That much Ram in the Mini is ridiculous anyway.
Anyone needing 16GB, also needs a higher end Mac.
You can't say with 100% certainty that that is the case. For some users a Mac with a lot of RAM can be very useful. Further the Mini performs much better than at any time in the past.
The $799 and $999 minis have the BTO option to 2.6 GHz. I'm asking if that really makes a difference.
It could for some uses though using the price delta to buy more RAM works out better for some users. An SSD thrown in the mix can alter the value in buying a CPU upgrade too. So for "most" users considering a faster processor should only be considered after fleshing out the system with other performance enhancing features.
The $799 and $999 minis have the BTO option to 2.6 GHz. I'm asking if that really makes a difference.
When it's the same CPU class, the clock speed is a good indicator of performance so the 2.6GHz should be 2.6/2.3 = 1.13 (13% faster best-case). To figure out how much quicker it is time-wise you divide the time by that number so if something takes 60 minutes on the 2.3GHz, it will take 60/1.13 = 53 minutes on the 2.6GHz. The scores here show the performance difference vs an old iMac and Mac Pro:
Cinebench = 6.8/6.2 = 1.097; Luxmark = 104/95 = 1.095. So real-world is closer to 10% faster. I don't think that's too bad for $100 but I personally wouldn't bother.
Only chumps and fools buy RAM through Apple. I can't believe this is even a discussion.
In the near future you won't have a choice, at least not for the factory install bank. The trend in the industry is to soldered on RAM to support high performance memory systems.
Only chumps and fools buy RAM through Apple. I can't believe this is even a discussion.
This isn't as big a deal as you may want to make it. What matters is total system cost and what it can do. I would view this as a big picture. If the costs are trending out of your reach or comfort zone, you may want to examine the offerings of other brands before your next purchase. I keep an eye on them every generation.
If we're talking soldering RAM to the logic board, then that probably won't be an issue. The rMBP has plenty of RAM, but will Apple do the right thing with a sub-$1000 Mini? Probably. The current strategy of offering base models with paltry amounts of RAM is designed to force purchases of RAM from Apple, but when RAM is no longer an upgradable component, Apple will be motivated to include enough RAM so as not to tarnish the image of OS X.
Also note that currently the base Mini has plenty of RAM for consumers. It's designed for light web browsing and email, and 4 GB is more than enough for such usage. The high end iMac is problematic, as a $2000+ computer with only 8 GB RAM is questionable, but there is no reason to believe Apple wouldn't double the amount once it's soldered. It's only 8 GB because Apple wants chumps to CTO more memory.
Anyways any of you who have a problem with Apple's amount of soldered memory on the mini should consider another brand of computer, lol...
If we're talking soldering RAM to the logic board, then that probably won't be an issue. The rMBP has plenty of RAM, but will Apple do the right thing with a sub-$1000 Mini? Probably. The current strategy of offering base models with paltry amounts of RAM is designed to force purchases of RAM from Apple, but when RAM is no longer an upgradable component, Apple will be motivated to include enough RAM so as not to tarnish the image of OS X.
Also note that currently the base Mini has plenty of RAM for consumers. It's designed for light web browsing and email, and 4 GB is more than enough for such usage. The high end iMac is problematic, as a $2000+ computer with only 8 GB RAM is questionable, but there is no reason to believe Apple wouldn't double the amount once it's soldered. It's only 8 GB because Apple wants chumps to CTO more memory.
Anyways any of you who have a problem with Apple's amount of soldered memory on the mini should consider another brand of computer, lol...
The 15" rMBP has plenty of RAM though the 13" with it being only maxed out at 8 GB is an issue I feel.
I disagree that the base Mini has enough RAM. With a dual-core Ivy Bridge processor, you can do a lot more than light web-browsing, e-mail, and Facebook. The $799 model and server model should have an option for 16 GB of RAM. I suppose in the future with soldering, make the base model only carry the option of 8 GB.
I personally don't have that much of a problem with the soldered memory, it's more the graphics I have an issue with. Hopefully Haswell is a nice boost. I don't expect GT 650M but we'll see what happens.
The 15" rMBP has plenty of RAM though the 13" with it being only maxed out at 8 GB is an issue I feel.
This is a significant limitation on the 13". It does make you wonder if it is a technical issue or a marketing issue. Knowing Apple it is a marketing issue
I disagree that the base Mini has enough RAM. With a dual-core Ivy Bridge processor, you can do a lot more than light web-browsing, e-mail, and Facebook.
