Intel Mac mini lacks dedicated graphics hardware

by Conrad Quilty-Harper { Feb 28th 2006 at 3:00PM }

At a special event in Cupertino today, Apple announced new Mac minis running on Intel Core Solo and Core Duo processors, making the machine 2.5x to 3x faster than the G4 models they replaced (according to Apple). Aside from the updated processor specifications, the new Mac mini features an integrated graphics chipset--called the Intel GMA950 graphics processor--which shares a minimum of 80MB of the system's 512MB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM.

Gamers generally loath integrated graphics: integrated chips share RAM with the system, making for a slower computer and a bad GPU (system RAM is much slower than dedicated VRAM). This is the first machine Apple has released without a dedicated graphics card. Previously the Mac mini featured a Radeon 9200 with 32 64MB of dedicated VRAM - not a brilliant chip, but one that doesn't rely on drawing RAM from the system.

While the Mac mini was never designed to be a gaming machine, it was intended to draw PC owners into buying a second, cheap BYODKM (bring your own display, keyboard and mouse) Macintosh. By including crippled graphics hardware (possibly as part of a price-reduced deal with Intel) Apple has ignored a potential market of casual PC gamers that would have picked up a Mac mini had it included a capable graphics chipset. With ATI and NVIDIA offering an array of outstanding Mobile chipsets (that fit into the Mac mini's low-power/small-size design ethos) we see little reason for this step backwards.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

bd @ Feb 28th 2006 3:09PM

POS

decompiler @ Feb 28th 2006 3:13PM

while the mac mini started out as a cheap "switcher" machine, it's been clearly on the path to becoming apple's dvr for a while now. now that the've added frontrow w/ ir port and remote, the only thing it's lacking is the tv tuner and dvr software.

if you want to game, stay on powerpc: buy an XBOX 360!

-decompiler-
http://decompiler.newsvine.com/

obo @ Feb 28th 2006 3:17PM

You mean there's no games casual gamers would be interested in that don't require dedicated 3D? Oh noes!

Mr. Samuel @ Feb 28th 2006 3:29PM

I'm not a big fan of integrated graphics myself, but let's consider the following:

1. Macs aren't exactly a viable gaming platform unless you're happy with World of Warcraft and ports of old PC games.

2. I'm willing to bet that the average user of a budget machine wouldn't know or care that they had an integrated graphics chipset. People who do know the difference probably aren�t going to buy something like a Mac Mini anyway.

I�m typing this on my PowerBook by the way.

Chiablo @ Feb 28th 2006 3:29PM

ew... someone got mac all over my gaming blog.

Gonzo @ Feb 28th 2006 3:32PM

This stinks.
I've been wanting to replace my crappy IBM (it breaks more than the cheesy no frills computers my mom used to get) and I really wanted to replace it with a mac. The only thing holding me back is that my wife and I use our computer for high performance gaming as much as anything else. Once we can really get Unreal Tournament 04, Dawn of War, and Sims2 to work the way they're supposed to, we're there.

Miharu @ Feb 28th 2006 3:32PM

Hmm I don't know much about computers and stuff, but wouldn't it be okay if you just upgrade the RAM to 1 gb? Then let the integrated graphics card eat from that big amount. And the max RAM is 2 gb, should be enough but that's kinda expensive ^^' The newer PowerPC Mac minis came with 64 mb graphics cards by the way.

cherryprice @ Feb 28th 2006 3:42PM

No it was 32mb VRAM

sterling @ Feb 28th 2006 3:42PM

The Mac Mini was never meant to be a gaming machine. If you want a Mac gaming machine wait for the Power desktops to come out.

si @ Feb 28th 2006 3:42PM

well over here in the UK, if you were buying a complete system them the Intel iMac is much better value..

shame they have hiked the mini price so much..

Si

Chris @ Feb 28th 2006 3:46PM

The GMA950 isn't THAT bad of a card. The Radeon 9200 on the Mini didn't support Core Image (either that or Quartz Extreme). The GMA 900 and GMA950 both support CI and QE, meaning the desktop experience will be better.

Also, the GMA950 is geared towards HTPC use with on-chip MPEG decoding and HD resolutions standard.

And besides, who games on a Mac?

hitoro @ Feb 28th 2006 3:47PM

This chipset should be quiet decent since it supports Core Image which is very demanding on the GPU. But I am not sure it holds up when the I/O bus is getting saturated like it usually does on low-end PCs.

saboola @ Feb 28th 2006 3:48PM

@#6 : System ram is still slower than video ram, and swapping textures in and out of ram for example requires speed more than anything else. Besides that fact, any intel 3d chipset is maybe about equal to a 32x in terms of 3d power. So adding ram might help, but not much.

Art @ Feb 28th 2006 3:51PM

Apple has ignored gamers forever. It is really the only reason I have not switched. If someone creates a stable program to dual boot OSX-XP/Vista on a Mac and I can find a decent videocard for it, I would buy a 20 inch Imac in a second. That is a very slick system. What Apple does do, it does well.

Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Feb 28th 2006 3:52PM

Cherryprice, Mirahu was right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_mini

There was a "secret upgrade" that boosted it to 64MB VRAM on later models.

Miharu @ Feb 28th 2006 3:52PM

Well I game on Mac, but my games aren't the latest which require powerful graphics cards :) My games are Fallout 2 and Starcraft. And some emulators... All 2d stuff. But I wouldn't mind having better graphics card for gaming, as I'd like to try World of Warcraft and possibly play some PC games through Windows, if that's possible in the future.

pete @ Feb 28th 2006 3:53PM

I believe it borrows mininum of 64 megs, not 80.
80 megs is the memory footprint of OSX.
So if you have a mini with 512megs of ram, you are already down to 368 without running any apps.
I'd go for the gig, it's almost a requirement now for this.

jaemz @ Feb 28th 2006 3:56PM

This is a great machine, I am tempted to pick one up... but like my iBook, it is not meant for games.

I think part of the problem lies in all of these "what would steve do" and "photoshop your next apple" ideas. All these photoshop people with little or no engineering understanding are building these pictures of great ideas that are not feasable to build. So when the real products come out... real as in you can actually buy them... people are actually dissapointed.

Engadget had the Apple bug, now like every other materialistic spoiled unappriciative kid... they are bored and want somthing new.

Get over it, Macs are not for gaming... get an Xbox.

Alex K. @ Feb 28th 2006 4:08PM

Someone needs to bench the machine against the old mac mini and see if the graphics are faster.

Even with integrated memory, I think the mac mini's GPU can still keep up considering the fast FSB and RAM speed.

I'm guessing it runs on a PCI Express bus, too.

An ATI Xpress 200 would have been a better integrated graphics choice.

Edmund @ Feb 28th 2006 4:24PM

HA HA HA HA HA. Talk about mac slandering. "Gamers generally loath integrated graphics" Why on Earth would anyone buy a Mac mini as a gaming machine? Are you unaware that they make more machines than just that? When the Powermacs start coming out with Intel chips, then we'll see a great gaming machine. Until then, there is the Intel Duo Macbook Pro and iMac. Whoever wrote this is a doofus.

Nath5000 @ Feb 28th 2006 4:28PM

I cant see Apple getting big into videogames. If they introduced a gameplayer/video-ipod I bet a ton of developers would jump on the bandwagon and everyone under the sun would buy it, but I dont see apple doing that any time soon. I think their understanding of "media" that theyre trying to focus on with apple products consists of video, pictures, music and not games. Games is an after thought to any mac product, the fact that the ipod has a few crappy little games reflects that apple sees games as a little side show time-killer and not really something they see as a media that they can integrate into the Apple lifestyle and turn into something they can dominate in when there is already a lot of competition.

Smith @ Feb 28th 2006 4:38PM

More sensationalism from Joystiq. Everything about this new MacMini screams "set-top box". Not "gaming machine." Joystiq needs to learn that not every bit of hardware produced is intended for them.

I'd also point out that the last graphics card I bought for my PC cost almost as much as a Mac Mini. If they'd put some weak graphics card in there, you'd be bitching about that, too. Guess what? You're not going to fit a $500 graphics card in a $600 computer!! And you're not going to be upgrading a Mini...so just get over yourselves... there are machines out there that just aren't intended to be gaming rigs. Nothing at all wrong with that.

Jago @ Feb 28th 2006 4:47PM

@ Chiablo:

"ew... someone got mac all over my gaming blog."

HAHAHA!!! That was hilarious! ^5

...and yea why is this on a GAMING blog anyways? This something that is better fit for Engadget instead.

funkonaut @ Feb 28th 2006 4:57PM

Taken from Apple's Mac mini G4 page before they replaced it with the Intel mini with craptacular integrated graphics:

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42080&d=1141157849

_leech_ @ Feb 28th 2006 5:18PM

I really wish someone would design something like a Mac Mini with HTPC users in mind. Something as simple as an integrated TV tuner would instantly increase it's desirability.

Jon Choo @ Feb 28th 2006 5:29PM

Is this news? I hate the Mac platform anyway so this doesn't surprise me one bit but is it newsworthy? Will we be getting a XYZ lacks dedicated graphics news in the future?

No.

Because you guys (Weblogs, Inc.) seems to be so obsessed with Apple that everything that they do or do not do (in this case) needs to be reported.

mike @ Feb 28th 2006 5:43PM

Why on Earth would anyone buy a Mac mini as a gaming machine?

--

No sh*t.

It's a Mac. It's their lowest end Mac. NO ONE is using this thing for graphics editing or gaming.

What a stupid thread.

Jay @ Feb 28th 2006 6:01PM

Firstly people here think that Microsoft's Origami device is a 'GBA killer' so I wouldn't really bother what they think about a media computer thats as much aimed at games as the PSP is.

