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

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 25

post #961 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
We do you keep repeating the non sense about TB and USB competing with each other. The ports are so different it is like saying RS232 competed with the parallel port.

 

On the Mac, they're not necessarily competitive. On the PC side, USB 3.1 and TB2 will definitely compete.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Seriously the low end switch machine is the iPad. I really think the only way to success anymore on the desktop is a higher end machine that isn't a Mac Pro but offers more performance than an iMac. The market for low end desktop hardware hardly exists anymore.

 

True, but I doubt Apple's going to stop trying to sell low-end users both a Mac and an iPad.

And in the midst of the current economic uncertainty, you don't abandon your low-end solution.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So how do you know that?

 

Because the Pro comes out in December, and Apple's probably not releasing it during the Christmas-New Years window.

 

As I've said before, I think the Mini will be silently updated along with the Pro's introduction.

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 #962 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

On the Mac, they're not necessarily competitive. On the PC side, USB 3.1 and TB2 will definitely compete.
Actually on the PC they compete even less from what I can see.
Quote:

True, but I doubt Apple's going to stop trying to sell low-end users both a Mac and an iPad.
And in the midst of the current economic uncertainty, you don't abandon your low-end solution.
You abandon rather quickly if sales suck. The vast majority of all Mac desktop sales go to the iMac. Everything else has been in decline.
Quote:

Because the Pro comes out in December, and Apple's probably not releasing it during the Christmas-New Years window.

As I've said before, I think the Mini will be silently updated along with the Pro's introduction.

Well you can think that and hope that but you can't state it as fact.
post #963 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

There are a lot of choices related to stationary machines that puzzle me. In terms of the mini specifically, I would be surprised if they reversed direction on some of those design choices. It certainly makes a decent Xcode machine.
The Mini is pretty popular with developers and does a good job for smaller projects. XCode however can make good use of lots of hardware threads, so I think many developers are tempted buy faster hardware. The Mini could certainly leverage an SSD and a design supporting Apple a fast SSD blades would be rally nice.

This is a throw back, but I remember back when I got my Mac Plus and one of the compilers from an odd company I can't remember now. In any event bugs galore in the compiler and libraries.
Quote:

That's why I've been paying attention to ARM, much like I mentioned. I'm still not used to the style of Objective-C though. The shear amount of abstraction annoys me.
There is at least some ability to make use of C++. The verbosity does bother me also. Worst the way the GUI works just bugs the hell out of me. I find it very unnatural, I'd rather use Python and tkinter .
Quote:
I like its ability to cut some of the branching by passing back nil when necessary, but beyond that it annoys me if I'm not sure how it translates to binary or machine instructions. I'm also irritated that iOS lacks OpenCL, given that everything I'm working on at the moment could take advantage of it.

Actually I'm not sure what's up with OpenCL on iOS. Obviously it wouldn't be of much use on the early devices but the new hardware should support compute on the GPUs plus they should be able to run OpenCL against the CPU vector units. I have to wonder when this will debut, I've not heard even a rumor.
post #964 of 1316

Again wishful thinking.

post #965 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Actually I'm not sure what's up with OpenCL on iOS. Obviously it wouldn't be of much use on the early devices but the new hardware should support compute on the GPUs plus they should be able to run OpenCL against the CPU vector units. I have to wonder when this will debut, I've not heard even a rumor.

I hate to say this but if you want to mess around with OpenCL on a mobile device, the Nexus 7 makes a neat little development platform. Creating an OpenCL-enabled Android App with PGCL is quite easy to get started with and actually a lot of fun, if I do say so myself. What you learn there can then be transferred to iOS when the time comes. I use Eclipse in the ADT bundle, Android NDK, as you'll be using C++ for OpenCL (see why I said your knowledge will be transferable to iOS) and a 64BIT Linux distro. Since I use all of this on my Macbook Air I just install Ubuntu 13.10 in a Virtual Machine using the free VirtualBox.

 

Just a silly suggestion as a Nexus 7 won't break the bank, the Android development kit is free and you'll be able to start sooner then later with learning how to use OpenCL on a multi-Core CPU/GPU ARM mobile device.


