or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Haswell-powered iMacs could hit in late Aug., followed by new MacBook Pros in mid-Sept.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Haswell-powered iMacs could hit in late Aug., followed by new MacBook Pros in mid-Sept. - Page 3

post #81 of 141
So what graphics will the Haswell iMacs use? I am guessing the nVidia 700M series or will it be AMD this time around?
post #82 of 141
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
So what graphics will the Haswell iMacs use? I am guessing the nVidia 700M series or will it be AMD this time around?

 

Set your sights for Intel 5000 series.

 

"But it's a desktop!"

 

So if they happen to give us a proper chip, it'll be that much better. I wouldn't be surprised if the base 21.5" had only an iGPU.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #83 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So if they happen to give us a proper chip, it'll be that much better. I wouldn't be surprised if the base 21.5" had only an iGPU.

 

Well the desktop chips don't have the best igpus available. It would be a pretty significant drop. I give that concept another year.

post #84 of 141
Maybe the base might have an iGPU though what about the upper 21.5" and both 27" models? You think Apple is going for integrated across the board except for the Mac Pro?
post #85 of 141

Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Maybe the base might have an iGPU though what about the upper 21.5" and both 27" models? You think Apple is going for integrated across the board except for the Mac Pro?

 

Sure hope not, but hoping never gets anyone anywhere.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #86 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure hope not, but hoping never gets anyone anywhere.

Do you see yourself getting away from the Apple platform if they make a move too drastic?
post #87 of 141

Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Do you see yourself getting away from the Apple platform if they make a move too drastic?


Been Apple all my life. And I tend to hang onto my hardware longer than most, which gives them an opportunity to bring into its own any tech they decide to then use. I'm still not sold on the whole iGPU thing, but we've seen how well they do on ARM and we know that Apple has tasked Intel with building a custom GPU for them ~2015. We'll have to see.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #88 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Been Apple all my life. And I tend to hang onto my hardware longer than most, which gives them an opportunity to bring into its own any tech they decide to then use. I'm still not sold on the whole iGPU thing, but we've seen how well they do on ARM and we know that Apple has tasked Intel with building a custom GPU for them ~2015. We'll have to see.

Do you think nVidia and AMD can be power efficient enough?
post #89 of 141
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Do you think nVidia and AMD can be power efficient enough?

 

Oh, sure. If pressed. Thing about those two is they only have each other to compete against. That's incentive, sure, and it has shown in the biannual updates, but you can tell there's no fear there. They one-up each other, but only enough. If they had a reason to be afraid, we'd see some great new stuff from them.

 

The custom Intel GPU is happening, though. And I think it would take seeing that for ATI/Nvidia to step it up again. Of course, by then it might be too late to win back Apple, at least in the last few years of the existence of the laptop line (and the Mac Mini). 

 

I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to the GPU side of things. All I know is I need a replacement for this 4870 and I'm just hoping that there will somehow be an OS X driver for a GTX 7xx or 8xx card…

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #90 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Been Apple all my life. And I tend to hang onto my hardware longer than most, which gives them an opportunity to bring into its own any tech they decide to then use. I'm still not sold on the whole iGPU thing, but we've seen how well they do on ARM and we know that Apple has tasked Intel with building a custom GPU for them ~2015. We'll have to see.

 

We know Apple has tasked Intel with building a custom GPU for them?

 

We do?

 

*looks puzzled?  What we talking about?  Custom integrated crappics?  (Though iGPU is less 'crap' than it used to be...)

 

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 #91 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Set your sights for Intel 5000 series.

 

"But it's a desktop!"

 

So if they happen to give us a proper chip, it'll be that much better. I wouldn't be surprised if the base 21.5" had only an iGPU.

*shudders at the thought of it.

 

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 #92 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

We know Apple has tasked Intel with building a custom GPU for them?

We do?

*looks puzzled?  What we talking about?  Custom integrated crappics?  (Though iGPU is less 'crap' than it used to be...)

Lemon Bon Bon.

Actually I was wondering the same thing. Getting binned processors with GPUs that run a little hotter isn't exactly a custom GPU. Further Apple seems to be heavily involved in the development of their own GPU. It would seem that that GPU is destined for iOS devices. Maybe, it is really hard to say with Apple but they could do their own GPU and have Intel build it in.

With all of the electronics engineers that Apple now employes it is indeed a strange new world, where unexpected things could show up in Apples SoC.
post #93 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Do you think nVidia and AMD can be power efficient enough?

