So you are looking at four RAM slots vs. two and as far as the GPU we are looking at the 7750, 7770, 7850, and 7870 mobile versions right similar to the iMac
So you are looking at four RAM slots vs. two and as far as the GPU we are looking at the 7750, 7770, 7850, and 7870 mobile versions right similar to the iMac
Yes four RAM slots would be ideal. That way expansion is affordable for those that need it.
As far as the GPU goes I'm not convinced that a "mobile" version is needed though it might make sense. The idea here is to hit a bit better than the performance maximum considering current GPU technology. That is take everything offered up as Southern Islands and pick a mid range GPU. If that means a mobile processor then go that route, if not a desktop chip may be in order. Power is of course a concern but these modern GPUs have very competitive power profiles when you ignore the high end models. In general though I don't see mobile GPUS as what is really needed in this model
Im still concerned that Apple will just debut new machines with little effort put into moving the hardware foreword. The interesting part is that the rumors of a retina iMac sort of imply a huge jump in GPU processing capability there. Frankly That could mean top end mobile chips for the iMac. So in this scenario the XMac/new Mini could still lag the iMac a bit in performance of the GPU. What we need to get with such a machine is far better of a delta between the base model Mini and this guy, a solid 4X difference in OpenGL performance would be nice.
Ah I thought Southern Islands was a mobile line? It isn't?
It is a whole new architecture for AMD GPUs. A very interesting one in fact and a very interesting OpenCL platform. I'm still wondering why Apple ditched AMD, the switch back to NVidia seems fishy to me.
If I had to venture a guess, I think it's all money. I am willing to bet that nVidia paid Apple a sizable sum for them to use their graphics cards.
More likely that apple wanted a powerful but efficient chip and nVidia offered it at an extremely competitive rate. Plus it seemed nVidia finally was able to mass produce their 28nm keplers (I know there was manufacturing issues going on there).
I think things need to be switched up anyway. I don't want only nVidia to be making chips nor do I just want AMD to make chips. I want whoever makes the best chips for the time.
You make a good point about "competitive rate" though.
I think things need to be switched up anyway. I don't want only nVidia to be making chips nor do I just want AMD to make chips. I want whoever makes the best chips for the time.
You make a good point about "competitive rate" though.
There are real technical issues to Apples constant swapping of GPU vendors. For one Apples drivers suck! It is pretty pathetic when you realize that some drivers for Linux actually perform better than Apples drivers for Mac OS.
As to the best chips that would likely lead to an extended discussion. However I think it is fair to say that AMD has little to worry about when looking at NVidia's newest hardware. The reality is NVidia just barely caught up to what is now old AMD hardware.
There are real technical issues to Apples constant swapping of GPU vendors. For one Apples drivers suck! It is pretty pathetic when you realize that some drivers for Linux actually perform better than Apples drivers for Mac OS.
As to the best chips that would likely lead to an extended discussion. However I think it is fair to say that AMD has little to worry about when looking at NVidia's newest hardware. The reality is NVidia just barely caught up to what is now old AMD hardware.
Do you think Apple will use AMD in any of their upcoming computers or is it a full nVidia switch for the near future?
Do you think Apple will use AMD in any of their upcoming computers or is it a full nVidia switch for the near future?
There's no way to tell. AMD's drivers aren't perfect, but they actually lack some of their known Windows side problems under OSX. Overall the flip flopping does suck, yet whenever Apple changes something people generally blame developers for not supporting it that day.
Do you think Apple will use AMD in any of their upcoming computers or is it a full nVidia switch for the near future?
I don't know. Like I said before this move (to NVidia) is a mystery. I would hope that it isn't across the board. Frankly I'd like to see a Mini built around AMDs Fusion CPUs. As far as discrete GPUs go, I really don't see an advantage with respect to NVidia.
That being said Apple does like the idea of minimizing suppliers. Also what seems to be really interesting is that Apple didn't even bother to upgrade the GPU in the Mac Pro. This seem to indicate a severe falling out with AMD as drivers where on their way.
It is far too expensive for the performance you get out of it. Think about it, the Mini has never been a performance power house. This is no surprise for the entry level model but as you go up in performance the Mini actually becomes a worst value. This compared to Apples own laptops, looking towards more conventional desktops the value equation that is the Mini just gets worst.
In any event it is embarrassing to own because of what you pay for what you get.
You'll have to define "performance" but for the moment lets just use the geekbench score since it's easy to compare bang for the buck.
