That would make a good option for the middle Mini. As long as they keep it a non-server so the extra drive and 7200rpm drives and OS X Server software aren't padding out the cost. If they kept the quad for the Server model, it just adds the cost of the dGPU to the price of the current Server model as the CPU is the same price.
That chip would double the performance vs the current i5 - much better than the dual-i7 upgrade.
A Mini with the 3612QM and 640M would be largely equivalent to a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro with 8800GT.
I don't think they'll do this though because it would probably be priced around $849 so people would just buy that, get OS X Server from the App Store and forget the extra hard drive.
It would be better (for consumers) if Apple gave up the idea of having separate server models. People who know they need OS X Server can figure out what spec they need and buy a software license from the App Store.
The "server" model is a bit awkward overall. I don't think it's necessary. It may benefit them from a marketing standpoint, but obviously I don't have their internal data to review. Mjteix makes a good point in that low power desktop variants are not a bad option, although I'm not sure what that would change. I'm also not feeling like looking up reference micro-ATX boards or researching peak power draw between the two at the moment. My example was to fit seamlessly with their current design.
The "server" model is a bit awkward overall. I don't think it's necessary. It may benefit them from a marketing standpoint, but obviously I don't have their internal data to review. Mjteix makes a good point in that low power desktop variants are not a bad option, although I'm not sure what that would change. I'm also not feeling like looking up reference micro-ATX boards or researching peak power draw between the two at the moment. My example was to fit seamlessly with their current design.
The server model resulted from a shock Apple received. Customers (corporate and EDU among others) were making use of the Mini in ways Apple had never envisioned and were reportedly buy substantial numbers of them to do so. The server model was simply a response to customer request.
The use of mobile components results in greater costs without any particular benefit. If a revised Mini form factor were developed to deal with the greater thermal envelope, the less expensive components could easily be accomodated.
Technology is making the distinction between Mobile and desktop processors very interesting. The problem is the overall chip set power profile, which I'm not sure is even a problem any more. In any event I do think a bit of rethinking on Apples part would be worthwhile.
The Core i7-3770T is a 2.50GHz 4C/8T 45W desktop cpu ($294 vs $378 for the cheapest mobile quad-core cpu from Intel) and it has HD 4000 graphics. So even just for the server model, it would be great. There are a few other T series chips from Intel, maybe Apple could use the 35W 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i5-3470T ($184, it has HD 2500 graphics only), in the regular model along with a 20W nvidia GT 640M LE gpu. The savings on the cpu (the cheapest mobile dual-core cpu from Intel cost $225) could be used towards the dedicated gpu.
One role the Mini has to play is that of the low cost entry point into the Apple world. Apple really needs to focus on pricing and performance of its low end model. Right now it is a terrible value price performance wise no matter how you look at the machine. It is something that people recognize these days when money is tight and people are forced to evaluate value equations. In many cases Apples own laptops end up being better values for many users, especially if such users are new to the platform.
Apple doesn't need many models of Mac mini, just good ones:
Apple doesn't need many models this is true but they also don't need a line up where stiff price jumps end up offering very little over the base model.
I think you mis the point Apples base model should be integrated GPU only in part to hit the lowest possible price. In that regard Apple should really be shooting for $499 on the base configuration.
The Quad core is the model that needs the GPU support. This reflects upon my frustration with the current Mini in the severe compromises that are made in the upper end configurations. If I'm going to pay extra for a performance machine, in essence this is what the second choice should be then I want something for that. In this case that means both a quad core and a decent midrange GPU. Yes a lot to pack in the box, but that is why we pay the extra $500 or whatever for.
The frustration with the current Mini Line up is that you pay extra (too much extra) for a GPU and then get clipped processor wise. Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder what the hell is up at Apple, if we are to fork out the cash for a performance Mini it damn well ought to be a significant step up from the base line model.
BTO: RAM, storage
FYI the mobile 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i7-3520M costs $346. And mobile quad-core cpus from 2.1GHz to 2.6Ghz cost at least $378 (depending on the other specs).