The Mac mini is an excellent machine. we all have flat-panel TV's in our bedrooms, with VGA and DVI inputs it costs little to have a fully functional machine in every room. Add bluetooth and wifi and BAM. The house network massively expands with Apples Bonjour service. Sharing images and video without any configuration at all is something the PC can only dream of.

Fantastic machine. Posted in the wrong place.

Plus as mentioned just above; its the lowest end mac. This is no quad G5, the single fastest computer I've used for production work to date.

Krimzen @ Feb 28th 2006 6:04PM

I tend to agree with the posts that question the need for this post. It baffles me why the poster thinks that potential switchers would care that this came without a gaming capable video card, especially if they have a pc like the poster said in their scenerio. Also, this is coming from a mac mini user who knows that even the ATI card in my first generation mac mini is practically useless for games.

Jago @ Feb 28th 2006 6:07PM

"we all have flat-panel TV's in our bedrooms, with VGA and DVI inputs it costs little to have a fully functional machine in every room."

I seriously hope you are being sarcastic...

Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Feb 28th 2006 6:22PM

The words of Glenda Adams of Aspyr - "No vertex shader support (vertex processing has to be handled by the CPU), fairly decent pixel shader support. Shared memory is likely to be a trouble spot- not only do you have less real RAM for a game (448M on a 512mb mini), but video card and CPU accesses to memory can fight with each other for time."

I think it's ridiculous for a company like Apple to release a $599/799 computer (without a Display, Keyboard or Mouse) that has a GPU without vertex shader support, especially when there are so many brilliant mobile chips out there. The low end of the line is where the majority of users lie, so for the lowest end Mac to feature an integrated graphics chip is a kick in the balls to Mac game porters/publishers.

I just hope that this isn't a continuing trend at Apple.

Jay @ Feb 28th 2006 6:41PM

""we all have flat-panel TV's in our bedrooms, with VGA and DVI inputs it costs little to have a fully functional machine in every room."

I seriously hope you are being sarcastic..."

oh sorry, after re-reading that it sounds like everyone. No, I mean in our house. My 13 year old sister got a smart 32" widescreen LCD TV for Christmas, few days later she saw a Mac Mini in Selfridges and just bought it there and then. Its just so small and goes with her room style so well. My brother picked one up too.
When I get my own place I'm going to get myself a little Mac Mini for the bedroom or living room (or both at that price) and PowerMac for the study. Until then I'm stuck with a PowerBook.

Jago @ Feb 28th 2006 7:43PM

Ah ok...for a second there I thought you seriously had lost touch with reality...LOL...

Krimzen @ Feb 28th 2006 8:18PM

"think it's ridiculous for a company like Apple to release a $599/799 computer (without a Display, Keyboard or Mouse) that has a GPU without vertex shader support, especially when there are so many brilliant mobile chips out there. The low end of the line is where the majority of users lie, so for the lowest end Mac to feature an integrated graphics chip is a kick in the balls to Mac game porters/publishers."

Conrad you're totally missing the point, even with a vid card that mac mini isn't going to play any games.

KingBigos @ Mar 1st 2006 12:14AM

Of course it does. The original one didnt have good graphics hardware either. Not a big surpise.

AL @ Mar 1st 2006 3:22AM

hmmm... somewhere around lately, on certain *cough*pirate*cough* sites, has been the arguement "Why buy a Mac when I can get a �500 pc and run OSX on that?". Then came the counter-arguement "Well, when Apple release the intel Mini for that price buy it". I can see the arguement now going "But my �500 PC is a better machine than that Mac Mini. At least I can put it good graphics cards etc"...

My point is, Apple aren't going to win many new converts with this machine, especially amongst the "half-way switched" crowd. Maybe for students, or old people buying their first machine. Me? - I'm waiting for an intel MacTower. I dislike the cut-down mini (not good enough), and the all-in-one iMac (hate it for the same reason I hate all-in-one stereo systems). No sale here yet, Steve.

Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Mar 1st 2006 6:19AM

Before you even talk about games, the fact is that this integrated chip is going to suck away any performance gains that the Mac mini gets from its new Intel chip. It'll be relying on the CPU much more for even Finder activity.

Now, onto video game performance:

Here are some benches of the Intel chip vs a GeForce 6200 showing that the Intel chip can barely handle UT2004.

http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,1694,s=1017&iid=106130,00.asp

Sketch @ Mar 1st 2006 8:48AM

News flash! Apple replaces one crappy integrated graphics chipset with another crappy integrated graphics chipset! OMGWTFBBQ!

I own a PPC Mac Mini, and Quake3 is barely playable at 640x480, let alone UT2004. If you bought the Mini to use as a gaming box, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

BTW, I'm not disappointed, because it runs Q2 just fine at 1280x1024. ;)

Robert @ Mar 1st 2006 5:52PM

I have a G4 mac mini it runs great for me
I am not a gamer
but imo apple cripped the intel mac with new graphics setup
base price costs $100 more,their is less actual System ram slower video
apple takes 1 step foward and 2 steps back with intel mini
its going the way of the cube