The i7-4770R IGP should be as fast as the 650M so suitable for all the 21" models assuming it's also available in an i5 variety. Iris would be fine at that level too though. This is no match for the 680MX, which is a further 3x faster so I don't expect they'd get rid of the dedicated GPU in the 27". It does mean better use of the space and easier cooling for the 21.5" though.
Integrated graphics still understandably has a bad reputation but with OpenGL 4 support, OpenCL 1.2, DX11 and performance to rival at least a 640M, it's not warranted any more (assuming it lives up to the description).
Part of that reputation is due to driver stability more than just raw performance. The same hardware with really good drivers would satisfy an even wider range of individuals than it does today. Here's one example from the mini. They seem to have a lot of launch bugs, and really driver performance could be better tuned in OSX across the board. The updated OpenGL/CL support is a big step up.
Quote:
It was delayed though, you can't expect every release to follow the same pattern. Intel is launching Haswell at Computex on June 3rd. They have an IDF in San Francisco on September 10th-12th. It's likely that they'll release Ivy Bridge E/EP at that point, which gives Apple the opportunity to mention it alongside their iOS updates at an event in September or October. I don't think there's enough reason to have a separate Mac event as the MP would be the only update.
That is a good point. I could see something coming up at an event in the September of October timeframe, just not WWDC.
Integrated graphics still understandably has a bad reputation but with OpenGL 4 support, OpenCL 1.2, DX11 and performance to rival at least a 640M, it's not warranted any more (assuming it lives up to the description).
… Not having their own RAM still warrants it, yeah.
You would lose up to 512MB of the 8GB but I don't think it's that big of a problem for the entry machines. If it makes the machines cheaper and use less power, it's a small trade-off.
How does your single example that had nothing to do with the IGP (hence EFI update not driver update) translate into 'a lot'? I haven't read about widespread driver issues from any manufacturer, just the occasional incompatibility.
You would lose up to 512MB of the 8GB but I don't think it's that big of a problem for the entry machines. If it makes the machines cheaper and use less power, it's a small trade-off.
Problem is, maybe I want more than 512 MB of RAM dedicated to video. I mean, my 4870 has 512, and by next year it finally won't fit minimum requirements for much of anything new, but it's also four years old.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't just beef up vRAM on all their products. It doesn't have to be the most powerful card in existence at time of launch, but having twice the vRAM of all the competitors and getting special chips made to have 2, 3, 4GB of it sounds like a thoroughly "Apple" idea.
You would lose up to 512MB of the 8GB but I don't think it's that big of a problem for the entry machines. If it makes the machines cheaper and use less power, it's a small trade-off.
The problem isn't the RAM used but the lack of bandwidth. It is an issue both AMD and Intel have with their integrated GPUs. If Apple really wanted to be progressive they would introduce new RAM technologies to deal with the bandwidth problem.
Yes, hopefully they'll fix this in 10.9.
They better! It is really pathetic when you find out that even Linux is more up to date supporting OpenGL or even OpenCL.
How does your single example that had nothing to do with the IGP (hence EFI update not driver update) translate into 'a lot'? I haven't read about widespread driver issues from any manufacturer, just the occasional incompatibility.
The drivers and hardware for the Intel GPUs suck and if you had been following the various forums you would know of multiple short comings. Of ourse all drivers have bugs, they are software after all, but Intels drivers under Mac OS take the cake. Try writing a program that takes advantage of the iGPU as a compute device for example. There is a range if functionality that isn't supported on Mac OS een though the functionality is supported else where. So yeah Intel drivers suck.
Problem is, maybe I want more than 512 MB of RAM dedicated to video. I mean, my 4870 has 512, and by next year it finally won't fit minimum requirements for much of anything new, but it's also four years old.
Once we have heterogeneous computing supported in Mac OS the issues with the amount of RAM will dissolve. The GPU will then be able to access RAM just as the CPU would. So looking for more RAM dedicated to the GPU is kinda old thinking. What we really want to see is Apple moving forward supporting heterogeneous computing. Doing so will only make things like OpenCL more versatile and it should enhance the performance of many functions that can run on a GPU.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't just beef up vRAM on all their products. It doesn't have to be the most powerful card in existence at time of launch, but having twice the vRAM of all the competitors and getting special chips made to have 2, 3, 4GB of it sounds like a thoroughly "Apple" idea.