Edited by Relic - 11/16/13 at 4:22am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #966 of 1316
Thread Starter 
I want my soup can Mac mini with four USB 3.0 ports maybe a 3.1, at least 1 TB2 port maybe 2, PCIe flash storage, 8 GB RAM minimum but 16 GB is better, and Iris graphics. $699
post #967 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

I hate to say this but if you want to mess around with OpenCL on a mobile device, the Nexus 7 makes a neat little development platform. Creating an OpenCL-enabled Android App with PGCL is quite easy to get started with and actually a lot of fun, if I do say so myself. What you learn there can then be transferred to iOS when the time comes. I use Eclipse in the ADT bundle, Android NDK, as you'll be using C++ for OpenCL (see why I said your knowledge will be transferable to iOS) and a 64BIT Linux distro. Since I use all of this on my Macbook Air I just install Ubuntu 13.10 in a Virtual Machine using the free VirtualBox.

 

Just a silly suggestion as a Nexus 7 won't break the bank, the Android development kit is free and you'll be able to start sooner then later with learning how to use OpenCL on a multi-Core CPU/GPU ARM mobile device.

 

Bleh.. Ubuntu is the diet pepsi of linux. It's one calorie linux. I hadn't really looked into Android though. Know a good book on OpenCL?

post #968 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

Bleh.. Ubuntu is the diet pepsi of linux. It's one calorie linux. I hadn't really looked into Android though. Know a good book on OpenCL?

Haha, yea I know what you mean but it runs quite well in Virtualbox and includes everything you'll need in it's depositories to setup up a quick development environment. Android developers use Ubuntu as their development platform of choice so it's almost push button when it comes to creating your environment. I personally use Debian and CentOS. These are a must have; Heterogeneous Computing with OpenCL, 2nd Edition and OpenCL Parallel Programming Development Cookbook.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #969 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

Haha, yea I know what you mean but it runs quite well in Virtualbox and includes everything you'll need in it's depositories to setup up a quick development environment. Android developers use Ubuntu as their development platform of choice so it's almost push button when it comes to creating your environment. I personally use Debian and CentOS. These are a must have; Heterogeneous Computing with OpenCL, 2nd Edition and OpenCL Parallel Programming Development Cookbook.


I'm not sure if you caught the Austin Powers reference. I like Debian. I considered Fedora simply because it supports a number of 3d packages, although installing them on Fedora is extremely annoying. It also has some stable color management libraries because of that. I'm going to order that first book.

post #970 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


I'm not sure if you caught the Austin Powers reference. I like Debian. I considered Fedora simply because it supports a number of 3d packages, although installing them on Fedora is extremely annoying. It also has some stable color management libraries because of that. I'm going to order that first book.

If you like Fedora, you should really look into CentOS, It's almost identical to Redhat. There are some pretty good apps for Fedora that installs all of those pesky things like multimedia codecs, drivers, etc., try "easylife".

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #971 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

If you like Fedora, you should really look into CentOS, It's almost identical to Redhat. There are some pretty good apps for Fedora that installs all of those pesky things like multimedia codecs, drivers, etc., try "easylife".


I hadn't previously considered Virtualbox. What do you like specifically about CentOS?

post #972 of 1316
Thread Starter 
This hasn't had a post anyway so we'll give it until the end of the year before a new thread begins. I am looking ahead to Broadwell.
post #973 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

This hasn't had a post anyway so we'll give it until the end of the year before a new thread begins. I am looking ahead to Broadwell.

 

When are Broadwell chips due out?

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 #974 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

 

When are Broadwell chips due out?


late next year

post #975 of 1316

A quick look at what Broadwell is proposed to bring doesn't inspire excitement on the iMac front. It seems the core count is going to be stuck at 4 for a couple more years, is that right?

post #976 of 1316

^^ yes that's correct. Haswell EP drops the quad variants in favor of a 6 core starting, but the other socket types remain the same.

post #977 of 1316
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post

A quick look at what Broadwell is proposed to bring doesn't inspire excitement on the iMac front. It seems the core count is going to be stuck at 4 for a couple more years, is that right?

