Another wild theory.

Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
I've been ruminating over the lack of 64Mb graphics on the Mini and I've come to the conclusion (call it a wild theory) that Steve did this on purpose so that the Mini could not possibly compete with the Xbox. I reckon his comeback would be that the Mini is a serious computer (yeah right!) whereas the Xbox is just a "console".

What thinks you guys (and potentially gals)?

Amen-Moses
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
702
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
MacbookAir iPhone6
Amen-Moses said:
I've been ruminating over the lack of 64Mb graphics on the Mini and I've come to the conclusion (call it a wild theory) that Steve did this on purpose so that the Mini could not possibly compete with the Xbox. I reckon his comeback would be that the Mini is a serious computer (yeah right!) whereas the Xbox is just a "console".

What thinks you guys (and potentially gals)?

Amen-Moses

ruminating - well indeed nice word :teen:
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
973
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Location
Dubai
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP 2.16GHz ^ATI Radeon X1600 256MB ^100GB @ 7200 rpm ^2GB RAM ^Glossy Screen +iPod 4G 20 gigs
F

falltime

Guest
Amen-Moses said:
I've been ruminating over the lack of 64Mb graphics on the Mini and I've come to the conclusion (call it a wild theory) that Steve did this on purpose so that the Mini could not possibly compete with the Xbox. I reckon his comeback would be that the Mini is a serious computer (yeah right!) whereas the Xbox is just a "console".

What thinks you guys (and potentially gals)?

Amen-Moses

Wait what?
 
OP
A
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
Eh? :confused:

Amen-Moses
 
D

dirtydog

Guest
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the xbox. The Mac mini spec is just the same as an ibook with the 32MB 9200. It's just cheaper to use 32MB.

A 64MB Radeon 9200 would not perform one iota faster than a 32MB one either. It's too slow for modern games however much graphics memory it's got - the xbox smokes it.
 
R

RC23

Guest
wait, xbox is just a consol. mac mini is a computer that runs a completely difference os.
not to mention an os that doesnt have that many popular games.

soo.. im wondering how in the heck are they related or in competition to eachother at all..

if you ask me the mac mini relates to the gamecube more.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
911
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Location
Long Island, NY
Your Mac's Specs
15" MacBook Pro & 23" ACD
RC23 said:
wait, xbox is just a consol. mac mini is a computer that runs a completely difference os.
not to mention an os that doesnt have that many popular games.

soo.. im wondering how in the heck are they related or in competition to eachother at all..

if you ask me the mac mini relates to the gamecube more.

Especially since the gamecube is a g3 processor ;)
 
OP
A
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
dirtydog said:
A 64MB Radeon 9200 would not perform one iota faster than a 32MB one either. It's too slow for modern games however much graphics memory it's got - the xbox smokes it.

A 733Mhz P3 with 133FSB and GeForce3 Graphics is gonna "smoke" a 1.42Ghz G4 167Mhz FSB with ATI 9200 Graphics. Yeah right.

My G4 iMac has GeForce 4 Graphics fer crying out loud!

All the high games I have tried on my Mini follow the same pattern as on my PCs, they see the 9200 then check for graphics RAM, then they report back "You need 64 Mb or more VRAM for this option". When I upgraded my PC to a 9200 card with 128Mb then it "smoked". ;)

If you run in 640x480 (the Xbox standard screen resolution) on any PC or Mac the games are going to easily "smoke" an Xbox playing the same game but how many people do that? The whole point of having the PC is to utilise the higher graphics resolutions isn't it.

I reckon that if Apple had given the Mini a decent chunk of VRAM (say 128Mb) then it could have stolen a march on both the Xbox 2 and the PS-3 although I don't know whether the games manufacturers would have backed it up.

Amen-Moses
 
OP
A
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
RC23 said:
wait, xbox is just a consol. mac mini is a computer that runs a completely difference os.
not to mention an os that doesnt have that many popular games.

soo.. im wondering how in the heck are they related or in competition to eachother at all..

if you ask me the mac mini relates to the gamecube more.

Because the *NEW* Xbox 2 and PS-3 consoles are being brought out with either the pure console at around $300 US or with a bundle of goodies like keyboard mouse and other bits to make it a usable media centre, this second package will probably be priced around $450. Now that does put them in Mac Mini territory! Especially given they size and styling of the three will be similar.

