In simple terms there are few limitation in a Mac Pro when it comes to video cards.
Support and engineering expenses.
I don't know how much truth there is to this but it has been said that Apple develops it's own drivers. If this is the case then they can control expenses by limiting the cards they support.
The problem I have with this idea is that GPU cards are very complex, as such you would need a manufactures involvement. On top of that it looks like things have changed with the move to AMD GPUs. That is there appears to be a greater involvement on AMDs part, but understand that is me reading the tea leaves.
In the end I just don't think Apple wants to support an endless number of video cards. Their arraingement with the GPU suppliers seems to enforce this as you don't see third party cards offered for Apple hardware with drivers independent of Apples.
On the topic of GPUs I've heard all sorts of things regarding who makes the drivers and everything. Apple used to be a smaller company than it is today, so it's always kept things a bit trimmed down. The last mac pro actually got a couple decent card options. Considering the starting price of the mac pro I liked that they went a little bit lenient on the upgrade price for the 5870 card. That card is about a generation behind now. I don't know if we'll see a card currently out or an upcoming one in the next mac pro revision. 2GB of vram has become pretty much the norm in the newer ones. Going over as many tests as I could find it still seems it's further ahead of the 27" imac than I might have expected, but this performance gap isn't going to show up in all applications.
I've accepted that Apple will probably sit on this for now. There's a pretty good chance that they want to see how thunderbolt will play out and if SSD prices drop. If we have the option for two to three faster (newer generatithunderbolt ports (fast enough to displace things like SAS) or more ports and the ability to multilink devices, it could go somewhere. Wizard69 also mentioned PCIe 3.0 based SSD technology which is a really interesting point, and a really solid use of the PCI bus. If you had the pci devices limited to SSD cards and however many lanes dedicated to discreet graphics. If we see more quality designs for thunderbolt products from what used to be pci type devices (here's an example http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...ultrastudio3d/ ) it could be a viable design. Right now a big issue that I can see for power users is that thunderbolt can still throttle disk IO for video editors. With another generation or two this could become less problematic. The big advantage that you'd gain from these kinds of products is that your laptop would be able to hook up to similar devices.
The TDP on the base mac pro isn't that much higher than the imac. The cpu and gpu combined are about 40W higher in total. As for the rest of the machine the ports are fairly comparable. A couple people have mentioned the PCI lanes in the mac pro which require power so overall it probably does have a beefier power supply. You could still collapse it down quite a bit and put those PCI lanes to good use even without leaving things as they are now. I don't really mind thunderbolt. I think we just need the ability to spread out the IO a little rather than have everything shared. With higher bandwidth devices like multi drive enclosures or displays, I'd like to be able to dedicate a single port to the device, without it being the only one on the machine.
In the context of many users on this forum what you get from the Xeon line is virtually worthless. On the other hand as hmm has pointed out, Apple has really cheapened the Mac Pro with some of the lowest end Xeons Intel makes.
Bleh I forgot to respond to this earlier. The G5 was for the most part a dual socket machine. In order to maintain that it meant using Xeons which for the first generation ended up also meaning a very expensive custom ram spec. Over the first few generations they did however inch up the price and lower the budget of parts to be used. 2008 was the first time a single socket configuration was available. The baseline configuration involved 2x quad core processors for $2800, but you could order a single socket configuration with just one of these for $2300. Apple was really sneaky here. With the next hardware generation they changed to a single socket logic board and claimed it started at a lower price when you were really getting the cheapest possible xeon in a version made for single socket boards only (lowering its cost considerably) for $2500 (another price increase). It limited you on ram a little at the time but with the current price of 4GB dimms it's not as big of a deal anymore.
So anyway some xeons enable dual socket configurations which you can't really do with the desktop variants. ECC ram essentially tracks bit flipping. It's not something that happens often and it will not fix multi bit errors. Without ECC ram you don't really have a way of knowing when this happens. It's popular for engineering applications that are absolutely error critical and mission critical servers. Beyond that it's not necessary. ECC ram carries a slight performance penalty but you'd never notice it.
Wow, thanks for the responses, guys, this is great information! I owe you one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I understand that, but you own one. I'm trying to say that most people that own a mac pro or those who would buy an xmac would own one in addition to that macbook air or pro. Also regarding desktops, I've heard people claim they were on their way out for more than a decade, but the software becomes more resource intensive, and the use is still there.
Right. Sorry if I seemed dismissive, I wasn't trying to be. I own a laptop because it is an intermediate step between camera and desktop that lets me review shots in the field. On a different note, I also teach, so the laptop is useful for recording notes when I'm at the library. However, I think that I may not have a laptop in a few years, because the iPad appears to be capable of performing both functions more than adequately.
I think you're right: the desktop is not dead... yet. The way I see it, desktops will increasingly become a niche market for people who need the extra power/space/whatever: engineers, graphic artists, gamers, etc., and everyone else will switch to portables, tablets, or something similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I'm somewhat curious what kind of stuff you shoot now. Photoshop doesn't actually make that much use of the gpu outside of a few functions. It has opengl enabled drawing and leans on it when working with 3d elements and during a few other things. Processing images doesn't seem to use it much in any software package.
It's not so much about software using the gpu as it is about real estate. I have a 27" and a 30" display, and I often work on oversize layouts and images, so it's really a question of being able to see what I'm doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In the end I just don't think Apple wants to support an endless number of video cards. Their arraingement with the GPU suppliers seems to enforce this as you don't see third party cards offered for Apple hardware with drivers independent of Apples.
This makes a lot of sense to me- in the past, Apple was very selective with the manufacturers it supported, but also worked very closely with them. As a result, Mac peripherals "just worked"- they were true plug and play- but they also cost more than their PC equivalents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Well there is no BIOS in the Mac so in the past the GPU cards had to have Apple specific firmware.
Oh, I didn't know this. So it goes back to the point you made above, that Apple is selective with its vendors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The hard part here is your question about price, for some like me the price isn't worth it. This in part is why I'm gung hoe on XMac, all I really need is an expandable Mac with a decent desktop class processor. I'm not talking expandable like the Mac Pro either, all I want is a couple of slots and storage bays. Note that I dont really want to give up to many cores but right now I know I don't need twelve.
Yes, this is something that would interest me as well; I'm just trying to understand why it's so difficult.
It's not that I have a problem with paying more, it's that I need to have a good reason to do so. As I mentioned earlier, buying any of the current Pro line would be a huge upgrade for me, but once I accept that, it becomes a question of price vs. performance, and as you say, it doesn't seem worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Processor architecture itself is very interesting. Our good friends at AMD are going through a very interesting change to their lineup of hardware. They are taking dramatically different paths than Intel and in some ways outperforming Intel. Bulldozer (a code name for a new AMD core) is dramatically different than Intels latest.
This is interesting, and I love the idea: why not give customers a few more options when it comes to the card you want? Do you work in video? Then card X is for you. Do you work in 3D? Serious gamer? Get card Y. As Apple already knows, customers like to have the ability to customize their order; it only makes sense that the Pro line, because it caters to users with very specific needs, should have a few more options than the rest.
But, as you suggest above, it all depends on whether Apple decides to support it. Since I don't know what kind of investment Apple would have to make, it's impossible for me to say whether it's something they should do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
as hmm has pointed out, Apple has really cheapened the Mac Pro with some of the lowest end Xeons Intel makes. People might argue with this point but right now you are paying first class rates in exchange for steerage class accommodations. I still believe that Mac Pros incredible bad value is the result of poor sales. Apples laptops, Minis and IMacs aren't that bad of a value, the mac Pro on the other hand is a joke value wise.
On the other hand, we should consider the possibility that the current line is too specific.
Consider: not counting the server, the Mac Pro line offers eight options for cpus. Of those eight, four have 12 cores, one has 8 cores, one has 6 cores, and two have 4 cores. Now, only a few programs will take full advantage of 12 cores, so for the rest of us, anything more than 8 (or even 6) is a waste: we'll see no difference (and in a few cases,even lower performance).
In other words, half of the entire Mac Pro line caters only to a select portion of the users who need the Pro's power. As for the other half of the line, only two of those models (the 6-core and dual quad-core Westmeres) outperform the i7 iMac- which also comes with a high-quality display and yet still costs at least $200 less.
So, when it comes down to the wire, the Mac Pro line really only offers two choices to the majority of people who use them, and when those choices are compared with other options, such as the i7 iMac or a tricked-out Mini, the Pros simply don't stand out as a good value.
We know that the 6-core Westmere is by far the best-selling option of the entire line. That alone should tell Apple something: they are neglecting the lower end of the high-end user spectrum. The demand is out there, but the majority of the line offers too much of the wrong thing.
Right. Sorry if I seemed dismissive, I wasn't trying to be. I own a laptop because it is an intermediate step between camera and desktop that lets me review shots in the field. On a different note, I also teach, so the laptop is useful for recording notes when I'm at the library. However, I think that I may not have a laptop in a few years, because the iPad appears to be capable of performing both functions more than adequately.
I think you're right: the desktop is not dead... yet. The way I see it, desktops will increasingly become a niche market for people who need the extra power/space/whatever: engineers, graphic artists, gamers, etc., and everyone else will switch to portables, tablets, or something similar.
It may be that we'll see an increasing reliance on macbook air or ipad like machines when on the go. Smart phones like the iphone have been pushing things in this direction too. Essentially devices like this go beyond portable to the point where they require very little effort to transport and of course battery life has been improving. The air is becoming like a mobile phone where you just put it in the charger at the end of the day.
I'm not totally sure on this but if people do start to replace their laptops with tablets, we may see some users end up owning an ipad + a desktop and foregoing the laptop completely. It could go any number of ways but I'm thinking of people who need functions beyond web browsing and basic office applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Blue
It's not so much about software using the gpu as it is about real estate. I have a 27" and a 30" display, and I often work on oversize layouts and images, so it's really a question of being able to see what I'm doing.
I was going from the fact that you ordered an upgraded graphics card last time. Unless I'm mistaken the basic stock graphics cards are capable of refreshing both of those displays without any kind of banding. I have no idea if that is beyond the capability of the imac (I know one of them would work fine).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Blue
This is interesting, and I love the idea: why not give customers a few more options when it comes to the card you want? Do you work in video? Then card X is for you. Do you work in 3D? Serious gamer? Get card Y. As Apple already knows, customers like to have the ability to customize their order; it only makes sense that the Pro line, because it caters to users with very specific needs, should have a few more options than the rest.
