According to this, the Macworld tests used the Universal version:
The previous benchmark test the 1.42GHz G4 ran UT at 14.5 frames while the Core Solo mini ran at 10 frames and the Core Duo at 12.2. It does not really specify if this was universal version or not. It seems they would have noted that so I assumed it wasn't.
The next test posted said the 1.42GHz G4 ran UT at 12 frames and the Core Solo at 10 frames and nothing is said about the Core Duo. Which certainly means the G4 did not outperform the Core Duo.
The article does mention the advantages of GMA:
Because it has twice the amount of RAM allocated to it compared to the Radeon 9200, and because the GMA 950 can support pixel shading, the Mac mini is, for the first time, capable of displaying graphics effects rendered using Tiger?s ?Core Image? technology. Another thing the GMA 950 is better at than the Radeon 9200 is its fill rate. It?s capable of rendering almost fifty percent more pixels per second than the Radeon chip that was in the older Mac mini.
Some context on 3D gaming:
I readily admit that?s only one test, and it?s not conclusive enough to write off the Mac mini as a gaming machine all together. Apple?s Boger told me that Apple?s tests showed a considerable improvement in frame rate on Pangea Software?s popular 3D action game Nanosaur II, for example. That?s not entirely a surprise, though, as Nanosaur II emphasizes CPU speed over GPU capabilities. And the Mac mini is unquestionably faster in that regard.
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.
We both said the G4 mini will not outperform the Core Duo mini in universal applications.
We both said the G4 mini will not outperform the Core Duo mini in universal applications.
To reiterate my point, this thread is about graphics card performance. We know the Intel CPUs are faster than the G4 ones. So yes, some apps that are more CPU intensive will be faster but that's not the point. The CPU is making up for the bad GPU. Pure hardware acceleration tests show it up:
First off, I don't know how he managed to round 14.7% to "20%", but even aside that, he's only stating the obvious. Of course the GMA 950 doesn't have as much bandwidth; it doesn't have its own memory. It shares a channel with the CPU.
...he's only stating the obvious. Of course the GMA 950 doesn't have as much bandwidth; it doesn't have its own memory. It shares a channel with the CPU.
The fact that this is obvious does not change the fact that the GMA sucks in 3D, even compared to the old Radeon 9200. However, contrary to what one would believe reading these forums, this means little to nothing for most people.
The fact that this is obvious does not change the fact that the GMA sucks in 3D, even compared to the old Radeon 9200. However, contrary to what one would believe reading these forums, this means little to nothing for most people.
Hear Hear.
The 950 is a low-cost solution for video output. But it is perfectly adequate for the sort of 2D acceleration which makes typical computer applications more pleasant to use.
Better still, it handles fairly challenging media acceleration.
And to be totally honest you can even throw professional applications at it and it does OK. It is capable of supporting FCP, you can run Motion quite well, and I think you can even run Shake. Which is astonishing if you think about it.
Given this impressive all-round perfomance, it is surprising that people feel so worked-up about its poor performance.
Truth is, that the integrated 950 only seriously fails in heavy-duty 3D apps and videogames.
Now I doubt that many CGI studios are sitting there cursing their Mac minis.
So it really comes down to one issue: videogames. The least essential use for a computer imaginable.
So if your whole life revolves around the frame-rate of Doom 3, you are entirely justified in your ire. If this really, really matters to you - don't buy a Mac with an integrated GPU.
Truth is, that the integrated 950 only seriously fails in heavy-duty 3D apps and videogames.
...
So if your whole life revolves around the frame-rate of Doom 3, you are entirely justified in your ire. If this really, really matters to you - don't buy a Mac with an integrated GPU.
I don't think I said something different. And I expressed my feeling that 3D applications (recent games etc.) do not really matter for most people.
I think you can even run Shake. Which is astonishing if you think about it.
