This is my thought also. However Intel does appear to be slipping schedules again. It is funny how Intel always gets a pass on this issue.
I do think the new Mac Pro may be a factor here with the schedule for the Mini. I could see both being updated at the same time with a new Mini echoing the design themes of the Mac Pro.
Don't worry be happy…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I know you're concerned, but don't worry about it. As long as Haswell laptop chips are released this year, the Mac Mini would be as well.
Apple's going to give us 4200s across the board, aren't they…
From the MacBook Air to the Mac Pro, it will only be the 4200 onboard…
If Haswell 5200 / GT3 allows them to reach 650M speeds (Anandtech seems to have verified this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/intel-haswell-gt3e-gpu-performance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ), I can see Apple putting it in an entry Retina 15" MBP for $1799. If NVidia charges Apple $200 for the 650M, that translates into over $300 off the retail cost. I think Apple has always used Intel's fastest available IGPs and they even worked with NVidia to design the fastest IGP available at the time.
It would make the 13" MBPs look much better value if you can get 640M/650M performance. Eventually it makes sense for Apple to go with integrated graphics in all the mobile machines.
If Haswell 5200 / GT3 allows them to reach 650M speeds (Anandtech seems to have verified this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/intel-haswell-gt3e-gpu-performance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ), I can see Apple putting it in an entry Retina 15" MBP for $1799. If NVidia charges Apple $200 for the 650M, that translates into over $300 off the retail cost. I think Apple has always used Intel's fastest available IGPs and they even worked with NVidia to design the fastest IGP available at the time.
It would make the 13" MBPs look much better value if you can get 640M/650M performance. Eventually it makes sense for Apple to go with integrated graphics in all the mobile machines.
If I dug up some old stuff on ivy bidge predictions, the theoretical performance was pretty far out there. I would seriously wait to see what it's like in actual use, although I agree with you that these kinds of improvements add a lot more value to the 13" models. I could also see a 15" entry Retina at $1800, as they have used that for their entry 15" for a number of cycles at this point. Early ones started at $2000 and they backed off to $1800. Where available refurbished units further lower the barrier to entry. I don't think they're all about raising the cost of entry. Their most successful products start lower than any of the Macs. Anyway regarding integrated graphics in a 15", didn't they do that with a 9400m at one point? I tried everymac and can't seem to locate one that only used integrated, although I thought it existed. They have used low end discrete graphics on entry models at times. The early 2011 used a 6490m. It was considerably slower than the 6750m available in the upgraded version and memory limited. I say memory limited as many 2011-2012 games would not be able to load higher resolution textures on 256MB, and most of the time applications that leverage OpenCL require 512-1GB. The gpu seems to be one major point where they regulate construction costs.
On pricing I don't always subscribe to the theory that the bill of materials directly drives retail pricing, because it's only one factor in that determination, but you might save more than the cost of the gpu if it simplifies the design and requirements. It's also obvious that they really don't design their chargers with discrete graphics in mind. If cpu and gpu are heavily taxed simultaneously, you can drain the battery while plugged into the wall.
Anyway regarding integrated graphics in a 15", didn't they do that with a 9400m at one point? I tried everymac and can't seem to locate one that only used integrated, although I thought it existed.
I didn't think they did but there's one listed here at a lower $1699 price point:
It's also obvious that they really don't design their chargers with discrete graphics in mind. If cpu and gpu are heavily taxed simultaneously, you can drain the battery while plugged into the wall.
I think they make a good enough compromise. 85W is about as big as you'd want a portable charger to be. The 110W Mini power supply wasn't a good size. If CPU and GPU were maxed out, worst case it would be 90W + some peripherals + display so say it's 20W above the 85W supply, the 77.5-95 Wh battery would drain in about 4 hours. You can use an external display though and it should be fine.
Thanks. I know I looked at a 2.53 version. Perhaps I clicked on the wrong ones. They went away from that when NVidia's integrated options were no longer available. Personally I hope discrete graphics don't disappear from the line until Intel improves considerably in performance, drivers, and overall features to the point of being a bit more in line with discrete options. Some things just simply aren't supported. I like that massively parallel processes have been going toward OpenCL and sometimes CUDA implementations. The performance per dollar is incredible compared to cpu driven processes when it can be leveraged.
Quote:
That wouldn't bring down the prices of the 13" Retina though so they might not be able to eliminate the old models at this revision.
I think they make a good enough compromise. 85W is about as big as you'd want a portable charger to be.
I think when generic panels are available that meet Apple's resolution requirements, that will help the price. Obviously that is a guess. I don't know how much the other design adjustments inflate the cost to build one or their overall pricing strategy going forward.
