I have no doubt in my mind that this would help the Mini a great deal. Of course Apple would have to cough the willingness to actually use the chip. In a nut shell this is the number one problem, Apple being willing to go the extra mile to support performance. The second issue would likely be power but this is a long standing Mini issue.
Interestingly they mention an ultra low power variant. This could have a huge impact on the Mac Book AIRs and the 13" MBP.
The big problem here will be cost. In is my understanding that GT3 would mean a multi chip module with the extra Silicon being memory chips. This could potentially be rather expensive however since both AMD and Intel have problems with memory bandwidth on their APUs this is likely a very good solution for that problem.
Yep, they lied. That's Apple's official amount of RAM, so that's what they'll tell you. It's wrong.
This isn't that uncommon. They certified it with the configurations that they actually ship. You can install 16GB, but they will not officially support that. This really isn't that uncommon.
wizard69 - Won't it be based on what processors are used in the Mini to determine what GT chip is used?
Well yeah if I understand your question correctly. GT3 is one of three GPU options for Haswell from what I understand. So Apple will have toe option of different Haswell processors with differing GPu capabilities to put into the Mini.
My concern here is Apples reluctance to do the Mini right. Thus GT3 only means something to potential Mini buyers if Apple actually implements it in the Mini. History is against us here.
This isn't that uncommon. They certified it with the configurations that they actually ship. You can install 16GB, but they will not officially support that. This really isn't that uncommon.
Well yeah if I understand your question correctly. GT3 is one of three GPU options for Haswell from what I understand. So Apple will have toe option of different Haswell processors with differing GPu capabilities to put into the Mini.
My concern here is Apples reluctance to do the Mini right. Thus GT3 only means something to potential Mini buyers if Apple actually implements it in the Mini. History is against us here.
Well if they included a certain quad-core processor, wouldn't the GT3 automatically be a part of it or does it work like the nVidia GeForce 320M except with Intel and its own chips.
Well if they included a certain quad-core processor, wouldn't the GT3 automatically be a part of it or does it work like the nVidia GeForce 320M except with Intel and its own chips.
Well yes if they use a quad core configured with the GT3 subsystem then the Mini would get GT3. The problem is that not all of Intel's quad core Haswells will be coming with GT3. I think this is fairly straight forward to understand, Apple would have to be willing to use a processor chip that contains GT3. As I've said Apple history here is pretty clear, they almost always castrate the Minis performance relative to every other machine they sell. So while GT3 would Be great in a Mini I don't hold out a lot of hope.
There is also the issue of heat from a GT3 equipped Haswell but that is another issue.
Remember how the Haswell processors leaked back in December and you had the MX and two MQ models. Probably the CTO i7 MQ that they use for the GT3. One processor will be available with the faster graphics but most people won't know. That's my call. Thoughts?
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.
That's not the purpose of the Mini. Apple wants you to buy an iMac or MBP if you do more than email and light surfing.
The mini is just a bait and switch product. It's designed to demo OS X to new Mac users, and once they run into the limits of the hardware Apple expects them to throw out the mini and buy an iMac or MBP. If Apple wanted a sub-$1000 computing solution, they would use desktop components and make it larger, though obviously things like the video card would still be non-upgradable. Or at least, Apple would just sell a headless iMac in the sub-$1000 range.
I do agree that 8 GB is possible at the low end when Apple finally solders RAM to the logic board. That would be fine for most uses today.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if Apple just EOLed the entire desktop lineup. If they cared about desktops, they wouldn't have botched the iMac release during Xmas shopping season. They would have introduced the new display tech with the TB display and then migrated it to the iMac. But the goal I suspect is to sell TB displays to laptop users, with the iMac being a test product for which sales aren't so important to Apple. It could simply be rank incompetence, but nobody's been fired yet so that seems unlikely.
I was a new Mac user and the thing is I feel I have not even begun to scratch the surface of my Mac mini. I used a netbook for light web surfing and e-mail and I reached the limitations pretty easily. The mini offers a lot more in my opinion especially with the quad-core processor they put in this time around.
I am most certainly buying a Haswell mini. I will try and go for a quad-core if I can afford it and if not than I will settle for a dual-core.
