Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips - Page 9

since most workloads are integer-heavy. And FP-intensive work is gradually moving to the GPU.


No, it is 5% for the whole die, counting caches, memory controllers, etc. and ~12% for the second integer core on a module.

If you've looked at AMD's recent dies, the cores don't take up as much of the die compared to Intel's.


Thuban won't be up against Gulftown, it's price (and TDP) is closer to Lynnfield/Gulftown. Next year, it'll be 8-core Zambezi, that is if AMD doesn't raise their prices.


The 80% number makes sense, as it's an entire second integer core. Two cores would give close to 100% performance increase in multithreaded situations.

SMT, CMT, and dual-core give various amounts of performance improvements for various increases in die size. AMD thought that CMT gave the most performance per core size increase compared to the other ways.

Bulldozer also features FP improvements. (Sandy Bridge also does.)


That's true, but now things are reversed.


No, since more apps are moving to multithreaded. There are situations where single-threaded performance is important now and in the future. Now those apps are taken care of by more powerful cores (Intel), Turbo Boost and Turbo Core. In the future those apps will be taken care of by a few relatively large cores. In that respect Intel may have the advantage because their cores are already relatively large. However AMD may have the multithreaded FP advantage with Fusion.


Not at all in servers, and in the desktop they are usually behind in at least one if you are looking at multithreaded tasks.

Intel has the advantage with Clarkdale/Arrandale's integration, but that will be erased with Llano.


That will be when they are being pressured by AMD.


I doubt it. Not when Interlagos is expected to be over 33% increased performance over Magny-Cours for 33% more cores. So Intel will pretty much end up where they are this year, next year (and from the speculations I've heard that will be the best case scenario for Intel in servers).

Seriously I think people see the 13" machine as an excellent value. Part of that is because consumers are more informed about the significance of having a good GPU on a machine running Mac OS/X.

Yes but it is being sold out with a GPU that is significantly faster than Intels. We aren't talking a little bit faster either, it is significantly faster with video acceleration and good OpenCL support to boot.

Now I would agree with you that many consumers don't care about the techie details. But they will respond to the idea of video acceleration.

The whole point here is that solutions that use multiple GPUs are only worthwhile if they can fit into the hardware in question. For the hardware that Apple seems to want to build Intels integrated GPU (in the CPU module) is no better than AMDs. In fact all signs indicates it is worst.

Actually I think it is a huge issue for Apple. They don't want to be seen as going backwards performance wise. Thus we get a much faster replacement for the 9400m and modest CPU improvements. All of this in an existing platform.

They need progressively better hardware for marketing reasons as it is hard to sell a machine that is slower than last years model. They also need that GPU for OpenCL which is a lot harder to market to consummers. OpenCL is a key to keeping the Mac competitive OS wise.

A side ways look at this would be the use of the GPU in the iPhone and iPad which is extensive. If Apple can get as much of Quartz running on the GPU on the Mac as it is on iPhone OS we could see major improvements in Mac responsiveness. In other words I expect Apple to continue to try to exploit the GPU as much as possible most likely leading to resolution independence and a few other long sought goals. Arrandale alone in such an environment would be a very low end solution.


Dave

Especially in the context of the smaller MBP!


Yes but not as internal drives.

I haven't seen that poll but frankly most online polls are worthless as they don't represent the entire user community. In any event the lack of an internal drive does not imply a lack of support for Optical drives in the OS.

The best example here is Apples own MBA with no internal Optical. AIR is a machine that is rightly skewered for some of the design choices made with the computer but seldom is the lack of an Optical drive raised.

If you aren't worried about GPU performance then I honestly think you are missing the direction that Apple and the industry are turning. Frankly with the somtimes sluggishness of 10.6.3 they need to use whatever resources they can to speed it up.


Dave

Especially in smaller laptops where the Optical may take up a good portion of the available space.

Or they could simply go AMD and send Intel a no thank you message for Arrandale. AMD has some very good "integrated" GPUs that would go well in a notebook. By the time the next round of AMD mobile chips hit the street performance should be significantly better than the Core 2.

The more I think about this the more I think that it should be a snap for Apple to add an Optical-less 13" MBP. All they would really need to do is to programtheir CNC machine to skip cutting the Optical slot and make a thinner bottom cover. Even if a slot is added to support another "disk drive" it should still be a snap. So Apple ends up with a thin MBP with a sister with a fat bottom.

