Yes, but that's what fits within 45W TDP. Good enough for a server tho'
Yes it is good enough for a server, it is just that Apple has a more mixed customer base for that machine today. The Mini server is a good low cost platform for users that need quad cores. Anybody doing development work for one. However giving up GPU performance can be an issue even for developers.
It is also interesting that the bias against servers with capable GPUs is slowly dying. That depends upons the servers usage of course. The other thing is that small server installations that the like of the Mini targeting might as well have a decent GPU as the are often not headless. Small office servers often have keyboard and screen attached for administrator access. People often think of racks of equipment, special rooms and the like when thinking of servers where it is far more likely in a small business installation to see a server sitting on a desk in a corner.
Take all these points together and frankly I think it would be foolish of Apple to sell a server model Mini with anything less than the best available integrated GPU they can get at the time. The Mini server is just a far more widely deployed machine than it's name implies.
Very interesting configuration. I don't think it will happen for various reasons.
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.
It ain't gonna happen, it's just a wish. I could wish for a pony too but like I said earlier in this thread I'd be happy if the new mini just showed up.
As far as why Xeon + ECC vs just Core i7 i5 is that the primary difference between consumer/office desktop and workstations/servers is data integrity. A flipped bit in a game is no big deal. A flipped bit on a financial program or engineering program might be a big deal.
As far as TB GPUs go...if all you run is the GPU then it's running at x4 speeds. Which isn't great but not too bad if what you want is a quadro vs a gaming GPU for the better driver/firmware. On the mac the drivers aren't crippled but I think the firmwares still differ between pro and consumer GPUs. The firmware in the quadro wont skip any rendering steps so will render each frame more accurately even though the hardware is largely the same.
Likewise if I need say 2GB of VRAM to run something then running a TB GPU with 2GB at x4 speeds is better than not running at all.
It ain't gonna happen, it's just a wish. I could wish for a pony too but like I said earlier in this thread I'd be happy if the new mini just showed up.
You and me both!!! I'm not sure what Apple is up to but the delay with the iMac And Mini is getting to be as bad of a joke as the suffering the Mac Pro users are going through. Maybe Apple is trying to kill off the desktop line up completely.
As far as why Xeon + ECC vs just Core i7 i5 is that the primary difference between consumer/office desktop and workstations/servers is data integrity. A flipped bit in a game is no big deal. A flipped bit on a financial program or engineering program might be a big deal.
Very true, but i really don't believe anybody expects the Mini to be used like that.
As far as TB GPUs go...if all you run is the GPU then it's running at x4 speeds. Which isn't great but not too bad if what you want is a quadro vs a gaming GPU for the better driver/firmware.
Well that is highly debatable, the performance drop can be considerable.
On the mac the drivers aren't crippled but I think the firmwares still differ between pro and consumer GPUs. The firmware in the quadro wont skip any rendering steps so will render each frame more accurately even though the hardware is largely the same.
Likewise if I need say 2GB of VRAM to run something then running a TB GPU with 2GB at x4 speeds is better than not running at all.
The problem as I see it is that the hardware investment is substantial taking this route and that is before the performance hit is taken into account. As much as I hate the machine the iMac would be a better route to go for GPU support.
On the other hand what Apple really needs to do is to support a larger power supply in the Mini, even ten watts would open up the machine to better CPU/GPU combos. I'd actually like to see 25 watts but suspect the thermals might get a bit wild.
Would I want to run a gaming rig that way? No.
Me thinks what you really need is the next generation Mac Pro when it comes out next year. Yeah I know, I can't afford one either. That is why you see me pushing the XMac concept here so often. The reality is the Mini will always lag performance wise, and the iMac simply doesn't do it for me as a gap filler.
How are we feeling about an eminent upgrade? I ask because there are two refurb Mini servers on the Apple website right now - Including one with dual 500 GB drives and 8GB ram. I'm tempted unless we think an update will come soon.
Soon as in September along with the new iPhone and iOS.
This is what is frustrating, nobody knows and frankly the update should have happened by now.
As far as buying now goes that probably depends upon how you look at the investment. If it is specific in nature or short term go for it. However if you look at this as an investment that will be with you for awhile stay away. My primary reason to suggest staying away from the current models is the lack of USB3, followed very closely by the poor integrated GPU.
Think about it USB 3 is very important for a machine you expect to hold for several years, simply put you don't know what you may be using the port for in a couple of years. Further if you don't go the discrete GPU route you really need the improved Ivy Bridge GPU. Think not? Look at how Apple has expanded GPU usage in Mountain Lion, Safari and what have you.
