Hilarious! :) The Mac mini review @ Ars

[ANova]

Anyone who's played HALO knows that the minimum spec is optimistic in the extreme. Even if you lower the res and turn everything off that you can so it looks like trash, it will be very sluggish.

No kidding. I play Doom 3 at the 'high' setting on my 9500 Pro and get an average of 45-50 fps. In Halo (a graphically inferior game) I get an average of 40 fps with dips as low as 10!

]

? I can't? And why, may I ask?

Stop being so damn confrontational. You're not better than anyone else.

you - pronoun second person sing. or pl. 1 used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. 2 used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class. 3 used to refer to any person in general.

You're efforts will go on deaf ears my friend.

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor - imagine the lowest ATI part, an integrated 9200 32MB under OpenGL

Is that why latest results show the X800 XT mac edition beating the 6800 Ultra the majority of the time?

 

[Fox5]

Come to think of it, it's interesting that MS can sell an Xbox with a P3-733, 64MB RAM, GF3 "IGP," and a HD for $200.

It's easy - they sell it at a loss.

Are you sure? They may just about break even.

I'd imagine current retail prices wouldn't be below what microsoft pays...
733mhz celeron- $27(xcpu may have 8 way cache associativety but it still only has half the cache of a p3)
Xbox memory isn't available for PC, niether are 64MB ddr sticks apparently, but a 128MB PC2100 stick goes for $11. Think if you lowered the latencies to a geforce3's latency it could hit 200mhz?
Geforce 4 Ti 4200 for $76
Cheapest harddrive I can find is a 20GB for $29.
Add $30 for case and power supply, $10 for heatsink, $20 for motherboard.
Comes out to $203. However, microsoft sells the xbox for $150 and includes a controller, but the prices here may be a little high. The price of the xgpu proably could have been counted in with the price of a motherboard with integrated graphics so you might be able to subtract $30 there. And does microsoft pay for shipping to the stores or do the stores pay for the shipping? Well, all the prices I listed included shipping.

BTW, can the mini mac be opened, or is the case solid and either folded around the frame or welded/bolted on?

I just saw over at R3D: DellSB - Dimension 3000 with 2.8Ghz P4, 512MB DDR SDRAM, 80GB HD, 48x CD-ROM, and 2 Year Warranty for $429 after Rebate with FREE Shipping not that I'm a big fan of Dell, absolutely not, (their workstations for example exceptionally crappy, poorly designed machines IMO) but this machine mops the floor with ANY MAc mini and it's actually $70 cheaper. (Though way bigger too.)

Is that one of those msn instant rebates with 3 years of service or is it just a free rebate?

 

[anaqer]

Are you sure? They may just about break even.

As a matter of fact, no, I'm not sure it's still the case. They did loose on every unit sold for a long time (I think that's more or less standard for console hardware, BTW) but I have nothing solid on how things stand right now.

The mini can be opened*, at least the top cover is removable.
Come to think of it, anybody got some piccies on the cooling solution?

*EDIT : sorry, warranty concerns regularly escape my attention.

 

[RussSchultz]

The mini is 'authorized tech serviceable only', or you void your warranty.

 

[Moloch]

]

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

You know what? You can't tell anything from ATIs (poor) Windows OpenGL drivers about their Mac efforts (which are better by far and with a lot of support from Apple).

? I can't? And why, may I ask?

FYI: less than 2 years ago the whole Mac division was about 4 people at ATI - I do know it...

But why are we having this discussion; the mac mini is not a games machine. And neither was it meant to be.

That's definitely true.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/X800XTMacEdition/haloAA.png

 

[T2k]

Anyone who's played HALO knows that the minimum spec is optimistic in the extreme. Even if you lower the res and turn everything off that you can so it looks like trash, it will be very sluggish.

No kidding. I play Doom 3 at the 'high' setting on my 9500 Pro and get an average of 45-50 fps. In Halo (a graphically inferior game) I get an average of 40 fps with dips as low as 10!

