I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core
CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
But did those sites test the 950 running on a system with dual-channel DDR2 system RAM? That could make a huge difference.
For the Extremetech test, yes.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Let's at leasyw ait until we see how Apple has integrated it with everything else before we label it the worst computer ever.
I plan to but it doesn't look good.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
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
Don't I know it. Too bad I already have a very nice 20" display.
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.
Well if this helps any, here a some benefits that the new MacM mini has that people seem to be glossing over and can easily explain the extra $100 cost.
Benefits in the new Mac mini:
CPU: G4 --> Core Solo
HD: ATA 40GB --> SATA 60GB
Memory: DDR --> DDR2
Ethernet: 10/100 --> Gigabit
Wireless: None --> 802.11G 54Mb/s
Bluetooth: Additional Cost --> Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
Additional Ports: More USB ports
Additional Ports: Optical digital I/O
Additional Accessory: IR receiver
Additional Accessory: IR remote
Sure I'm bummed about the intel graphics but what can ya do? Apple hasn't ever gotten it 'all right'.
Well if this helps any, here a some benefits that the new MacM mini has that people seem to be glossing over and can easily explain the extra $100 cost.
Benefits in the new Mac mini:
CPU: G4 --> Core Solo
HD: ATA 40GB --> SATA 60GB
Memory: DDR --> DDR2
Ethernet: 10/100 --> Gigabit
Wireless: None --> 802.11G 54Mb/s
Bluetooth: Additional Cost --> Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
Additional Ports: More USB ports
Additional Ports: Optical digital I/O
Additional Accessory: IR receiver
Additional Accessory: IR remote
Sure I'm bummed about the intel graphics but what can ya do? Apple hasn't ever gotten it 'all right'.
Dave
Jeez! Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? I've only seen one post in this entire thread that claims that the mini is overpriced.
No one who is complaining of a lack of a $499 or cheaper model is complaining that the mini is overpriced. We are complaining about the fact that you have to buy wireless networking, bluetooth, digital audio I/O and front row, even if you don't want any of it. Remove all those additional features, and you have a $499 machine. Wait for the Celeron 4xx, and you have a $449 or hopefully even $399 machine.
I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core
CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!
I hope you are right!!!! If these new little intels w/integrated graphics can at least get by - we are in for good times. I mean think about it - changing cpu chips AND using whole new graphics paths with all of the problems of initial implementation?!?! This is going very smoothly if you think about what Apple is trying to do. I think we have to get used to the fact that from now on the iBooks and Mini's will be dependent mostly on Intel tech/mb's and the MacBooks and PowerMacs will be optimized by Apple. There is going to be distinct differences in the consumer and pro lines. And with the new iMac's finally getting to a real Pro-sumer form, this is an alright scenario for me.
I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core
CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!
Was that MPEG4 streem or MPEG2 at 1080p?...
I would also be curious whether $7 graphic chip is capable of properly deinterlacing/scaling 480i DVD material to 1080p. My work computer(gateway) has this integrated video chip and it's horrible playing back any video clips. I'm sure it has to do with the content as well, but the intergrated graphic chip doesn't do much as a scaler.
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
Yes it slow performance, but have you looked for benchmarks that show the performance of the previous Mini card, the radeon 9200? here is one...
in that at 1024x768x32 the 9200 64mb is getting a 3Dmark 2001SE of 7208. In your own link from Extremetech, they got int he same benchmark, on the intel 950 a 7483
There is going to be distinct differences in the consumer and pro lines.
I think this scenario is really taking shape. The entry level systems will, as you pointed out, be low cost parts that are mostly provided by intel. Pro systems will be more 'Apple' with much greater performance and component separation. It is probably unrealistic to expect the next ibook to be as close in specs to MBP as the old iboook was to the old PB. Hell there was really very little difference.
[Side Thought #23] Maybe this means one can pick up a G4 Mac Mini and Elgato EyeTV200 for about US$500 -- Just nice for my dad, he is considering seriously a standalone DVR thingy for about that price point.
I haven't noticed any EyeTV 200 bargains recently. It may tough finding one for ~$250 right now. And a Mac mini G4 for $250? I dunno about that.
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
No. They raise questions about people expecting DOOM3 to run on a budget computer. PC or Mac. Actual comparisons between the old 9200 and the GMA950 show the 950 is generally faster. It's not going to be stellar but it's perfectly adequate for the computer.
Most people don't run games, especially Mac users. The Mac Mini isn't a games machine in the same way any other $599 computer isn't a games machine either.
[BI don't mean to sound like a dick but I thought most people following Apple news would get the hang of what this Core Solo and Core Duo thing is about. [/B]
Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.