The Mini has come a very long way in the last couple of years! Much of the negativity around the machine is directly the result of rather poor models of the past. The Minis single biggest limitation is the lack of a good GPU which continues to lock that machine out of the midrange workstation market. So if you are a CAD user or do other design work the Mini is a tough sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I was a new Mac user and the thing is I feel I have not even begun to scratch the surface of my Mac mini. I used a netbook for light web surfing and e-mail and I reached the limitations pretty easily. The mini offers a lot more in my opinion especially with the quad-core processor they put in this time around.
I am most certainly buying a Haswell mini. I will try and go for a quad-core if I can afford it and if not than I will settle for a dual-core.
Honestly if you want to hold a machine longer than a couple of years I'd go for quad core and not even consider dual core. Everybody has a different buying strategy so it is up to you.
I wasn't sure if I should post this here or the Tim Cook thread. I suppose here is fine.
The mini as it looks now can handle decent GPU but could it have handled it with a quad-core processor as well in that unibody design or would they have to stick with dual core as with 2011?
I think if they went with the 2.9 GHz Ivy Bridge dual-core i7 (3520M), a GeForce 640M with 1 GB of memory would have been perfect. Or they could have put 512 MB in it and made 1 GB for the iMac if they chose to.
I wasn't sure if I should post this here or the Tim Cook thread. I suppose here is fine.
Seems fine here.
The mini as it looks now can handle decent GPU but could it have handled it with a quad-core processor as well in that unibody design or would they have to stick with dual core as with 2011?
Maybe not. This is kinda the point though, if the Mini is power supply or fan limited to the point it can handle another ten to twenty watts then fix that issue. Users are paying a lot of money for the upper end models of the Mini, models that don't offer a lot for that extra money, so give us a little more value.
I think if they went with the 2.9 GHz Ivy Bridge dual-core i7 (3520M), a GeForce 640M with 1 GB of memory would have been perfect. Or they could have put 512 MB in it and made 1 GB for the iMac if they chose to.
Dual core chips with a discrete GPU would certainly be better than no discrete GPU at all, at this time. However dual CPU machines don't offer a lot of longevity any more. Apps are becoming more and more threaded and people run a lot more processes on their machines these days so I'm highly biases towards quad cores as minimal purchases for a primary workstation.
Now I said at this time above because there is a strong wind blowing that will change things dramatically. That wind is SoC technology. As such we will hit a tipping point real soon where a discrete GPU won't be required. I'm just not sure when that will happen, Haswell sounds good of course, but I have zero trust here when it comes to Intel and their GPUs. So it is a wait and see situation, if Haswell doesn't do it in 2013, we will likely see something in 2014 that satisfies many users GPU needs.
Interestingly, maybe not surprisingly, AMD is way ahead of Intel here. Their APU technology just keeps getting better and often so out performs Intels offering that it is the recommended processor for solutions using a single chip. Of course if your workload is CPU bound AMD is harder to justify but today many many apps, including common ones like web browsers are GPU accelerated. In the end Intels CPU advantage is really a niche.
So yeah right now a GPU as you describe would have made a lot of sense in at least one Mini. Apple didn't go that way so we are out of luck.
So should Apple in your eyes go full AMD on a mini go for the combo as with the 2011 mid-range model. If so, what processor and graphics chip is feasible?
So should Apple in your eyes go full AMD on a mini go for the combo as with the 2011 mid-range model. If so, what processor and graphics chip is feasible?
AMD's graphics are better just now but you also have to think about Thunderbolt. Maybe it would pass certification but it's not clear that it would.
Haswell might be able to come close enough to AMD's GPUs anyway.
So should Apple in your eyes go full AMD on a mini go for the combo as with the 2011 mid-range model. If so, what processor and graphics chip is feasible?
I'd prefer a discrete GPU chip from NVidia or AMD. That is today and simply because you need such to get the type of performance I'd want to see in the Mini. It won't be long until I change my tune and look towards the integrated GPU solutions but right now if I had a choice it would be a discrete GPU. However that discrete chip needs at least 512 MB of VRAM and 1 GB would be better. If I had no choice and integrated GPU was mandatory then I'd rather see an AMD chip in the machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
So should Apple in your eyes go full AMD on a mini go for the combo as with the 2011 mid-range model. If so, what processor and graphics chip is feasible?
