or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 2014 Mac mini Wishlist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 28

post #1081 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm having trouble finding documentation but I believe that Mavericks brought OpenCL support to older Intel chips. At least Ivy Bridge. Frankly Apple hasn't been real good with documentation of late. Intel hardware has been OpenCL capable for some time even if that feature was never brought to Mac OS.

 

Looks like they did for the HD4000.  Either way, for years it wasn't that big a deal to Apple.

 

Quote:
As for current owners that makes little sense, they already have a machine. We are talking about a new machine here. The idea is a that Apple needs a far more capable machine to draw users that are beyond an entry level machine. A Mini as an entry level machine is fine and would be so even with Ivy Bridge for the next few months. What isn't fine is paying big bucks for the up sell variants of the Mini and getting very little in return especially the lack of the GPUs Haswell has to offer.

 

At least they make such a thing.  It's called a Mac Pro.  Maybe a little more spendy than you'd like but it exists.

 

Apple doesn't make any 13" laptop with a GPU.

 

Quote:
My point is I will never buy Apples all in one if it continues its current engineering approach of being non serviceable. Frankly many corporations won't consider the iMac either for a variety of reasons. Apple can believe they are managing their up sell well but in reality they are just shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Some corporations may not.  Apple doesn't seem to care.  Nor are they "shooting themselves in the foot" when you compare Apple profitability with Dell or HP.

 

Quote:
Who really cares?
 
If you need to add such nonsense to the AIR you bought the wrong laptop.

 

I would guess more people care about that than care about the xMac.  Still not that many.  It is highly amusing though that xMac zealots get all upset when you tell them that their sacred cow isn't important to Apple but is more than happy to do the same to others with slightly different desires.  

 

Here's the point genius...Apple isn't going to make an xMac.  At best, and that's really iffy, you might see a mini with an Iris Pro.  Don't hold your breath on that one.  It would kill iMac sales.  On the other hand if Apple allowed eGPUs to work over TB then you could get a mini with a stock HD5000 and add a GPU of your own choice.  This isn't likely either given that Apple has distinctly made all dGPU options only available on $2600+ laptops and $1500+ iMacs.

 

Apple is very careful in what it does and there are simply many markets they choose not to address.  I don't whine about it like you do claiming it's costing Apple money and that they are dooooooomed.

post #1082 of 1506
AMD introduced Kaveri today. I'd still love to see a processor like this in the Mini. Extremely good GPU performance at a much lower price point than Intel. Some of the OpenCL bench marks are mouth watering.

By the way yes I know that the CPU is a bit lacking in raw performance but as a whole I see Kaveri meshing very well with Apples direction when it comes to GPU integration. This is a SoC that just screams balanced performance when it comes to audio, CPU and GPU processing.
post #1083 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

AMD introduced Kaveri today. I'd still love to see a processor like this in the Mini. Extremely good GPU performance at a much lower price point than Intel. Some of the OpenCL bench marks are mouth watering.

By the way yes I know that the CPU is a bit lacking in raw performance but as a whole I see Kaveri meshing very well with Apples direction when it comes to GPU integration. This is a SoC that just screams balanced performance when it comes to audio, CPU and GPU processing.

 

I second this.  Kaveri brings Quad Core performance, solid graphics with a 20% savings over Haswell.   

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #1084 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
 

I second this.  Kaveri brings Quad Core performance, solid graphics with a 20% savings over Haswell.   

 

Really?  The benches show Kaveri getting crushed in CPU performance:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/10

 

A lot of times even the Core i3 is faster or in the same general performance range.  The i5 is almost uniformly faster.

 

Even in terms of GPU performance the Iris Pro is on par which was surprising to me.

 

"In a vacuum where all that's available are other AMD parts, Kaveri and its Steamroller cores actually look pretty good. At identical frequencies there's a healthy increase in IPC, and AMD has worked very hard to move its Bulldozer family down to a substantially lower TDP. While Trinity/Richland were happy shipping at 100W, Kaveri is clearly optimized for a much more modern TDP. Performance gains at lower TDPs (45/65W) are significant. In nearly all of our GPU tests, a 45W Kaveri ends up delivering very similar gaming performance to a 100W Richland. The mainstream desktop market has clearly moved to smaller form factors and it's very important that AMD move there as well. Kaveri does just that.

In the broader sense however, Kaveri doesn't really change the CPU story for AMD. Steamroller comes with a good increase in IPC, but without a corresponding increase in frequency AMD fails to move the single threaded CPU performance needle. To make matters worse, Intel's dual-core Haswell parts are priced very aggressively and actually match Kaveri's CPU clocks. With a substantial advantage in IPC and shipping at similar frequencies, a dual-core Core i3 Haswell will deliver much better CPU performance than even the fastest Kaveri at a lower price."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/16

That's not exactly resounding acclaim.  A low end Intel Pentium G2120 or althlon X4 + a cheap HD7770 will do better than a Kaveri.  That's rather sad.

post #1085 of 1506
Thread Starter 
Just go with Broadwell, simple as that. It would be unnecessary to update the Mac Pro again this year so by the time October rolls around, hopefully they'll have a new Air, MBP, iMac, and mini. They could even just make one mini model if they don't believe in it and make the higher end processors customized.
post #1086 of 1506

They won't have another mac pro in the current year. I'm going to assume that they'll keep it at least somewhat up to date, but that could still be another 12 months without an update. If they decide to do a rather loose update schedule, then it might show up 2H next year following notebooks or something like that. I suspect a haswell mini is still coming. They refreshed it for Sandy and Ivy. As I mentioned before the only discrepancy for the current generation would be the slight shift in the typically shared component costs. That may not change with broadwell, so they have to release one at some point.

post #1087 of 1506
Even though I consider Anandtech to be in Intels pocket I have to look at this in a more balanced way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Really?  The benches show Kaveri getting crushed in CPU performance:
I wouldn't call it being crushed though it varies with the benchmark. If you read the entire article you see Intel getting crushed via some of the GPU benchmarks. What is important here is that AMD has improved the architecture enough to get very good performance at a much lower clock rate. It is actually significant that AMD has recovered much of the performance loss per clock when Bulldozer was first released.
Quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/10