It looks like it's going to be all about graphics for the time being which is why I created this thread.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160421/the-future-with-mobile-integrated-graphics-and-discrete-graphics

Here is the response it got on Anandtech forums.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2350913
post #978 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

It looks like it's going to be all about graphics for the time being which is why I created this thread.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160421/the-future-with-mobile-integrated-graphics-and-discrete-graphics

Here is the response it got on Anandtech forums.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2350913

My biggest concern is that the Mini will even exist in 2014.

As for integrated graphics I do believe Apple is behind the push to much higher performance out of integrated graphics. If you look at AMD, Intel or even Apples processors you notice one thing across the board, the GPUs take up far more space than the CPUs. CPUs are actually an after thought these days because for many users they are good enough. Beyond that GPU acceleration in many cases so out classes what can be done on CPUs that it doesn't make a lot of sense to invest in the CPU heavily. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but on average most users benefit more from GPU improvements than they do CPU improvements. Thus the heavy engineering effort into much better GPU performance.

It should also be noted that the industry is just getting there with GPU compute support. Having the GPU have direct access to main memory can dramatically boost GPU compute performance or feasibility. The reality is Mavericks is the first OS to enable OpenCL for Intels processors also. Given these two realities and a bunch of others we are just starting to see the benefits of integrated GPUs. So really we are at the dawn of a new age in processor development where performance isn't just about the CPU.

Now given all of that, don't be surprised if Broadwell doesn't bring improved CPU performance. It won't be near 100% like Apple has done but it could exceed the barely 7% we get out of Haswell.
post #979 of 1316
Thread Starter 
If a Mac mini does cease to exist than what are my alternatives for a box like it?
post #980 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

If a Mac mini does cease to exist than what are my alternatives for a box like it?

We'll one we have to wait and see what Apple does. Second Lonovo makes a nice box similar to the Mini.

I'm really surprised that Apple hasn't updated the Mini for the Christmas shopping season.
post #981 of 1316
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
If a Mac mini does cease to exist than what are my alternatives for a box like it?


I’m not sure I see that happening. Ooh, what they might do is cut the Mac Pro’s case in half and make a circular Mac Mini. But really, is there any cause for concern here?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #982 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I’m not sure I see that happening. Ooh, what they might do is cut the Mac Pro’s case in half and make a circular Mac Mini. But really, is there any cause for concern here?

Actually I suspect there is cause for concern. Mostly it has to do with the now almost nonexistent market for low end desktop machines. Walk into a computer store, office supply shop or any other common source of computers and you find laptops and tablet all over the place, 20 laptops might be on display to one desktop machine. In a nut shell demand isn't there and it is reflected in Mini sales.

Since we know full well how spastic Apple is when it comes to poor sales there is reason to suspect that the Mini might get canned. Is it written in stone - certainly not but we have the reality that an overhaul might actually help the machine. That implies that they don't completely can the machine. With the lack of an update this late into the holiday season I'd have to think that it is about to be pushed into the dust bin with other discontinued Apple hardware.

Speaking of can, I could easily see them doing something along your suggestion of a trimmed down Mac Pro. Motherboards these days are dense enough that they could easily cut it in half as you suggest. Get rid of the magnetic form factor drives and even more space gets freed up. I'd especially like such a machine if they could get the wattage up (power handling capability) to use the hotter Intel chip solutions.

Considering Apples past practices, tomorrow is the last day they really have to announce a new Mini. So if it doesn't happen then what are we to think? The lack of a Mini can't be due to the lack of engineering talent so I have to think the platform isn't long for this world. Of course they could produce something tomorrow, but honestly there hasn't even been a rumors to that effect.
post #983 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post




Considering Apples past practices, tomorrow is the last day they really have to announce a new Mini. So if it doesn't happen then what are we to think? The lack of a Mini can't be due to the lack of engineering talent so I have to think the platform isn't long for this world. Of course they could produce something tomorrow, but honestly there hasn't even been a rumors to that effect.

