chip for a sub-$500 computer. The only price data we have suggests that a 1.66 Ghz Core Solo costs $210. Yes, it is a slightly slower chip (1.5 Ghz) and yes, big OEMs like Apple undoubtedly get further discounts, but even so, Apple is almost surely paying at least $100-150 per processor.
When you consider that the total bill of materials on the original $499 Mini was just $275 (i.e., possibly less than twice as much as just the Core Solo processor itself costs!), it quickly becomes clear why Apple does not sell a Core Solo based mini at $499.
The obvious solution is to use Celeron M instead of Core Solo for the $499 model. However, the Core Solo derived Celeron M 4XX parts are not due until late spring or early summer. The current Celeron M parts (Pentium M Dothan derived) do not support SSE3, and although Apple was originally asking devs to try not to require SSE3, it appears now that SSE3 may be a hardware requirement (e.g., the OS X hackers are working extra to try to get 10.4.4 for Intel to actually run on any SSE2 machine).
Hopefully sometime this summer Apple will be able to hit the $499 price point again, after the Celeron M 4XX parts are released. I am cautiously optimistic.
Intel chips cost more. Get over that. Apple also added to the machine in other ways.
While Apple disappointed investors today, it wasn't because of these machines. It was because they didn't announce a Movie download service like so many were expecting. The market is also down for other reasons, and that didn't help either.
Apple is positioning this for future services, you should be able to see that.
With the larger HD's, GB Ethernet, extra USB 2 ports 5.1 digital sound in and out, and most importantly, with a 1.5GHz cpu Solo that can handle 720p, and 1.67GHz Core Duo, that can handle 1080i and p, Apple is getting ready for future services.
A number of us said to watch for IG from Apple. The 950 will do all that is necessary from this machine. For home theater, a 3D powerhouse is not required. This will do just fine. It will handle all of the various Quartz technologies that Apple has planned, as well as those from MS in Vista.
Mini's were never much a gameplayers machine, and few Mac users are much interested in serious gameplaying either.
Cheapo,last in class garbage graphics are just that, why did Apple even bother? let Apple know how they screwed up yet again by crippling this machine with a 99 cent graphic chip by Intel. Apple you are a mess.
yup.....
What's the point of having core duo with 99 cent graphic chip?... Wonder how it handles core image/expose at 1080p. Well, atleast 99 cent bought you shader 2.0 which performs as good as not having one. I'm definately not ready for this iMac.
Wrong. Intel's integrated graphics was supposedly in 47% of all PC's shipped last year. Gaming is a very small proportion of the market.
It does suck somewhat that they upped the price of entry. In the UK, the cheapest G4 1.25Ghz model was available for £279. The cheapest Core Solo is £449. The Core Duo Mini though makes the iMac look like a bargain.
They do however leave themselves room to slot in a Celeron M 4xx model at about $100 less when Intel start shipping that chip. And don't say they won't do it. People were saying yesterday "No Integrated Graphics".
Nice quote. 47%? Of those 47% what areas were they targeted?
Enterprise Office User
HP Pavillion entry level PC
Gateway entry level PC
Dell entry level PC
All systems for those targeted to do word processing, spreadsheets, none graphics intensive work.
Now how many of those higher end systems, > $500 do you see with these chipsets?
Those who thought they'd pick up an inexpensive system to do some distributed compiles and whatnot, or be able to test app performance on Apple's lowest end system will buy one.
The general consumer will still pass and go for a cheap HP with a monitor, all the delayed rebates and the cheap construction.
This "bookshelf" computer can't decide what it wants to be and Apple is not completely ready to reveal its strategy either.
Apple's own page describing the graphics of the former PowerPC based Mac mini..
"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."
I don't understand all the whining about the integrated graphics. This is not a high powered machine - the intigrated graphics will be more than enough for core graphics functionality (something that can't be said for the 9200 in the G4 Mac Mini).
Somebody mentioned that with the intigrated graphics the Mini won't be able to playback HD video, and that's rediculous. The first Mac to use the video card to decode HD video streams (out of the box, there may have been PCI cards that did this) is the iMac core duo - all those G5s have been doing it strictly on the CPU, and guess what - the Core Duo can handle this no problem.
