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

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 17

post #641 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

A bay will never happen. Accessibility, however, could.
It won't happen though unless the customer base makes it an issue.
Quote:
Your implication that it's an issue is misplaced.

It is impossible for a customer to have misplaced issues with a product. Either it meets the customers needs or it doesn't, it isn't something that can be misplaced. Your comment really makes no sense here and assumes that Apple can do no wrong with respect to its customer base.

Look at it this way if I said XYZ pickup company has design issues because they don't make a 2 ton capable pickup would my concerns be misplaced? If it is a legitimate need then it is a rational concern if the product doesn't meet my requirements.

So in this context we have Apple going the extra mile to make servicing the iMac even harder, which is an obvious design decision, so it is rational to have problems with the machine. It is an issue and frankly I try to make anyone thinking about an iMac aware of it. Apple has simply gone to far with the iMac and has made it far to expensive to service the parts that most commonly fail in a computer. That my good boy is a design issue.
post #642 of 1393
Thread Starter 
My friend and I were discussing the Iris Pro graphics going into the mini. He thinks they will be an expensive BTO option? I would like to hope they will be standard. Thoughts?
post #643 of 1393
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
It won't happen though unless the customer base makes it an issue.

 

Fifteen years. … Not gonna happen.


It is impossible for a customer to have misplaced issues with a product. Either it meets the customers needs or it doesn't, it isn't something that can be misplaced.

 

You're looking at it the wrong way. The customer can certainly complain about a product that isn't at all designed to fit him.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #644 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Problem is, maybe I want more than 512 MB of RAM dedicated to video. I mean, my 4870 has 512, and by next year it finally won't fit minimum requirements for much of anything new, but it's also four years old.

 

I don't understand why Apple doesn't just beef up vRAM on all their products. It doesn't have to be the most powerful card in existence at time of launch, but having twice the vRAM of all the competitors and getting special chips made to have 2, 3, 4GB of it sounds like a thoroughly "Apple" idea.

Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me. They've never gone for bleeding edge specs in extremely specific areas unless it's something they can obviously talk up. They have gone really cheap on ram at times. The cheapest Air had a 2GB base ram configuration until last year. What annoys me in terms of vram is when they cut it close enough to cause real problems without going to the most demanding software. Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly. There are use cases where 4GB or more would in fact be useful, but they tend to be specialized. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum. On the topic of the mini, it has trended toward higher end parts than it previously used, so I don't think one of the better IGP options is entirely implausible.

post #645 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me. They've never gone for bleeding edge specs in extremely specific areas unless it's something they can obviously talk up.
Doubling VRAM wouldn't even be bleeding edge today in most Apple products. You would at least hope that they would get smart about it in the up sell models.
Quote:
They have gone really cheap on ram at times. The cheapest Air had a 2GB base ram configuration until last year.
Considering the price of RAM and the requirements of even base software like Safari that is a very raw deal for customers. At least today you can buy a base machine that runs the OS and a couple of apps correctly. Still considering the price of RAM Apple could do better.
Quote:
What annoys me in terms of vram is when they cut it close enough to cause real problems without going to the most demanding software. Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly.
You are absolutely right.
Quote:
There are use cases where 4GB or more would in fact be useful, but they tend to be specialized. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum. On the topic of the mini, it has trended toward higher end parts than it previously used, so I don't think one of the better IGP options is entirely implausible.

The problem with this go around is that it is much harder to guess because Apple will have so many options for the Mini. Hell they could go AMD and really bump GPU performance. AMD probably won't happen but even with Intel they have close to a dozen processors that could go into the Mini.
post #646 of 1393
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me.

 

Yeah? Well, maybe it should. That's what I'm saying.


Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying; they need to be giving people reasons to buy their products instead of cheapening out. Apple computers used to be top of the freaking line in their respective categories. Apple never sold them on that (except for Steve always getting to say "it screams" at keynotes, which was great), but they're just NOT anymore.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #647 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

After all the talk from Apple about a real Mac Pro revision do you really think it will come to us this year as a minor update?

