Apple 'likely' to launch low-cost iMac soon, Retina MacBook Air still on track for 2014 debut

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    nht wrote: »
    The i3 is still faster than ARM and one would hope AMD would be faster.  I think you have that sentence backwards.  The A7 (
    2564 
    64 bit multicore) is still slower than the Intel Core i3-3217U (3095 64 bit multicore) and on par with the Pentium (2564) and Celeron 2955 (2387).
    When I first wrote that I was thinking about AMDs new Puma based cores for low end hardware. It is a good core that does better than Atom and comes close to i3 in some cases.

    As for ARM based devices that landscape is changing so fast that it is hard to know where we stand. In Apples case though I think they have a lot of unlocked potential in A7. The hardware already has near Haswell quality features in the CPUs, improve the caches and memory interfaces and I really see i3 like performance as being possible.
    http://www.computingcompendium.com/p/arm-vs-intel-benchmarks.html

    Note that the i3-3217U is an under clocked ivy bridge ULV processor from June 2012, not a desktop part.  The Celeron 2955U is a Haswell ULV chip and that's pretty impressive.  But not enough that I'd want to run OSX on it.
    There in lies the problem with a low end iMac, the performance would need to be good enough that people would actually want to use it. Frankly Apple needs to focus on better performance at their price points.
    The desktop i3's do a bit better.  The 2100 iMac Core i3-2100 benches in at 4968 for 64-bit multicore.  

    The current $1099 edu only iMac Core i3-3225 benches in at 5911.

    http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac-core-i3-3.3-21-inch-aluminum-early-2013-education-specs.html
    2564
    isn't encroaching on 5911 unless you think less than half is encroaching.

    In comparison the 2013 $1299 Core i5 iMac benches in at 10310.

    http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac-core-i5-2.7-21-inch-aluminum-late-2013-specs.html

    For $200 the base iMac is better.

    The 2012 mini clocks in at 5666 for the Core i5 and 12567 for the Core i7.
    Benchmarks are one thing if you use your machine that way but I tend to run my machine in ways that can make use of cores. The more the better at times. For instance running XCode or eclipse while surfing the net waiting on a compile, transcoding video files while trying to do just about anything. I know with my old MBP there are numerous activities that cause the machine to come to a screaming halt. Of course being old doesn't help but then again its limitations are why I'm looking for a new machine. To sum it up I'm looking for an economical machine that can run lots of busy processes at the same time.

    In the case on a low end iMac, Mini and the like I have this feeling that I would be happy with an ARM based machine with lots of cores where lots is more than 4 and possibly 8. Now I don't see Apple going this route but the idea appeals to my desire to see a compact high performance machine. If Apple got the processor to run each core a a maximum of 2 watts, that would be 16 watts of power plus everything else, so let's say a 30 watt SoC. That would slot into a compact Mini nicely and might even make for a passable iMac.

    http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-2.6-late-2012-specs.html

    From JUST a CPU perspective the 2012 Core i7 mini is still pretty damn good trailing the current 2013 21" iMac Core i7 (14159) by only 1600 points.

    GPU wise it's a different story.
    Sometimes I wish Apple would just go back to discreet GPU machines. Even though I technically understand the advantages of integrated I like the idea of no power limitations and reduced bandwidth limitations. Of course not everything about integrated is a limitation and faster RAM will address much that is. All of this does make me wonder about all of those GPU engineers Apple has hired lately, I see another big step in performance coming probably around A9.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 102 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    hmm wrote: »
    I don't have any issues with the design. I mean with the old one I didn't care how it looked. It was designed to accomplish work, and I wouldn't want them to favor of aesthetics if it necessitated any engineering compromises. It just amuses me picturing an office where the computers, coffee mugs, and trash cans all match. Speaking of cray, I posted this in another thread. I think it's funny and simultaneously an awesome question.
    That was funny. What isn't so funny is the computational power the Mc Pro puts on ones desk today. For a guy who's first computer was a Vic 20 we have come a very very long way indeed.

    Given that I could see batman using an array of Mac Pros. The machine is already black so it fits in with the common motif.
     

    I don't think they'll go that route. It was probably the most compact way to fit 2 large gpus and an (up to) 130W cpu. It doesn't necessarily have to make sense with the mini. By the desktop lines I assume you mean the less costly  cpus classified as desktop variants.