Apple has always been excessively thin with RAM in these machines. It is sad because it puts the hardware and OS in a bad light and it makes Apple look cheap.
The $799 model and server model should have an option for 16 GB of RAM. I suppose in the future with soldering, make the base model only carry the option of 8 GB.
I would hope that any future system with soldered RAM would also allow for a memory module install. The DIMM would likely be slower than the soldered RAM.
I personally don't have that much of a problem with the soldered memory, it's more the graphics I have an issue with. Hopefully Haswell is a nice boost. I don't expect GT 650M but we'll see what happens.
I'm concerned about graphics myself but I'm really hoping that GPU performance in Haswell is that step increase in performance that is "good enough". That means solid OpenCL support, decent 3D, and drivers that actually work.
I'm concerned about graphics myself but I'm really hoping that GPU performance in Haswell is that step increase in performance that is "good enough". That means solid OpenCL support, decent 3D, and drivers that actually work.
Hold out a bit of hope but don't hold your breath. : P
Hold out a bit of hope but don't hold your breath. : P
If Intel can't deliver then it is time for Apple to switch to AMD. I know this horse has been beaten to death but many users of the Mini would be better served by AMDs better GPU performance.
Who says there's a term limit on any sort of contract? Who says they even want AMD?
>:O Why must you always question me? ;-;
In all seriousness, I am happy with Intel from what I see. Having said that, I would like better graphics in the mini and I think we all would. I always have that little bit of hope that a good RPG might be released that I actually want to play. Currently RPGs that I am interested in it (only one in fact) is going to be coming out for the 3DS and in Japan so I have to import it (which I am) in order to play it.
In all seriousness, I am happy with Intel from what I see. Having said that, I would like better graphics in the mini and I think we all would.
I mean, what does AMD provide that Intel doesn't? Since we're talking about the Mac Mini, I assume the question can be tailored specifically toward the low end.
We need a pros/cons chart. What do we give up by leaving Intel (obviously Thunderbolt), and what do we gain (if anything) with AMD?
If Intel wants to stick around, they'll do whatever they have to do to improve their integrated graphics. ARM stuff is a bigger threat to them than AMD could ever be.
I mean, what does AMD provide that Intel doesn't? Since we're talking about the Mac Mini, I assume the question can be tailored specifically toward the low end.
AMD has far better GPUs integrated into their APUs as the call them. The flip side is less performance relative to the CPU subsection of the chip. The reality is that Intel didn't even catch up to AMDs GPUs from last years APUs. Beyond that you have better video decode circuits, far better 3D and very strong OpenCL support. AMD has done a lot of work porting code to their APU's GPU for acceleration so for some uses AMDs chips are in fact a faster solution.
In a nut shell AMDs chips are a good solution for machines that need a good GPU but don't have space for an discrete GPU.
We need a pros/cons chart. What do we give up by leaving Intel (obviously Thunderbolt), and what do we gain (if anything) with AMD?
The only thing you really gain is a far better GPU. The value of this is dependent upon the user but AMDs CPUs are a bit slower so it ends up being a wash in some cases. GPU intensive apps though run far better on AMDs chips at lower power draws than Intels.
If Intel wants to stick around, they'll do whatever they have to do to improve their integrated graphics. ARM stuff is a bigger threat to them than AMD could ever be.
Yep I agree 100%. However AMD could be a greater threat if they come out with an ARM based chip with one of their new advanced GPU cores for the embedded market.
Comments
You can't say with 100% certainty that that is the case. For some users a Mac with a lot of RAM can be very useful. Further the Mini performs much better than at any time in the past.
It could for some uses though using the price delta to buy more RAM works out better for some users. An SSD thrown in the mix can alter the value in buying a CPU upgrade too. So for "most" users considering a faster processor should only be considered after fleshing out the system with other performance enhancing features.
Only chumps and fools buy RAM through Apple. I can't believe this is even a discussion.
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Only chumps and fools buy RAM through Apple. I can't believe this is even a discussion.
So you haven't read any of the benefits of onboard RAM?