It's not a gaming machine, but for 99% of users it will be fine. Does your email download slower via intigrated graphics? Does office bog down? Maybe this isn't the mac for the mac enthusiast, but wake up people - it's a fine machine.
I was waiting to buy a new mac mini, I really was but the integrated video card killed me. I would never buy one of these. My only hope that they will not make the same mistakes with the "low end" iBooks
May as well save you the trouble. The next "ibook" will indeed have integrated graphics. That is the "standard" for PC notebooks at the sub $1499 pricepoint.
Melgross excellent points. The Mac mini is on a nice trajectory. I figure in two years it'll have fast dual or quad cores and UDI connections.
Quote:
What's the point of having core duo with 99 cent graphic chip?...
It's obvious to anyone with a brain. A fast majority of your computing task are limited by processing cycles and not graphics capability. Sorry to state the obvious but I hate when good Mac people jettison common sense logic.
I don't understand all the whining about the integrated graphics. This is not a high powered machine - the intigrated graphics will be more than enough for core graphics functionality (something that can't be said for the 9200 in the G4 Mac Mini).
Somebody mentioned that with the intigrated graphics the Mini won't be able to playback HD video, and that's rediculous. The first Mac to use the video card to decode HD video streams (out of the box, there may have been PCI cards that did this) is the iMac core duo - all those G5s have been doing it strictly on the CPU, and guess what - the Core Duo can handle this no problem.
It's not a gaming machine, but 99% or users it will be fine. Does your email download slower via intigrated graphics? Does office bog down? Maybe this isn't the mac for the mac enthusiast, but wake up people - it's a fine machine.
No. What that is saying is the 64 MB is the minimum to active Core Imaging. It doesn't go beyond mentioning the abyssmal performance you'll get having it on.
The chipset also doesn't support OpenGL 2. When Core Imaging/Core Graphics with Quartz 2D Extreme are on, they will be working with OpenGL 2 requirements.
5400rpm drives, more USB and an audio input - all of my thoguhts on my mini have been addressed. I'll hold out til 10.5 at the end of the year and update my mini then, so hopefully rev B intel will be out with slightly better specs still. Anyone think the base model is missing? Will we see a new addition to the line soon?
Actually, the old model later on had 5400rpm drives too.
A $7 graphics processor? C'mon Apple, I would rather have the 9200 back in the Mini that the POS Intel integrated graphics, at least it didn't take system RAM!!
Quote:
"Do you want to burden 90% of the market with 10% of the market's needs?" Katen Shah, a platform architect for Intel asked. "In general, we are not going after the discrete and high end where thermal [heat values], power and cost become real issues. Our per-unit [graphics processor] prices, for example, are now only $7."
Quote:
Intel's integrated graphics GMA 950 core supports DirectX 9 and offers up to 10.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, 667 MHz DDR2 and 1.6 Gpixels/s and 1.6 Gtexels/s fill rates. Despite this, the device still has far to go for acceptable game play, according to Mark Rein, vice president for Epic Games, the developer of the Unreal graphics engine and game series. "Before our release of Unreal 2007, we hope that Intel becomes competitive," Rein said. "But today's very popular games, which are not next-generation games, are virtually unplayable for anybody that cares about gaming. Our fingers are crossed."
I have a PC for playing serious FPS games, but they could at least put a GPU that can handle the occasional game, or HD video without choking!
Comments
Why
Gigabit- Do you know what happens when your NAS is connected via 100T? You get a max of 12MBps throughput theoretically and less in real world. The network is the limiting factor here. Gigabit gets rid of that and other network line bottlenecks.
2 memory slots- Finally you can upgrade the memory without removing the orginal memory.
Duo Core processing- Nuff said. You all would have loved a Dual G5 Mac mini. I see nothing negative here at all.
Graphics- I don't plan to game with a sub $800 computer.
Airport/Bluetooth- Wireless support up the yang.
Superdrive- Dual Layer support. What more do I really need?
