While I am glad a new Pro came out for the customers who want one (and I'd get one if money was no object), I kind of lost my luster for Apple. My co-worker got the 2013 MacBook Air and brought it in and showed me because he knows I used to talk Apple all the time and I apologized and told him I was just very "meh" about it.
While I agree a Haswell mini does have a lot to offer I'm not clamoring for it like I was six months ago.
I wouldn't call it being crushed though it varies with the benchmark.
No, crushed is the right adjective when it comes to CPU performance. When the Core i3 beats your best part on multiple benchmarks it's getting crushed.
Quote:
Which in a Mini is exactly what you want, performance comparable to what Intel can offer.
Comparable to a Core i3. A part that Apple declines to use in any of it's computers. The Core i5 is significantly faster.
In a mini, I think I'd very much prefer the Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac. I prefer the Core i5 + HD4600 too.
Quote:
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.
Given Intel has traditionally been terrible at IGPs the performance gap is minimal between the Iris Pro and Kaveri. That they use a cache is immaterial. I don't care HOW they get the performance they get whether it's cache or more cores or whatever.
The important thing to realize is the addition of any discrete GPU and any APU graphics performance is completely eclipsed. The Radeon HD 6750 is an $60 GPU from 2011.
Quote:
It isn't sad that AMD has finally gotten to the point where they are actually on a par with I5.
Except that they are not on par with the Core i5 but the Core i3. The Core i5 destroys Kaveri on CPU benchmarks. The Iris Pro holds it's own.
The Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac is likely far better than any Kaveri part. They aren't "on par" at all with current software.
Quote:
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.
Kaveri is an underwhelming upgrade who's HSA promise is still in the future. The performance is completely unbalanced in favor of the GPU and even there a $60 dGPU can destroy it. By the time there's a large amount of software that can effectively leverage HSA Broadwell will be out with a large GPU boost over Haswell.
The concern at this point centers on form factor redesign and inclusion of Haswell or Broadwell. Considering that 2013 failed to see an update to the Mac Mini, and its form factor has not seen alteration while all other Macs have, I would hope that significant attention will be paid to the only headless Mac under $3k.
I've been waiting for quite some time. Perhaps the Mac Mini has been relegated to the same status as the iPod, to be forgotten and dismissed by Johnny Ive.
No, crushed is the right adjective when it comes to CPU performance. When the Core i3 beats your best part on multiple benchmarks it's getting crushed.
Realistically what processor do you expect in the Mini? We aren't talking about putting this chip into an iMac or even the much desired XMac, rather we are talking about the Mini. I actually dream about a Mini with a Haswell i7 and Iris Pro graphics running on the fastest version available but that isn't likely to happen at all.
I look at it this way, AMD now has a CPU section that isn't a complete embarrassment when it comes to performance, they are getting much better performance with an actual reduction in clock rate. The chip will compete comfortably with what ever Intel chip Apple would likely put into the machine.
Comparable to a Core i3. A part that Apple declines to use in any of it's computers. The Core i5 is significantly faster.
I5 isn't that much faster all the time.
In a mini, I think I'd very much prefer the Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac. I prefer the Core i5 + HD4600 too.
Iris pro would certainly be interesting but do you really think Apple would put such a chip in the Mini when they have castrated the machine for years? As to i5 + HD4600 you have to be joking with that one! Kaveri's GPU does significantly better than the 4600 and often significantly out performs Iris Pro when the tasks become more demanding.
Given Intel has traditionally been terrible at IGPs the performance gap is minimal between the Iris Pro and Kaveri
Well that is certainly baloney. You really need to read some less biased reporting. Kaveri does amazingly well considering it is lacking the high performance cache chip Iris pro comes with.
.
That they use a cache is immaterial. I don't care HOW they get the performance they get whether it's cache or more cores or whatever.
The real problem is that they don't get the performance Kaveri has GPU wise.
The important thing to realize is the addition of any discrete GPU and any APU graphics performance is completely eclipsed. The Radeon HD 6750 is an $60 GPU from 2011.
There is no sense in side tracking this discussion with talk of discrete GPUs, something Apple is highly unlikely to use in a Mini or its replacement. Remember this is a discussion about the Mini, not the ultimate computer you can potentially put together.
Except that they are not on par with the Core i5 but the Core i3. The Core i5 destroys Kaveri on CPU benchmarks. The Iris Pro holds it's own.
Kaveri isn't as bad as you make it out to be and for the target market the GPU is by far the more important part of the chip. When it comes to GPU performance Kaveri does very well when put up against Iris Pro.
The Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac is likely far better than any Kaveri part. They aren't "on par" at all with current software.
IMac would be even better with I7, Iris Pro and a discrete video card. However my post did not involve the iMac, my point is that Kaveri would be a good match for the Mini or its replacement.
Kaveri is an underwhelming upgrade who's HSA promise is still in the future.
It took Apples delivery of Mavericks to get OpenCL support for Intels IGPs so AMD is hardly behind here. In reality they are ahead of Intel with respect to GPU compute. If Apple and AMD can leverage driver development done for the Mac Pro you will be in good shape until an OS more fully supporting HSA comes out.
The performance is completely unbalanced in favor of the GPU and even there a $60 dGPU can destroy it. By the time there's a large amount of software that can effectively leverage HSA Broadwell will be out with a large GPU boost over Haswell.
We can hope for that big GPU boost but like all things Intel you have to wait and see. Right now Kaveri is shipping product. Frankly I really don't see Apple staying with Intel if Intel doesn't move more fully to an HSA like structure in their processors. If you study what Apple has been up to OS wise it really looks like AMD and Apple are on the same path or are sharing the same vision. Intel on the other hand needed to be clobbered by Apple just to improve their GPUs to bring them to the rational state they are at today. In any event right now Apple can already leverage that GPU throughout its OS, so to dismiss it as not an advantage is a mistake in my mind.
I have no doubt that Apples dissatisfaction with Intel and their GPUs was one factor in the crash program to develop ARM based hardware. It will be interesting to see how Apples processor families develop in the futures, but I suspect HSA design concepts will play a big role in those future processors.
The concern at this point centers on form factor redesign
If the Mini gets updated at all I suspect it will come with a major form factor redesign.
and inclusion of Haswell or Broadwell.
