Next Mini - which Sandy Bridge CPU?
Do you think the next Mini refresh will bring the dual core i5 or i7 like in the 13 inch MBP, or the quad core like in the larger ones? I think its historically matched whatever CPU was in the last 13 inch, am I correct? Quad would be sweet though, I just can't justify a dual at the Mini's price.
Also, its well past time to make 4GB RAM baseline.
Also, its well past time to make 4GB RAM baseline.
Comments
Do you think the next Mini refresh will bring the dual core i5 or i7 like in the 13 inch MBP, or the quad core like in the larger ones?
There are good arguements for going in either direction. 2 cores allow for higher clock speed. On the otherhand quad cores support threading and multiprocessing better. With speed stepping you pretty much get the best of both worlds so quad would benefit more people.
I think its historically matched whatever CPU was in the last 13 inch, am I correct?
I'm not certain this is true. However realize that with Sandy Bridge the have a wider array of tech that they can implement in the Mini.
Quad would be sweet though, I just can't justify a dual at the Mini's price.
Also, its well past time to make 4GB RAM baseline.
Well the time would be right for a major Mini update. The thermals are really good on the new SB chips. You are right about the price, Mini needs an update to justify the price.
If they can get it into the $999 Mini, that would be great.
What would be interesting about this model is that it would score around the same as the current entry Mac Pro and have Thunderbolt to connect to lots of storage or even PCI-type devices if manufacturers decide to make them for Thunderbolt.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/372623
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/349982
This would be the machine a lot of people have been asking for. Add in a 128-256GB SSD and it will be one speedy little machine.
I think it's more realistic to expect a dual i5 or i7 though. I just hope they don't stick with the Intel HD 3000. A dual i7 with the 6490 or 6750 would be just fine. I know dual-core seems a bit long in the tooth now but 75% of the entry Mac Pro ain't bad:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/373892
I'd much rather have a faster GPU than an extra two cores in the CPU because the Mini is likely to be driving 1080p displays for media centres although the server model would make more sense to have the i7 CPU and the HD 3000 GPU.
e.g:
2.7GHz dual-i7
Radeon 6490
$699
2.0GHz quad-i7
HD3000
$999
Or the server model could stick with the same spec and just have an extra drive but obviously not $300 more. I just know they're going to drop the GPUs down in these things though and I really wish they wouldn't.
Portal 2 is coming to the Mac and the 6490 will run it twice as fast as the HD3000 and the SSD would give a further boost.
What I would give for a quad i7 Mini with even the Radeon 6490. The same spec as the entry $1799 Macbook Pro.
If they can get it into the $999 Mini, that would be great.
I suspect in the current Mini form factor that would be a problem. You are talking about another heat sink and even better cooling performance.
What would be interesting about this model is that it would score around the same as the current entry Mac Pro and have Thunderbolt to connect to lots of storage or even PCI-type devices if manufacturers decide to make them for Thunderbolt.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/372623
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/349982
This would be the machine a lot of people have been asking for. Add in a 128-256GB SSD and it will be one speedy little machine.
Well GPU wise that is why I've promoted XMac over the years. The other goal with XMac is to have user expandability for storage and at least one I/O card slot. I'm not really all that concerned about the card slot standards and honestly would look towards CompactPCI or other long term standards as a better choice.
In any event we are in a epoch of rapidly changing storage standards. As such I'm not really sure which is the best way of going about supporting storage on an XMac anymore. Blade SSD's or one of the other emerging standards might be better long term here that old fashion drive bays.
I think it's more realistic to expect a dual i5 or i7 though. I just hope they don't stick with the Intel HD 3000. A dual i7 with the 6490 or 6750 would be just fine. I know dual-core seems a bit long in the tooth now but 75% of the entry Mac Pro ain't bad:
It depends entirely upon your work load, many can leverage quad cores effectively. Personally I'm on a dual core machine right now (early 2008 MBP) and could see a huge advantage in quad core some of the time.
AS to GPU's that is a serious issue as currently the integrated on die options suck. However the writing is on the wall here as the next process shrink could change the equation significantly. I suspect Apple is aware of this and will likely just try to ride out the low end and midrange with current integrated chips. In a way that is sad but we are only talking about half a year to a year and a half here.
In the long run tightly coupling the GPU to the CPU, in the way of the AMD Fusion chips, seems to really play into Apples long term OS goals.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/373892
I'd much rather have a faster GPU than an extra two cores in the CPU because the Mini is likely to be driving 1080p displays for media centres although the server model would make more sense to have the i7 CPU and the HD 3000 GPU.
The Mini gets a lot of uses beyond the media center. Even if we limit our selves to media center type functionality Sandy Bridge has a lot to offer machines in this category. Hardware acceleration is nothing to sneeze at and goes a long way to making the lackluster HD 3000 look usable.
e.g:
2.7GHz dual-i7
Radeon 6490
$699
2.0GHz quad-i7
HD3000
$999
Or the server model could stick with the same spec and just have an extra drive but obviously not $300 more. I just know they're going to drop the GPUs down in these things though and I really wish they wouldn't.