I don't see Apple using more than a 20W gpu along the 35W cpu (the previous 6630M was a 15W gpu at full speed), so people should forget about the 32W 640M (let alone the 45W 650M) in the current design.
This comes back to the desire for a bigger Mini or an XMac. Remove the restrictions size cause so tht we can get performance that at least matches a MBP.
The server model resulted from a shock Apple received. Customers (corporate and EDU among others) were making use of the Mini in ways Apple had never envisioned and were reportedly buy substantial numbers of them to do so. The server model was simply a response to customer request.
People using the Mini as a server or special purpose machine is all well and good, it is their hardware after all. The problem with Apples marketing of the Mini as a server is that it isn't ideal for mainstream server usage. This mostly due to serviceability.
I tend to agree with others in that Apple should just sell their server pack for people to install where ever and take it upon themselves to judge the machines suitability as a server. One thing I've seen in industry is the reuse of old hardware for specific server duties such as print serving. So a server doesn't have to be a mammoth rack mounted unit, in many cases it shouldn't be. Still if Apple wants to sell the Mini as a server they really should address service and access. In that regard I don't know why the chassis was never designed to give slide out access to the power supply and drives.
The use of mobile components results in greater costs without any particular benefit. If a revised Mini form factor were developed to deal with the greater thermal envelope, the less expensive components could easily be accomodated.
There are a few green people that would argue that. I've actually have seen the Mini reccomended for its low power profile. These days though I'm not convinced there would be a huge difference in power profile with careful selection of desktop chips. As long as they support power savings idle performance should be manageable.
Another point with power usage and access and where Apple is dragging its feet is SSD technology. Imagine flash blade cards like Apple is using on its laptops but designed to plug into a Mini like chassis. You almost instantly solve the issue of "drive" access and lower the system power usage some. Actually plug in drives would be nice in laptops too. In many ways the Mini is a stale design, it has been around a very long time and has seen zero innovation. As such I'm really waiting to see what comes next as it is really due for an update.
I get your desire for an Xmac. You want a decent modern stationary computer as the ipad can take over a lot of mobile needs, and a stationary one could offer more than a docked laptop if someone actually brought out such a thing.
I mean it would be interesting change though I see them using just what's in the 13" MBPs and base model 15" MBP. Not sure what's on the horizon for Haswell and Rockwell.
Has Apple ever used a desktop processor in the Mini? Would they ever make a radical change like this going from a mobile to desktop processor?
They've always used mobile chips - desktop CPUs didn't really go to such low power as 45W. Core 2 Duos were 65W. Original Core i5s were 73W. 2nd gen i5s had a 45W model but really poor graphics. The 3770T is the first desktop CPU that could be feasibly used in a Mini.
It would still need a different socket but there are ITX boards with that socket:
On the entry model, they'd have to use the dedicated GPU alongside a 35W i5 (as mentioned earlier) as the i5 comes with poor graphics but that's not such a big deal as the CPU price is lower. It may mean the entry model can't be $599.
I think they'll stick to mobile CPUs though as the Mini shares similar chips with the MBP so if the Mini doesn't sell well, the chips can be sold in the laptops. Plus the mobile chips will have some benefits for small form factor machines otherwise Intel wouldn't bother having distinct lines.
Over time, Intel will probably only make a single set of chips and it looks like AMD might too:
It would benefit Apple to use desktop chips in the Mini though, even if they wanted to make an extra $85 margin and leave the price the same. Everybody wins, the buyer gets a faster machine for the same price and Apple makes $85 more or the machines are cheaper and Apple hits a higher volume of users.
Whatever they choose to do, it doesn't look like it will be happening until they clear the Retina MBP backlog. Once that shipping time gets down to 2-3 days or less, we can expect an update.
