A better question would be if there is anything actually preventing this now, other than chipset limitations.
The current limitation would be availability of sodimms. Notebooks can run 32GB. Lenovo and some of the others have notebooks that will take 4 sodimms, and you can find many reports of people running 32GB this way. Much of the time they need it to smoothly run multiple VMs.
Do you think Apple finally gives up and allows for more video memory in their iMacs by default. Do they finally go 512 MB to 1 GB at least in the lower end 27"?
I know what people are going to say or possibly say:
Winter - But they want people to buy the 27" ultimate.
Okay, then why have shitty versions? Cut the entry 21.5" with the 640M and make the lowest end model with 650M starting at $1,499? For $100 double the video memory.
Do you think Apple finally gives up and allows for more video memory in their iMacs by default. Do they finally go 512 MB to 1 GB at least in the lower end 27"?
They don't have control over that with the integrated chips. If they wanted to position themselves more strongly in this arena, they'd choose the highest amount available for each processor, but even then that isn't very much.
Right now I'm just hanging on for the next Mac Pro's GPUs and hoping there's at least 2GB minimum there. 512MB is really starting to not cut it in Space Engine, for example. Heck, my card isn't supposed to be able to run Space Engine at all…
They don't have control over that with the integrated chips. If they wanted to position themselves more strongly in this arena, they'd choose the highest amount available for each processor, but even then that isn't very much.
Right now I'm just hanging on for the next Mac Pro's GPUs and hoping there's at least 2GB minimum there. 512MB is really starting to not cut it in Space Engine, for example. Heck, my card isn't supposed to be able to run Space Engine at all…
Well Kepler cards have 2 GB minimum and I don't see them including 2 GB in a 640M or even a 650M (except I would like it for the rMBP to drive the screen). I just wonder about not including at least an option 1 GB for the GT 650M and GTX 660M. 512 MB might be fine for a base model but even then it's kind of meh.
Which iMacs sell the most? 21.5"? or 27"?
Like say with the MacBook Pros, I know the classic unibody 13" was huge for them.
They don't have control over that with the integrated chips. If they wanted to position themselves more strongly in this arena, they'd choose the highest amount available for each processor, but even then that isn't very much.
Right now I'm just hanging on for the next Mac Pro's GPUs and hoping there's at least 2GB minimum there. 512MB is really starting to not cut it in Space Engine, for example. Heck, my card isn't supposed to be able to run Space Engine at all…
1GB wasn't even high when the mac pro 2010 revision debuted. That would be the area where it really irritates me. The common "average user just checks facebook" argument isn't exactly valid when we restrict the comparison to workstation level hardware. Check out the P90X of graphics cards. It's a pretty extreme comparison, but I'm not sure any of the current mac gpus including the 680mx could load even half of that without crashing. Companies probably buy hardware like that for hero suites so that it can be displayed for clients at full resolution without exporting to an offline renderer when a change is made. That's my guess.
No direct relation to the workout routine, but performance comparable thereto, huh? What're the odds…
Oh it's not called the P90X, although that would be completely awesome. I was making a steroid abuse joke looking at its specs. If you've ever seen one of the commercials, even the guy's skull looks buff.
At the very least, they did max out the 2 GB available to the 680MX. Also the iMac is not meant for everyone and hopefully Apple in the back of their mind will take a stance thinking that it is.
I think you mis one important aspect here, not everyone needs or wants a high performance video card. This is especially the case with iMac users. The upswell arguement is pretty bogus at times as Apple has no problems moving the lower end iMacs. The issue with the Mini is more complex as I really don't think Apple gets it when it comes to positioning the Mini. In essence every version of the Mini has crappy graphics.
In any event realize that your obsession with video card memory will soon be a thing of the past. Once systems are fully heterogeneous the GPU will have access to all system memory. The remaining trick is making that video memory fast enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Do you think Apple finally gives up and allows for more video memory in their iMacs by default. Do they finally go 512 MB to 1 GB at least in the lower end 27"?
I know what people are going to say or possibly say:
Winter - But they want people to buy the 27" ultimate.
Okay, then why have shitty versions? Cut the entry 21.5" with the 640M and make the lowest end model with 650M starting at $1,499? For $100 double the video memory.
