or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Belgian retailer claims Apple planning to release Mac mini update soon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Belgian retailer claims Apple planning to release Mac mini update soon - Page 2

post #41 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM View Post
 

 

I'd point out that hardly anyone can realistically live with only 128GB, and in an era when you can buy a normal SATA 256GB SSD for well under $200 retail, skimping on storage capacity makes no sense. Apple's current PCIe SSD's should be even more cost effective to make, since they're nothing more than bare circuit boards.

 

And yeah, I do understand that the suggestion was made in order to come up with a low price entry level model. ;–)

 

I am sure there is demands for small storage capacity system as NAS is fast becoming norm in houses. Probably PCIe SSD would make more sense if it is more cost effective in Apple's perspective.

post #42 of 77

I have never saw a SSD for under $200 with that much storage space yet.

post #43 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGuide View Post
 

I realize the basis of your argument probably assumes an "average user", however that is defined. I'd posit that a buyer of a Mac Mini is probably a bit above average compared to the typical purchaser at Best Buy or Costco if for no other reason than the fact some assembly is required. My mid-2011 Mini, at the heart of my video system, just completed an upgrade that included a 448GB SSD.  It uses two hard-connected spinning drives to store exported video and records incoming video by virtue of eyeTV. It's not uncoming in racing season for it to pull down 15 hours of 1080p video in a week. The cloud can't handle the transfer times to make that feasible. And until fiber becomes as universal as copper, bandwidth nor ubiquity of access can be assumed as a choice for any consumer.


What assembly is required?  Plugging in a mouse, monitor and keyboard?  Or just monitor if you had everything bluetooth.  No worse than buying a brand new Dell desktop.  Well it's far better than Dell, I just mean as far as "assembly" goes. :)  Mac Mini is still a great switcher machine and I think Apple would be very smart to get it back down to $500.  Haswell, Iris Pro graphics, 256GB SSD and the uprade option of a Fusion drive.  Have a top end option with quad core and Fusion standard or double SSD RAID

post #44 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

But one shopper who contacted the stores about the listings posted on MacRumors to reveal that the retailer believes the new Mac minis will launch by the end of February. Computerstore.be based this on information they claimed to have received from "reliable sources."

 

I'd like to believe this but find it hard to believe that a source that would actually know would tell a store...

post #45 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahrwahr View Post

I just want a Haswell spec bump.  Don't change the case.  Let me keep my SATA drive connector and my upgradeable RAM.

Given that every other machine is on PCIe SSD, I would expect this just so they have common SSD supplies that work in every machine rather than SATA SSDs just for the Mini. Like the iMac, it would be 1 PCIe slot and 1 SATA slot. If they do go with Iris Pro, soldered RAM would be best to make sure the IGP has the best memory bandwidth. They don't have much room for 16GB soldered in the current model but the removal of the 2nd SATA HDD would allow them to fit it in.

The base unit would ship with a hard drive just like the iMac and have the SSD optional. The Iris chips are too expensive for the entry model. They are at least $90 more than the ones they use now so would push the entry price up to $699. The chip they'd most likely use in the entry one is the i5-4200M with 4600 graphics:

http://ark.intel.com/products/76348/Intel-Core-i5-4200M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

but since this has a different socket from the Iris Pro i7, they'd have to use the i5-4200H with a higher TDP:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75027/Intel-Core-i5-4200H-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz

The old entry i7 cost $378 so the equivalent there would be the i7-4800MQ, again with 4600 graphics:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75128/Intel-Core-i7-4800MQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

4600 here is faster than the Iris used in the Air. However, I don't think they should use that. I think they should use the $434 chip from the Macbook Pro, the i7-4850HQ:

http://ark.intel.com/products/76086/Intel-Core-i7-4850HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz

They might go with the 4750HQ and milk the upgrade like they do in the MBP but it costs the same. This would raise the price of the $799 model but even if it's $849 or $899, that's still a much better offer than the 4600.

i5-4200H
4600 graphics 1GB VRAM
500GB HDD, 256GB PCIe SSD optional for $200 etc
4GB soldered, 8GB for $100, 16GB for $300 (I would rather 16GB was $200)
$599 base price

i7-4750HQ/4850HQ
Iris Pro 5200 graphics 1GB VRAM
1TB HDD, 256GB PCIe SSD optional for $200 etc
4GB soldered, 8GB for $100, 16GB for $300
$849-899 base price

No explicit server model is required as it can be sold as BTO with either machine but it can be a preconfigured model at $999.