This is a hot little box for the "right" person. Gamers need not apply. Anyone else can enjoy this box just fine.
Originally posted by ctachme
Stupidest. Move. Ever. The Mac mini ALSO needs to be for entry level people that DON?T need gigabit Ethernet, or optical audio in or any of those other features that they added that make it 20% more expensive. It?s good that Apple added them? but they should be an OPTION, and people that want an ENTRY level Mac shouldn?t have to pay the extra $100 for a bunch of stuff they?ll never use.
Completely agree. They're really focusing on the wrong things in an entry level machine. The casing should be bigger, not huge, but somewhat larger (wider maybe), and it should have 3.5" Hard Drive and DVD(RW) drive, this would make the machine a little larger, but would offer MUCH cheaper components that perform even better than the more expensive ones, and would allow the Motherboard to be larger (think iBook size).
This would also leave the door open for perhaps a sideways AGP slot (I realize i'm dreaming, but its true) and even if they had integrated graphics, there would be a slot to make an upgrade if the user wanted to.
I'm going to be looking at getting the girlfriend a computer this summer, and I think that the $699 model plus a cheap third-party 19" LCD might be the way to go.
The interesting thing about today's Mini announcement is that it gives us a sense of what Apple's strategy will likely be for the forthcoming "Macbook" models. I suspect they will introduce two variants in the same manner that they have done with the Mini, one with Core Solo, and one with Core Duo. I would speculate that the Core Solo model could come in around $1100 CND, and the Core Duo somewhere around $1300-$1400 CND.
I'll wait for real-world reports of the Mac Mini's graphics before I judge that. But I already know that most low-end users don't need the fastest 3D rendering.
I wish you could still get a sub-$500 Mac and I'm sure that day will come again. But I'd gladly pay the $100 increase for:
* Audio-in added
* Digital/optical audio (in and out)
* Wi-Fi now standard
* Bluetooth 2.0 now standard
* Gigabit Ethernet
* 5400 rpm drive
* 50% more hard disk space (and new double-layer SuperDrive on the high end)
* Twice the USB ports
* Two RAM slots
* MUCH faster (and future-proof) processor that nearly rivals a G5 (and duals on the high end!)
* Front Row remote
That's a LOT of improvements over the old models. And LOT of specs that other low-end PCs lack.
And there IS a demand for small and quiet.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Apple is all about coolness and innovation. Unfortunately that also causes them to miss the big picture sometimes. Apple really needs two brand names: The innovative and Stylish Apple and something a little more conservative and practical that still delivers what Apple as a company has to offer.
Yes, Apple makes some cool looking computers, however, I don't think that's a priority on people's shopping requirements. Remember when Apple allowed clones and all that it did was eat away from Apple's hardware sales (I bought clones during that time instead of Apple computers)? They should've learned what the clone makers were doing to sell better than Apple's stuff and copy that rather than kill 'em off and continue with what they were doing.
I don't really care about having a cool looking computer since it sits under my desk out of sight anyways.
Apple did NOT raise the prices for the most part, they just got rid of the low end $499 model. Now if the $499 model was selling well, my guess is they would have kept it. You guys whined and whined for years that Apple needed a low cost model to compete with PCs, but the Mac Mini doesn't even sell that well compared to the way more expensive iMac. There was no huge market for cheaper Macs.
These Mac Mini's now have 5400 RPM hard drives, because I can tell you from my Mac Mini that the 4200 RPM hard drive was the main drawback and was slow as hell.
The $499 model didn't have Airport and Bluetooth, and today's $599 model does, just like the previous $599 model. The hard drive on the $599 model has gone down from 80GB to 60GB, which is bad, but you are getting a free Remote Control.
The Core Duo processor SHOULD add $100 to the price because it is a VERY expensive part at like $150. Lower end computers usually use $50 processors.
A $799 Mac Mini is now blazing fast and in no way comparable to what it is replacing.
The Core Solo is a VERY expensive chip for a sub-$500 computer. The only price data we have suggests that a 1.66 Ghz Core Solo costs $210. Yes, it is a slightly slower chip (1.5 Ghz) and yes, big OEMs like Apple undoubtedly get further discounts, but even so, Apple is almost surely paying at least $100-150 per processor.