I doubt that the hardware will come with iPhone though. Like I said at the top this is a frustrating year, the iMac and Mini are almost six months past the debut of Ivy Bridge and they where already well past their refresh date six months ago. One can only hope that this is a sign of a major overhaul of both products. That would be another good reason to wait, we may get a dramatically different Mini when it does come.
How are we feeling about an eminent upgrade? I ask because there are two refurb Mini servers on the Apple website right now - Including one with dual 500 GB drives and 8GB ram. I'm tempted unless we think an update will come soon.
Soon as in September along with the new iPhone and iOS.
It ain't gonna happen, it's just a wish. I could wish for a pony too but like I said earlier in this thread I'd be happy if the new mini just showed up.
As far as why Xeon + ECC vs just Core i7 i5 is that the primary difference between consumer/office desktop and workstations/servers is data integrity. A flipped bit in a game is no big deal. A flipped bit on a financial program or engineering program might be a big deal.
As far as TB GPUs go...if all you run is the GPU then it's running at x4 speeds. Which isn't great but not too bad if what you want is a quadro vs a gaming GPU for the better driver/firmware. On the mac the drivers aren't crippled but I think the firmwares still differ between pro and consumer GPUs. The firmware in the quadro wont skip any rendering steps so will render each frame more accurately even though the hardware is largely the same.
Likewise if I need say 2GB of VRAM to run something then running a TB GPU with 2GB at x4 speeds is better than not running at all.
Would I want to run a gaming rig that way? No.
My impression was that Quadros were actually quite bandwidth intensive. Gaming gpus rely quite a lot on compression. SLI/Crossfire with 2 x16 gpus isn't really running on 32 lanes at all. You don't get 32 lanes in those cpus/chipsets. The Quadro 4000 still outperformed the 5870 by a reasonable margin in applications that properly leverage it. The choice is even more clear if upgrading a slightly older mac pro rather than choosing between a 5770 and 5870. $450~ for a 5870 vs $750 or whatever for a Quadro 4000. I'm really not sure how it would do over thunderbolt. The 5870 lacks some of the issues in OpenGL applications that it has under Windows. Overall the higher performance workstation gpus are likely to give better performance under Windows compared to OSX, but I find a wider range of gpus to be tolerable under OSX, although it's somewhat anecdotal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is what is frustrating, nobody knows and frankly the update should have happened by now.
As far as buying now goes that probably depends upon how you look at the investment. If it is specific in nature or short term go for it. However if you look at this as an investment that will be with you for awhile stay away. My primary reason to suggest staying away from the current models is the lack of USB3, followed very closely by the poor integrated GPU.
Think about it USB 3 is very important for a machine you expect to hold for several years, simply put you don't know what you may be using the port for in a couple of years. Further if you don't go the discrete GPU route you really need the improved Ivy Bridge GPU. Think not? Look at how Apple has expanded GPU usage in Mountain Lion, Safari and what have you.
I doubt that the hardware will come with iPhone though. Like I said at the top this is a frustrating year, the iMac and Mini are almost six months past the debut of Ivy Bridge and they where already well past their refresh date six months ago. One can only hope that this is a sign of a major overhaul of both products. That would be another good reason to wait, we may get a dramatically different Mini when it does come.
I would agree. USB3 has a lot more available peripherals for it than something like thunderbolt, especially when examining the typical markets where the mini would serve as a primary computing device. The HD3000 was the first step in Intel turning their gpus around. The 4000 is still a significant step up. Next year they may eat much of the low end mobile gpu market. I do like that Apple didn't go quite so cheap on gpus in the $1800 model this year. While they are still a bit wacky on their gpu configurations, it was at least the 650m as opposed to the low end 6490m they used in the cheaper early 2011. Six months is also a bit exaggerated. In terms of cpus that would be appropriate to the imac, they officially launched 4/23 and 5/31. There are a couple more cheap options launching in September, although I don't think Apple will use them in the 21.5". They could have launched the imacs as early as the beginning of June assuming a fast ramp-up in intel's shipping times. The notebook cpus are basically the same thing, so realistically they're almost 3 months past the earliest possible dates.
Keep in mind this is Apple. They know they can jerk people around a bit more as their customers are less likely to defect to Windows due to a delay. Haswell also remains pretty far out. It will likely not show until the second half, so Apple likely figures things will be spaced out no matter what. This doesn't mean I see it as a good thing.
