Let me throw this out there... does anyone see the possibility of a 37W quad-core going into the $599 Mac mini?
I see the possibility of the next Mac Mini having ~1:1 the chips with whatever TDP the current model does.
I don't tend to speculate beyond that. It's usually correct.
I forgot if I mentioned this already. Would you kill off the dual-core and keep only one quad-core and the "server" model? Dare I say drop the regular quad-core by $100?
I would, but Apple tends to be more conservative in their ideas than me. Though I really like the idea of being able to drop it by $100 again…
So yeah if I'm on stage in front of everyone, I'm saying the following. We have decided to reposition the Mac mini to specifically a quad-core machine. The dual-core machine is going away.
$699 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz) 8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB) Intel HD 4600 1 TB HDD (options for 1 TB Fusion, 256 GB SSD, or 512 GB SSD)
$899 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz) 8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB) Intel HD 4600 1 TB HDD (options for 2x1 TB HDD, 2x512 GB SSD)
Maybe you even drop it to $599 and $799 instead. It's crazy but it might be enough to work.
In the $599 machine, not likely. It might get a lower power quad core, that would actually make for a nice entry level machine. This assumes a more or less static design but I'm not too sure the Mini could handle a 37 watt processor. They cut it pretty close power supply wise but also benefit from power savings on all other components. This based on my foggy memory but I thought the current server was asked on a 35 watt part.
Frankly I'd like to see another TB port in the Mini and that is another 10 watts out of the power budget. So you need to consider the whole platform and the power capability of the power supply. Gain some here lose some there. The other interesting thing is Intel hasn't released all of their laptop parts yet, it isn't certain what the final line up will look like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Let me throw this out there... does anyone see the possibility of a 37W quad-core going into the $599 Mac mini?
I forgot if I mentioned this already. Would you kill off the dual-core and keep only one quad-core and the "server" model? Dare I say drop the regular quad-core by $100?
The current Mini line up is crap. They need to find a way to drive a true value machine to the market. Delivering a quad core at a better price is one avenue or they could do a dual core at $499. Haswell might just give Apple that option as they might be able to put a dual core desktop chip in the Mini and shave a $100 of the entry model. Of course then they have to deal with how to deliver quad core models.
This comes back to why I'd like to see an XMac, with a bigger power budget you really end up with far more options to a cost effective machine. Drop the high cost laptop parts and enjoy a price cut and higher margins at the same time.
First; even with these configs the Mini is overpriced. Yeah I know lap top parts mean more dollars but that is something Apple needs to deal with.
As for RAM Apple needs to go beyond 16GB. When it comes to storage you never have enough, in that regard I'd like to keep the two bays and put the fusion SSD on a PC Card plugged into a socket. Actually the same SSDs seen in the AIRs would be nice.
Finally the upper end model would be a lot more appealing with GT3 graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
So yeah if I'm on stage in front of everyone, I'm saying the following. We have decided to reposition the Mac mini to specifically a quad-core machine. The dual-core machine is going away.
$699 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 1 TB Fusion, 256 GB SSD, or 512 GB SSD)
$899 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 2x1 TB HDD, 2x512 GB SSD)
Maybe you even drop it to $599 and $799 instead. It's crazy but it might be enough to work.
I agree with you wizard however what I am trying to manage is to see what parts can go into the Mini that Apple would most likely put in. I am thinking within their closed ecosystem and not being open-minded.
This is pretty simple, the current Mini is limited by its power supply. According to Apple the power supply maxes out at 85 watts. You can immediately subtract the power budgeted for TB and USB which might leave us with 55 watts. A few more watts to go to support internal components and you probably max out at 45 watts. So with today's Mini probably anything in Intels line up that is less that 45 watts will do.
Now today that is a limited range of processors. With Haswell and beyond you have a wider array of possibilities. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a very significant performance improvement. You can't however project beyond that until Intel has its full array of Haswell processors on the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I agree with you wizard however what I am trying to manage is to see what parts can go into the Mini that Apple would most likely put in. I am thinking within their closed ecosystem and not being open-minded.
This is pretty simple, the current Mini is limited by its power supply. According to Apple the power supply maxes out at 85 watts. You can immediately subtract the power budgeted for TB and USB which might leave us with 55 watts. A few more watts to go to support internal components and you probably max out at 45 watts. So with today's Mini probably anything in Intels line up that is less that 45 watts will do.
