No I don't feel Cook is the problem don't get me wrong. He is very low key whereas Jobs had to go on stage and be THE STAR. Cook seems to have a philosophy of "Make sure things don't get messed up."
I just see they released a model called the GT 730M, what is that a rebadge of?
Yep I saw that too. Almost everything from NVidia and AMD at CES is rebadged hardware. It might be another six months before truly new hardware is introduced. In a nut shell it takes 18-24 months for new hardware to leave the GPU makers labs. Right now AMD and NVidia are more or less tied performance wise so I would imagine each is trying to leap frog the other. Beyond that both AMD and NVidia are putting a lot of energy into their low power and ARM based initiatives. This focus on ARM based products and low power systems in general may take away development staff from high performance desktop processors.
One thing for sure the industry is rapidly changing.
Perhaps you misinterpreted me. I was saying that the mini had outpaced its initial range of tasks. They used to feed it only low end notebook cpus. Not only have notebook cpus become capable in a much wider range of tasks, but Apple has added some of the quad options here. If anything it's kneecapped in other areas.
Maybe we aren't on the same wave length. However I'm still of the opinion that you don't get a lot performance wise for the dollar you invest in the Mini. If it suits ones needs then it isn't a bad machine in the base model. The value of the higher end models is much harder to justify especially when they lack a decent GPU.
You sir underestimate Apple's hatred of product seams. They hid the panel used for ram access on the 27". The 21.5" doesn't have the larger arm to hide it, so it doesn't get upgradable ram. In some cases I think this could make the 27" possibly from refurbished a better buy if they were considering the top 21.5" with upgrades.
I'm not convinced that the lack of a slot for RAM access in the 21" machine has anything to do with eliminating seams. Apple basically borked the new iMacs in multiple ways with a seemingly callous disregard for the users. For one what happened to VESA mounting. It really seems like each rev of the iMac is one step forward and two back. They just push acceptability of the platform further and further back. This is why I don't even bother all that much with iMac threads. It just becomes harder and harder to justify the machine so I gravitate towards Mini and Pro threads.
What does it have in terms of processor, memory, graphics, etc.
I'm really hoping that Mini picks up a Haswell desktop chip in 2013. Apple should do so even if that means a bigger power supply is required. I don't think a beefed up supply would be required for a sub 45 watt chip but maybe required for a 55 watt chip. Since it still isn't clear what the final lineup of Haswell desktop chips will look like it is hard to define actual chips or wattages. However a focus on GPU performance should be made and if rumors are correct many options will exist. So you almost have to wait for the official Haswell lineup to come out from Intel.
The big thing here is that we want better graphics support. What isn't Lear yet is that the desktop chips will actually get the higher performance GPUs. There are rumors afloat that indicate that the laptop chips may get better GPUs. If so there might not be much point in a desktop chip.
As to memory fast wide data paths make for good APU performance. This comes with a significant power penalty though. In the end though you have little choice if you want fast APU performance. The use of laptop parts does impact the GPU side of these new processor designs. If we are lucky the rumors of a Haswell multi chip module with fast RAM for the GPU will come true.
One problem we do run into with modern ports is the impact they have on the power budget in a machine. TB needs up to ten watts and USB 3 has upped that ports power capability. Ideally the Mini would be able to power all of these ports at once, this implies a sacrifice of some of the power budget that could be allocated to the processor. This is another good reason to beef up the Minis power supply. Add another 20 watts or so power capability to the power supply and an improved fan for any increase in internally dissipated power.
I'm really hoping that Mini picks up a Haswell desktop chip in 2013. Apple should do so even if that means a bigger power supply is required. I don't think a beefed up supply would be required for a sub 45 watt chip but maybe required for a 55 watt chip. Since it still isn't clear what the final lineup of Haswell desktop chips will look like it is hard to define actual chips or wattages. However a focus on GPU performance should be made and if rumors are correct many options will exist. So you almost have to wait for the official Haswell lineup to come out from Intel.