At this point holding off for Broadwell is probably one of those "might as well" things. This would especially be the case if they significantly shrink the form factor or possibly go fanless.
Considering that 2013 failed to see an update to the Mac Mini, and its form factor has not seen alteration while all other Macs have, I would hope that significant attention will be paid to the only headless Mac under $3k.
The unfortunate reality is that that market is dead. Now maybe Apple can design something to breath a bit of life into the desktop market but I wouldn't bet on it. Just today Intel announced the layoff of 4 or 5 thousand (forgot the real number), but the fact is Intel is hurting and doesn't itself see a recovery in its traditional markets anytime soon.
So should Apple pay attention to the Mini, well you and I may think so but I'm not too sure about Apple. They could easily put a lot of money into a "Mini" that won't sell any better than the current one. It can be very hard for companies to make decisions like this. Don't update and your few remaining customers end up very frustrated. Update but don't show improved sales then your stock holders end up outraged.
I've been waiting for quite some time. Perhaps the Mac Mini has been relegated to the same status as the iPod, to be forgotten and dismissed by Johnny Ive.
What is with the I've hate? Even when Steve Jobs was around his singular opinions didn't make a product. In fact there are good examples of engineers working around Steve's opinions to deliver the products we all love. Ive's place at Apple is no different, yes he has a lot of influence (as it should be) but he is only one man.
What is with the I've hate? Even when Steve Jobs was around his singular opinions didn't make a product. In fact there are good examples of engineers working around Steve's opinions to deliver the products we all love. Ive's place at Apple is no different, yes he has a lot of influence (as it should be) but he is only one man.
This is personal opinion here, and highly skewed toward a user who's been with Apple since System 7. Now that the disclaimer has been said, I do personally hold Ive accountable here because while I believe Tim Cook is an effective CEO and knows more about logistics than all the rest of us combined, I do not get a sense that he's directly involved, as Steve was, in design. Ive, however, is the main man when it comes to engineers. I know there are multitudes under him, but he's the one in presentations waxing poetic.
It is my opinion, and obviously I'm 1/99th of 1% here, that it is Apple's responsibility to afford equal attention to every product line they choose to keep available. Favoritism toward the cash cows is inevitable because the stock holders cry when anything but that happens, but it's important that if they choose to keep a product available that they actually work to improve those products. The fact that it does not happen is the reason I single out Ive. Yes, he has a boss, but he's also the boss when it comes to engineers, so this does, in fact, rest on his shoulders. I understand that he's had his hands busy with every other Mac, and the Mac Pro is stunning to say the least, but to completely ignore a product that is available and not EOL'd, is inexcusable. One may use the argument that there's no buyers of these products so why work on them? The inverse is also true, there's been no work on these products and they are not even close to state of the art, so why buy them? Apple can't complain about poor numbers when they don't put forth the effort to bring a product to the store that people will be interested in.
We've heard the complaints over and over again here, and I rarely ever comment on things because my opinion isn't any more valuable than anyone else's. Apple has consistently underpowered the Mac Mini, and handicapped its GPU performance. There are absolutely no other choices as a Mac user available, except the Mac Pro. I have one from 2006 that I'm typing on now. It's long in the tooth, to say the least, running Lion. But I don't have $3k+ to throw at a new Mac Pro, and an iMac is out of the question when I already have a 30" Cinema Display that works amazingly well. I admit that I'm an insignificant Mac user when it comes to what Apple has become, but I remember the days before the iPod. I wish the folks at Apple did. I'll stop my complaining now and go back to the lurking I've done here for years.
Given the rising issue of the three-year-old overheating MacBook Pros, one wonders how the 5mm-thin iMacs introduced in late 2012 will fare in the coming years. Not to mention that a 4K screen will add considerably to the graphics card requirements.
Not sure I want to take a chance on that until I see how the affected MacBook Pro users are treated.
Personally I have no desire to buy the current iMac. Part of that is due to serviceability which is related to any thermal issues the units may have. However I'm not hearing about thermal issues on the new iMacs.
[quote name="Frank777" url="/t/153695/2013-mac-mini-wishlist-imac-wishlist/1080#post_2459678"]Given the rising issue of the three-year-old overheating MacBook Pros, one wonders how the 5mm-thin iMacs introduced in late 2012 will fare in the coming years. Not to mention that a 4K screen will add considerably to the graphics card requirements. [/Quote] The difficulty in servicing the IMac means that I will not have to worry about that problem if it ever crops up.
The problem I see is that you are trying to hang this issue on Apple and really it is an AMD / NVidia issue. I include NVidia because they have had very similar types of failures with their hardware. Apparently the root cause hasn't been determined yet when it comes to the AMD problem. Eventually that will be determined at which time a proper resolution to the problem can be had. TSMC might be part of the problem too.
The reality is you should consider yourself to be lucky if you get a long life out of GPU cards these days. The manufactures run the chips right at their limits. People seem to accept this as a trade off for bleeding edge performance. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the reason Apple has apparently down clocked the GPU chips in the Mac Pro is to increase reliability. [Quote] Not sure I want to take a chance on that until I see how the affected MacBook Pro users are
What makes you think the manner they handled problem in the past will apply to the way they handle issues in the future?
People always complain about Apple durability but still buying their products. Why I ask myself?
I think because for the price tag, they expect them to be better. That is my only explanation.
Anyway, here is my deal... I bought a sweatshirt for Christmas which turned out to be kind of snug (should have bought a zip up) and today I just bought the new jacket. We'll see about whether or not I get a new Mac in the next few months.
I'm not sure what to say, if you look at the world through a negative eye, I guess AMDs latest effort sucks.
No, I look at it based on the benchmarks provided. I would love for AMD to once again challenge Intel. Thus far not so much.
Realistically what processor do you expect in the Mini? We aren't talking about putting this chip into an iMac or even the much desired XMac, rather we are talking about the Mini. I actually dream about a Mini with a Haswell i7 and Iris Pro graphics running on the fastest version available but that isn't likely to happen at all.
I expect a core i5 and core i7 with the HD4600.
I look at it this way, AMD now has a CPU section that isn't a complete embarrassment when it comes to performance, they are getting much better performance with an actual reduction in clock rate. The chip will compete comfortably with what ever Intel chip Apple would likely put into the machine.