I think you mis one important aspect here, not everyone needs or wants a high performance video card. This is especially the case with iMac users. The upswell arguement is pretty bogus at times as Apple has no problems moving the lower end iMacs. The issue with the Mini is more complex as I really don't think Apple gets it when it comes to positioning the Mini. In essence every version of the Mini has crappy graphics.
In any event realize that your obsession with video card memory will soon be a thing of the past. Once systems are fully heterogeneous the GPU will have access to all system memory. The remaining trick is making that video memory fast enough.
The only reason I have an obsession with graphics and video card memory in general is so I can play Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy on MAME OS X as well as some other games such as Time Crisis. Maybe that's a CPU thing though but I know you need a better video card than Intel HD 3000.
Edit: I also have an obsession with the Intel HD 4000 since there is no fix for HDMI. That being said, I kind of do have my eyes on an NEC monitor but I am too used to using my HDTV as my monitor.
Edit: I also have an obsession with the Intel HD 4000 since there is no fix for HDMI. That being said, I kind of do have my eyes on an NEC monitor but I am too used to using my HDTV as my monitor.
I like NEC. Spectraview can be buggy as hell at times, but NEC has the best price to quality ratio of any display brand on the market, especially in the US. Also my biggest issues with integrated graphics would be drivers and features rather than absolute performance. Basic OpenCL support in OSX and smooth drivers would go a long way for issues outside of gaming. It's not always a performance thing. I've mentioned graphic design and illustration at times. The HD 4000 is probably fast enough there. The only issues relate to things like how much memory it can address, lack of OpenCL in OSX, and driver issues such as the HDMI problems you mentioned (although for that use case they should be using displayport).
I understand what you want, I just don't see the point in criticizing the low end models when many do fine with those models. I like you want a little more out of my video hardware and that is why I see the 2012 Mini upsell model as a big fail. The lack of a Mini with a higher performance video subsystem is a big problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
The only reason I have an obsession with graphics and video card memory in general is so I can play Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy on MAME OS X as well as some other games such as Time Crisis. Maybe that's a CPU thing though but I know you need a better video card than Intel HD 3000.
Edit: I also have an obsession with the Intel HD 4000 since there is no fix for HDMI. That being said, I kind of do have my eyes on an NEC monitor but I am too used to using my HDTV as my monitor.
I'm with you on Intel driver issues. Funny but I connect an HDTV to my MBP often, frankly it sucks for anything involving text. Great for videos though.
I understand what you want, I just don't see the point in criticizing the low end models when many do fine with those models. I like you want a little more out of my video hardware and that is why I see the 2012 Mini upsell model as a big fail. The lack of a Mini with a higher performance video subsystem is a big problem.
I'm with you on Intel driver issues. Funny but I connect an HDTV to my MBP often, frankly it sucks for anything involving text. Great for videos though.
Most games perform just fine with the Intel HD 3000, it's just anything involving 3D which is also an emulation issue. I can run a lot of classics including all of the Mortal Kombat games, anything Neo-Geo, Street Fighter and Street Fighter Alpha (don't know about SFIV), though stuff such as Tekken 3, Soul Calibur, etc. require some work.
I have no problems with HDMI and the Intel HD 3000 (though I don't think any issues ever existed did they) and it looks best at 1366x768 (which I know a lot of people hate) though my TV is a Vizio VO320 32".
I agree with you i have this model and the small amount of games I play is perfect for me.Besides most of these games are plain violent and should not even be in the market today.
I agree with you i have this model and the small amount of games I play is perfect for me.Besides most of these games are plain violent and should not even be in the market today.
I am going to slightly disagree only because there are a lot of popular things people like that I personally don't like from TV shows to video games to movies. Why did Jersey Shore or Honey Boo Boo have to get green-lighted?
Anyway, the problem is RPGs are so limited on the PC but plentiful on consoles. I loved Diablo I and II. They were perfect. Diablo III to me wasn't as fun and didn't live up to the hype.
Now as I understand it, "GT3" from Haswell processors is going to go into anything mobile (MacBook Air, Pro, and mini). They will be an improvement over Ivy Bridge and an obvious improvement over Sandy Bridge.
I will probably need a quad-core model though since I am getting the Apple SSD. I know it's cheaper to do it yourself but I doubt they're offering one on the Haswell dual-core entry level model.
I am going to slightly disagree only because there are a lot of popular things people like that I personally don't like from TV shows to video games to movies. Why did Jersey Shore or Honey Boo Boo have to get green-lighted?
