I bet this will simply just be released like the iMacs were. You don't need a special event to release an updated Mac mini unless they were going to totally change the form factor of it. You're probably not going to see anything significant as far as speed increases go anyways. Why not just get the current Mac mini?
Because Haswell has the potential fir huge performance increases on the Mini. It is all a matter of chip selection.
One Pro Can. Fill it with your specs. Done. One studio monitor. One can with your 'part susan' specs.
Apple can streamline it's desktop that way and broaden it's appeal. One can. One monitor. Configure as you like.
The desktop line has been broken for a long time.
And they wonder why they're slipping in sales?
Look at what they did to the Pro and iMac line over the last several years. They could have taken advantage of the wintel switcher halo thing that's going on.
But no...they'd rather charge £500 for a computer with no keyboard, mouse or monitor. Or £2045 inc VAT for an out of date and mediocre quad core with crap gpu and no monitor...or push up the prices of their AIO.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Sadly I have to agree with the above. I'm really hoping Apple has learned it lesson here with respect to the high prices it charges for the various Mac products. It has become a bit of a joke lately, you often pay twice as much for half the performance with its desktop machines.
Just curious- what are you expecting out of a Haswell mini vs an Ivy Bridge mini outside of a minor power consumption savings and Wireless AC? Performance-wise, it will be identical to the 2012 (if the iMac is any indication)- unless you go SSD.
Haswell is the most underwhelming desktop processor "upgrade" that has ever come out. For Laptops it is arguably the best, but for desktop its inconsequential.
Baloney!
First the driving feature of Haswell is the GPU and depending upon which one Apple goes with will have a profound impact on performance. Beyond that Haswell is cool enough that the top end clock rate will offer real performance advantages. Even if those high end speeds only kick in for a few moments via turboing it is very useful considering the way Minis are used.
The above doesn't even consider the advantages of the new instructions in Haswell that software could be using soon. Nor does it consider that the Iris GPU is a very impressive OpenCL processor. For many users Haswell is a big win in the Mini.
The key thing about the pricing is how much Apple accountants estimate they will save on shipping.
Actually I'm not too certain it is a big deal. The Pros smaller size means many would go into a shipping container. Apple most likely has very good deals with the air freight companies.
The flip side here is that these will likely ship in mixed configurations so they wouldn't be able to pack a container with three configurations and be done with it.
Assuming that the U.S. robots build them as cheaply as China would, Apple saves on shipping both because of the distance-to-market, and because of the new smaller form factor.
For things like iPads they might see huge savings from over seas production as the stocked units are all the same. With the Mac Pro I think it is more a matter of shipping a variety of configurations, customization if you will that leads to leveraging distance to market and the small form factor.
Whether that savings is as high as $500 is anyone's guess, but I think that would be pushing it.
I suspect they are seeing significant savings in build time and of course a parts reduction. Since the GPUs aren't shipping with heat sinks and fans, right away they benefit cost wise there. Not that this stuff cost Apple a lot, after all we are talking extrusions here and dirt cheap fans. But the hardware reductions and tailored electronics do lead a lot of little cost savings that add up. Plus I can see Apple getting a very good deal from AMD for their GPUs.
If Apple really wanted too they could deliver a machine in this form factor, as a Mini replacement, for well under $1200. It would require a cheaper power supply and likely only one GPU slot. But one desktop chip would likely be cheaper that the Minis current mobile chip. Further they could offer the GPU as an option. It would end up being a very competitive desktop machine though.
