New Mac mini - core solo, core duo and ipod hifi

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: Tu13erhead
🙂

<-- Just ordered a Core Solo Mini.

Lucky! 🙂 I'm just waiting for my old apartment's security deposit, which is going straight to Apple. Not till May tho 🙁

I'll probably buy a Core Duo in June or July for a home theater playback machine. Hopefully by then, all of the popular codecs will be in Intel format ....

I'm leaning towards a Core Solo just because 1.5ghz should be plenty for music/movie playback and it will draw less power (since it will be on 24/7). A Core Duo may be better for HD playback though...I've got two months to wait anyway, so I'll have plenty of time to read the reviews 😉

 

[dclive]

What is the logic in this compared to a $30 DVD player? I really like Macs - don't get me wrong - but for home theater, a cheap $450 Media Center PC (eMachines AMD 64 3500+ with 1GB, 200GB, MPEG2 tuner ... $450ish at local Circuit City on clearance; non-clearance $100 or so more) seems like a much better buy - or one of those $150 gizmos that takes a hard drive in them and they're a full SMB/CIFS/FTP server that can play any DIVX/MPEG2/MP3/etc. content you can put on their hard drive, with full video and audio outs.

Do people really use minis for home theater? For what, and how?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: Tu13erhead
🙂

<-- Just ordered a Core Solo Mini.

Lucky! 🙂 I'm just waiting for my old apartment's security deposit, which is going straight to Apple. Not till May tho 🙁

I'll probably buy a Core Duo in June or July for a home theater playback machine. Hopefully by then, all of the popular codecs will be in Intel format ....

I'm leaning towards a Core Solo just because 1.5ghz should be plenty for music/movie playback and it will draw less power (since it will be on 24/7). A Core Duo may be better for HD playback though...I've got two months to wait anyway, so I'll have plenty of time to read the reviews 😉

It looks like you can put the Mini into standby when not in use, so power use in both should be very low.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: Tu13erhead
🙂

<-- Just ordered a Core Solo Mini.

Lucky! 🙂 I'm just waiting for my old apartment's security deposit, which is going straight to Apple. Not till May tho 🙁

I'll probably buy a Core Duo in June or July for a home theater playback machine. Hopefully by then, all of the popular codecs will be in Intel format ....

I'm leaning towards a Core Solo just because 1.5ghz should be plenty for music/movie playback and it will draw less power (since it will be on 24/7). A Core Duo may be better for HD playback though...I've got two months to wait anyway, so I'll have plenty of time to read the reviews 😉

It looks like you can put the Mini into standby when not in use, so power use in both should be very low.

Yeah, that's true. Sleep on a Mac is awesome...it goes down to near-shutdown status but will appear within a second or two at the touch of a button. It's like having a PocketPC for a desktop...instant on. Real nice feature. A Core Duo may be a better buy for future-proofing, if I ever get an HDTV. My guess would be that one of Apple's next moves will be to release HD content - TV shows, maybe movies - from their iTunes music store. Ho-hum, time to start saving 🙂

Just curious...would anyone be interested in buying movies from iTunes? I bought Lost, Season 1, to test out their TV show quality (and because it was like $20 cheaper than the DVD set, lol). It plays fine on my TV through my PC laptop's s-video port; only really black scenes are spotty (blocky black and purple areas in nighttime backgrounds). Aside from that, the quality is just fine. I think it'd be great to be able to store all of the movies I own on a computer without the hassle of having to rip and convert them. If I can pay iTunes five bucks for a movie, download it, and play it on my TV through a Mini, I'm all for it. Anyone else? Thoughts on this & where Apple may go?

 

[dclive]

I think this is the direction they're going.