When you ask the question of which is feasible I look at the question with reservation. I'd much rather see Apple punt and simply make a midrange Mini with a good discrete GPU chip and build a housing and power supply to support it properly. It makes no sense to specify specific chips as that is always in flux and at best we won't get a new Mini until late this year. At that point a Haswell chip of some sort coupled with whatever GPU is a good fit at the time.
Comments
How could this help the mini?
Interestingly they mention an ultra low power variant. This could have a huge impact on the Mac Book AIRs and the 13" MBP.
The big problem here will be cost. In is my understanding that GT3 would mean a multi chip module with the extra Silicon being memory chips. This could potentially be rather expensive however since both AMD and Intel have problems with memory bandwidth on their APUs this is likely a very good solution for that problem.
It would likely lead to better performance than we saw on the 2011 Mini with GPU.
When I went to the Apple store they told me it would take only 8 gigs of ram. Not 16.
Originally Posted by marvfox
When I went to the Apple store they told me it would take only 8 gigs of ram. Not 16.
Yep, they lied. That's Apple's official amount of RAM, so that's what they'll tell you. It's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep, they lied. That's Apple's official amount of RAM, so that's what they'll tell you. It's wrong.
This isn't that uncommon. They certified it with the configurations that they actually ship. You can install 16GB, but they will not officially support that. This really isn't that uncommon.
Well yeah if I understand your question correctly. GT3 is one of three GPU options for Haswell from what I understand. So Apple will have toe option of different Haswell processors with differing GPu capabilities to put into the Mini.
My concern here is Apples reluctance to do the Mini right. Thus GT3 only means something to potential Mini buyers if Apple actually implements it in the Mini. History is against us here.
Originally Posted by hmm
This isn't that uncommon. They certified it with the configurations that they actually ship. You can install 16GB, but they will not officially support that. This really isn't that uncommon.
Yep. They've been doing it since the early '90s.
Well if they included a certain quad-core processor, wouldn't the GT3 automatically be a part of it or does it work like the nVidia GeForce 320M except with Intel and its own chips.
Well yes if they use a quad core configured with the GT3 subsystem then the Mini would get GT3. The problem is that not all of Intel's quad core Haswells will be coming with GT3. I think this is fairly straight forward to understand, Apple would have to be willing to use a processor chip that contains GT3. As I've said Apple history here is pretty clear, they almost always castrate the Minis performance relative to every other machine they sell. So while GT3 would Be great in a Mini I don't hold out a lot of hope.
There is also the issue of heat from a GT3 equipped Haswell but that is another issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
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.
That's not the purpose of the Mini. Apple wants you to buy an iMac or MBP if you do more than email and light surfing.
The mini is just a bait and switch product. It's designed to demo OS X to new Mac users, and once they run into the limits of the hardware Apple expects them to throw out the mini and buy an iMac or MBP. If Apple wanted a sub-$1000 computing solution, they would use desktop components and make it larger, though obviously things like the video card would still be non-upgradable. Or at least, Apple would just sell a headless iMac in the sub-$1000 range.
I do agree that 8 GB is possible at the low end when Apple finally solders RAM to the logic board. That would be fine for most uses today.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if Apple just EOLed the entire desktop lineup. If they cared about desktops, they wouldn't have botched the iMac release during Xmas shopping season. They would have introduced the new display tech with the TB display and then migrated it to the iMac. But the goal I suspect is to sell TB displays to laptop users, with the iMac being a test product for which sales aren't so important to Apple. It could simply be rank incompetence, but nobody's been fired yet so that seems unlikely.
I am most certainly buying a Haswell mini. I will try and go for a quad-core if I can afford it and if not than I will settle for a dual-core.
The Mini has come a very long way in the last couple of years! Much of the negativity around the machine is directly the result of rather poor models of the past. The Minis single biggest limitation is the lack of a good GPU which continues to lock that machine out of the midrange workstation market. So if you are a CAD user or do other design work the Mini is a tough sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I was a new Mac user and the thing is I feel I have not even begun to scratch the surface of my Mac mini. I used a netbook for light web surfing and e-mail and I reached the limitations pretty easily. The mini offers a lot more in my opinion especially with the quad-core processor they put in this time around.