Quote:
The 110W Mini power supply wasn't a good size. If CPU and GPU were maxed out, worst case it would be 90W + some peripherals + display so say it's 20W above the 85W supply, the 77.5-95 Wh battery would drain in about 4 hours. You can use an external display though and it should be fine.
They could have offered one as an accessory to allow it to be purchased. I have the 85W one. It's not that big. If I remember correctly some of the older macbook pro ones were larger. Going way back the powerbook G4 ones were tiny, but they broke too often.
Also regarding the mini, it seems to be fairly constrained on power. I kind of wonder whether it will receive GT3.
I've been hearing similar things along that line of thought. I just find it funny that Intel always gets a pass on this while AMD can be one week late and it is curtains for them.
Im wondering what is up this time with the slippage. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they are missing project operating points as far as power goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox
Haswell may be a long way off as i heard this from reliable sources 2 days ago.
The potential is why I believe it is worth the wait. Not only would this lead to cheaper MBP class machines but it should help manage power.
As for the AIR type machines apparently Intel has a high integration version of Haswell coming designed specifically for very compact machines.
All of this sounds good but last I knew Intel never intended to deliver all this goodness at once. The GT3 class machines where at one time rumored to come some months after the general Haswell laptop release. This will of course lead to much whining in the forums when Apple doesn't deliver new Haswell based machines the very minute the new processors hit the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If Haswell 5200 / GT3 allows them to reach 650M speeds (Anandtech seems to have verified this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/intel-haswell-gt3e-gpu-performance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ), I can see Apple putting it in an entry Retina 15" MBP for $1799. If NVidia charges Apple $200 for the 650M, that translates into over $300 off the retail cost. I think Apple has always used Intel's fastest available IGPs and they even worked with NVidia to design the fastest IGP available at the time.
It would make the 13" MBPs look much better value if you can get 640M/650M performance. Eventually it makes sense for Apple to go with integrated graphics in all the mobile machines.
My two big issues with Intel GPUs is the terrible 3D support and lackluster OpenCL support. Haswell could change this to good enough for many users.
Also regarding the mini, it seems to be fairly constrained on power. I kind of wonder whether it will receive GT3.
GT3 will probably have a dynamic clock speed. They showed a version running Unigine Heaven in real-time at 17W. Remember that during graphics intensive tasks, it will ramp down the CPU side so that the GPU part can use more of the power limit. Plus Intel is on 22nm vs NVidia being on 28nm. Separate CPU/GPU chips will still be faster when used together as they will draw 90W and an IGP model might have a 45-55W limit but achieving last year's NVidia GPU performance for gaming should be possible.
If they can get the Retina model to $1799 and GT3 performs the same as a 650M, I think they should do it, even if they bump it back up at a later revision.
What is so great about Haswell ? Another processor that is all.
If the GPU performs like it does in the demos, it means that they no longer have to be looked down on as inferior to dedicated GPUs. The HD4000 made a decent jump but you can see all the red marks on the following page vs the green for the NVidia GPU:
Well if you believe Intels propaganda it is another processor witha vastly improved GPU. Supposedly the GPU will come in different favors delivering performance that can be tailored to a specific use. In other words a Haswell for compact notebooks like AIR and a Haswell for MBP class machines that deliver graphics as good as today's machines.
In a nut shell Haswell could be the tipping point where we, well most if us, wouldn't need to buy a machine with a discrete GPU. Right now buying a Mac without a discrete GPU isn't advisable if you expect to keep the machine for a long time for general purpose use. The problem is so much software today is GPU accelerated to one extent or another. Even things like Safari benefit from having a reasonably powerful GPU handy. In the end this would mean far more powerful computers at reasonable price points. Potentially things like the retina MBPs could drop in price to the point that they are similarly priced to the conventional machines.
Of course Intel has a history of under delivering here so it is merely speculation that the hardware will deliver the jump in performance everyone is hoping for. Only real hardware, in unbiased hands, will tell us how great Haswell is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox
What is so great about Haswell ? Another processor that is all.
GT3 will probably have a dynamic clock speed. They showed a version running Unigine Heaven in real-time at 17W. Remember that during graphics intensive tasks, it will ramp down the CPU side so that the GPU part can use more of the power limit. Plus Intel is on 22nm vs NVidia being on 28nm. Separate CPU/GPU chips will still be faster when used together as they will draw 90W and an IGP model might have a 45-55W limit but achieving last year's NVidia GPU performance for gaming should be possible.
