2013 Mac mini Wishlist/iMac wishlist - Page 11

With Apple you never know what they have planned.To me they are just modifying the same computers over and over. Nothing brand new is coming from them now.That is why their stock is going down.Competition out there is getting more fierce all the time.

This is indeed a problem.    It wouldn't be so bad but the line up they currently have just doesn't reflect the needs of the bulk of the desktop users out there.   Sadly they don't even come close to putting in the engineering effort they put in on the laptop line up.   

 

By the way I fully realize that the desktop market is less than robust right now.   That is however the best reason going to innovate on the desktop.  Apple has basically given the desktop little effort at all even though they are flush with cash.   Basically trying harder wouldn't hurt them one bit.  

I think this has been beaten to death.    Frankly I'm not even sure Apple cares about the desktop anymore.   Beyond that the economy looks really bleak, as such the glowing reports from Apple will likely come to an end.   I could see Apple phoning in desktop updates for the next year or two.  

Huh?

 

Im not following you at all here.    

 

The consumer doesn't have to buy from Apple at all.     If the democrats in Washington don't come to their senses nobody will be going out of their way to buy Apple products.    So maybe in six months we will see Apples sales tanking with everyone wondering why.  We could very well see a long term mindset change in the majority of consumers that moves them away from supporting high margin products like Apples hardware.   

 

We are already seeing dramatic changes in spending behavior where the likes of WalMart, JCP, and many other vendors serving the middle class seeing a huge regression in sales.  It will be very interesting to see what the long term trend is over the year and beyond.     Apple may simply not be an option for many this year.    This could very well force Apples hand when it comes to some of its high cost low performance machines.  

 

This may sound a bit pessimistic and frankly is a significant change in my outlook.   The problem is pretty clear though, we have a president that believes working for a living is a bad thing.   People may object to bringing the political into the discussion but the fact is what is about to happen could damage the economy for a good year or longer.    It simply doesn't look rosy for Apple anymore.  

I don't want to drag the thread off track either but the business outlook could turn very negative very quickly and impact Apple significantly.  

 

I don't know about a push to change things at Apple, I think their crappy desktop sales are a clear indicator that people are feed up with the iMac / Mini / Mac Pro line up and artificial tiering.     Why the desktop has remained so stagnate while the laptop line stays fresh is beyond me.   People have spoken loudly by not even considering Apple for their desktop needs.   

 

I've thought about this quite a bit. While I don't think they can predict with 100% certainty what will happen in tech products a few years from now, Apple requires large markets due to their size. The question here is what combination of electronic devices will they try to push? You have pointed out before that you feel less compelled to own a notebook now that you have an ipad. I still have a number of hangups about the imacs. One of them that isn't likely to go away anytime soon would be the trend toward less serviceable machines while the more desirable configurations remain around $2k prior to making upgrades. Fusion drives mean more points of potential failure. Anyway if I ever considered one, I would test its stability booted from an external drive, just in case of failure. I've had drives die. I have seen just general flaky drive problems that generate corrupt data. It would be less of an issue to me if they weren't such unreliable devices by their very nature. I include current generation SSDs in that. One thing too many people fail to grasp is that mechanical failure isn't the only thing that can brick a volume or device.

 

Actually I'm not so certain what the reliability impact would be. A fusion drive could effectively bias access to the point where wear on the magnetic drive is drastically reduced. If the heads remain parked your risk with respect to head rashes is reduced and you should extend mechanical life. This could actually be a very interesting discussion as I've also had my share of harddrive problems. In the case of Apple though they are extremely conservative and seem to avoid the worst harddrive quality problems. In the end Fusion drives are probably a net win for most users. Interestingly I've heard very little about SSD failures in any of Apples machines. I'm certain it happens but it obvious is a slight problem and well under the radar. This is in stark contrast to the industry in general where there are many examples of SSDs that have not been well implemented. Some models of SSD's have seen near 100% failure rates which is terrible for solid state hardware.

I recall the Sandforce controller debacle. Regarding Apple I'm not sure whether they're more reliable overall. I haven't seen any complaints regarding ssd failures on their end. With fusion drives my concern was that they add quite a bit to the cost with additional points of failure. I'm partly skeptical as I don't know how it's set up or what additional problems (if any) might be encountered.