I am most certainly buying a Haswell mini. I will try and go for a quad-core if I can afford it and if not than I will settle for a dual-core.
Honestly if you want to hold a machine longer than a couple of years I'd go for quad core and not even consider dual core. Everybody has a different buying strategy so it is up to you.
The mini as it looks now can handle decent GPU but could it have handled it with a quad-core processor as well in that unibody design or would they have to stick with dual core as with 2011?
I think if they went with the 2.9 GHz Ivy Bridge dual-core i7 (3520M), a GeForce 640M with 1 GB of memory would have been perfect. Or they could have put 512 MB in it and made 1 GB for the iMac if they chose to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I wasn't sure if I should post this here or the Tim Cook thread. I suppose here is fine.
Seems fine here.
The mini as it looks now can handle decent GPU but could it have handled it with a quad-core processor as well in that unibody design or would they have to stick with dual core as with 2011?
Maybe not. This is kinda the point though, if the Mini is power supply or fan limited to the point it can handle another ten to twenty watts then fix that issue. Users are paying a lot of money for the upper end models of the Mini, models that don't offer a lot for that extra money, so give us a little more value.
I think if they went with the 2.9 GHz Ivy Bridge dual-core i7 (3520M), a GeForce 640M with 1 GB of memory would have been perfect. Or they could have put 512 MB in it and made 1 GB for the iMac if they chose to.
Dual core chips with a discrete GPU would certainly be better than no discrete GPU at all, at this time. However dual CPU machines don't offer a lot of longevity any more. Apps are becoming more and more threaded and people run a lot more processes on their machines these days so I'm highly biases towards quad cores as minimal purchases for a primary workstation.Now I said at this time above because there is a strong wind blowing that will change things dramatically. That wind is SoC technology. As such we will hit a tipping point real soon where a discrete GPU won't be required. I'm just not sure when that will happen, Haswell sounds good of course, but I have zero trust here when it comes to Intel and their GPUs. So it is a wait and see situation, if Haswell doesn't do it in 2013, we will likely see something in 2014 that satisfies many users GPU needs.
Interestingly, maybe not surprisingly, AMD is way ahead of Intel here. Their APU technology just keeps getting better and often so out performs Intels offering that it is the recommended processor for solutions using a single chip. Of course if your workload is CPU bound AMD is harder to justify but today many many apps, including common ones like web browsers are GPU accelerated. In the end Intels CPU advantage is really a niche.
So yeah right now a GPU as you describe would have made a lot of sense in at least one Mini. Apple didn't go that way so we are out of luck.
AMD's graphics are better just now but you also have to think about Thunderbolt. Maybe it would pass certification but it's not clear that it would.
Haswell might be able to come close enough to AMD's GPUs anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
So should Apple in your eyes go full AMD on a mini go for the combo as with the 2011 mid-range model. If so, what processor and graphics chip is feasible?
No. None. Nay. Never.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/868-1/mobile-cpus-amd-a8-and-a10-vs-core-i5-and-i7-llano-trinity-sandy-and-ivy-bridge.html
I'd prefer a discrete GPU chip from NVidia or AMD. That is today and simply because you need such to get the type of performance I'd want to see in the Mini. It won't be long until I change my tune and look towards the integrated GPU solutions but right now if I had a choice it would be a discrete GPU. However that discrete chip needs at least 512 MB of VRAM and 1 GB would be better. If I had no choice and integrated GPU was mandatory then I'd rather see an AMD chip in the machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
So should Apple in your eyes go full AMD on a mini go for the combo as with the 2011 mid-range model. If so, what processor and graphics chip is feasible?
When you ask the question of which is feasible I look at the question with reservation. I'd much rather see Apple punt and simply make a midrange Mini with a good discrete GPU chip and build a housing and power supply to support it properly. It makes no sense to specify specific chips as that is always in flux and at best we won't get a new Mini until late this year. At that point a Haswell chip of some sort coupled with whatever GPU is a good fit at the time.