Half of all the Macs they sell are to MBP owners. This much was clear even from their own marketing vids. There's a Steam survey here too that shows a distribution of Mac hardware:
It breaks down as:
50% MBP
28% iMac
16% MB
3% Mini
3% Mac Pro
While it is a voluntary survey and in the gaming sector, which will skew some stats (e.g Mini in server use), other polls have shown similar results. Laptops vs desktops are around 70:30 and the most popular desktop by far is the iMac. So that pretty much explains why the laptops and iMacs get the priority with the MBP always getting the first updates. I don't really see a more powerful Mini changing that until Apple starts stocking affordable 23-24" displays and they'd have to build them or they'll keep pushing the iMac where they make the margins.
Depends if you consider the PowerPC 7447A a desktop processor.
Some would see those processors as Mobiles trying to be desktop processors. It should be noted that Ivy Bridge brings what at one time would have been mobile processors, wattage wise, to the desktop market. Unfortunately I don't track this stuff in detail anymore but AI and others followed Intels release in detail. So with Ivy Bridge it is certainly possible to shoehorn a "desktop" processor into the case. The interesting question here is the difference in processor performance if any at similar wattages.
In any even I still see the Minis case as a big obstacle to overcome to get a desktop machine out the door with decent performance. The last thing you would want in a desktop is a model that throttles performance due an inability to cool itself. To a certain extent you expect that in a laptop, if you run laptops hard they do get hot and will throttle. A decent desktop should run at least 8 hours a day loaded and not over heat.
The percentages make sense. The unibody MacBook was going to be my first Mac back in 2008. I wanted the one with the backlit keyboard but couldn't afford the $1,599 cost. Over time I waited and settled for a $599 mini about 3 years later.
A year ago people were doubtful over whether Apple would even release usb3 drivers and suggested that thunderbolt was the only thing needed.
If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption. My prediction was wrong. On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.
I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option. I'm also hoping for an SSD slot. The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.
If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption. My prediction was wrong. On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.
I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option. I'm also hoping for an SSD slot. The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.
I wasn't referring to anyone specific. Lots of people shared your usb3 sentiment. Regarding soldered ram, what real benefit is granted if you aren't constrained by thickness? Assuming you're just soldering regular sodimms to the board as is the case with the rMBP, you would occupy more surface area on the board. Right now it mounts in a perpendicular manner to the board, yet surface area is more constrained than a notebook. They wouldn't be able to fit it in a similar manner unless I'm missing something. If you know more than me about board design, which is extremely probable (I'm eyeballing the layouts of the past couple models as well as the Air, rMBP, etc.). In both cases the soldering has come into play where the machine is constrained by height. The mini is constrained by logic board surface area, so even if they wanted to seal them in, I can't see Apple laying them down flat as they do with the rMBP. The Air doesn't use standard sodimms at all.
Regarding soldered ram, what real benefit is granted if you aren't constrained by thickness?
We've been over this before. The advantages of soldered RAM are: price, performance, reliability, and space. I grant that space is less of a constraint in the Mini compared to the MacBooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Assuming you're just soldering regular sodimms to the board as is the case with the rMBP, you would occupy more surface area on the board. Right now it mounts in a perpendicular manner to the board, yet surface area is more constrained than a notebook. They wouldn't be able to fit it in a similar manner unless I'm missing something.
The rMBP does not have SO-DIMMs soldered to the motherboard. Take a look at the motherboard of a Mini. The connector for the SO-DIMMs takes up nearly as much space as 16 DRAM chips soldered directly to the motherboard and even more space if the soldered DRAM chips were stacked two high. Integration of other chips would probably leave enough space on the motherboard to avoid stacking.
We've been over this before. The advantages of soldered RAM are: price, performance, reliability, and space. I grant that space is less of a constraint in the Mini compared to the MacBooks.
The rMBP does not have SO-DIMMs soldered to the motherboard. Take a look at the motherboard of a Mini. The connector for the SO-DIMMs takes up nearly as much space as 16 DRAM chips soldered directly to the motherboard and even more space if the soldered DRAM chips were stacked two high. Integration of other chips would probably leave enough space on the motherboard to avoid stacking.
I found a picture of the macbook pro 13" logic board. It doesn't have a lot of free space on the logic board. You'd pick up some dropping the optical drive in a non tapered body, but those dimms are still significant. They would have to be laid out side by side for Apple's soldering as you see in the rMBP.