Not really. I can and do run Shake on a G4 powerbook. It's mainly CPU intensive so naturally the Intel machines will run it pretty well but again this is not the subject of the discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carniphage
Truth is, that the integrated 950 only seriously fails in heavy-duty 3D apps and videogames.
Nope, it fails on pretty low end 3D software too. Even PC users have trouble with some 3D apps when on integrated graphics.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carniphage
So if your whole life revolves around the frame-rate of Doom 3, you are entirely justified in your ire. If this really, really matters to you - don't buy a Mac with an integrated GPU.
I wish people would stop repeating that over and over. That's not the issue at all. The comment about not buying a Mac with an integrated GPU is thrown about an awful lot but it's a ludicrous suggestion that to get a better graphics experience, you have to either settle for an all-in-one, which not everybody likes (me included) or pay $1000 more for a seriously overpowered machine. Those choices just don't cover the market.
To reiterate my point, this thread is about graphics card performance.
No GPU is an island, the CPU and GPU work together.
Quote:
Those choices just don't cover the market.
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.
Yeah I'll tell you guys that I often preview MPG2 files on my mac mini, delivered via DVI to my 42" HD Hitachi plasma. I had a few problems at first but I tweaked my encoding techniques (it's not so easy to get the compression just right and it's surprisingly considerable) and tweaked the amount of RAM available to the "graphics chip" from 64 mb to 128 MB of the 1GB available for all and it works fine now.
Now I can encode my work, transfer it over the network and view it in full HD without an HD DVD or Blu-Ray. Though I'd love to see a Blu-Ray reader and have some hardware support for Blu-Ray and deinterlacing.
Oh and I'd love to not have to overscan my display either. I tried creating my own timing profile and it never seemed to work always needed to change monitors out to "reset" the prefs and take control. I got close but I was never able to center the picture on the display. Once it turned into a days worth of work I had to give up...
Comments
Originally posted by Chucker
I seriously doubt any Core Duo-based Mac is not good enough at playing back any 1080p content.
I'm commenting on the PQ on the playback. I have no doubt about it's abilty to playback, since it's more cpu bound.
According to this, the Macworld tests used the Universal version:
The previous benchmark test the 1.42GHz G4 ran UT at 14.5 frames while the Core Solo mini ran at 10 frames and the Core Duo at 12.2. It does not really specify if this was universal version or not. It seems they would have noted that so I assumed it wasn't.
The next test posted said the 1.42GHz G4 ran UT at 12 frames and the Core Solo at 10 frames and nothing is said about the Core Duo. Which certainly means the G4 did not outperform the Core Duo.
The article does mention the advantages of GMA:
Because it has twice the amount of RAM allocated to it compared to the Radeon 9200, and because the GMA 950 can support pixel shading, the Mac mini is, for the first time, capable of displaying graphics effects rendered using Tiger?s ?Core Image? technology. Another thing the GMA 950 is better at than the Radeon 9200 is its fill rate. It?s capable of rendering almost fifty percent more pixels per second than the Radeon chip that was in the older Mac mini.
Some context on 3D gaming:
I readily admit that?s only one test, and it?s not conclusive enough to write off the Mac mini as a gaming machine all together. Apple?s Boger told me that Apple?s tests showed a considerable improvement in frame rate on Pangea Software?s popular 3D action game Nanosaur II, for example. That?s not entirely a surprise, though, as Nanosaur II emphasizes CPU speed over GPU capabilities. And the Mac mini is unquestionably faster in that regard.
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.
We both said the G4 mini will not outperform the Core Duo mini in universal applications.
Originally posted by TenoBell
We both said the G4 mini will not outperform the Core Duo mini in universal applications.
To reiterate my point, this thread is about graphics card performance. We know the Intel CPUs are faster than the G4 ones. So yes, some apps that are more CPU intensive will be faster but that's not the point. The CPU is making up for the bad GPU. Pure hardware acceleration tests show it up:
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/...le-opengl.html
Originally posted by Chucker
...he's only stating the obvious. Of course the GMA 950 doesn't have as much bandwidth; it doesn't have its own memory. It shares a channel with the CPU.