The current i7 destroys any of the Kaveri options for CPU tasks which is still the majority of the workflow. While the APU will do much better for games than the HD4000 currently used in the mini the mini isn't a gaming rig.
"Not a Complete Embarrassment" is the same category as the Ivy Bridge GPU.
I5 isn't that much faster all the time.
The i5 is the ENTRY model mini. The i7 is the mid range. And the i3 beats Kaveri.
Iris pro would certainly be interesting but do you really think Apple would put such a chip in the Mini when they have castrated the machine for years? As to i5 + HD4600 you have to be joking with that one! Kaveri's GPU does significantly better than the 4600 and often significantly out performs Iris Pro when the tasks become more demanding.
GPU performance is still secondary to CPU performance in 2014. The 4600 is decent.
Well that is certainly baloney. You really need to read some less biased reporting. Kaveri does amazingly well considering it is lacking the high performance cache chip Iris pro comes with.
I'm not reading the reporting. I'm looking at the provided benchmarks.
The real problem is that they don't get the performance Kaveri has GPU wise.
Which doesn't matter as much if you aren't building a gaming rig. Trancoding is still more reliable using CPU than GPU. Most tasks are still CPU dominated. There are no scenarios, other than HSA benchmarks, that I'd rather have a Kaveri over a i7 + HD4600.
Kaveri isn't as bad as you make it out to be and for the target market the GPU is by far the more important part of the chip.
Repeating an assertion doesn't make it any more true. Show workflows that are dominated by GPU performance for the average mini user.
It took Apples delivery of Mavericks to get OpenCL support for Intels IGPs so AMD is hardly behind here. In reality they are ahead of Intel with respect to GPU compute. If Apple and AMD can leverage driver development done for the Mac Pro you will be in good shape until an OS more fully supporting HSA comes out.
I'd believe that more if apple shipped opencl 2.0 support in mavericks.
We can hope for that big GPU boost but like all things Intel you have to wait and see. Right now Kaveri is shipping product.
Lol. When has intel not delivered recently? Whereas AMD promised Core i5 parity and is getting its butt kicked by an i3.
Frankly I really don't see Apple staying with Intel if Intel doesn't move more fully to an HSA like structure in their processors. If you study what Apple has been up to OS wise it really looks like AMD and Apple are on the same path or are sharing the same vision. Intel on the other hand needed to be clobbered by Apple just to improve their GPUs to bring them to the rational state they are at today.
I'd believe the BS you're spouting if apple had released opencl support for the hd4000 prior to mavericks and if they has shipped opencl 2.0 support in July the same time Khronos did.
In any event right now Apple can already leverage that GPU throughout its OS, so to dismiss it as not an advantage is a mistake in my mind.
At the opencl 1.2 level also supported by ivy and haswell.
I have no doubt that Apples dissatisfaction with Intel and their GPUs was one factor in the crash program to develop ARM based hardware. It will be interesting to see how Apples processor families develop in the futures, but I suspect HSA design concepts will play a big role in those future processors.
Bullshit. ARM development is driven completely by iPad and iPhone and any "crash program", if any, driven by dissatisfaction with Samsung and not intel.
I think because for the price tag, they expect them to be better. That is my only explanation.
Anyway, here is my deal... I bought a sweatshirt for Christmas which turned out to be kind of snug (should have bought a zip up) and today I just bought the new jacket. We'll see about whether or not I get a new Mac in the next few months.
Going on a spending spree! The next thing you will do is go all out and buy a pair of shoes.
No, I look at it based on the benchmarks provided. I would love for AMD to once again challenge Intel. Thus far not so much.
Nobody completely obsessed with benchmarks will be happy with Kaveri. If you take a more balanced view the processor really isn't that bad.
I expect a core i5 and core i7 with the HD4600.
The current i7 destroys any of the Kaveri options for CPU tasks which is still the majority of the workflow. While the APU will do much better for games than the HD4000 currently used in the mini the mini isn't a gaming rig.
Which is baloney. Sure Intels best CPU does better in some tests but lets face it Haswell does much better than Sandy Bridge. As for your obsession with the GPU as a gaming feature that is baloney also. GPU's are very important in all modern operating systems.
"Not a Complete Embarrassment" is the same category as the Ivy Bridge GPU.
The i5 is the ENTRY model mini. The i7 is the mid range. And the i3 beats Kaveri.
It beats Kaveri if you hand pick the benchmarks to prove your point. Kaveri however delivers a far more balanced result.
GPU performance is still secondary to CPU performance in 2014. The 4600 is decent.
Well you are living in the past, the CPU stopped being important at least 3 years ago. Why do you think Apple pushed intel so hard to implement decent GPU's?
I'm not reading the reporting. I'm looking at the provided benchmarks.
Reading all the benchmarks wouldn't hurt. Kaveri doesn't do bad at all when benchmarks making use of the GPU are taken into account.
Which doesn't matter as much if you aren't building a gaming rig. Trancoding is still more reliable using CPU than GPU. Most tasks are still CPU dominated. There are no scenarios, other than HSA benchmarks, that I'd rather have a Kaveri over a i7 + HD4600.
That is fine for you. However if you are looking for a low cost node to put on the net somewhere Kaveri looks to be very interesting and is certainly better than any i3 based machine and gives the i5 based machines a run for their money.
Repeating an assertion doesn't make it any more true.
Exactly so why do you do it????
Seriously dude my post was about the Mini a machine Apple doesn't exactly imbue with a great deal of performance to begin with. It would be a huge difference if this was a discussion about the iMac, but in the Mini Kaveri would be fine. This is especially the case if Apple can trim a few bucks off the price of the machine.
Show workflows that are dominated by GPU performance for the average mini user.
The workflow doesn't have to be dominated by GPU performance for a GPU to be important with respect to OS performance. Just about every app gets some benefit from the GPU if it used the Mac GUI at all.
I'd believe that more if apple shipped opencl 2.0 support in mavericks.
Hey I don't like Apple dragging its feet either. I honestly believe that the pace of Mac OS development has slowed in preference of iOS.
Lol. When has intel not delivered recently? Whereas AMD promised Core i5 parity and is getting its butt kicked by an i3.
You haven't kept up with Intel failure or you have selective memory. in any event nothing I've seen indicates that Kaveri is getting its but kicked by i3 processors.
I'd believe the BS you're spouting if apple had released opencl support for the hd4000 prior to mavericks and if they has shipped opencl 2.0 support in July the same time Khronos did.
At the opencl 1.2 level also supported by ivy and haswell.
Bullshit. ARM development is driven completely by iPad and iPhone and any "crash program", if any, driven by dissatisfaction with Samsung and not intel.
Wrong again. Apple went ARM just before the iPad release when it became obvious that Intel didn't get it. It is pretty hard for Apple to be dissatisfied with Samsung when Samsung is producing Apples designs. Even before the Apple designed hardware hit, Samsung's designs where ARM derived with help from Intrinsity. More so Apple Purchased P.A. Semi in 2008 specifically to go their own way in processor development, with Jobs specifically saying they where going to develop their own processors.
So yeah I'd call it a crash program. They literally went out and purchased the expertise to build their own chips and pushed out those design rather quickly. That move was motivated by Intel just not getting low power. Frankly it was a good move on Apples part as Intel did not have anything close to reasonable for a tablet until late last year. Now Apple has a chip that pretty much holds its own against Intel chips targeting the same market.
In any event this ARM discussion pulls thread off course. HSA architecture has so much to offer Apple that I see Intel as having no choice but to match the capability or loose Apples interest. You can disagree with that but it seems lie Intel is following AMD in this regard.
5100 or bust for me if a Haswell mini comes out because I think expecting a 5200 would be too much. I don't want to say the 4600 is horrible but it's my money and that's my choice or else. Otherwise I'd rather they wait for Broadwell.
Nobody completely obsessed with benchmarks will be happy with Kaveri. If you take a more balanced view the processor really isn't that bad.
LOL. First you take exception to "reading biased reporting" and now with being "obsessed with benchmarks". So I guess your opinion is based merely on personal whimsy.
I'm no more "obsessed with benchmarks" than anyone else. They are an objective measure of the performance of a system component that provides insight into what to expect for real world performance increase. Yes, you can lie with benchmarks but Anand, despite your accusations of anti-AMD bias, is pretty decent to presenting representative enough benchmarks.
Your "balanced view" isn't balanced at all. AMD promised Core i5 level of CPU performance. Everyone was excited that they caught up to Intel but the benchmarks shows that they failed.
Quote:
Which is baloney. Sure Intels best CPU does better in some tests but lets face it Haswell does much better than Sandy Bridge. As for your obsession with the GPU as a gaming feature that is baloney also. GPU's are very important in all modern operating systems.
Nope. CPU still dominates standard desktop workflows. Even for transcoding after Intel introduced quick sync. Sufficiently so that Apple has for relied on Intel's IGP since Sandy Bridge for it's entry level laptops (MBA, 13" MBP) and now for all of it's entry level machines including the 15" MBP.
Are you claiming that OSX is not a modern operating system or that Apple engineers are clueless?
And the gaming focus is exactly AMD's focus. Those are the benchmarks that Kaveri wins. That's the emphasis that AMD puts in its marketing literature.
Quote:
It beats Kaveri if you hand pick the benchmarks to prove your point. Kaveri however delivers a far more balanced result.
Show any CPU benchmark where Kaveri beats the Core i5. CPU benchmarks and not the "CPU while gaming" benchmarks that AMD touts.
You don't like Anand. Try Tom's. Same result. Look at the content creation, productivity, compression, and media encoding benchmarks.
"But the Intel chip does quite a bit better in our OpenCL-accelerated metric. In fact, we also see the Richland-based A10-6800K finish up ahead of any Kaveri-based APU."
"The same thing happens in Sony’s Vegas Pro 12 as Intel’s CPUs take first and second place, while A10-6800K slides past the Kaveri-based APUs. This is an OpenCL-accelerated workload, so it’s strange that AMD’s latest doesn’t turn in stronger numbers. But when we turn off OpenCL and run the same benchmark, completion time nearly doubles. So hardware acceleration is definitely helping, just not as much as we would have thought given AMD's more modern graphics architecture."
These are what people do with their minis. Decompress files, encode video, use iTunes, use iLife. Nobody can run benchmarks using Kaveri and OSX but Vegas, WinZip, Adobe, Handbrake and iTunes on windows WITH OpenCL turned on in many cases is indicative that for mini users the Core i5 is the far better chip than any Kaveri option except for gaming.
Quote:
Well you are living in the past, the CPU stopped being important at least 3 years ago. Why do you think Apple pushed intel so hard to implement decent GPU's?
Kaveri consistently sucks ass in comparison to the Core i5 when doing things that most people care about.
Intel has been working on improving their GPU performance since the 1999 introduction of the Intel740 as part of their strategy to own the entire lower end of the graphics market. Until Intel's move to lock out 3rd party chipsets it hasn't mattered to Apple very much. Prior to 2010 Apple happily used 3rd party IGPs like the nVidia 9400M as part of their solution when Intel's IGP was considered too slow. Given that Apple choose the GMA900 and other Intel IGPs from time to time over nVidia or ATI IGP solutions Apple obviously felt that Intel's offerings during those periods were competitive or they wouldn't have used them.
Whether Apple pushed Intel on the IGP front is debatable. Certainly Apple's laggard implementation of OpenCL on Intel's platform indicated to great rush to push GPU acceleration in OSX.
Quote:
Reading all the benchmarks wouldn't hurt. Kaveri doesn't do bad at all when benchmarks making use of the GPU are taken into account.
The only benchmarks I don't care about are gaming and synthetic computer. Those are the ones that Kaveri wins. While I care about gaming I'm not going to game on a IGP so those benchmarks are moot. I don't care about synthetic compute benchmarks because these generally aren't indicative of production software performance. I'd rather see Adobe or Handbrake CPU and OpenCL benchmarks.
Quote:
That is fine for you. However if you are looking for a low cost node to put on the net somewhere Kaveri looks to be very interesting and is certainly better than any i3 based machine and gives the i5 based machines a run for their money.
Except nowhere do they give "i5 based machines a run for their money". At $600 the Mini is not a "low cost node".
Quote:
Exactly so why do you do it????
I provide links to benchmarks to support my case. You provide handwaving.
Quote:
Seriously dude my post was about the Mini a machine Apple doesn't exactly imbue with a great deal of performance to begin with.
The $800 mini has a huge amount of performance. Period. Any step back from the Core i7 is a huge reduction in performance.
Quote:
It would be a huge difference if this was a discussion about the iMac, but in the Mini Kaveri would be fine. This is especially the case if Apple can trim a few bucks off the price of the machine.
A mini Kaveri would be fine if you didn't care about iPhoto, iMovie, zipping files, handbrake, iTunes, iWork, Xcode, etc performance getting significantly slower.
Quote:
The workflow doesn't have to be dominated by GPU performance for a GPU to be important with respect to OS performance. Just about every app gets some benefit from the GPU if it used the Mac GUI at all.
The benefit is completely negated by the significant loss in performance in content creation, zipping, encoding, compiling, etc. The HD4600 is more than capable of providing all the GPU acceleration required for normal OS performance.
Quote:
Hey I don't like Apple dragging its feet either. I honestly believe that the pace of Mac OS development has slowed in preference of iOS.
Given that they invested their limited resources in other aspects of OSX then GPU acceleration is obviously NOT the cornerstone of Apple's OS strategy as you repeatedly assert.
Quote:
You haven't kept up with Intel failure or you have selective memory. in any event nothing I've seen indicates that Kaveri is getting its but kicked by i3 processors.
Since Intel's failures are so rampant why don't you list them since it should be easy. Oh wait, you don't mean the schedule slips? Yah, like AMD has any advantage there. Intel's broadwell desktop slip is relatively minor given that they're first to 14nm which is pretty hard.
That you close your eyes to Kaveri's shortcomings is immaterial. The benchmarks are all linked.
Quote:
Wrong again. Apple went ARM just before the iPad release when it became obvious that Intel didn't get it. It is pretty hard for Apple to be dissatisfied with Samsung when Samsung is producing Apples designs. Even before the Apple designed hardware hit, Samsung's designs where ARM derived with help from Intrinsity. More so Apple Purchased P.A. Semi in 2008 specifically to go their own way in processor development, with Jobs specifically saying they where going to develop their own processors.
So yeah I'd call it a crash program. They literally went out and purchased the expertise to build their own chips and pushed out those design rather quickly. That move was motivated by Intel just not getting low power. Frankly it was a good move on Apples part as Intel did not have anything close to reasonable for a tablet until late last year. Now Apple has a chip that pretty much holds its own against Intel chips targeting the same market.
Too bad that Apple stated differently.
"When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," - Steve Jobs WWDC 2005
That Intel was not interested in becoming a ARM fab in 2006-2007 let Samsung and all it's resulting problems into the picture.
Intel's interest in phones and tablets has always been tempered by the low cost of those chips just like Apple not wanting to get involved in the low end of the computer business. Intel's drive to far lower power has far more to do with keeping ARM solutions out of the server and ultra book high ASP and high margin market. Something that I believe that they have succeeded in doing. There is no reason to go ARM for ultra books or servers any more.
Intel's margins are 60% and the ASPs are far higher than for ARM.
Job's interest in developing their own processors for the iPad and iPhone was a desire for a competitive advantage that Android (or Samsung) could not easily match.
And obviously that desire was largely fueled by Samsing copy-catting the iPhone.
Quote:
In any event this ARM discussion pulls thread off course. HSA architecture has so much to offer Apple that I see Intel as having no choice but to match the capability or loose Apples interest. You can disagree with that but it seems lie Intel is following AMD in this regard.
By the time HSA matters at all Intel will have reached parity with AMD or surpassed it in terms of IGP performance. HSA software won't be out until later this year (what, summer?). That means no production software will use it before 2015 at the earliest. That means it won't matter for real before 2016.
Given the rapid GPU advances in the last 3 Intel CPUs I don't think that AMD's GPU advantage will last until 2016.
We're on Day 38 of the New Year, and the new Mini hasn't arrived yet.
The changes would seem to be pretty standard: Remove the FW port, add HDMI2, TB2 and the AC version of Wi-Fi, shrink the form factor. [And please keep the ability to add RAM later!] I personally think they'll remove the SDXC card slot too.
Why is this taking so long?
Edit: This article mentions some of the smaller form factors the next Mini will be up against.
Tim Cook says he hasn't given up on the Mac, but that doesn't mean that he's including the Mini in that. It seems that the only Macs they focus on are the laptops, the iMac and the new Mac Pro. It's been so long now that I'm actually bummed out that it's being forgotten. It's the only headless Mac that the mere mortal can afford, and it's being ignored by Apple. They can't make money on something they refuse to update with current hardware.
Newsgaadi is a famous online news aggregator which features news from across the globe. We do post breaking news, political stories, global news, latest updates on science and technology, movie updates and sports news.
Comments
While I agree a Haswell mini does have a lot to offer I'm not clamoring for it like I was six months ago.
I wouldn't call it being crushed though it varies with the benchmark.
No, crushed is the right adjective when it comes to CPU performance. When the Core i3 beats your best part on multiple benchmarks it's getting crushed.
Comparable to a Core i3. A part that Apple declines to use in any of it's computers. The Core i5 is significantly faster.
In a mini, I think I'd very much prefer the Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac. I prefer the Core i5 + HD4600 too.
Given Intel has traditionally been terrible at IGPs the performance gap is minimal between the Iris Pro and Kaveri. That they use a cache is immaterial. I don't care HOW they get the performance they get whether it's cache or more cores or whatever.
The important thing to realize is the addition of any discrete GPU and any APU graphics performance is completely eclipsed. The Radeon HD 6750 is an $60 GPU from 2011.
Except that they are not on par with the Core i5 but the Core i3. The Core i5 destroys Kaveri on CPU benchmarks. The Iris Pro holds it's own.
The Core i5 + Iris Pro in the iMac is likely far better than any Kaveri part. They aren't "on par" at all with current software.
Kaveri is an underwhelming upgrade who's HSA promise is still in the future. The performance is completely unbalanced in favor of the GPU and even there a $60 dGPU can destroy it. By the time there's a large amount of software that can effectively leverage HSA Broadwell will be out with a large GPU boost over Haswell.
The concern at this point centers on form factor redesign and inclusion of Haswell or Broadwell. Considering that 2013 failed to see an update to the Mac Mini, and its form factor has not seen alteration while all other Macs have, I would hope that significant attention will be paid to the only headless Mac under $3k.
I've been waiting for quite some time. Perhaps the Mac Mini has been relegated to the same status as the iPod, to be forgotten and dismissed by Johnny Ive.
Realistically what processor do you expect in the Mini? We aren't talking about putting this chip into an iMac or even the much desired XMac, rather we are talking about the Mini. I actually dream about a Mini with a Haswell i7 and Iris Pro graphics running on the fastest version available but that isn't likely to happen at all.
I look at it this way, AMD now has a CPU section that isn't a complete embarrassment when it comes to performance, they are getting much better performance with an actual reduction in clock rate. The chip will compete comfortably with what ever Intel chip Apple would likely put into the machine. I5 isn't that much faster all the time.
Iris pro would certainly be interesting but do you really think Apple would put such a chip in the Mini when they have castrated the machine for years? As to i5 + HD4600 you have to be joking with that one! Kaveri's GPU does significantly better than the 4600 and often significantly out performs Iris Pro when the tasks become more demanding. Well that is certainly baloney. You really need to read some less biased reporting. Kaveri does amazingly well considering it is lacking the high performance cache chip Iris pro comes with.
The real problem is that they don't get the performance Kaveri has GPU wise. There is no sense in side tracking this discussion with talk of discrete GPUs, something Apple is highly unlikely to use in a Mini or its replacement. Remember this is a discussion about the Mini, not the ultimate computer you can potentially put together. Kaveri isn't as bad as you make it out to be and for the target market the GPU is by far the more important part of the chip. When it comes to GPU performance Kaveri does very well when put up against Iris Pro. IMac would be even better with I7, Iris Pro and a discrete video card. However my post did not involve the iMac, my point is that Kaveri would be a good match for the Mini or its replacement. It took Apples delivery of Mavericks to get OpenCL support for Intels IGPs so AMD is hardly behind here. In reality they are ahead of Intel with respect to GPU compute. If Apple and AMD can leverage driver development done for the Mac Pro you will be in good shape until an OS more fully supporting HSA comes out.
We can hope for that big GPU boost but like all things Intel you have to wait and see. Right now Kaveri is shipping product. Frankly I really don't see Apple staying with Intel if Intel doesn't move more fully to an HSA like structure in their processors. If you study what Apple has been up to OS wise it really looks like AMD and Apple are on the same path or are sharing the same vision. Intel on the other hand needed to be clobbered by Apple just to improve their GPUs to bring them to the rational state they are at today. In any event right now Apple can already leverage that GPU throughout its OS, so to dismiss it as not an advantage is a mistake in my mind.
I have no doubt that Apples dissatisfaction with Intel and their GPUs was one factor in the crash program to develop ARM based hardware. It will be interesting to see how Apples processor families develop in the futures, but I suspect HSA design concepts will play a big role in those future processors.
If the Mini gets updated at all I suspect it will come with a major form factor redesign. At this point holding off for Broadwell is probably one of those "might as well" things. This would especially be the case if they significantly shrink the form factor or possibly go fanless. The unfortunate reality is that that market is dead. Now maybe Apple can design something to breath a bit of life into the desktop market but I wouldn't bet on it. Just today Intel announced the layoff of 4 or 5 thousand (forgot the real number), but the fact is Intel is hurting and doesn't itself see a recovery in its traditional markets anytime soon.
So should Apple pay attention to the Mini, well you and I may think so but I'm not too sure about Apple. They could easily put a lot of money into a "Mini" that won't sell any better than the current one. It can be very hard for companies to make decisions like this. Don't update and your few remaining customers end up very frustrated. Update but don't show improved sales then your stock holders end up outraged. What is with the I've hate? Even when Steve Jobs was around his singular opinions didn't make a product. In fact there are good examples of engineers working around Steve's opinions to deliver the products we all love. Ive's place at Apple is no different, yes he has a lot of influence (as it should be) but he is only one man.
What is with the I've hate? Even when Steve Jobs was around his singular opinions didn't make a product. In fact there are good examples of engineers working around Steve's opinions to deliver the products we all love. Ive's place at Apple is no different, yes he has a lot of influence (as it should be) but he is only one man.
This is personal opinion here, and highly skewed toward a user who's been with Apple since System 7. Now that the disclaimer has been said, I do personally hold Ive accountable here because while I believe Tim Cook is an effective CEO and knows more about logistics than all the rest of us combined, I do not get a sense that he's directly involved, as Steve was, in design. Ive, however, is the main man when it comes to engineers. I know there are multitudes under him, but he's the one in presentations waxing poetic.
It is my opinion, and obviously I'm 1/99th of 1% here, that it is Apple's responsibility to afford equal attention to every product line they choose to keep available. Favoritism toward the cash cows is inevitable because the stock holders cry when anything but that happens, but it's important that if they choose to keep a product available that they actually work to improve those products. The fact that it does not happen is the reason I single out Ive. Yes, he has a boss, but he's also the boss when it comes to engineers, so this does, in fact, rest on his shoulders. I understand that he's had his hands busy with every other Mac, and the Mac Pro is stunning to say the least, but to completely ignore a product that is available and not EOL'd, is inexcusable. One may use the argument that there's no buyers of these products so why work on them? The inverse is also true, there's been no work on these products and they are not even close to state of the art, so why buy them? Apple can't complain about poor numbers when they don't put forth the effort to bring a product to the store that people will be interested in.
We've heard the complaints over and over again here, and I rarely ever comment on things because my opinion isn't any more valuable than anyone else's. Apple has consistently underpowered the Mac Mini, and handicapped its GPU performance. There are absolutely no other choices as a Mac user available, except the Mac Pro. I have one from 2006 that I'm typing on now. It's long in the tooth, to say the least, running Lion. But I don't have $3k+ to throw at a new Mac Pro, and an iMac is out of the question when I already have a 30" Cinema Display that works amazingly well. I admit that I'm an insignificant Mac user when it comes to what Apple has become, but I remember the days before the iPod. I wish the folks at Apple did. I'll stop my complaining now and go back to the lurking I've done here for years.
Given the rising issue of the three-year-old overheating MacBook Pros, one wonders how the 5mm-thin iMacs introduced in late 2012 will fare in the coming years. Not to mention that a 4K screen will add considerably to the graphics card requirements.
Not sure I want to take a chance on that until I see how the affected MacBook Pro users are treated.
[quote name="Frank777" url="/t/153695/2013-mac-mini-wishlist-imac-wishlist/1080#post_2459678"]Given the rising issue of the three-year-old overheating MacBook Pros, one wonders how the 5mm-thin iMacs introduced in late 2012 will fare in the coming years. Not to mention that a 4K screen will add considerably to the graphics card requirements.
[/Quote]
The difficulty in servicing the IMac means that I will not have to worry about that problem if it ever crops up.
The problem I see is that you are trying to hang this issue on Apple and really it is an AMD / NVidia issue. I include NVidia because they have had very similar types of failures with their hardware. Apparently the root cause hasn't been determined yet when it comes to the AMD problem. Eventually that will be determined at which time a proper resolution to the problem can be had. TSMC might be part of the problem too.
The reality is you should consider yourself to be lucky if you get a long life out of GPU cards these days. The manufactures run the chips right at their limits. People seem to accept this as a trade off for bleeding edge performance. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the reason Apple has apparently down clocked the GPU chips in the Mac Pro is to increase reliability.
[Quote]
Not sure I want to take a chance on that until I see how the affected MacBook Pro users are
What makes you think the manner they handled problem in the past will apply to the way they handle issues in the future?
People always complain about Apple durability but still buying their products.Why I ask myself?
I think because for the price tag, they expect them to be better. That is my only explanation.
Anyway, here is my deal... I bought a sweatshirt for Christmas which turned out to be kind of snug (should have bought a zip up) and today I just bought the new jacket. We'll see about whether or not I get a new Mac in the next few months.
No, I look at it based on the benchmarks provided. I would love for AMD to once again challenge Intel. Thus far not so much.
I expect a core i5 and core i7 with the HD4600.
The current i7 destroys any of the Kaveri options for CPU tasks which is still the majority of the workflow. While the APU will do much better for games than the HD4000 currently used in the mini the mini isn't a gaming rig.
"Not a Complete Embarrassment" is the same category as the Ivy Bridge GPU.
The i5 is the ENTRY model mini. The i7 is the mid range. And the i3 beats Kaveri.
GPU performance is still secondary to CPU performance in 2014. The 4600 is decent.
I'm not reading the reporting. I'm looking at the provided benchmarks.
Which doesn't matter as much if you aren't building a gaming rig. Trancoding is still more reliable using CPU than GPU. Most tasks are still CPU dominated. There are no scenarios, other than HSA benchmarks, that I'd rather have a Kaveri over a i7 + HD4600.
Repeating an assertion doesn't make it any more true. Show workflows that are dominated by GPU performance for the average mini user.
I'd believe that more if apple shipped opencl 2.0 support in mavericks.
Lol. When has intel not delivered recently? Whereas AMD promised Core i5 parity and is getting its butt kicked by an i3.
I'd believe the BS you're spouting if apple had released opencl support for the hd4000 prior to mavericks and if they has shipped opencl 2.0 support in July the same time Khronos did.
At the opencl 1.2 level also supported by ivy and haswell.
Bullshit. ARM development is driven completely by iPad and iPhone and any "crash program", if any, driven by dissatisfaction with Samsung and not intel.
Going on a spending spree! The next thing you will do is go all out and buy a pair of shoes.
Seriously dude my post was about the Mini a machine Apple doesn't exactly imbue with a great deal of performance to begin with. It would be a huge difference if this was a discussion about the iMac, but in the Mini Kaveri would be fine. This is especially the case if Apple can trim a few bucks off the price of the machine. The workflow doesn't have to be dominated by GPU performance for a GPU to be important with respect to OS performance. Just about every app gets some benefit from the GPU if it used the Mac GUI at all. Hey I don't like Apple dragging its feet either. I honestly believe that the pace of Mac OS development has slowed in preference of iOS. You haven't kept up with Intel failure or you have selective memory. in any event nothing I've seen indicates that Kaveri is getting its but kicked by i3 processors.
Wrong again. Apple went ARM just before the iPad release when it became obvious that Intel didn't get it. It is pretty hard for Apple to be dissatisfied with Samsung when Samsung is producing Apples designs. Even before the Apple designed hardware hit, Samsung's designs where ARM derived with help from Intrinsity. More so Apple Purchased P.A. Semi in 2008 specifically to go their own way in processor development, with Jobs specifically saying they where going to develop their own processors.
So yeah I'd call it a crash program. They literally went out and purchased the expertise to build their own chips and pushed out those design rather quickly. That move was motivated by Intel just not getting low power. Frankly it was a good move on Apples part as Intel did not have anything close to reasonable for a tablet until late last year. Now Apple has a chip that pretty much holds its own against Intel chips targeting the same market.
In any event this ARM discussion pulls thread off course. HSA architecture has so much to offer Apple that I see Intel as having no choice but to match the capability or loose Apples interest. You can disagree with that but it seems lie Intel is following AMD in this regard.
Nobody completely obsessed with benchmarks will be happy with Kaveri. If you take a more balanced view the processor really isn't that bad.
LOL. First you take exception to "reading biased reporting" and now with being "obsessed with benchmarks". So I guess your opinion is based merely on personal whimsy.
I'm no more "obsessed with benchmarks" than anyone else. They are an objective measure of the performance of a system component that provides insight into what to expect for real world performance increase. Yes, you can lie with benchmarks but Anand, despite your accusations of anti-AMD bias, is pretty decent to presenting representative enough benchmarks.
Your "balanced view" isn't balanced at all. AMD promised Core i5 level of CPU performance. Everyone was excited that they caught up to Intel but the benchmarks shows that they failed.
Nope. CPU still dominates standard desktop workflows. Even for transcoding after Intel introduced quick sync. Sufficiently so that Apple has for relied on Intel's IGP since Sandy Bridge for it's entry level laptops (MBA, 13" MBP) and now for all of it's entry level machines including the 15" MBP.
Are you claiming that OSX is not a modern operating system or that Apple engineers are clueless?
And the gaming focus is exactly AMD's focus. Those are the benchmarks that Kaveri wins. That's the emphasis that AMD puts in its marketing literature.
Show any CPU benchmark where Kaveri beats the Core i5. CPU benchmarks and not the "CPU while gaming" benchmarks that AMD touts.
You don't like Anand. Try Tom's. Same result. Look at the content creation, productivity, compression, and media encoding benchmarks.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,3725-10.html
Even for OpenCL benchmarks.