This is a significant milestone in PC hardware if Intel actually hits it. Imagine an AIR with close to the performance of today's Mac Book Pros. The most interesting thing here is the support of a VRAM allotment in the CPU package which overcomes the limitation that continues to hurt both AMD and Intel with their integrated GPUs. That of course is memory bandwidth that simply isn't adequate over today's PC type memory busses.
Quote:
If they can get the Retina model to $1799 and GT3 performs the same as a 650M, I think they should do it, even if they bump it back up at a later revision.
The entry level models could easily go this route and save customers and Apple a lot of money. Right now the MBP with retina has a pricing structure that hurts sales. Apple knows this of course which is why the old platform is still around. However Haswell combined with much lower retina screen costs could result in a big price drop on retina machines sometime this year. People ask why Haswell is so great, well this is it in a nut shell, depending upon the machine it can mean either lower pricing or much better performance at the same price.
Quote:
If the GPU performs like it does in the demos, it means that they no longer have to be looked down on as inferior to dedicated GPUs. The HD4000 made a decent jump but you can see all the red marks on the following page vs the green for the NVidia GPU:
HD4000 isn't too bad at all if you don't need the 3D or OpenCL performance. However I honestly believe that many underestimate just how important those two features are with respect to modern software.
The things that I worry about are things like just how bad will thermal throttling be. There are still physical realities here and in the past Intel has demonstrated that they can be thermal hogs even in the notebook line of chips. In the end if a chip is thermally managed to a certain power point then something someplace is loosing cycles. Real world use will be very interesting when it comes to Haswell.
If they can get the Retina model to $1799 and GT3 performs the same as a 650M, I think they should do it, even if they bump it back up at a later revision.
Sorry, going to have to challenge you on it. We'll have to see what Broadwell brings for the simple issue of price and specs.
I feel the 15" notebooks are for power users given that there is no 17". The 13" retina still needs seasoning. It needs to get to the classic MacBook Pro price points, possibly even the MacBook Air price points in my view.
I realize I'm going too far out of the box of Apple's closed garden but I'm doing so anyway. Not saying you are wrong though.
Edit: Also less is more. Don't introduce any more models. Choice is fine but work on the BTO options.
Comments
Originally Posted by Winter
Someone brought up to me about the mini possibly not coming out until early 2014. That seems a bit off to me... thoughts?
I know you're concerned, but don't worry about it. As long as Haswell laptop chips are released this year, the Mac Mini would be as well.
This is my thought also. However Intel does appear to be slipping schedules again. It is funny how Intel always gets a pass on this issue.
I do think the new Mac Pro may be a factor here with the schedule for the Mini. I could see both being updated at the same time with a new Mini echoing the design themes of the Mac Pro.
Don't worry be happy…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I know you're concerned, but don't worry about it. As long as Haswell laptop chips are released this year, the Mac Mini would be as well.
Haswell may be a long way off as i heard this from reliable sources 2 days ago.
Apple's going to give us 4200s across the board, aren't they…
From the MacBook Air to the Mac Pro, it will only be the 4200 onboard…
Shh... don't give them any ideas : P
If Haswell 5200 / GT3 allows them to reach 650M speeds (Anandtech seems to have verified this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/intel-haswell-gt3e-gpu-performance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ), I can see Apple putting it in an entry Retina 15" MBP for $1799. If NVidia charges Apple $200 for the 650M, that translates into over $300 off the retail cost. I think Apple has always used Intel's fastest available IGPs and they even worked with NVidia to design the fastest IGP available at the time.
It would make the 13" MBPs look much better value if you can get 640M/650M performance. Eventually it makes sense for Apple to go with integrated graphics in all the mobile machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If Haswell 5200 / GT3 allows them to reach 650M speeds (Anandtech seems to have verified this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/intel-haswell-gt3e-gpu-performance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ), I can see Apple putting it in an entry Retina 15" MBP for $1799. If NVidia charges Apple $200 for the 650M, that translates into over $300 off the retail cost. I think Apple has always used Intel's fastest available IGPs and they even worked with NVidia to design the fastest IGP available at the time.
It would make the 13" MBPs look much better value if you can get 640M/650M performance. Eventually it makes sense for Apple to go with integrated graphics in all the mobile machines.