The fact that this is obvious does not change the fact that the GMA sucks in 3D, even compared to the old Radeon 9200. However, contrary to what one would believe reading these forums, this means little to nothing for most people.
Originally posted by PB
The fact that this is obvious does not change the fact that the GMA sucks in 3D, even compared to the old Radeon 9200. However, contrary to what one would believe reading these forums, this means little to nothing for most people.
Hear Hear.
The 950 is a low-cost solution for video output. But it is perfectly adequate for the sort of 2D acceleration which makes typical computer applications more pleasant to use.
Better still, it handles fairly challenging media acceleration.
And to be totally honest you can even throw professional applications at it and it does OK. It is capable of supporting FCP, you can run Motion quite well, and I think you can even run Shake. Which is astonishing if you think about it.
Given this impressive all-round perfomance, it is surprising that people feel so worked-up about its poor performance.
Truth is, that the integrated 950 only seriously fails in heavy-duty 3D apps and videogames.
Now I doubt that many CGI studios are sitting there cursing their Mac minis.
So it really comes down to one issue: videogames. The least essential use for a computer imaginable.
So if your whole life revolves around the frame-rate of Doom 3, you are entirely justified in your ire. If this really, really matters to you - don't buy a Mac with an integrated GPU.
C.
Originally posted by Carniphage
Truth is, that the integrated 950 only seriously fails in heavy-duty 3D apps and videogames.
...
So if your whole life revolves around the frame-rate of Doom 3, you are entirely justified in your ire. If this really, really matters to you - don't buy a Mac with an integrated GPU.
I don't think I said something different.
Originally posted by Carniphage
I think you can even run Shake. Which is astonishing if you think about it.
Not really. I can and do run Shake on a G4 powerbook. It's mainly CPU intensive so naturally the Intel machines will run it pretty well but again this is not the subject of the discussion.
Originally posted by Carniphage
Truth is, that the integrated 950 only seriously fails in heavy-duty 3D apps and videogames.
Nope, it fails on pretty low end 3D software too. Even PC users have trouble with some 3D apps when on integrated graphics.
Originally posted by Carniphage
So if your whole life revolves around the frame-rate of Doom 3, you are entirely justified in your ire. If this really, really matters to you - don't buy a Mac with an integrated GPU.
I wish people would stop repeating that over and over. That's not the issue at all. The comment about not buying a Mac with an integrated GPU is thrown about an awful lot but it's a ludicrous suggestion that to get a better graphics experience, you have to either settle for an all-in-one, which not everybody likes (me included) or pay $1000 more for a seriously overpowered machine. Those choices just don't cover the market.
To reiterate my point, this thread is about graphics card performance.
No GPU is an island, the CPU and GPU work together.
Those choices just don't cover the market.
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.
This market here?
Originally posted by Chucker
How about you provide some sources then.
http://download.intel.com/design/mob...s/30921902.pdf
there you go. pages 330++ are of most interest.
basically, the 945gm only supports one slot per channel. (and how many slots are there?)
(note that the memory controller also supports asymmetric dual-channel.)
apple's detailed dev note on ram expansion also notes the use of interleaved memory:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...TP40003899-SW1
[The GMA 950] supports two distinct 1080p H.264 streams, for instance.
now i'll have to disagree with you again.
the gma950 only supports hardware accelerated playback of mpeg2 streams.
(but a core duo with a healthy amount of ram will do the job just fine..)
Now I can encode my work, transfer it over the network and view it in full HD without an HD DVD or Blu-Ray. Though I'd love to see a Blu-Ray reader and have some hardware support for Blu-Ray and deinterlacing.
Oh and I'd love to not have to overscan my display either. I tried creating my own timing profile and it never seemed to work always needed to change monitors out to "reset" the prefs and take control. I got close but I was never able to center the picture on the display. Once it turned into a days worth of work I had to give up...