Ehhhh...hmmm how to explain this... Well on the PC end you have your typical graphics cards which tend to be optimized toward gaming. Then you have workstation card options. These often employ the same or similar hardware unless you're talking about the most expensive ones which are often several thousand. The drivers (and possibly firmware) are different in that they tend to be optimized for for modeling/animation applications. With some applications these workstation cards don't necessarily do a better job. You're best off searching for information before buying. On the mac end the only workstation cards we've seen have been quadros, and for the most part they haven't been well supported. They provided some decent options the last couple rounds. I'm not sure what we'll see with the next revision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Blue
We know that the 6-core Westmere is by far the best-selling option of the entire line. That alone should tell Apple something: they are neglecting the lower end of the high-end user spectrum. The demand is out there, but the majority of the line offers too much of the wrong thing.
I actually didn't know that. Where did you find this info? I know the hexacore model was well reviewed on a number of sites, but I would've thought the pricing would turn a lot of people off. I think I'd research its use in specific applications before dropping that much. The thing that sucks with the Apple store is even though I found out you can apparently install applications to test them there, those machines remain stuck with stock ram. It seems like it would make it more difficult to gauge the performance vs. the quad machines. The problem solving you present to each machine would need to be heavy in computations yet small enough that it wouldn't generate a lot of pageouts.
I'm not totally sure on this but if people do start to replace their laptops with tablets, we may see some users end up owning an ipad + a desktop and foregoing the laptop completely. It could go any number of ways but I'm thinking of people who need functions beyond web browsing and basic office applications.
Yes, I think this will happen, too- at least for me. I also think there are people who will use laptop + tablet combos, with the laptop taking the place of the desktop at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Unless I'm mistaken the basic stock graphics cards are capable of refreshing both of those displays without any kind of banding.
This is true, but there are other considerations as well: first, I'm not interested in the bare minimum, and two large monitors at highest resolution is pushing the limit- the ability to a second card therefore represents an option to do more, and do it more quickly. Second, I have other interests as well- I mess around with 3D, watch the occasional video, even play games from time to time. Again, having a second card means I'm able to do these things without the performance suffering.
I was looking at the Apple site and saw under the "best selling Mac" tab...
1. MacBook Pro
2. iMac
3. Magic Trackpad
4. Mac Mini
5. Mac Pro
Interestingly missing are the MacBook Airs. The Mac Pro hasn't been on the list recently... could there have been a huge buy from someone? I noticed the refurbed 2010 Mac Pros were out of stock.
I was looking at the Apple site and saw under the "best selling Mac" tab...
1. MacBook Pro
2. iMac
3. Magic Trackpad
4. Mac Mini
5. Mac Pro
Interestingly missing are the MacBook Airs. The Mac Pro hasn't been on the list recently... could there have been a huge buy from someone? I noticed the refurbed 2010 Mac Pros were out of stock.
It's possible. I wouldn't trust that list without knowing how it was compiled. I would find it difficult to believe that the macbook air would be out of the top five and beaten out by the mac pro and mini in terms of volume. It wouldn't make sense, but I guess it also depends on how this data was compiled. It might sound cut and dry but do they reset it with product transitions? Is the data replaced daily? weekly? monthly? How is it averaged out overall? Obviously these things tend to rise and fall based on seasonal factors and refresh cycles, but it's just simply weird not to see the Air on there. It can be a really nice machine for lighter computing. It's not so great for games, but it's adequate for a pretty wide range of stuff. Even graphics applications run well enough on it up to a certain file size. The smaller hard drive isn't ideal for anything that generates a massive pagefile. Oh and the refurb site is all over the place. Mac pros are a lower volume machine with a fairly low failure rate, so not that many show up there. Most of the time it seems to be current generation returns.
It's possible. I wouldn't trust that list without knowing how it was compiled.
I think it reflects the online stores sales. However I'm not surprised at all that the AIRs aren't on the list. AIRs certainly attract early adopters, but even the most recent models have limitations that some userscant accept.
Quote:
I would find it difficult to believe that the macbook air would be out of the top five and beaten out by the mac pro and mini in terms of volume. It wouldn't make sense, but I guess it also depends on how this data was compiled.
AIRs being very portable can move through various other channels. As you note it isn't clear how the list is compiled, but in the past I've found that over time it can give you a sense of what is selling well. You certainly don't want to take data from any one week and make decisions on it.
Quote:
It might sound cut and dry but do they reset it with product transitions? Is the data replaced daily? weekly? monthly? How is it averaged out overall? Obviously these things tend to rise and fall based on seasonal factors and refresh cycles, but it's just simply weird not to see the Air on there.
Even more interesting is that the old Mac Book showed up often on the list. The thing here is a simple corporate buy could significantly shift these numbers.
Quote:
It can be a really nice machine for lighter computing. It's not so great for games, but it's adequate for a pretty wide range of stuff. Even graphics applications run well enough on it up to a certain file size. The smaller hard drive isn't ideal for anything that generates a massive pagefile. Oh and the refurb site is all over the place. Mac pros are a lower volume machine with a fairly low failure rate, so not that many show up there. Most of the time it seems to be current generation returns.
One thing people seem to mis out on is the idea that those extra CPUs can be used effectively for multiprocessing/multitasking. With a Mac Pro it is easy to fire off a long running job and still have a usable machine. Laptops certainly don't handle such usage well. The point is even if your favorite software can only max out four cores an six or eight core machine can still be an advantage.
The whole problem with Apple and their Macs is that that means an iMac. That is to get a machine with what I call midrange performance in an affordable desktop. All in ones aren't my cup of tea though so I'm screwed. As are many of us that want something that is a step up from the Minis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Blue
Yes, I think this will happen, too- at least for me. I also think there are people who will use laptop + tablet combos, with the laptop taking the place of the desktop at home.
I've been using my iPad more and more but it comes up short currently. To really get the versatility that I'd like the iPad needs an easy to use USB port. I know this causes some to get a bit excited but I don't think many grasp how important ports are to technical users.
Quote:
This is true, but there are other considerations as well: first, I'm not interested in the bare minimum, and two large monitors at highest resolution is pushing the limit- the ability to a second card therefore represents an option to do more, and do it more quickly. Second, I have other interests as well- I mess around with 3D, watch the occasional video, even play games from time to time. Again, having a second card means I'm able to do these things without the performance suffering.
On the topic of GPUs I've heard all sorts of things regarding who makes the drivers and everything. Apple used to be a smaller company than it is today, so it's always kept things a bit trimmed down. The last mac pro actually got a couple decent card options. Considering the starting price of the mac pro I liked that they went a little bit lenient on the upgrade price for the 5870 card. That card is about a generation behind now.
Still a decent performer though. At the start of this reply I had this thought that Apples next Mac Pro revision is waiting on AMDs newest GPUs to come out.
Quote:
I don't know if we'll see a card currently out or an upcoming one in the next mac pro revision. 2GB of vram has become pretty much the norm in the newer ones. Going over as many tests as I could find it still seems it's further ahead of the 27" imac than I might have expected, but this performance gap isn't going to show up in all applications.
You would expect that performance gap to show up in all apps. Not all of your apps are GPU bound.
Quote:
I've accepted that Apple will probably sit on this for now. There's a pretty good chance that they want to see how thunderbolt will play out and if SSD prices drop. If we have the option for two to three faster (newer generatithunderbolt ports (fast enough to displace things like SAS) or more ports and the ability to multilink devices, it could go somewhere. Wizard69 also mentioned PCIe 3.0 based SSD technology which is a really interesting point, and a really solid use of the PCI bus. If you had the pci devices limited to SSD cards and however many lanes dedicated to discreet graphics. If we see more quality designs for thunderbolt products from what used to be pci type devices (here's an example http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...ultrastudio3d/ ) it could be a viable design. Right now a big issue that I can see for power users is that thunderbolt can still throttle disk IO for video editors. With another generation or two this could become less problematic. The big advantage that you'd gain from these kinds of products is that your laptop would be able to hook up to similar devices.
The problem with the "you don't need slots" people is that they said that about USB, FireWire and a host of other ports. I dont dismis the need for USB and even TB but I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss PCI-Express slots. Slots solve an entirely different set of problems.
Quote:
The TDP on the base mac pro isn't that much higher than the imac. The cpu and gpu combined are about 40W higher in total. As for the rest of the machine the ports are fairly comparable. A couple people have mentioned the PCI lanes in the mac pro which require power so overall it probably does have a beefier power supply. You could still collapse it down quite a bit and put those PCI lanes to good use even without leaving things as they are now. I don't really mind thunderbolt.
Neither do I, I think it is great technology. However a TB port simply isn't capable of reaching PCI express speeds.
Quote:
I think we just need the ability to spread out the IO a little rather than have everything shared. With higher bandwidth devices like multi drive enclosures or displays, I'd like to be able to dedicate a single port to the device, without it being the only one on the machine.
The whole problem with Apple and their Macs is that that means an iMac. That is to get a machine with what I call midrange performance in an affordable desktop. All in ones aren't my cup of tea though so I'm screwed. As are many of us that want something that is a step up from the Minis.
Same here. Too many limitations with an iMac. So it is either settle for the mini which is less than I want or go overkill in size and price and get a Mac Pro.
You would expect that performance gap to show up in all apps. Not all of your apps are GPU bound.
Even things like photoshop (I use it because it's an easy generic example) didn't use the gpu to redraw images until CS4 came out. That was maybe 2008? Even then it was barely noticeable. We're starting to see more and more stuff lean on the gpu, but it really varies from application to application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The problem with the "you don't need slots" people is that they said that about USB, FireWire and a host of other ports. I dont dismis the need for USB and even TB but I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss PCI-Express slots. Slots solve an entirely different set of problems.
You already know I'm not really one of those people. Intel seems to have plans to increase its bandwidth, but I don't know how fast that'll happen anyway. The current design for as large as it is, isn't really that ideal. Hard drives and pci cards get some significantly uneven temperatures which has always annoyed me. If they built the mini outward a bit though and put in all desktop parts (except for maybe an SSD drive), I would probably buy one. If Apple surprise with a nicer update than expected on the mac pro, I will definitely buy one . I'm really not sure why Intel has been so slow with rolling out Xeons. They should at least have healthy margins on some of those, so it seems a bit odd.