I mainly meant they wouldn't have a separate event, it would have to be tacked onto another event but even so, the easiest route for them is a drop-in upgrade. A radical overhaul would be nice to see but they haven't demonstrated a level of interest in the MP for that to be the most likely outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Honestly I'm expecting something big for the Mac Pro at WWDC.

Well, Tim said recently no new products until fall and we know Intel won't have the CPUs out so people expecting hardware to be shown at WWDC could well be disappointed. I think the expectation should be for the Apple Store to go down prior to WWDC so that the laptops can be updated, for them to announce iOS 7 and 10.9 at WWDC and the updated laptops may be available to order either before or after WWDC. Because the Mini uses the same mobile CPUs, it could get an update with the laptops but it tends to get dragged behind the iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro as it is currently shipped.

You can shorten that sentence to 'the market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro'. The volume is at a much lower price point and the reason has been covered many times in the past. A drop-in upgrade will satisfy the people who still want to buy them because that's still better than the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
That's exactly what I'm saying; they need to be giving people reasons to buy their products instead of cheapening out.

They have a habit of pushing people who need higher spec to the higher price points and I think they use VRAM as leverage although it doesn't make as big of a difference to 3D graphics performance at the native resolutions of the machines:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428-5.html

512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup. Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.
post #648 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Your implication that it's an issue is misplaced.

It's not an issue - it's a No Go!

post #649 of 1393
Thread Starter 
At the very least, there should be options to upgrade the graphics memory on the base 27" iMac and on the top level 15" rMBP.
post #650 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup. Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.

Video processing, fluid sims, and heavy calculation work remain edge cases, although they seem to be growing (and don't excuse Apple being cheap about this). They've been talked up on gpus for years, but the concept hasn't materialized as much as I would like. How many frames are addressed isn't really an issue at all. Saying you can limit it to a single frame doesn't make sense. I'm not sure if I interpreted correctly. Anywhere it's used in playback or rendering, you're directly limited by the memory available. There aren't many raytracers that use CUDA or anything similar. Part of the reason is due to memory. Texture maps overload them quickly, so their markets are more limited because of this. At 512 minus whatever the system is already using, it wouldn't be very useful in that kind of application. It would probably be the achilles heel if you're dealing with any kind of 3d paint apps. As for who that would affect, my guess would be students. They're more likely to have one of the lesser configurations.

post #651 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I mainly meant they wouldn't have a separate event, it would have to be tacked onto another event but even so, the easiest route for them is a drop-in upgrade. A radical overhaul would be nice to see but they haven't demonstrated a level of interest in the MP for that to be the most likely outcome.
Actually the idea that they wouldn't have a separate event is why I expect it at WWDC. There isn't another event that really fits. As to radical well that I guess depends on perspective but the implications of what have been said up to now implies a bigger overhaul than in the past.
Quote:
Well, Tim said recently no new products until fall and we know Intel won't have the CPUs out so people expecting hardware to be shown at WWDC could well be disappointed.
Funny but I take the phrase "new products" to mean well NEW products. A revision to iPhone, Mini or the Mac Pro would not be a new product. A new product might be an iWatch, Apple TV or an XMac. Even an XMac isn't really a "new" product as it is a Mac variant.

If there is no new Mac Pro at WWDC I would expect many people to be extremely pissed off, especially professionals relying upon Apple to come through with a new revision. As to Intel it wouldn't be the first time they did a special processor for Apple. Intels Haswell reveal could be most interesting here.
Quote:
I think the expectation should be for the Apple Store to go down prior to WWDC so that the laptops can be updated, for them to announce iOS 7 and 10.9 at WWDC and the updated laptops may be available to order either before or after WWDC. Because the Mini uses the same mobile CPUs, it could get an update with the laptops but it tends to get dragged behind the iMac.
This does follow past practice though there is no reason to hold up iMac or Mini updates this year. Further I'm hoping they learned their lesson about tying the Mini update to the iMac release as that didn't go over well last year.
Quote:
You can shorten that sentence to 'the market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro'. The volume is at a much lower price point and the reason has been covered many times in the past. A drop-in upgrade will satisfy the people who still want to buy them because that's still better than the competition.
Any rational corporation would look for viable ways to rescue a product with such declining sales. I'm still of the opinion that Apple has damaged the Mac Pro more than the market. The reality is the workstation market itself isn't that bad off.
Quote:
They have a habit of pushing people who need higher spec to the higher price points and I think they use VRAM as leverage although it doesn't make as big of a difference to 3D graphics performance at the native resolutions of the machines:
The problem is the minimal configurations Apple has been selling don't meet the minimal requirements of many apps. Last years Mini with the discrete GPU didn't have enough VRAM to make it worthwhile. Beyond that OpenCL apps can make use of that VRAM.
Quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428-5.html