A lot of times even the Core i3 is faster or in the same general performance range.  The i5 is almost uniformly faster.
Which in a Mini is exactly what you want, performance comparable to what Intel can offer.
Quote:
Even in terms of GPU performance the Iris Pro is on par which was surprising to me.
That should surprise nobody, the architecture has been out a long time now Iris Pro is decent. However one needs to point out that Intel has to embed an extra high performance cache chip into the processor package to get those results. Further Iris Pro is expensive. However Intel is getting crushed (as you say) when the GPU is taxed significantly. Mind you it is getting crushed with a GPU that does not have the advantage of an embedded cache chip in the package. AMD is doing a respectable job here.
Quote:
"In a vacuum where all that's available are other AMD parts, Kaveri and its Steamroller cores actually look pretty good. At identical frequencies there's a healthy increase in IPC, and AMD has worked very hard to move its Bulldozer family down to a substantially lower TDP. While Trinity/Richland were happy shipping at 100W, Kaveri is clearly optimized for a much more modern TDP. Performance gains at lower TDPs (45/65W) are significant. In nearly all of our GPU tests, a 45W Kaveri ends up delivering very similar gaming performance to a 100W Richland. The mainstream desktop market has clearly moved to smaller form factors and it's very important that AMD move there as well. Kaveri does just that.

In the broader sense however, Kaveri doesn't really change the CPU story for AMD. Steamroller comes with a good increase in IPC, but without a corresponding increase in frequency AMD fails to move the single threaded CPU performance needle. To make matters worse, Intel's dual-core Haswell parts are priced very aggressively and actually match Kaveri's CPU clocks. With a substantial advantage in IPC and shipping at similar frequencies, a dual-core Core i3 Haswell will deliver much better CPU performance than even the fastest Kaveri at a lower price."



http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/16



That's not exactly resounding acclaim.  A low end Intel Pentium G2120 or althlon X4 + a cheap HD7770 will do better than a Kaveri.  That's rather sad.



It isn't sad that AMD has finally gotten to the point where they are actually on a par with I5. More so they are doing so while delivering far better GPU performance than Intel does in an I5. In a nut shell you can't look towards the past when systems where rated by the CPU power the had and nothing else. The whole point of Kaveri is that is delivers significant balanced performance in s single SoC. It does so without resorting to packaging in another cache chip in the SoC package.
post #1088 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Just go with Broadwell, simple as that. It would be unnecessary to update the Mac Pro again this year so by the time October rolls around, hopefully they'll have a new Air, MBP, iMac, and mini. They could even just make one mini model if they don't believe in it and make the higher end processors customized.

The only way I can see them doing that is if they intend to deliver a significantly different architecture / mechanical design. Haswell has a lot to offer the Mini right now. I know everybody looks at CPU performance and only sees disappointment in Haswell but the reality is that GPU, its performance and the support for OpenCL in Mavericks, makes for a very interesting upgrade for the current machine. Leaving all of that on the table waiting for Broadwell just seems foolish to me.

It is the Mini's lack of decent GPU performance that has kept me away from the platform. If Apple went with the right Haswell variant that would be one more thing checked off my list.
post #1089 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

They won't have another mac pro in the current year. I'm going to assume that they'll keep it at least somewhat up to date, but that could still be another 12 months without an update.
Yeah what many don't seem to understand is that with the Mac Pro it is all in intels hands as far as Apples ability to deliver real updates. Tying the Mac Pro to Xeon puts them in a different design loop than desktop chips. The Mac Pro is very much a workstation machine with all of the stretched out design cycles associated with that hardware.
Quote:
If they decide to do a rather loose update schedule, then it might show up 2H next year following notebooks or something like that.
With Intel publicly on record saying they are focused on mobile for this year it is hard to tell if anything at all will come this year or even next year. We might get nothing more than a process shrink which actually wouldn't be that bad if it meant a significant clock rate increase.

On the other hand Intel has given up on workstation and high performance computing. The dark horse here is the rumored Xeon Phi that is suitable as a system processor. They would likely have to deliver a version specific to Apples needs to get the chip power down, but if that chips is real it would make for a very interesting Mac Pro.
Quote:

I suspect a haswell mini is still coming.
I kinda hope so myself but it gets to the point of why bother!! If they stretch out delivery so that it comes out near the Broadwell debut it will be anticlimactic to say the least.
Quote:
They refreshed it for Sandy and Ivy. As I mentioned before the only discrepancy for the current generation would be the slight shift in the typically shared component costs. That may not change with broadwell, so they have to release one at some point.

The one thing we can't dismiss here is that the desktop market is ugly right now. This is the case for all vendors, even Apple. it is an ugly reality but Apple could see this as the time to discontinue the current design. The question then becomes what replaces that machine. If Apple is to offer any desktop beyond the iMac, i really see the need for a more powerful machine than the Mini.
post #1090 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Yeah what many don't seem to understand is that with the Mac Pro it is all in intels hands as far as Apples ability to deliver real updates. Tying the Mac Pro to Xeon puts them in a different design loop than desktop chips. The Mac Pro is very much a workstation machine with all of the stretched out design cycles associated with that hardware.
With Intel publicly on record saying they are focused on mobile for this year it is hard to tell if anything at all will come this year or even next year. We might get nothing more than a process shrink which actually wouldn't be that bad if it meant a significant clock rate increase.

There should be something late this year or whatever. Other workstation vendors were shipping machines during Q4 of last year. In Apple's case they probably had to build up some amount of inventory and work on last minute bug fixes. It's still a bit bleeding edge in the sense that things like the promised 4K displays are not entirely plug and play right now. Intel suggested they were working on mobile, but it's not terribly relevant unless we're talking about fab capacity. The comment likely related to Broadwell, which has nothing to do with the next mac pro chips at the moment. Broadwell was pushed back somewhat. It could trickle out late this year. If Haswell EP is out soon after, you could see it show up Q1-Q2 next year.

 

Quote:
On the other hand Intel has given up on workstation and high performance computing. The dark horse here is the rumored Xeon Phi that is suitable as a system processor. They would likely have to deliver a version specific to Apples needs to get the chip power down, but if that chips is real it would make for a very interesting Mac Pro.

I doubt that given the current arrangement of dual gpus and thunderbolt. Even if they went that route, I don't think it would happen for several cycles. I'm currently taking the time to learn to program OpenCL. It is not as pretty to read as CUDA (puts on flamesuit). It will probably be a bit better once I get used to it, but it's effective for graphics programming where it's possible to just massively thread some things rather than rely on older bsp methods.

Quote:
I kinda hope so myself but it gets to the point of why bother!! If they stretch out delivery so that it comes out near the Broadwell debut it will be anticlimactic to say the least.