Cinebench doesn't always give an accurate look at performance in real applications as it can't really track the use of core utilization or gpu leveraging (mostly thinking of things like rendering video here).
They have a single-core benchmark and a GPU benchmark as well as multi-core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
The imac is a lot of resolution to cover with a mobile graphics chip for something like gaming as it renders on the fly (I'm not a gamer but I know the logistics of it).
The highest-end mobile GPUs outperform some of the high-end desktop GPUs. The 6990M should outperform the desktop 5770 in the Mac Pro. Mobile just means it fits in a certain thermal limit.
Consider an Ivy Bridge Mac Mini. No thermal issues as Intel has cut the power draw in half with better performance. This means Mac Pro performance in the quad i7 with enough room to allow a 28nm AMD 7000-series GPU too. Throw in a 256GB SSD and plug in a Thunderbolt or USB 3 drive/RAID and what more do you need from a mid-range machine? This is under $1000 and fits in your hand as well as being one of the nicest looking Macs and most reliable.
No, it won't be on par with a mid-range tower but it's not going to be significantly slower either so it's all Apple needs to do.
Www.hardmac.com had an interesting bit on the Mac Pro but it sounded like they where blowing wind. However we should start to hear rumors or hints of a refresh soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Even things like photoshop (I use it because it's an easy generic example) didn't use the gpu to redraw images until CS4 came out. That was maybe 2008? Even then it was barely noticeable. We're starting to see more and more stuff lean on the gpu, but it really varies from application to application.
I probably didn't get my point across well in that statement. What I was trying to get at is the expectations that some have that GPU usage should lead to massive performance increases. It can for a minute set of problems but the user shouldn't expect that for every package they run. That variance from app to app is not always something that can be over comed.
Quote:
You already know I'm not really one of those people. Intel seems to have plans to increase its bandwidth, but I don't know how fast that'll happen anyway.
I really haven't tracked Intels chips much over the last couple of years, but Hardmac seems to believe the coming machines are going to be very nice. My goal isn't another Mac Pro class machine, at least not at the expense/performance ratios of the current machines.
Quote:
The current design for as large as it is, isn't really that ideal. Hard drives and pci cards get some significantly uneven temperatures which has always annoyed me.
Yeah I've had people try to tell me what a great thermal design the Mac Pro is. The Mini is actually a great thermal design, I especially find the current design interesting. The Mini however is not a XMac nor Mac Pro class machine.
In a XMac class machine I suspect that minimizing the number of slots would vastly increase the ability to cool hardware in those slots. The big problem with PCI-Express in a PC card format is that the system can't really cool the cards like a rack based system.
Quote:
If they built the mini outward a bit though and put in all desktop parts (except for maybe an SSD drive), I would probably buy one.
Actually I'm very tempted to buy one. Adding the GPU to the one version has made it a far more desirable machine. I still think Apple screwed that machine by adding to little GPU RAM though. I have nothing against a low end Mini but if I'm going to go up scale at least give me something for it!! As it is I'm out of the market for a computer this year anyways, this actually might be a good thing as an Ivy Bridge Mini might be very compelling.
Your idea with building the Mini outward is interesting. Frankly they don't need to even use PC card format PCI-Express cards, there are a number of very useful card format standards that could work well in a Mini. Obviously this wouldn't go over well with the mainstream PC / desktop world but let's face it the PC card format has been around a long long long time. These days ports, I/O cards, even low end video cards can be had extremely compact. Somedays I wish Apple would adopt a mid way standard like Compact PCI.
Quote:
If Apple surprise with a nicer update than expected on the mac pro, I will definitely buy one . I'm really not sure why Intel has been so slow with rolling out Xeons.
In one word AMD. I suspect they have serious concerns about AMDs Bulldozer based chips and want to be able to develop a clear communications regime to compete with Bulldozer. Bulldozer has some very interesting approaches that should allow it to perform really well in certain workloads. I suspect that Intel wants to be able to address that in their marketing. They might also be trying to hit much higher clock rates as a result of AMDs chips.
Quote:
They should at least have healthy margins on some of those, so it seems a bit odd.
Margins mean little if you can't successfully market your chips. Right now I suspect that everyone is having problems moving hardware for servers and such into corporate America. It isn't just that the economy sucks, which is a big issue, but there is a real feeling that the industry is in transition. Who in their right mind would invest in IT infrastructure with product from HP or Dell? I can actually see a transition back to Sun/Oracle or IBM hardware in data centers, probably running UNIX too. Building IT infrastructure on commodity hardware is proving to be a shaky way run the back office unless you have the will to do much of the work yourself. In the end I think Intel is being cautious, maybe excessively so, but not without multiple reasons. AMD literally has nothing to loose. I think the question to ask is if you need data center hardware, and you where looking at i86 who would you select as a vendor. A vendor you would hope would be around in 5 years.
The problem is with it's size and the capability restrictions that brings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They have a single-core benchmark and a GPU benchmark as well as multi-core.
The highest-end mobile GPUs outperform some of the high-end desktop GPUs. The 6990M should outperform the desktop 5770 in the Mac Pro. Mobile just means it fits in a certain thermal limit.
At a given process node though more power generally means better performance.
Quote:
Consider an Ivy Bridge Mac Mini. No thermal issues as Intel has cut the power draw in half with better performance. This means Mac Pro performance in the quad i7 with enough room to allow a 28nm AMD 7000-series GPU too.
Yes it almost makes me glad I'm not in the Mac Market this year. The problem isn't the chips though it is what Apple does with them. If they went out and designed a Mini with true midrange performance, for the technology of the time it would be great. However Apples history here sucks. I don't mind the low end Mini but if I'm to pay extra for a high end machine let's really make it a mid range machine. Apple doesn't do this apparently castrating the Mini on purpose. That would be fine if they had a desktop machine (not an iMac) that sat between the Mini and the Mac Pro.
Quote:
Throw in a 256GB SSD and plug in a Thunderbolt or USB 3 drive/RAID and what more do you need from a mid-range machine?
Depending upon who you are and your needs, any of the following:
Slots for expansion cards.
Slots for RAM. Note we are talking midrange here, so three slots for a triple channel machine would do fine. The Mini is problematic for RAM expansion beyond a minimal limit.
Drive bays / Storage expansion slots. I'm actually looking forward to the day solid state storage comes on plug in cards.
Redundant power supplies. If Apple keeps trying to pass off it's machines as servers this should make sense.
Further note that none of these wants require a Mac Pro sized machine.
Quote:
This is under $1000 and fits in your hand as well as being one of the nicest looking Macs and most reliable.
It isn't always about looks though. For me the Mac Pro is ghastly but that doesn't stop sales. Reliable I don't know about, but that is an issue of design.
Quote:
No, it won't be on par with a mid-range tower but it's not going to be significantly slower either so it's all Apple needs to do.
Actually though the Mini is always significantly slower. This isn't a huge problem as low end machines are always needed. The problem is the massive capability gap between the Mini and the Pro. The gap can't be dismissed reasonably. Capability isn't always about speed though, which is what a lot of people mis in this discussion.
They have a single-core benchmark and a GPU benchmark as well as multi-core.
The highest-end mobile GPUs outperform some of the high-end desktop GPUs. The 6990M should outperform the desktop 5770 in the Mac Pro. Mobile just means it fits in a certain thermal limit.
Consider an Ivy Bridge Mac Mini. No thermal issues as Intel has cut the power draw in half with better performance. This means Mac Pro performance in the quad i7 with enough room to allow a 28nm AMD 7000-series GPU too. Throw in a 256GB SSD and plug in a Thunderbolt or USB 3 drive/RAID and what more do you need from a mid-range machine? This is under $1000 and fits in your hand as well as being one of the nicest looking Macs and most reliable.
No, it won't be on par with a mid-range tower but it's not going to be significantly slower either so it's all Apple needs to do.
The quad core machine actually starts at $1000 sadly, and really plenty of single applications make solid use of four cores. On GPUs I'm having a slightly difficult time finding as many comprehensive tests as I'd like. Barefeats has a gaming comparison which isn't completely relevant, but games do rely pretty heavily on the GPU. Their results suggested that the 5870 was still ahead of the 2GB VRAM version of the Radeon 6970M. All of their tests performed better under Windows 7 than OSX but that's unsurprising because the games they test are probably built to run under Windows and then ported to OSX.
If they brought out a mini with two thunderbolt ports, usb3, and decent discreet graphics (with at least 1-2 GB of dedicated VRAM) I might take the machine seriously. It's still a bit throttled on ram but I don't know. You think they'll put a quad core and discreet graphics in at the current pricing structure (even considering that they don't even bundle a keyboard and mouse with those models)? I think it'll probably get shot down because it would lower their margins on the machine or bump the price into imac territory.
The comment about all Apple really needs to do just relates to the fact that to run OSX we don't really have other options. Anyway since when are the Apple keynotes about doing just enough? I'm not trying to twist your words around here, but I think it's a poor mentality to get stuck on, and it's the same reason you often hear people spite companies like Adobe.
Apple doesn't do this apparently castrating the Mini on purpose.
They fit everything inside a 45W limit (used to be 35W with the optical in there). Over time, this limit will contain more and more to the point that everyone is satisfied with it and Ivy Bridge will be the first big development that highlights this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Slots for expansion cards.
I'm still behind Thunderbolt on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The Mini is problematic for RAM expansion beyond a minimal limit.
I wouldn't call 8GB a minimum but a 3rd slot wouldn't go amiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually though the Mini is always significantly slower.
It depends what you call significant. The quad i7 Mini is at most 30% slower than the high-end iMac. We know the GPU is significantly lower but as I say, the Ivy Bridge development should help here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
If they brought out a mini with two thunderbolt ports, usb3, and decent discreet graphics (with at least 1-2 GB of dedicated VRAM) I might take the machine seriously. It's still a bit throttled on ram but I don't know. You think they'll put a quad core and discreet graphics in at the current pricing structure (even considering that they don't even bundle a keyboard and mouse with those models)?
I don't know if they'd put a dedicated GPU in the server model but even if they didn't, the middle model with Ivy Bridge will match the current i7.
I think it's good that they keep HDMI on there too. I'd personally be happy with a dual-core i7 that performed the same as this year's quad i7 combined with a 512MB Radeon 7000-series GPU and USB 3. With a 3rd party SSD, it will be a very fast machine.
If you have a set of tasks that constantly demand the highest performance then the mid-range is not suitable. If you have a set of performance goals that have a minimum requirement, the Mini should have already surpassed them and year after year, it will keep getting better until you don't even care about it.
