ArsTechnica Reviews The Intel Mac Mini (Core Solo)

phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has put together a review of the recently announced Intel-powered Mac mini. The model reviewed was the public's first look at a Core Solo desktop from Apple and the results are promising: 'Up until Apple's "fun" announcement on the last day of February, there was really no indication of how Apple's low-end Intel offerings would be presented. Now that Apple has disclosed the specification and price points for their entry-level machines, we can get a better idea of where Apple is trying to take their product line. For those people who might be unaware, two new Mac Mini models were released and by most accounts, the products have been well received aside from a few quibbles over specifications.'"

Comments

Re:Upgradable

[jcgf]

I figured that like me they just had to use it at work.

Re:Upgradable

[clifyt]

"So we reverted to Linux, where updates are free forever."

Hmmm...$60 a year is too much?

I guess thats why the mainstream media still considers Linux a Hobbiest Platform.

I know in the past, I have paid more than that for access to RedHat's up2date servers (I think thats what it was) -- and I had no problem with paying to make certain that my OS was supported and the fixes were automated to the point I didn't have to worry about having to geek out every single day of my life. Some of our lives revolve around non-technical activities.

For those that love technology and love getting their hands dirty (I use to do the same), I guess its not a bad thing to be a hobbiest and play around with this sort of stuff. But when your livelyhood depends on it -- $60 a year isn't a bad thing. Thats less than one hour of billable work for a client.

But yeah, I have a few unpatched, unsupported boxes running around that I couldn't care less about. Heck, I've got a G4 sitting around still on 10.1 because I didn't want to update. Guess what -- it STILL gets patches sent to it (and I keep forgetting I need to turn that auto-updater off as I don't want it messed with because I definately don't want QT7 or whatever its up to now -- on that box as I've already paid for the Pro version of the last and I don't want to have to deal with any incompatibilities with Final Cut and Logic on that box -- both older versions because they work).

So I understand...mainstream media is right about you...

One thing people don't mention...

[frankie]

...is that the OLD mini G4 had damn poor graphics of its own. Remember, we're comparing to a 32MB (yes, 32) ATI 9200.

For example, MacWorld's game benchmark results. In UT 2004 (at default quality settings) the new mini gets a pathetic 10-12fps ... whereas the old mini got 14fps, gee so much better.

Also, the new mini will get FASTER in the months ahead. For starters, upgrading to paired DIMMs will use the dual-channel bus, which is always a boost for shared-memory IGPs. Secondly, the Intel compilers for Mac are on the way.

Sure, a mini with GF 6200 or Radeon X200 would be better, but GMA950 is not the apocalypse some have been claiming.

Re:One thing people don't mention...

[squiggleslash]

Neither the Intel compilers nor the DIMMs will make any difference (Apple is using GCC and the DIMMs are already paired.)

That's not to say they will not get faster. They will. Applications that use Rosetta, right now, will crawl on the Core Solo and look "Ok, but nothing spectacular" on the Duo. In time, more and more such apps will become Universal Binaries.

As far as the UT2004 comparison you make, it's worth noting that comparison is:

Core Solo: 10.4fps, vs
G4 1.25GHz: 13.9fps

That puts the G4 as over 33% faster.

Core Duo: 12.22fps, vs
G4 1.42GHz: 14.5fps

That puts the G4 as over 18% faster.

In both cases, not only are all G4 models faster than all Intel models, but they also beat out (the Core Solo to the point of it being embarassing) their market equivalent. And these are comparing against the penultimate generation of Mac minis, Apple replaced (without updating the website) the last high-end Mac mini with a 1.5GHz model.

This pretty much settles it. I'm not getting a Mac mini, not this time around. I mean, this is ridiculous. The Core Duo, with its decent FSB et al, should be a good 4x as fast as the machine it replaces, yet real world benchmarks are saying anything but, with one application type being badly degraded. Gah.