When you consider that the total bill of materials on the original $499 Mini was just $275 (i.e., possibly less than twice as much as just the Core Solo processor itself costs!), it quickly becomes clear why Apple does not sell a Core Solo based mini at $499.
The obvious solution is to use Celeron M instead of Core Solo for the $499 model. However, the Core Solo derived Celeron M 4XX parts are not due until late spring or early summer. The current Celeron M parts (Pentium M Dothan derived) do not support SSE3, and although Apple was originally asking devs to try not to require SSE3, it appears now that SSE3 may be a hardware requirement (e.g., the OS X hackers are working extra to try to get 10.4.4 for Intel to actually run on any SSE2 machine).
Hopefully sometime this summer Apple will be able to hit the $499 price point again, after the Celeron M 4XX parts are released. I am cautiously optimistic.
We've already gone over this on the older thread.
Intel chips cost more. Get over that. Apple also added to the machine in other ways.
While Apple disappointed investors today, it wasn't because of these machines. It was because they didn't announce a Movie download service like so many were expecting. The market is also down for other reasons, and that didn't help either.
Apple is positioning this for future services, you should be able to see that.
With the larger HD's, GB Ethernet, extra USB 2 ports 5.1 digital sound in and out, and most importantly, with a 1.5GHz cpu Solo that can handle 720p, and 1.67GHz Core Duo, that can handle 1080i and p, Apple is getting ready for future services.
A number of us said to watch for IG from Apple. The 950 will do all that is necessary from this machine. For home theater, a 3D powerhouse is not required. This will do just fine. It will handle all of the various Quartz technologies that Apple has planned, as well as those from MS in Vista.
Mini's were never much a gameplayers machine, and few Mac users are much interested in serious gameplaying either.
Originally posted by Aurora
Cheapo,last in class garbage graphics are just that, why did Apple even bother? let Apple know how they screwed up yet again by crippling this machine with a 99 cent graphic chip by Intel. Apple you are a mess.
yup.....
What's the point of having core duo with 99 cent graphic chip?... Wonder how it handles core image/expose at 1080p. Well, atleast 99 cent bought you shader 2.0 which performs as good as not having one. I'm definately not ready for this iMac.
Apple is just getting warmed up, and it's going to be one hell of a big year!
You people are too hard to please, give apple a chance!
Roll on April 1st!
p.s. I love, love, love the Hi-FI!
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Wrong. Intel's integrated graphics was supposedly in 47% of all PC's shipped last year. Gaming is a very small proportion of the market.
It does suck somewhat that they upped the price of entry. In the UK, the cheapest G4 1.25Ghz model was available for £279. The cheapest Core Solo is £449. The Core Duo Mini though makes the iMac look like a bargain.
They do however leave themselves room to slot in a Celeron M 4xx model at about $100 less when Intel start shipping that chip. And don't say they won't do it. People were saying yesterday "No Integrated Graphics".
Nice quote. 47%? Of those 47% what areas were they targeted?
Enterprise Office User
HP Pavillion entry level PC
Gateway entry level PC
Dell entry level PC
All systems for those targeted to do word processing, spreadsheets, none graphics intensive work.
Now how many of those higher end systems, > $500 do you see with these chipsets?
From HP's web site:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/sh...computer_store
This ugly machine allows you to upgrade their Video option from the on-board to :
Choices:
Integrated Intel(R) Graphics Accelerator,no TV-Out
NVIDIA GeForce 6200se
256MB DDR ATI Radeon X1300 Pro, TV-Out and DVI
Those who thought they'd pick up an inexpensive system to do some distributed compiles and whatnot, or be able to test app performance on Apple's lowest end system will buy one.
The general consumer will still pass and go for a cheap HP with a monitor, all the delayed rebates and the cheap construction.
This "bookshelf" computer can't decide what it wants to be and Apple is not completely ready to reveal its strategy either.
"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."