The mini is almost always refreshed last. The longer it goes, the more I suspect it will share hardware components. Otherwise the issue of components being earmarked first for notebooks would be a non-issue. I'm curious how they'll handle it though. It's likely that they look at the price consciousness of its purchasers, but all of the equivalent notebook options migrated to higher cost cpus this year.
 

Quote:
The one thing we can't dismiss here is that the desktop market is ugly right now. This is the case for all vendors, even Apple. it is an ugly reality but Apple could see this as the time to discontinue the current design. The question then becomes what replaces that machine. If Apple is to offer any desktop beyond the iMac, i really see the need for a more powerful machine than the Mini.

 

I haven't looked up workstation numbers recently. I've been up to too many other things.

post #1091 of 1506
Thread Starter 
While I am glad a new Pro came out for the customers who want one (and I'd get one if money was no object), I kind of lost my luster for Apple. My co-worker got the 2013 MacBook Air and brought it in and showed me because he knows I used to talk Apple all the time and I apologized and told him I was just very "meh" about it.

While I agree a Haswell mini does have a lot to offer I'm not clamoring for it like I was six months ago.
post #1092 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I wouldn't call it being crushed though it varies with the benchmark.

 

No, crushed is the right adjective when it comes to CPU performance.  When the Core i3 beats your best part on multiple benchmarks it's getting crushed.

 

Quote:
Which in a Mini is exactly what you want, performance comparable to what Intel can offer.

 

Comparable to a Core i3.  A part that Apple declines to use in any of it's computers.  The Core i5 is significantly faster.

 

In a mini, I think I'd very much prefer the Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac.  I prefer the Core i5 + HD4600 too.

 

Quote:
That should surprise nobody, the architecture has been out a long time now Iris Pro is decent. However one needs to point out that Intel has to embed an extra high performance cache chip into the processor package to get those results. Further Iris Pro is expensive. However Intel is getting crushed (as you say) when the GPU is taxed significantly. Mind you it is getting crushed with a GPU that does not have the advantage of an embedded cache chip in the package. AMD is doing a respectable job here.

 

Given Intel has traditionally been terrible at IGPs the performance gap is minimal between the Iris Pro and Kaveri.  That they use a cache is immaterial.  I don't care HOW they get the performance they get whether it's cache or more cores or whatever.

 

The important thing to realize is the addition of any discrete GPU and any APU graphics performance is completely eclipsed.  The Radeon HD 6750 is an $60 GPU from 2011.

 

Quote:
It isn't sad that AMD has finally gotten to the point where they are actually on a par with I5. 

 

Except that they are not on par with the Core i5 but the Core i3.  The Core i5 destroys Kaveri on CPU benchmarks.  The Iris Pro holds it's own.

 

The Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac is likely far better than any Kaveri part.  They aren't "on par" at all with current software.

 

Quote:
More so they are doing so while delivering far better GPU performance than Intel does in an I5. In a nut shell you can't look towards the past when systems where rated by the CPU power the had and nothing else. The whole point of Kaveri is that is delivers significant balanced performance in s single SoC. It does so without resorting to packaging in another cache chip in the SoC package.

 

Kaveri is an underwhelming upgrade who's HSA promise is still in the future. The performance is completely unbalanced in favor of the GPU and even there a $60 dGPU can destroy it.  By the time there's a large amount of software that can effectively leverage HSA Broadwell will be out with a large GPU boost over Haswell.

post #1093 of 1506

The concern at this point centers on form factor redesign and inclusion of Haswell or Broadwell.  Considering that 2013 failed to see an update to the Mac Mini, and its form factor has not seen alteration while all other Macs have, I would hope that significant attention will be paid to the only headless Mac under $3k.  

 

I've been waiting for quite some time.  Perhaps the Mac Mini has been relegated to the same status as the iPod, to be forgotten and dismissed by Johnny Ive.  

Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #1094 of 1506
I'm not sure what to say, if you look at the world through a negative eye, I guess AMDs latest effort sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

No, crushed is the right adjective when it comes to CPU performance.  When the Core i3 beats your best part on multiple benchmarks it's getting crushed.
Realistically what processor do you expect in the Mini? We aren't talking about putting this chip into an iMac or even the much desired XMac, rather we are talking about the Mini. I actually dream about a Mini with a Haswell i7 and Iris Pro graphics running on the fastest version available but that isn't likely to happen at all.

I look at it this way, AMD now has a CPU section that isn't a complete embarrassment when it comes to performance, they are getting much better performance with an actual reduction in clock rate. The chip will compete comfortably with what ever Intel chip Apple would likely put into the machine.
Quote:

Comparable to a Core i3.  A part that Apple declines to use in any of it's computers.  The Core i5 is significantly faster.
I5 isn't that much faster all the time.
Quote:

In a mini, I think I'd very much prefer the Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac.  I prefer the Core i5 + HD4600 too.
Iris pro would certainly be interesting but do you really think Apple would put such a chip in the Mini when they have castrated the machine for years? As to i5 + HD4600 you have to be joking with that one! Kaveri's GPU does significantly better than the 4600 and often significantly out performs Iris Pro when the tasks become more demanding.
Quote:

Given Intel has traditionally been terrible at IGPs the performance gap is minimal between the Iris Pro and Kaveri
Well that is certainly baloney. You really need to read some less biased reporting. Kaveri does amazingly well considering it is lacking the high performance cache chip Iris pro comes with.
Quote:
.

 That they use a cache is immaterial.  I don't care HOW they get the performance they get whether it's cache or more cores or whatever.
The real problem is that they don't get the performance Kaveri has GPU wise.
Quote:

The important thing to realize is the addition of any discrete GPU and any APU graphics performance is completely eclipsed.  The Radeon HD 6750 is an $60 GPU from 2011.
There is no sense in side tracking this discussion with talk of discrete GPUs, something Apple is highly unlikely to use in a Mini or its replacement. Remember this is a discussion about the Mini, not the ultimate computer you can potentially put together.
Quote:

Except that they are not on par with the Core i5 but the Core i3.  The Core i5 destroys Kaveri on CPU benchmarks.  The Iris Pro holds it's own.
Kaveri isn't as bad as you make it out to be and for the target market the GPU is by far the more important part of the chip. When it comes to GPU performance Kaveri does very well when put up against Iris Pro.
Quote:

The Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac is likely far better than any Kaveri part.  They aren't "on par" at all with current software.
IMac would be even better with I7, Iris Pro and a discrete video card. However my post did not involve the iMac, my point is that Kaveri would be a good match for the Mini or its replacement.
Quote:

