The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Apple's senior director of desktops on Mac mini's graphics
macworld.com — Macworld has published an interview with Apple's senior director of desktops, Tom Boger. Boger responds to complaints about the Mac mini Core Solo's integrated graphics card, gives some insights on Apple's implementation, and more.
zezak- 632 diggs
- digg it
- fanboydcs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Interesting Article, It seems that the intel intergrated graphics are not that bad and are more powerful than the 9200, but it still is kinda annoying when you are spending alot of a machine that is used for multimedia. But this article says they benchmarked unreal 2004 on the new and old minis and the old mini gave higher FPS, well that is because the core solo is using rosetta.
I love the new mini, I wish I had one now! - jamen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2So you wouldn't buy a Mac Mini Core Solo for playing video games, they weren't trying to make a gaming console anyways. They were, however trying to make a movie watching machine, and they did that well.
http://www.humanbeingcurious.com - Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Something that was pointed out to me, and makes perfect sense, that that putting anything inside a mac that eats up system ram is a bad thing. My G4 mini had 512MB of ram, but it would slow to a crawl if I tried doing any kind of multitasking with it... with 80MB of ram now allocated for video I fear the problem would get even worse.
- SupaDawg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Who wants to start a pool at to how many diggs this gets just because it has Apple in the title?
- StigT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i've got a PPC mini with 1GB of memory. It multi-tasks very well. I wouldn't get less than a GB for any desktop machine anymore. It's a $100 extra on Apple's minis.
- Frank_the_Tank, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I'll start a pool to see how many diggs this gets in reaction to how many idiots want to pay $600 - $800 for a machine with Integrated Intel video...
- jeffburg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1i hope they are right about the performance increase in graphics
is Unreal that they mention there a universal binary yet?
if its not that would explain the slow down
however, when blizzard puts WOW in a universal binary... thats when we will find out how the new integrated graphics chip works - scottauth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1XBox Media Center -- 'nuff said.
- speedmaster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I seem to remember Apple using this type of implementation back in the days of machines like the IIcx, IIci, or similar machines. maybe 1993-1995 era if I remember correctly? I think it was considered good in some ways, poor in others.
But I'm not really concerned about it in the Mini. It's intended to be an entry-level machine with a lot of abng for the buck. I don't expect it to be used for high end video or gaming. Now if the higher end Macs were doing it, that would be another story. Just my two cents.
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/ - Frank_the_Tank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's a review of the card, for the PC, in all it's glory:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821808,00.asp - Antialias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jeffburg: WOW has been universal for over a month.
- sabarsky, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Who wants to start a pool as to how many people will mention that just because it has Apple in the title, it's on the front page?
And then we'll start a pool on how many people want to start a pool on the people that respond to posts that mention how many diggs this gets just because it has Apple in the title?
And so on and so on... - acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whats interesting about this to my thinking is how well "shared"memory works with quartz extreme (the process data on the video chip). Does it allow graphic chip access memory blocks outside its 80 mb base for speed improvements? (ie you don't need to pipe data over the bus as often).
- arkive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Who wants to start a pool at to how many diggs this gets just because it has Apple in the title?"
Who wants to start a pool as to how many people come in here and bitch about it having Apple in the title? - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Something that was pointed out to me, and makes perfect sense, that that putting anything inside a mac that eats up system ram is a bad thing. My G4 mini had 512MB of ram, but it would slow to a crawl if I tried doing any kind of multitasking with it... with 80MB of ram now allocated for video I fear the problem would get even worse."
That is true but they have definitely improved the situation with the ram to now be able to hold 2 dimms and max at 2GB. - webpoet73, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I'll start a pool to see how many diggs this gets in reaction to how many idiots want to pay $600 - $800 for a machine with Integrated Intel video..."
There are 600 to 800 dollar Dells with the same Integrated chipset.
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/entdt_e510?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Althought the Dell comes with a kb/mouse/monitor... of course, the base dell kb/mouse are pretty cheap. So, you do get a monitor. - tophfisher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2True that arkive...
If you really are such a loser that Apple post on digg bother you, THEN DO NOT CLICK THE LINK.