Note how it's laid out.
I guess you could squeeze it in there if the width shrinks, but it's still silly. You mention reliability. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any part of the system. If you're having ram failure issues, stop buying cheap ram. Those components may well outlive the rest of the system. What signs have you seen on price and performance? Memory benchmarks from geekbench are lower by 100 points or so comparing the top ones on the retina macbook pro to the 2012 cMBP. It provided no distinct performance benefit in drag racing volatile storage. It won't save you space as you'll have to lie them side by side. It's more like they could probably cram them in if they want, and since when has the memory contact area been a common reason for a logic board replacement? Dimms rarely fail with quality memory. If they do with soldered, you can't replace them anyway. Looking at Air + rMBP, they haven't stacked soldered memory. It's laid flat across the board.
I'm reiterating the same few points here, but you haven't shown any real advantage other than Apple trying to sell ram upgrades :P. Also note that in both prior cases vertical restrictions could be noted as the reason for the use of soldered ram. It likely wasn't a design priority when determining placement and case height in those regions.
You mention reliability. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any part of the system. If you're having ram failure issues, stop buying cheap ram. Those components may well outlive the rest of the system. What signs have you seen on price and performance? Memory benchmarks from geekbench are lower by 100 points or so comparing the top ones on the retina macbook pro to the 2012 cMBP. It provided no distinct performance benefit in drag racing volatile storage. It won't save you space as you'll have to lie them side by side. It's more like they could probably cram them in if they want, and since when has the memory contact area been a common reason for a logic board replacement? Dimms rarely fail with quality memory. If they do with soldered, you can't replace them anyway.
Switching from SO-DIMMs to directly soldered DRAM means fewer components and, more important perhaps, fewer manufacturing steps. These improve both price and reliability. Future JEDEC specs will offer higher bandwidth and lower latency by requiring direct soldering of DRAM chips onto the same board as the CPU. The difference in space is negligible compared to the advancements in integration. Just dropping FireWire support probably frees up enough marginal space on the Mini motherboard.
Switching from SO-DIMMs to directly soldered DRAM means fewer components and, more important perhaps, fewer manufacturing steps. These improve both price and reliability. Future JEDEC specs will offer higher bandwidth and lower latency by requiring direct soldering of DRAM chips onto the same board as the CPU. The difference in space is negligible compared to the advancements in integration. Just dropping FireWire support probably frees up enough marginal space on the Mini motherboard.
They really need to add another thunderbolt port. The current one port thing is asinine given that one may be dedicated to displayport functions. I realize it doesn't support the bandwidth or functions of displayport 1.2 either way. I'd say that belongs in place of a firewire port if peripherals really start to roll out. It sounded like you were allocating a current performance advantage to soldered ram. Future specs do not mean much in terms of performance relative to a 2012 mini. It's silly that one hasn't surfaced for the current year. Do they plan to wait for bumped ivy bridge chips and roll it out at the end of the year for some bizarre reason? I find Apple's logic to be irritating at times.
If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption. My prediction was wrong. On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.
I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option. I'm also hoping for an SSD slot. The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.
There is no sound reason to use USB 2 over USB 3 (it is backwards compatible).
Why on earth would you want RAM soldered to the motherboard?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That would make a good option for the middle Mini. As long as they keep it a non-server so the extra drive and 7200rpm drives and OS X Server software aren't padding out the cost. If they kept the quad for the Server model, it just adds the cost of the dGPU to the price of the current Server model as the CPU is the same price.
That chip would double the performance vs the current i5 - much better than the dual-i7 upgrade.
A Mini with the 3612QM and 640M would be largely equivalent to a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro with 8800GT.
I don't think they'll do this though because it would probably be priced around $849 so people would just buy that, get OS X Server from the App Store and forget the extra hard drive.
It would be better (for consumers) if Apple gave up the idea of having separate server models. People who know they need OS X Server can figure out what spec they need and buy a software license from the App Store.
The "server" model is a bit awkward overall. I don't think it's necessary. It may benefit them from a marketing standpoint, but obviously I don't have their internal data to review. Mjteix makes a good point in that low power desktop variants are not a bad option, although I'm not sure what that would change. I'm also not feeling like looking up reference micro-ATX boards or researching peak power draw between the two at the moment. My example was to fit seamlessly with their current design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
The "server" model is a bit awkward overall. I don't think it's necessary. It may benefit them from a marketing standpoint, but obviously I don't have their internal data to review. Mjteix makes a good point in that low power desktop variants are not a bad option, although I'm not sure what that would change. I'm also not feeling like looking up reference micro-ATX boards or researching peak power draw between the two at the moment. My example was to fit seamlessly with their current design.
The server model resulted from a shock Apple received. Customers (corporate and EDU among others) were making use of the Mini in ways Apple had never envisioned and were reportedly buy substantial numbers of them to do so. The server model was simply a response to customer request.
The use of mobile components results in greater costs without any particular benefit. If a revised Mini form factor were developed to deal with the greater thermal envelope, the less expensive components could easily be accomodated.
The Quad core is the model that needs the GPU support. This reflects upon my frustration with the current Mini in the severe compromises that are made in the upper end configurations. If I'm going to pay extra for a performance machine, in essence this is what the second choice should be then I want something for that. In this case that means both a quad core and a decent midrange GPU. Yes a lot to pack in the box, but that is why we pay the extra $500 or whatever for.
The frustration with the current Mini Line up is that you pay extra (too much extra) for a GPU and then get clipped processor wise. Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder what the hell is up at Apple, if we are to fork out the cash for a performance Mini it damn well ought to be a significant step up from the base line model.
This comes back to the desire for a bigger Mini or an XMac. Remove the restrictions size cause so tht we can get performance that at least matches a MBP.
I tend to agree with others in that Apple should just sell their server pack for people to install where ever and take it upon themselves to judge the machines suitability as a server. One thing I've seen in industry is the reuse of old hardware for specific server duties such as print serving. So a server doesn't have to be a mammoth rack mounted unit, in many cases it shouldn't be. Still if Apple wants to sell the Mini as a server they really should address service and access. In that regard I don't know why the chassis was never designed to give slide out access to the power supply and drives.
There are a few green people that would argue that. I've actually have seen the Mini reccomended for its low power profile. These days though I'm not convinced there would be a huge difference in power profile with careful selection of desktop chips. As long as they support power savings idle performance should be manageable.
Another point with power usage and access and where Apple is dragging its feet is SSD technology. Imagine flash blade cards like Apple is using on its laptops but designed to plug into a Mini like chassis. You almost instantly solve the issue of "drive" access and lower the system power usage some. Actually plug in drives would be nice in laptops too. In many ways the Mini is a stale design, it has been around a very long time and has seen zero innovation. As such I'm really waiting to see what comes next as it is really due for an update.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I get your desire for an Xmac. You want a decent modern stationary computer as the ipad can take over a lot of mobile needs, and a stationary one could offer more than a docked laptop if someone actually brought out such a thing.
Now if only Apple would understand this.
Originally Posted by Winter
Has Apple ever used a desktop processor in the Mini? Would they ever make a radical change like this going from a mobile to desktop processor?
Depends if you consider the PowerPC 7447A a desktop processor.
They've always used mobile chips - desktop CPUs didn't really go to such low power as 45W. Core 2 Duos were 65W. Original Core i5s were 73W. 2nd gen i5s had a 45W model but really poor graphics. The 3770T is the first desktop CPU that could be feasibly used in a Mini.
It would still need a different socket but there are ITX boards with that socket:
http://www.mini-itx.com/store/?c=76
On the entry model, they'd have to use the dedicated GPU alongside a 35W i5 (as mentioned earlier) as the i5 comes with poor graphics but that's not such a big deal as the CPU price is lower. It may mean the entry model can't be $599.
I think they'll stick to mobile CPUs though as the Mini shares similar chips with the MBP so if the Mini doesn't sell well, the chips can be sold in the laptops. Plus the mobile chips will have some benefits for small form factor machines otherwise Intel wouldn't bother having distinct lines.