Kaveri is an underwhelming upgrade who's HSA promise is still in the future.
It took Apples delivery of Mavericks to get OpenCL support for Intels IGPs so AMD is hardly behind here. In reality they are ahead of Intel with respect to GPU compute. If Apple and AMD can leverage driver development done for the Mac Pro you will be in good shape until an OS more fully supporting HSA comes out.
Quote:
The performance is completely unbalanced in favor of the GPU and even there a $60 dGPU can destroy it.  By the time there's a large amount of software that can effectively leverage HSA Broadwell will be out with a large GPU boost over Haswell.
We can hope for that big GPU boost but like all things Intel you have to wait and see. Right now Kaveri is shipping product. Frankly I really don't see Apple staying with Intel if Intel doesn't move more fully to an HSA like structure in their processors. If you study what Apple has been up to OS wise it really looks like AMD and Apple are on the same path or are sharing the same vision. Intel on the other hand needed to be clobbered by Apple just to improve their GPUs to bring them to the rational state they are at today. In any event right now Apple can already leverage that GPU throughout its OS, so to dismiss it as not an advantage is a mistake in my mind.

I have no doubt that Apples dissatisfaction with Intel and their GPUs was one factor in the crash program to develop ARM based hardware. It will be interesting to see how Apples processor families develop in the futures, but I suspect HSA design concepts will play a big role in those future processors.
Edited by wizard69 - 1/18/14 at 7:19pm
post #1095 of 1506
We live in interesting times!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

The concern at this point centers on form factor redesign
If the Mini gets updated at all I suspect it will come with a major form factor redesign.
Quote:
and inclusion of Haswell or Broadwell.
At this point holding off for Broadwell is probably one of those "might as well" things. This would especially be the case if they significantly shrink the form factor or possibly go fanless.
Quote:

 Considering that 2013 failed to see an update to the Mac Mini, and its form factor has not seen alteration while all other Macs have, I would hope that significant attention will be paid to the only headless Mac under $3k.  
The unfortunate reality is that that market is dead. Now maybe Apple can design something to breath a bit of life into the desktop market but I wouldn't bet on it. Just today Intel announced the layoff of 4 or 5 thousand (forgot the real number), but the fact is Intel is hurting and doesn't itself see a recovery in its traditional markets anytime soon.

So should Apple pay attention to the Mini, well you and I may think so but I'm not too sure about Apple. They could easily put a lot of money into a "Mini" that won't sell any better than the current one. It can be very hard for companies to make decisions like this. Don't update and your few remaining customers end up very frustrated. Update but don't show improved sales then your stock holders end up outraged.
Quote:

I've been waiting for quite some time.  Perhaps the Mac Mini has been relegated to the same status as the iPod, to be forgotten and dismissed by Johnny Ive.  
What is with the I've hate? Even when Steve Jobs was around his singular opinions didn't make a product. In fact there are good examples of engineers working around Steve's opinions to deliver the products we all love. Ive's place at Apple is no different, yes he has a lot of influence (as it should be) but he is only one man.
Edited by wizard69 - 1/18/14 at 7:57pm
post #1096 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What is with the I've hate? Even when Steve Jobs was around his singular opinions didn't make a product. In fact there are good examples of engineers working around Steve's opinions to deliver the products we all love. Ive's place at Apple is no different, yes he has a lot of influence (as it should be) but he is only one man.

 

This is personal opinion here, and highly skewed toward a user who's been with Apple since System 7.  Now that the disclaimer has been said, I do personally hold Ive accountable here because while I believe Tim Cook is an effective CEO and knows more about logistics than all the rest of us combined, I do not get a sense that he's directly involved, as Steve was, in design.  Ive, however, is the main man when it comes to engineers.  I know there are multitudes under him, but he's the one in presentations waxing poetic.  

 

It is my opinion, and obviously I'm 1/99th of 1% here, that it is Apple's responsibility to afford equal attention to every product line they choose to keep available.  Favoritism toward the cash cows is inevitable because the stock holders cry when anything but that happens, but it's important that if they choose to keep a product available that they actually work to improve those products.  The fact that it does not happen is the reason I single out Ive.  Yes, he has a boss, but he's also the boss when it comes to engineers, so this does, in fact, rest on his shoulders.  I understand that he's had his hands busy with every other Mac, and the Mac Pro is stunning to say the least, but to completely ignore a product that is available and not EOL'd, is inexcusable.  One may use the argument that there's no buyers of these products so why work on them?  The inverse is also true, there's been no work on these products and they are not even close to state of the art, so why buy them?  Apple can't complain about poor numbers when they don't put forth the effort to bring a product to the store that people will be interested in.  

We've heard the complaints over and over again here, and I rarely ever comment on things because my opinion isn't any more valuable than anyone else's.  Apple has consistently underpowered the Mac Mini, and handicapped its GPU performance.  There are absolutely no other choices as a Mac user available, except the Mac Pro.  I have one from 2006 that I'm typing on now.  It's long in the tooth, to say the least, running Lion.  But I don't have $3k+ to throw at a new Mac Pro, and an iMac is out of the question when I already have a 30" Cinema Display that works amazingly well.    I admit that I'm an insignificant Mac user when it comes to what Apple has become, but I remember the days before the iPod.  I wish the folks at Apple did.  I'll stop my complaining now and go back to the lurking I've done here for years.

Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #1097 of 1506

Given the rising issue of the three-year-old overheating MacBook Pros, one wonders how the 5mm-thin iMacs introduced in late 2012 will fare in the coming years. Not to mention that a 4K screen will add considerably to the graphics card requirements.

 

Not sure I want to take a chance on that until I see how the affected MacBook Pro users are treated.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1098 of 1506
Personally I have no desire to buy the current iMac. Part of that is due to serviceability which is related to any thermal issues the units may have. However I'm not hearing about thermal issues on the new iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Given the rising issue of the three-year-old overheating MacBook Pros, one wonders how the 5mm-thin iMacs introduced in late 2012 will fare in the coming years. Not to mention that a 4K screen will add considerably to the graphics card requirements.
The difficulty in servicing the IMac means that I will not have to worry about that problem if it ever crops up.

The problem I see is that you are trying to hang this issue on Apple and really it is an AMD / NVidia issue. I include NVidia because they have had very similar types of failures with their hardware. Apparently the root cause hasn't been determined yet when it comes to the AMD problem. Eventually that will be determined at which time a proper resolution to the problem can be had. TSMC might be part of the problem too.