Now today that is a limited range of processors. With Haswell and beyond you have a wider array of possibilities. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a very significant performance improvement. You can't however project beyond that until Intel has its full array of Haswell processors on the market.
They used 45W cpus in the quad models this year. Last year that price territory was covered by a 35W + discrete graphics. If it's just a couple watts worth of difference in tdp, they will likely test if it works properly and limit turbo slightly if there is a risk of drawing too much power. I suspect they have to leave a little headroom either way. I'm also unsure what their power supply can handle in extended use rather than peak use. As to 35-37W QM chips that Winter mentioned, my guess there is it depends on price.
Well 45 watts is better than 35. This would certainly out some of the Haswell desktop processor in the right power range however I'm not certain that the desktop North Brisges are of low enough power. Further the desktop chips don't always have the best GPU configurations. As to Winters question about GT3 graphics Intel hasn't even revealed chips containing that GPU. I would suspect that we will see higher power demands for GT3 support.
As for the power supply I think apple seriously needs to consider an upgrade anyways. The goal should be support of 45 watt chips (desktop or laptop) along with a decent GPU chip.
As to QM chips that is almost a requirement in any Mac above a base model. Quad core support just makes sense for today's software demands. It is just totally unknown if the GPUs that will be available in the Mini will be good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
They used 45W cpus in the quad models this year. Last year that price territory was covered by a 35W + discrete graphics. If it's just a couple watts worth of difference in tdp, they will likely test if it works properly and limit turbo slightly if there is a risk of drawing too much power. I suspect they have to leave a little headroom either way. I'm also unsure what their power supply can handle in extended use rather than peak use. As to 35-37W QM chips that Winter mentioned, my guess there is it depends on price.
The thing is, I like the idea of an xMac and I don't want to shoot it down. I just want to kind of fence myself in and draw up what I think will most likely be in the next model mini and also the iMac.
I would love to set my expectations as high as possible and have them met or exceeded though if I do that, I will walk away very disappointed.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to see both the current Mini and a larger tweakable 'mini' (housing the same internal structure of the iMac) to be paired with a cinema display. The larger 'Midi-Mac' and display could be the same price as, but eliminate the iMac (with its heat problem) and Apples ongoing attempts to make it thinner. When the hardware becomes obsolete, a new 'Midi-Mac' could be used with the older display.
Well that is simple an intel processor in the 35 to 45 watt range. That given that the Mini isn't completely redesigned. I'm still of the opinion that there is a good possibility of an all new Mini to go along with the all new Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
The thing is, I like the idea of an xMac and I don't want to shoot it down. I just want to kind of fence myself in and draw up what I think will most likely be in the next model mini and also the iMac.
I would love to set my expectations as high as possible and have them met or exceeded though if I do that, I will walk away very disappointed.
Well 45 watts is better than 35. This would certainly out some of the Haswell desktop processor in the right power range however I'm not certain that the desktop North Brisges are of low enough power. Further the desktop chips don't always have the best GPU configurations. As to Winters question about GT3 graphics Intel hasn't even revealed chips containing that GPU. I would suspect that we will see higher power demands for GT3 support.
I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. Do you see a discrete north bridge on any of the ivy boards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
They absorbed sound cards in the past. They absorbed the entire northbridge into the cpu package. This seems like a natural evolution. It's possible discrete options will hold out for a while depending on performance, but the cost would most likely be higher due to the lack of ability to sink development costs through volume sales.
When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?
If anything, it will be the last Mac to get it, and in the smallest amounts. It's supposed to be "the cheap one", remember. Those proprietary cards probably don't fit that bill right now.
When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?
It's a minor pain but you can easily install a SSD if you want. For Apple the fusion option makes more sense since selling a 128gb SSD for $200 is more palatable as part of fusion than standalone.
So it doesn't look like Intel has dropped the PCH at all. Worst it looks like the multi chip variant of Haswell is going to be a performance power house that we would all love to see. It is a two core chip which really doesn't look like it is suitable for the Mini.
Now you may ask what is the power profile of the PCH. That is a good question and honestly I hope there is a process shrink there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. Do you see a discrete north bridge on any of the ivy boards?
It probably depends upon when we get a significantly revised Mini. If they can stuff 256GB of flash onto a PCI Express interfaced card they would dramatically change the nature of the machine. With the advent of Intel only graphics such a card would make the up sell model very interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?