My impression was that Quadros were actually quite bandwidth intensive. Gaming gpus rely quite a lot on compression. SLI/Crossfire with 2 x16 gpus isn't really running on 32 lanes at all. You don't get 32 lanes in those cpus/chipsets. The Quadro 4000 still outperformed the 5870 by a reasonable margin in applications that properly leverage it. The choice is even more clear if upgrading a slightly older mac pro rather than choosing between a 5770 and 5870. $450~ for a 5870 vs $750 or whatever for a Quadro 4000. I'm really not sure how it would do over thunderbolt. The 5870 lacks some of the issues in OpenGL applications that it has under Windows. Overall the higher performance workstation gpus are likely to give better performance under Windows compared to OSX, but I find a wider range of gpus to be tolerable under OSX, although it's somewhat anecdotal.
The big problem with GPUs is what works well for one is totally unacceptable to another. For one person NVida might have the perforate wanted while another needs the features AMD offers up. The discussion becomes endless due to people only seeing things from their perspective. With the advent of increased use of GPU acceleration itis important though for people not to dismiss the need for good GPU performance.
I would agree. USB3 has a lot more available peripherals for it than something like thunderbolt, especially when examining the typical markets where the mini would serve as a primary computing device.
USB 3 is still a low cost interface but with greatly enhanced performance. As such interesting things will continue to come to the port. At this point I just have a very negative opinion of Apple and their dragging out USB 3 implementations on the desktop hardware. Right now it is simply foolish to invest in a general purpose computer without it.
The HD3000 was the first step in Intel turning their gpus around. The 4000 is still a significant step up.
Yes a step up for Intel, but AMD is offering up at least 50% more GPU in its APUs. That on older process technologies while still holding reasonable power profiles.
Next year they may eat much of the low end mobile gpu market. I do like that Apple didn't go quite so cheap on gpus in the $1800 model this year. While they are still a bit wacky on their gpu configurations, it was at least the 650m as opposed to the low end 6490m they used in the cheaper early 2011. Six months is also a bit exaggerated. In terms of cpus that would be appropriate to the imac, they officially launched 4/23 and 5/31. There are a couple more cheap options launching in September, although I don't think Apple will use them in the 21.5". They could have launched the imacs as early as the beginning of June assuming a fast ramp-up in intel's shipping times. The notebook cpus are basically the same thing, so realistically they're almost 3 months past the earliest possible dates.
Well if the iMac is getting a remake I could see that machine being delayed some. The Mini however shouldn't be a problem hardware wise. The lack of a Mini bump makes me wonder if Apple is on allocation from Intel.
Keep in mind this is Apple. They know they can jerk people around a bit more as their customers are less likely to defect to Windows due to a delay. Haswell also remains pretty far out. It will likely not show until the second half, so Apple likely figures things will be spaced out no matter what. This doesn't mean I see it as a good thing.
Yeah jerked around is an understatement. It really looks like Apple doesn't give a damn anymore about the desktop. This is really sad.
I think the Mac Mini should come with 3 USB 2.0/3.0 ports and come with a new design, instead of a flat surface it should stand up, and the USB Ports should be on the right side.
Place Apple Logo in the front and light it up, and add the usb ports on the sides, and the power to cord on the back. It should have a curved square edges like those of the iphone while standing up and a flat surface on top and the bottom. And it should come in different metallic colors like those of the iPod Nano's. (Nanochromatic) With White and Black being the first colors available at launch. And on top of the next iMac Mini should be an iPhone dock charger/ Syncer so users can place their iPhones to charge without the need of cables and an aluminum lid covers it while it isn't in use.
So 2 things on the back. The display/power, cord and fans and 3 USBs on the side as well as one thunderbolt connector. And it should have Wifi AC and run 512mb or higher VRAM graphics with atleast 4 Gigs of RAM and an Ivy Bridge Processor i3 or higher. But no i7 as that is way too high, and useless for this machine. The Apple logo would be the sleep/wake button with touch sensitivity like that found in the xbox 360's open dvd drive button. And it should have Bluetooth 4.0 for using the wireless mouse and keyboards, as well as Wifi N or AC
USB 2.0 is old. USB 3.0 is integrated into Ivy Bridge. I agree with you on the higher VRAM though disagree on the i7. I do not think it is overkill especially when they offer the a 35W i7 (3612QM)
I think the Mac Mini should come with 3 USB 2.0/3.0 ports and come with a new design, instead of a flat surface it should stand up, and the USB Ports should be on the right side.
Like this.
That is a nice sketch and a very interesting idea for a Mini replacement.
