Apple Mac mini Review (Mid 2010)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 9, 2010 3:37 AM ESTGaming Performance
Two years ago Apple (and NVIDIA) sent a clear message to Intel - its integrated graphics was no longer good enough. For the second largest consumer of semiconductors in the world to publicly tell Intel that its graphics wasn’t enough had to be a wake-up call. I was surprised that it took Intel until this year to really heed the call. The Larrabee announcement and subsequent increase in integrated graphics investment tells us that Intel is finally trying to win this business back. But today, Apple definitely values putting more money towards GPUs than CPUs. The 2010 13-inch MacBook Pro was our first example, where Apple opted against moving to a Core i3/i5 in order to ship with a NVIDIA GPU. The Mac mini continues the trend as Apple sticks to last year’s Penryn based Core 2 Duo P8600 instead of moving to a Core i3. In fact, one look at the mini’s box reveals Apple’s thinking:
iLife, NVIDIA graphics and WiFi are the only things mentioned on the packaging. There’s not a single mention of Intel being inside the Mac mini. Even on Apple’s website, the Intel shoutouts are limited. If I were a betting man I’d say that Apple is gearing up to eventually support AMD CPUs as well as Intel. The first Fusion parts might be a logical starting point.
With a growing installed user base and a higher guaranteed minimum GPU level, the Mac platform is becoming more attractive to game developers. Steam is now alive and well on OS X and last month’s Starcraft 2 release ships with both OS X and Windows versions on the same disc.
The 2010 Mac mini is basically a 13-inch MacBook Pro in a different form factor. The GeForce 320M GPU isn’t fast, but it’s fast enough to run things like Half Life 2 at playable frame rates. Unfortunately Starcraft 2 came out after I already sent the mini back so I couldn’t get a feel for how well it would run on the mini. For what it’s worth, Apple’s current NVIDIA drivers included in OS X 10.6.4 are absolutely horrible for performance in Starcraft 2. Even a GeForce GTX 285 runs like garbage under OS X with those drivers, you need to use the latest betas from NVIDIA which unfortunately only work on the GTX 285 (at least the installer portion).
Performance is a bit lower than the 13-inch MacBook Pro in our OS X Half Life 2 Episode Two test, presumably because of the meager 2GB of memory the system ships with by default compared to the 4GB you get with the MBP.
The 2008 iMac is still considerably faster since it uses a faster CPU and a much faster dedicated GPU. The 8800M GS has more shader horsepower and runs at a higher clock than the GeForce 320M. There’s also the matter of the dedicated frame buffer (512MB) vs. the shared memory setup on the Mac mini.
The mini is good enough for today’s games on the Mac (although not at 1080p). I would expect its GPU to feel slow after another year.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
Guspaz - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
Ever since the "Intel HD" integrated graphics (the ones that are on-package for certain i3/5/7 models) came out, Intel has had passable integrated graphics. They perform on-par with the GeForce 9400M (which was benchmarked in this review). That's not saying much, but it's an enormous improvement over the previous generation of GMA. That 9400M as benchmarked, though, is from a year ago (mid 2009), so I can't argue that Intel has caught up enough with nVidia to be a viable alternative for Apple. If they keep up the current momentum, though, they'll probably catch up with nVidia soon enough.From a more anecdotal perspective, I recently bought a Toshiba Portégé r700 (Anandtech recently discussed it in their "under 14" article) which (for my model) features a Core i5 520M. The graphics are Intel's on-package.
Performance is acceptable. StarCraft 2 is playable at native resolution with a perfectly smooth framerate, but this is admittedly at low to low-medium settings. That's more than I expected to get out of it, though; I didn't buy this thing for gaming, so anything at all is a bonus.
thunng8 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
9400M graphics was first released October 2008, not mid 2009. Also, the Integrated graphics used in the i3 mobile is clocked significantly lower than the i5 desktop. Only on the i5 that the Intel integrated graphics almost matches the 2008 9400M.Stuka87 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
I would have loved to see how it compared to the previous Mac Mini's with the intel graphics and such.And like some others have asked, will it run Starcraft 2? I typically play on my PC, but would be nice to not have to switch some times (Since saved games are saved on b.net).
archer75 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
I'm curious to know how World of Warcraft performs at 1900x1200 with all in game settings maxed?icecreampop3 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
At 1280x1024, maxed, 23fps according to notebookcheck.net. I'd say maybe 18 fps @ 1080p.archer75 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
I just looked up some youtube videos of wow running on the mini at 1920x1080, slightly lower than my resolution of 1920x1200 but they were getting 18-25fps in cities and warsong. So not that great.james.jwb - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
Not only a WOW player, but you want a Mac Mini?You must be one tough SOB to admit to this ;)
tipoo - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
I'm really confounded by the price jump over the previous generation. If it had stayed the same, I may have found the Mini to be worth it.mados123 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
A better alternative for an HTPC would be the Viewsonic VOT550 w/ Blu-ray, Core 2 Duo 2,2GHz, 4GB, etc. for around $600.http://www.viewsonic.com/vot530-550
Claudius-07 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
Just got an Acer Revo and installed XBMC. I have a seagate T+, HDX 1000, WD Live, and the Revo+XBMC is the best thing thus far (however can't bitstream HD audio). Anyhow, love Apple but still scratching my head on this one for the price.