For discrete GPUs I've never really understood Apples stupidity here. This is especially the case if you are paying extra for an enhanced model. After all if you buy the up sell model often GPU performance is a big factor in that purchase. Over the years it has had a tendency to make Apple look stingy. Often we are only talking about a few dollars worth of RAM chips.
For integrated GPUs it is quickly getting to the point where the real answer will be uniform memory access. This by the way should encourage even more RAM as standard in the base machines.
… I don't think there's enough reason to have a separate Mac event as the MP would be the only update.
Do you really believe that? After all the talk from Apple about a real Mac Pro revision do you really think it will come to us this year as a minor update?
Honestly I'm expecting something big for the Mac Pro at WWDC. I don't know exactly what that will be but I would expect that the GPU will be built onto the motherboard and that it will have strong OpenCL support. The exact nature of the CPU's is hard to gage at this point but I wouldn't be surprised to find out they have a deal with Intel on a new solution.
In any event if the MP is another minor update of the kind we have seen in the last five years or so I will officially consider Apple to be brain dead. There is no rational reason to deliver the same hardware configuration to the market again. The market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro as it is currently shipped. As such another "only update" effort will be rejected by the user populace.
I skipped over this post initially but that quoted bit above struck a nerve! I'm just not sure how you can rationally expect only an update when the Mac Pro is in such a sales quagmire.
That is pretty much a given. However Haswell is about the broadest spread of processor technology ever from Intel. As such we really have to hope for those Haswell Chips that would make the Mini really purr.
iMac 27":
1. User-accessible HDD/SSD bay
2. User-accessible HDD/SSD bay
3. User-accessible HDD/SSD bay
I've totally given up on the iMac. I suppose they could correct some of their design issues but at this point I don't care. Apple would need to rethink its attitude with respect to serviceability before I'd even look at an iMac.
A bay will never happen. Accessibility, however, could.
It won't happen though unless the customer base makes it an issue.
Your implication that it's an issue is misplaced.
It is impossible for a customer to have misplaced issues with a product. Either it meets the customers needs or it doesn't, it isn't something that can be misplaced. Your comment really makes no sense here and assumes that Apple can do no wrong with respect to its customer base.
Look at it this way if I said XYZ pickup company has design issues because they don't make a 2 ton capable pickup would my concerns be misplaced? If it is a legitimate need then it is a rational concern if the product doesn't meet my requirements.
So in this context we have Apple going the extra mile to make servicing the iMac even harder, which is an obvious design decision, so it is rational to have problems with the machine. It is an issue and frankly I try to make anyone thinking about an iMac aware of it. Apple has simply gone to far with the iMac and has made it far to expensive to service the parts that most commonly fail in a computer. That my good boy is a design issue.
My friend and I were discussing the Iris Pro graphics going into the mini. He thinks they will be an expensive BTO option? I would like to hope they will be standard. Thoughts?
It won't happen though unless the customer base makes it an issue.
Fifteen years. … Not gonna happen.
It is impossible for a customer to have misplaced issues with a product. Either it meets the customers needs or it doesn't, it isn't something that can be misplaced.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The customer can certainly complain about a product that isn't at all designed to fit him.
Problem is, maybe I want more than 512 MB of RAM dedicated to video. I mean, my 4870 has 512, and by next year it finally won't fit minimum requirements for much of anything new, but it's also four years old.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't just beef up vRAM on all their products. It doesn't have to be the most powerful card in existence at time of launch, but having twice the vRAM of all the competitors and getting special chips made to have 2, 3, 4GB of it sounds like a thoroughly "Apple" idea.
Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me. They've never gone for bleeding edge specs in extremely specific areas unless it's something they can obviously talk up. They have gone really cheap on ram at times. The cheapest Air had a 2GB base ram configuration until last year. What annoys me in terms of vram is when they cut it close enough to cause real problems without going to the most demanding software. Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly. There are use cases where 4GB or more would in fact be useful, but they tend to be specialized. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum. On the topic of the mini, it has trended toward higher end parts than it previously used, so I don't think one of the better IGP options is entirely implausible.
Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me. They've never gone for bleeding edge specs in extremely specific areas unless it's something they can obviously talk up.
Doubling VRAM wouldn't even be bleeding edge today in most Apple products. You would at least hope that they would get smart about it in the up sell models.
They have gone really cheap on ram at times. The cheapest Air had a 2GB base ram configuration until last year.