512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup.
It took a long time to get there. Further that is only for discrete GPUs.
Quote:
Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.
What is interesting about these machines is the different ways they go about dealing with the bandwidth problem that APUs have. They also demonstrate what a Mini could be with a little effort from Apple. I know I frustrate people when I say we should expect more from Apple with respect to the Mini but it is about time for new technology in the platform. Embedded RAM, lots of fast DRAM, lots of cores and so forth make for interesting technology.

Now these are not advanced performance cores yet Intel will soon have similar solutions on high performance cores. Technology is rapidly moving forward time for the Mini to get on the bandwagon, even if that means waiting for Imtels GT3e technology.
post #652 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


It won't happen though unless the customer base makes it an issue.

 

 

No, they went with the 5mm edge instead of a bay deliberately. It's never going to happen.

 

Accessibility is the selling point of the new Mac Pro. The iMac will remain a closed box.

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 #653 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


No, they went with the 5mm edge instead of a bay deliberately. It's never going to happen.

Accessibility is the selling point of the new Mac Pro. The iMac will remain a closed box.

A closed box isn't as much of an issue if it is readily repairable by a reasonably skilled technician. The iMac has degenerated to the point that it is an expensive repair for anybody.
post #654 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

How many frames are addressed isn't really an issue at all. Saying you can limit it to a single frame doesn't make sense.

If you are doing an intensive blur operation on video for example, you only have to load each frame into memory at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

There aren't many raytracers that use CUDA or anything similar.

Adobe's raytracer uses CUDA. NVidia has their own engine too:

https://developer.nvidia.com/optix

V-Ray: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imIZndhlB9Y
Cycles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfGfUwwll1w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3yWXwaTo_Y
Mental Ray: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKbM8fCIm_4
LuxRender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrvyjqYX6o8
Octane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ1IRQTqMMY

Not that 512MB is suitable for that but many raytracers are offering GPU acceleration. Video processing is a more common use case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
If there is no new Mac Pro at WWDC I would expect many people to be extremely pissed off

That was the case last year though. It didn't make Apple do anything different.

June 4th/5th: Apple Store goes down for new laptops
WWDC on the 10th: iOS 7 and OS X 10.9 as Tim said
September/October: refreshed Mini, iMac, possibly newly designed Mac Pro and refreshed iOS devices

Given how close the Haswell launch is to WWDC, they might take the store down before WWDC and have the new laptops available after and mention battery life improvements at WWDC.
post #655 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


If you are doing an intensive blur operation on video for example, you only have to load each frame into memory at a time.
Adobe's raytracer uses CUDA. NVidia has their own engine too:
 

I'm not sure what kind of blur you mean there. Common ones would be depth of field, which would depend on some way to define z depth, or motion blur. Motion blur requires samples from other frames too. If it doesn't sample far enough out. you get weird effects.  I would have to look up how many pieces of software render blur that way. While it's shifting, most of the heavy lifting remains cpu bound. The really significant things are those like Premiere and its playback engine.

 

 

 

Quote:

That list reads about how I expected. Octane is a somewhat newer one, but still quite limited after several years. Lux isn't that great. Cycles is still basically an alpha stage open source piece of software. Mental Ray's iray is only bundled with one or two shipping products. It's basically a beta product. Vray doesn't use gpu based processing for anything other than previews. It's to allow you to position lights or rotate hdri's to get reflections in the right place (assuming not mapped to rebuilt geometry). I mean if you examine those up close, aside from octane, the gpu functions are fairly limited or not yet stable (and lux is just painful and slow). The issue with 512 is that you would run into trouble with textures. With a lot of games it's also really pushing it. I know there are frequently arguments over whether or not it matters, yet Apple shipped 1GB cards on the upper macbook pros in 2011, and they were slower gpus than what the imacs currently use. It's just Apple cutting corners where they expect it won't be felt as much.