E5-2697v2 12-core $2614
8GB RAM $100 (I'll leave this at the base because it can be bought cheaper elsewhere)
dual W9000 (or 2013 equivalent) - this depends on AMD and not the retail prices at all. Since AMD is in bad shape, I reckon they will have got a two for one deal and the retail price of dual W9000 will be ~$3000-4000 so wholesale about $2500
1TB SSD = $900 ($0.90/GB wholesale)
the rest of the parts I estimate at $300
$6400 plus 40% margins = $10,690 and 64GB RAM $800 from a 3rd party so maxed out could be ~$11.5k. The big unknown here is AMD's GPUs as it could make it go as high as $15k but AMD has $359m in assets after deducting liabilities. They made a loss of $74m the last reported quarter. If that keeps up for another 4 quarters or so, they could start to have liabilities that exceed their assets and it doesn't mean immediate bankruptcy but it's the start of it. If Apple sells 250k Mac Pros in the quarter and the average wholesale price they pay AMD between all the GPU options is $800 (the lower end options are always the higher volume so the average comes way down) and AMD has a gross margin of 40%, they'd make $80m profit just from one customer. That alone would counter all their losses and keep them pretty healthy for the next year.
I want AMD to survive as much as anybody, however when was the last time Apple sold 250k a quarter of the Mac Pro? I'd be surprised if they do 5oK a year. Of course 50K = 100K GPUs.
This project will no doubt help AMD. For one it is a great marketing advantage and highlights their efforts with OpenCL. Certainly every little sale helps the bottom line. I'm just not sure it will save AMD because the bread and butter is dropping out of the GPU business and they have yet to recover in the desktop nor most of the mobile world. Sad really. It will be interesting to see AMD start shipping ARM products.
First the driving feature of Haswell is the GPU and depending upon which one Apple goes with will have a profound impact on performance. Beyond that Haswell is cool enough that the top end clock rate will offer real performance advantages. Even if those high end speeds only kick in for a few moments via turboing it is very useful considering the way Minis are used.
The above doesn't even consider the advantages of the new instructions in Haswell that software could be using soon. Nor does it consider that the Iris GPU is a very impressive OpenCL processor. For many users Haswell is a big win in the Mini.
Maybe if you didn't respond to every person individually, and used that oh-so-neat button called "Multi-quote"- then you could have read that I already said I forgot about the integrated graphics. Benchmarks are identical to ivy bridge. No processing advantage at all in the CPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Oh ya- duh! Forgot about the Intel 5000 and that the mini is integrated. Sorry!
Actually I'm not too certain it is a big deal. The Pros smaller size means many would go into a shipping container. Apple most likely has very good deals with the air freight companies.
The flip side here is that these will likely ship in mixed configurations so they wouldn't be able to pack a container with three configurations and be done with it.
But that's the issue isn't it? The Pro isn't shipped en masse like the iPad and iPhone are.
That's part of why it's feasible to make in North America, because it's shipping [largely] one at a time and not in shipping containers.
Sadly I have to agree with the above. I'm really hoping Apple has learned it lesson here with respect to the high prices it charges for the various Mac products. It has become a bit of a joke lately, you often pay twice as much for half the performance with its desktop machines.
I call BS. Show me the same form factor machine with twice the performance at half the price for any of Apple's line up aside from the aged Mac Pro about to get replaced.
An Intel NUC is not half the price with double the performance of a Mini.
No windows AIO is half the price with double the performance of the iMac. Not the Dell, Asus, Samsung, HP, Toshiba, etc.
Man, you've been whining for years about a xMac. Finally you get a the new Mac Pro on the way and you're bitching about the price of Apple products. Get a clue, it won't be nearly as cheap as you want it to be. Not even close.
The lesson that Apple has learned about pricing is that if you price like Dell and HP you'll have volume and no profits.
The biggest joke are the folks that have been complaining about Apple for years and years and yet stick around here anyway. What's worse is that when Apple finally moves closer to their holy grail device they bitch about how it's going to be too expensive and OMG they bought a PowerMac G4 MDD in 2003 for $1299 and Apple is so overpriced now (never mind that in 2013 dollars it's $2100). Blah, blah, blah.
Jimminy Cricket. Some folks will never ever be satisfied.