WOW! Just like I ignore every stupid Xbox360/Microsoft headline.. But I don't go whine in the comments section about it... - MxxCon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0x86 architecture isn't as memory dependent as PPC, so more mem on Intel platform does not necessarily give as much boost(because it's already working faster).
and why are we all ignoring the fact that apple DISSED Intel's integrated video when they released original mini...now they turn around and sell you even slower machine for same money.
instead of 806.11A wifi, they should've included faster video. - jewdass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Both WoW and UT2004 are Universal binaries, and have been for some time. Doom 3 is out as a UB as well.
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0200 dollar computer, 400 dollar logo - Mac Mini's suck, and they still do, I've had two, and well, it's not just the graphics for games, its the graphics for viewing HD video content, which studders when tyring to do anything else --- in order to view the HD I have to stop doing whatever else I'm doing.
- Frank_the_Tank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0webpoet73: the link you supplied has Dell's with, at minimum, a 128MB X300 dedicated video card... I don't know if you meant to link to another machine to prove your point. LOL!
I know that lower-end suppliers like Compaq and eMachines have Intel Integrated desktops, but those are in the uber-cheap $300 range.
My point is that I expect Apple to at least use the non-cheapest parts... - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Captain Obvious Says:
It can be more expensive to buy a Mac Mini with a Monitor, a Keyboard and a Mouse than bying an iMac. And you get half the machine. - WhackingDay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Why do computer enthusiasts always assume they're getting these Mac things rammed down their throats. Look, these aren't for you, okay. If you're playing UT2K, or WoW, or any other 3D intensive game, why would you even consider a Mac. (as an aside, pretty soon, you won't be using any PC for games, but I digress).
These things are going to be great for people who are NOT computer types, but rather people like your parents or your non-tech savvy sibling/spouse/grandparents.
A friend of mine had his parents up and running and connected to the internet in about 10 minutes when setting up a new Mini, over the phone even. If I can get my parents to let go of all the useless windows crap they think they need, I'm going to move them onto the Mac platform. Why? Less phone calls to me asking me [insert inane email/web browsing/random internet question here].
Besides, they look nice.- xioner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is quite true.
I would never get a Mini and expect it to be good for high end gaming (defined as anything more than a 4 year old shooter or a fairly new RTS).
You get a desktop for that.
- xioner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is quite true.
- webpoet73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looking at the tech specs of that machine under Audio/Video:
New Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950
* Optional: 128MB PCI ExpressTM x16 ATI RadeonTM X300 SE Hypermemory2 (DVI/VGA/TV-out)
* Optional: 256MB PCI ExpressTM x16 ATI® RadeonTM X600 SE HypermemoryTM 3 (DVI/VGA/TV-out)
The Intel is standard but they are upgrade options. That is where the Mac Mini fails is the lack of upgradablity. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are 600 to 800 dollar Dells with the same Integrated chipset. Althought the Dell comes with a kb/mouse/monitor... of course, the base dell kb/mouse are pretty cheap. So, you do get a monitor."
This is the link you wanted.
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/featured_basdt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
(note, look at the prices before the instant rebates and the upselling upgrades; Dell can afford to do all of that crap because they buy buy a LOT more parts, often too many, and rather than just hold them in inventory, they apply them to the lower level machines as selling aids. Not that this isn't good for the consumer, it just makes any price comparison inaccurate).
All of the machines featured on this page have an Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics 2 adaptor. The Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics 2 adaptor predates the GMA900 and the GMA950, uses system RAM for buffering, contains no Pixel Shader 2.0 functionality, and is much, much slower than the Radeon 9200 that used to ship in the Mac Mini (in fact, this 8 meg graphics adaptor is as slow as older nVidia TNT2 cards, if that gives you ANY idea of how slow Intel graphics used to be).
Not that it's not bad for some people. In fact, the computer I'm typing this on is one of these very Dells, purchased for $300. But, it should educate you on how different these machines are. - Thud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"x86 architecture isn't as memory dependent as PPC, so more mem on Intel platform does not necessarily give as much boost(because it's already working faster)."