 

Quote:
That was the case last year though. It didn't make Apple do anything different.

They did somewhat of a PR statement regarding 2013. That was at least uncharacteristic of Apple.

post #656 of 1393
Thread Starter 
Great news for me and bad news for Apple.

I got Gauntlet Dark Legacy running via MAME on my 2011 i5 Mac mini with Intel HD 3000 Graphics. Not only does it run but at playable to nearly full speed. So what was the problem all this time? It was in fact the emulator.

MAME OS X has not been updated in several years and as a result runs a lot of games as slow as a snail. I found another emulator that requires use of the terminal (which with a few tutorials I was able to run) and it works great.

I still am probably going to upgrade to a 2013 Mac mini and hopefully Apple will offer the Iris Pro graphics as a BTO at the very least with them offering it standard as a best case scenario.

If they do not offer the Iris Pro graphics, I may get a quad-core i7 mini, a dual-core i5 mini, or simply nothing at all until my current mini dies out.

The good news for me and the bad news for Apple is that for now I do not have to buy an iMac and to be quite honest, I really didn't want one anyway as I had no use for it.

Having said all that, I hope Apple does better with VRAM standards on the iMac and goes from 512 MB to 1 GB. I also hope the base mini is given a flash option though we shall see.
post #657 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Great news for me and bad news for Apple.

I got Gauntlet Dark Legacy running via MAME on my 2011 i5 Mac mini with Intel HD 3000 Graphics. Not only does it run but at playable to nearly full speed. So what was the problem all this time? It was in fact the emulator.

MAME OS X has not been updated in several years and as a result runs a lot of games as slow as a snail. I found another emulator that requires use of the terminal (which with a few tutorials I was able to run) and it works great.
Sounds like you need to get cracking on the source code!
Quote:
I still am probably going to upgrade to a 2013 Mac mini and hopefully Apple will offer the Iris Pro graphics as a BTO at the very least with them offering it standard as a best case scenario.
Hopefully Iris Pro is standard. However I'm not convinced that Intel has the right processor on offer yet for the Mini.
Quote:
If they do not offer the Iris Pro graphics, I may get a quad-core i7 mini, a dual-core i5 mini, or simply nothing at all until my current mini dies out.
Long term it is better to prefer quad cores. However when looking at Haswell processors the CPU cores don't offer a lot of improvements so don't expect huge improvements from CPU bound code.
Quote:
The good news for me and the bad news for Apple is that for now I do not have to buy an iMac and to be quite honest, I really didn't want one anyway as I had no use for it.
Actually this is a good thing for Apple as I doubt that they want you to buy the wrong machine.
Quote:
Having said all that, I hope Apple does better with VRAM standards on the iMac and goes from 512 MB to 1 GB. I also hope the base mini is given a flash option though we shall see.

Flash as a supplement to HD storage in a Mini would be great. Fusion tech actually makes sense in they Mini. As to VRAM we will have to see what the next version of Mac OS offers up. The VRAM allocation issue could go away. It might be to early to wish for heterogeneous computing and giving the GPU equality for memory access but you never know. It is however a good reason to wait for Haswell.
post #658 of 1393
Thread Starter 
On MAME OS X? No thanks. The emulator I am using works great.
post #659 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

On MAME OS X? No thanks. The emulator I am using works great.

It is rather interesting how powerful today's computers are, they can emulate legacy systems in real time. The versatility of Mac OS is pretty nice, the ability to run even old DOS or Apple2 programs is just an emulator or VM away.
post #660 of 1393
Thread Starter 
Realistically, how much of an improvement would a quad mobile 4600 be over a quad mobile 4000 and a quad mobile 3000?
post #661 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Realistically, how much of an improvement would a quad mobile 4600 be over a quad mobile 4000 and a quad mobile 3000?