]

? I can't? And why, may I ask?

Stop being so damn confrontational. You're not better than anyone else.

you - pronoun second person sing. or pl. 1 used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. 2 used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class. 3 used to refer to any person in general.

You're efforts will go on deaf ears my friend.

LOL. SU and stop trolling.

You're going to get closed another topic with your retarded posts?

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor - imagine the lowest ATI part, an integrated 9200 32MB under OpenGL

Is that why latest results show the X800 XT mac edition beating the 6800 Ultra the majority of the time?

Perhaps because that's better?

I know you're a pretty slow kid but at least I expected some basic logical skills...

 

[T2k]

]

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

You know what? You can't tell anything from ATIs (poor) Windows OpenGL drivers about their Mac efforts (which are better by far and with a lot of support from Apple).

? I can't? And why, may I ask?

FYI: less than 2 years ago the whole Mac division was about 4 people at ATI - I do know it...

But why are we having this discussion; the mac mini is not a games machine. And neither was it meant to be.

That's definitely true.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/X800XTMacEdition/haloAA.png

None of them the Mac mini, I believe...

Besides I bet ATI doubled the Mac team since then. 8) WHich is good, considering my 9600 Pro in my G5.

 

[ANova]

LOL. SU and stop trolling.

You're going to get closed another topic with your retarded posts?

And the hilarity ensues.

Perhaps because that's better?

I know you're a pretty slow kid but at least I expected some basic logical skills...

Hmm, lets see here. The X800 XT loses against the 6800 Ultra in OGL within the windows environment. Yeah, we're all aware of that. Yet you go on to claim ATI's OGL support sucks on the Mac as well, even though the same card is faster in the OSX environment then it's 6800U counterpart. And to explain this you claim the X800 wins because it's better, even though it's more or less built on the same architecture as the PC edition. Hmm, slower in Windows, faster in OSX, yet it's OGL support sucks in both platforms. Interesting.

 

[T2k]

Hmm, lets see here. The X800 XT loses against the 6800 Ultra in OGL within the windows environment. Yeah, we're all aware of that. Yet you go on to claim ATI's OGL support sucks on the Mac as well, even though the same card is faster in the OSX environment then it's 6800U counterpart. And to explain this you claim the X800 wins because it's better, even though it's more or less built on the same architecture as the PC edition. Hmm, slower in Windows, faster in OSX, yet it's OGL support sucks in both platforms. Interesting.

I TOLD YOU you're slow - but I never thought you're THIS slow.

Hopelessly dumb. 8)

PS: Get lost, stupid troll.

 

[Fox5]

8) 8) Smiley faces make it much all betterer!

 

[Pete]

Come to think of it, it's interesting that MS can sell an Xbox with a P3-733, 64MB RAM, GF3 "IGP," and a HD for $200.

It's easy - they sell it at a loss.

You're probably still right, though the loss can't be that big anymore, and I suspect part of it is the apparently fixed cost they're paying nVidia for the GPU. The other parts shouldn't be that hard to assemble for about $150 (sorry, not $200 anymore).

 

[Albuquerque]

I TOLD YOU you're slow - but I never thought you're THIS slow.

Hopelessly dumb. 8)

PS: Get lost, stupid troll.

Uh? Look in the mirror much?

Here is what you said, verbatim:

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

But, as ANova just got done pointing out, "lower" ATI cards are beating "higher" NVIDIA's cards under OpenGL on the Mac platform. So do you have some benchmarks to show us how a 9200SE's OpenGL performance is that much worse than the other NVIDIA options on that same platform?

I generally agree with the whole mini-mac-is-trash tirade, but you're acting like a six year old bully -- which, when you're in an audience who's average age is ~30, makes you look ridiculous.

 

[ANova]

I TOLD YOU you're slow - but I never thought you're THIS slow.

Hopelessly dumb. 8)

PS: Get lost, stupid troll.