What in the holy hell? - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Whats interesting about this to my thinking is how well "shared"memory works with quartz extreme (the process data on the video chip). Does it allow graphic chip access memory blocks outside its 80 mb base for speed improvements? (ie you don't need to pipe data over the bus as often)."
No. Apple's specific implementation of the driver for the GMA950 basically sandboxes the card to exactly 80MB; 64MB used in the traditional graphics card sense, with an extra 16MB used for Quartz Extreme functionality and driver maintainance (all Macs incurr a little memory loss so that Quartz Extreme can have a dedicated buffer to write directly to video memory). That's the elegance of this implementation. When the Linux guys get their hands on it, they can set it up any way they like, and the GPU itself is actually capable of taking up to 224MB of system RAM for graphics RAM. - jwest84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you are buying a Mac Mini you won't be doing gaming/video....
If you buy a tower (when released on April 1..i bet) then you have more substance to be arguing this type of video card setup.
Get off Apple mini's back. The mini does fine for what it is designed for. I don't hear this many complaints about eMachines and low end PC's who have similar setups. I don't hear them because it is expected that a low end PC does not have good video graphics. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2""x86 architecture isn't as memory dependent as PPC, so more mem on Intel platform does not necessarily give as much boost(because it's already working faster)."
"What in the holy hell?"
Yeah that's what I said too. The only way I can see the x86 archetecure being less memory dependant than PPC is in the fact its instructions tend to be more dense, but any good compiler for PPC makes this distinction a non-issue. Not to mention PPC has more registers for working with data, whereas x86 has been choked by the fact it's still working on the same register set it's had since the 386.
More memory on any platform is going to give applications a boost, but as testing and benchmarks have proved on this site twice, Mac OS X doesn't really perform any better after 768MB of ram, and Windows doesn't really perform any better (and in some cases actually slower) with more than 1GB of RAM. So basically, if you want the fastest experience possible on your new Mac Mini, buy a Core Duo memory and swap out one of the memory chips for a 512MB. (And if I were you, I'd swap out that HD for a better 7200 rpm SATA laptop drive, even if it is a smaller one, or if you're going to Mod your Mac Mini and put it inside a bigger case, go with a 7200 or faster desktop SATA drive). - mumbler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Does anyone else remember when Apple made fun of Wintel machines with integrated graphics? (Well, they used to make fun of x86 all the time, too.) The more things change, the more they stay the same.
- webpoet73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Dell E510 has the same graphic chipset as the Mac Mini
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/entdt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Look at Tech Specs->Audio/Video. Click on Learn more to see how Dell sees this chipset.
Web surfing: Good
2D - General Office: Good
Movie (DVD) watching: Basic
Video Editing: N/A
2D gaming (stategy): Basic
3D gaming (FPS): N/A
Dell doesn't even think too highly of it... of course, they are trying to sell you optional cards. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Does anyone else remember when Apple made fun of Wintel machines with integrated graphics? (Well, they used to make fun of x86 all the time, too.) The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Yeah, I also recall that the graphics adaptor they were making fun of (the Intel Extreme Graphics 2 adaptor) ran as slow as an nVidia TNT2, had 8MB of its own memory, and no shader/hardware transform and lighting support. Games like Quake 2 ran just fine on it...
The GMA950 is actually a superior card to the Radeon 9200. So once again, you're letting your manufacturer bias distort the facts about the product itself. - master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2what no one here seems to realize is that the GMA950 is an intergral part of the 945G chipset. if Apple were to use a discrete graphics card the intel mac minis would be more exspensive give that a standard 945 northbridge costs more than a 945G northbridge, plus then you add the cost of a 3rd party GPU and memory for that GPU. that could have easily added another $50 or more to the price, not mention making even more difficult to cram all that in the same form factor and keep it quiet.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"If you are buying a Mac Mini you won't be doing gaming/video...."
Actually they are pretty good video computers - the 950 includes hardware MPEG-2 decompression, and you can play 1080i videos without skips on the Solo, much less the video.
On top of that the 950 also supports a lot of quirky TV and HDTV display modes so it's actually really well set to do video properly.
