Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Integrated Graphics: Seizing Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Last time, we looked at the rather disappointing announcements Apple made earlier this week, particularly the new MacIntel mini.
Now, courtesy of a sobering set of benchmarks over at ExtremeTech, comes the unvarnished truth about just how craptacular the integrated Intel GMA950 graphics processor - which steals system RAM in order to do its work - really is:
So the transition to Intel will finally allow Macs to be perceived as viable gaming machines - except maybe not. But not to worry - if you want to do the normal sort of activities you're used to doing with a Mac, then this Intel graphics setup is "probably suitable."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement. And of course, as bad as this is in a beige-box machine from some no-name PC maker, it's even worse in a Mac mini, becuase you can't upgrade the thing - there's no PCI slot or anything slot for an aftermarket graphics card. So much for playing Halo on your Mac mini hooked up to a 50" plasma set in the living room.
But surely, you say, there must be a reason for this graphics chip to be on this system board. There is, as ExtremeTech again explains:
So you see, there is a reason. Too bad that reason has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the design of Macs or the target market for Macs.
And the glory days of the Intel era are just beginning. Sigh.
Now, courtesy of a sobering set of benchmarks over at ExtremeTech, comes the unvarnished truth about just how craptacular the integrated Intel GMA950 graphics processor - which steals system RAM in order to do its work - really is:
We can state flatly that if you buy a system using Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics and want to play 3D games, invest at least $60 in an add-on card. If what you want is simply a system that can run standard office software, plus maybe play some DVD movies, then Intel's new graphics core is probably suitable.
So the transition to Intel will finally allow Macs to be perceived as viable gaming machines - except maybe not. But not to worry - if you want to do the normal sort of activities you're used to doing with a Mac, then this Intel graphics setup is "probably suitable."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement. And of course, as bad as this is in a beige-box machine from some no-name PC maker, it's even worse in a Mac mini, becuase you can't upgrade the thing - there's no PCI slot or anything slot for an aftermarket graphics card. So much for playing Halo on your Mac mini hooked up to a 50" plasma set in the living room.
But surely, you say, there must be a reason for this graphics chip to be on this system board. There is, as ExtremeTech again explains:
Intel's new GMCH will probably run [Microsoft's] Longhorn's upper tier Aero Glass interface pretty well. And Intel certainly wants that, because its OEMs sell truckloads of systems with integrated graphics into businesses. So businesses whose users want to use the Aero Glass interface will have a solution that works, but the IT budget won't be severely impacted.
So you see, there is a reason. Too bad that reason has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the design of Macs or the target market for Macs.
And the glory days of the Intel era are just beginning. Sigh.
Feb. 28 Apple Announcements - eh.
The new Mac mini is far superior to the old one, no doubt about it - faster CPU, faster RAM, faster hard drive (sort of - it's 5400rpm SATA, as compared to 4200 or 5400rpm parallel ATA), and that apparently all-important extra USB port (why exactly is everyone so happy about that? I mean, it's nice and all, but really folks, get a grip...).
And yet... the magical $499 entry point is gone. The mini now starts at $599, thanks no doubt to the high price of the Intel Core CPU, which apparently costs Apple something upward of $200, as compared to the Freescale G4 it replaces, which these days reportedly comes in at under $100 when bought in bulk.
For your $599, you get only a single core CPU, and not a speed demon at that - a 1.5GHz Core Solo. You also get the infamous "integrated graphics" chip, which steals a minimum of 16 percent of your system RAM (80MB of the stock 512MB). Interestingly enough, this shared RAM setup hasn't existed in a Mac since the first days of the last major transition, when the Power Mac 6100/7100/8100 came out.
In more recent years, this sort of arrangement has been the Achilles' Heel of the PC world, the dealbreaker for gamers, the thing (along with craptastic design and cheap components) that has allowed the beige box makers to undercut Apple at the super low end. It's what has allowed us Mac Jedi to dismiss that segment of the price spectrum as fake and not worth buying anyway.
And now, folks, we've got exactly the same setup in the mini. Combine that with the price premium caused by the Intel Core CPU, and we're in a rather ironic situation - the move to Intel has made the Mac arguably less price-competitive with PCs instead of more competitive.
But of course, you will object that this new mini is still far superior. And you will be correct. Even comparing, ahem, Apples to Apples, the new $599 configuration is still a good deal compared to the previous $599 model - as long as you're willing to give up 20GB of hard drive capacity and DVD-burning capability (each of which, fortunately, can be regained now by selecting them as custom upgrade options for $50, which is indeed a reasonable price, especially for the SuperDrive).