Place Apple Logo in the front and light it up, and add the usb ports on the sides,
I wouldn't be thrilled about the ports being on the side. The front needs a couple while the back would be where the rest go. Why? Space is why, if you keep the sides clean the machines can sit side by side on a bookshelf, rack, desk or whatever.
and the power to cord on the back. It should have a curved square edges like those of the iphone while standing up and a flat surface on top and the bottom. And it should come in different metallic colors like those of the iPod Nano's. (Nanochromatic) With White and Black being the first colors available at launch. And on top of the next iMac Mini should be an iPhone dock charger/ Syncer so users can place their iPhones to charge without the need of cables and an aluminum lid covers it while it isn't in use.
This would indeed be a worthwhile feature. The only hope is that it would handle iPads too. That may however look awkward.
So 2 things on the back. The display/power, cord and fans and 3 USBs on the side as well as one thunderbolt connector.
Two TB connectors would be far better. This gives one the flexibility to use a TB display along side a high performance disk drive if they want and do so without serious degradation of performance.
And it should have Wifi AC
Maybe it is me it I see WiFi on a desktop as a waste. The performance of wired connections is so much better right now that I'd rather save the bucks for a better GPU, more storage or whatever.
and run 512mb or higher VRAM graphics with atleast 4 Gigs of RAM and an Ivy Bridge Processor i3 or higher.
They might as well move to 1GB of VRAM. More so RAM itself ought to be 8GB.
But no i7 as that is way too high, and useless for this machine.
I'm not sure why you say that. Really i7 has become meaningless as Intel seems to allocate it to all sorts of processors without reason. The reality is you can find a number of so called i7 processors that have power profiles suitable for such a machine. Since the box you describe could also handle more power than the current Mini we might actually be able to have an entry level model that is cost effective while at the same time have an upscale model that performs well and is actually worth the money.
Beyond all of that I want a processor in the Mini that supports Intels latest hardware features completely.
The Apple logo would be the sleep/wake button with touch sensitivity like that found in the xbox 360's open dvd drive button.
And it should have Bluetooth 4.0 for using the wireless mouse and keyboards, as well as Wifi N or AC
I like your idea here and I think your sketch should highlight to people that there are many many physical possibilities for a Mini replacement. Some seem to believe that the Mini has to come in a thin or low profile box yet you demonstrate that it isn't a requirement at all. Frankly I've been thinking more cube like myself but I can see this design being very space efficient given addressing the side ports.
If you take your design a bit further and make the height slightly less than 2U (3.5") and less than say 3" wide six or seven of these could sit on a 19" rack shelf and offer up a reasonable server offering. Just an idea and it would be a tight fit for the electronics.
I like the idea of putting USB Ports on the front as it is useful for easier access to them rather than having to flip the device over to put the accesory cable in. But I find that Jony Ives would find it obtrusive towards it's elegance and would rather place everything on the back like the old Minis. I still think your idea is great as I did love the PS2 design when it was vertically standing. I don't think it should be a flat surface and instead the model should operate with other future iDevices as shown in the image because they are all made by Apple and should act like they belong together. And because it has the iPhone dock built in people would buy it because it looks like a great iPhone dock from the front. PERFECT PRODUCT.
I imagine the iMac/Mac Mini update will be that "second keynote", but that's only if the iMac gets a FULL redesign. It wouldn't need one otherwise.
Anyway, they'd be fools to let a holiday quarter go without updated desktops…
They could update them quietly. I think Marvin is right on this one. They don't want to update the mini without updating the imac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strat09
I like the idea of putting USB Ports on the front as it is useful for easier access to them rather than having to flip the device over to put the accesory cable in. But I find that Jony Ives would find it obtrusive towards it's elegance and would rather place everything on the back like the old Minis. I still think your idea is great as I did love the PS2 design when it was vertically standing. I don't think it should be a flat surface and instead the model should operate with other future iDevices as shown in the image because they are all made by Apple and should act like they belong together. And because it has the iPhone dock built in people would buy it because it looks like a great iPhone dock from the front. PERFECT PRODUCT.
I'm of the opinion that form should follow function. Placement like that would have some weird effects on board design. If anything I wish phone charging/docking would take on a unified standard.
Sure, and that's the most logical thing to happen. No redesign beyond dropping the ODD, no need for an event.
Nope, taking out the optical and laminating the panel will ensure a big redesign. The Mini will be quietly updated because there's nothing to mention.
It doesn't need an event to itself but I wouldn't expect a quiet launch of the iMac. One thing I've noticed is that Steve was able to fill time, I'm not confident the rest of the team can hold an event without a lot of material to talk about. They packed WWDC full of things and I expect we'll see that in future events.
The iPhone plus iOS 6 can fill an event but the iMac couldn't - it's pretty much a case of 'here it is, thanks for coming' so they have to tack it onto something else.