Back to the useless and tiring 10 year old insults huh. If you don't have a valid argument then just stfu, because you're wasting B3D's bandwidth.

 

[T2k]

I TOLD YOU you're slow - but I never thought you're THIS slow.

Hopelessly dumb. 8)

PS: Get lost, stupid troll.

Uh? Look in the mirror much?

Look, pal, if you're boring, go and search for somebody else.

Here is what you said, verbatim:

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

But, as ANova just got done pointing out, "lower" ATI cards are beating "higher" NVIDIA's cards under OpenGL on the Mac platform.

Usual errors, paired with slow logic...

1. Since when considered ATI's X800 XT 'lower' card than GF 6800U? Pixel fillrate is 7.6GP/s vs 6.4GP/s, 475MHz core vs 400MHz core, 182Gflops vs 100Gflops, 712MV/s vs 600MV/s transform etc - you don't know anything about the facts nor what you're talking about, stop pretending you understand the subject.

2. Beating? Where? Despite all these better HW parameters, they have a tie in UT2004 flyby, technical tie in botmatch (69 vs 67), only Halo is where ATI have a significant lead over NVIDIA.

3. Yes, I said Mac {for slower folks: the platform} OpenGL only {means the platform IS OpenGL only} where {in OpenGL} ATI is historically poor {which is true, check ANY PC benchmark: Doom3, even old Jedi Knight, Q3 etc}.
I believe the only reason they are better in Halo under OS X is they have their own Control Panel now, so they have the option to overwrite the application settings - which I, as a long-time ATI user, actually very welcome.

So do you have some benchmarks to show us how a 9200SE's OpenGL performance is that much worse than the other NVIDIA options on that same platform?

It's pretty obvious from this comment you don't know this whole story.
Nobody needs benchmarks on a 9200 with 32MB memory here, believe me - especially when you have OSX with 256 megs of system memory as ice on the cake.

I generally agree with the whole mini-mac-is-trash tirade, but you're acting like a six year old bully -- which, when you're in an audience who's average age is ~30, makes you look ridiculous.

Sorry if you don't get it, that's a side effect...
ANova has an agenda against me, last time I had to call mod and topic got closed. He acted like some psycho, he was sending hatemails for me by PM - I actually had to threaten him with calling a mod for harrasment to get him lost.

 

[Tim Murray]

Got a Dell P4 2.8Ghz (800Mhz FSB) with 160 gig SATA drive, DVD drive, basic stuff, but no Windows for $350 back in November.

 

[Albuquerque]

Usual errors, paired with slow logic...

Again with the personal attacks? I get the feeling this thread is going to get shut down for no other reason than you cannot hold a logical conversation but must instead degrade to calling names. Let's start taking your argument apart:

1. Since when considered ATI's X800 XT 'lower' card than GF 6800U?

Since we're talking about OpenGL, the answer is self-apparent. I assumed anyone who knows video cards would certainly know this, since basically every benchmark ever put out on an x86 platform said the same thing. I want you to now take a guess which card (X800XT or 6800U) performs worse in OpenGL. I'm very sure you know the answer, but to be fair, I'll give you three hints:
From Digit Life:
Quake 3 arena, XT being beaten by ~10%
Serious Sam SE, XT being beaten by ~15%

From CDRInf

GLExcess, XT being trounced by ~22%

And of course, I can give you a half-dozen links about how bad the 6800U stomps the X800XT in the currently most popular OpenGL game: Doom3. Most of that is because it was developed on NV hardware, but some of it is also due to ATI's less than stellar OpenGL support on the PC platform.

So why is it when the X800XT is placed on a Macintosh, it supercedes the 6800 Ultra in nearly all cases (and essentially ties in the rest)? Weren't you just arguing that since ATi sucks rocks on OpenGL in the PC platform that it also too sucks rocks on OpenGL in the Mac platform?
BareFeats would argue your point
AccelerateYourMac would argue your point across two pages

It's pretty obvious from this comment you don't know this whole story.
Nobody needs benchmarks on a 9200 with 32MB memory here, believe me - especially when you have OSX with 256 megs of system memory as ice on the cake.