Yep an excellent idea! Due to the manufacturing process it should be extremely easy for them to do.

Unfortunately I think this just Apple being Apple. Considering recent history with laptop HHD manufactures it probably pays for Apple to go with drives with a track record. I've tried the bleeding edge myself for desktop drives and believe me getting burned on storage is no fun.

in the context if smaller machines I agree 100%. As long as the laptop has plenty of ports an external drive is a OK solution. A laptop with 2 or more internal storage slots is even better. I say slots here because I really think that modern SSD need to be made available as small PCI Express PC cards. What is on the card doesn't matter, it can be flash or one of the new technologies. The idea is for very thin, that is less than 5mm, storage cards that are truely next gen.



Dave

If you read the articles on this, you will see that AMD is stating that they BELIEVE that to be true. That doesn't make it true. And they're talking about server workloads, not the average for what most people do.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/2881


I'd like to see a link to that. They wouldn't be making a big deal about it if it were only increasing the dies size by 5% for the extra integer cores.


Same article


I'd rather see a statement of umbers, not take a look at the pictures.


It's possible. But with AMD's record, they may not get it out on time anyway, and then they will be competing with upgraded chips from Intel as has happened the past two years.


They might give UP TO 80% in multithreaded situations. That's what AMD is saying. These aren't full cores, integer or otherwise. Read the article and a couple of others. You'll see.


Of course they did.

It's got poor FP performance compated to Intel, and they knoe it.


That pretty much says a lot. If Intel has the same core number, it will always beat these chips, easily.


Yes, funny that AMD would now use the inferior technology, and suddenly claim it's better.


Most apps we use still can't use more than two cores. That will be true for a while. And when they do, it's rarely more than four.

It will be years before software catches up. And that includes using the GPU for most of the FP, or vector math. The OS's are using it more, led by Apple, but programs are trailing very slowly.


AMD has done well in HPC. It's an area that Intel has ignored for several years. Look at the power ratings in various Anandtech articles rating Intel and AMD. Intel is ahead virtually all the time when comparing comparable chis, and even some that are not so comparable.


I'm still not convinced.


Thats very funny, because it's usually described as Intel being able to afford dropping prices, and they do it to put pressure on AMD who can't afford to.


Really?


I love the "may". It's AMD we're talking about here. Nothing's for sure.

What I've said here several times, is that it doesn't matter because Apple did a very elegant job. It's not how you get there, but whether you DO get there. Apple has.


They will respond to the machine doing what they want it to. They don't care how or why. The people buying the 13" MBP simply want to get the aluminum machine at a price that's not that much more than the plastic MB. Their desires aren't that much different as to use.


I don't think that that's ever a real problem. If Apple wasn't to do it, they can. They're often using Nvidia's which are better than either.


Actually I think it is a huge issue for Apple. They don't want to be seen as going backwards performance wise. Thus we get a much faster replacement for the 9400m and modest CPU improvements. All of this in an existing platform.

They need progressively better hardware for marketing reasons as it is hard to sell a machine that is slower than last years model. They also need that GPU for OpenCL which is a lot harder to market to consummers. OpenCL is a key to keeping the Mac competitive OS wise.

A side ways look at this would be the use of the GPU in the iPhone and iPad which is extensive. If Apple can get as much of Quartz running on the GPU on the Mac as it is on iPhone OS we could see major improvements in Mac responsiveness. In other words I expect Apple to continue to try to exploit the GPU as much as possible most likely leading to resolution independence and a few other long sought goals. Arrandale alone in such an environment would be a very low end solution.
[/QUOTE]

Apple is moving ahead.

You see, we've got three or four (at most) guys here who keep talking about getting rid of internal optical drives, but a much larger number who say no. You forget that. This poll is at least as valid as the numbers here when we have these discussions (of which, this hasn't become one yet). Not all online polls are bad. Polls such as this are often pretty good. There's no real reason for people to get excited about it, so they will vote with their mind, rather than with their heart.

Not really, because I'm looking at the small segment of the market covered by the 13" MBP which I consider to be an ultra mobile laptop. Here I honestly believe the users value mobility and long battery life over the ability to use an Optical drive.

One only needs to look at net books and other small laptops to see the trend here.

I'd have to say all are skewed. It would be pretty tough for them not to be. Think about a poll run on Appleinsider, the only people responding to the poll will be the small subset of Mac users that actually come here and also bother with the polls. That is an exceedingly small number of Apple customers.

