new mini or the 27" imac?

Not having seen any real benchmarks yet, I'd agree that performance isn't going to be that much different.

 

Some advantages with the iMac MIGHT be the optical drive and SD card slot. ... It would also drive your 30" as a second monitor if you wanted to go that route. :)

The iMac doesn't come with an optical any more and the Mini has an SD slot. The iMac's main benefit would be the nice display, GPU and 4 RAM slots on the 27".

The GPU comes in handy in some Adobe apps but not really ones for illustration and photos.

In this case, either the entry or middle Mini would be fine. With 16GB RAM 3rd party, it will handle most things ok. The quad-core is a bit more future-proof and the extra cores help when doing encoding tasks or batch image processing and they should run the 30" display just fine.

As far as raw processing, the quad Mini scores a 6.2 in Cinebench and the 3770k gets 7.9 so the top-end $2200 iMac will be at most 30% faster than the $799 Mini.

Yeah, that's the desktop i7 chip:

http://ark.intel.com/products/65719/Intel-Core-i7-3770-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz

Going from the clock speed, Apple doesn't seem to be using the 3770k but the 3770 so it would be 7.5 vs 6.2 = 21% faster. That's also compared to the 2.3GHz Mini, the 2.6GHz Mini scores 6.7 so the top-end iMac would be 12% faster than the top-end Mini.

It depends, if you think about it in real-world terms, it means that if you had a batch process taking 60 minutes on the Mini, the iMac would take about 50 minutes. Some people might say that's significant but I personally only think that it's worthwhile when it's around 60%+.

The top-end Mini only matches the raw performance of that 8-core machine (it gets about 6.6 in Cinebench) and the iMac will be 12% faster. However, there are some things that have been implemented in OpenCL in the Adobe CS Suite and if it covers things you use, the speedup can be significant:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/photoshop-cs6-gimp-aftershot-pro,3208-13.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLpIP65ambs

There's a list of accelerated features covered here:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/979969

Indesign probably has some acceleration too and I expect Adobe will continue to optimize features over time. OpenCL does run on the CPU and Intel IGP in the Mini but the 680MX in the top iMac will help a lot in certain cases. Here is a test of a variety of features in CS6 comparing different GPUs:

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-161

I'd expect the 680MX to be pretty close to the desktop 680 so you can compare it to the HD4000 in the Mini.

Definitely get an SSD (Fusion drive) and get either 16 or 32GB of RAM. I reckon a Mini could handle the workload but it would probably offer a similar experience to your Mac Pro. The iMac's powerful GPU should at least offer a more noticeable boost for the few things that are hardware accelerated and if you use those things all the time, the difference will be significant. The 680MX will also run anything that has been done in CUDA (proprietary NVidia hardware acceleration) and not OpenCL.

If they could put a 680mx with the top end mini, they'd fly high sales wise.  It's a lovely machine that's growing in power over time.  But the lack of dedicated GPU for a Mini with all the trimmings costing over £1K?

 

Come on, Apple...seriously....  Why do we have to wait for Haswell's integrated gpu to get gpu performance remotely worth the price they're asking?

 

Naturally, I plumped for the iMac.

 

But it cost me over 2k to get a machine with a decent gpu.  That's Apple for you.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

They can't put a 680MX (122W) in a Mini - it's practically a desktop GPU. A 640M is about as much as it would take with the design it has. They could make it bigger of course but then it wouldn't be mini.

I think the choices they made are sensible. The quad-core at $799 makes a really affordable little powerhouse so it's compelling for server use and as a decent desktop but it still allows the iMac to offer more with a 310W PSU vs 85W.

The affordable big box route would just eat into their margins like it does with PC companies and they'd be more inclined to drop the entire desktop market and focus on laptops.

It is sad that we have to wait for Haswell for a good quality GPU but it's Intel's fault. I'm glad they are putting everything into the GPU now though, it's long overdue.

That is their strategy - get you to buy the display and the peripherals from them so they make the best margins on everything. Gluing it shut so you can't upgrade things yourself is the icing on the cake. I'd do the same from their point of view.