 

I know you're concerned, but don't worry about it. As long as Haswell laptop chips are released this year, the Mac Mini would be as well.

This is my thought also.    However Intel does appear to be slipping schedules again.   It is funny how Intel always gets a pass on this issue.  

 

I do think the new Mac Pro may be a factor here with the schedule for the Mini.   I could see both being updated at the same time with a new Mini echoing the design themes of the Mac Pro.  

 

Don't worry be happy…

It makes waiting for Haswell wise if you can. Note however that AMD has been delivering similar performance for years.

Haswell may be a long way off as i heard this from reliable sources 2 days ago.
 

Apple's going to give us 4200s across the board, aren't they…

 

From the MacBook Air to the Mac Pro, it will only be the 4200 onboard… 

If Haswell 5200 / GT3 allows them to reach 650M speeds (Anandtech seems to have verified this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/intel-haswell-gt3e-gpu-performance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ), I can see Apple putting it in an entry Retina 15" MBP for $1799. If NVidia charges Apple $200 for the 650M, that translates into over $300 off the retail cost. I think Apple has always used Intel's fastest available IGPs and they even worked with NVidia to design the fastest IGP available at the time.

It would make the 13" MBPs look much better value if you can get 640M/650M performance. Eventually it makes sense for Apple to go with integrated graphics in all the mobile machines.

If I dug up some old stuff on ivy bidge predictions, the theoretical performance was pretty far out there. I would seriously wait to see what it's like in actual use, although I agree with you that these kinds of improvements add a lot more value to the 13" models. I could also see a 15" entry Retina at $1800, as they have used that for their entry 15" for a number of cycles at this point. Early ones started at $2000 and they backed off to $1800. Where available refurbished units further lower the barrier to entry. I don't think they're all about raising the cost of entry. Their most successful products start lower than any of the Macs. Anyway regarding integrated graphics in a 15", didn't they do that with a 9400m at one point? I tried everymac and can't seem to locate one that only used integrated, although I thought it existed. They have used low end discrete graphics on entry models at times. The early 2011 used a 6490m. It was considerably slower than the 6750m available in the upgraded version and memory limited. I say memory limited as many 2011-2012 games would not be able to load higher resolution textures on 256MB, and most of the time applications that leverage OpenCL require 512-1GB. The gpu seems to be one major point where they regulate construction costs.

 

On pricing I don't always subscribe to the theory that the bill of materials directly drives retail pricing, because it's only one factor in that determination, but you might save more than the cost of the gpu if it simplifies the design and requirements. It's also obvious that they really don't design their chargers with discrete graphics in mind. If cpu and gpu are heavily taxed simultaneously, you can drain the battery while plugged into the wall.

I didn't think they did but there's one listed here at a lower $1699 price point:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-2.53-aluminum-15-mid-2009-sd-unibody-specs.html

That wouldn't bring down the prices of the 13" Retina though so they might not be able to eliminate the old models at this revision.

I think they make a good enough compromise. 85W is about as big as you'd want a portable charger to be. The 110W Mini power supply wasn't a good size. If CPU and GPU were maxed out, worst case it would be 90W + some peripherals + display so say it's 20W above the 85W supply, the 77.5-95 Wh battery would drain in about 4 hours. You can use an external display though and it should be fine.

Thanks. I know I looked at a 2.53 version. Perhaps I clicked on the wrong ones. They went away from that when NVidia's integrated options were no longer available. Personally I hope discrete graphics don't disappear from the line until Intel improves considerably in performance, drivers, and overall features to the point of being a bit more in line with discrete options. Some things just simply aren't supported. I like that massively parallel processes have been going toward OpenCL and sometimes CUDA implementations. The performance per dollar is incredible compared to cpu driven processes when it can be leveraged.

 

 

I think when generic panels are available that meet Apple's resolution requirements, that will help the price. Obviously that is a guess. I don't know how much the other design adjustments inflate the cost to build one or their overall pricing strategy going forward.

 

They could have offered one as an accessory to allow it to be purchased. I have the 85W one. It's not that big. If I remember correctly some of the older macbook pro ones were larger. Going way back the powerbook G4 ones were tiny, but they broke too often.