*IF* (and it's a big if) the new consoles are backwardly compatible with the previous games (for the PS-3 it's unlikely and for the Xbox it is only "likely" rather than certain) then they will of course sell like hotcakes but if not then the Mini would have looked a very tempting alternative.

I think the hint was given at keynote, Sony and Apple working closely together, Sony definitely would not be happy to see Apple release a PS-3 competitor long before the PS-3 is released! (now after next christmas maybe the gloves could really come off, how about a Mini with 333 Mhz FSB, ATI 9800 GFX and a 7200 HD, Hmmmm)

Amen-Moses
 
D

dirtydog

Guest
Amen-Moses said:
A 733Mhz P3 with 133FSB and GeForce3 Graphics is gonna "smoke" a 1.42Ghz G4 167Mhz FSB with ATI 9200 Graphics. Yeah right.

In a PC, no, not at all. But the xbox does. You mustn't think of the xbox's spec in PC terms; it over-achieves massively compared to a PC. An xbox's performance is nearly as good as today's high-end PCs, whereas a PC with 733 Celeron/P3 Hybrid (133fsb but only 128K L2) and Geforce3 would be lame.

My G4 iMac has GeForce 4 Graphics fer crying out loud!

All the high games I have tried on my Mini follow the same pattern as on my PCs, they see the 9200 then check for graphics RAM, then they report back "You need 64 Mb or more VRAM for this option". When I upgraded my PC to a 9200 card with 128Mb then it "smoked". ;)

If you run in 640x480 (the Xbox standard screen resolution) on any PC or Mac the games are going to easily "smoke" an Xbox playing the same game but how many people do that? The whole point of having the PC is to utilise the higher graphics resolutions isn't it.

Again, you're wrong.. sorry. A lot of games, like UT2004, are cpu limited and will give the same fps virtually whatever res you run them at, from 640x480 to 1600x1200.

Also remember Halo? It runs better on the xbox than it does on a P4 3.0 with Geforce4.. even at 640x480.

btw no, a 9200 128MB would not be any faster than a 9200 32MB.. surely you should know that? It may be able to run AA/AF better, or use detail textures, due to the larger memory, but faster? Nope.

The 9200 (aka 9000) is a lame card whichever way you slice it. It is well beaten by a 5 year old Radeon 8500.
 
OP
A
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
dirtydog said:
The 9200 (aka 9000) is a lame card whichever way you slice it. It is well beaten by a 5 year old Radeon 8500.

I'm trying to understand why that matters, the 8500 was about 4 times the speed of a GeForce 3 card, the 9200 runs at exactly the same clock speed as the 8500 but has dual bus RAM and a few new widgets but it doesn't really matter as the 8500 is discontinued and it sure as heck isn't in an Xbox!

(I'm also trying to figure out why ATI would discontinue the 8500 and replace it with the 9000 range if it was a better card, surely someone would notice. ;))

Amen-Moses
 
J

jessica

Guest
That is a good point though about the competition with the xbox.
I doubt steve jobs had that in mind, but heck---I'd be worried if I were MS.
 
D

dirtydog

Guest
Amen-Moses said:
I'm trying to understand why that matters, the 8500 was about 4 times the speed of a GeForce 3 card, the 9200 runs at exactly the same clock speed as the 8500 but has dual bus RAM and a few new widgets but it doesn't really matter as the 8500 is discontinued and it sure as heck isn't in an Xbox!

(I'm also trying to figure out why ATI would discontinue the 8500 and replace it with the 9000 range if it was a better card, surely someone would notice. ;))

Amen-Moses

lol mate no offence but you are really showing your ignorance on a number of issues here..

1. The 8500 is about the same speed as a Geforce3 at best.
2. the 9000 is most definitely slower than an 8500 - it has less pipelines. It is also clocked lower for the record, at 250/200 (400) iirc? The 8500 is clocked at 275/275 (500) with more pipelines.. you decide which is quicker out of those.

If you doubt what I say above, go check out any reviews of the 9000, or benchmarks, or ask on other hardware forums on the web - you will find what I just said is correct.