Which brings us to the real issue: these minis are better than the old ones only because the old ones were so embarrassingly underpowered. A 125MHz G4 and a 4200rpm hard drive? Without the assistance of a time machine, you simply can't build a computer any slower than that these days. Anything new inevitably is going to be noticeably faster.
But don't delude yourself - it's not going to be 4X faster as Apple claims. To get that bump - which itself doesn't apply across the board - you've got to shell out $799, whereas to get the old G4 machine agsint which Apple's making its comparisons, you had to pay only $599. (The previous top-line mini was $699, but its performance was no better than the $599 model.)
Contrast this with the MacBook Pro. You get the same specs with only minor variations - no dual-layer DVD burner or FW800 port on the one hand, built-in iSight and MagSafe power connector on the other hand - FOR THE SAME PRICE. You get a full-on Core Duo, not a Core Solo, and faster RAM, and the price of admission is the same.
Not so with the poor mini.
Whatever voodoo Steve has used on Paul Otellini, he should kick it into overdrive so he can start sourcing Core Solos at a price that will allow for a return of the $499 mini, and for a $699 Core Duo equipped mini at the high end.
Until then, I say the mini is good, but not great.
And as for the new iPod HiFi, all I can say is this: yawn. If you can get any decent stereo separation or imaging with that unit, or if you can get truly clean bass out of it, I'll eat my proverbial hat.
And yet... the magical $499 entry point is gone. The mini now starts at $599, thanks no doubt to the high price of the Intel Core CPU, which apparently costs Apple something upward of $200, as compared to the Freescale G4 it replaces, which these days reportedly comes in at under $100 when bought in bulk.
For your $599, you get only a single core CPU, and not a speed demon at that - a 1.5GHz Core Solo. You also get the infamous "integrated graphics" chip, which steals a minimum of 16 percent of your system RAM (80MB of the stock 512MB). Interestingly enough, this shared RAM setup hasn't existed in a Mac since the first days of the last major transition, when the Power Mac 6100/7100/8100 came out.
In more recent years, this sort of arrangement has been the Achilles' Heel of the PC world, the dealbreaker for gamers, the thing (along with craptastic design and cheap components) that has allowed the beige box makers to undercut Apple at the super low end. It's what has allowed us Mac Jedi to dismiss that segment of the price spectrum as fake and not worth buying anyway.
And now, folks, we've got exactly the same setup in the mini. Combine that with the price premium caused by the Intel Core CPU, and we're in a rather ironic situation - the move to Intel has made the Mac arguably less price-competitive with PCs instead of more competitive.
But of course, you will object that this new mini is still far superior. And you will be correct. Even comparing, ahem, Apples to Apples, the new $599 configuration is still a good deal compared to the previous $599 model - as long as you're willing to give up 20GB of hard drive capacity and DVD-burning capability (each of which, fortunately, can be regained now by selecting them as custom upgrade options for $50, which is indeed a reasonable price, especially for the SuperDrive).
Which brings us to the real issue: these minis are better than the old ones only because the old ones were so embarrassingly underpowered. A 125MHz G4 and a 4200rpm hard drive? Without the assistance of a time machine, you simply can't build a computer any slower than that these days. Anything new inevitably is going to be noticeably faster.
But don't delude yourself - it's not going to be 4X faster as Apple claims. To get that bump - which itself doesn't apply across the board - you've got to shell out $799, whereas to get the old G4 machine agsint which Apple's making its comparisons, you had to pay only $599. (The previous top-line mini was $699, but its performance was no better than the $599 model.)
Contrast this with the MacBook Pro. You get the same specs with only minor variations - no dual-layer DVD burner or FW800 port on the one hand, built-in iSight and MagSafe power connector on the other hand - FOR THE SAME PRICE. You get a full-on Core Duo, not a Core Solo, and faster RAM, and the price of admission is the same.
Not so with the poor mini.
Whatever voodoo Steve has used on Paul Otellini, he should kick it into overdrive so he can start sourcing Core Solos at a price that will allow for a return of the $499 mini, and for a $699 Core Duo equipped mini at the high end.
Until then, I say the mini is good, but not great.
And as for the new iPod HiFi, all I can say is this: yawn. If you can get any decent stereo separation or imaging with that unit, or if you can get truly clean bass out of it, I'll eat my proverbial hat.