A decent value model would be quad-i7 with the 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM and would cost $1149-1199. I'd rather they didn't charge $300 for 16GB when 3rd parties are close to half that. $200 is much more reasonable.

I reckon they'll either go 4200M and 4800MQ with 4600 graphics at the same prices or 4200H and 4850HQ with the Iris Pro option costing a bit more. I hope they do the latter but the former is more likely.

Dual Thunderbolt would be best too.

The delay in the update would be expected for a redesign of the internals but they might be shipping the manufacturing of it back to the US too. It makes sense they'd push it to February so they can clear the Mac Pro orders first.
post #46 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

I think if they were to add a 2nd Thunderbolt port then getting rid of the FW800 port would be fine with me. I agree with the 5400 RPM hard drive. Thats almost shameful.  I too would like to see a Mac Pro type design. Maybe this is why you didn't see it updated???

 

Given the 2013 iMac ships stock with spinning drives a 2014 Mini will likely too.

 

Still you never know.  If they decide to shrink again the easiest thing to do is replace the space for two drives with space for one SSD sticks.

post #47 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

i7-4750HQ/4850HQ
Iris Pro 5200 graphics 1GB VRAM
1TB HDD, 256GB PCIe SSD optional for $200 etc
4GB soldered, 8GB for $100, 16GB for $300
$849-899 base price

 

Yah...that would be nice.  The 16GB RAM is soldered will be pretty much a required upgrade as is the PCIe SSD since some Macs without fusion also lacked the PCIe slot.

 

$1400 for a Core i7 with 256GB SSD and 16GB RAM Mini isn't that bad even when you tack on another $400 for monitor keyboard and mouse.

post #48 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirBubble View Post

I have strongly believed that with the new AirPort Extreme & T-C that Apple would update the Apple TV & Mac-mini in similar form.
That being Cubed not a tower like the former, this way they can add more spec to them (capacity SSD or old HD) among other things.

I was going to write the very same thing... so

+1 1smoking.gif

Edited: I would add that they could certainly reduce costs this way i.e. using one case design, packaging specs, etc.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #49 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
 

I have never saw a SSD for under $200 with that much [256GB] storage space yet.

 

Then you need to sharpen up your shopping skills, and considerably at that.

 

Samsung 840 Evo 250GB, $169.99 on amazon right now, see:

 http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-EVO-Series-2-5-Inch-MZ-7TE250BW/dp/B00E3W1726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390502021&sr=8-1&keywords=256gb+ssd

 

Plenty of others here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=256gb+ssd&sprefix=256GB%2Caps%2C164

post #50 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

$1400 for a Core i7 with 256GB SSD and 16GB RAM Mini isn't that bad even when you tack on another $400 for monitor keyboard and mouse.

 

Right. It appears that some of us are using minis for real work in tight spaces where an iMac isn't a practical alternative and are willing to pay for a fast, powerful version. My fear is that our needs/wants conflict with those who want the mini to be an inexpensive entry point into the world of Mac. I hope not.

post #51 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

4GB soldered, 8GB for $100, 16GB for $300 (I would rather 16GB was $200)

 

I don't mind the idea of soldered RAM since I always max out at time of purchase anyway, but you bring up a good point: I've been maxing out with Crucial or OWC, not Apple. Soldered RAM means having to pay Apple prices. That could be much less attractive.

post #52 of 77
Even thought the mini is a slightly underpowered, I love it. And would upgrade every time a model came out. The price is perfect. AND because i don't need to purchase a new monitor every time...as one is forced to do with an iMac....upgrading is easy and priced just right. I've hated the all in one models like the iMac for years because monitors rarely become obsolete. But upgrading an iMac is not a smart price option until the thing collapses.
post #53 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

I don't mind the idea of soldered RAM since I always max out at time of purchase anyway, but you bring up a good point: I've been maxing out with Crucial or OWC, not Apple. Soldered RAM means having to pay Apple prices. That could be much less attractive.