Cheap to produce + a lot of people like trash even if they won't admit to it. I think some people just watch those things out of shock. They can't believe the show would be that bad, so they watch it to find out. Following people around with cameras is cheap compared to building sets and budgeting for vfx.
These processors you are referring to have more of an advantage when playing these games you mention.I have Sandy Bridge now and when this Haswell comes out will the difference be that tremendous actually?
These processors you are referring to have more of an advantage when playing these games you mention.I have Sandy Bridge now and when this Haswell comes out will the difference be that tremendous actually?
The processor speed might not be but the graphics will be. Also I am more than likely looking to step up from a Sandy Bridge dual-core to a Haswell quad-core so I will see a huge difference.
I actually do play quite a bit of games (not the latest but a few) plus I'll be ready to recycle my current Mac mini once the new one hits later this year. 1 year is too short, 2 years is just right... your mileage may vary say if you bought a $2,000+ MBP, iMac, or Mac Pro but for a Mini it's perfect if of course you choose to.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A better question would be if there is anything actually preventing this now, other than chipset limitations.
The current limitation would be availability of sodimms. Notebooks can run 32GB. Lenovo and some of the others have notebooks that will take 4 sodimms, and you can find many reports of people running 32GB this way. Much of the time they need it to smoothly run multiple VMs.
I know what people are going to say or possibly say:
Winter - But they want people to buy the 27" ultimate.
Okay, then why have shitty versions? Cut the entry 21.5" with the 640M and make the lowest end model with 650M starting at $1,499? For $100 double the video memory.
Originally Posted by Winter
Do you think Apple finally gives up and allows for more video memory in their iMacs by default. Do they finally go 512 MB to 1 GB at least in the lower end 27"?
They don't have control over that with the integrated chips. If they wanted to position themselves more strongly in this arena, they'd choose the highest amount available for each processor, but even then that isn't very much.
Right now I'm just hanging on for the next Mac Pro's GPUs and hoping there's at least 2GB minimum there. 512MB is really starting to not cut it in Space Engine, for example. Heck, my card isn't supposed to be able to run Space Engine at all…
Well Kepler cards have 2 GB minimum and I don't see them including 2 GB in a 640M or even a 650M (except I would like it for the rMBP to drive the screen). I just wonder about not including at least an option 1 GB for the GT 650M and GTX 660M. 512 MB might be fine for a base model but even then it's kind of meh.
Which iMacs sell the most? 21.5"? or 27"?
Like say with the MacBook Pros, I know the classic unibody 13" was huge for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They don't have control over that with the integrated chips. If they wanted to position themselves more strongly in this arena, they'd choose the highest amount available for each processor, but even then that isn't very much.
Right now I'm just hanging on for the next Mac Pro's GPUs and hoping there's at least 2GB minimum there. 512MB is really starting to not cut it in Space Engine, for example. Heck, my card isn't supposed to be able to run Space Engine at all…
1GB wasn't even high when the mac pro 2010 revision debuted. That would be the area where it really irritates me. The common "average user just checks facebook" argument isn't exactly valid when we restrict the comparison to workstation level hardware. Check out the P90X of graphics cards. It's a pretty extreme comparison, but I'm not sure any of the current mac gpus including the 680mx could load even half of that without crashing. Companies probably buy hardware like that for hero suites so that it can be displayed for clients at full resolution without exporting to an offline renderer when a change is made. That's my guess.
Originally Posted by hmm
Check out the P90X of graphics cards.
No direct relation to the workout routine, but performance comparable thereto, huh? What're the odds…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No direct relation to the workout routine, but performance comparable thereto, huh? What're the odds…
Oh it's not called the P90X, although that would be completely awesome. I was making a steroid abuse joke looking at its specs. If you've ever seen one of the commercials, even the guy's skull looks buff.
I think you mis one important aspect here, not everyone needs or wants a high performance video card. This is especially the case with iMac users. The upswell arguement is pretty bogus at times as Apple has no problems moving the lower end iMacs. The issue with the Mini is more complex as I really don't think Apple gets it when it comes to positioning the Mini. In essence every version of the Mini has crappy graphics.
In any event realize that your obsession with video card memory will soon be a thing of the past. Once systems are fully heterogeneous the GPU will have access to all system memory. The remaining trick is making that video memory fast enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Do you think Apple finally gives up and allows for more video memory in their iMacs by default. Do they finally go 512 MB to 1 GB at least in the lower end 27"?