Nope, taking out the optical and laminating the panel will ensure a big redesign. It doesn't need an event to itself but I wouldn't expect a quiet launch of the iMac. One thing I've noticed is that Steve was able to fill time, I'm not confident the rest of the team can hold an event without a lot of material to talk about.
And that's what I mean. Drop the ODD = thinner. Laminating the panel = thinner. But without a retina display to tout, it's less than 2/3 the content of the newest MacBook Pro's event… And with the Mac Mini not changing at all, rather only getting a mention of update, what else can really be said, you know?
In the past, Apple has mentioned updates to the Mac Mini only as a one sentence response to a Q&A session, of all things!
And that's what I mean. Drop the ODD = thinner. Laminating the panel = thinner. But without a retina display to tout, it's less than 2/3 the content of the newest MacBook Pro's event… And with the Mac Mini not changing at all, rather only getting a mention of update, what else can really be said, you know?
In the past, Apple has mentioned updates to the Mac Mini only as a one sentence response to a Q&A session, of all things!
While Apple is the poster child for anorexia nervosa and references to bad literature, the imac has a lot of thermal issues that could be better addressed. Density isn't its main problem. I know you'll probably disagree with me, but you should take note of the placement of thermal sensors. A bit less heat could help with the longevity of some components given differences in possible working environments and the inherently imperfect nature of things manufactured for consumer electronics.
I'd gladly swap a pointlessly thinner iMac for a desktop GPU…
This is unlikely, and "desktop GPU" has become an issue of semantics in the top model. The 6970m pushes out around 100W. For a decent desktop gpu, you would need to at least double the power which must be dissipated. I don't see it given Apple's attraction to shiny things. In terms of functionality, not everyone seems to understand the entire misalignment here. It's an issue what tasks must be accomplished at what resolution. Typical things that the OS serves to the gpu are sufficiently handled by their current options. When looking at specialty use cases that are likely to be prevalent among OSX users, it's mostly split between those who want to play recent games at high settings and workstation users. The requirements are a bit different for each. Gaming would benefit from desktop gpus to a degree, but much of it is the match between a 2560x1600 display and a very moderate gpu. It's an awkward combination, but I don't think Apple cares. It's not a market they actively pursue outside of possibly iOS. For CAD/animation/paint programs, you wouldn't see that great a difference in many things. Workstation drivers often provide better performance with fewer bugs, but few of those cards make it to OSX, usually in a stripped down state. On the 2D end these cards have no trouble. The issues in these areas are more like OSX has no option for 10 bit displayport, and if you go down as far as something like the mini, it doesn't have enough vram to handle certain things, which are then disabled in their respective applications. I see little chance of Apple actively catering to either of these groups of users. The computers are largely at a point where if the user wants a Mac, it is "good enough" for the majority of things. Outside of the realm, they would need many more changes to bring certain things into complete alignment. An example would be macbook pros. If run hard enough, you can drain the battery while plugged into the wall. Not many users will experience this, but it is true. There are notebooks that lack this issue, but the power adapters tend to be significantly larger. That's a design choice. In the case of the imac, I think going thinner is the least imaginative thing they could do here if any better use of space exists. Imacs are not likely to be wall mounted. I just see such a change as placing further restrictions on future design options without any real benefit beyond pandering to mindless idiots.
Comments
Yes it is good enough for a server, it is just that Apple has a more mixed customer base for that machine today. The Mini server is a good low cost platform for users that need quad cores. Anybody doing development work for one. However giving up GPU performance can be an issue even for developers.
It is also interesting that the bias against servers with capable GPUs is slowly dying. That depends upons the servers usage of course. The other thing is that small server installations that the like of the Mini targeting might as well have a decent GPU as the are often not headless. Small office servers often have keyboard and screen attached for administrator access. People often think of racks of equipment, special rooms and the like when thinking of servers where it is far more likely in a small business installation to see a server sitting on a desk in a corner.
Take all these points together and frankly I think it would be foolish of Apple to sell a server model Mini with anything less than the best available integrated GPU they can get at the time. The Mini server is just a far more widely deployed machine than it's name implies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Very interesting configuration. I don't think it will happen for various reasons.
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.
It ain't gonna happen, it's just a wish. I could wish for a pony too but like I said earlier in this thread I'd be happy if the new mini just showed up.
As far as why Xeon + ECC vs just Core i7 i5 is that the primary difference between consumer/office desktop and workstations/servers is data integrity. A flipped bit in a game is no big deal. A flipped bit on a financial program or engineering program might be a big deal.