$899 Mid 2011 mini 2.7 Ghz i7 = 6725 score = $0.13 per point
i7 mini + $300 = $0.17 per point
$999 Mid 2011 mini 2.0 Ghz quad i7 = 8522 score = $0.11 per point
mini server + $300 = $0.15 per point
$1999 Early 2011 13" MBP = 6046 score = $0.33 per point
$1199 Mid 2011 iMac 21.5 2.5Ghz i5 = 7217 score = $0.16 per point
$1499 Mid 2011 iMac 21.5 2.7Ghz i5 = 7789 score = $0.19 per point
$1699 Mid 2011 iMac 21.5 2.8Ghz i7 =10093 score = $0.16 per point
So the top end mini + keyboard, mouse and monitor is still about as cost effective as the iMac. And I can easily install a SSD (or 2) in the mini...not so much the iMac.
Obviously if you need more CPU/GPU than the mini can offer then the mini wont work for you but I think these numbers show that the mini is not expensive for the (CPU/Memory) performance you get out of it in comparison to the rest of the Mac lineup.
Thinking about the iPad mini and looking at the Ivy Bridge line... would it be a wise move on Apple's part to make a $300-$350 Mini with a ULV processor?
Thinking about the iPad mini and looking at the Ivy Bridge line... would it be a wise move on Apple's part to make a $300-$350 Mini with a ULV processor?
The entry Mini CPU will cost around $200. For the Mini to go to $299 down from $599 would require a $300 drop, which they probably couldn't do with a CPU change.
Some people used the old $299 Apple TVs as computers and they were used in servers:
They had 1GHz Pentium chips with NVidia 7300 graphics. Intel do sell Pentium/Celeron chips for about $40 that would serve as a basic desktop CPU and Apple could probably build a Mini styled like the current one for $399 but it would be pretty slow.
It might boost sales but it certainly wouldn't offer a good experience and they still wouldn't make much profit on it.
I think the price points they have right now are ok but it would be good if the quad model had a dedicated GPU. They'd have to start pulling more parts out to get the prices any lower, which I'd rather they didn't do.
The 3770T + 640M would make a really nice Mini for $999 but I expect another mobile chip with HD 4000 graphics. I'm actually looking forward to the next iMac more than the Mini because I think the changes will fix a lot of the complaints about it.
rMBP shipping times are still 5-7 days though so the wait goes on.
In the $1499 price range (anywhere from $1299-$1699)
Fills the low end server and workstation niche.
For the light workstation users you do 10GbE to SAN, 1 TB dedicated to external GPU, 1 TB for external processing cards (rocket, tesla, xeon phi, etc). If no SAN then USB3 or TB to local RAID.
For the "micro-server" user you could do redundant 10GbE (using one of the TB ports and a 10GbE adapter) and connect the 2nd TB to a RAID array. What you lack would be redundant power supplies.
For the non-server models pretty much the same except with the Ivy Bridge i5/i7 and a decent GPU in the current price ranges. Maybe drop the 10GbE for the current GigE.
The 2500HD is likely to be the biggest reasons such a machine would fail. For one even though Apple sells the model as a "server" I don't think many are actually using it that way. It is Apples lowest cost quad core machine with many buying it simp,y because of the quad cores. It is an excellent development platform in that regard, especially when coupled with lots of RAM and SSDs.
2 slots for ECC RAM (4GB standard)
There is little reason not to go to 8GB these days, RAM is so cheap it is pathetic.
2 slots for SSD sticks (128GB SSD stick standard)
Yes this is huge, Apple needs to become far more agressive when it comes to putting advanced tech on the desktop.
1x USB 3
3x USB 2
Assuming you can find a Xeon chipset with USB3 support why bother with USB2?
In the $1499 price range (anywhere from $1299-$1699)
Fills the low end server and workstation niche.
Server yes, workstation no. The big problem with the Mini as a workstation has always been the lack of good GPU support on the machine. Now granted Apple is trying to have it both ways with the Mini server but when the bulk of your sales really aren't to "server" users you have to pay attention to the GPU that would mean the best possible integrated GPU possible on a machine like this.
For the light workstation users you do 10GbE to SAN, 1 TB dedicated to external GPU,
You can stop right there, external GPUs over TB are a joke that is to silly to play here.
1 TB for external processing cards (rocket, tesla, xeon phi, etc). If no SAN then USB3 or TB to local RAID.
External processing cards are a different story all together. Frankly it would be interesting to see a Mini with either more TB ports or an Infiniband port. Intel is going Infiniband big time and such an implementation into a Mini like machine would make for a more interesting clustering and compute box solution.
For the "micro-server" user you could do redundant 10GbE (using one of the TB ports and a 10GbE adapter) and connect the 2nd TB to a RAID array. What you lack would be redundant power supplies.
Are redundant power supplies really required? The answer is yes in a high density high power solution such as a large server, but does the Mini (as it currently is) have a high failure rate power supply? I don't really know the answer to that, it is just that I don't see a lot of power supply failures happening for laptops.
