Intel, Nvidia show off next-gen silicon potentially bound for Apple's future Macs - Page 2

OK, so your point is that you ruled out the 27" iMac without even trying it. With its incredible native resolution, it's going to be far sharper than you think. Or even if it's run at double resolution, there wont' be any interpolation - and the pixels will still be larger than what you have now.

If you run it at double resolution, you have a 1280x720 monitor - and it's not going to be blurry. It's nothing like the resolution interpolation that you're thinking about. Go try one out before complaining that it won't work.

Then get an iMac and add whatever monitor you want. It's still cheaper than buying a Pro. And what's wrong with the Mini? It's a perfectly useful desktop computer - and you can add your own monitor. What are you doing that the Mini is unsuitable for?

A lot of modern software has the ability to set priorities, especially when you want something to run in the background on available cycles. It already happens in a variety of things. It's just at the level of "pro apps" for lack of a better term, some level of micro management is often available without the use of scripting.

 

Let's see… there's a user page where you can see your subscriptions if you have it set to site only, but then you don't get e-mail about it. But if you turn off subscription, you won't have anything added to that page (but previous subscriptions will still be there).

 

I've never really understood the forum 'subscription' setup, myself. 

Buffered and ECC are different things. I don't think I can explain it exactly, but buffering is a way of reducing the fan-in and fan-out of digital inputs and outputs, so you can reliably run more RAM chips on a memory bus, somewhat like a USB hub. The principle is that there are only so many devices you can drive on a bus, and buffering acts as a multiplier by hiding more devices behind it. ECC is simply a way of detecting and correcting bit flip errors. You can have buffered ECC RAM, non-buffered ECC RAM. I think you can have buffered non-ECC, but it probably doesn't make that much sense.

I'm not sure what other means you mention to verify data integrity, I suppose you can keep checksums on blocks of data, but say you detect an error, you can't correct it.

Bit flip errors aren't that common though, I don't think it matters a lick in consumer systems. Except for bad memory, I've never seen a bit flip recorded when ever I checked. I've seen it written that you can expect a bit flip per week per gigabyte of RAM. I have 10GB on my old Mac Pro and never seen one recorded in the System Report window.

Does this mean NVIDIA doesn't have any remarkable new release before 2016? This must be a joke, we even don't know what computers we'll be using by 2016...

 

My feelings exactly. For all users who want a discrete GPU and a custom screens setting, the only thing Apple has to say is "buy a Mac Pro". It's nonsense to force you to buy a Xeon if you don't want an "all in one".

 

An iMac without screen, please...

Buying a Xeon doesn't inherently add that much to the price. It requires an LGA2011 board rather than one set up for LGA1155. The LGA2011 i7s cost the same amount. Looking at the bottom configuration, they use the daughterboard configuration to avoid having to use dual socket components. The cpu ($300 retail), gpu (PC version $149 retail), ram (under $50 retail), hard drive ($80 ish retail for a comparable one), sleds, and pretty much everything in that case are not that expensive, especially when compared to a 27" display panel.  Please don't fall into the trap of linking its price to the use of Xeons. It is more likely that Apple priced it that way to space it out from the imac. The rest of their line reads similarly. Now you don't have to like that, but it's pretty much what they make. The outrage at Xeons is just misdirected anger as the components needed to build the 3.2 are incomparable in price relative to those needed to build a maxed out 12 core. It's also important to note that dual socket machines are often sold at much higher markups.

Edited by hmm - 3/21/13 at 1:22pm

You can buy an iMac with a 3rd party display or two, even a Macbook Pro. If you don't like the display, shove it on the floor like you would with a PC tower. The only difference is you can't easily upgrade your internal storage. You can get a refurb MBP though:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD103LL/A/refurbished-macbook-pro-23ghz-quad-core-intel-i7

put in an SSD, 16GB RAM, hook up a 3rd party display and you even get a DVD drive. That's roughly the price Apple would sell a display-less iMac for. You're not getting a 680 GPU but it's still a powerful machine. It's equivalent to a desktop with a Core i7-3770T and the Radeon 5770 they use in the Mac Pro.

They will have Maxwell next year:

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/creative-hardware/nvidia-reveals-next-generation-graphics-chips-maxwell-volta/

This year is rebranding time so Kepler refresh, probably some higher clock speeds but not much different from last year.

Their stacked DRAM later on might not make that much improvement. They talk about things like moving a Blu-Ray size of data in 1/50th of a second or whatever but the video memory is limited in size anyway, usually to 4GB or less. It'll help with higher resolutions and larger sized textures but it won't boost raw calculation speed the way that more cores does. I hope they won't go the route of marketing other features to distract away from processing power. They will probably struggle to hit lower process nodes and they're just going to leave this wide open for Intel. The target looks healthy enough though at what looks like 24 DP GLOPs per watt. That would mean higher-end desktop GPUs would be capable of around 5TFLOPs double precision and laptop GPUs around 0.5-1TFLOP.

I wanted to point out that they don't always coincide well with intel's refreshes, and of course sometimes the low end continues in rebranded form. I wouldn't totally count on Maxwell in the Macs next year. It depends on what vendor Apple chooses and what is available at the time they want to launch. I hope they stick with NVidia. CUDA can run on certain things where OpenCL isn't yet supported or as fast. I'm curious what they mean by this statement.

 

 

The example of raytracing is extremely ambiguous given the range that is covered by that term. They probably used it because it has the potential to be a highly parallel operation, which makes it a good candidate for comparison with some amount of context. I would point out that a lot of details affect the rate of calculation. Uninterpolated samples require a greater number to clear up noise. Reversed raytracing (camera to light) is also typically faster than light source to camera.

They have a video demo of Kayla:



It's a mobile platform too as in Tegra. It continuously renders so it won't get final quality in real-time but it looks quite powerful for what it is. The Logan version they said would be fanless so potentially these would go into tablets and phones. I think they said they'd ship with OpenGL 4.3 support. If only everyone could do that. They have the whole GTC presentation on their Youtube page:

http://www.youtube.com/user/nvidia/videos

They show off a new facial animation demo for Titan in part 2. I can't believe they replaced the fairy. The only reason computers exist is so that we can one day render virtually perfect women that do everything we ask and they switched over to some Steve Ballmer lookalike.

 

Marvin ... Your kidding, right? Why would anyone want to purchase an iMac and not use the screen? Why would someone purchase an iMac, with poor accessibility, instead of the Pro? I truly know nothing about Xeon CPUs, but it does seem odd, as "hmm" mentions, the 3.4GHz i7 in the upgraded ($2199) iMac costs $294. The Xeon CPU in the $2499 Mac Pro is also $294. So Marvin, why would anyone, for the difference of $300 at this point, shove an iMac on the floor, and not a fully accessible Mac Pro? For now, the Pro still has an optical drive. For that matter, so does the MacBook Pro, right?

 

Then buy the Mac Pro!

 

Different processor families, different processor lines, released at different times…

 

Why should that be a factor in purchase anymore? 

Some people want an iMac without the screen so buying one and not using the screen has the same effect. Worst case you'd be paying for a display you don't use. Big deal, it's still cheaper than the Mac Pro and if you really had to, rip the display out and sell it on eBay and that has the added benefit of making it accessible. Most likely once you unboxed it, you would use the display so it solves two problems: you get an iMac without the screen and you get a free screen so you don't have to buy one.

To save $300 and get USB 3 and Thunderbolt, possibly a Fusion drive, an iSight camera (which they can use if they sit on the floor) and a nice 27" IPS display, which would otherwise cost at least $350 for 1080p or $650 for the same resolution.

A better question is, why would anyone pay $300 more for a large box you most likely won't open more than once, doesn't have a display, is slower yet uses more power, doesn't have USB 3, takes up more space and is heavier to move around?

Marvin ... My old iMac never moved from the spot it was in. Same goes for my HP AIO. So, what happens if the HD in an iMac fails? You have to take the entire unit to an Apple Store for repair, rather than replace just the HD in a Pro. If Apple Care has expired, it must cost way more for a certified Apple tech to fix an HD, rather than the DIY ease of use in the Pro. Don't you also believe the Pro will get Thunderbolt and USB in 2013? In looking at the specs, the Wireless and Bluetooth need updating in the Pro. If the Xeon CPU is such a dog, why is Apple using it? I believe the Sandy Bridge i7 iMac 27 was proven to be faster than the single CPU Pro. I still use my optical drive and LightScribe from time to time.

Wow, I don't know a single company, institution, or person, who relies on wireless anything that uses a MP...for Pro usage. Dual ethernet on the other hand...

 

Because there isn't anything faster out.

It is a problem and one I hoped Apple would fix instead of make worse by gluing it shut but they obviously want to make sure they make the money on the storage and there is a design issue with how they allow access to the storage. With the Mac Pro, they already get their margin with the high entry price so it's not important to lock it down. The laptops on the other hand are very easily accessible for now as they can't feasibly seal them. The Mini is a bit of a hassle but it can be done in under 20 minutes.

If they offered affordable SSD-only options, it wouldn't be much of an issue and this will come in time.

The Intel chipset for Ivy Bridge EP won't support USB 3 so Apple would have to implement it using a separate controller. Haswell-EP chipsets support USB 3. Thunderbolt depends on what they do with the GPU. The Xeon class of processor allows Apple to use multiple CPUs and scale beyond 4 cores. When it only has 4 cores though, the i7 is better value.

Now we can go ahead and turn this into an xMac thread…!

 

I, for one, would LOVE if Apple were to come out with a consumer-oriented mini-tower, one that would allow me to have adequate cooling for all components and a full-size graphics card.

 

Right now I am using an older MAcBook, and WoW (World of Warcraft) kicks its ASS… SMC Fan Control is installed, regular operating is at 4k rpm & about 120 degrees F. Launch WoW, fan cranks up to 6k+, temp skyrockets to 210+ F, if I run it too long, eventually the system just plain shuts down…

 

So, if I could get a desktop i7 with a decent fan & heatsink, a full-size GPU, again with a decent fan & heatsink; these would be good things…

 

I fully realize that games can be played on the hardware that is in the top-of-the-line iMac, but all of the iMacs i have used get pretty hot when things are cranking. A nice mini-tower might allow the heating issues to be alleviated.

 

Looks like my next Mac might actually end up being a Hackintosh, unless I can get a REALLY good deal on an outgoing single CPU model Mac Pro (once the 'new' Mac Pro comes out sometime this year) and throw that 'new' (yeah, a year old I think, but WAY newer than the existing card that comes in the Mac Pro) ATI card…

Please don't. If you want anything faster than a MacBook, get a Mac Pro. No, if you're outside of the EU, or wait for a new model to arrive if there's no incentive in getting it this very moment

Or suck it the heck up and get an iMac.

If you insist! An XMac really doesn't need to be a tower. Frankly it could be a cube, a pizza box or a bowling ball, as long as it addresses the issues you describe above and makes storage access easy. I'm not a gamer to any great extent, anything I do play seems fine on my old 2008 MBP. That doesn't mean though that I haven't had issues with hot running. Yes they would be! I was actually hoping that Haswell would get to the point that a discrete GPU wouldn't be needed by me. It isn't looking good though, we could be needing discrete GPUs for another 2-4 years by the looks of Haswell. Actually I don't need a GPU card per say, they could just put the GPU on the motherboard for all I care. They can't however screw it up like hey did last years Mini. There are lots of reasons to hate the iMac, however I don't get too worked up over hot machines.
If Apple doesn't get its head screwed on straight I might go back to Linux for the desktop. I still use Linux to some extent so this isn't a big deal. The problem is I've really grown a custom to the iOS / Mac OS synergy. Well that and the common Linux desktops suck big time.

You make two fatal errors here.
1.
You assume it is about speed. That can be a concern but often it isn't.
2.
You assume that people like bending over and taking it in the rear just so they can have a modicum of flexibility and serviceability. The reality is that the current base Mac Pros are a terrible value for most users.
It should be obvious from the demands we are seeing in the forums that the current Mac Pro is dead in the water with consumers and even advanced Pro users. Unless the Mac Pro is changed radically there is little chance for the desire for an XMac to go away anytime soon. They need a viable entry level machine that is in the $1200 to $1500 range. Viable means completely functional and suitably configured at that price point.

Indeed, and assumptions are the mother of all FU's. But the poster wants a Mac that doesn't shut down automatically due to overheating, hence the request for proper cooling. Only the MP offers that. I can assume it is too expensive, hence the xMac request / or going down the Hackintosh route. Either way, an iMac won't suffice, according to his needs / wishes.

The desire for a xMac will remain, even after an updated model, if it's a Xeon and remains considered as overpriced. But don't say that the MP is dead in the water; a friend of mine just bought one, yes here in NL, authorized reseller as his 2009 one just died. € 2649 incl. VAT for a quad 3.2. With the expandability and non-heat-issue I say it's something MacRonin would simply love to have.

But ok, you wrote 'most users', so my example is not that, abviously.

None of the modern Macs will shut down under heavy load. The NVidia GPUs run cooler than the AMD ones. Worst case they'd throttle performance. Anandtech tested this:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/12

People have run Macs for days at full load and no shutting down. Mac Pros are certainly not immune to heat problems:

http://worldtv.com/blog/guides_tutorials/fixing_an_overheating_mac_pro_no_expense_required.php
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4481473?start=0&tstart=0
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4562884?start=0&tstart=0
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4464547?start=0&tstart=0
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=593548
http://tinstardesign.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/mac-pro-overheats-just-at-the-wrong-time/

The 2012 iMacs seem to be great as far as temperatures go:

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7708412273
"After 2 or 3 hours of consistent play time the internal fans never seemed to kick in or if they did it was so quiet I didn't hear them.
Really this machine is a killer upgrade to prior macs. Anyone with an older iMac should totally think about it. Apple didn't really scrimp on this one."

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1516603
"I've been using my loaded 2012 iMac (i7/32GB RAM/Geforce 680MX) all evening and the thing is actually cold everywhere. Right, it's not lukewarm - it's COLD."
"My iMac is a fully loaded 2012 27" iMac (i7/32gb RAM/ 3tb Fusion / 680MX). And you're right, after hours of using Photoshop, Nikon Capture NX2 and Lightroom, it's NOT EVEN lukewarm."
"I didn't hear any fan speed-up during a Diablo 3 session."
"The back of the machine is hardly even warm after hours of heavy gaming (planetside 2 is no slouch and taxes the CPU and GPU heavily), except around the exhaust vent as you would expect. It's remarkable."

Even though Apple might be making new Macs with new silicon process techniques like they did with the iPad 2,4 (they used 32 nm process for the processor that helped increase battery life by 30%) I don't think they should continue to sell the Mac Pro unless it comes with a cinema display and it matches the iMac's price point. The middle man will almost always settle for an iMac over a Mac Pro. So I suggest they just keep building better iMacs and maybe a PCIe card extender that connects to the board via an exterior cable. Like a DVD-RW super drive works. That way everyone is happy, from gamers to normal users. Mac Pro is either not being purchased enough because of the Macbooks and iPads they sell or the need for one has been lowered by all the advances in GPU's and CPU's...

 

If the engineers at Apple start making new boards for their Macbooks and iMacs with new nm processes the computer uptime would last longer and they would be able to put more of them inside.

 

What I would like to see though is not a smaller iPhone this year, but one that has the ability to last for more than 1.5 days. All they need to do is increase the mAh up from 1440 to about 3300.

Good post, thanks Marvin.

To be clear, I was merely quoting his words. Hope he chimes in again so we can understand better what he meant with the auto shutting down

His machine could be shutting down, he seems to be using the following:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook/specs/macbook-core-2-duo-2.26-white-13-polycarbonate-unibody-late-2009-specs.html

but any modern Mac other than the Air would be a suitable replacement. The Air wouldn't shut down but would throttle quite badly. The best replacement would be a Haswell 13" MBP coming in June although if the MBA gets one of those GT3 15W chips, it could be ok too.

As far as I'm concerned, the optical drive is the 8-track of computer devices.


If you can't use a guitar pick, maybe you shouldn't be dicking around inside a computer.

I wonder how many of these supposed DIY computer repair proponents actually repair anything else in their lives. What fraction change their oil or replace their brakes, or fix leaky faucets?
Edited by JeffDM - 3/23/13 at 10:06pm

 

Oh, how many years ago was it… a mentor of mine had a similar saying:

 

"Inkjet printers and VHS tapes are the scourge of society." 

 

He was ahead of his time then, mind. 

 

I WOULD love to have a shiny new Mac Pro, once they are reworked later this year, BUT! Cost IS a concern… My MAIN need for a desktop-style computer is that I WANT desktop components, not laptop components. I WANT the extra space a mini-tower (or whatever form factor it takes, just not so cramped up as an iMac or laptop…) provides, and the ability to change GPUs as new ones come out. I would also LOVE if we, the Apple users, could upgrade our CPUs on occasion! Why must one always buy an entirely new system when making a change of CPU? The PC world has had the ability to change CPUs between their 'whole system buying cycles', why can we not get this slight advantage?

 

 

Correct on the Late-2009 Unibody MacBook… When running WoW for more than half an hour or so, the fan is screaming at 6500rpm, the temp is reading at the boiling point of water, and then, on occasion, the entire system will just shut down… Straight to a black screen, no power light, nothing… Holding in the power button for a bit gets it running again, but I think this cannot be good for my laptop…

 

So, this is why I want a xMac…! I want an i7 that I might be able to upgrade before buying a new system… I want a full-size GPU card that I WILL be able to upgrade before buying a new system… I want a chassis/housing roomy enough to keep this all cool with no drama, and fans that do not have to make it sound like I am living next to an airport when I am playing my video game, dammit…!

 

What I want is that modular Mac system that was posted over on another of these Mac Pro threads awhile back; the one that allowed for consumer, prosumer and professional systems, all by mixing and matching the various components. That would seem like the best way for a company to go to keep overall costs down in relation to various SKUs and all that business mumbo-jumbo…

 

Give me the specs of the top-end iMac, but with a desktop CPU & a full-length desktop GPU card; add in 16GB of RAM, a 3TB Fusion drive & a Blu-Ray drive. I will hook it up to a 65" HDTV & an Onkyo 7.1 channel surround sound system, toss in some Razer gaming peripherals (Orbweaver keypad, Imperator mouse & Black Widow Stealth Ultimate keyboard) and I will be good to go, gaming & media system all right there… Make it the size of a stereo component and it can sit on the shelf next to the Onkyo box, under the flat-panel hanging on the wall…

 

I can tote an iPad around to do everything else I did on my laptop, minus the gaming of course…

What is so great about an i mac?
 

¿

Really what you are saying is that you want the performance that desktop components provide. The iMac uses desktop CPUs but the laptop quad-core i7s perform more or less the same as the desktop i7s, the laptop i7s are actually significantly faster than the desktop i5s. The desktop i5s are only 4-core/4-thread vs 4-core/8-thread in the laptops.

In terms of the GPU, even the lowly 650M GT in the laptops runs most games on high quality:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html

World of Warcraft at 90FPS on high. The iMac's 680MX is 70% of the performance of the desktop 680. You can see where it comes on the following chart, I see someone added the Titan GPU:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Even the entry 640M iMac would satisfy a gamer and stay pretty cool while playing:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-640M.71579.0.html

Changing CPUs and GPUs is a thing of the past. Intel will start soldering CPUs to the motherboard for the majority of computers. Applying thermal paste and (dis)assembling a computer isn't something manufacturers want people doing, just component retailers. AMD/NVidia like to push higher-end GPUs but Intel is going to squeeze them out of the market from the low-end.

What happens with your battery when you are gaming? It could be draining if it's an old battery and your power draw is too high for your power adaptor to handle on its own.

The top-end iMac has a desktop CPU (i7-3770), it has a 16GB option. Blu-Ray can be bought as a USB drive fairly cheaply. I always find it funny the dream machines that get described here vs the machines people currently use. If Apple did make the headless tower, it would come in at $1500 and people would say 'great, now make it cheaper and I'll buy it'. If you can afford $1500 then you'll get a decent machine from Apple's current lineup, whether it's an iMac or a Macbook Pro. The iMac is quieter. When you need to upgrade, get a new machine and you get new everything - DDR4 RAM, a faster CPU and GPU, a new display and a new warranty, just do it every 2-3 years and you always have modern hardware.

There's nothing wrong with buying a headless PC if you want a Core i7-3770 with a decent gaming card at a low price. Go for an Alienware X51 for $1200 or even a PS4 or next XBox when they come out as they use PC hardware now. Apple can't compete with them as the margins are too low, as is the demand.

I would go for a $2000 headless Mac, if it had the specs I desire. The ability to swap out CPUs/GPUs could be ditched, if it brought higher-end parts into the mix while keeping the price at 2k…

 

3.4GHz quad-core i7 CPU

16GB DDR3 RAM

nVidia GeForce GTX TITAN GPU w/6GB GDDR5 RAM

3TB Fusion drive

Blu-Ray drive

BlueTooth

AirPort

USB3

Thunderbolt

1000BaseT Ethernet

HDMI out

 

For me the important things are that it is an Apple box and is running OS X…!

Marvin you continue to amaze me with your ability to use off the wall logic to justify the iMac I place of a proper desktop.

Well in a sense no one as Mac Pro sales have pretty much tanked. However I'm not sure where you get the idea that a Mac Pro is slower, it certainly wouldn't be if you bought a tricked out machine. Yes the entry level Pro is a bit of a dog right now but that is why you have so many people in these forums yelling for a proper desktop from Apple.

The reality is this, the IMac is the wrong choice for many people leaving them without a suitable desktop choice. It has been this way with Apple and the desktop for a very long while and isn't directly related to the current state of the Mac Pro.

 

You keep saying these things, but you're ignoring the fact that we're talking about a consumer machine. Consumers don't give a flying frick about the stuff inside or even the ability to change it. That's why the iMac works so well.

More like a cassette. I say that because cassettes work fine for a long time until better tech arrived! 8-track was a joke.
I've done all of the above! I don't do it as much as I use too, getting old and lazy especially when good mechanics aren't that far away. However there is more to a computer than the need to do repairs, I see it as more important to be able to easily configure and upgrade a machine.

Because it is a slight advantage! Seriously CPUs simply aren't making the performance jumps like they use to. By the time a worthwhile advance comes you need a new mother board and most likely RAM to take advantage of it.

GPUs are a slightly different story but even here the improvement rate is starting to slow down. As such I'd be perfectly happy with an XMac that had soldered in GPUs and CPUs. You are holding it wrong! 😜😜😜😜😜😜

I tend to agree with you, the only difference on today's systems is that they will tend to throttle instead of over heating. Well our motivations are different but a good desktop should deliver full performance without throttling. There is more to XMac than that for me. Who knows what Apple is up to here. They need to do something, that is they need an entry level desktop machine that is worth a damn and is priced right.
Interestingly I'm not far from toting that iPad around instead of my laptop. The big problem is that Apple has really F'ed up iCloud and the iWorks suite. I mean come on Apple you wrote Numbers, why does my iPad have to convert every file it picks up off the cloud. There is a just a few to many gotcha and usability issues with iPad Numbers at the moment. I'm still waiting for that big upgrade to iWorks that we are all wishing for. IPad is even passable for some gaming.

Ahh, I think you are missing the point, we are talking about anything but the run of the mill consumer machine. You are right in one sense, the iMac is a consumer machine, so much in fact that it is useless for anything outside of mainstream computer use.
You may be but the rest of us are not. What we are talking about is the middle ground between a Mini and a Mac Pro on the desktop. A machine that is for anything but run of the mill consumer usage. Frankly I'm nit sure why people have such a hard time grasping why the iMac is such a terrible solution for many tasks. Marvin especially comes up with some fairly tortured defense for the iMac that take all of a milli second for somebody to start laughing at. For run of the mill consumers yes, the iMac is fine! The problem is there are many many tasks that computers are put to work on where the iMac can't even play the game. For example you can't plug in a high performance frame grabber card. You can't do a storage upgrade easily nor supplement the purchased storage internally (I don't even want to hear about external drives here as the are non starters). Not to mention the IMac is huge which actually makes it difficult to implement in many settings , think a lab here not some consumers cheap ass Ikea desk.

 

There it is, boiled down to the essence of it all…

 

There are a LOT of us who want a DESKTOP machine that slots between what Apple offers with the Mac mini & the Mac Pro; but we DO NOT want the iMac…!!!

 

Give us a nicely put together chassis with the following:

 

 

3.4GHz quad-core i7 CPU

16GB DDR3 RAM

nVidia GeForce GTX TITAN GPU w/6GB GDDR5 RAM

3TB Fusion drive

Blu-Ray drive

BlueTooth

AirPort

USB3

Thunderbolt

1000BaseT Ethernet

HDMI out

 

For me, the machine I spec'ed above would be great; yes, with the TITAN card it is gonna be a little spendy, but for what I want it to do, it would be sweet!

 

Yes, a single CPU Mac Pro could also be configured to fill this role, but there are trade-offs. Mainly the pricing on a single CPU Mac Pro is MORE than what I want to spend for the ENTIRE box I outlined. Up the RAM, give it a Fusion drive, Blu-Ray & the TITAN card and a Mac Pro with my 'dream specs' would be pushing about 4.5k…!

 

That 2.5k difference is the cost of my peripherals, HDTV & surround sound system…!

 

Apple REALLY needs to put a viable headless Mac option between the Mac mini & Mac Pro; the iMac IS NOT IT…!!!