    Yes the CPUs classified as desktop which frankly is becoming a very blurry distinction these days. Intel now has 35 and 45 watt desktop chips. With a little work these could go in other current chassis though we might not get the GPU we want. My thought here is that a little redesign work similar to the Mac Pro would allow them to easily accommodate such processor in a box more or less the same volume. "Box" here being anything from a tube to a cube or even a pyramid. The idea is for better thermal behavior to allow for better all around performance.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 103 of 123
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    That was funny. What isn't so funny is the computational power the Mc Pro puts on ones desk today. For a guy who's first computer was a Vic 20 we have come a very very long way indeed.

    I had to google that. I've heard of Commodores. I've never actually seen one in the wild. The first computer I ever used was in elementary school. It was one of the older Apples. I don't recall the model, but it was definitely in the 5.5 inch floppy drive era.

    Quote:

    Given that I could see batman using an array of Mac Pros. The machine is already black so it fits in with the common motif.

    Yes the CPUs classified as desktop which frankly is becoming a very blurry distinction these days. Intel now has 35 and 45 watt desktop chips. With a little work these could go in other current chassis though we might not get the GPU we want. My thought here is that a little redesign work similar to the Mac Pro would allow them to easily accommodate such processor in a box more or less the same volume. "Box" here being anything from a tube to a cube or even a pyramid. The idea is for better thermal behavior to allow for better all around performance.

     



     

    I'm actually not sure why the concept of an array of mac pros comes up. It seems unlikely to be the ideal solution, although if I obtain one, it's definitely getting a batman sticker. As for the mini, everyone likes a silent machine. That in itself would be a big win. Note that the cpu cost went up this year when Apple started to swap in iris pro chips. That may explain the lack of a mini update, even if it's a poor reason to delay the thing.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 104 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    hmm wrote: »
    I had to google that. I've heard of Commodores. I've never actually seen one in the wild. The first computer I ever used was in elementary school. It was one of the older Apples. I don't recall the model, but it was definitely in the 5.5 inch floppy drive era.
    Growing up I had very little cash to use on electronics of any type. The Vic was cheap relative to an Apple 2.
    I'm actually not sure why the concept of an array of mac pros comes up. It seems unlikely to be the ideal solution, although if I obtain one, it's definitely getting a batman sticker.
    The problem with leveraging clusters or arrays of Mac, or any computer for that matter, is software. With TB 2 and the ability to cheaply implement high speed commas channels between machines it is an interesting concept. It also deals with one of the complaints about upgrade ability of the new MacPro. With a cluster you really don't need to throw out the old as often, rather you just add new hardware to the cluster every year or two. With TB there would likely be a limit to the number of machines that could be employed, but after say six years the original machine will start to look a bit slow (we can hope).

    As noted though clusters are really only useful if you have the software that works well with that cluster. This doesn't appear to even be a remote priority for Apple as they are not even driving the required improvements to LLVM/CLang to support such clusters.
    As for the mini, everyone likes a silent machine. That in itself would be a big win.
    Actually silence isn't a big deal for me, the related feature of low power usage is though. The other desire is striking the right balance of power (performance) and size. These of course are moving targets, chip technology allows for improvements in all three areas every time a new node is hit.
    Note that the cpu cost went up this year when Apple started to swap in iris pro chips. That may explain the lack of a mini update, even if it's a poor reason to delay the thing.
    I was expecting Iris Pro to be installed only in the up sell model. Apple still needs an entry level machine, one that is frankly a better value than the current machine, so I don't expect top end Intel graphics in the entry level machine.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 105 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    This probably should have been fitted in with my previous post but I just wanted to point out that performance is at times very software bound. It had been sometime but the other day I downloaded the latest Safari nightly and wow, fast even on my old hardware. If Apple merges the improvements seen there, into the next release of Mac OS and iOS, I suspect people will be very pleased.

    The improvements where so obvious that I spent some time reading the WebKit blog to see what is going on. It looks like considerable effort has been out into optimization, cruft reduction, the use of C++11 features and other improvements that lead to snappy. I bring this up in this thread because many people like myself, are looking towards new hardware because our machines just don't cut the mustard any more. We often forget that throwing hardware at the problem often solves nothing if the software continues to bloat.

    This has me wondering how much better the rest of Mac OS / iOS will be. It would be nice to find that Apple has regained an interest in performance, rather than focusing on features nobody uses. In any event people running constrained machines like the Airs ought to consider trying out the WebKit nightlies.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 106 of 123
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Growing up I had very little cash to use on electronics of any type. The Vic was cheap relative to an Apple 2.