They are good in the sense that they represent the small minority of people willing to go online to a fan site and then are willing to bother with polls. That doesn't always reflect what the market at large does.

IPad is a perfectly good example here. The thing sells well even though you wouldn't think so based on some of the polls taken on various sites. Wether it was the lack of Mac OS/X or some other feature (such as the paltry RAM in my case) people still are buying the unit in vast numbers. That may be related to early adopters and as such could roll off quickly. Or it could mean that the forums simply don't reflect the mass market.

In any event I still maintain that droping the internal Optical from the 13" MBP would allow Apple to configure the machine in a way that would make it even more attractive to the target market.


Dave

So you have no problem with HyperThreadings large variety of performance increases (or even decreases) depending on the workload?

Intel says that dual-core mobile Sandy Bridge will be 20% faster than Arrandale. So is that what Intel BELIEVES to be true? And does that make Sandy Bridges real performance increase over Westmere 10%?

Oh, and AMD BELIEVED that Magny-Cours would give 50%-60% more performance than Istanbul, they actually got 80%-119% more.


http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewto...st=0&sk=t&sd=a

The OP there works for AMD so he knows the numbers.


See article.


Measure them yourself. (Hint: One companys cores are 50% bigger than the other companys on the same process.)

It's possible. But with AMD's record, they may not get it out on time anyway, and then they will be competing with upgraded chips from Intel as has happened the past two years.[/quote]Im assuming youre fine with Q3 2011 for Sandy Bridge E?


I did. It says 2 integer cores, each of them more powerful than a K10 integer core. Hence my over 33% performance increase comment on my last post.

And why not up to 35% for HyperThreading? Because according to the link you posted, thats exactly what it is.

Of course they did.[/quote]Exactly.


because they will be offloading FP instructions to the GPU.


They wont have the same core counts at same prices or same TDPs. As Ive shown, AMD will generally have higher core counts than Intel at equivalent prices/TDP. Thats been my main point here, and once I refuted your counterpoint you evade the situation entirely.

With Sandy Bridge, Intels not increasing core counts at all, except in two areas (high-end desktop and server), while AMD has slowly done so in all segments, especially servers. In servers AMD has double the cores of Intel, and thatll continue next year. In desktops, if Thubans prices are any indication, Zambezi will be priced against 6-core, maybe 4-core Sandy Bridge. Llano brings quad-core down to even lower TDPs (as if 25 W Champlain wont be enough).

So what ends up from there is that AMD can make a CPU comparable to (sometimes worse, sometimes better, depending on the segment) Intels in multithreaded situations by adding more cores, even though Intel spent all the work designing one or two new microarchitectures (Nehalem and Sandy Bridge). Thats AMDs small-core strategy, whether accidental (because they didnt have the resources to make a new microarchitecture) or deliberate. More cores for less money and lower TDP.

Intel has and will have single-threaded advantage, AMD will have multithreaded advantage (they already do in a number of cases), and AMD will have the GPU advantage. AMD took a big hit in 2006-2009, but from 2010 the tables are slowly turning.

AMD wont have the fastest CPU in notebooks and desktops, even with Bulldozer. But for Apple, thats not an issue because they arent using the fastest notebook and desktop CPUs anyway.


Doesnt matter because now they have the advantage. Or how about this? Why didnt Intel continue using their superior dual-die approach? 12-core Westmere would beat 12-core Magny-Cours, no questions there.


How many of those apps use 100% of a core? Id like more cores for video encoding and other intensive tasks thank you very much.

Plus with only 2 or 4 task threads the HyperThreading you mentioned wont be useful on a number of Intel CPUs.


Thats why Apple hasnt used AMD CPUs yet. I am looking at the future. Many people who criticize AMDs chips are looking at only the past or present. When software does catch up (in addition to the software that already use multiple cores and GPUs), AMD will be in a very good position. What about Intel?

AMD has done well in HPC. It's an area that Intel has ignored for several years. Look at the power ratings in various Anandtech articles rating Intel and AMD. Intel is ahead virtually all the time when comparing comparable chis, and even some that are not so comparable.[/quote]Ive read them. Magny-Cours is close to Westmere in performance. And youre missing price again. Magny-Cours is cheaper.


30 W quad-core with 480 shader GPU.


Go read the article I linked to. Over 33% more integer performance for 33% more cores. Bulldozer also increases FP performance so one module would be faster than two K10 cores. Oh, and for about the die area of one K10 core.