 

If you've been maxing out with third-party RAM, you've been upgrading after your purchase.

 

Soldered RAM will kill Mini sales even further.

The machine's target markets (switchers, installers and DIYers) expect to be able to do basic upgrades.

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 #54 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayarr8 View Post

Even thought the mini is a slightly underpowered, I love it. And would upgrade every time a model came out. The price is perfect. AND because i don't need to purchase a new monitor every time...as one is forced to do with an iMac....upgrading is easy and priced just right. I've hated the all in one models like the iMac for years because monitors rarely become obsolete. But upgrading an iMac is not a smart price option until the thing collapses.

 

I guess that depends on what you do with your old mini.  If you sell it or donate it then no monitor is required.  

 

If you hand it down to someone then a monitor is required unless they already have one.  My old one is connected to a 19" Ultrasharp that is small by modern standards.  My current Mini has a 23" LG e-IPS which will likely get handed down with it when I get a new mini.  Then I'll buy a cheaper 27" IPS from somewhere to pair up with a new mini.

post #55 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

 

Soldered RAM will kill Mini sales even further.

The machine's target markets (switchers, installers and DIYers) expect to be able to do basic upgrades.

 

I'm willing to bet that the switcher market vastly outweighs the other markets U mention.  Most people just buy a computer and never change anything, just buy another one later.  Soldered RAM won't impact most people at all

post #56 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post
 

 

I'm willing to bet that the switcher market vastly outweighs the other markets U mention.  Most people just buy a computer and never change anything, just buy another one later.  Soldered RAM won't impact most people at all

 

I'm not so sure about that. The 'installer' market I referred to includes people setting the machine up as home automation and office servers.

There were enough of these customers that Apple introduced a dedicated server model.

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 #57 of 77
Why would this be a problem? Build a cheap entry level model and an upsell model that is significantly faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Right. It appears that some of us are using minis for real work in tight spaces where an iMac isn't a practical alternative and are willing to pay for a fast, powerful version. My fear is that our needs/wants conflict with those who want the mini to be an inexpensive entry point into the world of Mac. I hope not.
post #58 of 77
More importantly all the latest standards put the fastest solutions into the solder on category. If you want fast you will have no choice but solder on RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

I'm willing to bet that the switcher market vastly outweighs the other markets U mention.  Most people just buy a computer and never change anything, just buy another one later.  Soldered RAM won't impact most people at all
post #59 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahrwahr View Post

I just want a Haswell spec bump.
Yes that would be nice
Quote:
 Don't change the case.
The case isn't a huge issue for me, however I'm a firm believer in the idea that there is nothing that can't be improved. I really like the various idea float about with respect to a more vertical device. Another possibility is a design, maybe one quarter rack width that would allow ganging up for rack mounting. The mini would remain good looking but be able to be used in professional installations.
Quote:
 Let me keep my SATA drive connector and my upgradeable RAM.

SATA is dead for main storage on modern PCs. The entire rest of Apple product line proves that. That being said nothing beats rust for bulk storage. For that bulk storage I'd like to see Apple market a matching chassis with a disk array built in.

Upgradable RAM is an interesting desire but in a couple of years you won't see high performance systems with it. The fastest RAM specs out there all require soldered in RAM. Fast RAM is extremely important to APUs and apples vision of heterogeneous computing. It might not happen in the 2014 Mini but I don't expect that upgrade able RAM will be with us for long. If it is supported it will be slower than what is built into the machine.
Edited by wizard69 - 1/24/14 at 7:47pm
post #60 of 77

There are people who are so addicted to Apple products they will buy anything new Apple comes out with.

post #61 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

There are people who are so addicted to Apple products they will buy anything new Apple comes out with.