It's all about getting the customer to keep buying and this goes beyond hardware. Bandwidth restrictions force you to compress files and so they invent new processor-intensive codecs that you need to keep buying fast hardware for. It's all just a big conspiracy to keep you buying but it's essential that they do this or they'd end up selling you a 30-core 5nm processor and equivalent GPU in 2013 and what do they do the year after? It's why nothing is built to last these days. This gets touched on in the following documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b0u8cTCYLSw#t=3344s

Apple, Intel, NVidia, AMD and so on have to find a balance between making a machine compelling enough for you to upgrade but not so compelling or durable you won't ever want or need to upgrade again because that's when they stop making money.

The general need to stay in business is one thing.  Components always get faster.   Bigger.  Better.  Cheaper.  (Unless you're buying Apple kit...where Mac pricing defies the gravity of a 2008-2012 World Recession...)

 

I've been an Apple watcher/fan/owner since 1997.

 

But the one thing I tend to notice about Apple when they're on top.  They get greedy.  And that Hubris ultimately costs them.  Well, it did do in the MS vs Apple wars. (Holy War?)  They didn't react to the pricing democracy and it almost killed them...along with a lack of innovation perhaps.

 

I can't fault their iOS strategy.  They nailed the iPod from top to bottom end.  They haven't quite done the same with the iPhone because they're creaming great profits (but the whiff of hubris may force them into similar moves to the iPod family...)  The iPad should have (to experts?) released at £1000.  It didn't.  It blew away the Apple is pricey notion with a stunning £399 price.  The iPad Mini shows Apple will turn the screw.

 

In the Mac market.  Hmm.  The laptops are pretty stunning.  But they're overpriced.  By how much?

 

...the desktop strategy...is...  I'm not surprised Wizard rails at the red sky.

 

Customers keep you in business.  Apple computer sales growth has slowed.  Apple upped the price of the iMacs again where you have to pay £1095 to get in.  For a so-so GPU.  We used to have 2 iMacs under 1K.  Now we don't have any.

 

The Pro is an insane joke for a quad core.  Just to get access to an upgradeable machine.  The useless update this year speaks for itself.  It had Tim Cook back peddling quicker than he did on maps. :P

 

They can put a gpu in a Mini.  Which one as you say.  But they dropped the dedicated gpu on the Mini as we know.

 

The move away from dedicated gpus for me is very premature.  Being able to select upgradeable parts or not at point of sale on certain machines is more cynical upsell.  SSD drives are dirt cheap...and so are TB HDs.  Far less than the £200 Apple charges for the Fusion.  (and they hiked the price of the iMac by a hundred...)  Dropped the DVD which costs £65.

 

So the 'New' sexy thin iMac is costing £365 extra in my view.  To get the DVD functionality back and for a 128 SSD drive. :P

 

Cynical?  I think so.  I think Apple are nickle and diming their Mac customers.  (I can't complain about the iPad at £399.  A great deal.)  But the desktop Macs should be cheaper.

 

I don't consider myself a poor person.  Nor many Apple 'could' reach.  (Look at the run away hit of the iPad.  I thought they couldn't make 'junk' for £399?  *looks at the iPad.  Doesn't look like junk to me...)  I look at the price of the decked out mini or the entry iMac.  And I look at the 'cheapo' PC at £399.

 

I see a price difference of £700.  I don't see a 10% or 20% mark up.  I see something ridiculous.  I see a p*ss take in this kind of economy.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm thrilled Apple have reached about 5 million customers per quarter and clearly the stores have allowed those with disposable income to buy Apple kit at those prices.  But I curl my lip at their prices.  But I look at the disparity in PC/Mac prices and wonder if Apple's hierarchy realise we don't all have millions in stock options.

 

Crikey.  The last time I had a real bee in my bonnet about Mac prices was when Apple had a £995-£1200 entry tower.  When they had 3 iMacs under the 1k mark.  Matsu must be rolling in his grave...or wherever he got to...

 

Shouldn't the entry iMac be as cheap as the entry Air?  And the air comes with SSD as standard on all models.  You even get a 256 SSD drive for a little more than the entry iMac.  Yet in the pricey (yes, I'm going to call the new iMacs price-er, pricey...) iMacs as you go up the range you don't get SSD drives which in my view should be standard.  SSD drives, 240 gig ones are about £100-ish pounds.  