Considering the price of RAM and the requirements of even base software like Safari that is a very raw deal for customers. At least today you can buy a base machine that runs the OS and a couple of apps correctly. Still considering the price of RAM Apple could do better.
What annoys me in terms of vram is when they cut it close enough to cause real problems without going to the most demanding software. Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly.
You are absolutely right.
There are use cases where 4GB or more would in fact be useful, but they tend to be specialized. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum. On the topic of the mini, it has trended toward higher end parts than it previously used, so I don't think one of the better IGP options is entirely implausible.
The problem with this go around is that it is much harder to guess because Apple will have so many options for the Mini. Hell they could go AMD and really bump GPU performance. AMD probably won't happen but even with Intel they have close to a dozen processors that could go into the Mini.
Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me.
Yeah? Well, maybe it should. That's what I'm saying.
Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum.
That's exactly what I'm saying; they need to be giving people reasons to buy their products instead of cheapening out. Apple computers used to be top of the freaking line in their respective categories. Apple never sold them on that (except for Steve always getting to say "it screams" at keynotes, which was great), but they're just NOT anymore.
After all the talk from Apple about a real Mac Pro revision do you really think it will come to us this year as a minor update?
I mainly meant they wouldn't have a separate event, it would have to be tacked onto another event but even so, the easiest route for them is a drop-in upgrade. A radical overhaul would be nice to see but they haven't demonstrated a level of interest in the MP for that to be the most likely outcome.
Honestly I'm expecting something big for the Mac Pro at WWDC.
Well, Tim said recently no new products until fall and we know Intel won't have the CPUs out so people expecting hardware to be shown at WWDC could well be disappointed. I think the expectation should be for the Apple Store to go down prior to WWDC so that the laptops can be updated, for them to announce iOS 7 and 10.9 at WWDC and the updated laptops may be available to order either before or after WWDC. Because the Mini uses the same mobile CPUs, it could get an update with the laptops but it tends to get dragged behind the iMac.
The market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro as it is currently shipped.
You can shorten that sentence to 'the market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro'. The volume is at a much lower price point and the reason has been covered many times in the past. A drop-in upgrade will satisfy the people who still want to buy them because that's still better than the competition.
That's exactly what I'm saying; they need to be giving people reasons to buy their products instead of cheapening out.
They have a habit of pushing people who need higher spec to the higher price points and I think they use VRAM as leverage although it doesn't make as big of a difference to 3D graphics performance at the native resolutions of the machines:
512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup. Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.
512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup. Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.
Video processing, fluid sims, and heavy calculation work remain edge cases, although they seem to be growing (and don't excuse Apple being cheap about this). They've been talked up on gpus for years, but the concept hasn't materialized as much as I would like. How many frames are addressed isn't really an issue at all. Saying you can limit it to a single frame doesn't make sense. I'm not sure if I interpreted correctly. Anywhere it's used in playback or rendering, you're directly limited by the memory available. There aren't many raytracers that use CUDA or anything similar. Part of the reason is due to memory. Texture maps overload them quickly, so their markets are more limited because of this. At 512 minus whatever the system is already using, it wouldn't be very useful in that kind of application. It would probably be the achilles heel if you're dealing with any kind of 3d paint apps. As for who that would affect, my guess would be students. They're more likely to have one of the lesser configurations.
I mainly meant they wouldn't have a separate event, it would have to be tacked onto another event but even so, the easiest route for them is a drop-in upgrade. A radical overhaul would be nice to see but they haven't demonstrated a level of interest in the MP for that to be the most likely outcome.
Actually the idea that they wouldn't have a separate event is why I expect it at WWDC. There isn't another event that really fits. As to radical well that I guess depends on perspective but the implications of what have been said up to now implies a bigger overhaul than in the past.
Well, Tim said recently no new products until fall and we know Intel won't have the CPUs out so people expecting hardware to be shown at WWDC could well be disappointed.
Funny but I take the phrase "new products" to mean well NEW products. A revision to iPhone, Mini or the Mac Pro would not be a new product. A new product might be an iWatch, Apple TV or an XMac. Even an XMac isn't really a "new" product as it is a Mac variant.
If there is no new Mac Pro at WWDC I would expect many people to be extremely pissed off, especially professionals relying upon Apple to come through with a new revision. As to Intel it wouldn't be the first time they did a special processor for Apple. Intels Haswell reveal could be most interesting here.
