I was talking with a friend of mine and I predict the Iris Pro graphics processors will probably be BTO only. The processors with GT2 graphics will be standard.
It sure as hell is debatable if the performance is equal to what a desktop was doing a couple years ago.
Yes, in the real world the performance differences are even smaller.
I read what you wrote here, it's just stupid. Of course a ULV processor isn't as fast as the top end desktop CPU. As you say: So what?
It doesn't make it terrible. Nor does it make it automatically a "terrible solution for your needs" even as a developer (unless you happen to be a 3-D dev). The fact is that the current 2.0Ghz dual core i7 is fast enough for many users who a few years ago would have been considered "demanding" users.
When you buy an Air you do not get a low end processor but a low power processor.
Nice reply to a bully.
What's more "surprising" is that the BTO 13" MBA (with a low-end 2.0 Core i7-3667U in it) performs as well as the standard 13" MBPs (classic or retina) equiped with regular faster cpus (2.5 Core i5-3210M or 2.6 Core i5-3230M). And once you configure those models with the same RAM and storage, the MBA is still cheaper.
That's the only comparison that makes a little sense: similar machines, with similar hardware, at similar prices. Comparing the 11/13" MBAs to 15" MBPs only (QC, dedicated graphics, much more expensive), like Dave does, makes absolutly no sense.
In any case, Dave doesn't know nothing about Intel processors, he said that himself in another thread/post. He has absolutly no credibility with regards to evaluating the performance of computers, he is still on 2008 hardware, what does he know about modern parts?
It depends upon the desktop software, the app and the user.
It sure as hell is debatable if the performance is equal to what a desktop was doing a couple years ago.
When you go out and buy a car do you compare it to what was available in the past or to other products currently on the market. My point which many seem to mis is that it is the AIRs performance compared to what else is on the market that makes the processor look terrible. What was available last year, three years ago or ten years ago means nothing.
Yes, in the real world the performance differences are even smaller.
Generally I find the opposite, in the real world cores make a difference because the real world isn't about single app performance.
I read what you wrote here, it's just stupid. Of course a ULV processor isn't as fast as the top end desktop CPU. As you say: So what?
Err no that is exactly what makes the current AIr processor terrible. It isn't even as fast as many mobile processors and sometimes looses by a large margin.
It doesn't make it terrible. Nor does it make it automatically a "terrible solution for your needs" even as a developer (unless you happen to be a 3-D dev). The fact is that the current 2.0Ghz dual core i7 is fast enough for many users who a few years ago would have been considered "demanding" users.
Sure for many users but certainly not all users.
When you buy an Air you do not get a low end processor but a low power processor.
Effectively the same thing in today's air. Intel might market them as low power processors to justify a higher price but that is only if you as a customer buy into that as part of the value equation.
Nice work there bud! If the best reply you can come up with for somebodies use of a word you don't like is to call them a bully, you just painted a pretty crappy self portrait. I called the AIRs processor terrible because that is what is to me. The irrational responses own this forum aren't my doing.
What's more "surprising" is that the BTO 13" MBA (with a low-end 2.0 Core i7-3667U in it) performs as well as the standard 13" MBPs (classic or retina) equiped with regular faster cpus (2.5 Core i5-3210M or 2.6 Core i5-3230M). And once you configure those models with the same RAM and storage, the MBA is still cheaper.
Does that not say something about Apples tiering if products more than anything?
MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3667U 2000 MHz (2 cores) geekbench score=6832
$1599 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD
MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina Early 2013) Intel Core i5-3230M 2600 MHz (2 cores) geekbench score=6821
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">$1699 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">$1699 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD</div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">That's the only comparison that makes a little sense: similar machines, with similar hardware, at similar prices. Comparing the 11/13" MBAs to 15" MBPs only (QC, dedicated graphics, much more expensive), like Dave does, makes absolutly no sense.</div>
It makes perfect sense as you don't go shopping for new computers based upon what was available 3 years ago. You make reasonable comparisons to what is available in the marketplace at the time.
<div> </div>
<div>In any case, Dave doesn't know nothing about Intel processors, he said that himself in another thread/post. He has absolutly no credibility with regards to evaluating the performance of computers, he is still on 2008 hardware, what does he know about modern parts?</div>
</div>
I certainly don't follow Intel like I use too, as it is a waste of my time, that doesn't mean I know nothing about processor or computers in general. As for modem computers I have plenty to work with at work that give me a very good indication of where computing hardware is these days. Being work those are all Windows machines, but a trip down to the Apple store can confirm my opinion fairly quickly. To put it bluntly it is a waste of my cash to even consider a dual processor machine that doesn't support OpenCL on a GPU.