They fit everything inside a 45W limit (used to be 35W with the optical in there). Over time, this limit will contain more and more to the point that everyone is satisfied with it and Ivy Bridge will be the first big development that highlights this.
I'm well aware of Ivy Bridge. However you mis my point, unless Apple has a change of heart, the Mini will always be a low performance machine relative to any other hardware available at the time. Beyond that there is more to user satisfaction than just the raw CPU performance. The Mini can't and never will satisfy everyone.
Quote:
I'm still behind Thunderbolt on this one.
Thunderbolt has it's place but it is by no means a replacement for slots in a desktop machine.
Quote:
I wouldn't call 8GB a minimum but a 3rd slot wouldn't go amiss.
Well I never really thought that 2GB would be too little on my old MBP. However it has become very painful just trying to run Apples software.
Quote:
It depends what you call significant. The quad i7 Mini is at most 30% slower than the high-end iMac. We know the GPU is significantly lower but as I say, the Ivy Bridge development should help here.
note that you are comparing old technology to new here. Further I suspect you are being very selective about how you arrive at that 30% differential. All you really need is a pattern of usage that loads all of those cores in a Mini which really isn't that hard to do these days. My old MBP displays significant performance problems just trying to run XCode and Safari at the same time. Part of that is the need for more RAM, but today's software may incorporate many threads and even secondary processes. I've seen significant performance issues doing what should be simple tasks.
So when looking at a desktop machine what is important to me. Well number one is the ability to easily expand RAM, as this is critical to the long term viability of the platform. Ideally RAM expansion can be done without wasting the current installed RAM. The second thing is a surplus of cores to avoid running out of performance one OS update down the road. Closely ranked to item two is the ability to add significant amounts of internal secondary storage. The common theme here is buying hardware that isn't immediately obsolete, and provides better than low end performance out of the box.
In that regard the Mini simply comes up short. In many cases it comes up short by design. For example they have a nice quad core unit that could have been very desirable if they had continued with the discreet GPU offering from the middle of the road machine. Nope, instead they decided to call it a server and delete the discreet GPU. Maybe that was due to a issue with the power budget, I really don't know, but it takes the machine out of the running for many of us. And NO Ivy Bridge won't fix that.
Quote:
I don't know if they'd put a dedicated GPU in the server model but even if they didn't, the middle model with Ivy Bridge will match the current i7.
Is that a surprise? I mean by that tomorrow's low end hardware matching the performance of yesterdays higher end hardware. I do think you are overly confident in Ivy Bridge and Apples willingness to build a Mini that is something more than bottom end.
Quote:
I think it's good that they keep HDMI on there too. I'd personally be happy with a dual-core i7 that performed the same as this year's quad i7 combined with a 512MB Radeon 7000-series GPU and USB 3. With a 3rd party SSD, it will be a very fast machine.
HDMI is good. However I suspect you are giving the coming Ivy Bridge CPU more credit than it possibly deserves. For one no matter how fast the dual core chip is it is a step backwards from a quad core. Second by the time they get to a discreet GPU with 512MB of RAM that will be a very outdated configuration. Really think about what you are paying right now to get a 256MB supported GPU in a Mini. It is a joke.
This all come back around to my point made earlier that the Mini is intentionally castrated. It isn't the low end embedded video model that is the problem. Rather it is what you get if you are willing to pay more. Sadly it isn't much and what it is keeps the Mini at the lower end of the performance spectrum. Ivy Bridge simply won't matter if Apple intentionally cripples the machine.
Quote:
If you have a set of tasks that constantly demand the highest performance then the mid-range is not suitable. If you have a set of performance goals that have a minimum requirement, the Mini should have already surpassed them and year after year, it will keep getting better until you don't even care about it.
That is a very self serving statement. Basically you are trying to say that if one can't use the Mini buy the Mac Pro. A good portion of this thread though highlights why that is a terrible idea. The gap between the Mini and the Pro is a lot wider than you seem willing to acknowledge.
As to performance getting better and better, again no big surprise here. Mind you some of my first computers where eight bit devices. In every case the old computers went away for one reason - performance. The Comodore went away as did my Heatkit, my Mac Plus, my series of homebuilt Linux machines and now my MBP has serious issues running today's software. The only real difference these days is that you do have the option of buying hardware that lasts a bit longer than they did in the past. That requires buying smart though. These days that means a minimal system is a quad core with a discreet GPU and the ability to easily upgrade the installed memory. Note carefully I say "minimal system", I can make a very good argument that even quad cores are not enough if you want the system to last through a couple of software iterations.
To put it plainly I'm not willing any more to update hardware constantly. There was a time when doing so every six months to a year was not unheard of. I'm not willing to play that game anymore. So what we have in the Mini is a machine where it becomes obsolete to fast and an unwillingness on Apples part to offer a version that addresses that. Sadly this looks to be intentional on Apples part.
The XMac desire is just a way to express dissatisfaction with Apples rigging the market.
To put it plainly I'm not willing any more to update hardware constantly. There was a time when doing so every six months to a year was not unheard of. I'm not willing to play that game anymore. So what we have in the Mini is a machine where it becomes obsolete to fast and an unwillingness on Apples part to offer a version that addresses that. Sadly this looks to be intentional on Apples part.
The XMac desire is just a way to express dissatisfaction with Apples rigging the market.
I've always thought so. It's kind of the Apple way. They build whatever they want and if you require a slightly better feature set, you're locked into a very high minimum sale even if it's something that's very common/mainstream in hardware terms. It's not that everything has to remain like the mac pro forever, but it annoys me that they'd make a new desktop line then intentionally throttle it. This has been the case ever since it was the G4 mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They fit everything inside a 45W limit (used to be 35W with the optical in there). Over time, this limit will contain more and more to the point that everyone is satisfied with it and Ivy Bridge will be the first big development that highlights this.
It looks like a nice evolutionary step, but what everyone wants tends to be a moving target. Today a computer from the 1990s could barely load most websites. My point is that software isn't completely static. The migration toward 64 bit applications also ups the requirements for ram since it's forced to address information in larger chunks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I'm still behind Thunderbolt on this one.
It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Right now I don't agree with you but for my own purposes it could work if it grew a bit in bandwidth. Having 1 port on a machine for display + data though is just a joke. More panels are coming out with 120Hz refresh rates. Combine that with an external SSD or two and you'll be able to throttle that pretty easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I wouldn't call 8GB a minimum but a 3rd slot wouldn't go amiss.
The thing is, even cheap ass Windows machines often have four slots. It's not a high end feature and should not be marketed as such. If the thermal envelope is that tight that could be a reason. They're using laptop parts, so they probably don't want to put in the design time here or figure out how to fit it in. That's the thing I dislike about the mini. It's not actually engineered as a desktop. It's engineered to be as small as possible at the cost of other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It depends what you call significant. The quad i7 Mini is at most 30% slower than the high-end iMac. We know the GPU is significantly lower but as I say, the Ivy Bridge development should help here.
I'd have to test this myself. Barefeats put it all over the board. Some of their tests show some homogenized performance among the line, but mostly those dealing with smaller problem sizes. It fell way behind on gaming no matter what model you viewed.
Their testing methods aren't always 100% perfect but it's hard to find as much data as I'd like. The point was to get reasonable performance even against the laptops you need to go with at least the mini server, but then you're back to integrated graphics and still only have a single thunderbolt port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I don't know if they'd put a dedicated GPU in the server model but even if they didn't, the middle model with Ivy Bridge will match the current i7.
I think it's good that they keep HDMI on there too. I'd personally be happy with a dual-core i7 that performed the same as this year's quad i7 combined with a 512MB Radeon 7000-series GPU and USB 3. With a 3rd party SSD, it will be a very fast machine.
See I've read words like that before. I'd be happy with this or that. It changes based on what is released. We get faster hardware, more ram, and the programs we run become more resource intensive. It's worked like that for quite a long time. No matter how much you spend on hardware, there will be room for gains. Even what you consider a basic machine appropriate for basic office applications and internet use is a moving target. We have a lot of that on our phones today. Pretty soon any phone that can't run web content as easily as a laptop today will no longer feel acceptable.
I wouldn't expect the next dual core to equate to the current quad in performance. I think that's a bit optimistic. There isn't really hardware they're leaving out due to thermal concerns. If anything it's a cost issue and that's something I hate about a desktop with laptop hardware. You get the performance/cost factors of a laptop in a stationary form factor (like a desktop). I can honestly say I hate their product offerings at the moment. It's like each of them is missing something. The mac pro is probably the best overall choice for me, but the price to performance ratio is quite off there. If they replaced that machine in a month or two with a truly updated model, people would call it an old machine even if it was the most recent just a day or a week previous to the statement.
One more thing (I used that phrase long before I heard Steve say it) even the ipad and iphone have dual core processors these days. Quad is basically the norm for desktop computing. It's not exactly a high end feature. I'm trying to think of something more to add here to make the discussion interesting, but it seems we're just at odds on a lot of these points.
Maybe that was due to a issue with the power budget, I really don't know, but it takes the machine out of the running for many of us. And NO Ivy Bridge won't fix that.
Ivy Bridge can fix it quite easily. If they drop the power usage of the quad down to say 30W, they can get a Radeon GPU in there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
For one no matter how fast the dual core chip is it is a step backwards from a quad core.
They are all hyper-threaded now so dual-cores perform very well in multi-core tasks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
So what we have in the Mini is a machine where it becomes obsolete to fast
All machines become obsolete too fast. If you bought a quad-core Mac Pro in 2009, it's already being outperformed by the quad-core Mini. That's 2 years for the Pro to drop to what you'd call 'entry-level'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
So when looking at a desktop machine what is important to me.
Everything it seems. You want lots of internal storage, fast processors, fast GPU, more RAM slots, PCI expansion slots - you basically want a cheaper Mac Pro and if they put one on sale, you'd still want an extra power supply.
You can't get it all and still have it affordable because it has to sell in volume and the things that matter to you don't matter to the vast majority of people. The 27" iMac is a better value proposition because you get a 27" IPS screen included worth $1000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I wouldn't expect the next dual core to equate to the current quad in performance. I think that's a bit optimistic.
Performance doubles every 2 years so about 50% every year. Right now, the quad is 30-50% faster than the dual-core so Ivy Bridge dual-cores will match the Sandy Bridge quad i7 and the Radeon 7000 series should double in performance over the current models.