     

    I didn't have one at home until late teenage years. My dad disliked computers and hadn't heard anything about the internet other than the availability of porn. I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with the Commodore units. I just never personally encountered them as they were sort of before my time. The district I attended at that age was well funded, so they had a full computer lab in the late 80s. I don't think that was common at the elementary school level at that time.

     

    Quote:


    The problem with leveraging clusters or arrays of Mac, or any computer for that matter, is software. With TB 2 and the ability to cheaply implement high speed commas channels between machines it is an interesting concept. It also deals with one of the complaints about upgrade ability of the new MacPro. With a cluster you really don't need to throw out the old as often, rather you just add new hardware to the cluster every year or two. With TB there would likely be a limit to the number of machines that could be employed, but after say six years the original machine will start to look a bit slow (we can hope).

    As noted though clusters are really only useful if you have the software that works well with that cluster. This doesn't appear to even be a remote priority for Apple as they are not even driving the required improvements to LLVM/CLang to support such clusters.

     



    It's unlikely that Apple would maintain software support to maintain aging nodes on a cluster for a significant number of years. That to me is still in the domain of Linux. Beyond that we don't know how far Apple and intel will carry backwards compatibility with future versions of thunderbolt. While it isn't present in a wide range of hardware, they have been fairly aggressive on updates.

     

    Quote:


    Actually silence isn't a big deal for me, the related feature of low power usage is though. The other desire is striking the right balance of power (performance) and size. These of course are moving targets, chip technology allows for improvements in all three areas every time a new node is hit.




    Noise factor is one thing I tell people to be careful with when choosing DAS options. Some of the cheap ones can be extremely noisy. It freaks a lot of people out when their machine goes from silent to noticeably audible. For me that would be a bigger factor than a minor difference in size.


     


    Quote:


    I was expecting Iris Pro to be installed only in the up sell model. Apple still needs an entry level machine, one that is frankly a better value than the current machine, so I don't expect top end Intel graphics in the entry level machine.




    I was looking specifically at what components they use. Last round they used a cpu shared with the 13" macbook pro in the base mini. The cost is higher this year as that machine has transitioned to one of the iris chips. It doesn't use iris pro. The middle and upper range minis used quad chips which were shared with the 15" macbook pros. Comparing recommended customer pricing from intel on each, the price rose somewhat. The comparison would be the 3615QM used in the mini to the 4750HQ used in the current entry 15" rmbp. Strangely I remember the gap being wider than $56. Going from 2011 to 2012 they dropped the discrete graphics yet went to a significantly more expensive chip in the mini. The cost difference is actually significantly higher at the low end, 13" to 13". 3210m listed at $225 and the 4258U listed at $315. That might present a greater problem when it comes to sharing components.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    This probably should have been fitted in with my previous post but I just wanted to point out that performance is at times very software bound. It had been sometime but the other day I downloaded the latest Safari nightly and wow, fast even on my old hardware. If Apple merges the improvements seen there, into the next release of Mac OS and iOS, I suspect people will be very pleased.



    The improvements where so obvious that I spent some time reading the WebKit blog to see what is going on. It looks like considerable effort has been out into optimization, cruft reduction, the use of C++11 features and other improvements that lead to snappy. I bring this up in this thread because many people like myself, are looking towards new hardware because our machines just don't cut the mustard any more. We often forget that throwing hardware at the problem often solves nothing if the software continues to bloat.



    This has me wondering how much better the rest of Mac OS / iOS will be. It would be nice to find that Apple has regained an interest in performance, rather than focusing on features nobody uses. In any event people running constrained machines like the Airs ought to consider trying out the WebKit nightlies.

    At this point I can deal with C++, but I'm not entirely familiar with what was specifically added by C++11. I've also been on firefox for years.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 107 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    hmm wrote: »
    I didn't have one at home until late teenage years. My dad disliked computers and hadn't heard anything about the internet other than the availability of porn. I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with the Commodore units. I just never personally encountered them as they were sort of before my time. The district I attended at that age was well funded, so they had a full computer lab in the late 80s. I don't think that was common at the elementary school level at that time.