 

Also regarding the mini, it seems to be fairly constrained on power. I kind of wonder whether it will receive GT3.

I've been hearing similar things along that line of thought.    I just find it funny that Intel always gets a pass on this while AMD can be one week late and it is curtains for them.  

 

Im wondering what is up this time with the slippage.   I wouldn't be surprised to find out they are missing project operating points as far as power goes.   

The potential is why I believe it is worth the wait.    Not only would this lead to cheaper MBP class machines but it should help manage power.   

 

As for the AIR type machines apparently Intel has a high integration version of Haswell coming designed specifically for very compact machines.   

 

All of this sounds good but last I knew Intel never intended to deliver all this goodness at once.   The GT3 class machines where at one time rumored to come some months after the general Haswell laptop release.   This will of course lead to much whining in the forums when Apple doesn't deliver new Haswell based machines the very minute the new processors hit the street.  

My two big issues with Intel GPUs is the terrible 3D support and lackluster OpenCL support.   Haswell could change this to good enough for many users.  

What is so great about Haswell ? Another processor that is all.
 

GT3 will probably have a dynamic clock speed. They showed a version running Unigine Heaven in real-time at 17W. Remember that during graphics intensive tasks, it will ramp down the CPU side so that the GPU part can use more of the power limit. Plus Intel is on 22nm vs NVidia being on 28nm. Separate CPU/GPU chips will still be faster when used together as they will draw 90W and an IGP model might have a 45-55W limit but achieving last year's NVidia GPU performance for gaming should be possible.

If they can get the Retina model to $1799 and GT3 performs the same as a 650M, I think they should do it, even if they bump it back up at a later revision.

If the GPU performs like it does in the demos, it means that they no longer have to be looked down on as inferior to dedicated GPUs. The HD4000 made a decent jump but you can see all the red marks on the following page vs the green for the NVidia GPU:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html

Even if they manage 640M, it will be ok but 650M would be better:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-640M.71579.0.html

Well if you believe Intels propaganda it is another processor witha vastly improved GPU.   Supposedly the GPU will come in different favors delivering performance that can be tailored to a specific use.     In other words a Haswell for compact notebooks like AIR and a Haswell for MBP class machines that deliver graphics as good as today's machines.  

 

In a nut shell Haswell could be the tipping point where we, well most if us, wouldn't need to buy a machine with a discrete GPU.   Right now buying a Mac without a discrete GPU isn't advisable if you expect to keep the machine for a long time for general purpose use.   The problem is so much software today is GPU accelerated to one extent or another.   Even things like Safari benefit from having a reasonably powerful GPU handy.    In the end this would mean far more powerful computers at reasonable price points.  Potentially things like the retina MBPs could drop in price to the point that they are similarly priced to the conventional machines.  

 

Of course Intel has a history of under delivering here so it is merely speculation that the hardware will deliver the jump in performance everyone is hoping for.  Only real hardware, in unbiased hands, will tell us how great Haswell is.

This is a significant milestone in PC hardware if Intel actually hits it. Imagine an AIR with close to the performance of today's Mac Book Pros. The most interesting thing here is the support of a VRAM allotment in the CPU package which overcomes the limitation that continues to hurt both AMD and Intel with their integrated GPUs. That of course is memory bandwidth that simply isn't adequate over today's PC type memory busses. The entry level models could easily go this route and save customers and Apple a lot of money. Right now the MBP with retina has a pricing structure that hurts sales. Apple knows this of course which is why the old platform is still around. However Haswell combined with much lower retina screen costs could result in a big price drop on retina machines sometime this year. People ask why Haswell is so great, well this is it in a nut shell, depending upon the machine it can mean either lower pricing or much better performance at the same price.

 

HD4000 isn't too bad at all if you don't need the 3D or OpenCL performance. However I honestly believe that many underestimate just how important those two features are with respect to modern software. The things that I worry about are things like just how bad will thermal throttling be. There are still physical realities here and in the past Intel has demonstrated that they can be thermal hogs even in the notebook line of chips. In the end if a chip is thermally managed to a certain power point then something someplace is loosing cycles. Real world use will be very interesting when it comes to Haswell.

