Personally I would get the 6630M. You will probably get more life out of our mini. Unlike a pc, you can't just swap it in the future when things start to struggle a bit.

• 3

  Personally I would get the 6630M. You will probably get more life out of our mini. Unlike a pc, you can't just swap it in the future when things start to struggle a bit.

This is what I find ridiculous. I hate the fact that the CPU and GPU are soldered to the logicboard. I would rather get the base model, swap out CPU, GPU, RAM, and install at least one SSD. Have a very high powered computer with the Mini's footprint. AMAZING for what I would be using it for, yet completely sleek and hidden if need be.

• 4

  You can see the results on this benchmark site. Do a search using Ctrl+F to find the cards.

//www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

In simple terms the HD 3000 is the 354th most powerful graphics card you can get.

The 6630M is the 271st most powerful.

and the HD 4000 is 269th most powerful card you can buy. So not much between that and the 6630M really. I don't think you can get his on the current mac mini though.

I think the benchmark is raw processing power of the GPU, not how the cards deal with specific video features. Could be wrong though.

Personally I would get the 6630M. You will probably get more life out of our mini. Unlike a pc, you can't just swap it in the future when things start to struggle a bit.

thanks for info. I appreciate it. I guess I am stuck between a tough spot at the moment.

• 5

  This is what I find ridiculous. I hate the fact that the CPU and GPU are soldered to the logicboard. I would rather get the base model, swap out CPU, GPU, RAM, and install at least one SSD. Have a very high powered computer with the Mini's footprint. AMAZING for what I would be using it for, yet completely sleek and hidden if need be.

Yeah I know what you mean. Definitely max out the RAM. It is also pretty easy to put in an SSD.

I just put an SSD in my PC and I can say it is absolutely amazing - the best upgrade ever for a system. I didn't believe all the talk until I experienced it myself. Super responsive.

With the mac mini, the processors are pretty decent. I have an AMD Athlon II X2, 3.2 GHZ processor. It is absolutely rubbish processor compared to any current Intel processor, however you wouldn't know it with the SSD. So in terms of the mini, the processor should last a long time.

I think the trade off on the mac mini comes with the graphics card. I have just put a HD 7750 in my PC. Not the best card you can buy, but an excellent, powerful upgrade for me, enough to play most new games comfortably at 1080p and more than enough for graphics and video encoding.

With that in mind, that is why I would get the absolute best card in the mac mini you can buy, but of course it is your choice.

Edit.

Lets hope something like the 7650M gets put in the next min as an option.

Last edited: Aug 21, 2012

• 6

  How much better is the AMD Radeon HD 6630M then say the Intel HD Graphics 3000 or 4000? The current mac mini base models is sporting the 3000 and its almost a given the next base mac mini will be sporting a 4000.

Im in a horrible spot where I NEED a computer right now and simply cannot wait for the next mac mini whether it comes out in 1 month or 4. I thought I could but its just not possible. I need a computer right now and between the base model mac mini and the next one up to me at least the biggest difference is the graphics and the big thing I was hoping to gain from the next mac mini was graphics and usb 3.0. Since I cant wait I will have to live without usb 3.0 but Im wondering how does the AMD Radeon HD 6630M stack up against the future Intel HD 4000 and current 3000.

In pertinence to my specific situation I can tell you that I dont game on my computer but I do run CS5 and Adobe LR3. Mostly Im just editing still images in photoshop or lightroom. I guess the only other thing I do pressure my computer with is loading multiple flash video's online and running multiple applications at the same time. When Im using photoshop or lightroom I tend to just run them alone and close all other apps. I like to check out 1080p vid's online where available as well.

Given the above is it worth me jumping up to a AMD Radeon HD 6630M model or will the Intel HD Graphics 3000 suffice? Price difference here is $200 in which basically all I value for the extra 200 is the graphics as I will be putting in my own 16GB of RAM and SSD in either computer.

Thanks for your help in advance! I wish I could wait for the next mac mini but Im currently on a borrowed computer and need my own asap.

If you're going to start a thread, you ought to at least use spell check.

• 7

  This is what I find ridiculous. I hate the fact that the CPU and GPU are soldered to the logicboard. I would rather get the base model, swap out CPU, GPU, RAM, and install at least one SSD. Have a very high powered computer with the Mini's footprint. AMAZING for what I would be using it for, yet completely sleek and hidden if need be.

Planned obsolescence. Apple wants you to buy a new computer every 2-3 years because your slightly older computer will no longer be allowed to run the newest OS, even though the features in the new OS are nothing special, and don't require any advanced video graphics capabilities.

• 8

  Yeah I know what you mean. Definitely max out the RAM. It is also pretty easy to put in an SSD.

I just put an SSD in my PC and I can say it is absolutely amazing - the best upgrade ever for a system. I didn't believe all the talk until I experienced it myself. Super responsive.

With the mac mini, the processors are pretty decent. I have an AMD Athlon II X2, 3.2 GHZ processor. It is absolutely rubbish processor compared to any current Intel processor, however you wouldn't know it with the SSD. So in terms of the mini, the processor should last a long time.