I think the expectation should be for the Apple Store to go down prior to WWDC so that the laptops can be updated, for them to announce iOS 7 and 10.9 at WWDC and the updated laptops may be available to order either before or after WWDC. Because the Mini uses the same mobile CPUs, it could get an update with the laptops but it tends to get dragged behind the iMac.
This does follow past practice though there is no reason to hold up iMac or Mini updates this year. Further I'm hoping they learned their lesson about tying the Mini update to the iMac release as that didn't go over well last year.
You can shorten that sentence to 'the market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro'. The volume is at a much lower price point and the reason has been covered many times in the past. A drop-in upgrade will satisfy the people who still want to buy them because that's still better than the competition.
Any rational corporation would look for viable ways to rescue a product with such declining sales. I'm still of the opinion that Apple has damaged the Mac Pro more than the market. The reality is the workstation market itself isn't that bad off.
They have a habit of pushing people who need higher spec to the higher price points and I think they use VRAM as leverage although it doesn't make as big of a difference to 3D graphics performance at the native resolutions of the machines:
The problem is the minimal configurations Apple has been selling don't meet the minimal requirements of many apps. Last years Mini with the discrete GPU didn't have enough VRAM to make it worthwhile. Beyond that OpenCL apps can make use of that VRAM.
512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup.
It took a long time to get there. Further that is only for discrete GPUs.
Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.
What is interesting about these machines is the different ways they go about dealing with the bandwidth problem that APUs have. They also demonstrate what a Mini could be with a little effort from Apple. I know I frustrate people when I say we should expect more from Apple with respect to the Mini but it is about time for new technology in the platform. Embedded RAM, lots of fast DRAM, lots of cores and so forth make for interesting technology.
Now these are not advanced performance cores yet Intel will soon have similar solutions on high performance cores. Technology is rapidly moving forward time for the Mini to get on the bandwagon, even if that means waiting for Imtels GT3e technology.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
All of the chips will have options for the 4xxx graphics or Iris/Iris Pro. The desktop with Iris Pro is faster than all of them:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/02/intel-outlines-upcoming-core-i7-haswell-integrated-graphics-touts-up-to-triple-performance
The i7-4770R IGP should be as fast as the 650M so suitable for all the 21" models assuming it's also available in an i5 variety. Iris would be fine at that level too though. This is no match for the 680MX, which is a further 3x faster so I don't expect they'd get rid of the dedicated GPU in the 27". It does mean better use of the space and easier cooling for the 21.5" though.
Integrated graphics still understandably has a bad reputation but with OpenGL 4 support, OpenCL 1.2, DX11 and performance to rival at least a 640M, it's not warranted any more (assuming it lives up to the description).
Part of that reputation is due to driver stability more than just raw performance. The same hardware with really good drivers would satisfy an even wider range of individuals than it does today. Here's one example from the mini. They seem to have a lot of launch bugs, and really driver performance could be better tuned in OSX across the board. The updated OpenGL/CL support is a big step up.
Quote:
It was delayed though, you can't expect every release to follow the same pattern. Intel is launching Haswell at Computex on June 3rd. They have an IDF in San Francisco on September 10th-12th. It's likely that they'll release Ivy Bridge E/EP at that point, which gives Apple the opportunity to mention it alongside their iOS updates at an event in September or October. I don't think there's enough reason to have a separate Mac event as the MP would be the only update.
That is a good point. I could see something coming up at an event in the September of October timeframe, just not WWDC.
You would lose up to 512MB of the 8GB but I don't think it's that big of a problem for the entry machines. If it makes the machines cheaper and use less power, it's a small trade-off.
Yes, hopefully they'll fix this in 10.9.
How does your single example that had nothing to do with the IGP (hence EFI update not driver update) translate into 'a lot'? I haven't read about widespread driver issues from any manufacturer, just the occasional incompatibility.
Originally Posted by Marvin
You would lose up to 512MB of the 8GB but I don't think it's that big of a problem for the entry machines. If it makes the machines cheaper and use less power, it's a small trade-off.
Problem is, maybe I want more than 512 MB of RAM dedicated to video. I mean, my 4870 has 512, and by next year it finally won't fit minimum requirements for much of anything new, but it's also four years old.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't just beef up vRAM on all their products. It doesn't have to be the most powerful card in existence at time of launch, but having twice the vRAM of all the competitors and getting special chips made to have 2, 3, 4GB of it sounds like a thoroughly "Apple" idea.