Hey I'm still hoping for a mini with an AMD Fusion chip. Crazy I know but if you get a much better GPU you will be far better off for many uses than having something based on Intel HD graphics.
Portal 2 is coming to the Mac and the 6490 will run it twice as fast as the HD3000 and the SSD would give a further boost.
Well I can't speak to games, as I've never put much effort into the genre. However Intels HD 3000 comes up short in multiple ways so I'm fairly certain that even a 6490 will be of great advantage in a Mini replacement.
I say replacement as I see that as one avenue of dealing with Minis biggest problem, which is being to little of a machine to effectively fill the midrange roll that many would like to see it fill. Or maybe more accurately would love to see Apple fill.
Yeah, it would be nice but I doubt they will move away from integrated graphics in the Mini somehow.
Even then I don't see a long term demand for discrete GPU support in computing hardware. At least not in low end machines.
By the way I'm not dismissing the Mini in this thread as useless. Rather I'm disappointed that Apple has yet to fill the gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro with a modestly flexible machine.
The other reason we might not see a discrete GPU in the Mini has to do with the advent of Thunderbolt. At this point the chip supporting TB requires a bit of board space so that isn't a good sign considering the current small enclosure. TB would however make for a far more interesting Mini though, especially if they offer up two TB ports and get rid of Firewire.
How is the HD3000 at pushing higher resolution displays though?
All true. Frankly I would forgo a discreet card if they dropped in a quad core Sandy Bridge CPU for the same base price.
Yes Quad core would be ideal for me. As to base price honestly it needs to come down just a bit. Mini has to be one of Apples highest margin machines right now.
How is the HD3000 at pushing higher resolution displays though?
Frankly I haven't been following SB in depth like I've followed other processor introductions as I'm trying to stay out of the laptop market for another year. However from what I've seen the HD3000 won't be all that delightful if you try to produce better quality images with it. It seems like Intel focused on performance bench marks with the lowest quality settings possible. On the flip side the processor comes with hardware for video encode and decode so you gain from that in ways that ordinary GPU processors don't gain.
The other way to answer this question is this; the HD 3000 is so bad that I really wish AMD had its new Fusion products ready to go. I'd be willing to give up a little bit in processor performance to get a far better GPU.
Fusion does look very promising, their 9W Brazos part handily beats Atom in both CPU and GPU, and its overall platform power draw is even lower, so I'm excited for their higher watt parts. It almost certainly won't beat SB from a raw core to core performance standpoint, but as an overall platform it could be more appealing. Again though, weather Apple will switch which would require a complete motherboard redesign is unlikely at best.
SB does have hardware encode/decode, but programs have to specifically use it for it to help, otherwise its up to software. Facetime HD for instance does not use it, according to Anandtech, and it causes quite high CPU usage. That makes me wonder about how the HD3000 would do in HTPC applications, or even some mid range gaming on a large screen. I'd think it would choke. In some benchmarks it matches the 320M, but as soon as you turn on AA, AF, or some other detail higher, it chokes up. It will certainly be interesting to see what Apple does to the Mini.
Yeah, the Mini launched at 400 dollars, didn't it? It was supposed to be the mac to draw in first time buyers, but now its very overpriced. I very much doubt Apple will drop the base price though, so thats why I said they would have to put in a quad core SB for me to think its worth it. And 2GB RAM, in 2011? That's just silly.
Yes it is very high priced but if you realize you are getting a low power laptop design it is a little easier to take. Many people could save enough in their electrical bill to make up the difference. Still as you point out it looks like Apple purposefully under powers the Mini and keeps the value equation on the bad side.
Fusion does look very promising, their 9W Brazos part handily beats Atom in both CPU and GPU, and its overall platform power draw is even lower, so I'm excited for their higher watt parts.
The higher watt parts are a completely different design with in the Fusion family. I'm most interested in what the GPU offers up. The GPU will make or break this product segment.
It almost certainly won't beat SB from a raw core to core performance standpoint, but as an overall platform it could be more appealing. Again though, weather Apple will switch which would require a complete motherboard redesign is unlikely at best.
Motherboard design doesn't matter as going to SB and TB requires an extensive design effort. Also on the Mini it is Apple low performance machine, all you really need is cores that do better than Arrandale/Core2. Even then the only thing that I might think would be compelling for Apple would be the GPU. A snappy GPU would really enable the Mini.
SB does have hardware encode/decode, but programs have to specifically use it for it to help, otherwise its up to software. Facetime HD for instance does not use it, according to Anandtech, and it causes quite high CPU usage.
It is all about software.
That makes me wonder about how the HD3000 would do in HTPC applications, or even some mid range gaming on a large screen. I'd think it would choke. In some benchmarks it matches the 320M, but as soon as you turn on AA, AF, or some other detail higher, it chokes up. It will certainly be interesting to see what Apple does to the Mini.
Yeah the choking up is why I call the HD3000 lame, along with the lack of OpenCL support. It really is a less than desirable GPU. Plus the HD3000 has it's share of bugs just like every GPU attempt from Intel.