You aren't seriously comparing the 13" MBP to a netbook?


It definitely be a different kind of machine. I can agree with that.

Except for a short time several years ago, Intel has had an excellent record of beating its predictions of what its new chips could do. You can look at the reviews of them. But over most of its life, AMD has not. It's history. And the past two years have been very bad for AMD.


That link doesn't lead to any test that I could see. Could you be more specific with it?


You'll have to show the tests.


That's not really possible. But I am seeing conflicting numbers.


Im assuming youre fine with Q3 2011 for Sandy Bridge E? [/quote]

I'm concerned that AMD will again have the situation they had with Barcelona, and Phenom. You remember that fiasco?

Of course, no one is happy about Sandy Bridge being pushed back three months. It does give AMD some breathing time.


Yes, I understand.


You can say that. but testing has shown that most of the time it comes pretty close, and sometimes has exceeded it. Again, you can go to Anandtech.


That's all rehashing earlier stuff. Look, I hope that AMD stays around, and is competitive, but right now, they aren't. With Barcelona, they promised the world, 40% better performance per MHz, and what did they deliver 6 months late? Chips that not only were at lower speeds, but were 20% SLOWER per MHz!. This carried on to the Phnom as well, though not quite as badly.

This is what I'm concerned about. They will have to show that they won't repeat that. When Intel backs off a few months, the industry doesn't get concerned. It's usually because they'r looking back at AMD and don't see much competition, so they figure they can make some more money on current designs. When AMD is late, everyone is thinking that they are having major problems.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/a...1055t-reviewed

Let's see how AMD does and if they show any signs of closing the gap with Intel chips in performance.

I'm not seeing anything with the Phenom II that would make Apple want to switch. They really need a mobile contender, which needs to be more than just a good price for the performance but good power usage for the performance.

They wouldn't want phenom II. They'd want a system on chip solution using fusion and AMD's far superior graphics technology.

No not exactly what I'm saying here is that it has become clear that people are willing to give up certain technologies to get an extremely mobile PC. An Optical drive being one thing people find that they don't need.

Think of it as a device that corrects the mistakes made on AIR! In fact that is a very good way to look at it. It would be a laptop where what can be deleted is, but the stuff that many of us believe is important is still there. The machine would stress good performance and battery life.

Dave

Given the new AMD six core chips are actually beating i7s at some workloads, and cost less than one third of Intel's prices, it may be the high end we see AMDs in. OS X is all about parallel computing, from threading, Grand Central, OpenCL, to distributed compilations. If apple can knock $700 (6 core) or $1400 (12 cores) off the price of the Mac Pro, wouldn't they?

I'd buy one in a second. 3D rendering is my thing.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/a...55t-reviewed/3

Here is another but more objective review.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=508&Itemid=63

Exactly. With the money i'm saving over an Intel Core i7 I could afford to put in a faster GPU or SSD.


What an outstanding value. I think Apple would be crazy not to start delivering some AMD solutions next year with Llano. I like Intel as much as anyone but truth be told a lot of my work leads to the computer sitting here waiting on me. I think AMD certainly delivers a lot of processing power per buck. I'm content to let the "I gotta have the fastest computer available" people spend a premium on Intel based Macs. I'm more of a system balance kind of guy. Which is why I like SSD and will like faster GPU when they represent more than just increased fps in games.

Yeah, I saw a review of the new 6-core AMD this morning and the i7-980 was 30% faster in some tests and I was ready to have the usual dismissive reaction but the price difference hit home. The chips were 30% slower only in the worst case but are under 1/3 of the price so as you say, Apple could build a 12-core Mac Pro $1400 cheaper than they could with Intel's chips (depending on which Intel ones they chose).

I'd much rather have an $1800 6-core AMD Mac Pro than an Intel one at $2500 when you're only going to see 30% improvement doing the long rendering stuff, which you're going to be waiting for anyway.

Plus, the 12-core AMD machine would be cheaper than a 6-core Intel so in terms of performance-per-dollar, the AMD offering will win in most cases.

I wonder if Apple will make the jump at this refresh. I expected the Mac Pro update to be out by now.

I really wish they'd make a smaller one. 12-core, 2/3rds the size and maybe 12kg instead of 18kg.

