or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by wizard69

WallStreet hasn't gotten Apple numbers right in some time. In that regard who cares, we will get the real numbers soon.
What I see here and frankly I could be wrong, is that they did no boost the power supply capacity. They then added another TB port for which they have to take ten watts out of the power budget. I just don't think they have the excess capacity to power up the common Haswell quad cores. I also wonder if the move to LPDDR3 RAM was to address this.On another forum somebody also alluded to the mobile Haswell quads as using a different socket. I haven't researched that...
If your idea of basic use are the same as mine then yeah the low end Haswell is good enough. The problem is I see many of these computers being used beyond what could be called basic service. "Basic" might be better rephrased as business apps.The reverse is also true, people will blame sluggish Apps on the "processor" when in reality it is the GPU that is holding things up.The processor cores are actually faster that is a good thing for most users. The lost of the...
Once we get a handle on the chips in these machines we will know more about the GPU in each. Intel has different base clock speeds depending upon the model which can impact performance.
To go quad core in a GT3e supporting chip you end up in the 47+ watt range. That is more than half the power budget in the Mini. Someplace in that power budget you have to support I/O, I would imagine that Apple budgets at least 25 watts for that. So you have about 13 watts to support the rest of the machine.There are two core choices with Iris Plus but they are nothing to crow about. I suspect the big problem for Apple is the high cost of the chips. Of course...
That kinda sums it up.By the way is any of your software GPU accelerated? That can make a big difference with the new chips.
Buying used is almost always a better way to go than buying new.As for TB2 if you don't use it isn't a big deal. The GPU on the other hand is important. Yosemite is just more demanding if you have all that GUI goodness working for you.
It won't be a regression though.I'm not a big fan of Applle skimping but 4GB is still a lot of RAM to run Safari or a word processor which appears to be the users targeted with this machine. It isn't the machine for me but I'm confident that many users would be happy with it.Isn't that a common problem with advertising? It happens all the time in the auto world.You would be surprised.
At the high end yes a step backwards with the lack of Quad cores but this is offset by vastly better graphics or GPU support. This is important because with modern Mac OS a GPU is very important when it comes to delivering all the GUI features.Blaming Apple really isn't the way to go here, they are apparently wedded to Intel for this product and thus stuck with what Intel has to offer.Actually a $100 is a big deal for many. I wouldn't want the entry level machine but...
Slurpy has a very valid point. RAM upgrades just aren't a big issue like they have been in the past. 16 GB of RAM in a Mini will last most users a very long time. If you need more than 16 GB Of RAM you are buying the wrong machine anyways.Beyond that the industry will be going through a transition to DDR 4 RAM real soon now. It just won't make good economic sense to upgrade an old machine when the performance advantages of DDR 4 arrive. Of course here Apple is...
New Posts  All Forums: