I had a real great response typed up on my iPad and then Safari crashed. That happens a lot on AppleInsider for some reason. Hopefully Huddler and Apple are working this out as I've done well on most other sites with y iPad.
In any event I will try to repeat things again as I'm at my Mac. My point with the Mini is that its value has been significantly impacted due to the lack of a Haswell solution in the machine. Not for the CPU improvements which are minor and at times regressions but rather because of the GPU. Depending upon which Haswell you get, the GPU is improved significantly and this makes the current Mini a poor value compared to what it could be.
GeekBench has its place but I'm not convinced it is of much use for modern software. For example anything OpenCL accelerated on Haswell is showing very good results. Further Haswells vastly improved 3D performance means that applications like 3D CAD are far more serviceable on Haswell than prior Intel solutions.
Combine this with the fact that has well has been out in various forms for months now and you can see why I question the machines value. This especially in the high end configurations which could be vastly improved via a Haswell upgrade.
Granted that a Haswell mini would be an even more exceptional value but that's probably why it doesn't exist. While the quad i7 iMac is much faster it also weighs in at $1699. $700 is a lot to pay for a GPU.
Actually $1699 is a lot to pay for an iMac if you really don't want an all in one.
It's a shame that Intel has killed external GPU thunderbolt solutions by not certifying any.
Actually I have just the opposite opinion. By not certifying any solutions Intel frees the market from idiots complaining about poor performance over TB. Of course the performance results would be highly variable but you would have a hard time explaining that to some midnight gamer who believes he is a technical hotshot.
Beyond that, everything I know about electronics and computers says to me the the GPU will only get closer to the CPU. Future performance increases in low cost machines will come from highly integrated chips feed with real fast RAM arrays. The GPU will need to be not only physically close to the CPU it needs to be logically close. We are already seeing significant payoffs in this regard and we have yet to see the Heterogeneous systems that the likes of AMD have been harping about for years now. Apple with its Intel Haswell based systems is probably the closest any manufacture has come to extensive use of an "APU" in a heterogeneous type system yet has a ways to go. It won't take much in the way of future enhancements to discount the need for a discreet GPU for many users. So if Intel has been a little over bearing with regards to TB and GPU's I think they are on the right path. In a year or two the demand won't be there and in the mean time they eliminate the negativity that would most certainly come with under performing GPU over TB solutions.
By the way, the Mini could use TB2 also. For server uses that would make for a nice upgrade to the platform.
*****************************
This drag on the arrival of a Haswell bumped Mini has me believing that we will see a new platform early in 2014. Everything I've seen indicates terrible sales so Apple might try to breath new life into the machine with a new chassis and other technologies.
Maybe the lowest end model but better and best suck right now. You spend a lot of money to get very little in real world performance, no Haswell GPU and frankly the machine needs TB2 to better leverage the platform for some of the things it does well. Here I'm thinking server duty which one model supposedly supports.
It really is a matter of perspective, Haswell does almost nothing for the CPU but that really isn't important to many of us. If Haswell was in a Mini right now it would be a far more relevant machine.
Maybe the lowest end model but better and best suck right now. You spend a lot of money to get very little in real world performance, no Haswell GPU and frankly the machine needs TB2 to better leverage the platform for some of the things it does well. Here I'm thinking server duty which one model supposedly supports.
It really is a matter of perspective, Haswell does almost nothing for the CPU but that really isn't important to many of us. If Haswell was in a Mini right now it would be a far more relevant machine.
I'm waiting until the Haswell Mac Mini comes out to replace my aging Mac Pro. To be honest with you, I'm hoping that there'll be a new form factor to the Mac Mini taking it closer to the shape of the new AirPort Extreme. I used to own a G4 Cube and while most disliked them, I loved mine and used it until it died. While it wouldn't be the same as the Cube, it would be reminiscent of it in my opinion. We might not get a new form factor, but TB2 and Haswell are what I'm looking for in the next Mac Mini. It'd be great if someone at Apple actually cared about the Mac Mini.
It'd be great if someone at Apple actually cared about the Mac Mini.
It's consumers that don't care about it. They don't sell well enough. I actually think consumers aren't informed well enough about the Mac Mini. People who are unfamiliar with computers can't possibly see a Mini compared to a standard PC box and assume the small box can replace the larger one when it's 1/20th the size and yet in many cases the Mini will be faster. They could do with having a poster that shows that the Mini can replace their old plastic towers.
It's also the bundle prices. The high volume market is way down at the $500 mark for an entire bundle. Apple doesn't reach that with just the box. Add Apple's kb/mouse and even a 3rd party display and you're somewhere around $800.
HP sold 14.6m PCs (including laptops) q4 2012 with revenue of $7.9b so their average selling price is $540.
Lenovo sold 13.9m with revenue of $7.5b so their asp is $540.
Dell sold 9.2m with revenue of $8.6b so their asp is better at $935.
These are averages so the majority of sales are below these prices. Apple's average is closer to $1300.
Adding Haswell to the Mini won't improve sales on its own. Consumers need to be aware of what the Mini is and have bundles to setup an entire computer system affordably.
Desktops are still a fairly big market overall but the market is shrinking now.
GeekBench has its place but I'm not convinced it is of much use for modern software. For example anything OpenCL accelerated on Haswell is showing very good results. Further Haswells vastly improved 3D performance means that applications like 3D CAD are far more serviceable on Haswell than prior Intel solutions.
OpenCL's importance may or may not increase over time but currently all older non-Haswell macs with Intel GPUs lack OpenCL support from the GPU. Yes, obviously folks that need 3D performance will like having Haswell. On the other hand all owners of the current Mini do not currently need this or they'd have bought an iMac out of necessity.
Quote:
Actually $1699 is a lot to pay for an iMac if you really don't want an all in one.
The point is that Apple manages its lineup and upsell very carefully. There is no reason that the current Mini could not have a discrete GPU BTO option.
Quote:
Actually I have just the opposite opinion. By not certifying any solutions Intel frees the market from idiots complaining about poor performance over TB. Of course the performance results would be highly variable but you would have a hard time explaining that to some midnight gamer who believes he is a technical hotshot.
GPU performance over TB is pretty decent in comparison to the IGP.
I would still have a commercial with a mini and an Apple display. Not sure how I would make it interesting but I would figure out a way.
That is a tuff one. I honestly think that Apples sees the Mini as a machine for third party sellers to market. I left with the impression that they don't even want to bother with it in their stores.
OpenCL's importance may or may not increase over time but currently all older non-Haswell macs with Intel GPUs lack OpenCL support from the GPU. Yes, obviously folks that need 3D performance will like having Haswell. On the other hand all owners of the current Mini do not currently need this or they'd have bought an iMac out of necessity.
I'm having trouble finding documentation but I believe that Mavericks brought OpenCL support to older Intel chips. At least Ivy Bridge. Frankly Apple hasn't been real good with documentation of late. Intel hardware has been OpenCL capable for some time even if that feature was never brought to Mac OS.
As for current owners that makes little sense, they already have a machine. We are talking about a new machine here. The idea is a that Apple needs a far more capable machine to draw users that are beyond an entry level machine. A Mini as an entry level machine is fine and would be so even with Ivy Bridge for the next few months. What isn't fine is paying big bucks for the up sell variants of the Mini and getting very little in return especially the lack of the GPUs Haswell has to offer.
The point is that Apple manages its lineup and upsell very carefully. There is no reason that the current Mini could not have a discrete GPU BTO option.
My point is I will never buy Apples all in one if it continues its current engineering approach of being non serviceable. Frankly many corporations won't consider the iMac either for a variety of reasons. Apple can believe they are managing their up sell well but in reality they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
GPU performance over TB is pretty decent in comparison to the IGP.
I'm having trouble finding documentation but I believe that Mavericks brought OpenCL support to older Intel chips. At least Ivy Bridge. Frankly Apple hasn't been real good with documentation of late. Intel hardware has been OpenCL capable for some time even if that feature was never brought to Mac OS.
Looks like they did for the HD4000. Either way, for years it wasn't that big a deal to Apple.
Quote:
As for current owners that makes little sense, they already have a machine. We are talking about a new machine here. The idea is a that Apple needs a far more capable machine to draw users that are beyond an entry level machine. A Mini as an entry level machine is fine and would be so even with Ivy Bridge for the next few months. What isn't fine is paying big bucks for the up sell variants of the Mini and getting very little in return especially the lack of the GPUs Haswell has to offer.
At least they make such a thing. It's called a Mac Pro. Maybe a little more spendy than you'd like but it exists.
Apple doesn't make any 13" laptop with a GPU.
Quote:
My point is I will never buy Apples all in one if it continues its current engineering approach of being non serviceable. Frankly many corporations won't consider the iMac either for a variety of reasons. Apple can believe they are managing their up sell well but in reality they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
Some corporations may not. Apple doesn't seem to care. Nor are they "shooting themselves in the foot" when you compare Apple profitability with Dell or HP.
Quote:
Who really cares?
If you need to add such nonsense to the AIR you bought the wrong laptop.
I would guess more people care about that than care about the xMac. Still not that many. It is highly amusing though that xMac zealots get all upset when you tell them that their sacred cow isn't important to Apple but is more than happy to do the same to others with slightly different desires.
Here's the point genius...Apple isn't going to make an xMac. At best, and that's really iffy, you might see a mini with an Iris Pro. Don't hold your breath on that one. It would kill iMac sales. On the other hand if Apple allowed eGPUs to work over TB then you could get a mini with a stock HD5000 and add a GPU of your own choice. This isn't likely either given that Apple has distinctly made all dGPU options only available on $2600+ laptops and $1500+ iMacs.
Apple is very careful in what it does and there are simply many markets they choose not to address. I don't whine about it like you do claiming it's costing Apple money and that they are dooooooomed.
AMD introduced Kaveri today. I'd still love to see a processor like this in the Mini. Extremely good GPU performance at a much lower price point than Intel. Some of the OpenCL bench marks are mouth watering.
By the way yes I know that the CPU is a bit lacking in raw performance but as a whole I see Kaveri meshing very well with Apples direction when it comes to GPU integration. This is a SoC that just screams balanced performance when it comes to audio, CPU and GPU processing.
AMD introduced Kaveri today. I'd still love to see a processor like this in the Mini. Extremely good GPU performance at a much lower price point than Intel. Some of the OpenCL bench marks are mouth watering.
By the way yes I know that the CPU is a bit lacking in raw performance but as a whole I see Kaveri meshing very well with Apples direction when it comes to GPU integration. This is a SoC that just screams balanced performance when it comes to audio, CPU and GPU processing.
I second this. Kaveri brings Quad Core performance, solid graphics with a 20% savings over Haswell.
A lot of times even the Core i3 is faster or in the same general performance range. The i5 is almost uniformly faster.
Even in terms of GPU performance the Iris Pro is on par which was surprising to me.
"In a vacuum where all that's available are other AMD parts, Kaveri and its Steamroller cores actually look pretty good. At identical frequencies there's a healthy increase in IPC, and AMD has worked very hard to move its Bulldozer family down to a substantially lower TDP. While Trinity/Richland were happy shipping at 100W, Kaveri is clearly optimized for a much more modern TDP. Performance gains at lower TDPs (45/65W) are significant. In nearly all of our GPU tests, a 45W Kaveri ends up delivering very similar gaming performance to a 100W Richland. The mainstream desktop market has clearly moved to smaller form factors and it's very important that AMD move there as well. Kaveri does just that.
In the broader sense however, Kaveri doesn't really change the CPU story for AMD. Steamroller comes with a good increase in IPC, but without a corresponding increase in frequency AMD fails to move the single threaded CPU performance needle. To make matters worse, Intel's dual-core Haswell parts are priced very aggressively and actually match Kaveri's CPU clocks. With a substantial advantage in IPC and shipping at similar frequencies, a dual-core Core i3 Haswell will deliver much better CPU performance than even the fastest Kaveri at a lower price."
Just go with Broadwell, simple as that. It would be unnecessary to update the Mac Pro again this year so by the time October rolls around, hopefully they'll have a new Air, MBP, iMac, and mini. They could even just make one mini model if they don't believe in it and make the higher end processors customized.
They won't have another mac pro in the current year. I'm going to assume that they'll keep it at least somewhat up to date, but that could still be another 12 months without an update. If they decide to do a rather loose update schedule, then it might show up 2H next year following notebooks or something like that. I suspect a haswell mini is still coming. They refreshed it for Sandy and Ivy. As I mentioned before the only discrepancy for the current generation would be the slight shift in the typically shared component costs. That may not change with broadwell, so they have to release one at some point.
Really? The benches show Kaveri getting crushed in CPU performance:
I wouldn't call it being crushed though it varies with the benchmark. If you read the entire article you see Intel getting crushed via some of the GPU benchmarks. What is important here is that AMD has improved the architecture enough to get very good performance at a much lower clock rate. It is actually significant that AMD has recovered much of the performance loss per clock when Bulldozer was first released.
A lot of times even the Core i3 is faster or in the same general performance range. The i5 is almost uniformly faster.
Which in a Mini is exactly what you want, performance comparable to what Intel can offer.
Even in terms of GPU performance the Iris Pro is on par which was surprising to me.
That should surprise nobody, the architecture has been out a long time now Iris Pro is decent. However one needs to point out that Intel has to embed an extra high performance cache chip into the processor package to get those results. Further Iris Pro is expensive. However Intel is getting crushed (as you say) when the GPU is taxed significantly. Mind you it is getting crushed with a GPU that does not have the advantage of an embedded cache chip in the package. AMD is doing a respectable job here.
"<span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);line-height:1.4em;">In a vacuum where all that's available are other AMD parts, Kaveri and its Steamroller cores actually look pretty good. At identical frequencies there's a healthy increase in IPC, and AMD has worked very hard to move its Bulldozer family down to a substantially lower TDP. While Trinity/Richland were happy shipping at 100W, Kaveri is clearly optimized for a much more modern TDP. Performance gains at lower TDPs (45/65W) are significant. In nearly all of our GPU tests, a 45W Kaveri ends up delivering very similar gaming performance to a 100W Richland. The mainstream desktop market has clearly moved to smaller form factors and it's very important that AMD move there as well. Kaveri does just that.</span>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(68,68,68);margin-bottom:13px;margin-top:13px;vertical-align:baseline;">In the broader sense however, Kaveri doesn't really change the CPU story for AMD. Steamroller comes with a good increase in IPC, but without a corresponding increase in frequency AMD fails to move the single threaded CPU performance needle. To make matters worse, Intel's dual-core Haswell parts are priced very aggressively and actually match Kaveri's CPU clocks. With a substantial advantage in IPC and shipping at similar frequencies, a dual-core Core i3 Haswell will deliver much better CPU performance than even the fastest Kaveri at a lower price."</p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(68,68,68);margin-bottom:13px;margin-top:13px;vertical-align:baseline;">That's not exactly resounding acclaim. A low end Intel Pentium G2120 or althlon X4 + a cheap HD7770 will do better than a Kaveri. That's rather sad.</p>
It isn't sad that AMD has finally gotten to the point where they are actually on a par with I5. More so they are doing so while delivering far better GPU performance than Intel does in an I5. In a nut shell you can't look towards the past when systems where rated by the CPU power the had and nothing else. The whole point of Kaveri is that is delivers significant balanced performance in s single SoC. It does so without resorting to packaging in another cache chip in the SoC package.
Just go with Broadwell, simple as that. It would be unnecessary to update the Mac Pro again this year so by the time October rolls around, hopefully they'll have a new Air, MBP, iMac, and mini. They could even just make one mini model if they don't believe in it and make the higher end processors customized.
The only way I can see them doing that is if they intend to deliver a significantly different architecture / mechanical design. Haswell has a lot to offer the Mini right now. I know everybody looks at CPU performance and only sees disappointment in Haswell but the reality is that GPU, its performance and the support for OpenCL in Mavericks, makes for a very interesting upgrade for the current machine. Leaving all of that on the table waiting for Broadwell just seems foolish to me.
It is the Mini's lack of decent GPU performance that has kept me away from the platform. If Apple went with the right Haswell variant that would be one more thing checked off my list.
They won't have another mac pro in the current year. I'm going to assume that they'll keep it at least somewhat up to date, but that could still be another 12 months without an update.
Yeah what many don't seem to understand is that with the Mac Pro it is all in intels hands as far as Apples ability to deliver real updates. Tying the Mac Pro to Xeon puts them in a different design loop than desktop chips. The Mac Pro is very much a workstation machine with all of the stretched out design cycles associated with that hardware.
If they decide to do a rather loose update schedule, then it might show up 2H next year following notebooks or something like that.
With Intel publicly on record saying they are focused on mobile for this year it is hard to tell if anything at all will come this year or even next year. We might get nothing more than a process shrink which actually wouldn't be that bad if it meant a significant clock rate increase.
On the other hand Intel has given up on workstation and high performance computing. The dark horse here is the rumored Xeon Phi that is suitable as a system processor. They would likely have to deliver a version specific to Apples needs to get the chip power down, but if that chips is real it would make for a very interesting Mac Pro.
I suspect a haswell mini is still coming.
I kinda hope so myself but it gets to the point of why bother!! If they stretch out delivery so that it comes out near the Broadwell debut it will be anticlimactic to say the least.
They refreshed it for Sandy and Ivy. As I mentioned before the only discrepancy for the current generation would be the slight shift in the typically shared component costs. That may not change with broadwell, so they have to release one at some point.
The one thing we can't dismiss here is that the desktop market is ugly right now. This is the case for all vendors, even Apple. it is an ugly reality but Apple could see this as the time to discontinue the current design. The question then becomes what replaces that machine. If Apple is to offer any desktop beyond the iMac, i really see the need for a more powerful machine than the Mini.
Yeah what many don't seem to understand is that with the Mac Pro it is all in intels hands as far as Apples ability to deliver real updates. Tying the Mac Pro to Xeon puts them in a different design loop than desktop chips. The Mac Pro is very much a workstation machine with all of the stretched out design cycles associated with that hardware.
With Intel publicly on record saying they are focused on mobile for this year it is hard to tell if anything at all will come this year or even next year. We might get nothing more than a process shrink which actually wouldn't be that bad if it meant a significant clock rate increase.
There should be something late this year or whatever. Other workstation vendors were shipping machines during Q4 of last year. In Apple's case they probably had to build up some amount of inventory and work on last minute bug fixes. It's still a bit bleeding edge in the sense that things like the promised 4K displays are not entirely plug and play right now. Intel suggested they were working on mobile, but it's not terribly relevant unless we're talking about fab capacity. The comment likely related to Broadwell, which has nothing to do with the next mac pro chips at the moment. Broadwell was pushed back somewhat. It could trickle out late this year. If Haswell EP is out soon after, you could see it show up Q1-Q2 next year.
Quote:
On the other hand Intel has given up on workstation and high performance computing. The dark horse here is the rumored Xeon Phi that is suitable as a system processor. They would likely have to deliver a version specific to Apples needs to get the chip power down, but if that chips is real it would make for a very interesting Mac Pro.
I doubt that given the current arrangement of dual gpus and thunderbolt. Even if they went that route, I don't think it would happen for several cycles. I'm currently taking the time to learn to program OpenCL. It is not as pretty to read as CUDA (puts on flamesuit). It will probably be a bit better once I get used to it, but it's effective for graphics programming where it's possible to just massively thread some things rather than rely on older bsp methods.
Quote:
I kinda hope so myself but it gets to the point of why bother!! If they stretch out delivery so that it comes out near the Broadwell debut it will be anticlimactic to say the least.
The mini is almost always refreshed last. The longer it goes, the more I suspect it will share hardware components. Otherwise the issue of components being earmarked first for notebooks would be a non-issue. I'm curious how they'll handle it though. It's likely that they look at the price consciousness of its purchasers, but all of the equivalent notebook options migrated to higher cost cpus this year.
Quote:
The one thing we can't dismiss here is that the desktop market is ugly right now. This is the case for all vendors, even Apple. it is an ugly reality but Apple could see this as the time to discontinue the current design. The question then becomes what replaces that machine. If Apple is to offer any desktop beyond the iMac, i really see the need for a more powerful machine than the Mini.
I haven't looked up workstation numbers recently. I've been up to too many other things.
Comments
Any Mac Mini is a steal for the money.
In any event I will try to repeat things again as I'm at my Mac. My point with the Mini is that its value has been significantly impacted due to the lack of a Haswell solution in the machine. Not for the CPU improvements which are minor and at times regressions but rather because of the GPU. Depending upon which Haswell you get, the GPU is improved significantly and this makes the current Mini a poor value compared to what it could be.
GeekBench has its place but I'm not convinced it is of much use for modern software. For example anything OpenCL accelerated on Haswell is showing very good results. Further Haswells vastly improved 3D performance means that applications like 3D CAD are far more serviceable on Haswell than prior Intel solutions.
Combine this with the fact that has well has been out in various forms for months now and you can see why I question the machines value. This especially in the high end configurations which could be vastly improved via a Haswell upgrade. Actually $1699 is a lot to pay for an iMac if you really don't want an all in one. Actually I have just the opposite opinion. By not certifying any solutions Intel frees the market from idiots complaining about poor performance over TB. Of course the performance results would be highly variable but you would have a hard time explaining that to some midnight gamer who believes he is a technical hotshot.
Beyond that, everything I know about electronics and computers says to me the the GPU will only get closer to the CPU. Future performance increases in low cost machines will come from highly integrated chips feed with real fast RAM arrays. The GPU will need to be not only physically close to the CPU it needs to be logically close. We are already seeing significant payoffs in this regard and we have yet to see the Heterogeneous systems that the likes of AMD have been harping about for years now. Apple with its Intel Haswell based systems is probably the closest any manufacture has come to extensive use of an "APU" in a heterogeneous type system yet has a ways to go. It won't take much in the way of future enhancements to discount the need for a discreet GPU for many users. So if Intel has been a little over bearing with regards to TB and GPU's I think they are on the right path. In a year or two the demand won't be there and in the mean time they eliminate the negativity that would most certainly come with under performing GPU over TB solutions.
By the way, the Mini could use TB2 also. For server uses that would make for a nice upgrade to the platform.
*****************************
This drag on the arrival of a Haswell bumped Mini has me believing that we will see a new platform early in 2014. Everything I've seen indicates terrible sales so Apple might try to breath new life into the machine with a new chassis and other technologies.
Maybe the lowest end model but better and best suck right now. You spend a lot of money to get very little in real world performance, no Haswell GPU and frankly the machine needs TB2 to better leverage the platform for some of the things it does well. Here I'm thinking server duty which one model supposedly supports.
It really is a matter of perspective, Haswell does almost nothing for the CPU but that really isn't important to many of us. If Haswell was in a Mini right now it would be a far more relevant machine.
Maybe the lowest end model but better and best suck right now. You spend a lot of money to get very little in real world performance, no Haswell GPU and frankly the machine needs TB2 to better leverage the platform for some of the things it does well. Here I'm thinking server duty which one model supposedly supports.
It really is a matter of perspective, Haswell does almost nothing for the CPU but that really isn't important to many of us. If Haswell was in a Mini right now it would be a far more relevant machine.
I'm waiting until the Haswell Mac Mini comes out to replace my aging Mac Pro. To be honest with you, I'm hoping that there'll be a new form factor to the Mac Mini taking it closer to the shape of the new AirPort Extreme. I used to own a G4 Cube and while most disliked them, I loved mine and used it until it died. While it wouldn't be the same as the Cube, it would be reminiscent of it in my opinion. We might not get a new form factor, but TB2 and Haswell are what I'm looking for in the next Mac Mini. It'd be great if someone at Apple actually cared about the Mac Mini.
It's consumers that don't care about it. They don't sell well enough. I actually think consumers aren't informed well enough about the Mac Mini. People who are unfamiliar with computers can't possibly see a Mini compared to a standard PC box and assume the small box can replace the larger one when it's 1/20th the size and yet in many cases the Mini will be faster. They could do with having a poster that shows that the Mini can replace their old plastic towers.
It's also the bundle prices. The high volume market is way down at the $500 mark for an entire bundle. Apple doesn't reach that with just the box. Add Apple's kb/mouse and even a 3rd party display and you're somewhere around $800.
HP sold 14.6m PCs (including laptops) q4 2012 with revenue of $7.9b so their average selling price is $540.
Lenovo sold 13.9m with revenue of $7.5b so their asp is $540.
Dell sold 9.2m with revenue of $8.6b so their asp is better at $935.
These are averages so the majority of sales are below these prices. Apple's average is closer to $1300.
Adding Haswell to the Mini won't improve sales on its own. Consumers need to be aware of what the Mini is and have bundles to setup an entire computer system affordably.
Desktops are still a fairly big market overall but the market is shrinking now.
I actually think consumers aren't informed well enough about the Mac Mini.
Probably because when you walk into an Apple Store, you need a magnifying glass to find the section devoted to the Mini.
GeekBench has its place but I'm not convinced it is of much use for modern software. For example anything OpenCL accelerated on Haswell is showing very good results. Further Haswells vastly improved 3D performance means that applications like 3D CAD are far more serviceable on Haswell than prior Intel solutions.
OpenCL's importance may or may not increase over time but currently all older non-Haswell macs with Intel GPUs lack OpenCL support from the GPU. Yes, obviously folks that need 3D performance will like having Haswell. On the other hand all owners of the current Mini do not currently need this or they'd have bought an iMac out of necessity.
The point is that Apple manages its lineup and upsell very carefully. There is no reason that the current Mini could not have a discrete GPU BTO option.
GPU performance over TB is pretty decent in comparison to the IGP.
http://www.geek.com/apple/improve-macbook-air-graphics-7x-using-a-diy-thunderbolt-external-gpu-1563835/
I'll take 5-7x performance over Haswell IGP if it wasn't such a hack at the moment.
That is a tuff one. I honestly think that Apples sees the Mini as a machine for third party sellers to market. I left with the impression that they don't even want to bother with it in their stores.
As for current owners that makes little sense, they already have a machine. We are talking about a new machine here. The idea is a that Apple needs a far more capable machine to draw users that are beyond an entry level machine. A Mini as an entry level machine is fine and would be so even with Ivy Bridge for the next few months. What isn't fine is paying big bucks for the up sell variants of the Mini and getting very little in return especially the lack of the GPUs Haswell has to offer. My point is I will never buy Apples all in one if it continues its current engineering approach of being non serviceable. Frankly many corporations won't consider the iMac either for a variety of reasons. Apple can believe they are managing their up sell well but in reality they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Who really cares? If you need to add such nonsense to the AIR you bought the wrong laptop.
********
Public service announcement:
If you are having trouble with Appleinsider forums crashing when trying to respond to a message try this:
Seems to avoid the crashes and the sluggish Safari.
I'm having trouble finding documentation but I believe that Mavericks brought OpenCL support to older Intel chips. At least Ivy Bridge. Frankly Apple hasn't been real good with documentation of late. Intel hardware has been OpenCL capable for some time even if that feature was never brought to Mac OS.
Looks like they did for the HD4000. Either way, for years it wasn't that big a deal to Apple.
At least they make such a thing. It's called a Mac Pro. Maybe a little more spendy than you'd like but it exists.
Apple doesn't make any 13" laptop with a GPU.
Some corporations may not. Apple doesn't seem to care. Nor are they "shooting themselves in the foot" when you compare Apple profitability with Dell or HP.
I would guess more people care about that than care about the xMac. Still not that many. It is highly amusing though that xMac zealots get all upset when you tell them that their sacred cow isn't important to Apple but is more than happy to do the same to others with slightly different desires.
Here's the point genius...Apple isn't going to make an xMac. At best, and that's really iffy, you might see a mini with an Iris Pro. Don't hold your breath on that one. It would kill iMac sales. On the other hand if Apple allowed eGPUs to work over TB then you could get a mini with a stock HD5000 and add a GPU of your own choice. This isn't likely either given that Apple has distinctly made all dGPU options only available on $2600+ laptops and $1500+ iMacs.
Apple is very careful in what it does and there are simply many markets they choose not to address. I don't whine about it like you do claiming it's costing Apple money and that they are dooooooomed.
By the way yes I know that the CPU is a bit lacking in raw performance but as a whole I see Kaveri meshing very well with Apples direction when it comes to GPU integration. This is a SoC that just screams balanced performance when it comes to audio, CPU and GPU processing.
AMD introduced Kaveri today. I'd still love to see a processor like this in the Mini. Extremely good GPU performance at a much lower price point than Intel. Some of the OpenCL bench marks are mouth watering.
By the way yes I know that the CPU is a bit lacking in raw performance but as a whole I see Kaveri meshing very well with Apples direction when it comes to GPU integration. This is a SoC that just screams balanced performance when it comes to audio, CPU and GPU processing.
I second this. Kaveri brings Quad Core performance, solid graphics with a 20% savings over Haswell.
I second this. Kaveri brings Quad Core performance, solid graphics with a 20% savings over Haswell.
Really? The benches show Kaveri getting crushed in CPU performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/10
A lot of times even the Core i3 is faster or in the same general performance range. The i5 is almost uniformly faster.
Even in terms of GPU performance the Iris Pro is on par which was surprising to me.
"In a vacuum where all that's available are other AMD parts, Kaveri and its Steamroller cores actually look pretty good. At identical frequencies there's a healthy increase in IPC, and AMD has worked very hard to move its Bulldozer family down to a substantially lower TDP. While Trinity/Richland were happy shipping at 100W, Kaveri is clearly optimized for a much more modern TDP. Performance gains at lower TDPs (45/65W) are significant. In nearly all of our GPU tests, a 45W Kaveri ends up delivering very similar gaming performance to a 100W Richland. The mainstream desktop market has clearly moved to smaller form factors and it's very important that AMD move there as well. Kaveri does just that.
In the broader sense however, Kaveri doesn't really change the CPU story for AMD. Steamroller comes with a good increase in IPC, but without a corresponding increase in frequency AMD fails to move the single threaded CPU performance needle. To make matters worse, Intel's dual-core Haswell parts are priced very aggressively and actually match Kaveri's CPU clocks. With a substantial advantage in IPC and shipping at similar frequencies, a dual-core Core i3 Haswell will deliver much better CPU performance than even the fastest Kaveri at a lower price."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/16
That's not exactly resounding acclaim. A low end Intel Pentium G2120 or althlon X4 + a cheap HD7770 will do better than a Kaveri. That's rather sad.
They won't have another mac pro in the current year. I'm going to assume that they'll keep it at least somewhat up to date, but that could still be another 12 months without an update. If they decide to do a rather loose update schedule, then it might show up 2H next year following notebooks or something like that. I suspect a haswell mini is still coming. They refreshed it for Sandy and Ivy. As I mentioned before the only discrepancy for the current generation would be the slight shift in the typically shared component costs. That may not change with broadwell, so they have to release one at some point.
I wouldn't call it being crushed though it varies with the benchmark. If you read the entire article you see Intel getting crushed via some of the GPU benchmarks. What is important here is that AMD has improved the architecture enough to get very good performance at a much lower clock rate. It is actually significant that AMD has recovered much of the performance loss per clock when Bulldozer was first released. Which in a Mini is exactly what you want, performance comparable to what Intel can offer. That should surprise nobody, the architecture has been out a long time now Iris Pro is decent. However one needs to point out that Intel has to embed an extra high performance cache chip into the processor package to get those results. Further Iris Pro is expensive. However Intel is getting crushed (as you say) when the GPU is taxed significantly. Mind you it is getting crushed with a GPU that does not have the advantage of an embedded cache chip in the package. AMD is doing a respectable job here.
It isn't sad that AMD has finally gotten to the point where they are actually on a par with I5. More so they are doing so while delivering far better GPU performance than Intel does in an I5. In a nut shell you can't look towards the past when systems where rated by the CPU power the had and nothing else. The whole point of Kaveri is that is delivers significant balanced performance in s single SoC. It does so without resorting to packaging in another cache chip in the SoC package.
The only way I can see them doing that is if they intend to deliver a significantly different architecture / mechanical design. Haswell has a lot to offer the Mini right now. I know everybody looks at CPU performance and only sees disappointment in Haswell but the reality is that GPU, its performance and the support for OpenCL in Mavericks, makes for a very interesting upgrade for the current machine. Leaving all of that on the table waiting for Broadwell just seems foolish to me.
It is the Mini's lack of decent GPU performance that has kept me away from the platform. If Apple went with the right Haswell variant that would be one more thing checked off my list.
On the other hand Intel has given up on workstation and high performance computing. The dark horse here is the rumored Xeon Phi that is suitable as a system processor. They would likely have to deliver a version specific to Apples needs to get the chip power down, but if that chips is real it would make for a very interesting Mac Pro. I kinda hope so myself but it gets to the point of why bother!! If they stretch out delivery so that it comes out near the Broadwell debut it will be anticlimactic to say the least.
The one thing we can't dismiss here is that the desktop market is ugly right now. This is the case for all vendors, even Apple. it is an ugly reality but Apple could see this as the time to discontinue the current design. The question then becomes what replaces that machine. If Apple is to offer any desktop beyond the iMac, i really see the need for a more powerful machine than the Mini.
Yeah what many don't seem to understand is that with the Mac Pro it is all in intels hands as far as Apples ability to deliver real updates. Tying the Mac Pro to Xeon puts them in a different design loop than desktop chips. The Mac Pro is very much a workstation machine with all of the stretched out design cycles associated with that hardware.
With Intel publicly on record saying they are focused on mobile for this year it is hard to tell if anything at all will come this year or even next year. We might get nothing more than a process shrink which actually wouldn't be that bad if it meant a significant clock rate increase.
There should be something late this year or whatever. Other workstation vendors were shipping machines during Q4 of last year. In Apple's case they probably had to build up some amount of inventory and work on last minute bug fixes. It's still a bit bleeding edge in the sense that things like the promised 4K displays are not entirely plug and play right now. Intel suggested they were working on mobile, but it's not terribly relevant unless we're talking about fab capacity. The comment likely related to Broadwell, which has nothing to do with the next mac pro chips at the moment. Broadwell was pushed back somewhat. It could trickle out late this year. If Haswell EP is out soon after, you could see it show up Q1-Q2 next year.
I doubt that given the current arrangement of dual gpus and thunderbolt. Even if they went that route, I don't think it would happen for several cycles. I'm currently taking the time to learn to program OpenCL. It is not as pretty to read as CUDA (puts on flamesuit). It will probably be a bit better once I get used to it, but it's effective for graphics programming where it's possible to just massively thread some things rather than rely on older bsp methods.
The mini is almost always refreshed last. The longer it goes, the more I suspect it will share hardware components. Otherwise the issue of components being earmarked first for notebooks would be a non-issue. I'm curious how they'll handle it though. It's likely that they look at the price consciousness of its purchasers, but all of the equivalent notebook options migrated to higher cost cpus this year.
I haven't looked up workstation numbers recently. I've been up to too many other things.