For the non-server models pretty much the same except with the Ivy Bridge i5/i7 and a decent GPU in the current price ranges. Maybe drop the 10GbE for the current GigE.
Why not just stay with Ivy Bridge across the platform. You do give up ECC (last I knew) but that isn't a great lost considering the Mini servers intended usage.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
So you are looking at four RAM slots vs. two and as far as the GPU we are looking at the 7750, 7770, 7850, and 7870 mobile versions right similar to the iMac
Yes four RAM slots would be ideal. That way expansion is affordable for those that need it.
As far as the GPU goes I'm not convinced that a "mobile" version is needed though it might make sense. The idea here is to hit a bit better than the performance maximum considering current GPU technology. That is take everything offered up as Southern Islands and pick a mid range GPU. If that means a mobile processor then go that route, if not a desktop chip may be in order. Power is of course a concern but these modern GPUs have very competitive power profiles when you ignore the high end models. In general though I don't see mobile GPUS as what is really needed in this model
Im still concerned that Apple will just debut new machines with little effort put into moving the hardware foreword. The interesting part is that the rumors of a retina iMac sort of imply a huge jump in GPU processing capability there. Frankly That could mean top end mobile chips for the iMac. So in this scenario the XMac/new Mini could still lag the iMac a bit in performance of the GPU. What we need to get with such a machine is far better of a delta between the base model Mini and this guy, a solid 4X difference in OpenGL performance would be nice.
It is a whole new architecture for AMD GPUs. A very interesting one in fact and a very interesting OpenCL platform. I'm still wondering why Apple ditched AMD, the switch back to NVidia seems fishy to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
If I had to venture a guess, I think it's all money. I am willing to bet that nVidia paid Apple a sizable sum for them to use their graphics cards.
More likely that apple wanted a powerful but efficient chip and nVidia offered it at an extremely competitive rate. Plus it seemed nVidia finally was able to mass produce their 28nm keplers (I know there was manufacturing issues going on there).
You make a good point about "competitive rate" though.
There are real technical issues to Apples constant swapping of GPU vendors. For one Apples drivers suck! It is pretty pathetic when you realize that some drivers for Linux actually perform better than Apples drivers for Mac OS.
As to the best chips that would likely lead to an extended discussion. However I think it is fair to say that AMD has little to worry about when looking at NVidia's newest hardware. The reality is NVidia just barely caught up to what is now old AMD hardware.
Do you think Apple will use AMD in any of their upcoming computers or is it a full nVidia switch for the near future?
Originally Posted by Winter
Do you think Apple will use AMD in any of their upcoming computers or is it a full nVidia switch for the near future?
Maybe we'll get one of each in the Mac Pro like we did in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Do you think Apple will use AMD in any of their upcoming computers or is it a full nVidia switch for the near future?
There's no way to tell. AMD's drivers aren't perfect, but they actually lack some of their known Windows side problems under OSX. Overall the flip flopping does suck, yet whenever Apple changes something people generally blame developers for not supporting it that day.
I don't know. Like I said before this move (to NVidia) is a mystery. I would hope that it isn't across the board. Frankly I'd like to see a Mini built around AMDs Fusion CPUs. As far as discrete GPUs go, I really don't see an advantage with respect to NVidia.
That being said Apple does like the idea of minimizing suppliers. Also what seems to be really interesting is that Apple didn't even bother to upgrade the GPU in the Mac Pro. This seem to indicate a severe falling out with AMD as drivers where on their way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It is far too expensive for the performance you get out of it. Think about it, the Mini has never been a performance power house. This is no surprise for the entry level model but as you go up in performance the Mini actually becomes a worst value. This compared to Apples own laptops, looking towards more conventional desktops the value equation that is the Mini just gets worst.
In any event it is embarrassing to own because of what you pay for what you get.
You'll have to define "performance" but for the moment lets just use the geekbench score since it's easy to compare bang for the buck.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
$599 Mid 2011 mini 2.3 Ghz i5 = 5841 score = $0.10 per point
Mini + $300 budget for keyboard, mouse and monitor = $0.15 per point
For reference: Apple keyboard and magic mouse bundle on ebay is $95 buy it now:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Apple-Bluetooth-Wireless-Keyboard-MC184LL-A-and-Magic-Mouse-MB829LL-A-Bundle-/160782069041?pt=Keyboard_Mice_Bundles&hash=item256f5bad31#ht_2586wt_732
LG 23" IPS monitor is $199 on NewEgg (not great, not bad)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005289&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-NA-_-NA
$899 Mid 2011 mini 2.7 Ghz i7 = 6725 score = $0.13 per point
i7 mini + $300 = $0.17 per point
$999 Mid 2011 mini 2.0 Ghz quad i7 = 8522 score = $0.11 per point
mini server + $300 = $0.15 per point
$1999 Early 2011 13" MBP = 6046 score = $0.33 per point
$1199 Mid 2011 iMac 21.5 2.5Ghz i5 = 7217 score = $0.16 per point
$1499 Mid 2011 iMac 21.5 2.7Ghz i5 = 7789 score = $0.19 per point
$1699 Mid 2011 iMac 21.5 2.8Ghz i7 =10093 score = $0.16 per point
So the top end mini + keyboard, mouse and monitor is still about as cost effective as the iMac. And I can easily install a SSD (or 2) in the mini...not so much the iMac.