As far as TB GPUs go...if all you run is the GPU then it's running at x4 speeds. Which isn't great but not too bad if what you want is a quadro vs a gaming GPU for the better driver/firmware. On the mac the drivers aren't crippled but I think the firmwares still differ between pro and consumer GPUs. The firmware in the quadro wont skip any rendering steps so will render each frame more accurately even though the hardware is largely the same.
Likewise if I need say 2GB of VRAM to run something then running a TB GPU with 2GB at x4 speeds is better than not running at all.
Would I want to run a gaming rig that way? No.
On the other hand what Apple really needs to do is to support a larger power supply in the Mini, even ten watts would open up the machine to better CPU/GPU combos. I'd actually like to see 25 watts but suspect the thermals might get a bit wild.
Me thinks what you really need is the next generation Mac Pro when it comes out next year. Yeah I know, I can't afford one either. That is why you see me pushing the XMac concept here so often. The reality is the Mini will always lag performance wise, and the iMac simply doesn't do it for me as a gap filler.
How are we feeling about an eminent upgrade? I ask because there are two refurb Mini servers on the Apple website right now - Including one with dual 500 GB drives and 8GB ram. I'm tempted unless we think an update will come soon.
Soon as in September along with the new iPhone and iOS.
As far as buying now goes that probably depends upon how you look at the investment. If it is specific in nature or short term go for it. However if you look at this as an investment that will be with you for awhile stay away. My primary reason to suggest staying away from the current models is the lack of USB3, followed very closely by the poor integrated GPU.
Think about it USB 3 is very important for a machine you expect to hold for several years, simply put you don't know what you may be using the port for in a couple of years. Further if you don't go the discrete GPU route you really need the improved Ivy Bridge GPU. Think not? Look at how Apple has expanded GPU usage in Mountain Lion, Safari and what have you.
I doubt that the hardware will come with iPhone though. Like I said at the top this is a frustrating year, the iMac and Mini are almost six months past the debut of Ivy Bridge and they where already well past their refresh date six months ago. One can only hope that this is a sign of a major overhaul of both products. That would be another good reason to wait, we may get a dramatically different Mini when it does come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It ain't gonna happen, it's just a wish. I could wish for a pony too but like I said earlier in this thread I'd be happy if the new mini just showed up.
As far as why Xeon + ECC vs just Core i7 i5 is that the primary difference between consumer/office desktop and workstations/servers is data integrity. A flipped bit in a game is no big deal. A flipped bit on a financial program or engineering program might be a big deal.
As far as TB GPUs go...if all you run is the GPU then it's running at x4 speeds. Which isn't great but not too bad if what you want is a quadro vs a gaming GPU for the better driver/firmware. On the mac the drivers aren't crippled but I think the firmwares still differ between pro and consumer GPUs. The firmware in the quadro wont skip any rendering steps so will render each frame more accurately even though the hardware is largely the same.
Likewise if I need say 2GB of VRAM to run something then running a TB GPU with 2GB at x4 speeds is better than not running at all.
Would I want to run a gaming rig that way? No.
My impression was that Quadros were actually quite bandwidth intensive. Gaming gpus rely quite a lot on compression. SLI/Crossfire with 2 x16 gpus isn't really running on 32 lanes at all. You don't get 32 lanes in those cpus/chipsets. The Quadro 4000 still outperformed the 5870 by a reasonable margin in applications that properly leverage it. The choice is even more clear if upgrading a slightly older mac pro rather than choosing between a 5770 and 5870. $450~ for a 5870 vs $750 or whatever for a Quadro 4000. I'm really not sure how it would do over thunderbolt. The 5870 lacks some of the issues in OpenGL applications that it has under Windows. Overall the higher performance workstation gpus are likely to give better performance under Windows compared to OSX, but I find a wider range of gpus to be tolerable under OSX, although it's somewhat anecdotal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is what is frustrating, nobody knows and frankly the update should have happened by now.
As far as buying now goes that probably depends upon how you look at the investment. If it is specific in nature or short term go for it. However if you look at this as an investment that will be with you for awhile stay away. My primary reason to suggest staying away from the current models is the lack of USB3, followed very closely by the poor integrated GPU.
Think about it USB 3 is very important for a machine you expect to hold for several years, simply put you don't know what you may be using the port for in a couple of years. Further if you don't go the discrete GPU route you really need the improved Ivy Bridge GPU. Think not? Look at how Apple has expanded GPU usage in Mountain Lion, Safari and what have you.