Hard to say. Graphics should be much better for Intel Integrated GPUs. Benchmarks are all over the place right now, that probably has a lot to do with drivers. The best course of action is to see what gets delivered Monday, check out a few web sites for reviews and go from there. Graphics seem to be any where from 1.2 to 2 X better.

As Mac users we may need to wait for better drivers before making definitive statements anyways due to the lag in GPU support on Mac OS. In fact we might have to wait for the next rev of Mac OS before passing judgement. WWDC will hopefully reveal where Apple is going with GPU technology. I'm really hoping that we see a strong focus on GPU utilization in the next Mac OS rev.
post #662 of 1393
Quote:
If there is no new Mac Pro at WWDC I would expect many people to be extremely pissed off, especially professionals relying upon Apple to come through with a new revision. As to Intel it wouldn't be the first time they did a special processor for Apple. Intels Haswell reveal could be most interesting here.
 
Any rational corporation would look for viable ways to rescue a product with such declining sales. I'm still of the opinion that Apple has damaged the Mac Pro more than the market. The reality is the workstation market itself isn't that bad off.
 

 

Hmm.  I could never understand why Apple used 'server' class cpus for the Mac Pro.  I guess the move to Intel allowed that distinction.  But the old blue and white G3 was a great tower.  Did we have 'server' class cpus back then?  Just stick a hex core i7 in the new slim fast Mac Pro, space to Raid a couple of SSDs.  Room for a couple of GPUs.  Lop the PCI and optical drive and sundry legacy ports off.  Have a more compact machine.  Charge £1495 for it.  Price goes up as you add 2nd SSD or 2nd GPU.  Want another?  Add another to your cluster.  And you have a mini cluster.  12 cores.  Upto 4 drives.  One can stand on top or alongside the other.  

 

It's old bones as far as the damage Apple themselves caused the Mac Pro line.  The 'update' last year is proof enough.  Could have offered more ram.  More HD.  Cheaper price.  Better gpu.  But no.  They didn't.  Last year's was a shocker.  When a member of the original Mac team is calling you out in public you know you've got problems.  (Hello Hubris.)

 

For me?  It's Cube 2.  It may not be as small as a Cube.  But it's going slim fast.   What's that mini tower format?  A bit of that.  Imagine not much bigger than 3 Mac Mini's stacked one on top of the other.

 

Let's face it.  If you bought x3 Mac Minis you'd have some cluster power.  Some one man band artists built Linux mini clusters or 'render farms' using old machines and dispatch 3D to them while they 'get on.'

 

I've often toyed with the idea of adding a Mac Pro to my iMac as I get into 3D more and render times go up.  Mind you.  Nothing I can't do now with an iMac in an hour or so or an overnight job.

 

I remember doing my MA in 3D.  All those Intel dual cpu machines.  I had that 800mhz Athlon PC.  The iMac i7 is now light years ahead of them all this time later.

 

I can see Apple redefining the Mac Pro as a more compact 'workstation' for the solo graphic artist/small studio crowd.  Just add IO care of Thunderbolt 2.  Add another hexcore 'Cube.2' as you need more render stations.

 

Take off the price of the £895 display off the iMac I bought?  You're looking at £1295 for a base unit.  That gets them into the solo artist crowd and the odd gamer who wants to try a Mac as their next dual booting 'PC.'   Very Prosumer.  Like Final Cut X, goes with the prosumer tag and get more units into more hands.  

 

Sure, it overlaps with the iMac.  But I don't see that as a problem.  The Mac Mini has overlapped with the 'old' ground the imac used to occupy as imac has moved in to the old G3 tower's territory.

 

It's just semantics to me.  I like the iMac.  Fine consumer/prosumer/workstation machine.

 

But I'd like to think the new Mini and Mac Pro Mini (it will be bigger than the old Cube I'd think...) will give people options.

 

If Apple could consumer/prosumer-ise 'X-Grid' style clusters and add minis to an iMac dock render cluster...or make prosumer Cubes that could add up to a weighty solution via modular approach....

 

Depends on which way Apple go.