Apple has cut a lot of corners on the lowest 15" in the past. They figure those that actually need it will order the more expensive version. If pricing is in fact driven primarily by display costs, it will settle once they're able to return to generic components.

 

It varies. I have tried to explain to people in the past that specific features use these things so they may not see an overall performance boost where they expect one. OpenCL gets used a lot in highly parallel calculations. Being able to harness that in the case of a lot of visual media means things that would have been cached can often be recalculated in real time, which is really great. With the HD 4000, it's not that they run slower. Many of them just won't run on that, meaning you're back to cpu only. This comes up pretty frequently with video editing software. I find that most people don't really read the details of what benefits from what. I don't expect them to phase out performance options too soon.

It depends on what you mean by low-end. If you buy a refurb 2012 MBP in 2013, it doesn't become low-end unless the new one is significantly improved. NVidia is doing a GPU rebrand this year as is AMD. NVidia's 20nm Maxwell GPUs won't be out until next year. This gives Intel an opportunity to make a really competitive GPU. If Intel can match the 650M, the NVidia Kepler refresh will only be 25-30% faster and cost more.

It really comes down to the choice between getting a 25-30% faster GPU or a Retina display and I reckon the Retina model at $1799 would be more popular, especially considering 650M performance can run almost every game that's out today on high quality and Intel might even outperform the 650M for OpenCL with a lower power usage, given how poor Kepler has been with this.

I expect the CPUs destined for the MBA will perform around the same as the 640M but the Mini will get the chips that go in the MBP.

The higher-end MBPs can use the 5200 that doesn't have Crystalwell so that they aren't more expensive and stick with a dedicated GPU.

The reality of performance varying depending upon the app and the data it is processing is real.   Take for example Safari, how often does the GPU acceleration come into play when running Safari.   For some users it might not ever be a big factor or only once in a blue moon.   It is really only important when the data being processed by Safari needs the acceleration.   The point is even a modest user can benefit from GPU acceleration and might not even realize that they are in fact benefiting from it.    This is one reason I highly recommend to users asking, to buy the better GPU options if they expect to keep the computer for a long time.   You just never know when a specific piece of software will benefit from a good GPU.

 

The second issue is that Apple has increased the use of GPU acceleration with each release of Mac OS.   It might not be to the point of iOS yet but it is pretty clear that Apple sees the GPU as a resource that allows them to bring better performance to the user.  

 

Your point on GPU acceleration via Intel GPUs should be noted by everybody reading this thread.    Going Intel only at times means never benefiting from the GPU.   This may relate to Intel not having OpenCL and other GPU compute capabilities supported on Mac OS.   I'm actually a bit out of date here as I'm not up to speed on Ivy Bridge OpenCL support.    At one time it simply didn't exist so if somebody has more up to date info chime in.  In any event this is why I say we need to wait and see just how good the GPUs are in Haswell.    Will OpenCL be supported and will developers bother to target the GPUs?    In the end it isn't just a matter of a few benchmarks looking good that indicate the value of the Intel Haswell GPU but rather the willingness of developers to target the GPU.   

 

So when it comes to a 15" MBP with only an Intel integrated GPU it really depends upon the capability of software to exploit that GPU as well as they can if an AMD or NVidia GOU was in the machine.   It really isn't clear that the GT3 and other Haswell GPUs will be good enough to get developers on board.    Honestly I hope GT3 is that good as I'd like to update my old MBP sometime this year.  The problem is we won't know how well supported it will be at release time so unless one waits it is a big gamble to go with an iNtel only MBP immediately when they debut.   

 

As a side note if any developers out there doing GPU compute support software, with knowledge of Intels OpenCL support, would chime in I'd like to hear about it.   Last I knew OpenCL support from Intel sucked so it would be nice to hear that things have changed.   Atleast it is nonexistent for GPU compute as of late last year.    I'm not sure why Apple is dragging its feet here, users simply won't go for an Intel only MBP if GPU compute isn't supported.   Well at least those users that understand what is being talked about here.   Maybe GPU compute simply isn't worth the effort on Intel hardware.  Whatever the problem Apple really needs to address it.