The reality is you should consider yourself to be lucky if you get a long life out of GPU cards these days. The manufactures run the chips right at their limits. People seem to accept this as a trade off for bleeding edge performance. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the reason Apple has apparently down clocked the GPU chips in the Mac Pro is to increase reliability.
Quote:
Not sure I want to take a chance on that until I see how the affected MacBook Pro users are

What makes you think the manner they handled problem in the past will apply to the way they handle issues in the future?

Edited by wizard69 - 1/19/14 at 4:07pm
post #1099 of 1506

People always complain about Apple durability but still buying their products.Why I ask myself?

post #1100 of 1506
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

People always complain about Apple durability but still buying their products. Why I ask myself?

I think because for the price tag, they expect them to be better. That is my only explanation.

Anyway, here is my deal... I bought a sweatshirt for Christmas which turned out to be kind of snug (should have bought a zip up) and today I just bought the new jacket. We'll see about whether or not I get a new Mac in the next few months.
post #1101 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not sure what to say, if you look at the world through a negative eye, I guess AMDs latest effort sucks.

No, I look at it based on the benchmarks provided. I would love for AMD to once again challenge Intel. Thus far not so much.
Quote:
Realistically what processor do you expect in the Mini? We aren't talking about putting this chip into an iMac or even the much desired XMac, rather we are talking about the Mini. I actually dream about a Mini with a Haswell i7 and Iris Pro graphics running on the fastest version available but that isn't likely to happen at all.

I expect a core i5 and core i7 with the HD4600.
Quote:
I look at it this way, AMD now has a CPU section that isn't a complete embarrassment when it comes to performance, they are getting much better performance with an actual reduction in clock rate. The chip will compete comfortably with what ever Intel chip Apple would likely put into the machine.

The current i7 destroys any of the Kaveri options for CPU tasks which is still the majority of the workflow. While the APU will do much better for games than the HD4000 currently used in the mini the mini isn't a gaming rig.

"Not a Complete Embarrassment" is the same category as the Ivy Bridge GPU.
Quote:
I5 isn't that much faster all the time.

The i5 is the ENTRY model mini. The i7 is the mid range. And the i3 beats Kaveri.
Quote:
Iris pro would certainly be interesting but do you really think Apple would put such a chip in the Mini when they have castrated the machine for years? As to i5 + HD4600 you have to be joking with that one! Kaveri's GPU does significantly better than the 4600 and often significantly out performs Iris Pro when the tasks become more demanding.

GPU performance is still secondary to CPU performance in 2014. The 4600 is decent.
Quote:
Well that is certainly baloney. You really need to read some less biased reporting. Kaveri does amazingly well considering it is lacking the high performance cache chip Iris pro comes with.

I'm not reading the reporting. I'm looking at the provided benchmarks.
Quote:
The real problem is that they don't get the performance Kaveri has GPU wise.

Which doesn't matter as much if you aren't building a gaming rig. Trancoding is still more reliable using CPU than GPU. Most tasks are still CPU dominated. There are no scenarios, other than HSA benchmarks, that I'd rather have a Kaveri over a i7 + HD4600.
Quote:
Kaveri isn't as bad as you make it out to be and for the target market the GPU is by far the more important part of the chip.

Repeating an assertion doesn't make it any more true. Show workflows that are dominated by GPU performance for the average mini user.
Quote:
It took Apples delivery of Mavericks to get OpenCL support for Intels IGPs so AMD is hardly behind here. In reality they are ahead of Intel with respect to GPU compute. If Apple and AMD can leverage driver development done for the Mac Pro you will be in good shape until an OS more fully supporting HSA comes out.

I'd believe that more if apple shipped opencl 2.0 support in mavericks.
Quote:
We can hope for that big GPU boost but like all things Intel you have to wait and see. Right now Kaveri is shipping product.

Lol. When has intel not delivered recently? Whereas AMD promised Core i5 parity and is getting its butt kicked by an i3.
Quote:
Frankly I really don't see Apple staying with Intel if Intel doesn't move more fully to an HSA like structure in their processors. If you study what Apple has been up to OS wise it really looks like AMD and Apple are on the same path or are sharing the same vision. Intel on the other hand needed to be clobbered by Apple just to improve their GPUs to bring them to the rational state they are at today.

I'd believe the BS you're spouting if apple had released opencl support for the hd4000 prior to mavericks and if they has shipped opencl 2.0 support in July the same time Khronos did.
Quote:
In any event right now Apple can already leverage that GPU throughout its OS, so to dismiss it as not an advantage is a mistake in my mind.

At the opencl 1.2 level also supported by ivy and haswell.
Quote:
I have no doubt that Apples dissatisfaction with Intel and their GPUs was one factor in the crash program to develop ARM based hardware. It will be interesting to see how Apples processor families develop in the futures, but I suspect HSA design concepts will play a big role in those future processors.

Bullshit. ARM development is driven completely by iPad and iPhone and any "crash program", if any, driven by dissatisfaction with Samsung and not intel.
post #1102 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I think because for the price tag, they expect them to be better. That is my only explanation.

Anyway, here is my deal... I bought a sweatshirt for Christmas which turned out to be kind of snug (should have bought a zip up) and today I just bought the new jacket. We'll see about whether or not I get a new Mac in the next few months.

Going on a spending spree! The next thing you will do is go all out and buy a pair of shoes.
post #1103 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

No, I look at it based on the benchmarks provided. I would love for AMD to once again challenge Intel. Thus far not so much.
Nobody completely obsessed with benchmarks will be happy with Kaveri. If you take a more balanced view the processor really isn't that bad.
Quote:
I expect a core i5 and core i7 with the HD4600.
The current i7 destroys any of the Kaveri options for CPU tasks which is still the majority of the workflow. While the APU will do much better for games than the HD4000 currently used in the mini the mini isn't a gaming rig.
Which is baloney. Sure Intels best CPU does better in some tests but lets face it Haswell does much better than Sandy Bridge. As for your obsession with the GPU as a gaming feature that is baloney also. GPU's are very important in all modern operating systems.
Quote:
"Not a Complete Embarrassment" is the same category as the Ivy Bridge GPU.
The i5 is the ENTRY model mini. The i7 is the mid range. And the i3 beats Kaveri.
It beats Kaveri if you hand pick the benchmarks to prove your point. Kaveri however delivers a far more balanced result.
Quote:
GPU performance is still secondary to CPU performance in 2014. The 4600 is decent.
Well you are living in the past, the CPU stopped being important at least 3 years ago. Why do you think Apple pushed intel so hard to implement decent GPU's?
Quote:
I'm not reading the reporting. I'm looking at the provided benchmarks.
Reading all the benchmarks wouldn't hurt. Kaveri doesn't do bad at all when benchmarks making use of the GPU are taken into account.
Quote:
Which doesn't matter as much if you aren't building a gaming rig. Trancoding is still more reliable using CPU than GPU. Most tasks are still CPU dominated. There are no scenarios, other than HSA benchmarks, that I'd rather have a Kaveri over a i7 + HD4600.
That is fine for you. However if you are looking for a low cost node to put on the net somewhere Kaveri looks to be very interesting and is certainly better than any i3 based machine and gives the i5 based machines a run for their money.
Quote:
Repeating an assertion doesn't make it any more true.
Exactly so why do you do it????