Obviously if you need more CPU/GPU than the mini can offer then the mini wont work for you but I think these numbers show that the mini is not expensive for the (CPU/Memory) performance you get out of it in comparison to the rest of the Mac lineup.
The entry Mini CPU will cost around $200. For the Mini to go to $299 down from $599 would require a $300 drop, which they probably couldn't do with a CPU change.
Some people used the old $299 Apple TVs as computers and they were used in servers:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1034624/hackers-apple-tv
They had 1GHz Pentium chips with NVidia 7300 graphics. Intel do sell Pentium/Celeron chips for about $40 that would serve as a basic desktop CPU and Apple could probably build a Mini styled like the current one for $399 but it would be pretty slow.
It might boost sales but it certainly wouldn't offer a good experience and they still wouldn't make much profit on it.
I think the price points they have right now are ok but it would be good if the quad model had a dedicated GPU. They'd have to start pulling more parts out to get the prices any lower, which I'd rather they didn't do.
The 3770T + 640M would make a really nice Mini for $999 but I expect another mobile chip with HD 4000 graphics. I'm actually looking forward to the next iMac more than the Mini because I think the changes will fix a lot of the complaints about it.
rMBP shipping times are still 5-7 days though so the wait goes on.
From the other thread but more relevant here.
My wish list for the Mac Mini Server 2012:
2.5Ghz Quad Xeon E3-1265L w/Intel 2500HD
2 slots for ECC RAM (4GB standard)
2 slots for SSD sticks (128GB SSD stick standard)
1x USB 3
3x USB 2
2x TB
1x 10GBase-T
1x HDMI
SDXC card slot
Audio In/Out
1x HDMI
In the $1499 price range (anywhere from $1299-$1699)
Fills the low end server and workstation niche.
For the light workstation users you do 10GbE to SAN, 1 TB dedicated to external GPU, 1 TB for external processing cards (rocket, tesla, xeon phi, etc). If no SAN then USB3 or TB to local RAID.
For the "micro-server" user you could do redundant 10GbE (using one of the TB ports and a 10GbE adapter) and connect the 2nd TB to a RAID array. What you lack would be redundant power supplies.
For the non-server models pretty much the same except with the Ivy Bridge i5/i7 and a decent GPU in the current price ranges. Maybe drop the 10GbE for the current GigE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Why the 2500? Isn't that worse than the 3000?
Yes, but that's what fits within 45W TDP. Good enough for a server tho'
The 2500HD is likely to be the biggest reasons such a machine would fail. For one even though Apple sells the model as a "server" I don't think many are actually using it that way. It is Apples lowest cost quad core machine with many buying it simp,y because of the quad cores. It is an excellent development platform in that regard, especially when coupled with lots of RAM and SSDs. There is little reason not to go to 8GB these days, RAM is so cheap it is pathetic. Yes this is huge, Apple needs to become far more agressive when it comes to putting advanced tech on the desktop. Assuming you can find a Xeon chipset with USB3 support why bother with USB2? Server yes, workstation no. The big problem with the Mini as a workstation has always been the lack of good GPU support on the machine. Now granted Apple is trying to have it both ways with the Mini server but when the bulk of your sales really aren't to "server" users you have to pay attention to the GPU that would mean the best possible integrated GPU possible on a machine like this. You can stop right there, external GPUs over TB are a joke that is to silly to play here. External processing cards are a different story all together. Frankly it would be interesting to see a Mini with either more TB ports or an Infiniband port. Intel is going Infiniband big time and such an implementation into a Mini like machine would make for a more interesting clustering and compute box solution. Are redundant power supplies really required? The answer is yes in a high density high power solution such as a large server, but does the Mini (as it currently is) have a high failure rate power supply? I don't really know the answer to that, it is just that I don't see a lot of power supply failures happening for laptops. Why not just stay with Ivy Bridge across the platform. You do give up ECC (last I knew) but that isn't a great lost considering the Mini servers intended usage.