“We expected the new Intel Mac mini Core Duo to perform well enough in CPU crunch tests (iMovie HD, Cinebench), but we were really more curious about how well it performed in GPU crunch tests (iMaginator, Doom 3, etc.). We included the PPC Mac mini G4/1.42GHz we previously tested as well as an Intel iMac Core Duo 1.83GHz,” rob-ART morgan writes for Bare Feats. “We also configured the Core Duo mini’s memory in two ways (matched and unmatched pairs) to see if there was any great advantage to having matched pairs.”
“The Mac mini performed better than the old PPC mini in the two CPU crunch tests. It would have matched the times of the iMac Core Duo if it was running at the same clock speed,” morgan writes. “In the Core Image test, it bested the old mini but lost to the iMac Core Duo due to the general weakness of the GMA950 graphics processor. In two of the 3D Game tests, it actually lost to the PPC mini. I’ve read reports of how well the GMA950 handles HD playback, but that’s doesn’t make up for poor performance on other graphically intensive functions… In my humble opinion, the Mac mini is a poor investment unless you have a display, keyboard, and mouse you can’t part with. You may pay more for the iMac Core Duo 1.83, but you get a lot more.”
Full article with benchmarks here.
MacDailyNews Take: Obviously, the Mac mini is not designed to be a gaming machine. It’s for music, photos, movies, a little iLife, some web surfing, a dash of basic personal computing, and to entice Windows-only switchers/adders to try out a Mac. To recommend an iMac over a Mac mini based on 3D game performance ignores the different target markets, form factors, price points, and likely uses for each model.
Advertisements:
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
PC Magazine review gives Apple Mac mini 4 out of 5 stars – March 08, 2006
Chicago Tribune: Apple’s new Intel-based Mac mini might make you switch from Windows – March 07, 2006
Mac mini 6-button remote, Front Row typify Apple’s ‘sophisticated simplicity’ strategy – March 06, 2006
Reader report: 1080p 24fps playback on Mac mini Core Duo plays fine – March 03, 2006
Apple Mac mini’s Intel GMA950 Integrated Graphics Core reviewed – March 01, 2006
Apple’s new Mac mini a HDTV media center in disguise? – March 01, 2006
Apple’s new Mac mini: perfect for HDTV – March 01, 2006
Analyst: Apple’s new Mac mini ‘a good first step into the living room’ – February 28, 2006
Apple introduces new Intel-based Mac mini – February 28, 2006
Jingle jingle, rocket dingle
Little lambs-y dive-y
I used the mini all day long
Not once did a virus spy me
Actually, the argument that computers shouldn’t be considered by game performance is fading fast. Since PC makers (including Apple) are clearly positioning their systems as living room multi-media servers, I don’t see a reason why game performance wouldn’t be considered. Hell, if I could get a Mac mini that could play video, get the photos and music off my office Mac, and could also be used as a game console and TV tuner, I’m so there. The two aspects still missing from the Mac mini are a TV tuner, and the ability to handle games. When they’ve got that in the box, I’ll probably buy 3.
duh.
Is any of this unexpected?
“For all intensive purposes,” I thought it was “Little lambs eat ivy.” That’s on the lyric sheet I found in my “chester drawers.”
I got the first one of the new minis that hit Philadelphia and can’t complain about the review.
I don’t think we’ve reached anywhere near the point that reviewers should assume that a home will have multiple computers–I’ve got five desktops and five portables at home, but most people don’t. It is perfectly reasonable for a reviewer to point out that the iMac is better value. Certainly if I didn’t already have an iMac G5 I wouldn’t have gotten the mini.
What reviewers should point out in addition, however, is that the built in airport on both the intel minis and imacs is just a little bit better than broken, that this renders useless the mini as a machine to wirelessly stream media, and that even when plugged into a server through ethernet Front Row has a bad habit of failing to stream media and then locking up. These are software issues that I assume will be addressed in the coming months, but make the intel mini kinda like dating a cheerleader that won’t put out—enticing, but highly frustrating.