If I dug up some old stuff on ivy bidge predictions, the theoretical performance was pretty far out there. I would seriously wait to see what it's like in actual use, although I agree with you that these kinds of improvements add a lot more value to the 13" models. I could also see a 15" entry Retina at $1800, as they have used that for their entry 15" for a number of cycles at this point. Early ones started at $2000 and they backed off to $1800. Where available refurbished units further lower the barrier to entry. I don't think they're all about raising the cost of entry. Their most successful products start lower than any of the Macs. Anyway regarding integrated graphics in a 15", didn't they do that with a 9400m at one point? I tried everymac and can't seem to locate one that only used integrated, although I thought it existed. They have used low end discrete graphics on entry models at times. The early 2011 used a 6490m. It was considerably slower than the 6750m available in the upgraded version and memory limited. I say memory limited as many 2011-2012 games would not be able to load higher resolution textures on 256MB, and most of the time applications that leverage OpenCL require 512-1GB. The gpu seems to be one major point where they regulate construction costs.
On pricing I don't always subscribe to the theory that the bill of materials directly drives retail pricing, because it's only one factor in that determination, but you might save more than the cost of the gpu if it simplifies the design and requirements. It's also obvious that they really don't design their chargers with discrete graphics in mind. If cpu and gpu are heavily taxed simultaneously, you can drain the battery while plugged into the wall.
I didn't think they did but there's one listed here at a lower $1699 price point:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-2.53-aluminum-15-mid-2009-sd-unibody-specs.html
That wouldn't bring down the prices of the 13" Retina though so they might not be able to eliminate the old models at this revision.
I think they make a good enough compromise. 85W is about as big as you'd want a portable charger to be. The 110W Mini power supply wasn't a good size. If CPU and GPU were maxed out, worst case it would be 90W + some peripherals + display so say it's 20W above the 85W supply, the 77.5-95 Wh battery would drain in about 4 hours. You can use an external display though and it should be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I didn't think they did but there's one listed here at a lower $1699 price point:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-2.53-aluminum-15-mid-2009-sd-unibody-specs.html
Thanks. I know I looked at a 2.53 version. Perhaps I clicked on the wrong ones. They went away from that when NVidia's integrated options were no longer available. Personally I hope discrete graphics don't disappear from the line until Intel improves considerably in performance, drivers, and overall features to the point of being a bit more in line with discrete options. Some things just simply aren't supported. I like that massively parallel processes have been going toward OpenCL and sometimes CUDA implementations. The performance per dollar is incredible compared to cpu driven processes when it can be leveraged.
Quote:
That wouldn't bring down the prices of the 13" Retina though so they might not be able to eliminate the old models at this revision.
I think they make a good enough compromise. 85W is about as big as you'd want a portable charger to be.
I think when generic panels are available that meet Apple's resolution requirements, that will help the price. Obviously that is a guess. I don't know how much the other design adjustments inflate the cost to build one or their overall pricing strategy going forward.
Quote:
The 110W Mini power supply wasn't a good size. If CPU and GPU were maxed out, worst case it would be 90W + some peripherals + display so say it's 20W above the 85W supply, the 77.5-95 Wh battery would drain in about 4 hours. You can use an external display though and it should be fine.
They could have offered one as an accessory to allow it to be purchased. I have the 85W one. It's not that big. If I remember correctly some of the older macbook pro ones were larger. Going way back the powerbook G4 ones were tiny, but they broke too often.
Also regarding the mini, it seems to be fairly constrained on power. I kind of wonder whether it will receive GT3.
I've been hearing similar things along that line of thought. I just find it funny that Intel always gets a pass on this while AMD can be one week late and it is curtains for them.
Im wondering what is up this time with the slippage. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they are missing project operating points as far as power goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox
Haswell may be a long way off as i heard this from reliable sources 2 days ago.
The potential is why I believe it is worth the wait. Not only would this lead to cheaper MBP class machines but it should help manage power.
As for the AIR type machines apparently Intel has a high integration version of Haswell coming designed specifically for very compact machines.
All of this sounds good but last I knew Intel never intended to deliver all this goodness at once. The GT3 class machines where at one time rumored to come some months after the general Haswell laptop release. This will of course lead to much whining in the forums when Apple doesn't deliver new Haswell based machines the very minute the new processors hit the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If Haswell 5200 / GT3 allows them to reach 650M speeds (Anandtech seems to have verified this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/intel-haswell-gt3e-gpu-performance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ), I can see Apple putting it in an entry Retina 15" MBP for $1799. If NVidia charges Apple $200 for the 650M, that translates into over $300 off the retail cost. I think Apple has always used Intel's fastest available IGPs and they even worked with NVidia to design the fastest IGP available at the time.
It would make the 13" MBPs look much better value if you can get 640M/650M performance. Eventually it makes sense for Apple to go with integrated graphics in all the mobile machines.
My two big issues with Intel GPUs is the terrible 3D support and lackluster OpenCL support. Haswell could change this to good enough for many users.