     
    When I was gong to school there was inititially no computers at all. At some point the science teacher got some sort of HP device (forgot the model) but it was a cross between a calculator and a desktop computer running BASIC if I remember correctly. I'm not really sure because he would not let anybody use it. Effectively it was the first "personal" computer that I ever saw and was out of bounds for me. Talk about frustrating.
    It's unlikely that Apple would maintain software support to maintain aging nodes on a cluster for a significant number of years. That to me is still in the domain of Linux.
    Contrary to popular opinion Apple does very well with the support of old hardware. With the complete transition to 64 bit systems I can see 7-10 years of life out of hardware maybe longer. That means support in the latest OS releases. Admittedly it would be nice if Apple where to define how they expect to support 64 bit hardware into the future.
    Beyond that we don't know how far Apple and intel will carry backwards compatibility with future versions of thunderbolt. While it isn't present in a wide range of hardware, they have been fairly aggressive on updates.
    Surprisingly aggressive but I take that as an indication that they didn't meet their original launch goals. TB did have that taste of a rushed launch.
    At this point I can deal with C++, but I'm not entirely familiar with what was specifically added by C++11.
    I'm by far not an expert nor even a skilled practitioner but I do follow the C++ standards developments. Don't ask why because if given a chance I use Python. That aside C++11 is a pretty major overhaul of C++. C++11 does add some technologies that lead to faster code, however that isn't exactly the root cause of the faster WebKit/Safari.

    If you read the blog they have done extensive work on refactoring code, attempting to instill new patterns in to the minds of contributors and making sure that the usage of C++ in general leads to the compiler generating good code. The WebKit blog is a most interesting read and some of the concepts apply to programming in general. So though the language is C++, the ideas would be of interest to just about anybody that programs professionally or not. I found the blog to be enlightening, they also dive in what has been done recently to make JavaScript and CSS faster. An interesting read.
    I've also been on firefox for years.
    I must be weird because I could never get into Firefox. I prefer the simpler interface of Safari and the integration with Apples ecosystem. Firefox, the last time I used it, was slow too. Of course the last time was probably six years ago.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 108 of 123
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    Who cares!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 109 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    marvfox wrote: »
    Who cares!

    Obviously not Marvfox and probably few others. However considering the new Mac Book Airs are here this thread is quickly loosing its original value. So we dwell on the past because it isn't likely that much will happen to the iMac.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 110 of 123
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Obviously not Marvfox and probably few others. However considering the new Mac Book Airs are here this thread is quickly loosing its original value. So we dwell on the past because it isn't likely that much will happen to the iMac.

    They were updated? I thought it was just a simple price drop. : /
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 111 of 123
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    winter wrote: »
    They were updated? I thought it was just a simple price drop. : /

    100MHz CPU bump, too, with the newer chips. I'm not sure if Taht includes any other CPU features or power savings, or if anytjhing else was changed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 112 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    100MHz CPU bump, too, with the newer chips. I'm not sure if Taht includes any other CPU features or power savings, or if anytjhing else was changed.

    As far as I know it was just a CPU update and a lower price. As noted the CPU update is nothing to get excited about. I'm actually surprised that Apple lowered the price. I'm not complaining but would have rather end seen them upgrade the base RAM or SSD sizes.

    I'm thinking we are starting to see a new Apple here, one that is more aggressive with pricing.

    Of course I'd rather that they be more aggressive with getting the new Mini out.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 113 of 123
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    As far as I know it was just a CPU update and a lower price. As noted the CPU update is nothing to get excited about. I'm actually surprised that Apple lowered the price. I'm not complaining but would have rather end seen them upgrade the base RAM or SSD sizes.

    I'm thinking we are starting to see a new Apple here, one that is more aggressive with pricing.

    Of course I'd rather that they be more aggressive with getting the new Mini out.

    I think the move with the MBAs is because this design is EOL. I expect the next one to be Retina and IPS, and hopefully a single 12" model at the price point of the current 11".
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 114 of 123
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I think the move with the MBAs is because this design is EOL. I expect the next one to be Retina and IPS, and hopefully a single 12" model at the price point of the current 11".



    I actually don't know if it will go IPS at this point.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I think the move with the MBAs is because this design is EOL. I expect the next one to be Retina and IPS, and hopefully a single 12" model at the price point of the current 11".

    I am not sure they'll immediately go IPS, but there's no way of knowing. I thought they would continue that as a point of upsell. There are some consistency issues that could be addressed in their IPS implementations, but those might be partly LG. I know I'm using wiki a lot today, but there is some truth to the idea of them migrating to IGZO, regardless of whether it uses in-plane switching. The initial purpose was to cut power and long term display costs. Note the reason the misuse of that name makes me cringe. It refers to an alternative to amorphous silicon rather than a panel implementation.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    When I was gong to school there was inititially no computers at all. At some point the science teacher got some sort of HP device (forgot the model) but it was a cross between a calculator and a desktop computer running BASIC if I remember correctly. I'm not really sure because he would not let anybody use it. Effectively it was the first "personal" computer that I ever saw and was out of bounds for me. Talk about frustrating.