Ampar: Yes . . . yes it is.
Just trying to fit in with the whole “MacDude can’t spell worth a damn and misinterprets every written word” zeitgeist going on around here.
I guess it was just too . . . subtle . . . damn . . . [hangs head in anti-obvious shame] . . .
If the words sound queer
and funny to your ear,
a little bit jumbled and jivey
Sing “Mares eat oats
and does eat oats
and little lambs eat ivy”
Why is it that the GMA 950 looks OK in paper but performs so badly? The chip would be capable of using up to 224MB of video memory but Apple supposedly locked it to 64Mb … WHY? WHY? WHY? Can anyone answer this simple question because I really can’t comprehend.
I was set to get a Mini for my teenage daughter do I could save a fortune each 3-5 years, but once I priced the extra RAM, iSight, hard drive options needed the iMac was cheaper!
I wish they’d kept the old price points, or go back to them. The lack of VRAM and VCard must make up for the new additions (sound in, WiFi, BlueTooth). I love the Mini, but only wish I could justify it!
1) it’s “for all intents and purposes”
and
2) It’s “little lambs eat ivy”.
Key spinning it MDN.
How come everyone says the Mac Mini is a poor choice, except you? Getting a kickback from Apple we don’t know about?
Intel 950 is crap…don’t support Apple’s poor decision…but an iMac.
barefeats:
“In my humble opinion, the Mac mini is a poor investment unless you have a display, keyboard, and mouse you can’t part with. You may pay more for the iMac Core Duo 1.83, but you get a lot more — an LCD screen, a faster CPU, a much faster GPU, a faster/bigger hard drive, easy to install memory, and an iSight camera. And it takes no more space on your desk than a mini when you include the mini’s display and keyboard.”
durr: No shit!
LeeLoo Dallas Multi-Pass!
HEY, “durr” — SMOKE THIS!
TARD!
“I know a ditty nutty as a fruitcake
Goofy as a goon and silly as a loon
Some call it pretty, others call it crazy
But they all sing this tune:
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn’t you?
Yes! Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn’t you?
If the words sound queer and funny to your ear, a little bit jumbled and jivey
Sing “Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy”
Oh! Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn’t you-oo?
A kiddley divey too, wouldn’t you?”
Based on tests I have seen elsewhere and my own observation, the Core Solo is not really much of an improvement on much of anything compared to the G4. As the owner of G3,4, 5 and now Core Duo Macs, I can tell you all of the claims being pimped by Apple are pure unadulterated Bullsh*t.
Some areas are faster and some slower. That includes ‘Universal’ applications. For Joe/Jane user that is doing e-mail, internet, basic productivity and casual gaming there is NO NEED TO RUSH out and buy an Intel Mac. For power users, switching over until pro apps are ready is not advised.
My take- the performance of the Intel CPU compared to the PPC for most users is a wash. All of the bashing of the PPC was pure fanboy hype. Benchmarks of single core Intel Chips and that of comparable frequency G4 chips show similar performance across the board. The fact that a G4 with a 167 bus hold up well against a chip of similar speed with a 667 bus is quite damning to Apple’s marketing hype against the PPC.
If Apple would have adopted the FreeScale Dual Core 32-bit CPU it would have acquitted itself against the Core Duo very well. The decision was for Steve Jobs and FreeScale to make. Given Apple’s current financial condition, I have no doubt that Apple could have made it worth FreeScale’s time to get the chip ready on time.
The only significant differences relate to GPU. The only problem with the PPC was the willingness of AIM to invest in the development of the architecture. No Kool-Aid here. Make mine a Diet Coke.
chunkey monkey- KICK ASS!!
Well I don’t play games (waste of time!) and I have the 1.42ghz Mac mini G4 with 1GB RAM and I couldn’t be happier with it. I’ve done amazing things with iMovie and GarageBand and iDVD on it. It makes me mad when I constantly see “the Mac mini is only good for web browsing and email” comments. It’s good for a hell of a lot more than that!