As far as credibility goes I have all I need, I understand how the various software packages I use work and how they can or can not leverage the cores in the machine. All you have to go on is some public benchmarks.
5 to 7 years... peeps can't even predict the weather 5 days out. Organic chipsets and ones not based on silicon are all in the works. The Enterprise's core may be floating around in 2021. At least I hope so. I hope Moore's law hasn't played out.
It depends upon the desktop software, the app and the user.
Yes. So for many folks the MBA is not a "terrible" machine.
Quote:
When you go out and buy a car do you compare it to what was available in the past or to other products currently on the market. My point which many seem to mis is that it is the AIRs performance compared to what else is on the market that makes the processor look terrible. What was available last year, three years ago or ten years ago means nothing.
When I go out to buy a car I compare it to what my NEEDS are, not relative to all the other cars on the market. If the 2013 F-150 now has enough towing capacity for what I need then it doesn't really matter that the 2013 F-250 can tow twice as much. The fact is that smaller modern engines, like modern CPUs, have as much power as larger truck engines in the past. Likewise towing capacity isn't just dependent on the engine but the transmission, frame, brakes, axles, etc.
Quote:
Generally I find the opposite, in the real world cores make a difference because the real world isn't about single app performance.
And the real world isn't all about CPU performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
To put it bluntly it is a waste of my cash to even consider a dual processor machine that doesn't support OpenCL on a GPU.
Except that the Ivy Bridge Core i7 does support OpenCL. Just not in OSX but that's hardly Intel's fault. Intel just released updated drivers for OpenCL 1.2.
Which means that Apple doesn't consider OpenCL GPU support to be very important to OSX given that the Mini, MBA and the 13" MBP all lack OpenCL support despite the fact that it is available on Intel GPUs. This may not change even with Haswell or if it does it may be retroactive to IvyBridge machines just like the new Intel OpenCL drivers are for both Haswell and IvyBridge.
Are you going to say the MBP 13" is also a terrible machine?
A mac pro mini having a Xeon + ECC RAM + Quadro K500M GPU would be a nice pro addition. If it starts at the $1699 price slot it would be attractive and have a sufficiently high ASP to fit the lineup well (as in little iMac cannibalization and a good low end Mac Pro entry point)
A mac pro mini having a Xeon + ECC RAM + Quadro K500M GPU would be a nice pro addition. If it starts at the $1699 price slot it would be attractive and have a sufficiently high ASP to fit the lineup well (as in little iMac cannibalization and a good low end Mac Pro entry point)
This would need a chassis that was larger than the existing Mac mini; maybe something, dare I say, about the size of a retired Mac Cube…
Give it a fat 3TB Fusion Drive, and basic A/V I/O, you have the new SGI O2, ready to be snapped up by schools everywhere…!
This would need a chassis that was larger than the existing Mac mini; maybe something, dare I say, about the size of a retired Mac Cube…
Give it a fat 3TB Fusion Drive, and basic A/V I/O, you have the new SGI O2, ready to be snapped up by schools everywhere…!
A Mac Cube form factor would be cool by me as would a modern SGI O2. I think that if you're going to bump the form factor you might as well make it big enough to hold a single full sized card in a x16 slot.
From a purely thermal perspective it looks like it's vaguely within parameters of the last gen with a GPU if you remove the HDD bays in favor of the SSD sticks for more space and cooling. Maybe need to move the power supply out as a brick again as well.
Eh, it's not very likely but it sure is fun to dream. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
From a purely thermal perspective it looks like it's vaguely within parameters of the last gen with a GPU if you remove the HDD bays in favor of the SSD sticks for more space and cooling. Maybe need to move the power supply out as a brick again as well.
NO POWER BRICKS / LINE LUMPS! I'd much much much much rather deal with a larger computer chassis than put up with the hassle of fitting a @#$%& two-pound block behind the equipment!
When we upgraded the mini in our living room to the new style I shed a tear of joy as I extricated the power supply for the old one from the morass of cables and hurled it across the room.
Yes. So for many folks the MBA is not a "terrible" machine.
You seem to be hung up on the word not the concept. For any the Mac Pro is a terrible machine.
When I go out to buy a car I compare it to what my NEEDS are, not relative to all the other cars on the market. If the 2013 F-150 now has enough towing capacity for what I need then it doesn't really matter that the 2013 F-250 can tow twice as much. The fact is that smaller modern engines, like modern CPUs, have as much power as larger truck engines in the past. Likewise towing capacity isn't just dependent on the engine but the transmission, frame, brakes, axles, etc.