"But the Intel chip does quite a bit better in our OpenCL-accelerated metric. In fact, we also see the Richland-based A10-6800K finish up ahead of any Kaveri-based APU."
"The same thing happens in Sony’s Vegas Pro 12 as Intel’s CPUs take first and second place, while A10-6800K slides past the Kaveri-based APUs. This is an OpenCL-accelerated workload, so it’s strange that AMD’s latest doesn’t turn in stronger numbers. But when we turn off OpenCL and run the same benchmark, completion time nearly doubles. So hardware acceleration is definitely helping, just not as much as we would have thought given AMD's more modern graphics architecture."
These are what people do with their minis. Decompress files, encode video, use iTunes, use iLife. Nobody can run benchmarks using Kaveri and OSX but Vegas, WinZip, Adobe, Handbrake and iTunes on windows WITH OpenCL turned on in many cases is indicative that for mini users the Core i5 is the far better chip than any Kaveri option except for gaming.
Kaveri consistently sucks ass in comparison to the Core i5 when doing things that most people care about.
Intel has been working on improving their GPU performance since the 1999 introduction of the Intel740 as part of their strategy to own the entire lower end of the graphics market. Until Intel's move to lock out 3rd party chipsets it hasn't mattered to Apple very much. Prior to 2010 Apple happily used 3rd party IGPs like the nVidia 9400M as part of their solution when Intel's IGP was considered too slow. Given that Apple choose the GMA900 and other Intel IGPs from time to time over nVidia or ATI IGP solutions Apple obviously felt that Intel's offerings during those periods were competitive or they wouldn't have used them.
Whether Apple pushed Intel on the IGP front is debatable. Certainly Apple's laggard implementation of OpenCL on Intel's platform indicated to great rush to push GPU acceleration in OSX.
The only benchmarks I don't care about are gaming and synthetic computer. Those are the ones that Kaveri wins. While I care about gaming I'm not going to game on a IGP so those benchmarks are moot. I don't care about synthetic compute benchmarks because these generally aren't indicative of production software performance. I'd rather see Adobe or Handbrake CPU and OpenCL benchmarks.
Except nowhere do they give "i5 based machines a run for their money". At $600 the Mini is not a "low cost node".
I provide links to benchmarks to support my case. You provide handwaving.
The $800 mini has a huge amount of performance. Period. Any step back from the Core i7 is a huge reduction in performance.
A mini Kaveri would be fine if you didn't care about iPhoto, iMovie, zipping files, handbrake, iTunes, iWork, Xcode, etc performance getting significantly slower.
The benefit is completely negated by the significant loss in performance in content creation, zipping, encoding, compiling, etc. The HD4600 is more than capable of providing all the GPU acceleration required for normal OS performance.
Given that they invested their limited resources in other aspects of OSX then GPU acceleration is obviously NOT the cornerstone of Apple's OS strategy as you repeatedly assert.
Since Intel's failures are so rampant why don't you list them since it should be easy. Oh wait, you don't mean the schedule slips? Yah, like AMD has any advantage there. Intel's broadwell desktop slip is relatively minor given that they're first to 14nm which is pretty hard.
That you close your eyes to Kaveri's shortcomings is immaterial. The benchmarks are all linked.
So yeah I'd call it a crash program. They literally went out and purchased the expertise to build their own chips and pushed out those design rather quickly. That move was motivated by Intel just not getting low power. Frankly it was a good move on Apples part as Intel did not have anything close to reasonable for a tablet until late last year. Now Apple has a chip that pretty much holds its own against Intel chips targeting the same market.
Too bad that Apple stated differently.
"When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," - Steve Jobs WWDC 2005
http://www.macworld.com/article/1045157/liveupdate.html
And they choose Intel over AMD precisely for that reason.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1046961/intelvsamd.html
That Intel was not interested in becoming a ARM fab in 2006-2007 let Samsung and all it's resulting problems into the picture.
Intel's interest in phones and tablets has always been tempered by the low cost of those chips just like Apple not wanting to get involved in the low end of the computer business. Intel's drive to far lower power has far more to do with keeping ARM solutions out of the server and ultra book high ASP and high margin market. Something that I believe that they have succeeded in doing. There is no reason to go ARM for ultra books or servers any more.
Intel's margins are 60% and the ASPs are far higher than for ARM.
Job's interest in developing their own processors for the iPad and iPhone was a desire for a competitive advantage that Android (or Samsung) could not easily match.
And obviously that desire was largely fueled by Samsing copy-catting the iPhone.
By the time HSA matters at all Intel will have reached parity with AMD or surpassed it in terms of IGP performance. HSA software won't be out until later this year (what, summer?). That means no production software will use it before 2015 at the earliest. That means it won't matter for real before 2016.
Given the rapid GPU advances in the last 3 Intel CPUs I don't think that AMD's GPU advantage will last until 2016.
We're on Day 38 of the New Year, and the new Mini hasn't arrived yet.
The changes would seem to be pretty standard: Remove the FW port, add HDMI2, TB2 and the AC version of Wi-Fi, shrink the form factor. [And please keep the ability to add RAM later!] I personally think they'll remove the SDXC card slot too.
Why is this taking so long?
Edit: This article mentions some of the smaller form factors the next Mini will be up against.
Tim Cook says he hasn't given up on the Mac, but that doesn't mean that he's including the Mini in that. It seems that the only Macs they focus on are the laptops, the iMac and the new Mac Pro. It's been so long now that I'm actually bummed out that it's being forgotten. It's the only headless Mac that the mere mortal can afford, and it's being ignored by Apple. They can't make money on something they refuse to update with current hardware.
Standard cycle.
Newsgaadi is a famous online news aggregator which features news from across the globe. We do post breaking news, political stories, global news, latest updates on science and technology, movie updates and sports news.
Breaking news in world today
International breaking news today
Latest business headlines
Bollywood entertainment news
Latest sports news
Espn sports news
Sports news football
Latest bollywood entertainment news
Latest bollywood news
Business technology news
Current science and technology news
Latest science technology news
Today latest news in world
National news headlines
Foot ball news
Latest cricket news
Cricket news of India
Latest news in Hyderabad | India
Latest tollywood news
I have a feeling Apple will come out with a whole new Mac Mini in march sometime.Cook will surprise us.