Another interesting feature of the new GMCH is the add-on digital video output card. Dubbed "ADD2+", the card can use 4 or 8 lanes of x16 PCI Express and support up to two displays in multimonitor mode. Alternatively, it can work together to support one very high resolution display. The GMCH can also output S-Video. In addition to the 3D capabilities of the integrated core, Intel has built in a video engine with full hardware motion compensation, MPEG2 hardware decode, subpicture support (e.g., for closed captions), and dynamic de-interlacing.
People keep comparing this chip to gaming chips. Intel explicitly states this is not a gaming chip, this is a media chip. It has been built for HD playback.
Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the average low-end consumer/potential low-end switcher's mindset. Remember, supposedly the people that the mini is aimed at? These people don't know the difference between a Core Duo and a first generation Celeron. They'll be thinking exactly like he said "I can get 3Ghz for $1-200 less. Come on Apple."
No. They raise questions about people expecting DOOM3 to run on a budget computer. PC or Mac. Actual comparisons between the old 9200 and the GMA950 show the 950 is generally faster. It's not going to be stellar but it's perfectly adequate for the computer.
Most people don't run games, especially Mac users. The Mac Mini isn't a games machine in the same way any other $599 computer isn't a games machine either.
I don't have Doom3 yet, but Half Life 2 runs at ~50 FPS on the $600 PC I built.
Next...\
(But no, I wouldn't expect the mini to be able to do that...it's a computer for kids and grandparents)
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
14 FPS Doom 3 800x600 HQ no AA/AF
30.5 FPS for Wolfenstien
/shrug
A 1.25 Ghz MacMini G4 w/32MB 9200 gets 9.3 FPS at 800x600 Med settings for Doom 3.
Given that when shadows were turned off on the 9200 the frame rate jumped to 16.1 I'd say with a bit of tweaking you could get Doom 3 into the low 20s on the GMA 950.
Remember that most of the other game benchmarks are for DX8/9 performance. Also OSX handles some parts of the OpenGL layers so performance on OSX will be lower than Windows. Also that Doom 3 on OSX was (likely) compiled under gcc. Universal games have the opportunity to use Intel's compilers.
I expect the GMA950 to be adequate for the gaming I do while visiting my parents. Certainly for the gaming my dad does. The 950 is stated to be sufficient for HTPC purposes by Extreme Tech.
Good enough.
Quote:
Don't I know it. Too bad I already have a very nice 20" display.
So run it as a second monitor. There are few desktop uses that wouldn't benefit from more real-estate.
Well, great point, except you can get a Tivo with a lifetime subscription for like $350-$400
TiVo's lifetime, previously mentioned and speculated to be short.
Quote:
so you're spending all that extra money for its OS X in the living room, and that's nothing to crow about
My EyeTV 200 isn't in the living room (more details below).
Quote:
(sorry, but Tivo's interface is soooo much better than OS X or front row or the rest. Easy to use and deal with). Seems more sensible to get the tivo to me (plus, its designed to do the TV thing, as opposed to the mac).
Based on what I've learned indirectly (no direct experience) I'd believe TiVo's interface is superior to EyeTV's.
Since no one mentioned it, I'll say (again) that EyeHome is one method of providing access to content stored on remote Macs. My (non-HDTV) wireless media streaming solution looks like:
? can't program EyeTV (DVR) or manage remote media library (workaround: use iBook upstairs to access "components" downstairs)
? no Apple DRM or H.264 playback
And EyeHome's UI won't win any prizes but I've gotten used to it.
I'm satisfied with this solution until after it's possible to upgrade without a relatively expensive computer (+$600 Mac mini) and media storage in my living room.
D'oh! Obviously, "For the mini that is expected to be placed near a large screen TV/monitor", which I even quoted in my questions. My attention got sloppy while thinking about remote content access solutions.
Comments
CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Where are your tests showing the GMA 950 to be worse than a 9200?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/...tel/index.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821808,00.asp
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
Originally posted by Mr. H
But did those sites test the 950 running on a system with dual-channel DDR2 system RAM? That could make a huge difference.
For the Extremetech test, yes.
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Let's at leasyw ait until we see how Apple has integrated it with everything else before we label it the worst computer ever.
I plan to but it doesn't look good.
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
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
Don't I know it. Too bad I already have a very nice 20" display.
Originally posted by Playmaker
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.
Well if this helps any, here a some benefits that the new MacM mini has that people seem to be glossing over and can easily explain the extra $100 cost.