 

As Marv' has said.  In a few years time it won't matter.  The coming cpu and gpu power will make the current crop look archaic.  We've been 'i7' class for a while now.  When we make the next big leap it the pro may well go the way of the daisies.  The next update will buy it some time...

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #663 of 1393

In English.  The Xeons priced the pro' out of its market in my view.

 

They could have had a couple of single cpu towers in the sub £2k zone.  At £1295 and £1495.  Even these prices aren't cheap by any stretch compared to PC prices.  Apple have the component leverage buying power they never used to have.  

 

Dual Cpus at £1895 and one at £2,495.  Sure.  Xeons at that level?  I could just about stomach.

 

 

I don't think the Xeon's helped the Pro long term.  Just expediated it's irrelevance.

 

We should have i7 quad and hex core 'prosumer' models in small cases at sane pricing levels.

 

 

Not that it matters.  It's no longer on sale in Europe.  I guess we'll wait until Autumn until Apple reveals their card.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #664 of 1393
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Hard to say. Graphics should be much better for Intel Integrated GPUs. Benchmarks are all over the place right now, that probably has a lot to do with drivers. The best course of action is to see what gets delivered Monday, check out a few web sites for reviews and go from there. Graphics seem to be any where from 1.2 to 2 X better.

Over Ivy Bridge not Sandy Bridge correct?
post #665 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

In English.  The Xeons priced the pro' out of its market in my view.

I don't think the Xeon's helped the Pro long term.  Just expediated it's irrelevance.

Xeon is required if you want ECC RAM which many workstation (engineering/science/financial) users want.

For the solo artist the iMac is sufficient given how fast it is now.

For a consumer grade powerhouse the Mac Mini is very nice if you don't need a GPU.
post #666 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

In English.  The Xeons priced the pro' out of its market in my view.
Apple could of went E3 in the base model and not impact price one bit.
Quote:
They could have had a couple of single cpu towers in the sub £2k zone.  At £1295 and £1495.  Even these prices aren't cheap by any stretch compared to PC prices.  Apple have the component leverage buying power they never used to have.  
Well that is funny money, but a perfectly good Mac Pro could be had for under $1500.
Quote:
Dual Cpus at £1895 and one at £2,495.  Sure.  Xeons at that level?  I could just about stomach.
There is a legitimate market for dual socket machines but this is an entirely different market than the majority of workstation usage. That is Apples big problem with having only one platform for the "pro" desktop market.
Quote:

I don't think the Xeon's helped the Pro long term.  Just expediated it's irrelevance.
It isn't XEONs themselves but Apples processor selection and the price tag out on those processors. Many XEON parts aren't that expensive and in a few cases are actually cheaper than their desktop counterparts. Apples problem was not selecting the right processor and making the other changes required to be able to deliver a Pro at a reasonable price.

That is if a reasonable price was even their goal. It honestly looks like they tried to kill the machine at one time by making the price unreasonable.
Quote:
We should have i7 quad and hex core 'prosumer' models in small cases at sane pricing levels.


Not that it matters.  It's no longer on sale in Europe.  I guess we'll wait until Autumn until Apple reveals their card.

Lemon Bon Bon.

It isn't on sale due to a rather pathetic attempt at protectionism. You guys need to get your government under control.
Edited by wizard69 - 6/8/13 at 4:00pm
post #667 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Xeon is required if you want ECC RAM which many workstation (engineering/science/financial) users want.
True but there are lower cost XEON solutions. I don't really believe that XEON itself is responsible for the high price of the current Mac Pro.
Quote:
For the solo artist the iMac is sufficient given how fast it is now.
Not really, little things Mac the iMac a poor choice for many users. For example the built in screen might not meet some user requirements. Beyond that fast is relative.
Quote:
For a consumer grade powerhouse the Mac Mini is very nice if you don't need a GPU.

Which unfortunately means the Mini is limited to lower end usages. I like the Mini and honestly I'm hoping it will become more viable with Haswell. That GPU shortcoming though is hard to deal with. A Mini with TB2 will be a very interesting platform though. Even then Apple needs to move for ad with GPU driver improvements which are rather poor right now. No modern OpenGL support is something that isn't excusable right now especially when you can do better on Linux. They need to enable OpenCL on the GPU too.