 

It's ironic that Apple sells many of it's Macs with crap integrated crappics (and I don't doubt the Mini's number crunching with an i7...but they've dropped the ball with the lack of dedicated on a machine that could cost over 1k all in...) seeing as the iPad's gpu cripples the opposition.

 

Apple are selling laptops 4/5 to 1 over desktops.  They've been pushing this for a while.  The Pro and iMac have seen lethargic updates...the Mini too.  No accident there.

 

They clearly see themselves as a mobile company...and that's where the next war is...and where the money and mindshare is to be won.

 

I'm a Mac fan.  I don't have to agree with Apple's pricing.  (I guess they're sitting on 120 billion and don't care.)  Is there a middle ground on pricing?  £399 vs £1095?  £1200 vs £2000+?

 

Anyway.  I feel better now I've got that off my chest.  (Again. :D)

 

I hope Apple don't suffer the Hubris of the pre-Jobs 2nd coming.  At least he left Apple with a fully fleshed out legacy this time.

 

Cheers for the reply, Marvin.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Just on the upsell thing again.  Sure, I could cope with iMacs under a 1k that didn't have a 'special' gpu.  Or a mini under £500 that didn't have a 'special' gpu.  But it grates that you're way upto £1800+ before you get a top GPU.  And you can't even GET a decent gpu on the Mini.  Not even at double the price all specced out.

 

I'd love to sell the idea of a Mac to a friend.  But I doubt they'll go for it as a.  They don't like laptops and b.  Apple don't have an affordable answer on the desktop with a 'decent' gpu.

 

Bladdy stupid. :P

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

...and another thing.  The top end Retina Macbook comes with 512 gig SSD drive for £2299.  I've paid a few quid less and I still don't have a 512gig SSD on the iMac I've ordered...(or a retain screen.  Yes.  I know it's probably impossible right now.  My point being it shows the disparity in value with Apple's desktops vs laptops...)

 

Apple's upsell is p*ss taking as it is cynical.  *(Check out the ram joke prices.  etc.  etc...and why are we still selling the top end iMacs with a sub 1k computer i5 processors?  Really, Apple?  C'mon...c'mon...)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.  (Suffering from pre-iMac arrival tension.)

...and while I'm at it...

 

...I never quite got over Apple pulling the £695 iMac in 2008.  It really p*ssed me off big time.  What did we get?  A newer entry price into the Apple club.  £995.

 

A £310 price hike in a recession.  (It wasn't like Apple wasn't raking in millions anyhow.)

 

Now, still in a recession, £1095.  (Coupled with all the extra expense to get things which could and should have been standard...)

 

Your looking at £600-700+ over the price of that iMac back when which had integrated crappics, sure.  But it had a DVD player and Apple weren't stiffing you for a hard drive which should come standard in my view.  My point?  They could offer iMacs for much lower...but they're getting greedy.  Their perogative.

 

Bah, hum bug.

 

Oh well.  Lol.  Merry Christmas Marv', Wizard, Jeff, Hmm, Junkyard, Winter the rest of the Appleinsider posters...and the Appleinsider Staff.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

A recession, yes, but Apple's sales are doing very well, despite what some consider high prices.

 

If people pay the prices they ask, good for them.  They are not providing a service.

It certainly seems that way at times but I'm not sure because their most popular products are the cheapest. The Mac line has never been popular so they've never really been on the top with them. Apple sells 5 millions Macs per quarter (of which desktops are about 1.5m) vs 14 million iPads. If Apple sold 14 million desktops, they could get away with lower margins.

They reported net profit of $6.6b on revenue of $28.3b last quarter so that's only 23% net margin. I wouldn't say that's excessive. Of course, given that amount of revenue, they could take $200 average off every Mac model = $1b and still make $5.6b profit - they'd obviously weight it so more came off the rMBP etc. That could end up with the Mac line making a loss or breaking even but it would gain some volume of users. Kind of like how a console is a loss-leader until people buy games. Chances are if someone buys a Mac, they'll get an iPhone or iPad and a load of relevant software where Apple gets a 30% cut.

Perhaps they could even have deals like if you buy a Mac and iPad together, you get 10% off the Mac - or they can base it on the fact you bought an iPad in the past so you qualify for a 10% discount if you switch your PC to a Mac. It wouldn't matter if the person just sells the iPad on again because Apple got the money for the iPad anyway and they are making the Mac line more competitive.