When it's the same CPU class, the clock speed is a good indicator of performance so the 2.6GHz should be 2.6/2.3 = 1.13 (13% faster best-case). To figure out how much quicker it is time-wise you divide the time by that number so if something takes 60 minutes on the 2.3GHz, it will take 60/1.13 = 53 minutes on the 2.6GHz. The scores here show the performance difference vs an old iMac and Mac Pro:
http://www.barefeats.com/minivmp.html
Cinebench = 6.8/6.2 = 1.097; Luxmark = 104/95 = 1.095. So real-world is closer to 10% faster. I don't think that's too bad for $100 but I personally wouldn't bother.
In the near future you won't have a choice, at least not for the factory install bank. The trend in the industry is to soldered on RAM to support high performance memory systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Only chumps and fools buy RAM through Apple. I can't believe this is even a discussion.
This isn't as big a deal as you may want to make it. What matters is total system cost and what it can do. I would view this as a big picture. If the costs are trending out of your reach or comfort zone, you may want to examine the offerings of other brands before your next purchase. I keep an eye on them every generation.
If we're talking soldering RAM to the logic board, then that probably won't be an issue. The rMBP has plenty of RAM, but will Apple do the right thing with a sub-$1000 Mini? Probably. The current strategy of offering base models with paltry amounts of RAM is designed to force purchases of RAM from Apple, but when RAM is no longer an upgradable component, Apple will be motivated to include enough RAM so as not to tarnish the image of OS X.
Also note that currently the base Mini has plenty of RAM for consumers. It's designed for light web browsing and email, and 4 GB is more than enough for such usage. The high end iMac is problematic, as a $2000+ computer with only 8 GB RAM is questionable, but there is no reason to believe Apple wouldn't double the amount once it's soldered. It's only 8 GB because Apple wants chumps to CTO more memory.
Anyways any of you who have a problem with Apple's amount of soldered memory on the mini should consider another brand of computer, lol...
The 15" rMBP has plenty of RAM though the 13" with it being only maxed out at 8 GB is an issue I feel.
I disagree that the base Mini has enough RAM. With a dual-core Ivy Bridge processor, you can do a lot more than light web-browsing, e-mail, and Facebook. The $799 model and server model should have an option for 16 GB of RAM. I suppose in the future with soldering, make the base model only carry the option of 8 GB.
I personally don't have that much of a problem with the soldered memory, it's more the graphics I have an issue with. Hopefully Haswell is a nice boost. I don't expect GT 650M but we'll see what happens.
I'm concerned about graphics myself but I'm really hoping that GPU performance in Haswell is that step increase in performance that is "good enough". That means solid OpenCL support, decent 3D, and drivers that actually work.
Hold out a bit of hope but don't hold your breath. : P
If Intel can't deliver then it is time for Apple to switch to AMD. I know this horse has been beaten to death but many users of the Mini would be better served by AMDs better GPU performance.
You can have only 8 gigs of ram in the mac mini 2011 model.Not 16.
Originally Posted by marvfox
You can have only 8 gigs of ram in the mac mini 2011 model.Not 16.
Apple tends to do that.
Originally Posted by Winter
I wouldn't be against an AMD processor run Mac mini but I wonder how long Apple's contract with Intel is for.
Who says there's a term limit on any sort of contract? Who says they even want AMD?
>:O Why must you always question me? ;-;
In all seriousness, I am happy with Intel from what I see. Having said that, I would like better graphics in the mini and I think we all would. I always have that little bit of hope that a good RPG might be released that I actually want to play. Currently RPGs that I am interested in it (only one in fact) is going to be coming out for the 3DS and in Japan so I have to import it (which I am) in order to play it.
Originally Posted by Winter
In all seriousness, I am happy with Intel from what I see. Having said that, I would like better graphics in the mini and I think we all would.
I mean, what does AMD provide that Intel doesn't? Since we're talking about the Mac Mini, I assume the question can be tailored specifically toward the low end.
We need a pros/cons chart. What do we give up by leaving Intel (obviously Thunderbolt), and what do we gain (if anything) with AMD?
If Intel wants to stick around, they'll do whatever they have to do to improve their integrated graphics. ARM stuff is a bigger threat to them than AMD could ever be.
In a nut shell AMDs chips are a good solution for machines that need a good GPU but don't have space for an discrete GPU. The only thing you really gain is a far better GPU. The value of this is dependent upon the user but AMDs CPUs are a bit slower so it ends up being a wash in some cases. GPU intensive apps though run far better on AMDs chips at lower power draws than Intels. Yep I agree 100%. However AMD could be a greater threat if they come out with an ARM based chip with one of their new advanced GPU cores for the embedded market.