Basically, I expect the Ivy Bridge version of the middle Mac Mini to match the current $2500 Mac Pro in CPU and GPU. With USB 3 and the Thunderbolt port, that should be enough for expansion. I think it's the way to go and while I expect the desire for a mid-range tower to continue on ad nauseam, one day it will stop. If it takes 5 years or even 10 years, one day in the near future, a machine will arrive on the low-end that will put an end to it.
Comments
In simple terms there are few limitation in a Mac Pro when it comes to video cards.
Support and engineering expenses.
I don't know how much truth there is to this but it has been said that Apple develops it's own drivers. If this is the case then they can control expenses by limiting the cards they support.
The problem I have with this idea is that GPU cards are very complex, as such you would need a manufactures involvement. On top of that it looks like things have changed with the move to AMD GPUs. That is there appears to be a greater involvement on AMDs part, but understand that is me reading the tea leaves.
In the end I just don't think Apple wants to support an endless number of video cards. Their arraingement with the GPU suppliers seems to enforce this as you don't see third party cards offered for Apple hardware with drivers independent of Apples.
On the topic of GPUs I've heard all sorts of things regarding who makes the drivers and everything. Apple used to be a smaller company than it is today, so it's always kept things a bit trimmed down. The last mac pro actually got a couple decent card options. Considering the starting price of the mac pro I liked that they went a little bit lenient on the upgrade price for the 5870 card. That card is about a generation behind now. I don't know if we'll see a card currently out or an upcoming one in the next mac pro revision. 2GB of vram has become pretty much the norm in the newer ones. Going over as many tests as I could find it still seems it's further ahead of the 27" imac than I might have expected, but this performance gap isn't going to show up in all applications.
I've accepted that Apple will probably sit on this for now. There's a pretty good chance that they want to see how thunderbolt will play out and if SSD prices drop. If we have the option for two to three faster (newer generatithunderbolt ports (fast enough to displace things like SAS) or more ports and the ability to multilink devices, it could go somewhere. Wizard69 also mentioned PCIe 3.0 based SSD technology which is a really interesting point, and a really solid use of the PCI bus. If you had the pci devices limited to SSD cards and however many lanes dedicated to discreet graphics. If we see more quality designs for thunderbolt products from what used to be pci type devices (here's an example http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...ultrastudio3d/ ) it could be a viable design. Right now a big issue that I can see for power users is that thunderbolt can still throttle disk IO for video editors. With another generation or two this could become less problematic. The big advantage that you'd gain from these kinds of products is that your laptop would be able to hook up to similar devices.
The TDP on the base mac pro isn't that much higher than the imac. The cpu and gpu combined are about 40W higher in total. As for the rest of the machine the ports are fairly comparable. A couple people have mentioned the PCI lanes in the mac pro which require power so overall it probably does have a beefier power supply. You could still collapse it down quite a bit and put those PCI lanes to good use even without leaving things as they are now. I don't really mind thunderbolt. I think we just need the ability to spread out the IO a little rather than have everything shared. With higher bandwidth devices like multi drive enclosures or displays, I'd like to be able to dedicate a single port to the device, without it being the only one on the machine.
In the context of many users on this forum what you get from the Xeon line is virtually worthless. On the other hand as hmm has pointed out, Apple has really cheapened the Mac Pro with some of the lowest end Xeons Intel makes.
Bleh I forgot to respond to this earlier. The G5 was for the most part a dual socket machine. In order to maintain that it meant using Xeons which for the first generation ended up also meaning a very expensive custom ram spec. Over the first few generations they did however inch up the price and lower the budget of parts to be used. 2008 was the first time a single socket configuration was available. The baseline configuration involved 2x quad core processors for $2800, but you could order a single socket configuration with just one of these for $2300. Apple was really sneaky here. With the next hardware generation they changed to a single socket logic board and claimed it started at a lower price when you were really getting the cheapest possible xeon in a version made for single socket boards only (lowering its cost considerably) for $2500 (another price increase). It limited you on ram a little at the time but with the current price of 4GB dimms it's not as big of a deal anymore.
So anyway some xeons enable dual socket configurations which you can't really do with the desktop variants. ECC ram essentially tracks bit flipping. It's not something that happens often and it will not fix multi bit errors. Without ECC ram you don't really have a way of knowing when this happens. It's popular for engineering applications that are absolutely error critical and mission critical servers. Beyond that it's not necessary. ECC ram carries a slight performance penalty but you'd never notice it.
I understand that, but you own one. I'm trying to say that most people that own a mac pro or those who would buy an xmac would own one in addition to that macbook air or pro. Also regarding desktops, I've heard people claim they were on their way out for more than a decade, but the software becomes more resource intensive, and the use is still there.
Right. Sorry if I seemed dismissive, I wasn't trying to be. I own a laptop because it is an intermediate step between camera and desktop that lets me review shots in the field. On a different note, I also teach, so the laptop is useful for recording notes when I'm at the library. However, I think that I may not have a laptop in a few years, because the iPad appears to be capable of performing both functions more than adequately.
I think you're right: the desktop is not dead... yet. The way I see it, desktops will increasingly become a niche market for people who need the extra power/space/whatever: engineers, graphic artists, gamers, etc., and everyone else will switch to portables, tablets, or something similar.
I'm somewhat curious what kind of stuff you shoot now. Photoshop doesn't actually make that much use of the gpu outside of a few functions. It has opengl enabled drawing and leans on it when working with 3d elements and during a few other things. Processing images doesn't seem to use it much in any software package.
It's not so much about software using the gpu as it is about real estate. I have a 27" and a 30" display, and I often work on oversize layouts and images, so it's really a question of being able to see what I'm doing.
In the end I just don't think Apple wants to support an endless number of video cards. Their arraingement with the GPU suppliers seems to enforce this as you don't see third party cards offered for Apple hardware with drivers independent of Apples.
This makes a lot of sense to me- in the past, Apple was very selective with the manufacturers it supported, but also worked very closely with them. As a result, Mac peripherals "just worked"- they were true plug and play- but they also cost more than their PC equivalents.
Well there is no BIOS in the Mac so in the past the GPU cards had to have Apple specific firmware.
Oh, I didn't know this. So it goes back to the point you made above, that Apple is selective with its vendors.
The hard part here is your question about price, for some like me the price isn't worth it. This in part is why I'm gung hoe on XMac, all I really need is an expandable Mac with a decent desktop class processor. I'm not talking expandable like the Mac Pro either, all I want is a couple of slots and storage bays. Note that I dont really want to give up to many cores but right now I know I don't need twelve.
Yes, this is something that would interest me as well; I'm just trying to understand why it's so difficult.
It's not that I have a problem with paying more, it's that I need to have a good reason to do so. As I mentioned earlier, buying any of the current Pro line would be a huge upgrade for me, but once I accept that, it becomes a question of price vs. performance, and as you say, it doesn't seem worth it.
Processor architecture itself is very interesting. Our good friends at AMD are going through a very interesting change to their lineup of hardware. They are taking dramatically different paths than Intel and in some ways outperforming Intel. Bulldozer (a code name for a new AMD core) is dramatically different than Intels latest.
This is interesting, and I love the idea: why not give customers a few more options when it comes to the card you want? Do you work in video? Then card X is for you. Do you work in 3D? Serious gamer? Get card Y. As Apple already knows, customers like to have the ability to customize their order; it only makes sense that the Pro line, because it caters to users with very specific needs, should have a few more options than the rest.
But, as you suggest above, it all depends on whether Apple decides to support it. Since I don't know what kind of investment Apple would have to make, it's impossible for me to say whether it's something they should do.
as hmm has pointed out, Apple has really cheapened the Mac Pro with some of the lowest end Xeons Intel makes. People might argue with this point but right now you are paying first class rates in exchange for steerage class accommodations. I still believe that Mac Pros incredible bad value is the result of poor sales. Apples laptops, Minis and IMacs aren't that bad of a value, the mac Pro on the other hand is a joke value wise.
On the other hand, we should consider the possibility that the current line is too specific.
Consider: not counting the server, the Mac Pro line offers eight options for cpus. Of those eight, four have 12 cores, one has 8 cores, one has 6 cores, and two have 4 cores. Now, only a few programs will take full advantage of 12 cores, so for the rest of us, anything more than 8 (or even 6) is a waste: we'll see no difference (and in a few cases,even lower performance).
In other words, half of the entire Mac Pro line caters only to a select portion of the users who need the Pro's power. As for the other half of the line, only two of those models (the 6-core and dual quad-core Westmeres) outperform the i7 iMac- which also comes with a high-quality display and yet still costs at least $200 less.
So, when it comes down to the wire, the Mac Pro line really only offers two choices to the majority of people who use them, and when those choices are compared with other options, such as the i7 iMac or a tricked-out Mini, the Pros simply don't stand out as a good value.
We know that the 6-core Westmere is by far the best-selling option of the entire line. That alone should tell Apple something: they are neglecting the lower end of the high-end user spectrum. The demand is out there, but the majority of the line offers too much of the wrong thing.
Right. Sorry if I seemed dismissive, I wasn't trying to be. I own a laptop because it is an intermediate step between camera and desktop that lets me review shots in the field. On a different note, I also teach, so the laptop is useful for recording notes when I'm at the library. However, I think that I may not have a laptop in a few years, because the iPad appears to be capable of performing both functions more than adequately.
I think you're right: the desktop is not dead... yet. The way I see it, desktops will increasingly become a niche market for people who need the extra power/space/whatever: engineers, graphic artists, gamers, etc., and everyone else will switch to portables, tablets, or something similar.
It may be that we'll see an increasing reliance on macbook air or ipad like machines when on the go. Smart phones like the iphone have been pushing things in this direction too. Essentially devices like this go beyond portable to the point where they require very little effort to transport and of course battery life has been improving. The air is becoming like a mobile phone where you just put it in the charger at the end of the day.
I'm not totally sure on this but if people do start to replace their laptops with tablets, we may see some users end up owning an ipad + a desktop and foregoing the laptop completely. It could go any number of ways but I'm thinking of people who need functions beyond web browsing and basic office applications.
It's not so much about software using the gpu as it is about real estate. I have a 27" and a 30" display, and I often work on oversize layouts and images, so it's really a question of being able to see what I'm doing.