Benefits in the new Mac mini:
CPU: G4 --> Core Solo
HD: ATA 40GB --> SATA 60GB
Memory: DDR --> DDR2
Ethernet: 10/100 --> Gigabit
Wireless: None --> 802.11G 54Mb/s
Bluetooth: Additional Cost --> Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
Additional Ports: More USB ports
Additional Ports: Optical digital I/O
Additional Accessory: IR receiver
Additional Accessory: IR remote
Sure I'm bummed about the intel graphics but what can ya do? Apple hasn't ever gotten it 'all right'.
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
Well if this helps any, here a some benefits that the new MacM mini has that people seem to be glossing over and can easily explain the extra $100 cost.
Benefits in the new Mac mini:
CPU: G4 --> Core Solo
HD: ATA 40GB --> SATA 60GB
Memory: DDR --> DDR2
Ethernet: 10/100 --> Gigabit
Wireless: None --> 802.11G 54Mb/s
Bluetooth: Additional Cost --> Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
Additional Ports: More USB ports
Additional Ports: Optical digital I/O
Additional Accessory: IR receiver
Additional Accessory: IR remote
Sure I'm bummed about the intel graphics but what can ya do? Apple hasn't ever gotten it 'all right'.
Dave
Jeez! Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? I've only seen one post in this entire thread that claims that the mini is overpriced.
No one who is complaining of a lack of a $499 or cheaper model is complaining that the mini is overpriced. We are complaining about the fact that you have to buy wireless networking, bluetooth, digital audio I/O and front row, even if you don't want any of it. Remove all those additional features, and you have a $499 machine. Wait for the Celeron 4xx, and you have a $449 or hopefully even $399 machine.
Originally posted by webmail
I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core
CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!
I hope you are right!!!! If these new little intels w/integrated graphics can at least get by - we are in for good times. I mean think about it - changing cpu chips AND using whole new graphics paths with all of the problems of initial implementation?!?! This is going very smoothly if you think about what Apple is trying to do. I think we have to get used to the fact that from now on the iBooks and Mini's will be dependent mostly on Intel tech/mb's and the MacBooks and PowerMacs will be optimized by Apple. There is going to be distinct differences in the consumer and pro lines. And with the new iMac's finally getting to a real Pro-sumer form, this is an alright scenario for me.
Originally posted by webmail
I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core
CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!
Was that MPEG4 streem or MPEG2 at 1080p?...
I would also be curious whether $7 graphic chip is capable of properly deinterlacing/scaling 480i DVD material to 1080p. My work computer(gateway) has this integrated video chip and it's horrible playing back any video clips. I'm sure it has to do with the content as well, but the intergrated graphic chip doesn't do much as a scaler.
Originally posted by neumac
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/...tel/index.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821808,00.asp
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
Yes it slow performance, but have you looked for benchmarks that show the performance of the previous Mini card, the radeon 9200? here is one...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...ic_r92p/4.html
in that at 1024x768x32 the 9200 64mb is getting a 3Dmark 2001SE of 7208. In your own link from Extremetech, they got int he same benchmark, on the intel 950 a 7483
Yes it sucks, but no its not a downgrade
Originally posted by MacGregor
There is going to be distinct differences in the consumer and pro lines.
I think this scenario is really taking shape. The entry level systems will, as you pointed out, be low cost parts that are mostly provided by intel. Pro systems will be more 'Apple' with much greater performance and component separation. It is probably unrealistic to expect the next ibook to be as close in specs to MBP as the old iboook was to the old PB. Hell there was really very little difference.
Originally posted by sunilraman
[Side Thought #23] Maybe this means one can pick up a G4 Mac Mini and Elgato EyeTV200 for about US$500 -- Just nice for my dad, he is considering seriously a standalone DVR thingy for about that price point.
I haven't noticed any EyeTV 200 bargains recently. It may tough finding one for ~$250 right now. And a Mac mini G4 for $250? I dunno about that.
A ~$200 alternative to the EyeTV 200 to consider:
Plextor ConvertX PX-TV402U
It's USB 2.0 but apparently performance and MPEG-2 recording quality are good (enough). There was some discussion about it here not long ago:
Jim Dalrymple.com -> Elgato -- EyeHome and EyeTV
Site's down now so I can't get the exact thread(s). I remember one person preferring the Plextor over the EyeTV.
Originally posted by neumac
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/...tel/index.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821808,00.asp
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
No. They raise questions about people expecting DOOM3 to run on a budget computer. PC or Mac. Actual comparisons between the old 9200 and the GMA950 show the 950 is generally faster. It's not going to be stellar but it's perfectly adequate for the computer.
Most people don't run games, especially Mac users. The Mac Mini isn't a games machine in the same way any other $599 computer isn't a games machine either.
Originally posted by sunilraman
[BI don't mean to sound like a dick but I thought most people following Apple news would get the hang of what this Core Solo and Core Duo thing is about. [/B]
Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.