I doubt that the hardware will come with iPhone though. Like I said at the top this is a frustrating year, the iMac and Mini are almost six months past the debut of Ivy Bridge and they where already well past their refresh date six months ago. One can only hope that this is a sign of a major overhaul of both products. That would be another good reason to wait, we may get a dramatically different Mini when it does come.
I would agree. USB3 has a lot more available peripherals for it than something like thunderbolt, especially when examining the typical markets where the mini would serve as a primary computing device. The HD3000 was the first step in Intel turning their gpus around. The 4000 is still a significant step up. Next year they may eat much of the low end mobile gpu market. I do like that Apple didn't go quite so cheap on gpus in the $1800 model this year. While they are still a bit wacky on their gpu configurations, it was at least the 650m as opposed to the low end 6490m they used in the cheaper early 2011. Six months is also a bit exaggerated. In terms of cpus that would be appropriate to the imac, they officially launched 4/23 and 5/31. There are a couple more cheap options launching in September, although I don't think Apple will use them in the 21.5". They could have launched the imacs as early as the beginning of June assuming a fast ramp-up in intel's shipping times. The notebook cpus are basically the same thing, so realistically they're almost 3 months past the earliest possible dates.
Keep in mind this is Apple. They know they can jerk people around a bit more as their customers are less likely to defect to Windows due to a delay. Haswell also remains pretty far out. It will likely not show until the second half, so Apple likely figures things will be spaced out no matter what. This doesn't mean I see it as a good thing.
Like this.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/11016/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
Place Apple Logo in the front and light it up, and add the usb ports on the sides, and the power to cord on the back. It should have a curved square edges like those of the iphone while standing up and a flat surface on top and the bottom. And it should come in different metallic colors like those of the iPod Nano's. (Nanochromatic) With White and Black being the first colors available at launch. And on top of the next iMac Mini should be an iPhone dock charger/ Syncer so users can place their iPhones to charge without the need of cables and an aluminum lid covers it while it isn't in use.
So 2 things on the back. The display/power, cord and fans and 3 USBs on the side as well as one thunderbolt connector. And it should have Wifi AC and run 512mb or higher VRAM graphics with atleast 4 Gigs of RAM and an Ivy Bridge Processor i3 or higher. But no i7 as that is way too high, and useless for this machine.
The Apple logo would be the sleep/wake button with touch sensitivity like that found in the xbox 360's open dvd drive button.
And it should have Bluetooth 4.0 for using the wireless mouse and keyboards, as well as Wifi N or AC
Beyond all of that I want a processor in the Mini that supports Intels latest hardware features completely.
I like your idea here and I think your sketch should highlight to people that there are many many physical possibilities for a Mini replacement. Some seem to believe that the Mini has to come in a thin or low profile box yet you demonstrate that it isn't a requirement at all. Frankly I've been thinking more cube like myself but I can see this design being very space efficient given addressing the side ports.
If you take your design a bit further and make the height slightly less than 2U (3.5") and less than say 3" wide six or seven of these could sit on a 19" rack shelf and offer up a reasonable server offering. Just an idea and it would be a tight fit for the electronics.
I like the idea of putting USB Ports on the front as it is useful for easier access to them rather than having to flip the device over to put the accesory cable in. But I find that Jony Ives would find it obtrusive towards it's elegance and would rather place everything on the back like the old Minis. I still think your idea is great as I did love the PS2 design when it was vertically standing. I don't think it should be a flat surface and instead the model should operate with other future iDevices as shown in the image because they are all made by Apple and should act like they belong together. And because it has the iPhone dock built in people would buy it because it looks like a great iPhone dock from the front. PERFECT PRODUCT.
OK the parts for an updated Mini are available. WTF is Apple waiting for?
Originally Posted by DHagan4755
OK the parts for an updated Mini are available. WTF is Apple waiting for?
The iPhone.
I imagine the iMac/Mac Mini update will be that "second keynote", but that's only if the iMac gets a FULL redesign. It wouldn't need one otherwise.
Anyway, they'd be fools to let a holiday quarter go without updated desktops…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The iPhone.
I imagine the iMac/Mac Mini update will be that "second keynote", but that's only if the iMac gets a FULL redesign. It wouldn't need one otherwise.
Anyway, they'd be fools to let a holiday quarter go without updated desktops…
They could update them quietly. I think Marvin is right on this one. They don't want to update the mini without updating the imac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strat09
I like the idea of putting USB Ports on the front as it is useful for easier access to them rather than having to flip the device over to put the accesory cable in. But I find that Jony Ives would find it obtrusive towards it's elegance and would rather place everything on the back like the old Minis. I still think your idea is great as I did love the PS2 design when it was vertically standing. I don't think it should be a flat surface and instead the model should operate with other future iDevices as shown in the image because they are all made by Apple and should act like they belong together. And because it has the iPhone dock built in people would buy it because it looks like a great iPhone dock from the front. PERFECT PRODUCT.