I was going from the fact that you ordered an upgraded graphics card last time. Unless I'm mistaken the basic stock graphics cards are capable of refreshing both of those displays without any kind of banding. I have no idea if that is beyond the capability of the imac (I know one of them would work fine).
This is interesting, and I love the idea: why not give customers a few more options when it comes to the card you want? Do you work in video? Then card X is for you. Do you work in 3D? Serious gamer? Get card Y. As Apple already knows, customers like to have the ability to customize their order; it only makes sense that the Pro line, because it caters to users with very specific needs, should have a few more options than the rest.
Ehhhh...hmmm how to explain this... Well on the PC end you have your typical graphics cards which tend to be optimized toward gaming. Then you have workstation card options. These often employ the same or similar hardware unless you're talking about the most expensive ones which are often several thousand. The drivers (and possibly firmware) are different in that they tend to be optimized for for modeling/animation applications. With some applications these workstation cards don't necessarily do a better job. You're best off searching for information before buying. On the mac end the only workstation cards we've seen have been quadros, and for the most part they haven't been well supported. They provided some decent options the last couple rounds. I'm not sure what we'll see with the next revision.
We know that the 6-core Westmere is by far the best-selling option of the entire line. That alone should tell Apple something: they are neglecting the lower end of the high-end user spectrum. The demand is out there, but the majority of the line offers too much of the wrong thing.
I actually didn't know that. Where did you find this info? I know the hexacore model was well reviewed on a number of sites, but I would've thought the pricing would turn a lot of people off. I think I'd research its use in specific applications before dropping that much. The thing that sucks with the Apple store is even though I found out you can apparently install applications to test them there, those machines remain stuck with stock ram. It seems like it would make it more difficult to gauge the performance vs. the quad machines. The problem solving you present to each machine would need to be heavy in computations yet small enough that it wouldn't generate a lot of pageouts.
I'm not totally sure on this but if people do start to replace their laptops with tablets, we may see some users end up owning an ipad + a desktop and foregoing the laptop completely. It could go any number of ways but I'm thinking of people who need functions beyond web browsing and basic office applications.
Yes, I think this will happen, too- at least for me. I also think there are people who will use laptop + tablet combos, with the laptop taking the place of the desktop at home.
Unless I'm mistaken the basic stock graphics cards are capable of refreshing both of those displays without any kind of banding.
This is true, but there are other considerations as well: first, I'm not interested in the bare minimum, and two large monitors at highest resolution is pushing the limit- the ability to a second card therefore represents an option to do more, and do it more quickly. Second, I have other interests as well- I mess around with 3D, watch the occasional video, even play games from time to time. Again, having a second card means I'm able to do these things without the performance suffering.
1. MacBook Pro
2. iMac
3. Magic Trackpad
4. Mac Mini
5. Mac Pro
Interestingly missing are the MacBook Airs. The Mac Pro hasn't been on the list recently... could there have been a huge buy from someone? I noticed the refurbed 2010 Mac Pros were out of stock.
I was looking at the Apple site and saw under the "best selling Mac" tab...
1. MacBook Pro
2. iMac
3. Magic Trackpad
4. Mac Mini
5. Mac Pro
Interestingly missing are the MacBook Airs. The Mac Pro hasn't been on the list recently... could there have been a huge buy from someone? I noticed the refurbed 2010 Mac Pros were out of stock.
It's possible. I wouldn't trust that list without knowing how it was compiled. I would find it difficult to believe that the macbook air would be out of the top five and beaten out by the mac pro and mini in terms of volume. It wouldn't make sense, but I guess it also depends on how this data was compiled. It might sound cut and dry but do they reset it with product transitions? Is the data replaced daily? weekly? monthly? How is it averaged out overall? Obviously these things tend to rise and fall based on seasonal factors and refresh cycles, but it's just simply weird not to see the Air on there. It can be a really nice machine for lighter computing. It's not so great for games, but it's adequate for a pretty wide range of stuff. Even graphics applications run well enough on it up to a certain file size. The smaller hard drive isn't ideal for anything that generates a massive pagefile. Oh and the refurb site is all over the place. Mac pros are a lower volume machine with a fairly low failure rate, so not that many show up there. Most of the time it seems to be current generation returns.
It's possible. I wouldn't trust that list without knowing how it was compiled.
I think it reflects the online stores sales. However I'm not surprised at all that the AIRs aren't on the list. AIRs certainly attract early adopters, but even the most recent models have limitations that some userscant accept.
I would find it difficult to believe that the macbook air would be out of the top five and beaten out by the mac pro and mini in terms of volume. It wouldn't make sense, but I guess it also depends on how this data was compiled.
AIRs being very portable can move through various other channels. As you note it isn't clear how the list is compiled, but in the past I've found that over time it can give you a sense of what is selling well. You certainly don't want to take data from any one week and make decisions on it.
It might sound cut and dry but do they reset it with product transitions? Is the data replaced daily? weekly? monthly? How is it averaged out overall? Obviously these things tend to rise and fall based on seasonal factors and refresh cycles, but it's just simply weird not to see the Air on there.
Even more interesting is that the old Mac Book showed up often on the list. The thing here is a simple corporate buy could significantly shift these numbers.
It can be a really nice machine for lighter computing. It's not so great for games, but it's adequate for a pretty wide range of stuff. Even graphics applications run well enough on it up to a certain file size. The smaller hard drive isn't ideal for anything that generates a massive pagefile. Oh and the refurb site is all over the place. Mac pros are a lower volume machine with a fairly low failure rate, so not that many show up there. Most of the time it seems to be current generation returns.
One thing people seem to mis out on is the idea that those extra CPUs can be used effectively for multiprocessing/multitasking. With a Mac Pro it is easy to fire off a long running job and still have a usable machine. Laptops certainly don't handle such usage well. The point is even if your favorite software can only max out four cores an six or eight core machine can still be an advantage.
Yes, I think this will happen, too- at least for me. I also think there are people who will use laptop + tablet combos, with the laptop taking the place of the desktop at home.
I've been using my iPad more and more but it comes up short currently. To really get the versatility that I'd like the iPad needs an easy to use USB port. I know this causes some to get a bit excited but I don't think many grasp how important ports are to technical users.
This is true, but there are other considerations as well: first, I'm not interested in the bare minimum, and two large monitors at highest resolution is pushing the limit- the ability to a second card therefore represents an option to do more, and do it more quickly. Second, I have other interests as well- I mess around with 3D, watch the occasional video, even play games from time to time. Again, having a second card means I'm able to do these things without the performance suffering.
On the topic of GPUs I've heard all sorts of things regarding who makes the drivers and everything. Apple used to be a smaller company than it is today, so it's always kept things a bit trimmed down. The last mac pro actually got a couple decent card options. Considering the starting price of the mac pro I liked that they went a little bit lenient on the upgrade price for the 5870 card. That card is about a generation behind now.
Still a decent performer though. At the start of this reply I had this thought that Apples next Mac Pro revision is waiting on AMDs newest GPUs to come out.
I don't know if we'll see a card currently out or an upcoming one in the next mac pro revision. 2GB of vram has become pretty much the norm in the newer ones. Going over as many tests as I could find it still seems it's further ahead of the 27" imac than I might have expected, but this performance gap isn't going to show up in all applications.
You would expect that performance gap to show up in all apps. Not all of your apps are GPU bound.
I've accepted that Apple will probably sit on this for now. There's a pretty good chance that they want to see how thunderbolt will play out and if SSD prices drop. If we have the option for two to three faster (newer generatithunderbolt ports (fast enough to displace things like SAS) or more ports and the ability to multilink devices, it could go somewhere. Wizard69 also mentioned PCIe 3.0 based SSD technology which is a really interesting point, and a really solid use of the PCI bus. If you had the pci devices limited to SSD cards and however many lanes dedicated to discreet graphics. If we see more quality designs for thunderbolt products from what used to be pci type devices (here's an example http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...ultrastudio3d/ ) it could be a viable design. Right now a big issue that I can see for power users is that thunderbolt can still throttle disk IO for video editors. With another generation or two this could become less problematic. The big advantage that you'd gain from these kinds of products is that your laptop would be able to hook up to similar devices.
The problem with the "you don't need slots" people is that they said that about USB, FireWire and a host of other ports. I dont dismis the need for USB and even TB but I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss PCI-Express slots. Slots solve an entirely different set of problems.
The TDP on the base mac pro isn't that much higher than the imac. The cpu and gpu combined are about 40W higher in total. As for the rest of the machine the ports are fairly comparable. A couple people have mentioned the PCI lanes in the mac pro which require power so overall it probably does have a beefier power supply. You could still collapse it down quite a bit and put those PCI lanes to good use even without leaving things as they are now. I don't really mind thunderbolt.
Neither do I, I think it is great technology. However a TB port simply isn't capable of reaching PCI express speeds.
I think we just need the ability to spread out the IO a little rather than have everything shared. With higher bandwidth devices like multi drive enclosures or displays, I'd like to be able to dedicate a single port to the device, without it being the only one on the machine.
The whole problem with Apple and their Macs is that that means an iMac. That is to get a machine with what I call midrange performance in an affordable desktop. All in ones aren't my cup of tea though so I'm screwed. As are many of us that want something that is a step up from the Minis.
Same here. Too many limitations with an iMac. So it is either settle for the mini which is less than I want or go overkill in size and price and get a Mac Pro.
You would expect that performance gap to show up in all apps. Not all of your apps are GPU bound.
Even things like photoshop (I use it because it's an easy generic example) didn't use the gpu to redraw images until CS4 came out. That was maybe 2008? Even then it was barely noticeable. We're starting to see more and more stuff lean on the gpu, but it really varies from application to application.
The problem with the "you don't need slots" people is that they said that about USB, FireWire and a host of other ports. I dont dismis the need for USB and even TB but I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss PCI-Express slots. Slots solve an entirely different set of problems.
You already know I'm not really one of those people. Intel seems to have plans to increase its bandwidth, but I don't know how fast that'll happen anyway. The current design for as large as it is, isn't really that ideal. Hard drives and pci cards get some significantly uneven temperatures which has always annoyed me. If they built the mini outward a bit though and put in all desktop parts (except for maybe an SSD drive), I would probably buy one. If Apple surprise with a nicer update than expected on the mac pro, I will definitely buy one
Cinebench doesn't always give an accurate look at performance in real applications as it can't really track the use of core utilization or gpu leveraging (mostly thinking of things like rendering video here).