 

They do stagger things, and the mini always seems to come out last. Last year it debuted with the imac announcement. My guess was around the time of the mac pro. No one should realistically be deciding between a mini and a mac pro unless their perceived limitations are highly specific. I knew it wouldn't hit with the notebooks though. No matter how late one thing slips, everything else moves back. Right now I think they'll ensure that orders can be placed on the mac pro in the current year to grab leftover equipment budgets. Otherwise I might have predicted January.

post #984 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

^^ yes that's correct. Haswell EP drops the quad variants in favor of a 6 core starting, but the other socket types remain the same.

 

 

hmm, hmm, that's more interesting. Maybe Haswell E will play a roll in the rumoured 'budget' iMac / split lineup scheduled for next year. Apple hasn't made use of the single processor configuration xeons as yet, but with quads already the baseline for the iMac it makes sense to shift to them now.

 

iMac 'budget'  - Price drop the current machines, 4 core - integrated graphic CPUs only.

 

iMac Pro(ish) - Haswell E  (6 & 8 cores), discrete graphics, retina display.

 

The Mac Pro could then drop the 6 Core E5 to the base configuration when they introduce the split in the iMac lineup.

 

Wishful thinking?


Edited by Mode 5 - 11/25/13 at 2:43pm
post #985 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post
 

 

 

hmm, hmm, that's more interesting. Maybe Haswell E will play a roll in the rumoured 'budget' iMac / split lineup scheduled for next year. Apple hasn't made use of the single processor configuration xeons as yet, but with quads already the baseline for the iMac it makes sense to shift to them now.

 

iMac 'budget'  - Price drop the current machines, 4 core - integrated graphic CPUs only.

 

iMac Pro(ish) - Haswell E  (6 & 8 cores), discrete graphics, retina display.

 

The Mac Pro could then drop the 6 Core E5 to the base configuration when they introduce the split in the iMac lineup.

 

Wishful thinking?

That is extremely unrealistic.  E/EP processors use a different socket, so that model would require its own board. There's nothing that would make it necessarily cheaper. With the mac pro, that's just the way Apple prices it. I don't expect Haswell EP and a mac pro refresh before 2015. Note how Ivy has been a slow rollout for workstations, just like Sandy. Haswell will require a new logic board due to socket incompatibilities. Usually that goes for 2 generations in E/EP lines, but Apple skipped Sandy there. When that does hit, assuming the intel slides are accurate, there wouldn't be any option other than hex cores for the mac pro at that point. A 6 core cpu would probably occupy the same price territory of $300-400 suggested retail. The cpus in themselves aren't that expensive. The imac actually uses some that are a little more expensive than those in the mac pro. The D300s are probably no more than $300. Apple charged $249 for a radeon 5770. These might cost a little more if they involve custom work, but they aren't going to be anything crazy. Memory was chopped down to 2GB, and the most likely candidates (chopped down pitcairns) for that model don't support the use ECC ram for the video framebuffer. What you have there already is a budget model. It's not really priced that way, but it is still a budget model in terms of specs. They didn't leave the gap you're suggesting.

post #986 of 1316
Thread Starter 
If sales are poor with the mini, hype the damn thing. Make a commercial on it just like the Mac Pro. It can't hurt to try it.
post #987 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

If sales are poor with the mini, hype the damn thing. Make a commercial on it just like the Mac Pro. It can't hurt to try it.

Apple has never promoted its desktops. They are niche machines , apples desktops. Not a one of them is a mainstream machine.

The bigger question is it even wise to promote a machine in a dying market.
post #988 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

That is extremely unrealistic.  E/EP processors use a different socket, so that model would require its own board. There's nothing that would make it necessarily cheaper. With the mac pro, that's just the way Apple prices it. I don't expect Haswell EP and a mac pro refresh before 2015. Note how Ivy has been a slow rollout for workstations, just like Sandy. Haswell will require a new logic board due to socket incompatibilities. Usually that goes for 2 generations in E/EP lines, but Apple skipped Sandy there. When that does hit, assuming the intel slides are accurate, there wouldn't be any option other than hex cores for the mac pro at that point. A 6 core cpu would probably occupy the same price territory of $300-400 suggested retail. The cpus in themselves aren't that expensive. The imac actually uses some that are a little more expensive than those in the mac pro. The D300s are probably no more than $300. Apple charged $249 for a radeon 5770. These might cost a little more if they involve custom work, but they aren't going to be anything crazy. Memory was chopped down to 2GB, and the most likely candidates (chopped down pitcairns) for that model don't support the use ECC ram for the video framebuffer. What you have there already is a budget model. It's not really priced that way, but it is still a budget model in terms of specs. They didn't leave the gap you're suggesting.