They already are! Think about what a modern GPU does calculation wise, there is nothing more efficient on the market. This is why many industries have moved to GPU compute. Could they be even better power wise - certainly but nothing beats them now.

To look at this from another direction look at AMDs APUs which do amazing well up against Intels best power wise. These days you can't judge a system by CPU performance alone.
post #94 of 141
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
We know Apple has tasked Intel with building a custom GPU for them?

 

We do?

 

Huh. I figured that would have leaked somewhere by now. You'll hear more about it soon, I'll bet.


Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
It would seem that that GPU is destined for iOS devices.

 

Then why is it being developed at Intel's labs?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #95 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Huh. I figured that would have leaked somewhere by now. You'll hear more about it soon, I'll bet.

Anandtech alluded to Apple getting a custom Iris config:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/5

"At the request of at least one very eager OEM, Intel is offering a higher-TDP configuration of the i7-4950HQ. Using Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) I was able to simulate this cTDP up configuration by increasing the sustained power limit to 55W, and moving the short term turbo power limit up to 69W. OEMs moving from a 2-chip CPU + GPU solution down to a single Iris Pro are encouraged to do the same as their existing thermal solutions should be more than adequate to cool a 55W part. I strongly suspect this is the configuration we’ll see in the next-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display."

Right now, Apple has a 45W CPU and 45W GPU in the MBP. The Iris Pro standard TDP is 55W so they have enough freedom to push the limit to somewhere between 55-90W. The stock Iris Pro seems to perform ok:



That's at 1366x768, low settings and is clearly above 30FPS the whole way. The 650M gets just above 30FPS at that res on medium settings. A higher clocked version should hold its own against the 650M. Although that's last year's GPU, the main motive will probably be OpenCL performance and Iris Pro should exceed even a 750M for compute. Maybe not an AMD GPU but the power draw will be lower with Iris. Apple is having to pay for two GPUs to go into the Macbook Pros just now and dynamically switch between them.

I could easily see them committing to Intel graphics on the portable side. If NVidia/AMD can't improve steadily over the next few years, Apple will have to go with a better roadmap.
post #96 of 141
The i7-4950HQ will probably be a BTO on the top level retina 15". The 4750HQ and 4850HQ will be the processors on the base and upgraded models respectively I think. Maybe they will have a discrete BTO as well.
post #97 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Huh. I figured that would have leaked somewhere by now. You'll hear more about it soon, I'll bet.
I'm not convinced. What we do know is that Apple has at least a couple of design centers in Florida with at least a one hiring a lot of AMD engineers. Plus Apples hires in California.
Quote:
Then why is it being developed at Intel's labs?
The only thing I've seen is indications that Apple will get specially binned processors. That is not an example of a custom GPU. If you have evidence of custom silicon cough it up as it would be most interesting to see where Apple and Intel are going.

By the way I think this is completely possible due to hints that Intel desires to get into more custom hardware. Doing a custom GPU would allow them to keep their higher margins. I just need to see some concrete evidence. Further I really doubt anything custom would be ready in the Haswell time frame.
post #98 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Anandtech alluded to Apple getting a custom Iris config:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/5

"At the request of at least one very eager OEM, Intel is offering a higher-TDP configuration of the i7-4950HQ. Using Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) I was able to simulate this cTDP up configuration by increasing the sustained power limit to 55W, and moving the short term turbo power limit up to 69W. OEMs moving from a 2-chip CPU + GPU solution down to a single Iris Pro are encouraged to do the same as their existing thermal solutions should be more than adequate to cool a 55W part. I strongly suspect this is the configuration we’ll see in the next-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display."
A custom config though is not a custom chip. As to MBPs it really depends upon which model we are talking about. In the 13" Iris only makes perfect sense as it would be a solid improvement. On the 15" the discussion is far more complex.

The problem is this, the 15" "pro" is used by a very wide array of Pros, for many an Intel only solution would be a step backwards at this time. Especially when OpenCL still isn't running on Intel GPUs under Mac OS/X. Obviously OpenCL is a driver support issue but currently it would be a show stopper.
Quote:
Right now, Apple has a 45W CPU and 45W GPU in the MBP. The Iris Pro standard TDP is 55W so they have enough freedom to push the limit to somewhere between 55-90W. The stock Iris Pro seems to perform ok:
That extra wattage becomes a point source that is harder to deal with as opposed to having the same amount of heat spread over two sources. Iris Pro certainly isn't bad but I'm not sure if the entire ensemble is ready for a discrete GPU free 15" MBP. We are literally at a turning point where discrete GPU will start to loose their appeal.
Quote:


That's at 1366x768, low settings and is clearly above 30FPS the whole way. The 650M gets just above 30FPS at that res on medium settings. A higher clocked version should hold its own against the 650M. Although that's last year's GPU, the main motive will probably be OpenCL performance and Iris Pro should exceed even a 750M for compute. Maybe not an AMD GPU but the power draw will be lower with Iris. Apple is having to pay for two GPUs to go into the Macbook Pros just now and dynamically switch between them.
Ultimately integrated will be delivering better performance than discrete solutions. Stuff needs to happen first though. For one faster memory systems are needed. Second the OS needs to support heterogeneous computing better. Third I suspect another generation of GPUs will be required before discrete GOUs are completely gone from laptops.

There is probably more, but it is clear that we are at the point where integrated GPUs have become very interesting indeed.
Quote:
I could easily see them committing to Intel graphics on the portable side. If NVidia/AMD can't improve steadily over the next few years, Apple will have to go with a better roadmap.

Yep! I'm just not sure it is this year.
post #99 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Anandtech alluded to Apple getting a custom Iris config:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/5

"At the request of at least one very eager OEM, Intel is offering a higher-TDP configuration of the i7-4950HQ. Using Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU) I was able to simulate this cTDP up configuration by increasing the sustained power limit to 55W, and moving the short term turbo power limit up to 69W. OEMs moving from a 2-chip CPU + GPU solution down to a single Iris Pro are encouraged to do the same as their existing thermal solutions should be more than adequate to cool a 55W part. I strongly suspect this is the configuration we’ll see in the next-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display."

Right now, Apple has a 45W CPU and 45W GPU in the MBP. The Iris Pro standard TDP is 55W so they have enough freedom to push the limit to somewhere between 55-90W. The stock Iris Pro seems to perform ok:



That's at 1366x768, low settings and is clearly above 30FPS the whole way. The 650M gets just above 30FPS at that res on medium settings. A higher clocked version should hold its own against the 650M. Although that's last year's GPU, the main motive will probably be OpenCL performance and Iris Pro should exceed even a 750M for compute. Maybe not an AMD GPU but the power draw will be lower with Iris. Apple is having to pay for two GPUs to go into the Macbook Pros just now and dynamically switch between them.

I could easily see them committing to Intel graphics on the portable side. If NVidia/AMD can't improve steadily over the next few years, Apple will have to go with a better roadmap.

 

Getting Crisis 3 to play at all on iGP is pretty incredible when you think about it.  Wasn't that long ago Crisis brought even dual GPUs to their knees.

 

So I take the youtube link impressively.

 

So it's in the 650 ball park. But with the 750M to come...

 

Well, although crap for years, Intel intel crappics are finally catching up.  (They couldn't stay crap forever, eh?)  

 

How far are AMD ahead in iGPU?

 

And with 'Rogue' probably in the forthcoming iDevices...Apple has some pretty good iGPU all told.

 

Not in the same ball park as 'real' gpus.

 

But one day, for the average user, they won't care at this rate of improvement.

 

I know someone who has her first iMac.  Next up base model and she's very happy with the performance of it versus her several year old PC.

 

Performs very well with i5 and 650M and 8 gigs of ram.

 

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 #100 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I'm not convinced. What we do know is that Apple has at least a couple of design centers in Florida with at least a one hiring a lot of AMD engineers. Plus Apples hires in California.
The only thing I've seen is indications that Apple will get specially binned processors. That is not an example of a custom GPU. If you have evidence of custom silicon cough it up as it would be most interesting to see where Apple and Intel are going.

By the way I think this is completely possible due to hints that Intel desires to get into more custom hardware. Doing a custom GPU would allow them to keep their higher margins. I just need to see some concrete evidence. Further I really doubt anything custom would be ready in the Haswell time frame.

 

I'm thinking 2014 (gut feeling) will be the year we see 4k monitors and even better gpus for the iMac/Mac Pro etc.

 

It's been a 'so-so' year re: cpu improvements.  iGPU is showing rapid improvement on Intel's side (how could it not? :P )

 

The Mac Pro will kick arse when it launches.  It's the must watch update desktop side.

 

Nothing will steal it's thunder short of a 4K iMac with Hex core.  Don't see that happening.

 

Thought the current high end BTO iMac is a fantastic machine...all eyes are now on the Mac Pro.