That's definitely not me. I did get my jacket by the way and I love it. I need more clothes for the spring though having said that, my Mac mini is turning three years old so it might be time to save up for a Mac mini and if I don't get one this year than maybe in early 2015.
post #62 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Upgradable RAM is an interesting desire but in a couple of years you won't see high performance systems with it. The fastest RAM specs out there all require soldered in RAM. Fast RAM is extremely important to APUs and apples vision of heterogeneous computing.

 

Then Apple's product matrix is upside down.

 

If they solder in the RAM in the $600. desktop, and allow upgradable RAM in the $3000. desktop, how does that work?

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 #63 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Then Apple's product matrix is upside down.

If they solder in the RAM in the $600. desktop, and allow upgradable RAM in the $3000. desktop, how does that work?

You're going to have to pay a premium if you want the privilege of upgrading your own RAM which if they make prices too high, you might as well buy the Pro. : P
post #64 of 77

Way to much money for this.

post #65 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
 

Way to much money for this.

 

Same as it has been for a few years now.  It isn't overpriced, especially when you look at the stats on any comparable system that is actually of anywhere close to the same size.  The price is fine, but if they could get it any lower, of course that would be better for the consumer.

post #66 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Then Apple's product matrix is upside down.
Huh?
Quote:
If they solder in the RAM in the $600. desktop, and allow upgradable RAM in the $3000. desktop, how does that work?

Very well really. That $3000 machine supplies you with pro features. A Mini is not in the same category at all.

But look at it this way, APUs be they made by AMD or Intel all suffer from the same problem that is not enough bandwidth to main memory to realize all the performance the GPUs are capable of. Intel partially solves this problem by installing a cache chip inside the chip package. AMD has gone a different route in some of its chips. Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices. This is why coming DRAM standards REQUIRE that the DRAM be soldered to the mother board in their faster incarnations.

So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM. The net result is that sooner or later your low cost PC hardware will come with the DRAM soldered in. It is the only way to get the performance that the APU chips are capable of.

On the Mac Pro you have an entirely different architecture. As such Apple can hold off with soldered in DRAM, well for the CPU they can. It looks like GPU ram is soldered in.

Honestly I'm not sure where the idea of an upside down product matrix comes from. Upgrade able RAM isn't really a big deal in the consumer world.
post #67 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Same as it has been for a few years now.  It isn't overpriced, especially when you look at the stats on any comparable system that is actually of anywhere close to the same size.  The price is fine, but if they could get it any lower, of course that would be better for the consumer.

It would be better for Apple too. Just look at today's report, the strong points with respect to Mac sales are the iMac and the AIR. The Mini is really hurting and one reason is the perception that it is expensive. As you note one is actually getting a fairly good deal but it could be better. Actually it needs to be better to generate new demand.
post #68 of 77
I have my jacket and now I'm getting anxious again. I guess I'll need to fixate onto something else if Apple doesn't hurry up.
post #69 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It would be better for Apple too. Just look at today's report, the strong points with respect to Mac sales are the iMac and the AIR. The Mini is really hurting and one reason is the perception that it is expensive. As you note one is actually getting a fairly good deal but it could be better. Actually it needs to be better to generate new demand.

 

Mac sales are always dominated by the MBA and iMac.  This is nothing new.  Nor is there any indication that the mini is "really hurting" beyond the usual "man, they're gonna have to update this soon so I'm going to wait before I buy" issues at the end of every product cycle.  

 

As far as Apple is concerned if they sell more iMacs instead of Mini's this is not a big problem.

post #70 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

But look at it this way, APUs be they made by AMD or Intel all suffer from the same problem that is not enough bandwidth to main memory to realize all the performance the GPUs are capable of. Intel partially solves this problem by installing a cache chip inside the chip package. AMD has gone a different route in some of its chips. Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices. This is why coming DRAM standards REQUIRE that the DRAM be soldered to the mother board in their faster incarnations.

 

Given the fact that we have faster and faster RAM DIMMS every few years means this statement is categorically false. The DDR spec goes from 100Mhz socketed DDR-200 (aka PC-1600) with 10 ns cycle times to 200Mhz DDR-400 (aka PC-3200) with 5ns cycle times.