The drivers and hardware for the Intel GPUs suck and if you had been following the various forums you would know of multiple short comings. Of ourse all drivers have bugs, they are software after all, but Intels drivers under Mac OS take the cake. Try writing a program that takes advantage of the iGPU as a compute device for example. There is a range if functionality that isn't supported on Mac OS een though the functionality is supported else where. So yeah Intel drivers suck.
For discrete GPUs I've never really understood Apples stupidity here. This is especially the case if you are paying extra for an enhanced model. After all if you buy the up sell model often GPU performance is a big factor in that purchase. Over the years it has had a tendency to make Apple look stingy. Often we are only talking about a few dollars worth of RAM chips.
For integrated GPUs it is quickly getting to the point where the real answer will be uniform memory access. This by the way should encourage even more RAM as standard in the base machines.
Mac mini:
1. Haswell
2. Haswell
3. Haswell
iMac 27":
1. User-accessible HDD/SSD bay
2. User-accessible HDD/SSD bay
3. User-accessible HDD/SSD bay
Mac Pro:
1. A real Mac Pro
2. Really a Mac Pro
3. I can buy'em in Europe....
Do you really believe that? After all the talk from Apple about a real Mac Pro revision do you really think it will come to us this year as a minor update?
Honestly I'm expecting something big for the Mac Pro at WWDC. I don't know exactly what that will be but I would expect that the GPU will be built onto the motherboard and that it will have strong OpenCL support. The exact nature of the CPU's is hard to gage at this point but I wouldn't be surprised to find out they have a deal with Intel on a new solution.
In any event if the MP is another minor update of the kind we have seen in the last five years or so I will officially consider Apple to be brain dead. There is no rational reason to deliver the same hardware configuration to the market again. The market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro as it is currently shipped. As such another "only update" effort will be rejected by the user populace.
I skipped over this post initially but that quoted bit above struck a nerve! I'm just not sure how you can rationally expect only an update when the Mac Pro is in such a sales quagmire.
Originally Posted by smalM
1. User-accessible HDD/SSD bay
A bay will never happen. Accessibility, however, could.
Originally Posted by wizard69
I suppose they could correct some of their design issues but at this point I don't care.
Your implication that it's an issue is misplaced.
It is impossible for a customer to have misplaced issues with a product. Either it meets the customers needs or it doesn't, it isn't something that can be misplaced. Your comment really makes no sense here and assumes that Apple can do no wrong with respect to its customer base.
Look at it this way if I said XYZ pickup company has design issues because they don't make a 2 ton capable pickup would my concerns be misplaced? If it is a legitimate need then it is a rational concern if the product doesn't meet my requirements.
So in this context we have Apple going the extra mile to make servicing the iMac even harder, which is an obvious design decision, so it is rational to have problems with the machine. It is an issue and frankly I try to make anyone thinking about an iMac aware of it. Apple has simply gone to far with the iMac and has made it far to expensive to service the parts that most commonly fail in a computer. That my good boy is a design issue.
Originally Posted by wizard69
It won't happen though unless the customer base makes it an issue.
Fifteen years. … Not gonna happen.
It is impossible for a customer to have misplaced issues with a product. Either it meets the customers needs or it doesn't, it isn't something that can be misplaced.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The customer can certainly complain about a product that isn't at all designed to fit him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Problem is, maybe I want more than 512 MB of RAM dedicated to video. I mean, my 4870 has 512, and by next year it finally won't fit minimum requirements for much of anything new, but it's also four years old.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't just beef up vRAM on all their products. It doesn't have to be the most powerful card in existence at time of launch, but having twice the vRAM of all the competitors and getting special chips made to have 2, 3, 4GB of it sounds like a thoroughly "Apple" idea.
Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me. They've never gone for bleeding edge specs in extremely specific areas unless it's something they can obviously talk up. They have gone really cheap on ram at times. The cheapest Air had a 2GB base ram configuration until last year. What annoys me in terms of vram is when they cut it close enough to cause real problems without going to the most demanding software. Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly. There are use cases where 4GB or more would in fact be useful, but they tend to be specialized. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum. On the topic of the mini, it has trended toward higher end parts than it previously used, so I don't think one of the better IGP options is entirely implausible.
The problem with this go around is that it is much harder to guess because Apple will have so many options for the Mini. Hell they could go AMD and really bump GPU performance. AMD probably won't happen but even with Intel they have close to a dozen processors that could go into the Mini.
Originally Posted by hmm
Doing double the vram doesn't sound very Apple-like to me.