 

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 #101 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I'm thinking 2014 (gut feeling) will be the year we see 4k monitors and even better gpus for the iMac/Mac Pro etc.
They might come with the Mac Pro release which will be close to 2014 anyways.
Quote:
It's been a 'so-so' year re: cpu improvements.  iGPU is showing rapid improvement on Intel's side (how could it not? :P )
I don't expect to see huge CPU improvements anymore. Faster clock rates, more cores and more special instructions are a certainty but it has gotten to the point that huge engineer effort is required to get a few percent out of the ALU.
Quote:
The Mac Pro will kick arse when it launches.  It's the must watch update desktop side.
Well that depends. Itis hard to kick anything if you are weighed down by a $7000 shoe.
Quote:
Nothing will steal it's thunder short of a 4K iMac with Hex core.  Don't see that happening.
The interesting thing here is that hex core is possible with Haswell. To go mainstream Hex cores will likely need a node transition. Intel will delete the iGPU to make Hex core chips possible this year. So it is really a matter of Apple being willing.
Quote:
Thought the current high end BTO iMac is a fantastic machine...all eyes are now on the Mac Pro.

Lemon Bon Bon.
The problem with that is that I've never bought into a high end machine. Even my MBP was only a slight upgrade to the base model. Fantastic will be an affordable midrange machine with no built in monitor. Yes still pining for a XMac.
post #102 of 141
Would your xMac have a desktop or mobile processor? Would it essentially be a larger mini with a discrete card? Full specs?
post #103 of 141
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Would your xMac have a desktop or mobile processor? Would it essentially be a larger mini with a discrete card? Full specs?

 

I imagine any "xMac" would use the most recent enthusiast desktop i7 chip. That's what they all complain about in the first place: the price of a Xeon.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #104 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I imagine any "xMac" would use the most recent enthusiast desktop i7 chip. That's what they all complain about in the first place: the price of a Xeon.

See when I think xMac, I think basically a gaming laptop in a box.
post #105 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Would your xMac have a desktop or mobile processor? Would it essentially be a larger mini with a discrete card? Full specs?

Interesting questions.

As for processors that is tough to say these days. For example Mobile processors can be had with Iris Pro graphics while apparently desktop processors don't have that option. If you value integrated graphics then mobile would be the way to go. However one of the reasons to go XMac is to get a good GPU and today that means a discrete solution. So a desktop processor makes sense and would be preferred. To put it another way, it would be desktop solutions up until Intel integrated solutions don't suck at 3D. Remember the primary reason for the XMac is far better GPU performance followed closely by CPU performance.

I don't like the idea of a larger Mini, the Mini is a fine machine as it is. Rather before I was thinking of something half rack wide and 2-3U high. However the new Mac Pro offers a different approach. Fill the Mac Pro with a desktop processor card, one GPU card, a couple of SSD slots, and more limited TB ports and you will have a XMac. Sell it for $1200 dollars and rake in the dough.
post #106 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I imagine any "xMac" would use the most recent enthusiast desktop i7 chip. That's what they all complain about in the first place: the price of a Xeon.

Err that isn't really how I see it. XMac was all about the GPU first followed by at least Midrange CPU performance. Xeon isn't really all that expensive in many of its variants so in that regards I don't think it makes a difference if the chip is Xeon or not, it would be an entry level Xeon if they went that way. Think $300 or so dollar chip here.
post #107 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

See when I think xMac, I think basically a gaming laptop in a box.
Which is a huge mistake. Think of this as instead a light weight professional machine. In some ways it is literally an iMac without the LCD though I would expect a bit of flexibility GPU wise and I/O wise that the iMac doesn't allow or support well. Specifically being able to run the CPU and GPU flat out with no thermal throttling for extended periods.

The big mistake you make though is the suggesting that the box is a gaming platform. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is really an answer to what happens when you try to run 3D software (engineering) on Intel integrated graphics. To put it plainly it sucks. Sure a decent GPU can support gaming but it will also support OpenGL, OpenCL and other technologies well. This is something Intel doesn't do well at all on Mac platforms. Maybe Mavericks will address this some with better drivers but right now the only reason I avoid he Mini as a primary computer is the crappy integrated graphics. Haswell combined with Mavericks might be the "good enough" transition but we won't know that until product ships. Apples history of borking the Minis GPU isn't really comforting here.

In a nut shel the Mini is all about the word "midrange". That is this isn't a high performance workstation like Mac Pro nor a limited Mini. The idea is to get good GPU performance and respectable processor performance. Note too that GPU performance isn't just good benchmark numbers, it means solid drivers that support the latest technologies.
post #108 of 141
One of the reasons I'm hedging on processors suitable for an XMac or even the viability of a Mini for my needs is the coming (hopefully) support for OpenCL on Intels Integrated GPUs. If you go here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/17 you will find that for some cherry picked results Intels GPUs do really well with OpenCL style compute. Supposedly this support for OpenCL on Intels GPUs is coming to Mavericks.

So if all of this comes together, OpenCL on Mavericks with a Haswell based Iris GPUs, the Mini will become a different platform. I'm not going to say this makes the XMac concept outdated but it would have me reconsidering the Mini. Stuff an SSD in that Mini and add a couple of TB2 ports and you are golden.

In any event the link above highlights why the right GPU can be important. If the app gels well with the GPUs architecture the performance speed up can be exceptional.
post #109 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

If you go here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/17 you will find that for some cherry picked results Intels GPUs do really well with OpenCL style compute.

They couldn't use that particular processor in the Mini as it costs $657. The processor they currently use in the $799 model costs $378. The mobile CPUs that cost $378 only have 4600 graphics. The cheapest one I can see with Iris Pro is $440:

http://ark.intel.com/products/76087/Intel-Core-i7-4750HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz

Here they mention that this processor is coming in Q3:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/19

"The i7-4950HQ and i7-4850HQ are the only two Iris Pro 5200 parts launching today. A slower 2GHz i7-4750HQ will follow sometime in Q3."

That would add to the Mini delay as well as Thunderbolt 2. Notebookcheck has scores for the 5200 and although some scores are lower vs the 650M, the playable settings match very closely:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-5200.90965.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html

I doubt Apple has the room to overclock it in the Mini like they would with CPUs in the MBP but still, that performance is fine for the Mini. I just hope they don't settle for a 4600 chip because of the price as that means all red bars again:

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

They may decide to use the 4600 one in the Server model as it doesn't need a fast GPU but increase the price of the $799 model to $849-899 to accommodate the added expense of the graphics. The entry Mini will have to stick to dual-core and that will have to be a ULT chip but Intel has put prices up on these. The last $599 Minis used a $225 CPU, none of the i5s are that cheap this time:

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/75024/4th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors/mobile

I'd guess they'll use the i5-4258U and have a BTO upgrade to the i7-4558U both with Iris 5100 not Iris Pro and they're probably going to have to increase the entry price to $699. And no they can't use AMD because of Thunderbolt 2.
post #110 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I'd guess they'll use the i5-4258U and have a BTO upgrade to the i7-4558U both with Iris 5100 not Iris Pro and they're probably going to have to increase the entry price to $699.

What's wrong with the 4258 for $599 ($100 more for 4288) and the 4558 for $799?
post #111 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

What's wrong with the 4258 for $599 ($100 more for 4288) and the 4558 for $799?

They would reduce Apple's margins significantly. Their gross margins for their Mac line are probably around 30% so the amount of profit in a $599 model is only $180, which makes their costs $419 (understandable as the processor alone is $225). If they just casually absorb the extra $117 that Intel is charging, Apple's gross profits would drop to $63 and they have to pay shipping with that. It wouldn't be worth building the machine at $599.

There are low powered desktop processors with Haswell though, even as low as 35W and below $200. They only have 4600 GPUs but they would allow Apple to maintain the price points.
post #112 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They couldn't use that particular processor in the Mini as it costs $657. The processor they currently use in the $799 model costs $378. The mobile CPUs that cost $378 only have 4600 graphics. The cheapest one I can see with Iris Pro is $440:

http://ark.intel.com/products/76087/Intel-Core-i7-4750HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz

Here they mention that this processor is coming in Q3:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/19

"The i7-4950HQ and i7-4850HQ are the only two Iris Pro 5200 parts launching today. A slower 2GHz i7-4750HQ will follow sometime in Q3."
It is well known around here that I don't trust Anandtech at all. However I was on a developer forum the other day where I seen mention of OpenCL running at one third the speed of NVidia. I'm assuming the test platform was a MBP, the OS was Mavericks. The point is it looks like Intel and Apple have come a very long way in their GPU support under Mavericks. This is why I'm hedging my bets when it comes to any variant that might end up in the Mini. The potential is there for a nice machine.