 

DDR4 is coming this year and much faster than DDR3 and DDR4 is obviously NOT not soldered on to the motherboard.  AMD is supporting DDR4 this year as is Intel with Haswell-E.

 

What you can't do with DIMMs is so tightly tune memory, memory controller and CPU to maximize RAM performance because you don't know what memory is going to get slotted in.  This is how Apple gets that extra little boost to almost 100% FSB utilization which is pretty nifty.

 

If you're going to solder RAM in anyway for size then going this extra mile is just what Apple does and what we pay for.

 

Quote:
So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM. The net result is that sooner or later your low cost PC hardware will come with the DRAM soldered in. It is the only way to get the performance that the APU chips are capable of.

 

Except that this is false given than soldered RAM is more expensive for OEMs and the next set of standards for DDR4 means that you will see AMD APUs paired with DDR4 DIMMS late this year (unless AMD slips then early next year).

post #71 of 77
Is there even an OS X Mavericks Server out there for other Macs? If not, there should only be two Mac minis when it is finally released.
post #72 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Is there even an OS X Mavericks Server out there for other Macs? If not, there should only be two Mac minis when it is finally released.

You mean a specific hardware version?  The Mini is the only model with a designated server edition.  The beauty of the Mini is you can build a rack system to hold multiple units, i.e. hundreds if not thousands.  There are several companies who offer this service to companies who don't want the hassle of doing it in-house.  You couldn't economically do that with an iMac.  The new Mac Pro is a nice physical package but very few places would utilize the available computing power.  It's overkill as a directory/email server.  The Mini is awesome at that.  

 

With that said, the server software is available for any device running Mavericks, so yes it can be done.  Too bad Server is extremely buggy and has a lot of issues right now.

Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #73 of 77

What he said! :O)

post #74 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Is there even an OS X Mavericks Server out there for other Macs? If not, there should only be two Mac minis when it is finally released.


There is always an OSX server. It doesn't matter whether they market one that way or not. The configuration difference is simple enough that it's not like it holds anything up. I pointed out that Apple kind of wrote themselves into a corner in terms of shared hardware options. The cpus would be higher in cost than what they typically use. Last year that was offset by removing discrete graphics from the middle one. They only go to the nearest $99 in terms of price. If they followed the 13" and 15" rmbp cpu options, both might go up in price unless they started way on the low end of that rounding curve. I kind of doubt it.

post #75 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Given the fact that we have faster and faster RAM DIMMS every few years means this statement is categorically false. The DDR spec goes from 100Mhz socketed DDR-200 (aka PC-1600) with 10 ns cycle times to 200Mhz DDR-400 (aka PC-3200) with 5ns cycle times.
We can argue all day about this but I stand by my statements. Fast RAM is truly pointless if the processor has to retrieve data from a foot away, distance impacts the speed of the devices. This doesn't even get into the issues of maintaining signal integrity.

Look at Apples A series processors and the PoP variants. That arrangement gives Apple real performance advantages.
Quote:

DDR4 is coming this year and much faster than DDR3 and DDR4 is obviously NOT not soldered on to the motherboard.  AMD is supporting DDR4 this year as is Intel with Haswell-E.
Yes this is true, hopefully AMD will be implementing a Kaveri variant with all four memory controller working because in the end that is the only way to get the bandwidth needed for the built in GPU. however this says nothing about my point that to implement the absolute fastest solutions you would need to solder the RAM in place.
Quote:
What you can't do with DIMMs is so tightly tune memory, memory controller and CPU to maximize RAM performance because you don't know what memory is going to get slotted in.  This is how Apple gets that extra little boost to almost 100% FSB utilization which is pretty nifty.
Which directly supports what I've ben saying.
Quote:
If you're going to solder RAM in anyway for size then going this extra mile is just what Apple does and what we pay for.


Except that this is false given than soldered RAM is more expensive for OEMs and the next set of standards for DDR4 means that you will see AMD APUs paired with DDR4 DIMMS late this year (unless AMD slips then early next year).