You realize what you have said above supports my position. It makes no sense at all to compare today's trucks with vehicles from 3 or 4 years ago.
And the real world isn't all about CPU performance.
True but again the user plays a part here.
Except that the Ivy Bridge Core i7 does support OpenCL. Just not in OSX but that's hardly Intel's fault. Intel just released updated drivers for OpenCL 1.2.
It isn't however supported on Mac OS yet which is the big concern in this thread. Further we don't know what Apples plans are here. I would love nothing more to see that support in the next Mac OS release but they have had multiple chances to correct this and have missed each time so we are on hold until something is indicated one way or the other.
Which means that Apple doesn't consider OpenCL GPU support to be very important to OSX given that the Mini, MBA and the 13" MBP all lack OpenCL support despite the fact that it is available on Intel GPUs. This may not change even with Haswell or if it does it may be retroactive to IvyBridge machines just like the new Intel OpenCL drivers are for both Haswell and IvyBridge.
I'm not sure what is up with OpenCL support. As a technology it has seen wide acceptance over other solutions, sadly more often than not on other platforms. Of course Apples silence on these matters doesn't help any. So we don't really know why the lag in OpenCL support on these platforms, it could be any number of issues including Apple not considering it important.
Are you going to say the MBP 13" is also a terrible machine?
Why not it would make your day wouldn't it!!! Actually I'm considering it a possibility if it gets the sort of Haswell upgrade I want to see. But to be honest I find a 13" screen to be small for my laptop needs. Even a 15" screen can be cramped for my needs.
This would need a chassis that was larger than the existing Mac mini; maybe something, dare I say, about the size of a retired Mac Cube…
Maybe maybe not. It really depends upon how hard Apple and Intel pushes technology. A low wattage Xeon coupled to one of the new RAM technologies could compact the Mini significantly possibly leaving room for the GPU.
Give it a fat 3TB Fusion Drive, and basic A/V I/O, you have the new SGI O2, ready to be snapped up by schools everywhere…!
That might not be all that difficult. With the SSD on a PCI Express card you save a little more space and leave room for the hard drive. I'm not saying it would be a snap but there is the technology out there to make the Mini more interesting. This is one of the things I harp on from time to time, just put as much effort into it as you do the laptops and sales would soar.
NO POWER BRICKS / LINE LUMPS! I'd much much much much rather deal with a larger computer chassis than put up with the hassle of fitting a @#$%& two-pound block behind the equipment!
Well that is the ugly flip side. The problem is that that brick takes up a non trivial amount of space inside the machine. It would be nice to see a Mini with a lower design wattage allowing for a smaller brick. Haswell might not be there yet but a 50 watt Mini could happen in the 2014-2015 time frame while enhancing performance.
[/Quote]
When we upgraded the mini in our living room to the new style I shed a tear of joy as I extricated the power supply for the old one from the morass of cables and hurled it across the room.
[/quote]
So who created that morass of cables?
It isn't that I don't understand you point of view just that there are other points of view that impact the desirability of those external power supplies.
You realize what you have said above supports my position. It makes no sense at all to compare today's trucks with vehicles from 3 or 4 years ago.
No it doesn't. You state that the MBA has a terrible processor relative to other machines. This is exactly like saying the 2013 F-150 truck is terrible relative to the 2013 F250 truck with the larger engine regardless of what you need.
What I am saying is I need a truck to tow X lbs. In 2010 that required a F250. In 2013 I can buy a F150 and tow the same weight. Therefore it makes perfect sense to compare today's F150 against a F250 from 3 years ago to meet my towing needs.
I need a CPU capable of running XCode and Eclipse quickly so I'm not waiting on beachballs for my sized projects. That's often more IO bound than CPU bound anyway with a modern processor.
No it doesn't. You state that the MBA has a terrible processor relative to other machines. This is exactly like saying the 2013 F-150 truck is terrible relative to the 2013 F250 truck with the larger engine regardless of what you need.
It is a terrible choice if you need the features of an F250.
What I am saying is I need a truck to tow X lbs. In 2010 that required a F250. In 2013 I can buy a F150 and tow the same weight. Therefore it makes perfect sense to compare today's F150 against a F250 from 3 years ago to meet my towing needs.
It only makes sense if buying a used truck is a possibility.
I need a CPU capable of running XCode and Eclipse quickly so I'm not waiting on beachballs for my sized projects. That's often more IO bound than CPU bound anyway with a modern processor.
I could argue that those programs are as much memory bound as anything. Both of them though can leverage just about any number of cores you can throw at them.