No, he's comparing them to the 13" CULV powered machines like the Thinkpad Edge, HP DM3, and others that use 1.2-1.6Ghz Intel and AMD CPUs and deliver performance halfway between a netbook and a full sized notebook like a Macbook Pro. What he neglects to account for is that the current Macbook Pro delivers better battery life than any of them while being around the same weight with significantly more power. Again, this is an example of the machine a user wants existing and being readily available from anyone but Apple.

The most impressive of all, Thuban runs even more efficiently than Intel i7 demonstrated in the table below. It also runs much cooler than i7's clocking at 30C under 100% CPU load running prime stress test on air with $25 OCZ cpu cooler. AMD did a hell of a job on their current 45nm SOI process.

CPU + R5870........IDLE (Balanced).........Idle (High perf)......100% CPU
890GX + X4 965 ..........75 ........................... 96......................164
890FX + X6 1055T........85 ........................... 104.....................183
890FX + X6 1095T........87 ........................... 107.....................187
H55 +Core i7 870.........115...........................170..... ............... 218
X58 + Core i7 980X......139...........................150....... ............. 272

The full review from guru3d can be found here:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom...1090t-review/5

That is very good to hear. Supposedly Intel will have a new spin on it's 32nm process layer this year.

Well yeah it is good but how much of that is related to AMDs architecture? That is one thing AMD had going for them is a cooler architecture for a given process.

The numbers aren't bad but niether are they excessively impressive. The real deal is performance per watt which these numbers do not address.

That being said the power numbers here mean this processor would be ideal for a Mac discussed elsewhere. That is right the XMac. Especially if Apple could see even lower power numbers via a lower clocked CPU. I'd be perfectly willing to give up 2-300 MHz for a 6 core machine that could idle well below 85 watts. Well as long as we don't give up to much in the way of compute performance.

The first page was interesting but it was followed up with pages of overclocker mentality. I don't expect Apple to go that route nor do I need such a machine. What I want is a reasonable fast machine that sits between a Mac Pro and a Mini. That would be performance wise.


Dave

I possibly missed some power consumption numbers, but is there any chance to see a 6-core iMac next year? The AMD prices obviously make this possible but what about heat? Probably the 27" model could stand it?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

I believe that most people still want a full featured machine, where they can burn Cd's and DVDs. Several years from now that might change.


The AIR seems to be pretty popular with the business crowd, who usually have their machines maintained by IT, so they don't need n optical drive (and IT likely doesn't want them installing any more software on their own).

But most computers are bought by the public these days, and an internal drive is far more convenient than having to go and buy an external one. Netbooks are much smaller, and people are willing to give it up for that. The iPad is smaller yet, and well, it's obvious.

Assuming you're right, I don't see much of a comparison there. People are already complaining that the MB and MBPs aren't powerful enough.

Seriously; people are going without optical drives and doing fine in some of these ultra mobile laptops. Ask most people today to choose between a 13" laptop with an Optical or a higher performance GPU and many will go for the higher performance machine. Optical drives simply aren't used to the extent that they where in the past thus an external drive is a more acceptable solution.

The lack of an internal drive won't stop people from installing their software.

Not if you have to carry around an external drive due to the lack of internal disk space on most laptops. The reality is you could easily put 2 HDD or SSD drives into a 13" laptop and still have space for a real GPU and a larger battery.

They aren't so small that the 13" machine doesn't compete with them. That is why I'm more focused on this machine than other larger models. People like the light weight of these machines as much as anything, so if Apple can tune the weight of the 13" to the lighter side it becomes even more competitive.

IPad doesn't effectively replace a laptop of any sort so it isn't worth our time to even discuss it.

Frankly I see an optical free 13" MBP as a machine that could have been what the AIR should have been.

Dave

Really, we keep talking past each other. I've been saying from the beginning, that for those very small machines, lack of optical drives is accepted. But a MB and for a MBP it won't be. Those are not "ultra mobile laptops".


Yes, it just makes it a lot more difficult.


Most people don't need that much space. Not everyone has tens of thousands of songs, hundreds of Tv shows, and dozens of movies on their laptops all at once. For the few that do, well, I feel sorry they feel the need to do so.


They are notably smaller, and weigh a good pound or more less. If Apple wants to compete there, it will be with a new machine.


You are completely wrong there, and so, you're right, we shouldn't discuss it.


Complete waste at this time.