Yeah, well I think we do, especially after you just got done telling everyone to "trust you" that the X800XT was better than the 6800U in OpenGL. I think you've been proven wrong enough just about that single oversight for me to not trust you about the rest.

But I digress, it appears that basically no matter the video card (and even with 512mb or even 1gb of system memory), Halo pretty much sucks on the Mac platform anyway. AccelerateYourMac has a quick roundup of scores that are pretty sickening in my opnion. There's a guy with a Dual G5 2ghz, an R9600 and 512mb of system ram pulling an average of 20fps, with multiple dips into the single digits. There's another guy with a 9800Pro on a Dual G5 2ghz rnuning ~26fps. A third dude with a 32mb GF2mx tied to a 1.47ghz G4 and a gig of ram pulling 25fps.

Yikes, or ouch... Either one is pretty applicable in my opinion.

Sorry if you don't get it, that's a side effect...
ANova has an agenda against me, last time I had to call mod and topic got closed. He acted like some psycho, he was sending hatemails for me by PM - I actually had to threaten him with calling a mod for harrasment to get him lost.

Minus the hatemail, this is exactly the way you are acting. Calm down a little, slow down on the caffeine and/or sugar, and talk to me like a normal human being.

 

[T2k]

Usual errors, paired with slow logic...

Again with the personal attacks? I get the feeling this thread is going to get shut down for no other reason than you cannot hold a logical conversation but must instead degrade to calling names. Let's start taking your argument apart:

Again: you started. And as everybody can see now, you are keep doing this. As I've said, kid: if your're boring, go to the bathroom..

Get lost. Go and learn the basics first - we'll see below you don't even know the basic terms.

1. Since when considered ATI's X800 XT 'lower' card than GF 6800U?

Since we're talking about OpenGL, the answer is self-apparent.

LOL
You're probably the least logical person here.
Did you notice the numbers I gave you about the HW?
Or it really doesn't bother you?

FYI, my apparently ignorant fella: "lower" in this 3D hw-related world means lower-class in terms of price/hw/performance. Nobody uses 'lower' in one specific API related context when two card is the subject.

At least learn the frikkin terms if you wanna debate.

I assumed anyone who knows video cards would certainly know this,

You assumed whatever you want, apparently you have no idea about any terminus technicus - we'll see soon, why I'm saying this...

since basically every benchmark ever put out on an x86 platform said the same thing.

Still: your whole long litany based on your FAULTY imagination what a 'lower card' would mean...

I want you to now take a guess which card (X800XT or 6800U) performs worse in OpenGL. I'm very sure you know the answer, but to be fair, I'll give you three hints:
From Digit Life:
Quake 3 arena, XT being beaten by ~10%
Serious Sam SE, XT being beaten by ~15%

From CDRInf

GLExcess, XT being trounced by ~22%

And of course, I can give you a half-dozen links about how bad the 6800U stomps the X800XT in the currently most popular OpenGL game: Doom3. Most of that is because it was developed on NV hardware, but some of it is also due to ATI's less than stellar OpenGL support on the PC platform.

This guy is hilarious... You completely went off the track with your misunderstanding what 'lower card' means.! This is hilarious.
So much for my #1 comment - you didn't even get close to challenge it. 8)

Have you noticed, my young friend that you're actually - without a flying clue, of course - but did the favor and put the reasons behind my #2 comment? Namely ATI's OGL sux on PC historically? 8)

Completely missed #2.

So why is it when the X800XT is placed on a Macintosh, it supercedes the 6800 Ultra in nearly all cases (and essentially ties in the rest)?

As I also said: stick with the facts. Stop lying: nowhere near supercedes anywhewre, except Halo.
I bet you don't even know which benchmark we're talking about...

If you're clueless, stay low and listen, don't try to alternate the facts - that's called lying.