I felt that way with the GMA 950. I think the HD 4000 is ok but I would have preferred a 640M this year with a dual-core; then quad-core Haswell with GT3 next year. I do think that it will simplify the engineering for them though not having to keep two separate chips cool in such a small space. With machines like the iMac and 15" rMBP, they have a much larger space to play with so running two chips has to be easier.

Yeah, I was surprised by that, I figured they'd at least put an SSD in and charge the same. Maybe the display manufacturing cost them a lot.

There are cases where the price difference seems like a lot but PC manufacturers do opt for lower quality parts. Here is a 27" all-in-one for $1199:

http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-CA27-A4-27-Inch-All-in-One-Desktop/dp/B009PJHCTE

but it's just 1080p, a TN panel and a 640M LE GPU.

Something like the following looks better value than the Mini and entry iMacs performance-wise:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883155503

but they don't make any money here. Dell and HP are really struggling in the consumer desktop line and I bet these kind of things won't be around much longer. Dell's latest net profit is terrible:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/442246/dell_profit_slides_47_per_cent_amid_weak_pc_market/

Net profit of $475m on revenues of $13.7b. They make half of Apple's revenue but less than 1/10th the profit. That's a net profit margin of 3.5%. That's not healthy at all and it's going to get worse if they keep doing the same. It might seem like these products are good in the short term but if the company goes bust in a few years, you've invested in an eco-system that doesn't have a future. Apple can outlast everyone with their strategy.

Hope you have a good Christmas too.

I don't think you're going to see GT3 in the quad chips. With QM chips I think intel still counts on oems primarily using discrete graphics. 13" ultrabooks have incorporated 640m gpus, so it's not like it's impossible. I haven't tried one to see how they run.

 

I don't personally reference Dell's consumer desktops in product comparisons. They have to cheap out on parts too much to break even. Some of their workstations aren't bad.

The latter links here suggest that might be the case:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6277/haswell-up-to-128mb-onpackage-cache-ulv-gpu-performance-estimates
http://wccftech.com/intel-haswell-desktop-mobile-processors-launching-q2-2013-core-gpu-details-revealed/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-haswell-mobile-cpu-processor,19848.html

It shows the mobile quad-i7s with the HD4600, same name as the desktop IGP. What's really strange is GT3 is only listed in the 2nd link under the ULV processors, which will be SoC.

Intel demoed Skyrim running on GT3 though so that doesn't make sense. Why would they put their best GPU in their lowest power 15W CPU? There's no logical way that the IGP in the 15W CPU would outperform one in the 47W CPU.

I still expect them to allocate more of their yearly power budget to the GPU than the CPU in all of the mobile chips. They don't have any competition on the CPU front.

The raw spec of the 4600 doesn't look very promising:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html

From the spec, at best it would be 25% faster but all the Haswell parts have a new GPU design and I'm pretty sure the GT3 Intel was showing Skyrim on couldn't have been a ULV processor:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture/12

"Now to the things that Intel didn't let loose at IDF. Although originally an option for Ivy Bridge (but higher ups at Intel killed plans for it) was a GT3 part with some form of embedded DRAM. Rumor has it that Apple was the only customer who really demanded it at the time, and Intel wasn't willing to build a SKU just for Apple.

Haswell will do what Ivy Bridge didn't. You'll see a version of Haswell with up to 128MB of embedded DRAM, with a lot of bandwidth available between it and the core. Both the CPU and GPU will be able to access this embedded DRAM, although there are obvious implications for graphics.

Overall performance gains should be about 2x for GT3 (presumably with eDRAM) over HD 4000 in a high TDP part."

We'll find out for sure around March-June but that Skyrim demo on high at 1080p had to be running on a high TDP part and Intel was calling it GT3 and said it was targetting mobile.

My speculation was primarily due to the larger amount of chip space required for GT3. Looking through tech articles, I find a lot of conflicting information. My thoughts were that the quad chips in most cases would be implemented with discrete graphics by the majority of oems. The dual core chips are for machines that are either constrained on space, price, or thermal performance. They could also be implemented for better battery life, but a discrete gpu wouldn't help in that regard.

 

 

This is probably due to Apple's desire to use integrated graphics in some expensive noteboks like the 13" rmbp.