They have a single-core benchmark and a GPU benchmark as well as multi-core.
The imac is a lot of resolution to cover with a mobile graphics chip for something like gaming as it renders on the fly (I'm not a gamer but I know the logistics of it).
The highest-end mobile GPUs outperform some of the high-end desktop GPUs. The 6990M should outperform the desktop 5770 in the Mac Pro. Mobile just means it fits in a certain thermal limit.
Consider an Ivy Bridge Mac Mini. No thermal issues as Intel has cut the power draw in half with better performance. This means Mac Pro performance in the quad i7 with enough room to allow a 28nm AMD 7000-series GPU too. Throw in a 256GB SSD and plug in a Thunderbolt or USB 3 drive/RAID and what more do you need from a mid-range machine? This is under $1000 and fits in your hand as well as being one of the nicest looking Macs and most reliable.
No, it won't be on par with a mid-range tower but it's not going to be significantly slower either so it's all Apple needs to do.
Even things like photoshop (I use it because it's an easy generic example) didn't use the gpu to redraw images until CS4 came out. That was maybe 2008? Even then it was barely noticeable. We're starting to see more and more stuff lean on the gpu, but it really varies from application to application.
I probably didn't get my point across well in that statement. What I was trying to get at is the expectations that some have that GPU usage should lead to massive performance increases. It can for a minute set of problems but the user shouldn't expect that for every package they run. That variance from app to app is not always something that can be over comed.
You already know I'm not really one of those people. Intel seems to have plans to increase its bandwidth, but I don't know how fast that'll happen anyway.
I really haven't tracked Intels chips much over the last couple of years, but Hardmac seems to believe the coming machines are going to be very nice. My goal isn't another Mac Pro class machine, at least not at the expense/performance ratios of the current machines.
The current design for as large as it is, isn't really that ideal. Hard drives and pci cards get some significantly uneven temperatures which has always annoyed me.
Yeah I've had people try to tell me what a great thermal design the Mac Pro is. The Mini is actually a great thermal design, I especially find the current design interesting. The Mini however is not a XMac nor Mac Pro class machine.
In a XMac class machine I suspect that minimizing the number of slots would vastly increase the ability to cool hardware in those slots. The big problem with PCI-Express in a PC card format is that the system can't really cool the cards like a rack based system.
If they built the mini outward a bit though and put in all desktop parts (except for maybe an SSD drive), I would probably buy one.
Actually I'm very tempted to buy one. Adding the GPU to the one version has made it a far more desirable machine. I still think Apple screwed that machine by adding to little GPU RAM though. I have nothing against a low end Mini but if I'm going to go up scale at least give me something for it!! As it is I'm out of the market for a computer this year anyways, this actually might be a good thing as an Ivy Bridge Mini might be very compelling.
Your idea with building the Mini outward is interesting. Frankly they don't need to even use PC card format PCI-Express cards, there are a number of very useful card format standards that could work well in a Mini. Obviously this wouldn't go over well with the mainstream PC / desktop world but let's face it the PC card format has been around a long long long time. These days ports, I/O cards, even low end video cards can be had extremely compact. Somedays I wish Apple would adopt a mid way standard like Compact PCI.
If Apple surprise with a nicer update than expected on the mac pro, I will definitely buy one
In one word AMD. I suspect they have serious concerns about AMDs Bulldozer based chips and want to be able to develop a clear communications regime to compete with Bulldozer. Bulldozer has some very interesting approaches that should allow it to perform really well in certain workloads. I suspect that Intel wants to be able to address that in their marketing. They might also be trying to hit much higher clock rates as a result of AMDs chips.
They should at least have healthy margins on some of those, so it seems a bit odd.
Margins mean little if you can't successfully market your chips. Right now I suspect that everyone is having problems moving hardware for servers and such into corporate America. It isn't just that the economy sucks, which is a big issue, but there is a real feeling that the industry is in transition. Who in their right mind would invest in IT infrastructure with product from HP or Dell? I can actually see a transition back to Sun/Oracle or IBM hardware in data centers, probably running UNIX too. Building IT infrastructure on commodity hardware is proving to be a shaky way run the back office unless you have the will to do much of the work yourself. In the end I think Intel is being cautious, maybe excessively so, but not without multiple reasons. AMD literally has nothing to loose. I think the question to ask is if you need data center hardware, and you where looking at i86 who would you select as a vendor. A vendor you would hope would be around in 5 years.
They have a single-core benchmark and a GPU benchmark as well as multi-core.
The highest-end mobile GPUs outperform some of the high-end desktop GPUs. The 6990M should outperform the desktop 5770 in the Mac Pro. Mobile just means it fits in a certain thermal limit.
At a given process node though more power generally means better performance.
Consider an Ivy Bridge Mac Mini. No thermal issues as Intel has cut the power draw in half with better performance. This means Mac Pro performance in the quad i7 with enough room to allow a 28nm AMD 7000-series GPU too.
Yes it almost makes me glad I'm not in the Mac Market this year. The problem isn't the chips though it is what Apple does with them. If they went out and designed a Mini with true midrange performance, for the technology of the time it would be great. However Apples history here sucks. I don't mind the low end Mini but if I'm to pay extra for a high end machine let's really make it a mid range machine. Apple doesn't do this apparently castrating the Mini on purpose. That would be fine if they had a desktop machine (not an iMac) that sat between the Mini and the Mac Pro.
Throw in a 256GB SSD and plug in a Thunderbolt or USB 3 drive/RAID and what more do you need from a mid-range machine?
Depending upon who you are and your needs, any of the following:
- Slots for expansion cards.
- Slots for RAM. Note we are talking midrange here, so three slots for a triple channel machine would do fine. The Mini is problematic for RAM expansion beyond a minimal limit.
- Drive bays / Storage expansion slots. I'm actually looking forward to the day solid state storage comes on plug in cards.
- Redundant power supplies. If Apple keeps trying to pass off it's machines as servers this should make sense.
Further note that none of these wants require a Mac Pro sized machine.This is under $1000 and fits in your hand as well as being one of the nicest looking Macs and most reliable.
It isn't always about looks though. For me the Mac Pro is ghastly but that doesn't stop sales. Reliable I don't know about, but that is an issue of design.
No, it won't be on par with a mid-range tower but it's not going to be significantly slower either so it's all Apple needs to do.
Actually though the Mini is always significantly slower. This isn't a huge problem as low end machines are always needed. The problem is the massive capability gap between the Mini and the Pro. The gap can't be dismissed reasonably. Capability isn't always about speed though, which is what a lot of people mis in this discussion.
They have a single-core benchmark and a GPU benchmark as well as multi-core.
The highest-end mobile GPUs outperform some of the high-end desktop GPUs. The 6990M should outperform the desktop 5770 in the Mac Pro. Mobile just means it fits in a certain thermal limit.
Consider an Ivy Bridge Mac Mini. No thermal issues as Intel has cut the power draw in half with better performance. This means Mac Pro performance in the quad i7 with enough room to allow a 28nm AMD 7000-series GPU too. Throw in a 256GB SSD and plug in a Thunderbolt or USB 3 drive/RAID and what more do you need from a mid-range machine? This is under $1000 and fits in your hand as well as being one of the nicest looking Macs and most reliable.
No, it won't be on par with a mid-range tower but it's not going to be significantly slower either so it's all Apple needs to do.
The quad core machine actually starts at $1000 sadly, and really plenty of single applications make solid use of four cores. On GPUs I'm having a slightly difficult time finding as many comprehensive tests as I'd like. Barefeats has a gaming comparison which isn't completely relevant, but games do rely pretty heavily on the GPU. Their results suggested that the 5870 was still ahead of the 2GB VRAM version of the Radeon 6970M. All of their tests performed better under Windows 7 than OSX but that's unsurprising because the games they test are probably built to run under Windows and then ported to OSX.
If they brought out a mini with two thunderbolt ports, usb3, and decent discreet graphics (with at least 1-2 GB of dedicated VRAM) I might take the machine seriously. It's still a bit throttled on ram but I don't know. You think they'll put a quad core and discreet graphics in at the current pricing structure (even considering that they don't even bundle a keyboard and mouse with those models)? I think it'll probably get shot down because it would lower their margins on the machine or bump the price into imac territory.
The comment about all Apple really needs to do just relates to the fact that to run OSX we don't really have other options. Anyway since when are the Apple keynotes about doing just enough? I'm not trying to twist your words around here, but I think it's a poor mentality to get stuck on, and it's the same reason you often hear people spite companies like Adobe.
Apple doesn't do this apparently castrating the Mini on purpose.
They fit everything inside a 45W limit (used to be 35W with the optical in there). Over time, this limit will contain more and more to the point that everyone is satisfied with it and Ivy Bridge will be the first big development that highlights this.
Slots for expansion cards.
I'm still behind Thunderbolt on this one.
The Mini is problematic for RAM expansion beyond a minimal limit.
I wouldn't call 8GB a minimum but a 3rd slot wouldn't go amiss.
Actually though the Mini is always significantly slower.
It depends what you call significant. The quad i7 Mini is at most 30% slower than the high-end iMac. We know the GPU is significantly lower but as I say, the Ivy Bridge development should help here.
If they brought out a mini with two thunderbolt ports, usb3, and decent discreet graphics (with at least 1-2 GB of dedicated VRAM) I might take the machine seriously. It's still a bit throttled on ram but I don't know. You think they'll put a quad core and discreet graphics in at the current pricing structure (even considering that they don't even bundle a keyboard and mouse with those models)?
I don't know if they'd put a dedicated GPU in the server model but even if they didn't, the middle model with Ivy Bridge will match the current i7.
I think it's good that they keep HDMI on there too. I'd personally be happy with a dual-core i7 that performed the same as this year's quad i7 combined with a 512MB Radeon 7000-series GPU and USB 3. With a 3rd party SSD, it will be a very fast machine.
If you have a set of tasks that constantly demand the highest performance then the mid-range is not suitable. If you have a set of performance goals that have a minimum requirement, the Mini should have already surpassed them and year after year, it will keep getting better until you don't even care about it.
They fit everything inside a 45W limit (used to be 35W with the optical in there). Over time, this limit will contain more and more to the point that everyone is satisfied with it and Ivy Bridge will be the first big development that highlights this.
I'm well aware of Ivy Bridge. However you mis my point, unless Apple has a change of heart, the Mini will always be a low performance machine relative to any other hardware available at the time. Beyond that there is more to user satisfaction than just the raw CPU performance. The Mini can't and never will satisfy everyone.