Boy, I'm happy I have my ReplayTV. 🙂

 

[Eug]

Cinebench scores are out, comparing the Intel Mac mini vs the PowerPC Mac mini:

CPU rendering: :thumbsup: for Intel Core

Core Solo 1.5: 213
Core Duo 1.66: 471
G4 7447A 1.5: 152


GPU OpenGL speed: :thumbsdown: for Intel GMA 950

Core Solo 1.5: 441
Core Duo 1.66: 547
G4 7447A 1.5: 506

 

[aphex]

http://www.applefritter.com/Mac_Mini_Take_Apart_Guide

Didn't realize it takes So-Dimm's now.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Eug
Cinebench scores are out, comparing the Intel Mac mini vs the PowerPC Mac mini:

CPU rendering: :thumbsup: for Intel Core

Core Solo 1.5: 213
Core Duo 1.66: 471
G4 7447A 1.5: 152


GPU OpenGL speed: :thumbsdown: for Intel GMA 950

Core Solo 1.5: 441
Core Duo 1.66: 547
G4 7447A 1.5: 506

What's the matter? The core duo does beat it...
Except you're talking a significantly more powerful cpu(from the cpu rendering test, about 3x the power for the core duo over the g4) and it just barely edges out the G4 with 9200. Still, it does look to be in the same ballpark, though game performance will be what really matters.

 

[remagavon]

I got my Core Duo Mini in... if my webhost actually starts working then I'll start a thread with pictures and impressions. It's quite a bit faster than my g4 mini, apps launch much faster. Garageband launches and loads a song in around 10 seconds which is a huge improvement over my old mini. Expose is also a lot quicker, though it does hitch occasionally (likely due to the paltry 512mb of ram, which I'll upgrade next week most likely). 🙂

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: remagavon
I got my Core Duo Mini in... if my webhost actually starts working then I'll start a thread with pictures and impressions. It's quite a bit faster than my g4 mini, apps launch much faster. Garageband launches and loads a song in around 10 seconds which is a huge improvement over my old mini. Expose is also a lot quicker, though it does hitch occasionally (likely due to the paltry 512mb of ram, which I'll upgrade next week most likely). 🙂

When you drag a widget from the bar into the dashboard, does it ripple now? I fergot what that dern technology it uses for that is called.

 

[dclive]

Core Image.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

ooh i like the serial ata hard drive.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: remagavon
I got my Core Duo Mini in... if my webhost actually starts working then I'll start a thread with pictures and impressions. It's quite a bit faster than my g4 mini, apps launch much faster. Garageband launches and loads a song in around 10 seconds which is a huge improvement over my old mini. Expose is also a lot quicker, though it does hitch occasionally (likely due to the paltry 512mb of ram, which I'll upgrade next week most likely). 🙂

When you drag a widget from the bar into the dashboard, does it ripple now? I fergot what that dern technology it uses for that is called.

Yes it does. 🙂

It's called core image I believe.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Fox5
What's the matter? The core duo does beat it...
Except you're talking a significantly more powerful cpu(from the cpu rendering test, about 3x the power for the core duo over the g4) and it just barely edges out the G4 with 9200. Still, it does look to be in the same ballpark, though game performance will be what really matters.

What's the matter? OpenGL performance on the Radeon 9200 is abysmal, and everyone has been complaining about that for just about forever. Now the new purdy Intel Mac mini comes out, and the OpenGL performance is still abysmal, with one model even worse than before (at least according to this one OpenGL bench).

Even the lowly Radeon X300 HyperMemory (32 MB on-board and up to 128 total with shared memory) would have been a humungous improvement.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Fox5
What's the matter? The core duo does beat it...
Except you're talking a significantly more powerful cpu(from the cpu rendering test, about 3x the power for the core duo over the g4) and it just barely edges out the G4 with 9200. Still, it does look to be in the same ballpark, though game performance will be what really matters.

What's the matter? OpenGL performance on the Radeon 9200 is abysmal, and everyone has been complaining about that for just about forever. Now the new purdy Intel Mac mini comes out, and the OpenGL performance is still abysmal, with one model even worse than before (at least according to this one OpenGL bench).

Even the lowly Radeon X300 HyperMemory (32 MB on-board and up to 128 total with shared memory) would have been a humungous improvement.