That is baloney, soldered RAM should be far cheaper for the OEM. There is no need for sockets and the memory chips can be machine inserted. Of course you need a motherboard refactored for soldered in RAM but with the high integration we have in Kaveri, Haswell and Broadwell this isn't a problem anymore. In the case of AMD they very much need that faster RAM as it is pretty obvious that the processor is suffering from bandwidth issues.

I never said you wouldn't see DDR4 DIMMS in new systems, please read again what I've posted. As for AMD, it is pretty obvious that they have more capable Kaveri systems in the wind. It looks like the first release is more about backwards compatibility to support FM2+ boards. However don't believe that DDR4 is a sure thing, those Kaveri memory controller apparently can support GDDR RAMs also or it is at least being planned.
post #76 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

We can argue all day about this but I stand by my statements. Fast RAM is truly pointless if the processor has to retrieve data from a foot away, distance impacts the speed of the devices. This doesn't even get into the issues of maintaining signal integrity.

 

DDR4 will be much faster than DDR3 and you will see an impact on performance.  This would mean that the speed increase is not "truly pointless".

 

Quote:
Yes this is true, hopefully AMD will be implementing a Kaveri variant with all four memory controller working because in the end that is the only way to get the bandwidth needed for the built in GPU. however this says nothing about my point that to implement the absolute fastest solutions you would need to solder the RAM in place.

 

No.  Your statement was:

 

Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices.

 

This is false.  A 5-10% improvement between socketed and non-socketed DDR3 will be eclipsed by the speed improvement by going to DDR4.

 

Quote:
Which directly supports what I've ben saying.

 

No, it doesn't because that tuning doesn't imply that socketed RAM cannot be made faster.

 

Quote:
That is baloney, soldered RAM should be far cheaper for the OEM. There is no need for sockets and the memory chips can be machine inserted. Of course you need a motherboard refactored for soldered in RAM but with the high integration we have in Kaveri, Haswell and Broadwell this isn't a problem anymore. In the case of AMD they very much need that faster RAM as it is pretty obvious that the processor is suffering from bandwidth issues.

 

No, it's more expensive because instead of one motherboard SKU from a supplier you have to deal with whatever number of memory configurations you want to sell.  BTO costs will increase and the margins are already slim.  I believe what Apple does is do the different motherboards in different shifts so there's no need for a parallel assembly line but that's still more work (aka money) than simply installing the desired number of DIMMs during assembly.  Also any DRAM failure after installation means replacement of the MB as opposed to a DIMM swap.

 

Also for motherboards with 4 DIMM slots the board space could be prohibitive to fully equip the board with 32GB RAM.

 

For Apple with fewer models and motherboards doing 4, 8 and 16 BTO is viable...especially given the RAM markup price.

 

Quote:
 I never said you wouldn't see DDR4 DIMMS in new systems, please read again what I've posted. 

 

Yes, lets read what you posted:

 

Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices.

 

and

 

So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM.

 

Of course the fasted coming standard interface in 2014 is socketed DDR4 RAM which doesn't required soldered in RAM and doubles the speed of DDR3.  So out of curiosity what coming standard RAM interface requires soldered in RAM that you are referring to?  GDDR6?  LOL. 

 

Quote:
As for AMD, it is pretty obvious that they have more capable Kaveri systems in the wind. It looks like the first release is more about backwards compatibility to support FM2+ boards. However don't believe that DDR4 is a sure thing, those Kaveri memory controller apparently can support GDDR RAMs also or it is at least being planned.

 

DDR4 may or may not slip from Q4 2014 to Q1 2015 but they pretty much are a sure thing.  At double the speed of DDR3 why wouldn't AMD and Intel use DDR4?  Especially when the DRAM makers are all moving toward DDR4 to get higher ASPs while they can?

 

Using GDDR as system RAM has tradeoffs that might make sense in a console but probably not so much a computer.  Much higher bandwidth but also much higher latency and much higher cost.  Also larger IMC footprint. Pairing GDDR5 with a low cost APU makes little sense.  The cost delta for adding GDDR5 to a APU is as much as simply putting in a discrete GPU.  Even worse when using GDDR6.

post #77 of 77
Way to get me excited 1rolleyes.gif

Let's go Apple.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Belgian retailer claims Apple planning to release Mac mini update soon