I think the trade off on the mac mini comes with the graphics card. I have just put a HD 7750 in my PC. Not the best card you can buy, but an excellent, powerful upgrade for me, enough to play most new games comfortably at 1080p and more than enough for graphics and video encoding.

With that in mind, that is why I would get the absolute best card in the mac mini you can buy, but of course it is your choice.

Exactly my point though. I was speaking on a cost factor alone. Swapping the base Mini's CPU with something better would be around the same price as jumping to the mid model which is $300 more than the base (with the 2.7ghz i7 upgrade) but you would have the added ability of upgrading later which adds more value than anything.

My dream mini would be a base model, with an Intel Core i7-3770 processor, GeForce 9500 GT GPU, 16GB RAM, and 1 or 2 OCZ Vertex 4 SSDs (with possibly an external 1-2TB HDD).

Imagine what you can do with a computer with those specs and a footprint less than a square foot. Possibilities are endless. Create TONS of space in the workplace or in the home office while still being able to compete with any other BTO windows OR Mac computers/laptops

--

Planned obsolescence. Apple wants you to buy a new computer every 2-3 years because your slightly older computer will no longer be allowed to run the newest OS, even though the features in the new OS are nothing special, and don't require any advanced video graphics capabilities.

Couldn't have said it better myself. This is why Apple thrives as a company though. Because their equipment works 100% of the time, usually without any hitches, they can get away with making "old" computers obsolete because they know without a doubt, Mac users will continue to buy new products, knowing they'll get a 100% compatibility rate with other iOS/OSX devices.

That's also why they charge double for their systems, compared to a windows machine with the same processors and specs.

But again, that's why apple thrives. Great business practice, shotty customer service practice.

• 9

  If you're going to start a thread, you ought to at least use spell check.

So maybe I spelled a few words wrong in my post is it really that big of a deal? Last time I checked this wasn't an English paper I submitted in university but a forum.

If you don't have anything valuable to contribute to the thread then maybe don't post Mr. Grammar & Spell Check police. Just because I asked for help doesn't mean you have to be an a$$ to me.

• 10

  So maybe I spelled a few words wrong in my post is it really that big of a deal? Last time I checked this wasn't an English paper I submitted in university but a forum.

If you don't have anything valuable to contribute to the thread then maybe don't post Mr. Grammar & Spell Check police. Just because I asked for help doesn't mean you have to be an a$$ to me.

he probably has OCD and Assburgers. They obsess over every stupid detail.

• 11

  thanks for info. I appreciate it. I guess I am stuck between a tough spot at the moment.

The test is rather outdated. Look at the description. Testing with 7 planes, 200 trees on a 600x800 pixel window on Direct X 9 is not really up to today's standards. //www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M.43963.0.html //www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html Here you can compare many real time scores. The result is quite the same though. They score roughly the same. Sometimes the 6630 wins, sometimes the HD4000.

So HD4000 will give very capable results, and it is 22nm so it runs way cooler than the current 40nm HD6630. Apple will settle with the HD4000 probably and get the energy use further down rather than increase the performance over the current model.

• 12

  If you're going to start a thread, you ought to at least use spell check.

Why waste your own time posting if it is useless to the topic? Spelling was fine, a small child should read this without an issue.

I can speak on the HD3000 and 6630m, but haven't owned a mac with HD4000 graphics yet. IMO the HD3000 gets spanked in real performance by the 6630m. Although the hd4000 is supposedly quite an improvement over the previous model, I don't see it competing closely with the dedicated graphics of the 6630m yet. That is just my opinion though. I was surprised to be able to run Starcraft, WoW, and League of Legends on fairly high settings in 1080p, the 6630 is no slouch even with only 256mb Vram!

• 13

  The test is rather outdated. Look at the description. Testing with 7 planes, 200 trees on a 600x800 pixel window on Direct X 9 is not really up to today's standards. //www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M.43963.0.html //www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html Here you can compare many real time scores. The result is quite the same though. They score roughly the same. Sometimes the 6630 wins, sometimes the HD4000.

So HD4000 will give very capable results, and it is 22nm so it runs way cooler than the current 40nm HD6630. Apple will settle with the HD4000 probably and get the energy use further down rather than increase the performance over the current model.

Why waste your own time posting if it is useless to the topic? Spelling was fine, a small child should read this without an issue. I can speak on the HD3000 and 6630m, but haven't owned a mac with HD4000 graphics yet. IMO the HD3000 gets spanked in real performance by the 6630m. Although the hd4000 is supposedly quite an improvement over the previous model, I don't see it competing closely with the dedicated graphics of the 6630m yet. That is just my opinion though. I was surprised to be able to run Starcraft, WoW, and League of Legends on fairly high settings in 1080p, the 6630 is no slouch even with only 256mb Vram!

Looks like the 6630 is the winner then. I guess if Im going to get a mac mini before the next gen then I should seriously consider getting the 6630 model as it will at least be somewhat future proof. I suppose for the extra $200 I do also get a little bit better intel i5 2.5Ghz over the 2.3Ghz i5 as well.