Over time, Intel will probably only make a single set of chips and it looks like AMD might too:
http://www.techspot.com/news/48704-amd-ceo-says-every-laptop-on-the-planet-has-enough-processing-power.html
It would benefit Apple to use desktop chips in the Mini though, even if they wanted to make an extra $85 margin and leave the price the same. Everybody wins, the buyer gets a faster machine for the same price and Apple makes $85 more or the machines are cheaper and Apple hits a higher volume of users.
Whatever they choose to do, it doesn't look like it will be happening until they clear the Retina MBP backlog. Once that shipping time gets down to 2-3 days or less, we can expect an update.
Half of all the Macs they sell are to MBP owners. This much was clear even from their own marketing vids. There's a Steam survey here too that shows a distribution of Mac hardware:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
It breaks down as:
50% MBP
28% iMac
16% MB
3% Mini
3% Mac Pro
While it is a voluntary survey and in the gaming sector, which will skew some stats (e.g Mini in server use), other polls have shown similar results. Laptops vs desktops are around 70:30 and the most popular desktop by far is the iMac. So that pretty much explains why the laptops and iMacs get the priority with the MBP always getting the first updates. I don't really see a more powerful Mini changing that until Apple starts stocking affordable 23-24" displays and they'd have to build them or they'll keep pushing the iMac where they make the margins.
Some would see those processors as Mobiles trying to be desktop processors. It should be noted that Ivy Bridge brings what at one time would have been mobile processors, wattage wise, to the desktop market. Unfortunately I don't track this stuff in detail anymore but AI and others followed Intels release in detail. So with Ivy Bridge it is certainly possible to shoehorn a "desktop" processor into the case. The interesting question here is the difference in processor performance if any at similar wattages.
In any even I still see the Minis case as a big obstacle to overcome to get a desktop machine out the door with decent performance. The last thing you would want in a desktop is a model that throttles performance due an inability to cool itself. To a certain extent you expect that in a laptop, if you run laptops hard they do get hot and will throttle. A decent desktop should run at least 8 hours a day loaded and not over heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
A year ago people were doubtful over whether Apple would even release usb3 drivers and suggested that thunderbolt was the only thing needed.
If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption. My prediction was wrong. On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.
I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option. I'm also hoping for an SSD slot. The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption. My prediction was wrong. On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.
I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option. I'm also hoping for an SSD slot. The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.
I wasn't referring to anyone specific. Lots of people shared your usb3 sentiment. Regarding soldered ram, what real benefit is granted if you aren't constrained by thickness? Assuming you're just soldering regular sodimms to the board as is the case with the rMBP, you would occupy more surface area on the board. Right now it mounts in a perpendicular manner to the board, yet surface area is more constrained than a notebook. They wouldn't be able to fit it in a similar manner unless I'm missing something. If you know more than me about board design, which is extremely probable (I'm eyeballing the layouts of the past couple models as well as the Air, rMBP, etc.). In both cases the soldering has come into play where the machine is constrained by height. The mini is constrained by logic board surface area, so even if they wanted to seal them in, I can't see Apple laying them down flat as they do with the rMBP. The Air doesn't use standard sodimms at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Regarding soldered ram, what real benefit is granted if you aren't constrained by thickness?
We've been over this before. The advantages of soldered RAM are: price, performance, reliability, and space. I grant that space is less of a constraint in the Mini compared to the MacBooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Assuming you're just soldering regular sodimms to the board as is the case with the rMBP, you would occupy more surface area on the board. Right now it mounts in a perpendicular manner to the board, yet surface area is more constrained than a notebook. They wouldn't be able to fit it in a similar manner unless I'm missing something.
The rMBP does not have SO-DIMMs soldered to the motherboard. Take a look at the motherboard of a Mini. The connector for the SO-DIMMs takes up nearly as much space as 16 DRAM chips soldered directly to the motherboard and even more space if the soldered DRAM chips were stacked two high. Integration of other chips would probably leave enough space on the motherboard to avoid stacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
We've been over this before. The advantages of soldered RAM are: price, performance, reliability, and space. I grant that space is less of a constraint in the Mini compared to the MacBooks.