It is a terrible choice if you need the features of an F250.
nht's logic is sound. If in 2010 you needed certain features/performance that are only possible on the F250 and not the F150 then the F250 was the only viable option. But if in 2013 you still only need those same features/performance but now they are available on the F150 and the F250 is overkill for those same needs then why go for the extra cost, size, weight, power consumption of the F250 when the F150 will suit those same needs just as well, if not better for certain tasks? As much I don't care for the car analogy this one seems quite congruent to the whole MBA v. MBP argument, especially if we're talking about the 13" models.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
2-3 year old desktop hardware. That's not shabby.
It sure as hell is debatable if the performance is equal to what a desktop was doing a couple years ago.
Yes, in the real world the performance differences are even smaller.
I read what you wrote here, it's just stupid. Of course a ULV processor isn't as fast as the top end desktop CPU. As you say: So what?
It doesn't make it terrible. Nor does it make it automatically a "terrible solution for your needs" even as a developer (unless you happen to be a 3-D dev). The fact is that the current 2.0Ghz dual core i7 is fast enough for many users who a few years ago would have been considered "demanding" users.
When you buy an Air you do not get a low end processor but a low power processor.
Nice reply to a bully.
What's more "surprising" is that the BTO 13" MBA (with a low-end 2.0 Core i7-3667U in it) performs as well as the standard 13" MBPs (classic or retina) equiped with regular faster cpus (2.5 Core i5-3210M or 2.6 Core i5-3230M). And once you configure those models with the same RAM and storage, the MBA is still cheaper.
MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3667U 2000 MHz (2 cores) geekbench score=6832
$1599 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD
MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina Early 2013) Intel Core i5-3230M 2600 MHz (2 cores) geekbench score=6821
$1699 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD
MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i5-3210M 2500 MHz (2 cores) geekbench score=6654
$1699 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD
That's the only comparison that makes a little sense: similar machines, with similar hardware, at similar prices. Comparing the 11/13" MBAs to 15" MBPs only (QC, dedicated graphics, much more expensive), like Dave does, makes absolutly no sense.
In any case, Dave doesn't know nothing about Intel processors, he said that himself in another thread/post. He has absolutly no credibility with regards to evaluating the performance of computers, he is still on 2008 hardware, what does he know about modern parts?
As far as credibility goes I have all I need, I understand how the various software packages I use work and how they can or can not leverage the cores in the machine. All you have to go on is some public benchmarks.
Witty rejoinder withdrawn to avoid unnecessary histrionics.
5 to 7 years... peeps can't even predict the weather 5 days out. Organic chipsets and ones not based on silicon are all in the works. The Enterprise's core may be floating around in 2021. At least I hope so. I hope Moore's law hasn't played out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It depends upon the desktop software, the app and the user.
Yes. So for many folks the MBA is not a "terrible" machine.
Quote:
When you go out and buy a car do you compare it to what was available in the past or to other products currently on the market. My point which many seem to mis is that it is the AIRs performance compared to what else is on the market that makes the processor look terrible. What was available last year, three years ago or ten years ago means nothing.
When I go out to buy a car I compare it to what my NEEDS are, not relative to all the other cars on the market. If the 2013 F-150 now has enough towing capacity for what I need then it doesn't really matter that the 2013 F-250 can tow twice as much. The fact is that smaller modern engines, like modern CPUs, have as much power as larger truck engines in the past. Likewise towing capacity isn't just dependent on the engine but the transmission, frame, brakes, axles, etc.
Quote:
Generally I find the opposite, in the real world cores make a difference because the real world isn't about single app performance.
And the real world isn't all about CPU performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
To put it bluntly it is a waste of my cash to even consider a dual processor machine that doesn't support OpenCL on a GPU.
Except that the Ivy Bridge Core i7 does support OpenCL. Just not in OSX but that's hardly Intel's fault. Intel just released updated drivers for OpenCL 1.2.
Which means that Apple doesn't consider OpenCL GPU support to be very important to OSX given that the Mini, MBA and the 13" MBP all lack OpenCL support despite the fact that it is available on Intel GPUs. This may not change even with Haswell or if it does it may be retroactive to IvyBridge machines just like the new Intel OpenCL drivers are for both Haswell and IvyBridge.
Are you going to say the MBP 13" is also a terrible machine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Xeon chips will never be in Mac Mini, period.
Probably not but never say never.
A mac pro mini having a Xeon + ECC RAM + Quadro K500M GPU would be a nice pro addition. If it starts at the $1699 price slot it would be attractive and have a sufficiently high ASP to fit the lineup well (as in little iMac cannibalization and a good low end Mac Pro entry point)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor
The Enterprise's core…
Not enough! I need Barkley tucked away in a closet, acting as my home neural net…
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Not enough! I need Barkley tucked away in a closet, acting as my home neural net…
Ha, ha, ha... a fellow trekie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
A mac pro mini having a Xeon + ECC RAM + Quadro K500M GPU would be a nice pro addition. If it starts at the $1699 price slot it would be attractive and have a sufficiently high ASP to fit the lineup well (as in little iMac cannibalization and a good low end Mac Pro entry point)
This would need a chassis that was larger than the existing Mac mini; maybe something, dare I say, about the size of a retired Mac Cube…
Give it a fat 3TB Fusion Drive, and basic A/V I/O, you have the new SGI O2, ready to be snapped up by schools everywhere…!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
This would need a chassis that was larger than the existing Mac mini; maybe something, dare I say, about the size of a retired Mac Cube…
Give it a fat 3TB Fusion Drive, and basic A/V I/O, you have the new SGI O2, ready to be snapped up by schools everywhere…!
A Mac Cube form factor would be cool by me as would a modern SGI O2. I think that if you're going to bump the form factor you might as well make it big enough to hold a single full sized card in a x16 slot.
From a purely thermal perspective it looks like it's vaguely within parameters of the last gen with a GPU if you remove the HDD bays in favor of the SSD sticks for more space and cooling. Maybe need to move the power supply out as a brick again as well.
Eh, it's not very likely but it sure is fun to dream. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
From a purely thermal perspective it looks like it's vaguely within parameters of the last gen with a GPU if you remove the HDD bays in favor of the SSD sticks for more space and cooling. Maybe need to move the power supply out as a brick again as well.
NO POWER BRICKS / LINE LUMPS! I'd much much much much rather deal with a larger computer chassis than put up with the hassle of fitting a @#$%& two-pound block behind the equipment!
When we upgraded the mini in our living room to the new style I shed a tear of joy as I extricated the power supply for the old one from the morass of cables and hurled it across the room.
You realize what you have said above supports my position. It makes no sense at all to compare today's trucks with vehicles from 3 or 4 years ago. True but again the user plays a part here. It isn't however supported on Mac OS yet which is the big concern in this thread. Further we don't know what Apples plans are here. I would love nothing more to see that support in the next Mac OS release but they have had multiple chances to correct this and have missed each time so we are on hold until something is indicated one way or the other. I'm not sure what is up with OpenCL support. As a technology it has seen wide acceptance over other solutions, sadly more often than not on other platforms. Of course Apples silence on these matters doesn't help any. So we don't really know why the lag in OpenCL support on these platforms, it could be any number of issues including Apple not considering it important.
Why not it would make your day wouldn't it!!! Actually I'm considering it a possibility if it gets the sort of Haswell upgrade I want to see. But to be honest I find a 13" screen to be small for my laptop needs. Even a 15" screen can be cramped for my needs.
Well that is the ugly flip side. The problem is that that brick takes up a non trivial amount of space inside the machine. It would be nice to see a Mini with a lower design wattage allowing for a smaller brick. Haswell might not be there yet but a 50 watt Mini could happen in the 2014-2015 time frame while enhancing performance.
[/Quote]
When we upgraded the mini in our living room to the new style I shed a tear of joy as I extricated the power supply for the old one from the morass of cables and hurled it across the room.
[/quote]
So who created that morass of cables?
It isn't that I don't understand you point of view just that there are other points of view that impact the desirability of those external power supplies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You realize what you have said above supports my position. It makes no sense at all to compare today's trucks with vehicles from 3 or 4 years ago.
No it doesn't. You state that the MBA has a terrible processor relative to other machines. This is exactly like saying the 2013 F-150 truck is terrible relative to the 2013 F250 truck with the larger engine regardless of what you need.
What I am saying is I need a truck to tow X lbs. In 2010 that required a F250. In 2013 I can buy a F150 and tow the same weight. Therefore it makes perfect sense to compare today's F150 against a F250 from 3 years ago to meet my towing needs.
I need a CPU capable of running XCode and Eclipse quickly so I'm not waiting on beachballs for my sized projects. That's often more IO bound than CPU bound anyway with a modern processor.
nht's logic is sound. If in 2010 you needed certain features/performance that are only possible on the F250 and not the F150 then the F250 was the only viable option. But if in 2013 you still only need those same features/performance but now they are available on the F150 and the F250 is overkill for those same needs then why go for the extra cost, size, weight, power consumption of the F250 when the F150 will suit those same needs just as well, if not better for certain tasks? As much I don't care for the car analogy this one seems quite congruent to the whole MBA v. MBP argument, especially if we're talking about the 13" models.