Weren't you just arguing that since ATi sucks rocks on OpenGL in the PC platform that it also too sucks rocks on OpenGL in the Mac platform?

LOL! ROTFLMAO!

Dude... did you actually read my post???

This guy is hilarious, seriously. 8)

BareFeats would argue your point
AccelerateYourMac would argue your point across two pages

Man... I did posted this here and it shows what I just told you Nth times again: XT takes significant lead only under Halo, despite its way stronger hardware.

WTF is wrong with your brain? Which part you don't get?

It's pretty obvious from this comment you don't know this whole story.
Nobody needs benchmarks on a 9200 with 32MB memory here, believe me - especially when you have OSX with 256 megs of system memory as ice on the cake.

Yeah, well I think we do, especially after you just got done telling everyone to "trust you" that the X800XT was better than the 6800U in OpenGL. I think you've been proven wrong enough just about that single oversight for me to not trust you about the rest.

#1 missed, #2 missed - what a suprise, he doesn't even mention #3... I wonder why... :Roll: Perhaps his completely clueless what I'm talking about regarding the OS X CP?

But look, kid: that's one thing you are obviously either A) somehow incapable to interpret my last post's points properly or B) deliberately misunderstood it - but don't try to discredit me, due to your utterly ignorant state of mind on this subject.

You failed to understand my points. Result: you're fighting with non-existing opinions, embarrassing yourself.

You failed to even properly use a term in a technical context. Result: you embarrased yourself again, due to your lack of knowledge - you even built up a long, completely wasted counterpost on this misinterpreted idea.

You also distorted the facts few times, obviously deliberately in order to back up your failed idea.

Minus the hatemail, this is exactly the way you are acting. Calm down a little, slow down on the caffeine and/or sugar, and talk to me like a normal human being.

Go and learn the basic terms, stop lying, when you done, come back, read again my points, interpret, think, harder - then write an answer.

That's the minimum to can have a meaningful conversation - I hate to debate with clueless folks.

 

[Albuquerque]

Again: you started. And as everybody can see now, you are keep doing this. As I've said, kid: if your're boring, go to the bathroom..

What are you talking about? "You started it" -- yeah, exactly where did I start this? Please quote me exactly where "I started it". Because I can find neither a place where "I started it", but I can quote at least ten times where you have. Get over yourself, follow your own advice, and read the thread.

<flaming removed> we'll see below you don't even know the basic terms.

Why, because you say so? I obvioulsy have considerably more technical knowledge than you, as evidnced by your "basic terms" comment that we're about to completely dispell right now:

1. Since when considered ATI's X800 XT 'lower' card than GF 6800U? Pixel fillrate is 7.6GP/s vs 6.4GP/s, 475MHz core vs 400MHz core, 182Gflops vs 100Gflops, 712MV/s vs 600MV/s transform <flaming removed>

The problem here is that you're basing all your false logic on theoretical numbers. In reality (where everyone else lives, remember?) those numbers mean jack. By your faulty logic, a 6800Ultra will lose every time to an X800XT. By extending your faulty logic, an AMD FX-55 would lose every time to an Intel Prescott 3.4ghz. Neither case is so.

A computer component of ANY TYPE is not measured by it's theoretical values, and anyone who's been in the computer business more than six months already knows this. If the world actually worked on theoretical values, the NV30 wouldn't have flopped, our current processors would be performing at 3x their current speed, and would be emitting about twice their TDP in heat.

FYI, <flaming removed> "lower" in this 3D hw-related world means lower-class in terms of price/hw/performance.

I can agree to that, in which case the pricing for the X800XT (only available in PCI-E) and the 6800 GT (only 6800 I could find in PCI-E are about on equal terms. If we ignore the PCI-E availability and just compare the 6800Ultra to the X800XT, the costs are still roughly the same and all things considered, they're about the same performance in real life. Again, theoretical numbers have zero weight, simply because the user base is NEVER going to see those theoretical numbers in any real world application.