One of the reasons I have championed the XMac concept is to address the GPU issue in the Mini. However a refactored Mac Pro at the right price might address that just as well. The trick is the right performance mix at the right price.
post #668 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Apple could of went E3 in the base model and not impact price one bit.
 

It depends what one they're using. The top E3 is roughly the same price as  the cpu they currently use, but it introduces another completely different logic board design.

post #669 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Not really, little things Mac the iMac a poor choice for many users. For example the built in screen might not meet some user requirements.

You keep stating this as if you can't use any monitor you want with the iMac.
Quote:
Beyond that fast is relative.

A fully tricked out iMac 27 (3.4 + 680) is very fast relative to anything else in Apple's lineup except a fully tricked out Mac Pro. Against the 3.3 hexacore with a 5870 Mac Pro it's faster.

http://www.barefeats.com/imac12p1.html

So relative to what is the iMac "slow"?
Quote:
Which unfortunately means the Mini is limited to lower end usages.

Low end usages like render farms and compute farms?
Quote:
I like the Mini and honestly I'm hoping it will become more viable with Haswell.

It's viable now if your mix of actual work (as opposed to benchmarks) don't hit the GPU heavy filters that often or need to run Resolve. The pro app performance numbers for the mini were quite good for an $800 machine.
Quote:
One of the reasons I have championed the XMac concept is to address the GPU issue in the Mini. However a refactored Mac Pro at the right price might address that just as well. The trick is the right performance mix at the right price.

So instead of improving the Mac Mini you've moved to the camp that prefers to gimp the Mac Pro to get your xMac.

A nice mac mini addition would be a Mac Mini Pro with E3 haswell Xeon 1265L v3, a 750M, 2 SSD stick slots and 4 ECC RAM slots for $1999. Much better than gimping the entire Mac Pro line by removing slots and bays.

Some folks will whine $1999 is too expensive but its $500 cheaper than the cheapest Mac Pro and does stuff the iMac can't and won't hurt iMac sales. I think $1699 would be better but that's may hurt iMac sales more than Apple will allow.
Edited by nht - 6/9/13 at 6:52am
post #670 of 1393

There are people on the planet who could get a home sales pitch from Tim himself, a one of kind specially built machine designed especially for them by Jon after moving his design lab next door and consulting on everything down to the color of the wallpaper for the room, and a Genius on call 24/7 in a car on the street and they would still claim that it wasn't good enough.

 

Then there are the people who have iMacs and Mac minis who put them to use getting work done every day.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #671 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

There are people on the planet who could get a home sales pitch from Tim himself, a one of kind specially built machine designed especially for them by Jon after moving his design lab next door and consulting on everything down to the color of the wallpaper for the room, and a Genius on call 24/7 in a car on the street and they would still claim that it wasn't good enough.

 

Then there are the people who have iMacs and Mac minis who put them to use getting work done every day.

 

My issue is more basic.  

 

When wishing for a pony there's generally two kinds of kids:

 

1) The kind that wishes for their own special pony so they can hug it and kiss it and call it george.  This is most normal kids.

2) The kind that wishes that a pony be taken away from some other kid so they can have one.  These are spoiled brats.

 

Largely xMac adherents devolve into the latter because they know that wishing for ponies from Apple is a forlorn hope to begin with and most likely a zero sum game.  There's only one pony to be had and better that they should have a pony and not the other kid.

 

That annoys me because YOU'RE WISHING FOR A GODDAMN PONY. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN ANYWAY SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO BE SELFISH ABOUT IT?  JUST WISH FOR YOUR OWN GODDAMN PONY AND LEAVE THE OTHER PONIES THE F*** ALONE.  APPLE'S GOING TO BUILD WHATEVER APPLE'S GOING TO BUILD.

 

Jesus.

post #672 of 1393
Thread Starter 
Now that I got Gauntlet Dark Legacy to work on my current Mac mini, I do not have to worry too much about graphics. Having said that, I still want to care about graphics and have something really great to play a good game (whenever that game arrives) on.
post #673 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Now that I got Gauntlet Dark Legacy to work on my current Mac mini, I do not have to worry too much about graphics. Having said that, I still want to care about graphics and have something really great to play a good game (whenever that game arrives) on.