By the way I wouldn't expect Iris or even Iris Pro in the base Mini, that is still an introductory machine. What I would be hoping for is a Mini where you pay a little extra for a real advantage in the GPU over the base model. A 4-500 dollar Haswell processor might just be the nuts for this sort of machine and could justify an $800 price tag on an upsell Mini.
Quote:
That would add to the Mini delay as well as Thunderbolt 2. Notebookcheck has scores for the 5200 and although some scores are lower vs the 650M, the playable settings match very closely:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-5200.90965.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
Who knows the Mini delay could just be Apple being stupid again not releasing until the iMac is ready. I may want to see a vastly improved Mini but that doesn't mean that Apple cares.
Quote:

I doubt Apple has the room to overclock it in the Mini like they would with CPUs in the MBP but still, that performance is fine for the Mini. I just hope they don't settle for a 4600 chip because of the price as that means all red bars again:
Actually I fully expect a 4600 chip in the base model. What I'm hoping for is real differentiation of the upsell model. As for overclocking that isn't really what is going on these days. However if they could add just ten watts to the Minis thermal capability that would make for a wider range of processor possibilities.
Quote:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html

They may decide to use the 4600 one in the Server model as it doesn't need a fast GPU but increase the price of the $799 model to $849-899 to accommodate the added expense of the graphics. The entry Mini will have to stick to dual-core and that will have to be a ULT chip but Intel has put prices up on these. The last $599 Minis used a $225 CPU, none of the i5s are that cheap this time:
I wouldn't resist an $800 dollar Mini if I got a real improvement for those extra dollars. Currently the base model and upsell model run the same GPU which for most of us is very frustrating. Getting soaked for a few MHz core speed improvements is not a good feeling, the upsell Mini needs real value to justify its price.
Quote:
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/75024/4th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors/mobile

I'd guess they'll use the i5-4258U and have a BTO upgrade to the i7-4558U both with Iris 5100 not Iris Pro and they're probably going to have to increase the entry price to $699. And no they can't use AMD because of Thunderbolt 2.
Either way Iris or Iris Pro the results look very nice, I just don't see them in the entry model.

As to AMD it really looks like Intel may beat them at the GPU advantage game. At least for this round of processors. I will have to search around for some OpenCL benchmarks to confirm Anandtechs marketing materials first. As for TB I'm not sure there is a problem here, the TB chip interfaces with PCI Express and the various Video signals, the only thing that keeps TB out of that sort of machine would be Intel.
post #113 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They would reduce Apple's margins significantly. Their gross margins for their Mac line are probably around 30% so the amount of profit in a $599 model is only $180, which makes their costs $419 (understandable as the processor alone is $225). If they just casually absorb the extra $117 that Intel is charging, Apple's gross profits would drop to $63 and they have to pay shipping with that. It wouldn't be worth building the machine at $599.
Well first Apple isn't paying those prices. Second they can achieve savings elsewhere. In the end though you may be right, we could see a price hike.
Quote:
There are low powered desktop processors with Haswell though, even as low as 35W and below $200. They only have 4600 GPUs but they would allow Apple to maintain the price points.

This is actually a possibility but doing so would eliminate Iris from the Mini for another year. That is unless they are willing to produce two different motherboards for the Mini lineup. I really want to see Iris in the up sell model. It looks like the only way to get that this year is with the laptop series of chips.
post #114 of 141
The processor you speak of Marvin in the desktop line is the 4570T that is 35W.
post #115 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

The processor you speak of Marvin in the desktop line is the 4570T that is 35W.

Which would slip right into a Mini and maybe even lower its cost. The problem with the desktop line is the lack of an Iris solution in the Minis power handling range. Not to beat a dead horse but GPU performance is what bother me about the Mini.
post #116 of 141
Maybe you kill off the base mini and make just the $799 model with the core i7-4558U model available? 8 GB of RAM standard?
post #117 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Maybe you kill off the base mini and make just the $799 model with the core i7-4558U model available? 8 GB of RAM standard?

The problem with that is that the base model is very important. Even myself, I could find uses for the base model around the house. It is just that for a primary computer, for me at least, the Mini has never had the GPU performance I want. It is a big shortcoming.
post #118 of 141
Let's say the mini was revamped as your xMac type box. What CPU/GPU combination would you put into it if you could?

I would prefer the base model myself and maybe it will be $699 (preferably $599) with the option for the i7 for $150 more.

Also what is so bad about Anandtech?
post #119 of 141

Apple store being updated now.  Just a maintenance site update or new iMacs arriving?

post #120 of 141
Most likely it is just maintenance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Haswell-powered iMacs could hit in late Aug., followed by new MacBook Pros in mid-Sept.