Seriously dude my post was about the Mini a machine Apple doesn't exactly imbue with a great deal of performance to begin with. It would be a huge difference if this was a discussion about the iMac, but in the Mini Kaveri would be fine. This is especially the case if Apple can trim a few bucks off the price of the machine.
Quote:
Show workflows that are dominated by GPU performance for the average mini user.
The workflow doesn't have to be dominated by GPU performance for a GPU to be important with respect to OS performance. Just about every app gets some benefit from the GPU if it used the Mac GUI at all.
Quote:
I'd believe that more if apple shipped opencl 2.0 support in mavericks.
Hey I don't like Apple dragging its feet either. I honestly believe that the pace of Mac OS development has slowed in preference of iOS.
Quote:
Lol. When has intel not delivered recently? Whereas AMD promised Core i5 parity and is getting its butt kicked by an i3.
You haven't kept up with Intel failure or you have selective memory. in any event nothing I've seen indicates that Kaveri is getting its but kicked by i3 processors.
Quote:
I'd believe the BS you're spouting if apple had released opencl support for the hd4000 prior to mavericks and if they has shipped opencl 2.0 support in July the same time Khronos did.
At the opencl 1.2 level also supported by ivy and haswell.
Bullshit. ARM development is driven completely by iPad and iPhone and any "crash program", if any, driven by dissatisfaction with Samsung and not intel.

Wrong again. Apple went ARM just before the iPad release when it became obvious that Intel didn't get it. It is pretty hard for Apple to be dissatisfied with Samsung when Samsung is producing Apples designs. Even before the Apple designed hardware hit, Samsung's designs where ARM derived with help from Intrinsity. More so Apple Purchased P.A. Semi in 2008 specifically to go their own way in processor development, with Jobs specifically saying they where going to develop their own processors.

So yeah I'd call it a crash program. They literally went out and purchased the expertise to build their own chips and pushed out those design rather quickly. That move was motivated by Intel just not getting low power. Frankly it was a good move on Apples part as Intel did not have anything close to reasonable for a tablet until late last year. Now Apple has a chip that pretty much holds its own against Intel chips targeting the same market.

In any event this ARM discussion pulls thread off course. HSA architecture has so much to offer Apple that I see Intel as having no choice but to match the capability or loose Apples interest. You can disagree with that but it seems lie Intel is following AMD in this regard.
post #1104 of 1506
Thread Starter 
5100 or bust for me if a Haswell mini comes out because I think expecting a 5200 would be too much. I don't want to say the 4600 is horrible but it's my money and that's my choice or else. Otherwise I'd rather they wait for Broadwell.
post #1105 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Nobody completely obsessed with benchmarks will be happy with Kaveri. If you take a more balanced view the processor really isn't that bad.

 

LOL.  First you take exception to "reading biased reporting" and now with being "obsessed with benchmarks".  So I guess your opinion is based merely on personal whimsy.

 

I'm no more "obsessed with benchmarks" than anyone else.  They are an objective measure of the performance of a system component that provides insight into what to expect for real world performance increase.  Yes, you can lie with benchmarks but Anand, despite your accusations of anti-AMD bias, is pretty decent to presenting representative enough benchmarks. 

 

Your "balanced view" isn't balanced at all.  AMD promised Core i5 level of CPU performance.  Everyone was excited that they caught up to Intel but the benchmarks shows that they failed.

 

Quote:
Which is baloney. Sure Intels best CPU does better in some tests but lets face it Haswell does much better than Sandy Bridge. As for your obsession with the GPU as a gaming feature that is baloney also. GPU's are very important in all modern operating systems.

 

Nope.  CPU still dominates standard desktop workflows.  Even for transcoding after Intel introduced quick sync.  Sufficiently so that Apple has for relied on Intel's IGP since Sandy Bridge for it's entry level laptops (MBA, 13" MBP) and now for all of it's entry level machines including the 15" MBP.

 

Are you claiming that OSX is not a modern operating system or that Apple engineers are clueless?

 

And the gaming focus is exactly AMD's focus.  Those are the benchmarks that Kaveri wins.  That's the emphasis that AMD puts in its marketing literature.

 

Quote:
 It beats Kaveri if you hand pick the benchmarks to prove your point. Kaveri however delivers a far more balanced result.

 

Show any CPU benchmark where Kaveri beats the Core i5.  CPU benchmarks and not the "CPU while gaming" benchmarks that AMD touts. 

 

You don't like Anand.  Try Tom's.  Same result.  Look at the content creation, productivity, compression, and media encoding benchmarks.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,3725-10.html

 

Even for OpenCL benchmarks.

 

"But the Intel chip does quite a bit better in our OpenCL-accelerated metric. In fact, we also see the Richland-based A10-6800K finish up ahead of any Kaveri-based APU."

 

"The same thing happens in Sony’s Vegas Pro 12 as Intel’s CPUs take first and second place, while A10-6800K slides past the Kaveri-based APUs. This is an OpenCL-accelerated workload, so it’s strange that AMD’s latest doesn’t turn in stronger numbers. But when we turn off OpenCL and run the same benchmark, completion time nearly doubles. So hardware acceleration is definitely helping, just not as much as we would have thought given AMD's more modern graphics architecture."

 

These are what people do with their minis.  Decompress files, encode video, use iTunes, use iLife.  Nobody can run benchmarks using Kaveri and OSX but Vegas, WinZip, Adobe, Handbrake and iTunes on windows WITH OpenCL turned on in many cases is indicative that for mini users the Core i5 is the far better chip than any Kaveri option except for gaming.