What is so great about Haswell ? Another processor that is all.
GT3 will probably have a dynamic clock speed. They showed a version running Unigine Heaven in real-time at 17W. Remember that during graphics intensive tasks, it will ramp down the CPU side so that the GPU part can use more of the power limit. Plus Intel is on 22nm vs NVidia being on 28nm. Separate CPU/GPU chips will still be faster when used together as they will draw 90W and an IGP model might have a 45-55W limit but achieving last year's NVidia GPU performance for gaming should be possible.
If they can get the Retina model to $1799 and GT3 performs the same as a 650M, I think they should do it, even if they bump it back up at a later revision.
If the GPU performs like it does in the demos, it means that they no longer have to be looked down on as inferior to dedicated GPUs. The HD4000 made a decent jump but you can see all the red marks on the following page vs the green for the NVidia GPU:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
Even if they manage 640M, it will be ok but 650M would be better:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-640M.71579.0.html
Well if you believe Intels propaganda it is another processor witha vastly improved GPU. Supposedly the GPU will come in different favors delivering performance that can be tailored to a specific use. In other words a Haswell for compact notebooks like AIR and a Haswell for MBP class machines that deliver graphics as good as today's machines.
In a nut shell Haswell could be the tipping point where we, well most if us, wouldn't need to buy a machine with a discrete GPU. Right now buying a Mac without a discrete GPU isn't advisable if you expect to keep the machine for a long time for general purpose use. The problem is so much software today is GPU accelerated to one extent or another. Even things like Safari benefit from having a reasonably powerful GPU handy. In the end this would mean far more powerful computers at reasonable price points. Potentially things like the retina MBPs could drop in price to the point that they are similarly priced to the conventional machines.
Of course Intel has a history of under delivering here so it is merely speculation that the hardware will deliver the jump in performance everyone is hoping for. Only real hardware, in unbiased hands, will tell us how great Haswell is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox
What is so great about Haswell ? Another processor that is all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
GT3 will probably have a dynamic clock speed. They showed a version running Unigine Heaven in real-time at 17W. Remember that during graphics intensive tasks, it will ramp down the CPU side so that the GPU part can use more of the power limit. Plus Intel is on 22nm vs NVidia being on 28nm. Separate CPU/GPU chips will still be faster when used together as they will draw 90W and an IGP model might have a 45-55W limit but achieving last year's NVidia GPU performance for gaming should be possible.
This is a significant milestone in PC hardware if Intel actually hits it. Imagine an AIR with close to the performance of today's Mac Book Pros. The most interesting thing here is the support of a VRAM allotment in the CPU package which overcomes the limitation that continues to hurt both AMD and Intel with their integrated GPUs. That of course is memory bandwidth that simply isn't adequate over today's PC type memory busses.
Quote:
If they can get the Retina model to $1799 and GT3 performs the same as a 650M, I think they should do it, even if they bump it back up at a later revision.
The entry level models could easily go this route and save customers and Apple a lot of money. Right now the MBP with retina has a pricing structure that hurts sales. Apple knows this of course which is why the old platform is still around. However Haswell combined with much lower retina screen costs could result in a big price drop on retina machines sometime this year. People ask why Haswell is so great, well this is it in a nut shell, depending upon the machine it can mean either lower pricing or much better performance at the same price.
Quote:
If the GPU performs like it does in the demos, it means that they no longer have to be looked down on as inferior to dedicated GPUs. The HD4000 made a decent jump but you can see all the red marks on the following page vs the green for the NVidia GPU:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
Even if they manage 640M, it will be ok but 650M would be better:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-640M.71579.0.html
HD4000 isn't too bad at all if you don't need the 3D or OpenCL performance. However I honestly believe that many underestimate just how important those two features are with respect to modern software.The things that I worry about are things like just how bad will thermal throttling be. There are still physical realities here and in the past Intel has demonstrated that they can be thermal hogs even in the notebook line of chips. In the end if a chip is thermally managed to a certain power point then something someplace is loosing cycles. Real world use will be very interesting when it comes to Haswell.
Sorry, going to have to challenge you on it. We'll have to see what Broadwell brings for the simple issue of price and specs.
I feel the 15" notebooks are for power users given that there is no 17". The 13" retina still needs seasoning. It needs to get to the classic MacBook Pro price points, possibly even the MacBook Air price points in my view.
I realize I'm going too far out of the box of Apple's closed garden but I'm doing so anyway. Not saying you are wrong though.
Edit: Also less is more. Don't introduce any more models. Choice is fine but work on the BTO options.