By desktop chip I assume we're talking about an LGA1155 equivalent. At that range it isn't too different. Some of the benchmarks are a little skewed at times as intel disables hyperthreading on desktop Quad i5 chips, where it's enabled in all mobile chips. In the mobile processor lineup all quad cpus get the i7 moniker. The difference isn't noticeable in every real world use case, especially not to the degree that it shows up in benchmarks or synthetic testing of any kind. Desktop cpus should be cheaper than mobile at the quad core level. If you wanted to include discrete graphics, this would make sense. Benchmarks are reasonably close between the mini and imac when comparing upgraded configurations. What I'd like to see is a more robust cooling solution applied to the mini to maximize the amount of time it can hit turbo boost speeds without extremely audible fan noise. Desktop class cpus are becoming much less of a distinction unless you're looking at Xeons. The advantages are that you can get better performance relative to cpu cost. Given that I don't see them coming down on price, the big advantage would be desktop graphics. You can obtain far superior performance in a mid range desktop card, assuming the heat can be dissipated. I'd also like to see better gpu drivers. If they're going to choose light graphics options, they should extremely well tuned. I'm getting into rant territory again, but it is quite annoying.
Cost is a significant issue with the Mini and this is a factor in wanting a shift to desktop processors. Intel does have a tendency to gimp some of its desktop processors and honestly you have to wonder why. Generally I'm more concerned with the way they handle GPUs on the desktop. The hope here is that Intel would have an offering that is beneficial overall for the Mini.
The issue with the use of discrete GPUs is of course the heat. If Haswell delivers on some of the promises with respect to the GPU the Mini might be viable without a discrete chip. Ultimately I see the ultimate option being a midrange Mac and to let the Mini maintain its niche. The Mini isn't far from being good enough for me as a primary machine, maybe the 2013 machine. That is if I had no economical choice of a machine with a discrete GPU.
By desktop chip I assume we're talking about an LGA1155 equivalent. At that range it isn't too different. Some of the benchmarks are a little skewed at times as intel disables hyperthreading on desktop Quad i5 chips, where it's enabled in all mobile chips. In the mobile processor lineup all quad cpus get the i7 moniker. The difference isn't noticeable in every real world use case, especially not to the degree that it shows up in benchmarks or synthetic testing of any kind. Desktop cpus should be cheaper than mobile at the quad core level. If you wanted to include discrete graphics, this would make sense. Benchmarks are reasonably close between the mini and imac when comparing upgraded configurations. What I'd like to see is a more robust cooling solution applied to the mini to maximize the amount of time it can hit turbo boost speeds without extremely audible fan noise. Desktop class cpus are becoming much less of a distinction unless you're looking at Xeons. The advantages are that you can get better performance relative to cpu cost. Given that I don't see them coming down on price, the big advantage would be desktop graphics. You can obtain far superior performance in a mid range desktop card, assuming the heat can be dissipated. I'd also like to see better gpu drivers. If they're going to choose light graphics options, they should extremely well tuned. I'm getting into rant territory again, but it is quite annoying.
Cost is a significant issue with the Mini and this is a factor in wanting a shift to desktop processors. Intel does have a tendency to gimp some of its desktop processors and honestly you have to wonder why. Generally I'm more concerned with the way they handle GPUs on the desktop. The hope here is that Intel would have an offering that is beneficial overall for the Mini.
The issue with the use of discrete GPUs is of course the heat. If Haswell delivers on some of the promises with respect to the GPU the Mini might be viable without a discrete chip. Ultimately I see the ultimate option being a midrange Mac and to let the Mini maintain its niche. The Mini isn't far from being good enough for me as a primary machine, maybe the 2013 machine. That is if I had no economical choice of a machine with a discrete GPU.
Well the 45-65W desktop processors tend to be their budget models, but I don't foresee pricing reductions from Apple. If Apple is by some chance interested in an xMac machine, a move to desktop cpus would be best coupled with a move to dedicated graphics. If you're talking about a less expensive cpu and a desktop class gpu, it could make for a net improvement through better balance. You wouldn't fit it in the current case, as desktop gpus tend to be hotter. In the case of the top imacs they just bury the cost of expensive mobile gpus in a higher end machine. You're right that intel is likely to put one of the weaker integrated variants in desktops cpus. It's likely a tradeoff somewhere. I do think we're approaching a point where the facebook and email crowd will be better served by an ipad (than a notebook). Storage is one of the remaining issues for now.
This is most likely why Apple went with integrated graphics with the current Mini. It's a long-term reposition.
This is very likely the cAse. Personally I'd still like to see a move to desktop chips to control the Minis cost.
You want discrete graphics, buy the all-new Mac Pro.
There in lies the problem, unless the all new Mac Pro is significantly cheaper in the base model it won't be on my shopping list. Haswell in the Mini doesn't solve Apples midrange performance machine problem. My fear is a:\n even bigger gap in performance and pricing.
I'm not sure what you mean by keep up. The big problem on the Mac would be suitable drivers.