 

 

You've confused me a bit there, your comment reads like I was suggesting xeons as the budget option. I don't follow processor evolution to closely, so bear with me. The top iMac model, topped up via CTO, has become a good option as a BIM/CAD station. I moved off the Mac Pro six years ago and have been updating iMacs every two years since. I really hope there's another way for the top iMac model to move beyond 4 cores, if at the end of 2014 Broadwell is still going to be stuck with just four.

 

I understand the xeons require a different socket, but if there's a budget iMac rumoured to be in the offing, doesn't that open up an opportunity for the upper end of the iMac line to distinguish itself by using single processor configuration xeons. This would bring 6 core + evolution (whatever their naming) to the iMac line, while the budget iMac sticks with the integrated 4 core options? Or is there some other way the iMac might get to 6 cores without using xeons?

post #989 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post
 

 

I understand the xeons require a different socket, but if there's a budget iMac rumoured to be in the offing, doesn't that open up an opportunity for the upper end of the iMac line to distinguish itself by using single processor configuration xeons. This would bring 6 core + evolution (whatever their naming) to the iMac line, while the budget iMac sticks with the integrated 4 core options? Or is there some other way the iMac might get to 6 cores without using xeons?

I would  be shocked if they came out with a different board design for the sole purpose of offering one more option from a socket that refreshes on a totally different cycle. It isn't a matter of Xeons. There are hex core Ivy Bridge cpus that aren't branded as Xeons. They still use LGA2011. I think it will happen when the sockets and price points that Apple uses in the imac currently go from 4 to 6 cores. It will be at least 2 years, possibly longer.

post #990 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

It will be at least 2 years, possibly longer.

 

Argh! That's not what I wanted to hear.

post #991 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post
 

 

Argh! That's not what I wanted to hear.


Well it is what is realistic. I'm not going to suggest that the price of a hex mac pro is competitive, but there is no reason they would go out of their way to implement a different design that covers the same socket in an imac. Even if they did that, you would probably see an insane markup due to the extra design work. They cut the mac pro down to single socket only. Why would they repeat cpu options with different monickers over the imac line? The only somewhat wacky thing is the price and configuration on the entry model. It's configured as a budget model, yet still costs $3k. Hopefully the line doesn't require terribly high volume for viability.

post #992 of 1316
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
Apple has never promoted its desktops.

 

Of course they have; what nonsense is this?

 
…a dying market.

 

Oh, that’s hilarious. You sure we’re not talking about laptops? That’s the dying market. The future is tablets and multitouch desktops.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #993 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Of course they have; what nonsense is this?

Oh, that’s hilarious. You sure we’re not talking about laptops? That’s the dying market. The future is tablets and multitouch desktops.
Or what I call portable tablets and non mobile tablets.
post #994 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

They cut the mac pro down to single socket only. Why would they repeat cpu options with different monickers over the imac line? 

 

Just seems like the iMac is going to end up stuck at 4 cores across the whole lineup for an awfully long time. Apple has a minimalist, resource strategic approach, that's for sure. Could the fact that the Mac Pro now uses a single socket board in a small form factor equate to a shared component between the two? Could they be planning to share laptop boards with the so called 'budget' iMacs for use with integrated graphics CPUs and share Mac Pro boards with the high end iMacs for the dedicated graphics options? I'm just musing. Would they need different monickers over the iMac line? It's just the CPU type, not unlike the different branding of i5s verses i7s now, standard / premium. 

 

 


Edited by Mode 5 - 11/25/13 at 8:56pm
post #995 of 1316

After the post-U.S. Thanksgiving/Black Friday hoopla, I guess we'll go straight into the Pro debut.