I know what people are going to say or possibly say:
Winter - But they want people to buy the 27" ultimate.
Okay, then why have shitty versions? Cut the entry 21.5" with the 640M and make the lowest end model with 650M starting at $1,499? For $100 double the video memory.
The only reason I have an obsession with graphics and video card memory in general is so I can play Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy on MAME OS X as well as some other games such as Time Crisis. Maybe that's a CPU thing though but I know you need a better video card than Intel HD 3000.
Edit: I also have an obsession with the Intel HD 4000 since there is no fix for HDMI. That being said, I kind of do have my eyes on an NEC monitor but I am too used to using my HDTV as my monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Edit: I also have an obsession with the Intel HD 4000 since there is no fix for HDMI. That being said, I kind of do have my eyes on an NEC monitor but I am too used to using my HDTV as my monitor.
I like NEC. Spectraview can be buggy as hell at times, but NEC has the best price to quality ratio of any display brand on the market, especially in the US. Also my biggest issues with integrated graphics would be drivers and features rather than absolute performance. Basic OpenCL support in OSX and smooth drivers would go a long way for issues outside of gaming. It's not always a performance thing. I've mentioned graphic design and illustration at times. The HD 4000 is probably fast enough there. The only issues relate to things like how much memory it can address, lack of OpenCL in OSX, and driver issues such as the HDMI problems you mentioned (although for that use case they should be using displayport).
I understand what you want, I just don't see the point in criticizing the low end models when many do fine with those models. I like you want a little more out of my video hardware and that is why I see the 2012 Mini upsell model as a big fail. The lack of a Mini with a higher performance video subsystem is a big problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
The only reason I have an obsession with graphics and video card memory in general is so I can play Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy on MAME OS X as well as some other games such as Time Crisis. Maybe that's a CPU thing though but I know you need a better video card than Intel HD 3000.
Edit: I also have an obsession with the Intel HD 4000 since there is no fix for HDMI. That being said, I kind of do have my eyes on an NEC monitor but I am too used to using my HDTV as my monitor.
I'm with you on Intel driver issues. Funny but I connect an HDTV to my MBP often, frankly it sucks for anything involving text. Great for videos though.
Most games perform just fine with the Intel HD 3000, it's just anything involving 3D which is also an emulation issue. I can run a lot of classics including all of the Mortal Kombat games, anything Neo-Geo, Street Fighter and Street Fighter Alpha (don't know about SFIV), though stuff such as Tekken 3, Soul Calibur, etc. require some work.
I have no problems with HDMI and the Intel HD 3000 (though I don't think any issues ever existed did they) and it looks best at 1366x768 (which I know a lot of people hate) though my TV is a Vizio VO320 32".
I agree with you i have this model and the small amount of games I play is perfect for me.Besides most of these games are plain violent and should not even be in the market today.
I am going to slightly disagree only because there are a lot of popular things people like that I personally don't like from TV shows to video games to movies. Why did Jersey Shore or Honey Boo Boo have to get green-lighted?
Anyway, the problem is RPGs are so limited on the PC but plentiful on consoles. I loved Diablo I and II. They were perfect. Diablo III to me wasn't as fun and didn't live up to the hype.
Now as I understand it, "GT3" from Haswell processors is going to go into anything mobile (MacBook Air, Pro, and mini). They will be an improvement over Ivy Bridge and an obvious improvement over Sandy Bridge.
I will probably need a quad-core model though since I am getting the Apple SSD. I know it's cheaper to do it yourself but I doubt they're offering one on the Haswell dual-core entry level model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I am going to slightly disagree only because there are a lot of popular things people like that I personally don't like from TV shows to video games to movies. Why did Jersey Shore or Honey Boo Boo have to get green-lighted?
Cheap to produce + a lot of people like trash even if they won't admit to it. I think some people just watch those things out of shock. They can't believe the show would be that bad, so they watch it to find out. Following people around with cameras is cheap compared to building sets and budgeting for vfx.
These processors you are referring to have more of an advantage when playing these games you mention.I have Sandy Bridge now and when this Haswell comes out will the difference be that tremendous actually?
The processor speed might not be but the graphics will be. Also I am more than likely looking to step up from a Sandy Bridge dual-core to a Haswell quad-core so I will see a huge difference.
When is this new revelation coming out? Graphics really if you play games a lot I would think.