The GUI is significantly faster. I'm using 1920x1200 right now and it feels somewhat like a powermac as far as the responsiveness. 🙂

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Fox5
What's the matter? The core duo does beat it...
Except you're talking a significantly more powerful cpu(from the cpu rendering test, about 3x the power for the core duo over the g4) and it just barely edges out the G4 with 9200. Still, it does look to be in the same ballpark, though game performance will be what really matters.

What's the matter? OpenGL performance on the Radeon 9200 is abysmal, and everyone has been complaining about that for just about forever. Now the new purdy Intel Mac mini comes out, and the OpenGL performance is still abysmal, with one model even worse than before (at least according to this one OpenGL bench).

Even the lowly Radeon X300 HyperMemory (32 MB on-board and up to 128 total with shared memory) would have been a humungous improvement.

The GUI is significantly faster. I'm using 1920x1200 right now and it feels somewhat like a powermac as far as the responsiveness. 🙂

...that's because the CPU and RAM give it all the power (except alitvec, of course) of a low end Power Mac.

 

[Eug]

The GUI is significantly faster. I'm using 1920x1200 right now and it feels somewhat like a powermac as far as the responsiveness.

Yes of course. The base model Mac mini (initially) had only 32 MB RAM. On a 1920x1200 screen, it was simply insufficient. Even 64 MB is problematic. GMA 950 can use system RAM, with a minimum of 64 MB, but often much more if necessary. The slowdowns from using system RAM are not really going to be noticed for general GUI functionality, but the ability to use more RAM is of great benefit.

That's why I suggested the Radeon X300 HyperMemory. 32 MB is sufficient for low end gaming, but it has the ability to scale up the (system) RAM usage for GUI functions on high rez screens.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Eug

The GUI is significantly faster. I'm using 1920x1200 right now and it feels somewhat like a powermac as far as the responsiveness.

Yes of course. The base model Mac mini (initially) had only 32 MB RAM. On a 1920x1200 screen, it was simply insufficient. Even 64 MB is problematic. GMA 950 can use system RAM, with a minimum of 64 MB, but often much more if necessary. The slowdowns from using system RAM are not really going to be noticed for general GUI functionality, but the ability to use more RAM is of great benefit.

That's why I suggested the Radeon X300 HyperMemory. 32 MB is sufficient for low end gaming, but it has the ability to scale up the (system) RAM usage for GUI functions on high rez screens.

Yep I agree the 1300 would have been a better option for sure. I'm downloading some game demos but I can't find any that are compiled for intel. I'll probably buy ut2004 in the near future and see how it runs (if it runs). Marble Blast Gold is (regrettably) gone. 🙁

 

[aphex]

I wonder, which would be faster...

CS2 on a Mac Mini PPC w/ 1gb Ram (what im using now)
or
CS2 on a Mac Mini Intel Dual Core w/ 1gb Ram (emulated via Rosetta)

 

[Eug]

Yep I agree the 1300 would have been a better option for sure. I'm downloading some game demos but I can't find any that are compiled for intel. I'll probably buy ut2004 in the near future and see how it runs (if it runs). Marble Blast Gold is (regrettably) gone.

The X1300 would be nice, but I was talking about the lower end and cheaper X300.

I wonder, which would be faster...

CS2 on a Mac Mini PPC w/ 1gb Ram (what im using now)
or
CS2 on a Mac Mini Intel Dual Core w/ 1gb Ram (emulated via Rosetta)

I'm told that a MacBook Pro with 1 GB RAM and CS2 isn't stellar, but it's OK, and sometimes faster than CS2 on a G4 PowerBook.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Eug

Yep I agree the 1300 would have been a better option for sure. I'm downloading some game demos but I can't find any that are compiled for intel. I'll probably buy ut2004 in the near future and see how it runs (if it runs). Marble Blast Gold is (regrettably) gone.

The X1300 would be nice, but I was talking about the lower end and cheaper X300.

I wonder, which would be faster...

CS2 on a Mac Mini PPC w/ 1gb Ram (what im using now)
or
CS2 on a Mac Mini Intel Dual Core w/ 1gb Ram (emulated via Rosetta)

I'm told that a MacBook Pro with 1 GB RAM and CS2 isn't stellar, but it's OK, and sometimes faster than CS2 on a G4 PowerBook.