Another interesting feature of the new GMCH is the add-on digital video output card. Dubbed "ADD2+", the card can use 4 or 8 lanes of x16 PCI Express and support up to two displays in multimonitor mode. Alternatively, it can work together to support one very high resolution display. The GMCH can also output S-Video. In addition to the 3D capabilities of the integrated core, Intel has built in a video engine with full hardware motion compensation, MPEG2 hardware decode, subpicture support (e.g., for closed captions), and dynamic de-interlacing.
People keep comparing this chip to gaming chips. Intel explicitly states this is not a gaming chip, this is a media chip. It has been built for HD playback.
Originally posted by sjk
Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the average low-end consumer/potential low-end switcher's mindset. Remember, supposedly the people that the mini is aimed at? These people don't know the difference between a Core Duo and a first generation Celeron. They'll be thinking exactly like he said "I can get 3Ghz for $1-200 less. Come on Apple."
Originally posted by vinea
For the mini that is expected to be placed near a large screen TV/monitor the bluetooth is nice.
Got any specific examples of why BT's nice for that? Thanks.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No. They raise questions about people expecting DOOM3 to run on a budget computer. PC or Mac. Actual comparisons between the old 9200 and the GMA950 show the 950 is generally faster. It's not going to be stellar but it's perfectly adequate for the computer.
Most people don't run games, especially Mac users. The Mac Mini isn't a games machine in the same way any other $599 computer isn't a games machine either.
I don't have Doom3 yet, but Half Life 2 runs at ~50 FPS on the $600 PC I built.
Next...
(But no, I wouldn't expect the mini to be able to do that...it's a computer for kids and grandparents)
Originally posted by neumac
Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.
14 FPS Doom 3 800x600 HQ no AA/AF
30.5 FPS for Wolfenstien
/shrug
A 1.25 Ghz MacMini G4 w/32MB 9200 gets 9.3 FPS at 800x600 Med settings for Doom 3.
http://www.macologist.org/showthread.php?t=909
Given that when shadows were turned off on the 9200 the frame rate jumped to 16.1 I'd say with a bit of tweaking you could get Doom 3 into the low 20s on the GMA 950.
Remember that most of the other game benchmarks are for DX8/9 performance. Also OSX handles some parts of the OpenGL layers so performance on OSX will be lower than Windows. Also that Doom 3 on OSX was (likely) compiled under gcc. Universal games have the opportunity to use Intel's compilers.
I expect the GMA950 to be adequate for the gaming I do while visiting my parents. Certainly for the gaming my dad does. The 950 is stated to be sufficient for HTPC purposes by Extreme Tech.
Good enough.
Don't I know it. Too bad I already have a very nice 20" display.
So run it as a second monitor. There are few desktop uses that wouldn't benefit from more real-estate.
Vinea
Originally posted by iPoster
...it's a computer for kids and grandparents
Heck no man, think cluster. I ordered two of these babies, they'll never see a monitor but they'll be used around the clock.
Originally posted by sjk
Got any specific examples of why BT's nice for that? Thanks.
Keyboard/mouse mostly. A dongle would work but ties up a port.
Vinea
Originally posted by Louzer
Well, great point, except you can get a Tivo with a lifetime subscription for like $350-$400
TiVo's lifetime, previously mentioned and speculated to be short.
so you're spending all that extra money for its OS X in the living room, and that's nothing to crow about
My EyeTV 200 isn't in the living room (more details below).
(sorry, but Tivo's interface is soooo much better than OS X or front row or the rest. Easy to use and deal with). Seems more sensible to get the tivo to me (plus, its designed to do the TV thing, as opposed to the mac).
Based on what I've learned indirectly (no direct experience) I'd believe TiVo's interface is superior to EyeTV's.
Since no one mentioned it, I'll say (again) that EyeHome is one method of providing access to content stored on remote Macs. My (non-HDTV) wireless media streaming solution looks like:
Macs + EyeTV + Storage (downstairs) =>
AirPort Express + EyeHome + A/V components (upstairs)
No problem streaming anything within the product limitations (e.g. Does EyeHome support HDTV resolutions?).
Two obvious limitations:
? can't program EyeTV (DVR) or manage remote media library (workaround: use iBook upstairs to access "components" downstairs)
? no Apple DRM or H.264 playback
And EyeHome's UI won't win any prizes but I've gotten used to it.
I'm satisfied with this solution until after it's possible to upgrade without a relatively expensive computer (+$600 Mac mini) and media storage in my living room.
Originally posted by vinea
Keyboard/mouse mostly.
D'oh! Obviously, "For the mini that is expected to be placed near a large screen TV/monitor", which I even quoted in my questions. My attention got sloppy while thinking about remote content access solutions.