I'm still behind Thunderbolt on this one.
Thunderbolt has it's place but it is by no means a replacement for slots in a desktop machine.
I wouldn't call 8GB a minimum but a 3rd slot wouldn't go amiss.
Well I never really thought that 2GB would be too little on my old MBP. However it has become very painful just trying to run Apples software.
It depends what you call significant. The quad i7 Mini is at most 30% slower than the high-end iMac. We know the GPU is significantly lower but as I say, the Ivy Bridge development should help here.
note that you are comparing old technology to new here. Further I suspect you are being very selective about how you arrive at that 30% differential. All you really need is a pattern of usage that loads all of those cores in a Mini which really isn't that hard to do these days. My old MBP displays significant performance problems just trying to run XCode and Safari at the same time. Part of that is the need for more RAM, but today's software may incorporate many threads and even secondary processes. I've seen significant performance issues doing what should be simple tasks.
So when looking at a desktop machine what is important to me. Well number one is the ability to easily expand RAM, as this is critical to the long term viability of the platform. Ideally RAM expansion can be done without wasting the current installed RAM. The second thing is a surplus of cores to avoid running out of performance one OS update down the road. Closely ranked to item two is the ability to add significant amounts of internal secondary storage. The common theme here is buying hardware that isn't immediately obsolete, and provides better than low end performance out of the box.
In that regard the Mini simply comes up short. In many cases it comes up short by design. For example they have a nice quad core unit that could have been very desirable if they had continued with the discreet GPU offering from the middle of the road machine. Nope, instead they decided to call it a server and delete the discreet GPU. Maybe that was due to a issue with the power budget, I really don't know, but it takes the machine out of the running for many of us. And NO Ivy Bridge won't fix that.
I don't know if they'd put a dedicated GPU in the server model but even if they didn't, the middle model with Ivy Bridge will match the current i7.
Is that a surprise? I mean by that tomorrow's low end hardware matching the performance of yesterdays higher end hardware. I do think you are overly confident in Ivy Bridge and Apples willingness to build a Mini that is something more than bottom end.
I think it's good that they keep HDMI on there too. I'd personally be happy with a dual-core i7 that performed the same as this year's quad i7 combined with a 512MB Radeon 7000-series GPU and USB 3. With a 3rd party SSD, it will be a very fast machine.
HDMI is good. However I suspect you are giving the coming Ivy Bridge CPU more credit than it possibly deserves. For one no matter how fast the dual core chip is it is a step backwards from a quad core. Second by the time they get to a discreet GPU with 512MB of RAM that will be a very outdated configuration. Really think about what you are paying right now to get a 256MB supported GPU in a Mini. It is a joke.
This all come back around to my point made earlier that the Mini is intentionally castrated. It isn't the low end embedded video model that is the problem. Rather it is what you get if you are willing to pay more. Sadly it isn't much and what it is keeps the Mini at the lower end of the performance spectrum. Ivy Bridge simply won't matter if Apple intentionally cripples the machine.
If you have a set of tasks that constantly demand the highest performance then the mid-range is not suitable. If you have a set of performance goals that have a minimum requirement, the Mini should have already surpassed them and year after year, it will keep getting better until you don't even care about it.
That is a very self serving statement. Basically you are trying to say that if one can't use the Mini buy the Mac Pro. A good portion of this thread though highlights why that is a terrible idea. The gap between the Mini and the Pro is a lot wider than you seem willing to acknowledge.
As to performance getting better and better, again no big surprise here. Mind you some of my first computers where eight bit devices. In every case the old computers went away for one reason - performance. The Comodore went away as did my Heatkit, my Mac Plus, my series of homebuilt Linux machines and now my MBP has serious issues running today's software. The only real difference these days is that you do have the option of buying hardware that lasts a bit longer than they did in the past. That requires buying smart though. These days that means a minimal system is a quad core with a discreet GPU and the ability to easily upgrade the installed memory. Note carefully I say "minimal system", I can make a very good argument that even quad cores are not enough if you want the system to last through a couple of software iterations.
To put it plainly I'm not willing any more to update hardware constantly. There was a time when doing so every six months to a year was not unheard of. I'm not willing to play that game anymore. So what we have in the Mini is a machine where it becomes obsolete to fast and an unwillingness on Apples part to offer a version that addresses that. Sadly this looks to be intentional on Apples part.
The XMac desire is just a way to express dissatisfaction with Apples rigging the market.
To put it plainly I'm not willing any more to update hardware constantly. There was a time when doing so every six months to a year was not unheard of. I'm not willing to play that game anymore. So what we have in the Mini is a machine where it becomes obsolete to fast and an unwillingness on Apples part to offer a version that addresses that. Sadly this looks to be intentional on Apples part.
The XMac desire is just a way to express dissatisfaction with Apples rigging the market.
I've always thought so. It's kind of the Apple way. They build whatever they want and if you require a slightly better feature set, you're locked into a very high minimum sale even if it's something that's very common/mainstream in hardware terms. It's not that everything has to remain like the mac pro forever, but it annoys me that they'd make a new desktop line then intentionally throttle it. This has been the case ever since it was the G4 mini.
They fit everything inside a 45W limit (used to be 35W with the optical in there). Over time, this limit will contain more and more to the point that everyone is satisfied with it and Ivy Bridge will be the first big development that highlights this.
It looks like a nice evolutionary step, but what everyone wants tends to be a moving target. Today a computer from the 1990s could barely load most websites. My point is that software isn't completely static. The migration toward 64 bit applications also ups the requirements for ram since it's forced to address information in larger chunks.
I'm still behind Thunderbolt on this one.
It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Right now I don't agree with you but for my own purposes it could work if it grew a bit in bandwidth. Having 1 port on a machine for display + data though is just a joke. More panels are coming out with 120Hz refresh rates. Combine that with an external SSD or two and you'll be able to throttle that pretty easily.
I wouldn't call 8GB a minimum but a 3rd slot wouldn't go amiss.
The thing is, even cheap ass Windows machines often have four slots. It's not a high end feature and should not be marketed as such. If the thermal envelope is that tight that could be a reason. They're using laptop parts, so they probably don't want to put in the design time here or figure out how to fit it in. That's the thing I dislike about the mini. It's not actually engineered as a desktop. It's engineered to be as small as possible at the cost of other things.
It depends what you call significant. The quad i7 Mini is at most 30% slower than the high-end iMac. We know the GPU is significantly lower but as I say, the Ivy Bridge development should help here.
I'd have to test this myself. Barefeats put it all over the board. Some of their tests show some homogenized performance among the line, but mostly those dealing with smaller problem sizes. It fell way behind on gaming no matter what model you viewed.
http://barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
http://barefeats.com/aper313.html
Their testing methods aren't always 100% perfect but it's hard to find as much data as I'd like. The point was to get reasonable performance even against the laptops you need to go with at least the mini server, but then you're back to integrated graphics and still only have a single thunderbolt port.
I don't know if they'd put a dedicated GPU in the server model but even if they didn't, the middle model with Ivy Bridge will match the current i7.
I think it's good that they keep HDMI on there too. I'd personally be happy with a dual-core i7 that performed the same as this year's quad i7 combined with a 512MB Radeon 7000-series GPU and USB 3. With a 3rd party SSD, it will be a very fast machine.
See I've read words like that before. I'd be happy with this or that. It changes based on what is released. We get faster hardware, more ram, and the programs we run become more resource intensive. It's worked like that for quite a long time. No matter how much you spend on hardware, there will be room for gains. Even what you consider a basic machine appropriate for basic office applications and internet use is a moving target. We have a lot of that on our phones today. Pretty soon any phone that can't run web content as easily as a laptop today will no longer feel acceptable.
I wouldn't expect the next dual core to equate to the current quad in performance. I think that's a bit optimistic. There isn't really hardware they're leaving out due to thermal concerns. If anything it's a cost issue and that's something I hate about a desktop with laptop hardware. You get the performance/cost factors of a laptop in a stationary form factor (like a desktop). I can honestly say I hate their product offerings at the moment. It's like each of them is missing something. The mac pro is probably the best overall choice for me, but the price to performance ratio is quite off there. If they replaced that machine in a month or two with a truly updated model, people would call it an old machine even if it was the most recent just a day or a week previous to the statement.
One more thing (I used that phrase long before I heard Steve say it) even the ipad and iphone have dual core processors these days. Quad is basically the norm for desktop computing. It's not exactly a high end feature. I'm trying to think of something more to add here to make the discussion interesting, but it seems we're just at odds on a lot of these points.
Maybe that was due to a issue with the power budget, I really don't know, but it takes the machine out of the running for many of us. And NO Ivy Bridge won't fix that.
Ivy Bridge can fix it quite easily. If they drop the power usage of the quad down to say 30W, they can get a Radeon GPU in there.
For one no matter how fast the dual core chip is it is a step backwards from a quad core.
They are all hyper-threaded now so dual-cores perform very well in multi-core tasks.
So what we have in the Mini is a machine where it becomes obsolete to fast
All machines become obsolete too fast. If you bought a quad-core Mac Pro in 2009, it's already being outperformed by the quad-core Mini. That's 2 years for the Pro to drop to what you'd call 'entry-level'.
So when looking at a desktop machine what is important to me.
Everything it seems. You want lots of internal storage, fast processors, fast GPU, more RAM slots, PCI expansion slots - you basically want a cheaper Mac Pro and if they put one on sale, you'd still want an extra power supply.
You can't get it all and still have it affordable because it has to sell in volume and the things that matter to you don't matter to the vast majority of people. The 27" iMac is a better value proposition because you get a 27" IPS screen included worth $1000.
I wouldn't expect the next dual core to equate to the current quad in performance. I think that's a bit optimistic.
Performance doubles every 2 years so about 50% every year. Right now, the quad is 30-50% faster than the dual-core so Ivy Bridge dual-cores will match the Sandy Bridge quad i7 and the Radeon 7000 series should double in performance over the current models.
Basically, I expect the Ivy Bridge version of the middle Mac Mini to match the current $2500 Mac Pro in CPU and GPU. With USB 3 and the Thunderbolt port, that should be enough for expansion. I think it's the way to go and while I expect the desire for a mid-range tower to continue on ad nauseam, one day it will stop. If it takes 5 years or even 10 years, one day in the near future, a machine will arrive on the low-end that will put an end to it.