I agree they aren't really meant for advanced 3D use, though basic stuff would be OK. - snuf42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Considering this video chip at least on the PC gets the crap beat out of it by a Nvidia's lowest end 6200 card in 3D gaming - I would say you probably wouldn't want to do much gaming on a Mini. I would imagine you would need to tone the resolution and effects down for just about any modern game. 6FPS in Half Life 2!
The iMac is a much better option for people who want to do some 3D gaming. I don't really understand people who want to load up a Mini. Unless you intend on hooking it up to your TV for media or hooking it up to a monitor you own for general applications (web, productivity) I would just go with the iMac. - Avian00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Both WoW and UT2004 are Universal binaries, and have been for some time. Doom 3 is out as a UB as well."
- jewdass
I do find myself wondering if the people at Macworld are certain they were using the Universal Binaries for UT2004. If they were unknowingly running it through Rosetta, that could certainly explain the frame loss. - oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0geminitojanus, Apple made fun of integrated graphics for stealing system memory. The 950 steals system memory. I don't care about pixel shaders or game performance, I care about stealing system memory on a modern computer that ships with 512MB of RAM, that costs $100 to upgrade just to 1GB when 768MB would be just fine.
- gaehl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what 2 paired SO-DIMMS are you going to use to add up to 768? thats why it just from 512 (256 + 256) to 1024 (512 + 512).
- oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1snuf42: "I don't really understand people who want to load up a Mini."
It's not about "loading up" a mini. It's about the mini being sold as a twice-as-fast upgrade to the original mini – which was sold as a machine that could play Halo, UT2004 and WoW better than a comparable Windows PC running an integrated, shared-memory GPU – to people who don't know that at the base configuration, it won't perform any better than a G4 mini with 512MB of RAM on the exact same games. - matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0WTF?!??!??!?!?!? THe y call the new intergrated grpahics a upgrade because of a ripple in the widgets?!! damn appl ehas ot get their prorites striaght
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"geminitojanus, Apple made fun of integrated graphics for stealing system memory. The 950 steals system memory. I don't care about pixel shaders or game performance, I care about stealing system memory on a modern computer that ships with 512MB of RAM, that costs $100 to upgrade just to 1GB when 768MB would be just fine."
Well this is the tradeoff. If you don't want it, don't buy it. It's actually cheaper to have Apple upgrade it to a Gig and future proof the machine than it is to open the box yourself and put in an extra 512 chip, simply because with Apple doing it you get the trade-in value on the 256 chip you take out. If they would have put in a 3rd party graphics card, you would have seen them put in its own memory, and made the unit cost another extra $50 at least, and more flames would shoot across the forum. Also, the main point I'd like to get across is that the faster processor will offset a lot of the "feeling" of slowness that the G4 had, and will have a roughly better user experience. I agree with you that it sucks, but hey, what can you do? It's a cheap box.
"I don't really understand people who want to load up a Mini. Unless you intend on hooking it up to your TV for media or hooking it up to a monitor you own for general applications (web, productivity) I would just go with the iMac."
Then the box isn't for you. Meanwhile there's a huge market segment out there for people who want computers in their living room, light computers they can take with them, and boxes they can hook into their HDTV and make some use of it. The Mini fits all of those uses. It's very decidedly a media center-ish machine. Some people don't want or need that. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"which was sold as a machine that could play Halo, UT2004 and WoW better than a comparable Windows PC running an integrated, shared-memory GPU – to people who don't know that at the base configuration, it won't perform any better than a G4 mini with 512MB of RAM on the exact same games."
I'm glad you're representative of Apple there, because I don't remember them ever making the claim it was twice as fast in gaming. In fact, the only benchmark they released was the Spec mark on the processor, which showed the processor was 2.2x to 3x for the Core Solo, and upwards of 4x for the Core Duo.
Meanwhile, the graphics adaptor is also twice as fast and supports CoreImage (which was the number one reason for including it in the first place). And you've also got to realize that the games that have been ported to OS X86 have only been ported for a few months (if at all). There's a LOT of room to optimize.
I'm sorry you can't game on your Mini like you want to, but the device was never intended to do that. It was decidedly manufactured for the digital living room, and that's how Apple is marketing it.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is