Yes, that is what I mean. If I want to game on my Mac Pro at the highest possible settings (because I use it for something else) can I? How are the Mac drivers?
For the odd case, you'd lower a setting here and there to get past 30fps on Ultra but that setting is normally overkill like full AA etc. High quality is usually enough and even the 650M can cope there:
The one with the 680MX should be able to. Here's it running Battlefield 3 on Ultra at 2560 x 1440, 30-50FPS:
I stand corrected. That thing's a beast, isn't it? Now if only Apple would take a leap and offer 2GB minimum VRAM across the board (and for the Mac Pro, too)…
Maybe at least offer a 1 GB option on the upgraded 21.5", leave the 512 MB for the base model alone, upgrade the GTX 660M to 1 GB, and then keep the ultimate 27" as is.
Comments
Yep I saw that too. Almost everything from NVidia and AMD at CES is rebadged hardware. It might be another six months before truly new hardware is introduced. In a nut shell it takes 18-24 months for new hardware to leave the GPU makers labs. Right now AMD and NVidia are more or less tied performance wise so I would imagine each is trying to leap frog the other. Beyond that both AMD and NVidia are putting a lot of energy into their low power and ARM based initiatives. This focus on ARM based products and low power systems in general may take away development staff from high performance desktop processors.
One thing for sure the industry is rapidly changing.
I'm not convinced that the lack of a slot for RAM access in the 21" machine has anything to do with eliminating seams. Apple basically borked the new iMacs in multiple ways with a seemingly callous disregard for the users. For one what happened to VESA mounting. It really seems like each rev of the iMac is one step forward and two back. They just push acceptability of the platform further and further back. This is why I don't even bother all that much with iMac threads. It just becomes harder and harder to justify the machine so I gravitate towards Mini and Pro threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
The fact of the matter is that Apple chose to use the mobile components. Apple buys enough of everything that they are achieving "economies of scale.
Those of us who were with Apple in its pre-iPod days know that this wasn't always the case.
I'm really hoping that Mini picks up a Haswell desktop chip in 2013. Apple should do so even if that means a bigger power supply is required. I don't think a beefed up supply would be required for a sub 45 watt chip but maybe required for a 55 watt chip. Since it still isn't clear what the final lineup of Haswell desktop chips will look like it is hard to define actual chips or wattages. However a focus on GPU performance should be made and if rumors are correct many options will exist. So you almost have to wait for the official Haswell lineup to come out from Intel.
The big thing here is that we want better graphics support. What isn't Lear yet is that the desktop chips will actually get the higher performance GPUs. There are rumors afloat that indicate that the laptop chips may get better GPUs. If so there might not be much point in a desktop chip.
As to memory fast wide data paths make for good APU performance. This comes with a significant power penalty though. In the end though you have little choice if you want fast APU performance. The use of laptop parts does impact the GPU side of these new processor designs. If we are lucky the rumors of a Haswell multi chip module with fast RAM for the GPU will come true.
One problem we do run into with modern ports is the impact they have on the power budget in a machine. TB needs up to ten watts and USB 3 has upped that ports power capability. Ideally the Mini would be able to power all of these ports at once, this implies a sacrifice of some of the power budget that could be allocated to the processor. This is another good reason to beef up the Minis power supply. Add another 20 watts or so power capability to the power supply and an improved fan for any increase in internally dissipated power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm really hoping that Mini picks up a Haswell desktop chip in 2013. Apple should do so even if that means a bigger power supply is required. I don't think a beefed up supply would be required for a sub 45 watt chip but maybe required for a 55 watt chip. Since it still isn't clear what the final lineup of Haswell desktop chips will look like it is hard to define actual chips or wattages. However a focus on GPU performance should be made and if rumors are correct many options will exist. So you almost have to wait for the official Haswell lineup to come out from Intel.
By desktop chip I assume we're talking about an LGA1155 equivalent. At that range it isn't too different. Some of the benchmarks are a little skewed at times as intel disables hyperthreading on desktop Quad i5 chips, where it's enabled in all mobile chips. In the mobile processor lineup all quad cpus get the i7 moniker. The difference isn't noticeable in every real world use case, especially not to the degree that it shows up in benchmarks or synthetic testing of any kind. Desktop cpus should be cheaper than mobile at the quad core level. If you wanted to include discrete graphics, this would make sense. Benchmarks are reasonably close between the mini and imac when comparing upgraded configurations. What I'd like to see is a more robust cooling solution applied to the mini to maximize the amount of time it can hit turbo boost speeds without extremely audible fan noise. Desktop class cpus are becoming much less of a distinction unless you're looking at Xeons. The advantages are that you can get better performance relative to cpu cost. Given that I don't see them coming down on price, the big advantage would be desktop graphics. You can obtain far superior performance in a mid range desktop card, assuming the heat can be dissipated. I'd also like to see better gpu drivers. If they're going to choose light graphics options, they should extremely well tuned. I'm getting into rant territory again, but it is quite annoying.