Comments
Originally Posted by Winter
Let me throw this out there... does anyone see the possibility of a 37W quad-core going into the $599 Mac mini?
I see the possibility of the next Mac Mini having ~1:1 the chips with whatever TDP the current model does.
I don't tend to speculate beyond that. It's usually correct.
I forgot if I mentioned this already. Would you kill off the dual-core and keep only one quad-core and the "server" model? Dare I say drop the regular quad-core by $100?
I would, but Apple tends to be more conservative in their ideas than me. Though I really like the idea of being able to drop it by $100 again…
$699 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 1 TB Fusion, 256 GB SSD, or 512 GB SSD)
$899 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 2x1 TB HDD, 2x512 GB SSD)
Maybe you even drop it to $599 and $799 instead. It's crazy but it might be enough to work.
In the $599 machine, not likely. It might get a lower power quad core, that would actually make for a nice entry level machine. This assumes a more or less static design but I'm not too sure the Mini could handle a 37 watt processor. They cut it pretty close power supply wise but also benefit from power savings on all other components. This based on my foggy memory but I thought the current server was asked on a 35 watt part.
Frankly I'd like to see another TB port in the Mini and that is another 10 watts out of the power budget. So you need to consider the whole platform and the power capability of the power supply. Gain some here lose some there. The other interesting thing is Intel hasn't released all of their laptop parts yet, it isn't certain what the final line up will look like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Let me throw this out there... does anyone see the possibility of a 37W quad-core going into the $599 Mac mini?
I forgot if I mentioned this already. Would you kill off the dual-core and keep only one quad-core and the "server" model? Dare I say drop the regular quad-core by $100?
The current Mini line up is crap. They need to find a way to drive a true value machine to the market. Delivering a quad core at a better price is one avenue or they could do a dual core at $499. Haswell might just give Apple that option as they might be able to put a dual core desktop chip in the Mini and shave a $100 of the entry model. Of course then they have to deal with how to deliver quad core models.
This comes back to why I'd like to see an XMac, with a bigger power budget you really end up with far more options to a cost effective machine. Drop the high cost laptop parts and enjoy a price cut and higher margins at the same time.
It is not the line up for me.
First; even with these configs the Mini is overpriced. Yeah I know lap top parts mean more dollars but that is something Apple needs to deal with.
As for RAM Apple needs to go beyond 16GB. When it comes to storage you never have enough, in that regard I'd like to keep the two bays and put the fusion SSD on a PC Card plugged into a socket. Actually the same SSDs seen in the AIRs would be nice.
Finally the upper end model would be a lot more appealing with GT3 graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
So yeah if I'm on stage in front of everyone, I'm saying the following. We have decided to reposition the Mac mini to specifically a quad-core machine. The dual-core machine is going away.
$699 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 1 TB Fusion, 256 GB SSD, or 512 GB SSD)
$899 gets you
i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 2x1 TB HDD, 2x512 GB SSD)
Maybe you even drop it to $599 and $799 instead. It's crazy but it might be enough to work.
This is pretty simple, the current Mini is limited by its power supply. According to Apple the power supply maxes out at 85 watts. You can immediately subtract the power budgeted for TB and USB which might leave us with 55 watts. A few more watts to go to support internal components and you probably max out at 45 watts. So with today's Mini probably anything in Intels line up that is less that 45 watts will do.
Now today that is a limited range of processors. With Haswell and beyond you have a wider array of possibilities. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a very significant performance improvement. You can't however project beyond that until Intel has its full array of Haswell processors on the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I agree with you wizard however what I am trying to manage is to see what parts can go into the Mini that Apple would most likely put in. I am thinking within their closed ecosystem and not being open-minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is pretty simple, the current Mini is limited by its power supply. According to Apple the power supply maxes out at 85 watts. You can immediately subtract the power budgeted for TB and USB which might leave us with 55 watts. A few more watts to go to support internal components and you probably max out at 45 watts. So with today's Mini probably anything in Intels line up that is less that 45 watts will do.
Now today that is a limited range of processors. With Haswell and beyond you have a wider array of possibilities. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a very significant performance improvement. You can't however project beyond that until Intel has its full array of Haswell processors on the market.