ATI are very naughty with their numbering convention. The 9100 is faster than the 9200 as well. The 9000, 9100 and 9200 are only DX8 cards too, not DX9 despite their name suggesting otherwise. Plus the 9500 is quicker than the 9600 and the 9550 models.

Again, none of this is my opinion, I'm stating undeniable facts here.

Here's one source for you anyway..

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-04.html

image081.gif


Note the relative positions of the Geforce3, Radeon 8500 and Radeon 9000 (of which a 9200 is an exact copy except it's AGP 8x which is meaningless in performance terms)
 
OP
A
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
dirtydog said:
lol mate no offence but you are really showing your ignorance on a number of issues here..

1. The 8500 is about the same speed as a Geforce3 at best.
2. the 9000 is most definitely slower than an 8500 - it has less pipelines. It is also clocked lower for the record, at 250/200 (400) iirc? The 8500 is clocked at 275/275 (500) with more pipelines.. you decide which is quicker out of those.

If you doubt what I say above, go check out any reviews of the 9000, or benchmarks, or ask on other hardware forums on the web - you will find what I just said is correct.

ATI are very naughty with their numbering convention. The 9100 is faster than the 9200 as well. The 9000, 9100 and 9200 are only DX8 cards too, not DX9 despite their name suggesting otherwise. Plus the 9500 is quicker than the 9600 and the 9550 models.

Again, none of this is my opinion, I'm stating undeniable facts here.

Well according to the benchmarks I looked up the 8500 was 4 times the framerate of a Geforce 3 using Quake III as the benchmark game, this was 3 years ago though.

The 9200 was clocked at 275 when it first came out but had dual RAM buses at 400Mhz instead of the 8500's single 550Mhz one. The 8500 was also only AGPx4 rather that x8 as in the case of the 9000 series.

The 9200 is a budget chipset and also doesn't require a fan so I don't expect it to be as fast as current competition but it sure will beat a GeForce 4 card.

Amen-Moses
 
D

dirtydog

Guest
Amen-Moses said:
Well according to the benchmarks I looked up the 8500 was 4 times the framerate of a Geforce 3 using Quake III as the benchmark game, this was 3 years ago though.

The 9200 was clocked at 275 when it first came out but had dual RAM buses at 400Mhz instead of the 8500's single 550Mhz one. The 8500 was also only AGPx4 rather that x8 as in the case of the 9000 series.

The 9200 is a budget chipset and also doesn't require a fan so I don't expect it to be as fast as current competition but it sure will beat a GeForce 4 card.

Amen-Moses

What is dual ram when it's at home?

A 9200 will beat a Geforce4? Erm no it won't, a Geforce4 obliterates it.. look at the benchmark I just posted, or any others on the web. Even a Geforce4 MX (itself a shadow of the Geforce4) beats it.
 
OP
A
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
dirtydog said:
I rest my case.

You're right I was looking at MX benchmarks, I can't figure out all the daft numbering systems they keep coming out with.

Anyhow I still can't see what this has to do with the Xbox!

Amen-Moses
 
OP
A
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
Btw here is a comment from the first benchmark test I looked up:

"ATI video cards have always been able to deliver great anisotropic performance and image quality. Here we see the Radeon 9200 only drop 6fps going from 2x to 8x anistropic filtering which is very impressive. The Geforce4 Ti4200 dropped a total of 40fps and the Geforce FX5200 dropped 21fps. The Geforce4 MX440 is only able to do 2x anisotropic filtering and it finished in last place. Although the Geforce4 Ti4200 dropped the most fps when using 8x anisotropic filtering it was still able to outperform the Radeon 9200 by 27fps which is a good result."

Without 64Mb you can't even turn on the higher card functions like this so I still maintain that 32Mb is throttling the ATI chipset, or at least not allowing it to use the full range of functions they have.

Amen-Moses
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Location
Ceres, Ca
Your Mac's Specs
iPad 32 GB 3G
Amen-Moses said:
Anyhow I still can't see what this has to do with the Xbox!

Didn't Apple market a gaming maching a long time ago? When they have a marketing failure they seem to never again want to produce something of the same type. Notice the lack of PDAs and things with the number 3. I'd think they aren't even tempted to produce any gaming consoles now or in the future.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top