And since I don’t play games, and most of the people I know who play games heavily on their computers wouldn’t consider buying a Mac, ANY Mac, for games anyway, I really couldn’t care less about how it performs on Doom. Doom is hardly an application that I would consider essential, critical or even useful.
“ridiculous”: I don’t see “everyone” giving the mini low marks, only idiots who want to play high-powered 3D games on it. Since when does anyone buy a Mac to play games on, anyway, much less a Mac mini?
Oh, and the most relevant bit from the quoted article?
In the Core Image test, it bested the old mini…
That’s right folks, the new mini has better graphics than the old one!!
So please, explain to me why a machine that’s better than its predecessor should be condemned. Oh, that’s right… It’s because none of the condemners are paying attention.
“So please, explain to me why a machine that’s better than its predecessor should be condemned.
Um, maybe because the predecessor was crap too.
Not a gaming box, dudes. http://www.barefeats.com/ totaally misses the point of the Mac mini. It is analagous to a PC user buying a low-end Acer or Dell and trying to play games on it. You know it can’t do it before you buy it.
Hey losers at http://www.barefeats.com/:
why don’t you use the Mac mini as your PC for mail, internet, iLife, etc. and use your current PC (which we know you have from the tone of your article) as your gaming machine and shut up!
Or use the XBox or Playstation we know you have behind you connected to your Sony TV.
War on BareFeat
I just bought a core duo mini. And I will use it for everthing except games.
I have a PC that I use for games. Anybody who at this point still wants to play games on a Mac is, yes I hate to use the word but it is apt in so many ways, retarded.
Who cares how fast a Mac is at games? By the time you get to play them you PC gamer friends are already playing the next gens of mods that will never come out on the Mac anyway. It’s a waste of time. Any time spent even benchmarking games on a Mac is completely idiotic and academic at best.
Buy a cheap PC put a GeForce 6800 in it and play. Use the Mac for EVERYTHING else. That’s what PCs are for at home.
AUTOCAD!!!!! At work. Games at home. Period. That’s it.
MDN: “…It’s for music, photos, movies, a little iLife, some web surfing, a dash of basic personal computing..”
Why would anyone spend all that money on a computer just to do that?
And, MDN, what excactly is “a dash of basic personal computing”???
I can’t believe this is actually happening – Apple is now ‘rebranding’ Intel’s shit products! Talk about putting lipstick on a pig – hahaha!
Integrated graphics have, and always will, suck compared to a dedicated graphics card. Intel is not a GPU company – ATI and Nvidea optimize their processors to the Nth degree because they ARE GPU companies. And no amount of robbing the system memory is going to make up for how SLOW system memory is when compared to graphics memory. Somebody mentioned the new MacMini doing well with Core Image – I think that’s probably b/c Apple optimized the shit out of OSx86 to make it so. The fact that the G4 MacMini absolutely trounced the Macintel version in games (ye Gods, GAMES doing well on a PPC Mac!!!) tells the true story.
And I agree 100% with the comments from Single Core Benchmarks – even the CPU intensive tests would not have gone Macintel’s way had we seen the latest G4 pitted against it. Given that Freescale also gets better power consumption from that CPU as well (so much for power per watt), it’s almost criminal what Jobs is doing to his own company. I guess that job over at Disney is more important now.
All in all, this test is a poor statement on the direction Apple is taking; being essentially forced into using this crap from Intel – either because Intel’s CPUs are so expensive they have to cut corners somewhere (likely) or b/c Otellini gave Jobs an ‘offer he couldn’t refuse’ (in other words, ‘Put this weak shit in one of your products, or no preferred customer status for you Turtle Neck Boy’). Thank the Gods Apple released the Quad before unleashing this Intel trainwreck on the world. It will have to tide me over until Hell freezes over again and this Unholy Alliance is broken.
Coming up next:
MAYA RUNS BETTER ON A G5 THAN IT DOES ON AN IMAC G5!
No shyte, Shelocks…
SB