Yeah? Well, maybe it should. That's what I'm saying.
Two 2011 models shipped with 256MB on discrete graphics. I thought that was silly. Last year 1GB should have been the realistic minimum.
That's exactly what I'm saying; they need to be giving people reasons to buy their products instead of cheapening out. Apple computers used to be top of the freaking line in their respective categories. Apple never sold them on that (except for Steve always getting to say "it screams" at keynotes, which was great), but they're just NOT anymore.
I mainly meant they wouldn't have a separate event, it would have to be tacked onto another event but even so, the easiest route for them is a drop-in upgrade. A radical overhaul would be nice to see but they haven't demonstrated a level of interest in the MP for that to be the most likely outcome.
Well, Tim said recently no new products until fall and we know Intel won't have the CPUs out so people expecting hardware to be shown at WWDC could well be disappointed. I think the expectation should be for the Apple Store to go down prior to WWDC so that the laptops can be updated, for them to announce iOS 7 and 10.9 at WWDC and the updated laptops may be available to order either before or after WWDC. Because the Mini uses the same mobile CPUs, it could get an update with the laptops but it tends to get dragged behind the iMac.
You can shorten that sentence to 'the market has proven that they don't want the Mac Pro'. The volume is at a much lower price point and the reason has been covered many times in the past. A drop-in upgrade will satisfy the people who still want to buy them because that's still better than the competition.
They have a habit of pushing people who need higher spec to the higher price points and I think they use VRAM as leverage although it doesn't make as big of a difference to 3D graphics performance at the native resolutions of the machines:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428-5.html
512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup. Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Your implication that it's an issue is misplaced.
It's not an issue - it's a No Go!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
512MB doesn't seem like much but if it's for say video processing, they can work on a frame at a time. Things like fluid sims will need more but like I say, they like to have an upsell. I'm quite happy that 512MB is the minimum across the whole lineup. Ideally they'd have fully shared memory to both CPU and GPU. The PS4 has 8GB GDDR 5 shared with both but the XBox One looks like it's using 8GB DDR3 with 32MB of ESRAM as a cache. The cache setup allows expanding memory to massive amounts more cheaply.
Video processing, fluid sims, and heavy calculation work remain edge cases, although they seem to be growing (and don't excuse Apple being cheap about this). They've been talked up on gpus for years, but the concept hasn't materialized as much as I would like. How many frames are addressed isn't really an issue at all. Saying you can limit it to a single frame doesn't make sense. I'm not sure if I interpreted correctly. Anywhere it's used in playback or rendering, you're directly limited by the memory available. There aren't many raytracers that use CUDA or anything similar. Part of the reason is due to memory. Texture maps overload them quickly, so their markets are more limited because of this. At 512 minus whatever the system is already using, it wouldn't be very useful in that kind of application. It would probably be the achilles heel if you're dealing with any kind of 3d paint apps. As for who that would affect, my guess would be students. They're more likely to have one of the lesser configurations.
If there is no new Mac Pro at WWDC I would expect many people to be extremely pissed off, especially professionals relying upon Apple to come through with a new revision. As to Intel it wouldn't be the first time they did a special processor for Apple. Intels Haswell reveal could be most interesting here. This does follow past practice though there is no reason to hold up iMac or Mini updates this year. Further I'm hoping they learned their lesson about tying the Mini update to the iMac release as that didn't go over well last year. Any rational corporation would look for viable ways to rescue a product with such declining sales. I'm still of the opinion that Apple has damaged the Mac Pro more than the market. The reality is the workstation market itself isn't that bad off. The problem is the minimal configurations Apple has been selling don't meet the minimal requirements of many apps. Last years Mini with the discrete GPU didn't have enough VRAM to make it worthwhile. Beyond that OpenCL apps can make use of that VRAM. It took a long time to get there. Further that is only for discrete GPUs. What is interesting about these machines is the different ways they go about dealing with the bandwidth problem that APUs have. They also demonstrate what a Mini could be with a little effort from Apple. I know I frustrate people when I say we should expect more from Apple with respect to the Mini but it is about time for new technology in the platform. Embedded RAM, lots of fast DRAM, lots of cores and so forth make for interesting technology.
Now these are not advanced performance cores yet Intel will soon have similar solutions on high performance cores. Technology is rapidly moving forward time for the Mini to get on the bandwagon, even if that means waiting for Imtels GT3e technology.