They used 45W cpus in the quad models this year. Last year that price territory was covered by a 35W + discrete graphics. If it's just a couple watts worth of difference in tdp, they will likely test if it works properly and limit turbo slightly if there is a risk of drawing too much power. I suspect they have to leave a little headroom either way. I'm also unsure what their power supply can handle in extended use rather than peak use. As to 35-37W QM chips that Winter mentioned, my guess there is it depends on price.
Well 45 watts is better than 35. This would certainly out some of the Haswell desktop processor in the right power range however I'm not certain that the desktop North Brisges are of low enough power. Further the desktop chips don't always have the best GPU configurations. As to Winters question about GT3 graphics Intel hasn't even revealed chips containing that GPU. I would suspect that we will see higher power demands for GT3 support.
As for the power supply I think apple seriously needs to consider an upgrade anyways. The goal should be support of 45 watt chips (desktop or laptop) along with a decent GPU chip.
As to QM chips that is almost a requirement in any Mac above a base model. Quad core support just makes sense for today's software demands. It is just totally unknown if the GPUs that will be available in the Mini will be good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
They used 45W cpus in the quad models this year. Last year that price territory was covered by a 35W + discrete graphics. If it's just a couple watts worth of difference in tdp, they will likely test if it works properly and limit turbo slightly if there is a risk of drawing too much power. I suspect they have to leave a little headroom either way. I'm also unsure what their power supply can handle in extended use rather than peak use. As to 35-37W QM chips that Winter mentioned, my guess there is it depends on price.
I would love to set my expectations as high as possible and have them met or exceeded though if I do that, I will walk away very disappointed.
post #267
At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to see both the current Mini and a larger tweakable 'mini' (housing the same internal structure of the iMac) to be paired with a cinema display. The larger 'Midi-Mac' and display could be the same price as, but eliminate the iMac (with its heat problem) and Apples ongoing attempts to make it thinner. When the hardware becomes obsolete, a new 'Midi-Mac' could be used with the older display.
Well that is simple an intel processor in the 35 to 45 watt range. That given that the Mini isn't completely redesigned. I'm still of the opinion that there is a good possibility of an all new Mini to go along with the all new Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
The thing is, I like the idea of an xMac and I don't want to shoot it down. I just want to kind of fence myself in and draw up what I think will most likely be in the next model mini and also the iMac.
I would love to set my expectations as high as possible and have them met or exceeded though if I do that, I will walk away very disappointed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Well 45 watts is better than 35. This would certainly out some of the Haswell desktop processor in the right power range however I'm not certain that the desktop North Brisges are of low enough power. Further the desktop chips don't always have the best GPU configurations. As to Winters question about GT3 graphics Intel hasn't even revealed chips containing that GPU. I would suspect that we will see higher power demands for GT3 support.
I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. Do you see a discrete north bridge on any of the ivy boards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
They absorbed sound cards in the past. They absorbed the entire northbridge into the cpu package. This seems like a natural evolution. It's possible discrete options will hold out for a while depending on performance, but the cost would most likely be higher due to the lack of ability to sink development costs through volume sales.
Originally Posted by Winter
When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?
If anything, it will be the last Mac to get it, and in the smallest amounts. It's supposed to be "the cheap one", remember. Those proprietary cards probably don't fit that bill right now.
Why is the MM always the last to get any new improvements?
Your best best is a thunderbolt dock and a hdmi display. That's not as clean but gives you a few more ports.
I'm waiting for the Belkin to arrive. The Matrox is too limited for the price.
It's a minor pain but you can easily install a SSD if you want. For Apple the fusion option makes more sense since selling a 128gb SSD for $200 is more palatable as part of fusion than standalone.
This question sparked some searching because I know Intel would like to go the SOC route. What I found here: http://vr-zone.com/articles/detailed-intel-haswell-specs-revealed/13908-1.html is that PCH chips are still to be used. In some cases the PCH is part of a multi chip module.
So it doesn't look like Intel has dropped the PCH at all. Worst it looks like the multi chip variant of Haswell is going to be a performance power house that we would all love to see. It is a two core chip which really doesn't look like it is suitable for the Mini.
Now you may ask what is the power profile of the PCH. That is a good question and honestly I hope there is a process shrink there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. Do you see a discrete north bridge on any of the ivy boards?
It probably depends upon when we get a significantly revised Mini. If they can stuff 256GB of flash onto a PCI Express interfaced card they would dramatically change the nature of the machine. With the advent of Intel only graphics such a card would make the up sell model very interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?