If you are focused in gaming a Mac Mini with an AMD APU might make sense. Of course Apple doesn't make such a beast but even with Haswell Intel still trails AMD by a significant margin in GPU performance, especially for gaming. AMD's Richland variant can be anywhere from 25% to 50% faster than Intels GPUs. Of course that performance does mean more heat. So even though Haswells GPUs are much improved over Intel previous efforts they still aren't optimal for low cost high performance GPU based computing. Anandtech isn't a site I regularly reccomend but they have a Richland review up where you can see the battle between the two platforms.

In any event if your machine is handling current games I'd relax and enjoy until it doesn't. The goodness of Haswell will take a while to jell if you will. New drivers will likely get revved a few times until the hardware is fully exploited. Plus I'm still expecting more Haswell hardware to trickle out of Intel this year. Plus Haswell has features it may take awhile for the operating system to fully exploit.
post #674 of 1393
Thread Starter 
I won't hold my breath but I am waiting for a few really good RPGs to drop on the PC. Some guys who used to work at Blizzard made a similar game to Diablo and I may check it out, we'll see.

The Iris Pro is going to be the big thing for me. I really would like to see it go into the quad core mini.
post #675 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


If you are focused in gaming a Mac Mini with an AMD APU might make sense. 

 

Well you got your wish...

post #676 of 1393
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Well you got your wish...

What do you mean?
post #677 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


What do you mean?

 

Wiz wanted a particular kind of pony, he got it at the expense of folks who liked the old pony.  Who knows, maybe they'll spec bump the Mac Pro classic one last time but I doubt it.

 

Me, I got what I wanted too...it'll probably just cost a little more but even the base model will be faster than what I was hoping in a Mac Mini Pro. (E3 Haswell Xeon 1265L v3, a 750M, 2 SSD stick slots and 4 ECC RAM slots for $1999.). 

 

I don't think the base model will be $1999 even if 4 core.  If we're lucky we'll keep the $2499 price point with a single mid grade GPU.  If marketed as a Mac Mini Pro we might have seen a sub-2K price point being non-expandable and all.

 

The thing is tiny and perfect for me IF I can get one for under 3K.  Otherwise I'll get a MBP.

post #678 of 1393
Thread Starter 
Suppose Apple doesn't use the i7 processors with Iris Pro, which would be better, MQ or HQ? Is it on the basis of wattage?
post #679 of 1393
Thread Starter 
Bump! No one has any suggestions or news?
post #680 of 1393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Bump! No one has any suggestions or news?

Why wouldn't they use a chip with Iris or Iris Pro? As for your questions about specific chips, I'm just not that excited over Intels marketing the same damn chip 100 different ways.

I look at this way, an ideal Mini these days needs four real cores to make the machine acceptable to a wide array of users. Four cores seem to be in the sweet spot where many apps benefit yet we don't end up with useless hardware for the majority of users.

As for a GPU, while Intel has vastly improved its GPU it still gets slaughtered by discrete offerings. I'd love to see a Mini with discrete GPU but tend to believe that we won't ever see them in this platform again. The little box doesn't have the power supply and thermal capacity apparently.

I'm so bummed by this realization that frankly my desire for an XMac is growing. Ideally what Apple could offer up XMac wise is a cut down Mac Pro. Literally cut the machine down in size so that it is maybe six inches tall, put a desktop Haswell processor in there coupled to a Southern Islands GPU of around 75 watts. One GPU would be fine as long as it can drive Apples coming retina displays. This would give us a "mainstream" desktop that could easily come into the same price range as the upper end Mini. The third wall of the thermal core might even allow the mounting of a magnetic drive to supplement the SSD.

I'm trying not to dis the Mini here but its major problem is the thermal limitations it has and will always have. Frankly the gap between what the Mini can do and what the New Mac Pro can do has just gotten bigger. Dual high performance GPUs put up against integrated Intel GPUs is actually funny. Depending upon how the new Mac Pro is marketed demand for an XMac might actually grow. It really depends upon the new Pros entry point.
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