This is becoming a much bigger reality than many realize. I was in Fry's last night and there were even more notebooks that were without and optical drive than I noticed at Xmas. These are 13" with 2.5" HDD and non-CULV processors. Like many things in computing I doubt it will be standard until Apple puts their weight behind it and I don't think that is too far off specially seeing that even store bought software has taken notice.

AMD's upcoming Llano processors would be a natural fit in the Macbook and Mac mini. A two-chip solution like Apple requires (for space issues) with an excellent integrated GPU (rumored to be equivalent to the Radeon 5600 series).

How are they on power consumption compared to Intel's upcoming Sandy Bridge? Everything I've seen shows Intel far ahead of AMD in terms of power efficiency.

Llano is estimated to be from 25 -59 Watts TDP for the whole die which is pretty damn good.

The 13" could very well play effectively against those machines. It is just about the minimal size for a notebook for many people so why not make it a light a possible.

The only software I've recently installed, via a CD optical disk on my MBP, came from Apple. Everything else is downloaded and installed from the net. Of course part of that is due to my using open source software but purchasing software over the net is not unheard of either.

At work it is much the same much of what I need to install on my Windows PC can be downloaded from the net. If not the original install the updates can be.

The point is the optical doesn't need to be in the laptop everyday.

It is so nice of you to feel sorry for those that take a different approach in life.

In any event It doesn't take much effort to burn up a lot of disk space with software. Just install XCode, Eclipse or even Open Office and see your free space drift away. Besides those of us into content consumption via their PC's aren't the only ones needing space, if you are into content production the more disk space you have the better. Of course if you are into content production you will most likely have a larger laptop with a built in optical.

Of course it would be a new machine, the deletion of the optical just allows for a thinner machine when it comes to a redesign.

If I thought I was wrong I wouldn't have brought it up. The iPad might be a better choice for some people but it will not replace a laptop for people that need a laptop. In fact their is little overlap.

In my estimation the AIR was a waste of time. A lighter, higher performance, 13" MBP would be very attractive to a number of users.

Dave

I have moved to an optical-less system for restoring Mac OS X and Repairing Disk from Disk Utility. This only became possible (without hacks) with Snow Leopard. You can copy your Restore Disk to any external drive you wish (USB flash drive, SD card, internal HDD, or external HDD) using Disk Utility. it makes for a very, very fast installation over any DVD. If you go with any of the external drives can even use it to fix any Mac without having to get a FW cable and use two Macs in Target Disk Mode.

My trips to computer stores have been limited of late but this reflects what I think is a real trend. In part it is likely because of the move to really compact laptops. I also suspect it is driven by consumer demands as they realize that the drive just doesn't get used that much. Further when used, the optical is at times a very frustrating device from the reliability standpoint.

It is sometimes a joke at work if you ask somebody for a CD. They often smartly respond what is that. In many ways it is old technology much like the floppy disk. Younger people especially view it that way. A CD is often seen as undesirable.

I read that ODDs are where most HW issues occur and the issues tend to happen well within their warranty. If this is the case, then Apple could potentially save a lot of money of shipping, fixing and user satisfaction by removing one of the last remaining components with moving parts.

With Apples CNC based manufacturing technique it ought to be easy to build a 13 inch laptops with two different unibody frames. One for the model with the CD and one without. It shouldn't be much more than a machining challenge for the machinist/engineer. That way both sides of tis argument can be happy.

Really? Where did you read that? I've never had an optical drive fail on any of my machines, any of my companies machines, and even in the Board of Ed. here, that's a rare occurrence, except for elementary schools, where the kids do all sorts of things. But it's fairly rare there as well.

They are far more reliable than HDD's.

I was going to say that I don't think Apple wouldn't do such a thing but they have with the Mac Mini Server. I would prefer for the right side edge be used for ports instead of left blank. Using this pic I tried to see it both HDD could be placed in the ODD space thus allowing for the battery to go from end to end. It seems the only way that would be possible is with a redesigned motherboard.

Yes and I believe that is on a machine that required hard tooling. I'm not saying the Mini Server was a good idea but the point is it was a minor modification to serve a small segment of the Mini clientele.

Loosing ports would be very bad indeed.

I'd like to see the motherboard redesigned anyways. The idea would be to support a real GPU in the machine. Hopefully with the right components we could double GPU performance again and still maintain good battery life. Honestly I'd like to see the motherboard on the left side the drives in the middle and the battery to the right. This would mean one entire side becomes available for I/O, making room for a "card" expansion port, room for the SD slot and maybe even light peak.

Dave