The issue with the use of discrete GPUs is of course the heat. If Haswell delivers on some of the promises with respect to the GPU the Mini might be viable without a discrete chip. Ultimately I see the ultimate option being a midrange Mac and to let the Mini maintain its niche. The Mini isn't far from being good enough for me as a primary machine, maybe the 2013 machine. That is if I had no economical choice of a machine with a discrete GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Cost is a significant issue with the Mini and this is a factor in wanting a shift to desktop processors. Intel does have a tendency to gimp some of its desktop processors and honestly you have to wonder why. Generally I'm more concerned with the way they handle GPUs on the desktop. The hope here is that Intel would have an offering that is beneficial overall for the Mini.
The issue with the use of discrete GPUs is of course the heat. If Haswell delivers on some of the promises with respect to the GPU the Mini might be viable without a discrete chip. Ultimately I see the ultimate option being a midrange Mac and to let the Mini maintain its niche. The Mini isn't far from being good enough for me as a primary machine, maybe the 2013 machine. That is if I had no economical choice of a machine with a discrete GPU.
Well the 45-65W desktop processors tend to be their budget models, but I don't foresee pricing reductions from Apple. If Apple is by some chance interested in an xMac machine, a move to desktop cpus would be best coupled with a move to dedicated graphics. If you're talking about a less expensive cpu and a desktop class gpu, it could make for a net improvement through better balance. You wouldn't fit it in the current case, as desktop gpus tend to be hotter. In the case of the top imacs they just bury the cost of expensive mobile gpus in a higher end machine. You're right that intel is likely to put one of the weaker integrated variants in desktops cpus. It's likely a tradeoff somewhere. I do think we're approaching a point where the facebook and email crowd will be better served by an ipad (than a notebook). Storage is one of the remaining issues for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
If Haswell delivers on some of the promises with respect to the GPU the Mini might be viable without a discrete chip.
This is most likely why Apple went with integrated graphics with the current Mini. It's a long-term reposition.
You want discrete graphics, buy the all-new Mac Pro.
Don't you mean iMac?
There in lies the problem, unless the all new Mac Pro is significantly cheaper in the base model it won't be on my shopping list. Haswell in the Mini doesn't solve Apples midrange performance machine problem. My fear is a:\n even bigger gap in performance and pricing.
The iMac is far from desirable for many of us. Sadly the Mac Pro is Apples only other machine with a discrete GPU.
Yes, that is what I mean. If I want to game on my Mac Pro at the highest possible settings (because I use it for something else) can I? How are the Mac drivers?
Originally Posted by Winter
If I want to game on my Mac Pro at the highest possible settings (because I use it for something else) can I?
No. Not with modern games.
Plug any modern card into your machine and pop open Windows; it'll work fine. But you'll have to take it out when you go back to OS X.
Ah so I have to use bootcamp. In the meantime, if I was a hardcore gamer the top end iMac would be the only way to go.
Keep in mind this is a hypothetical situation. I am not a PC Gamer other than for Diablo (and I didn't even like how Blizzard handled III).
Originally Posted by Winter
Ah so I have to use bootcamp. In the meantime, if I was a hardcore gamer the top end iMac would be the only way to go.
Well, no: that can't run many modern games with everything cranked all the way up, either.
The one with the 680MX should be able to. Here's it running Battlefield 3 on Ultra at 2560 x 1440, 30-50FPS:
[VIDEO]
The 680M, which is a bit slower can play pretty much every game on maxmum:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680M.72679.0.html
For the odd case, you'd lower a setting here and there to get past 30fps on Ultra but that setting is normally overkill like full AA etc. High quality is usually enough and even the 650M can cope there:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
Originally Posted by Marvin
The one with the 680MX should be able to. Here's it running Battlefield 3 on Ultra at 2560 x 1440, 30-50FPS:
I stand corrected. That thing's a beast, isn't it? Now if only Apple would take a leap and offer 2GB minimum VRAM across the board (and for the Mac Pro, too)…