 

Quote:
Well you are living in the past, the CPU stopped being important at least 3 years ago. Why do you think Apple pushed intel so hard to implement decent GPU's?

 

Kaveri consistently sucks ass in comparison to the Core i5 when doing things that most people care about.  

 

Intel has been working on improving their GPU performance since the 1999 introduction of the Intel740 as part of their strategy to own the entire lower end of the graphics market.  Until Intel's move to lock out 3rd party chipsets it hasn't mattered to Apple very much.  Prior to 2010 Apple happily used 3rd party IGPs like the nVidia 9400M as part of their solution when Intel's IGP was considered too slow.  Given that Apple choose the GMA900 and other Intel IGPs from time to time over nVidia or ATI IGP solutions Apple obviously felt that Intel's offerings during those periods were competitive or they wouldn't have used them.

 

Whether Apple pushed Intel on the IGP front is debatable.  Certainly Apple's laggard implementation of OpenCL on Intel's platform indicated to great rush to push GPU acceleration in OSX.

 

Quote:
 Reading all the benchmarks wouldn't hurt. Kaveri doesn't do bad at all when benchmarks making use of the GPU are taken into account.

 

The only benchmarks I don't care about are gaming and synthetic computer.  Those are the ones that Kaveri wins.  While I care about gaming I'm not going to game on a IGP so those benchmarks are moot.  I don't care about synthetic compute benchmarks because these generally aren't indicative of production software performance.  I'd rather see Adobe or Handbrake CPU and OpenCL benchmarks. 

 

Quote:
That is fine for you. However if you are looking for a low cost node to put on the net somewhere Kaveri looks to be very interesting and is certainly better than any i3 based machine and gives the i5 based machines a run for their money.

 

Except nowhere do they give "i5 based machines a run for their money".  At $600 the Mini is not a "low cost node".

 

Quote:
Exactly so why do you do it????

 

I provide links to benchmarks to support my case.  You provide handwaving.

Quote:
Seriously dude my post was about the Mini a machine Apple doesn't exactly imbue with a great deal of performance to begin with. 

 

The $800 mini has a huge amount of performance.  Period.  Any step back from the Core i7 is a huge reduction in performance.

 

Quote:
It would be a huge difference if this was a discussion about the iMac, but in the Mini Kaveri would be fine. This is especially the case if Apple can trim a few bucks off the price of the machine.

 

A mini Kaveri would be fine if you didn't care about iPhoto, iMovie, zipping files, handbrake, iTunes, iWork, Xcode, etc performance getting significantly slower.

 

Quote:
The workflow doesn't have to be dominated by GPU performance for a GPU to be important with respect to OS performance. Just about every app gets some benefit from the GPU if it used the Mac GUI at all.

 

The benefit is completely negated by the significant loss in performance in content creation, zipping, encoding, compiling, etc.  The HD4600 is more than capable of providing all the GPU acceleration required for normal OS performance.

 

Quote:
Hey I don't like Apple dragging its feet either. I honestly believe that the pace of Mac OS development has slowed in preference of iOS.

 

Given that they invested their limited resources in other aspects of OSX then GPU acceleration is obviously NOT the cornerstone of Apple's OS strategy as you repeatedly assert.

 

Quote:
You haven't kept up with Intel failure or you have selective memory. in any event nothing I've seen indicates that Kaveri is getting its but kicked by i3 processors.

 

Since Intel's failures are so rampant why don't you list them since it should be easy.  Oh wait, you don't mean the schedule slips?  Yah, like AMD has any advantage there.  Intel's broadwell desktop slip is relatively minor given that they're first to 14nm which is pretty hard.

 

That you close your eyes to Kaveri's shortcomings is immaterial.  The benchmarks are all linked.

 

Quote:
Wrong again. Apple went ARM just before the iPad release when it became obvious that Intel didn't get it. It is pretty hard for Apple to be dissatisfied with Samsung when Samsung is producing Apples designs. Even before the Apple designed hardware hit, Samsung's designs where ARM derived with help from Intrinsity. More so Apple Purchased P.A. Semi in 2008 specifically to go their own way in processor development, with Jobs specifically saying they where going to develop their own processors.

So yeah I'd call it a crash program. They literally went out and purchased the expertise to build their own chips and pushed out those design rather quickly. That move was motivated by Intel just not getting low power. Frankly it was a good move on Apples part as Intel did not have anything close to reasonable for a tablet until late last year. Now Apple has a chip that pretty much holds its own against Intel chips targeting the same market.

 

Too bad that Apple stated differently.

 

"When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do,"  - Steve Jobs WWDC 2005

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/1045157/liveupdate.html

 

And they choose Intel over AMD precisely for that reason.

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/1046961/intelvsamd.html

 

That Intel was not interested in becoming a ARM fab in 2006-2007 let Samsung and all it's resulting problems into the picture.  

 

Intel's interest in phones and tablets has always been tempered by the low cost of those chips just like Apple not wanting to get involved in the low end of the computer business.  Intel's drive to far lower power has far more to do with keeping ARM solutions out of the server and ultra book high ASP and high margin market.  Something that I believe that they have succeeded in doing.  There is no reason to go ARM for ultra books or servers any more. 

 

Intel's margins are 60% and the ASPs are far higher than for ARM.

 

Job's interest in developing their own processors for the iPad and iPhone was a desire for a competitive advantage that Android (or Samsung) could not easily match. 

 

And obviously that desire was largely fueled by Samsing copy-catting the iPhone.

 

Quote:
 In any event this ARM discussion pulls thread off course. HSA architecture has so much to offer Apple that I see Intel as having no choice but to match the capability or loose Apples interest. You can disagree with that but it seems lie Intel is following AMD in this regard.

 

By the time HSA matters at all Intel will have reached parity with AMD or surpassed it in terms of IGP performance.  HSA software won't be out until later this year (what, summer?).  That means no production software will use it before 2015 at the earliest.  That means it won't matter for real before 2016.

 

Given the rapid GPU advances in the last 3 Intel CPUs I don't think that AMD's GPU advantage will last until 2016. 


Edited by nht - 1/21/14 at 7:07am
post #1106 of 1506

We're on Day 38 of the New Year, and the new Mini hasn't arrived yet.

 

The changes would seem to be pretty standard: Remove the FW port, add HDMI2, TB2 and the AC version of Wi-Fi, shrink the form factor. [And please keep the ability to add RAM later!] I personally think they'll remove the SDXC card slot too.