Still: your whole long litany based on your FAULTY imagination what a 'lower card' would mean...

Quite the opposite, it's due to your confusion and illogical analysis of what makes a "lower card". The two devices you've called into question are on equal price and equal performance categories. You've been proven incorrect; please drop it.

but did the favor and put the reasons behind my #2 comment? Namely ATI's OGL sux on PC historically?

No, actually I didn't. The problem here is that your #1 comment was in complete disagreement with your own #2 comment. I wholeheartedly agree with your #2 comment, but NOT with your #1 comment. Is that too hard to comprehend?

As I also said: stick with the facts. Stop lying: nowhere near supercedes anywhewre, except Halo.
I bet you don't even know which benchmark we're talking about...

Per your own recommendation, you should try reading what the post said. My exact words were "equals or supercedes". Did you look at the benchmarks I provided?

UT2004 Flyby: Equal
UT2004 Botmatch: XT ahead by 5%
Halo "High": XT ahead by 15%
Halo 4x/8x: XT ahead by 35%
Q3A highest: XT ahead by 5%
GLExcess: XT ahead by 22%

Gee, that looks like my benchmarks supported exactly what I said in my post. It seems you overlooked this fact, were you just in a hurry to continue flaming me with your personal attacks?

I did posted this here and it shows what I just told you Nth times again: XT takes significant lead only under Halo, despite its way stronger hardware.

Where? Where did you post any of those benchmarks? Please point me to the exact post you have in this thread that explicitly defines ANY of the benchmarks you just said you "I did posted this here". The word significant is what you said, that's not what I said. I said "equals or supercedes", in which all the benchmarks are exactly as I described. Show me where I said anything different...

<flaming removed> that's one thing you are obviously either A) somehow incapable to interpret my last post's points properly or B) deliberately misunderstood it - but don't try to discredit me, due to <flaming removed>

You failed to understand my points. <flaming removed>.

No. The problem is threefold:
1. Your points are directly contrary to themselves
2. You cannot describe your points in any logical manner, and nobody should be expected to "guess" what you mean.
3. You cannot defend any of your points without resorting to downtalking, flaming or calling names.

Your posts are in direct violation of the stated rules of this forum, and you are being reported to a moderator.

End of discussion.

 

[Fox5]

1. Since when considered ATI's X800 XT 'lower' card than GF 6800U? Pixel fillrate is 7.6GP/s vs 6.4GP/s, 475MHz core vs 400MHz core, 182Gflops vs 100Gflops, 712MV/s vs 600MV/s transform etc - you don't know anything about the facts nor what you're talking about, stop pretending you understand the subject.

And a higher speed p4 must beat any athlon in performance right?
Come on, even in directx the 6800U beats the x800xt in some benchmarks and ties in a lot, and it rarely gets beat by any significant margin.

FYI, my apparently ignorant fella: "lower" in this 3D hw-related world means lower-class in terms of price/hw/performance. Nobody uses 'lower' in one specific API related context when two card is the subject.

6800 Ultra costs just as much as the x800xt, and it's in the same performance class, and it does have hardware advantages over the x800xt, so where do you get "lower" card from?

And can you prove ati's opengl sucks? That it's slower than nvidia cards could just mean that nvidia cards are faster and nvidia's directx sucks. Or maybe every opengl game is designed for nvidia hardware. I'm sure if you asked ati about the current state of their opengl drivers you wouldn't get a "they suck" answer from them.

 

[ANova]

ANova has an agenda against me, last time I had to call mod and topic got closed. He acted like some psycho, he was sending hatemails for me by PM - I actually had to threaten him with calling a mod for harrasment to get him lost.

I don't have an agenda against you, you just consistently spout off BS and then throw personal attacks at anyone that disagrees with you. You closed the topic, maybe because your useless and ignorant insults weren't getting you anywhere? I PMed you to ask why you felt the topic had to be closed, I was in no way sending you hatemail until you started with the personal attacks as always. I think psycho would fit your bill perfectly.