Back when Steve Jobs was still alive I believe the Mac Pro was discontinued. The evidence is clear. If they had intended to keep making them there would have been an update in 2011 and a more significant one in 2012 so buyers would feel comfortable that Apple wasn't abandoning them. Apple also would not have gone 8 months without a single sale in Europe because the product doesn't have regulatory approval. That alone says the Mac Pro was headed for the same fate as the 17" MacBook Pro.
What we saw last summer was a change of direction at Apple. They quickly rushed out minor speed bumps for an aging machine and tried to hang onto customers by promising something worth waiting for "later next year".
What changed? Probably a larger than expected stream of complaints about Final Cut Pro X, the seemingly endless criticism for not innovating, the opportunity to push "Made in America" and a dazzling set of concept drawings from Jony Ive. There's no room in Apple's consumer lineup for either domestic assembly or Mac Cube The Next Generation so the only option for them to do something really surprising was to resurrect the Mac Pro.
Others have already pointed out that the new Mac Pro is going to be an expensive machine. I'm not expecting them to maintain the US$2499 price point for the base model because parts alone will likely cost almost that much. Ivy Bridge E has some reasonably priced 6-core processors for an entry level machine, but even if Apple is getting a great deal on FirePro 7000s the cost of manufacture is going to be awfully close to the current retail price.
I don't think Apple is as price constrained on any of their other Mac models. Retail prices are set where the market will bear and investors will be happy. Only at Apple will you find a more expensive CPU in a $599 computer than a $1799 one.
Maybe if you didn't respond to every person individually, and used that oh-so-neat button called "Multi-quote"- then you could have read that I already said I forgot about the integrated graphics. Benchmarks are identical to ivy bridge. No processing advantage at all in the CPU.
Except for the fact that it is realistic to have the CPU clocked faster. Oh and the GPU can be much faster.
People seem to discount the importance of the GPU in modern systems where as I see the GPU to be incredibly important in a Mini sized machine.
But that's the issue isn't it? The Pro isn't shipped en masse like the iPad and iPhone are.
That's part of why it's feasible to make in North America, because it's shipping [largely] one at a time and not in shipping containers.
Well this could be debated at length but i don't see the shipping being cheaper if you do low volume shipments. If Apple has one or two UPS trucks pulling up to the plant daily, to move a few hundred machines a day, I'm not sure they would get the costs of shipping under control.
This is actually an interesting discussion but more so I don't think most of us know what sort of rates Apple is getting.
I call BS. Show me the same form factor machine with twice the performance at half the price for any of Apple's line up aside from the aged Mac Pro about to get replaced.
That is fine but the declining sales ought to indicate something to you.
An Intel NUC is not half the price with double the performance of a Mini.
No windows AIO is half the price with double the performance of the iMac. Not the Dell, Asus, Samsung, HP, Toshiba, etc.
What does NUC have to do with the Mini?
Man, you've been whining for years about a xMac. Finally you get a the new Mac Pro on the way and you're bitching about the price of Apple products. Get a clue, it won't be nearly as cheap as you want it to be. Not even close.
As far as I know there isn't a variant of the Mac Pro coming that qualifies as an XMac. The need for an XMac isn't irrational at all in fact the chaining markets demands something like the idea of the XMac.
The lesson that Apple has learned about pricing is that if you price like Dell and HP you'll have volume and no profits.
I would fully expect Apple to make their profit goals on any sort of gap filling machine that may come. This idea that Apple can't make a profit on a desktop machine is garbage.
The biggest joke are the folks that have been complaining about Apple for years and years and yet stick around here anyway. What's worse is that when Apple finally moves closer to their holy grail device they bitch about how it's going to be too expensive and OMG they bought a PowerMac G4 MDD in 2003 for $1299 and Apple is so overpriced now (never mind that in 2013 dollars it's $2100). Blah, blah, blah.
Jimminy Cricket. Some folks will never ever be satisfied.
You have no idea. By the way the only way to effect change is to make people realize or know that you want change. It will be interesting to see how far Apple goes redoing the Mac Line up.
Doubt it, other than the fact that last I heard there aren’t even desktop chips for Broadwell…
Fudzilla put up an article about a month ago about that(The whole broadwell no desktop.).
Intel is more or less(according to them at least) ending Tick-tock for the desktop portion. CPU refreshes every 2 years.
So it will be Haswell, then Haswell-E, followed directly by Skylake in 2015, which more or less matches what is known of intel roadmaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I want AMD to survive as much as anybody, however when was the last time Apple sold 250k a quarter of the Mac Pro? I'd be surprised if they do 5oK a year. Of course 50K = 100K GPUs.
This project will no doubt help AMD. For one it is a great marketing advantage and highlights their efforts with OpenCL. Certainly every little sale helps the bottom line. I'm just not sure it will save AMD because the bread and butter is dropping out of the GPU business and they have yet to recover in the desktop nor most of the mobile world. Sad really. It will be interesting to see AMD start shipping ARM products.
Whether AMD survives or not at this point really doesn't matter if you're hoping that they become more competitive with Intel at least. Their GPU segment is fine and one of the most successful, but AMD has already stated that they're tired of playing second fiddle to Intel and while they aren't giving up, the desktop market will receive less and less attention from them because of their inability to compete.
Except for the fact that it is realistic to have the CPU clocked faster. Oh and the GPU can be much faster.
People seem to discount the importance of the GPU in modern systems where as I see the GPU to be incredibly important in a Mini sized machine.
Why do you keep mentioning the GPU like you're bringing something new to the table? Yes- I said the GPU is substantially improved. You aren't educating me on it. Hence- why I specifically mentioned ONLY the CPU.
And sure- they can clock it faster- but like I said in my FIRST post- if the iMac is any indication- they won't. So again- haswell has zero CPU benefit vs ivy bridge. Well- you'd save $10/yr in electricity. So that's good I guess.
I call BS. Show me the same form factor machine with twice the performance at half the price for any of Apple's line up aside from the aged Mac Pro about to get replaced.
An Intel NUC is not half the price with double the performance of a Mini.
No windows AIO is half the price with double the performance of the iMac. Not the Dell, Asus, Samsung, HP, Toshiba, etc.
I like how you pretended to respond point-by-point to nht, but didn't address the point where he called you out on your assertion that you pay twice as much for half the performance when you buy a Mac.
The Mac Pro is the first "desktop" computer in about two decades that I actually consider buying. Perfect. But I've grown so used to Retina displays so I'm dreading having to use non retina displays again. They're like itching in the eyes with those big colour dot arrays...
The Mac Pro is the first "desktop" computer in about two decades that I actually consider buying. Perfect. But I've grown so used to Retina displays so I'm dreading having to use non retina displays again. They're like itching in the eyes with those big colour dot arrays...
A way better computer, IMO, as it can be upgraded and expanded at will. For me, I'd choose matte over glossy instead of non retina over retina.
Comments
Because Haswell has the potential fir huge performance increases on the Mini. It is all a matter of chip selection.
Sadly I have to agree with the above. I'm really hoping Apple has learned it lesson here with respect to the high prices it charges for the various Mac products. It has become a bit of a joke lately, you often pay twice as much for half the performance with its desktop machines.
Baloney!
First the driving feature of Haswell is the GPU and depending upon which one Apple goes with will have a profound impact on performance. Beyond that Haswell is cool enough that the top end clock rate will offer real performance advantages. Even if those high end speeds only kick in for a few moments via turboing it is very useful considering the way Minis are used.
The above doesn't even consider the advantages of the new instructions in Haswell that software could be using soon. Nor does it consider that the Iris GPU is a very impressive OpenCL processor. For many users Haswell is a big win in the Mini.
The flip side here is that these will likely ship in mixed configurations so they wouldn't be able to pack a container with three configurations and be done with it. For things like iPads they might see huge savings from over seas production as the stocked units are all the same. With the Mac Pro I think it is more a matter of shipping a variety of configurations, customization if you will that leads to leveraging distance to market and the small form factor.
I suspect they are seeing significant savings in build time and of course a parts reduction. Since the GPUs aren't shipping with heat sinks and fans, right away they benefit cost wise there. Not that this stuff cost Apple a lot, after all we are talking extrusions here and dirt cheap fans. But the hardware reductions and tailored electronics do lead a lot of little cost savings that add up. Plus I can see Apple getting a very good deal from AMD for their GPUs.
If Apple really wanted too they could deliver a machine in this form factor, as a Mini replacement, for well under $1200. It would require a cheaper power supply and likely only one GPU slot. But one desktop chip would likely be cheaper that the Minis current mobile chip. Further they could offer the GPU as an option. It would end up being a very competitive desktop machine though.
I want AMD to survive as much as anybody, however when was the last time Apple sold 250k a quarter of the Mac Pro? I'd be surprised if they do 5oK a year. Of course 50K = 100K GPUs.
This project will no doubt help AMD. For one it is a great marketing advantage and highlights their efforts with OpenCL. Certainly every little sale helps the bottom line. I'm just not sure it will save AMD because the bread and butter is dropping out of the GPU business and they have yet to recover in the desktop nor most of the mobile world. Sad really. It will be interesting to see AMD start shipping ARM products.
Baloney!
First the driving feature of Haswell is the GPU and depending upon which one Apple goes with will have a profound impact on performance. Beyond that Haswell is cool enough that the top end clock rate will offer real performance advantages. Even if those high end speeds only kick in for a few moments via turboing it is very useful considering the way Minis are used.
The above doesn't even consider the advantages of the new instructions in Haswell that software could be using soon. Nor does it consider that the Iris GPU is a very impressive OpenCL processor. For many users Haswell is a big win in the Mini.
Maybe if you didn't respond to every person individually, and used that oh-so-neat button called "Multi-quote"- then you could have read that I already said I forgot about the integrated graphics. Benchmarks are identical to ivy bridge. No processing advantage at all in the CPU.
Oh ya- duh! Forgot about the Intel 5000 and that the mini is integrated. Sorry!
Actually I'm not too certain it is a big deal. The Pros smaller size means many would go into a shipping container. Apple most likely has very good deals with the air freight companies.
The flip side here is that these will likely ship in mixed configurations so they wouldn't be able to pack a container with three configurations and be done with it.
But that's the issue isn't it? The Pro isn't shipped en masse like the iPad and iPhone are.
That's part of why it's feasible to make in North America, because it's shipping [largely] one at a time and not in shipping containers.
Sadly I have to agree with the above. I'm really hoping Apple has learned it lesson here with respect to the high prices it charges for the various Mac products. It has become a bit of a joke lately, you often pay twice as much for half the performance with its desktop machines.
I call BS. Show me the same form factor machine with twice the performance at half the price for any of Apple's line up aside from the aged Mac Pro about to get replaced.
An Intel NUC is not half the price with double the performance of a Mini.
No windows AIO is half the price with double the performance of the iMac. Not the Dell, Asus, Samsung, HP, Toshiba, etc.
Man, you've been whining for years about a xMac. Finally you get a the new Mac Pro on the way and you're bitching about the price of Apple products. Get a clue, it won't be nearly as cheap as you want it to be. Not even close.
The lesson that Apple has learned about pricing is that if you price like Dell and HP you'll have volume and no profits.
The biggest joke are the folks that have been complaining about Apple for years and years and yet stick around here anyway. What's worse is that when Apple finally moves closer to their holy grail device they bitch about how it's going to be too expensive and OMG they bought a PowerMac G4 MDD in 2003 for $1299 and Apple is so overpriced now (never mind that in 2013 dollars it's $2100). Blah, blah, blah.
Jimminy Cricket. Some folks will never ever be satisfied.