I can't imagine that Apple would want its new Pro lost in the shuffle around Christmas.

 

Absolutely no rumours so far on a Mini upgrade. That doesn't inspire confidence.

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 #996 of 1316

Now that I think of it, wasn't it odd that the last iMac update didn't include, or hold off to include TB2? Another 12 months without TB2 seems to put the iMac strangely out of sync, unless they're just extending the life of the existing boards until? 

 

Phil Schiller did make much of how they'd managed to keep the cost of the new Mac Pro down. Maybe the timing of the new Mac Pro's form factor was ripe, when it could share a board with the iMac's evolution as a way of making it more affordable.


Edited by Mode 5 - 11/25/13 at 10:41pm
post #997 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post
 

Now that I think of it, wasn't it odd that the last iMac update didn't include, or hold off to include TB2? Another 12 months without TB2 seems to put the iMac strangely out of sync, unless they're just extending the life of the existing boards until? 

 

Phil Schiller did make much of how they'd managed to keep the cost of the new Mac Pro down. Maybe the timing of the new Mac Pro's form factor was ripe, when it could share a board with the iMac's evolution as a way to make it more affordable.


You're really reaching on this one. The mac pro uses the cheapest parts in its class. I suspect the PCI ssd is going to be at least similar to what they use in the rmbp, which is fine. It's starting at the same capacity in spite of the price difference. The cpus cost less than those that make it into many of the notebooks. They have nowhere to go to make it cheaper. If they want to make it cheaper, they adjust the price accordingly. I could have seen $200 less for a single gpu configuration if they didn't need two cards for three thunderbolt chips. As for thunderbolt itself, the chips are probably $10 or so each. Make of that what you will. It's not a big deal on a machine that costs that much, especially when the other cheap parts they dumped would make up for that. Note that they no longer even ship with a keyboard and mouse standard. You are just grasping on this one. As of right now the cheapest 6 core is going to be $4000. The cpu being used in that one retails for $600. They won't dump the brain from their $4000 machine into a $2000 one. I don't think Haswell E/EP will even be out next year. As for sharing a board, not with those design constraints. Imo this seems like a poor use of a good imagination.

post #998 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


You're really reaching on this one. 

 

LoL. Yep, probably.  

 

I was just reflecting on board duplication being the factor limiting Apple from bringing Xeons to the iMac down the road. HP put Xeons in their Z1s and I was hoping this might be where they could take the iMac to keep its processing power on an upward trajectory. 

 

I'll probably end up moving back to the Mac Pro again and update less frequently, now that it comes in a small and quiet form factor. 


Edited by Mode 5 - 11/26/13 at 2:13am
post #999 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post
 

 

LoL. Yep, probably.  

 

I was just reflecting on board duplication being the factor limiting Apple from bringing Xeons to the iMac down the road. HP put Xeons in their Z1s and I was hoping this might be where they could take the iMac to keep it's processing power on an upward trajectory. 

 

I'll probably end up moving back to the Mac Pro again and update less frequently, now that it comes in a small and quiet form factor. 

 

Those are different Xeons. I think you should review ark.intel at some point. The "Xeons" in the Z1 are LGA1155 types. Xeon is just workstation/server branding. They are currently preceded by E3 rather than E5. Even among E5 you have further disambiguation. Those appropriate for dual socket use are labeled 26xx rather than 16xx. The new mac pro uses both, as 8-12 cores only come in 26xx variants at the higher markup.  The ones in the Z1 are the same type used in the imacs with different branding. They might go one higher in the lineup, but several hundred dollars for .1 ghz isn't really worthwhile. The Z1 is nice, but it's really quite expensive.

post #1000 of 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

Those are different Xeons. I think you should review ark.intel at some point. 

 

 

I had a look at intel's xeon comparison page, but the socket details eluded me. None the less, without drowning myself in technical detail, it's clear from what you're saying we're not going to see the iMac increase its core count via xeons or other chips for years. It isn't exactly bad news, sad maybe, but it clarifies that the Mac Pro is now "it" again. Knowing that much at least, resolves hesitation around shifting back to the Pro.  

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