The rMBP does not have SO-DIMMs soldered to the motherboard. Take a look at the motherboard of a Mini. The connector for the SO-DIMMs takes up nearly as much space as 16 DRAM chips soldered directly to the motherboard and even more space if the soldered DRAM chips were stacked two high. Integration of other chips would probably leave enough space on the motherboard to avoid stacking.
I found a picture of the macbook pro 13" logic board. It doesn't have a lot of free space on the logic board. You'd pick up some dropping the optical drive in a non tapered body, but those dimms are still significant. They would have to be laid out side by side for Apple's soldering as you see in the rMBP.
Note how it's laid out.
I guess you could squeeze it in there if the width shrinks, but it's still silly. You mention reliability. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any part of the system. If you're having ram failure issues, stop buying cheap ram. Those components may well outlive the rest of the system. What signs have you seen on price and performance? Memory benchmarks from geekbench are lower by 100 points or so comparing the top ones on the retina macbook pro to the 2012 cMBP. It provided no distinct performance benefit in drag racing volatile storage. It won't save you space as you'll have to lie them side by side. It's more like they could probably cram them in if they want, and since when has the memory contact area been a common reason for a logic board replacement? Dimms rarely fail with quality memory. If they do with soldered, you can't replace them anyway. Looking at Air + rMBP, they haven't stacked soldered memory. It's laid flat across the board.
I'm reiterating the same few points here, but you haven't shown any real advantage other than Apple trying to sell ram upgrades :P. Also note that in both prior cases vertical restrictions could be noted as the reason for the use of soldered ram. It likely wasn't a design priority when determining placement and case height in those regions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
You mention reliability. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any part of the system. If you're having ram failure issues, stop buying cheap ram. Those components may well outlive the rest of the system. What signs have you seen on price and performance? Memory benchmarks from geekbench are lower by 100 points or so comparing the top ones on the retina macbook pro to the 2012 cMBP. It provided no distinct performance benefit in drag racing volatile storage. It won't save you space as you'll have to lie them side by side. It's more like they could probably cram them in if they want, and since when has the memory contact area been a common reason for a logic board replacement? Dimms rarely fail with quality memory. If they do with soldered, you can't replace them anyway.
Switching from SO-DIMMs to directly soldered DRAM means fewer components and, more important perhaps, fewer manufacturing steps. These improve both price and reliability. Future JEDEC specs will offer higher bandwidth and lower latency by requiring direct soldering of DRAM chips onto the same board as the CPU. The difference in space is negligible compared to the advancements in integration. Just dropping FireWire support probably frees up enough marginal space on the Mini motherboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
Switching from SO-DIMMs to directly soldered DRAM means fewer components and, more important perhaps, fewer manufacturing steps. These improve both price and reliability. Future JEDEC specs will offer higher bandwidth and lower latency by requiring direct soldering of DRAM chips onto the same board as the CPU. The difference in space is negligible compared to the advancements in integration. Just dropping FireWire support probably frees up enough marginal space on the Mini motherboard.
They really need to add another thunderbolt port. The current one port thing is asinine given that one may be dedicated to displayport functions. I realize it doesn't support the bandwidth or functions of displayport 1.2 either way. I'd say that belongs in place of a firewire port if peripherals really start to roll out. It sounded like you were allocating a current performance advantage to soldered ram. Future specs do not mean much in terms of performance relative to a 2012 mini. It's silly that one hasn't surfaced for the current year. Do they plan to wait for bumped ivy bridge chips and roll it out at the end of the year for some bizarre reason? I find Apple's logic to be irritating at times.
You and me both! I can't stand going on news sites and just seeing news on the newest iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption. My prediction was wrong. On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.
I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option. I'm also hoping for an SSD slot. The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.
There is no sound reason to use USB 2 over USB 3 (it is backwards compatible).
Why on earth would you want RAM soldered to the motherboard?