Back when Steve Jobs was still alive I believe the Mac Pro was discontinued. The evidence is clear. If they had intended to keep making them there would have been an update in 2011 and a more significant one in 2012 so buyers would feel comfortable that Apple wasn't abandoning them. Apple also would not have gone 8 months without a single sale in Europe because the product doesn't have regulatory approval. That alone says the Mac Pro was headed for the same fate as the 17" MacBook Pro.
What we saw last summer was a change of direction at Apple. They quickly rushed out minor speed bumps for an aging machine and tried to hang onto customers by promising something worth waiting for "later next year".
What changed? Probably a larger than expected stream of complaints about Final Cut Pro X, the seemingly endless criticism for not innovating, the opportunity to push "Made in America" and a dazzling set of concept drawings from Jony Ive. There's no room in Apple's consumer lineup for either domestic assembly or Mac Cube The Next Generation so the only option for them to do something really surprising was to resurrect the Mac Pro.
Others have already pointed out that the new Mac Pro is going to be an expensive machine. I'm not expecting them to maintain the US$2499 price point for the base model because parts alone will likely cost almost that much. Ivy Bridge E has some reasonably priced 6-core processors for an entry level machine, but even if Apple is getting a great deal on FirePro 7000s the cost of manufacture is going to be awfully close to the current retail price.
I don't think Apple is as price constrained on any of their other Mac models. Retail prices are set where the market will bear and investors will be happy. Only at Apple will you find a more expensive CPU in a $599 computer than a $1799 one.
Except for the fact that it is realistic to have the CPU clocked faster. Oh and the GPU can be much faster.
People seem to discount the importance of the GPU in modern systems where as I see the GPU to be incredibly important in a Mini sized machine.
This is actually an interesting discussion but more so I don't think most of us know what sort of rates Apple is getting.
I know next to nothing about processors. Could this impact any Mac hardware deliveries?
Doubt it, other than the fact that last I heard there aren’t even desktop chips for Broadwell…
Doubt it, other than the fact that last I heard there aren’t even desktop chips for Broadwell…
Fudzilla put up an article about a month ago about that(The whole broadwell no desktop.).
Intel is more or less(according to them at least) ending Tick-tock for the desktop portion. CPU refreshes every 2 years.
So it will be Haswell, then Haswell-E, followed directly by Skylake in 2015, which more or less matches what is known of intel roadmaps.
I want AMD to survive as much as anybody, however when was the last time Apple sold 250k a quarter of the Mac Pro? I'd be surprised if they do 5oK a year. Of course 50K = 100K GPUs.
This project will no doubt help AMD. For one it is a great marketing advantage and highlights their efforts with OpenCL. Certainly every little sale helps the bottom line. I'm just not sure it will save AMD because the bread and butter is dropping out of the GPU business and they have yet to recover in the desktop nor most of the mobile world. Sad really. It will be interesting to see AMD start shipping ARM products.
Whether AMD survives or not at this point really doesn't matter if you're hoping that they become more competitive with Intel at least. Their GPU segment is fine and one of the most successful, but AMD has already stated that they're tired of playing second fiddle to Intel and while they aren't giving up, the desktop market will receive less and less attention from them because of their inability to compete.
Why do you keep mentioning the GPU like you're bringing something new to the table? Yes- I said the GPU is substantially improved. You aren't educating me on it. Hence- why I specifically mentioned ONLY the CPU.
And sure- they can clock it faster- but like I said in my FIRST post- if the iMac is any indication- they won't. So again- haswell has zero CPU benefit vs ivy bridge. Well- you'd save $10/yr in electricity. So that's good I guess.
I like how you pretended to respond point-by-point to nht, but didn't address the point where he called you out on your assertion that you pay twice as much for half the performance when you buy a Mac.
A way better computer, IMO, as it can be upgraded and expanded at will. For me, I'd choose matte over glossy instead of non retina over retina.