So if AMDs new Fusion product has a better GPU I can se Apple going after it. After all how many times can one get bone by Intel and not look elsewhere? Especially when the GPU is so important for many Mini users.
Especially when the GPU is so important for many Mini users.
And it's not/less for 13" MBP users?
If Apple thinks that HD3000 graphics are good enough for a 13" MBP, they probably think the same for the MM (even if those are not in the same category). Historically, the MM has followed loosely the specs of the 13" MB/MBP. I don't think this will change for the next refresh.
I believe that the regular MM will mimic the 13" MBP configurations (except RAM):
$699 2.30 Core i5-2410M/HD3000, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, ODD, miniDP/TB port + HDMI
$999 2.70 Core i7-2620M/HD3000, 2GB RAM, 500GB HDD, ODD, miniDP/TB port + HDMI
But for the MM server, and if thermals are adequate, they could go quad-core. First because it makes sense for a server to have more cores than desktop models, 2nd because server apps don't need dedicated graphics, and 3rd because the 2.00 Core i7-2630QM should not be more expensive than the 2.70 Core i7-2620M ($346) as the 2.20 Core i7-2720QM costs only $378. Also, Apple doesn't offer bigger 2.5" 7200rpm HDDs yet, so the model will probably still use the same dual 500GB HDDs, and already has 4GB RAM. The difference with the regular MM, apart from the ODD, would be 2 miniDP/TB ports (supported by a single TB controller) and no HDMI (IMO, useless in a server environment).
$999 2.00 Core i7-2630QM/HD3000, 4GB RAM, dual 500GB 7200rpm HDDs, dual miniDP/TB ports.
Using the exact same cpus in the 13/15" MBP, MM, and maybe the 13" MB, would generate some economy of scale.
I'm not against Apple using AMD LLano APUs on some models (MB, regular MM, even 13" MBP), but IMO those need to be quad-core models as the cpu cores in LLano are still based on Phenon ones that are miles away from SB cores (hardly on par with C2D cores).
Well GPU wise that is why I've promoted XMac over the years. The other goal with XMac is to have user expandability for storage and at least one I/O card slot. I'm not really all that concerned about the card slot standards and honestly would look towards CompactPCI or other long term standards as a better choice.
I have been puzzled over the lack of an XMac. Apple goes to such trouble designing good looking products and then is apparently okay with people having non matching external drives hooked up to them because they won't build something in a size between the mini and the Mac Pro.
Makes me wonder if an update is in the cards or not.
I was at the Apple store in Austin at The Domain yesterday and they didn't even have one mini on display. They had the Apple TV next to the Mac Pro.
Makes me wonder if an update is in the cards or not.
It is almost as if Apple wants the Mini to fail. It is pretty amazing that Mini sells as well as it does considering Apples attitude. We can only hope that an update is near, Mini could get the biggest performance boost we have seen in years. A quad core would be like honey on biscuits.
It is almost as if Apple wants the Mini to fail. It is pretty amazing that Mini sells as well as it does considering Apples attitude. We can only hope that an update is near, Mini could get the biggest performance boost we have seen in years. A quad core would be like honey on biscuits.
Trying to force built in screens on everyone?
Trying to force built in screens on everyone?
People that have them love their Minis. For some vendors the Mini is the hot seller so I don't think they have an issue moving units. It isn't the machine for me right at the moment but honestly that could change in the near future. All Apple needs to do is put a quad core in it with TB support and maybe another new feature or two.
I got rid of Directv today and loking to use 2 MM to do all my TV/moview viewing
I currently have a MM in my Living room, that I am going to move to my bedroom. It is a couple years old, and has problems streaming full 1080p. I am going to move this to the bedroom, as I am no as concerend with full 1080p in the bedroom.
Is the standard current MM capable of full 1080p to a 60" plasma without any problem? I would like to be able to watch a 1080p movie while also downloading another.
Any help/sugestions would be great.
It also seem like there may be a refresh coming soon accoridng to a comment earlier in this thread. I am not informed well enough if these possible upgrades would be a big important enough diff for me just to watch/download movies/TV.
Thanks in advance.
Long time viewer, 1st time posting.
I got rid of Directv today and loking to use 2 MM to do all my TV/moview viewing
I currently have a MM in my Living room, that I am going to move to my bedroom. It is a couple years old, and has problems streaming full 1080p. I am going to move this to the bedroom, as I am no as concerend with full 1080p in the bedroom.
Is the standard current MM capable of full 1080p to a 60" plasma without any problem? I would like to be able to watch a 1080p movie while also downloading another.
Any help/sugestions would be great.
It also seem like there may be a refresh coming soon accoridng to a comment earlier in this thread. I am not informed well enough if these possible upgrades would be a big important enough diff for me just to watch/download movies/TV.
Thanks in advance.
A new mini should do 1080p without any trouble at all. The current mini should do 1080p pretty easily. What MM do you currently have?
PS Your user name is awesome. Well done.
Ferris.