Yeah I misread your post about the x300. The BF2 demo (under rosetta) runs at about a whopping 5fps. This is definitely not a gaming machine. 1080p video seemed very fast, I didn't test the framerate but I only saw it drop a few frames total which is very nice. I still think that even though it's not going to win any awards for games, it's a decent upgrade over the old mini which couldn't play games to begin with.

The GUI is usable for complex tasks and the CPU is fast enough to keep most apps afloat without resorting to the beachball too often. They should have went with a dedicated video chip, though, like you said. I'd say a 17" imac is a much better buy for only a few hundred more than a duo mini.

 

[Eug]

1080p video seemed very fast, I didn't test the framerate but I only saw it drop a few frames total which is very nice.

I guess this confirms that if you want a Mac mini for your home theatre for HD, you really should get the Core Duo model to avoid dropped frames.

If you're interested: QuickTime Player --> Window --> Show Movie Info

(I assume you are talking about h.264 HD)

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Eug

1080p video seemed very fast, I didn't test the framerate but I only saw it drop a few frames total which is very nice.

I guess this confirms that if you want a Mac mini for your home theatre for HD, you really should get the Core Duo model to avoid dropped frames.

If you're interested: QuickTime Player --> Window --> Show Movie Info

(I assume you are talking about h.264 HD)

Yeah I agree about buying the duo. The % idle (cpu) while playing the Batman Begins 1080p trailer dropped vastly to as low as 20%, which leads me to believe that there is a very real possibility of some frame skipping on the core solo mini, at least with the default 512mb of ram. I mis-saw dropped frames as I believe a film effect... the lowest FPS in the Quicktime Movie Info pane was 23.08fps (23.98fps is the given FPS for the movie).

 

[Eug]

If you really want to stress your mini, try playing this full rez 30 fps 1080p h.264 HD video. It will cause some dropped frames even on a Core Duo, particularly after a minute into the clip.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Fox5
What's the matter? The core duo does beat it...
Except you're talking a significantly more powerful cpu(from the cpu rendering test, about 3x the power for the core duo over the g4) and it just barely edges out the G4 with 9200. Still, it does look to be in the same ballpark, though game performance will be what really matters.

What's the matter? OpenGL performance on the Radeon 9200 is abysmal, and everyone has been complaining about that for just about forever. Now the new purdy Intel Mac mini comes out, and the OpenGL performance is still abysmal, with one model even worse than before (at least according to this one OpenGL bench).

Even the lowly Radeon X300 HyperMemory (32 MB on-board and up to 128 total with shared memory) would have been a humungous improvement.

The GUI is significantly faster. I'm using 1920x1200 right now and it feels somewhat like a powermac as far as the responsiveness. 🙂

...that's because the CPU and RAM give it all the power (except alitvec, of course) of a low end Power Mac.

I doubt altivec was used in low end powermacs.
In many ways, it's more powerful than a low end powerMac.
Faster memory performance (maybe higher bandwidth, definetely lower latency), larger and better cache, and probably higher integer performance as well. Floating point and SIMD/Vector are likely to be horrible, but SIMD is rarely used anyway and as for floating point..well it's still an improvement over the G4, though since Macs are supposed to be content creation machines and the Mac Mini doesn't even have a decent gpu (for 3d rendering or video encoding or whatever else a gpu can do) then I guess the Mac Mini isn't much more than a stylish, easy to use PC that can't play very many games. On the other hand, it can do 100% of what at least 2/3rds of the population would want it to do. Oh, and it can make a decent number cruncher/server box I suppose.

CS2 on a Mac Mini PPC w/ 1gb Ram (what im using now)
or
CS2 on a Mac Mini Intel Dual Core w/ 1gb Ram (emulated via Rosetta)

Maybe a core duo could make it faster or about the same, but emulation is generally much slower. I would say don't upgarde if the main program you use is still only being emulated. (unless you just got the Mac Mini, in which case return it for the new model and wait for an updated version of CS2)