 

Why is this taking so long?

 

Edit: This article mentions some of the smaller form factors the next Mini will be up against.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1107 of 1506

Tim Cook says he hasn't given up on the Mac, but that doesn't mean that he's including the Mini in that.  It seems that the only Macs they focus on are the laptops, the iMac and the new Mac Pro.  It's been so long now that I'm actually bummed out that it's being forgotten.  It's the only headless Mac that the mere mortal can afford, and it's being ignored by Apple.  They can't make money on something they refuse to update with current hardware.  

Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #1108 of 1506
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post
Its been so long now

 

Standard cycle. 

post #1109 of 1506

I have a feeling Apple will come out with a whole new Mac Mini in march sometime.Cook will surprise us.

post #1110 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Standard cycle. 

No. Standard cycle was a few months ago.
post #1111 of 1506
Originally Posted by nht View Post
No. Standard cycle was a few months ago.

post #1112 of 1506
Thread Starter 
How much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to a dual core HD 4600? Same question for a quad core? Now how much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to the Iris 5100? And how much is a quad core HD 4000 to an Iris Pro 5200?

The answers to these would determine in my mind whether Apple is waiting for Broadwell.
post #1113 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



Yes and from the same source the average is 381 days. The expected refresh was summer or fall of last year in the product release cycle before Xmas. Or in other words a few months ago. If the mini has shifted to a spring release that's no longer part of the pattern since 2009.
post #1114 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post
 

It's been so long now that I'm actually bummed out that it's being forgotten.

 

I don't believe it's been forgotten. I firmly believe Apple is planning an update, I'm just confused as to why what should be a fairly simple redesign is taking so long. The new tech seems to be available, so it's a question of what else Apple is waiting on.

 

For example, I understand the delay in updating the Thunderbolt Display. Cook is a channel supply guy, and he's waiting on a 4K panel that can be used profitably in both the TB Display and the upper end iMac, to realize the economies of scale of ordering for both lines.

 

But the Mini would seem to be a straight case of replace-the-tech-and-shrink-the-case. Perhaps the external SuperDrive needs to be redesign to sit under the new Mini. Or there's some new tech we don't know about. Or AppleTV capability is being added.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1115 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I firmly believe Apple is planning an update, I'm just confused as to why what should be a fairly simple redesign is taking so long. The new tech seems to be available, so it's a question of what else Apple is waiting on.

If they are moving it back to the US, they would be better to get their Mac Pros clear first. They are still over 4 week shipping times.

PCs using the dual-core chips suitable for the Mini only came out in December so it's only a couple of months over anyway. They might manage March/April and then the new laptops in June at WWDC.
post #1116 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


If they are moving it back to the US, they would be better to get their Mac Pros clear first.

 

Is this a rumour? Hadn't heard that Minis were slated to be produced in the homeland.

 

I would have thought that cost concerns on this line and ease of shipping the smaller units would mean assembly in China.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1117 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Is this a rumour? Hadn't heard that Minis were slated to be produced in the homeland.

I would have thought that cost concerns on this line and ease of shipping the smaller units would mean assembly in China.

Tim only said one Mac product originally, which was the Mac Pro but he said they had a commitment to creating more US jobs. They shouldn't cost any more to make in the US - they don't have many parts:



Maybe even simpler if they go with 1 HDD, a PCIe SSD (BTO) and soldered RAM. The shipment volume should be around the same as the Mac Pro.
post #1118 of 1506

I'm looking to buy a quad-core Mac Mini.  It seems like the logical choice given the choices.  Waiting for Broadwell would put us once again at the end of the list because there's no way they'd bring a new chip out in the Mini before the other Macs.  The current Mini can be built with 16GB memory, which is also the choice I'd make for RAM.  I'm pretty sure any of their graphics cards would do well with the Apple 30" Cinema Display, so I don't think there'd be an issue there (aside from the differences in plugs).  I've heard so much about the Iris Pro that I'd hope we'd have at least one option for it.  You'd think that sooner or later they'd stop handicapping people who don't want all-in-ones.  Sadly, I've become jaded as of late with the folks in engineering thinking everyone on the globe only wants all-in-ones.  I'd love to remind them to "Think Different"!

Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #1119 of 1506
I haven't been posting much because this forum crashes Safari to much on my iPad. In any even it depends!

That might sound like a cop out but the reality is the value of quad cores is highly dependent up in how you use the machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

How much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to a dual core HD 4600? Same question for a quad core? Now how much of a jump is a dual core HD 4000 to the Iris 5100? And how much is a quad core HD 4000 to an Iris Pro 5200?
As for the graphics subsection of the machine, you best bet there is to look at some of the benchmarking sites. Iris and Iris Pro is pretty darn good. However don't expect discrete level or even AMD APU level of performance at the extremes. Given that for mainstream use Iris is impressive.
Quote:
The answers to these would determine in my mind whether Apple is waiting for Broadwell.

The only reason I could see Apple waiting for Broadwell is if there is a compelling thermal property permitting a much smaller Mini. Personally I don't think we need a smaller Mini, in fact I'd rather see the opposite, but you know Apple. The potential is there for a very compact machine due to some Broadwell chips effectively being a SoC.
Edited by wizard69 - 2/8/14 at 6:49pm
post #1120 of 1506
I doubt that the Mini production is coming state side. You would think that we would have heard about a production line by now if it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Tim only said one Mac product originally, which was the Mac Pro but he said they had a commitment to creating more US jobs. They shouldn't cost any more to make in the US - they don't have many parts:
Actually the cost of production could increase significantly. Not that that is a huge component of the final price. Let's not forget that a good part of the Mac Pro is apparently still imported into the USA.
Quote:


Maybe even simpler if they go with 1 HDD, a PCIe SSD (BTO) and soldered RAM.
I could see Apple dropping magnetic drive support altogether. All they need to do to make up for it is to offer another TB2 port, hopefully on another controller. If they do go with an all SSD machine I would hope that they offer two slots. Ideally they will have the PCI Express lanes free to do that. That isn't a given anymore with Intel tailoring hardware to specific uses.
Quote:
The shipment volume should be around the same as the Mac Pro.

Huh??????

The Mac Pro has never come close to Mini shipments as far as I can tell. Of course that is historical, right now the Mac Pro is probably feeding pent up demand and the Mini is obviously over due for an upgrade.
Edited by wizard69 - 2/8/14 at 7:04pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 2014 Mac mini Wishlist