I'm of the opinion that form should follow function. Placement like that would have some weird effects on board design. If anything I wish phone charging/docking would take on a unified standard.
Originally Posted by hmm
They could update them quietly. I think Marvin is right on this one. They don't want to update the mini without updating the imac.
Sure, and that's the most logical thing to happen. No redesign beyond dropping the ODD, no need for an event.
Nope, taking out the optical and laminating the panel will ensure a big redesign. The Mini will be quietly updated because there's nothing to mention.
It doesn't need an event to itself but I wouldn't expect a quiet launch of the iMac. One thing I've noticed is that Steve was able to fill time, I'm not confident the rest of the team can hold an event without a lot of material to talk about. They packed WWDC full of things and I expect we'll see that in future events.
The iPhone plus iOS 6 can fill an event but the iMac couldn't - it's pretty much a case of 'here it is, thanks for coming' so they have to tack it onto something else.
Originally Posted by Marvin
Nope, taking out the optical and laminating the panel will ensure a big redesign. It doesn't need an event to itself but I wouldn't expect a quiet launch of the iMac. One thing I've noticed is that Steve was able to fill time, I'm not confident the rest of the team can hold an event without a lot of material to talk about.
And that's what I mean. Drop the ODD = thinner. Laminating the panel = thinner. But without a retina display to tout, it's less than 2/3 the content of the newest MacBook Pro's event… And with the Mac Mini not changing at all, rather only getting a mention of update, what else can really be said, you know?
In the past, Apple has mentioned updates to the Mac Mini only as a one sentence response to a Q&A session, of all things!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And that's what I mean. Drop the ODD = thinner. Laminating the panel = thinner. But without a retina display to tout, it's less than 2/3 the content of the newest MacBook Pro's event… And with the Mac Mini not changing at all, rather only getting a mention of update, what else can really be said, you know?
In the past, Apple has mentioned updates to the Mac Mini only as a one sentence response to a Q&A session, of all things!
While Apple is the poster child for anorexia nervosa and references to bad literature, the imac has a lot of thermal issues that could be better addressed. Density isn't its main problem. I know you'll probably disagree with me, but you should take note of the placement of thermal sensors. A bit less heat could help with the longevity of some components given differences in possible working environments and the inherently imperfect nature of things manufactured for consumer electronics.
Originally Posted by hmm
I know you'll probably disagree with me, but you should take note of the placement of thermal sensors.
I'd gladly swap a pointlessly thinner iMac for a desktop GPU…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'd gladly swap a pointlessly thinner iMac for a desktop GPU…
This is unlikely, and "desktop GPU" has become an issue of semantics in the top model. The 6970m pushes out around 100W. For a decent desktop gpu, you would need to at least double the power which must be dissipated. I don't see it given Apple's attraction to shiny things. In terms of functionality, not everyone seems to understand the entire misalignment here. It's an issue what tasks must be accomplished at what resolution. Typical things that the OS serves to the gpu are sufficiently handled by their current options. When looking at specialty use cases that are likely to be prevalent among OSX users, it's mostly split between those who want to play recent games at high settings and workstation users. The requirements are a bit different for each. Gaming would benefit from desktop gpus to a degree, but much of it is the match between a 2560x1600 display and a very moderate gpu. It's an awkward combination, but I don't think Apple cares. It's not a market they actively pursue outside of possibly iOS. For CAD/animation/paint programs, you wouldn't see that great a difference in many things. Workstation drivers often provide better performance with fewer bugs, but few of those cards make it to OSX, usually in a stripped down state. On the 2D end these cards have no trouble. The issues in these areas are more like OSX has no option for 10 bit displayport, and if you go down as far as something like the mini, it doesn't have enough vram to handle certain things, which are then disabled in their respective applications. I see little chance of Apple actively catering to either of these groups of users. The computers are largely at a point where if the user wants a Mac, it is "good enough" for the majority of things. Outside of the realm, they would need many more changes to bring certain things into complete alignment. An example would be macbook pros. If run hard enough, you can drain the battery while plugged into the wall. Not many users will experience this, but it is true. There are notebooks that lack this issue, but the power adapters tend to be significantly larger. That's a design choice. In the case of the imac, I think going thinner is the least imaginative thing they could do here if any better use of space exists. Imacs are not likely to be wall mounted. I just see such a change as placing further restrictions on future design options without any real benefit beyond pandering to mindless idiots.