Somebody mentioned that with the intigrated graphics the Mini won't be able to playback HD video, and that's rediculous. The first Mac to use the video card to decode HD video streams (out of the box, there may have been PCI cards that did this) is the iMac core duo - all those G5s have been doing it strictly on the CPU, and guess what - the Core Duo can handle this no problem.
It's not a gaming machine, but for 99% of users it will be fine. Does your email download slower via intigrated graphics? Does office bog down? Maybe this isn't the mac for the mac enthusiast, but wake up people - it's a fine machine.
[edited for spelling]
Originally posted by Ireland
It's only Febuary!
Apple is just getting warmed up, and it's going to be one hell of a big year!
You people are too hard to please, give apple a chance!
Roll on April 1st!
p.s. I love, love, love the Hi-FI!
Since I don't own an iPod, I'll rather just buy the BOSE Acoustimass home system equivalent.
I don't walk around the town with my iPodman and I don't go to the gym : I workout at home, do yoga and turn on the home system.
For me the reasonable entry footprint for this Hi-Fi is $600.
I'll pass.
I have no doubt it will sell well. My stock thanks everyone who wants to buy it.
Originally posted by alberto
I was waiting to buy a new mac mini, I really was but the integrated video card killed me. I would never buy one of these. My only hope that they will not make the same mistakes with the "low end" iBooks
May as well save you the trouble. The next "ibook" will indeed have integrated graphics. That is the "standard" for PC notebooks at the sub $1499 pricepoint.
Melgross excellent points. The Mac mini is on a nice trajectory. I figure in two years it'll have fast dual or quad cores and UDI connections.
What's the point of having core duo with 99 cent graphic chip?...
It's obvious to anyone with a brain. A fast majority of your computing task are limited by processing cycles and not graphics capability. Sorry to state the obvious but I hate when good Mac people jettison common sense logic.
Originally posted by rminkler
I don't understand all the whining about the integrated graphics. This is not a high powered machine - the intigrated graphics will be more than enough for core graphics functionality (something that can't be said for the 9200 in the G4 Mac Mini).
Somebody mentioned that with the intigrated graphics the Mini won't be able to playback HD video, and that's rediculous. The first Mac to use the video card to decode HD video streams (out of the box, there may have been PCI cards that did this) is the iMac core duo - all those G5s have been doing it strictly on the CPU, and guess what - the Core Duo can handle this no problem.
It's not a gaming machine, but 99% or users it will be fine. Does your email download slower via intigrated graphics? Does office bog down? Maybe this isn't the mac for the mac enthusiast, but wake up people - it's a fine machine.
No. What that is saying is the 64 MB is the minimum to active Core Imaging. It doesn't go beyond mentioning the abyssmal performance you'll get having it on.
The chipset also doesn't support OpenGL 2. When Core Imaging/Core Graphics with Quartz 2D Extreme are on, they will be working with OpenGL 2 requirements.
This system will have it off by default.
Originally posted by G_Warren
5400rpm drives, more USB and an audio input - all of my thoguhts on my mini have been addressed. I'll hold out til 10.5 at the end of the year and update my mini then, so hopefully rev B intel will be out with slightly better specs still. Anyone think the base model is missing? Will we see a new addition to the line soon?
Actually, the old model later on had 5400rpm drives too.
"Do you want to burden 90% of the market with 10% of the market's needs?" Katen Shah, a platform architect for Intel asked. "In general, we are not going after the discrete and high end where thermal [heat values], power and cost become real issues. Our per-unit [graphics processor] prices, for example, are now only $7."
Intel's integrated graphics GMA 950 core supports DirectX 9 and offers up to 10.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, 667 MHz DDR2 and 1.6 Gpixels/s and 1.6 Gtexels/s fill rates. Despite this, the device still has far to go for acceptable game play, according to Mark Rein, vice president for Epic Games, the developer of the Unreal graphics engine and game series. "Before our release of Unreal 2007, we hope that Intel becomes competitive," Rein said. "But today's very popular games, which are not next-generation games, are virtually unplayable for anybody that cares about gaming. Our fingers are crossed."
I have a PC for playing serious FPS games, but they could at least put a GPU that can handle the occasional game, or HD video without choking!