     

    Oh that's awesome. I remember Basic. I don't remember it well. I think one of the first things I think the first thing I used was Logo. It was presented by a woman who ran the computer lab. It was either first or second grade. I don't think that was on a Mac though.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post







    Contrary to popular opinion Apple does very well with the support of old hardware. With the complete transition to 64 bit systems I can see 7-10 years of life out of hardware maybe longer. That means support in the latest OS releases. Admittedly it would be nice if Apple where to define how they expect to support 64 bit hardware into the future.

    They do have a vintage policy relative to how long it has been since they stopped selling an item as new. That refers to hardware, but software tends to be somewhat similar. 64 bit wasn't the only thing the last time. Some machines were retired due to deprecated driver support. In a couple cases they cited that the machines did not support the minimum required opengl specification. A minimum opencl might produce the same effect on a later version of OSX. 

     

    Quote:


     

    Surprisingly aggressive but I take that as an indication that they didn't meet their original launch goals. TB did have that taste of a rushed launch.





     

    It may not have been interesting enough to draw large numbers of vendors. At this point PCI solutions are still more cost effective. It's also not a great match for long cabling in my opinion given the lack of a hardware lock. It's not a mechanism that protects the computer like magsafe. It just doesn't have any way of ensuring the connection remains secure.

     

    Quote:


    If you read the blog they have done extensive work on refactoring code, attempting to instill new patterns in to the minds of contributors and making sure that the usage of C++ in general leads to the compiler generating good code. The WebKit blog is a most interesting read and some of the concepts apply to programming in general. So though the language is C++, the ideas would be of interest to just about anybody that programs professionally or not. I found the blog to be enlightening, they also dive in what has been done recently to make JavaScript and CSS faster. An interesting read.


    I know some C++, and I have the latest revision of the Stroustrup book which covers C++ 11. I just need a large enough block of time to go through it in detail. It's around 1200 pages and doesn't entirely constitute light reading.

     

    Quote:


    I must be weird because I could never get into Firefox. I prefer the simpler interface of Safari and the integration with Apples ecosystem. Firefox, the last time I used it, was slow too. Of course the last time was probably six years ago.


     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 115 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I think the move with the MBAs is because this design is EOL.
    Could very well be. If Intel ever gets to 14nm it would out Apple in a position to debut a whole new generation of machine. Especially if they incorporate other new tech such as DDR 4.
    I expect the next one to be Retina and IPS, and hopefully a single 12" model at the price point of the current 11".
    I'd consider a 12" model but frankly these mini notebooks rub this old guy the wrong way. As for price I see potential for another price cut. Mainly due to the intense pressure Intel is under in the mobile arena. Maybe I'm optimistic about that price cut ???????????????? but Apple may have little choice to keep the Air popular and competitive against its own tablet business. If they do go retina I really doubt that it will be a high performance screen option.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 116 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    hmm wrote: »

    I actually don't know if it will go IPS at this point.
    I am not sure they'll immediately go IPS, but there's no way of knowing. I thought they would continue that as a point of upsell. There are some consistency issues that could be addressed in their IPS implementations, but those might be partly LG. I know I'm using wiki a lot today, but there is some truth to the idea of them migrating to IGZO, regardless of whether it uses in-plane switching. The initial purpose was to cut power and long term display costs. Note the reason the misuse of that name makes me cringe. It refers to an alternative to amorphous silicon rather than a panel implementation.
    I doubt the screen will be as good as the one shipping in the Mac Pro if it is retina.

    Oh that's awesome. I remember Basic. I don't remember it well. I think one of the first things I think the first thing I used was Logo. It was presented by a woman who ran the computer lab. It was either first or second grade. I don't think that was on a Mac though.
    Brings back some memories but I never got into BASIC that deeply. As a kid I spent much of my time in the great outdoors. I was just frustrated that the school had a computer sitting there that I couldn't play with. At the time my only contact with computers was through electronics magazines. That was the late seventies and frankly nobody cared on the east coast. " why would you need/want a computer"
    They do have a vintage policy relative to how long it has been since they stopped selling an item as new. That refers to hardware, but software tends to be somewhat similar. 64 bit wasn't the only thing the last time. Some machines were retired due to deprecated driver support. In a couple cases they cited that the machines did not support the minimum required opengl specification. A minimum opencl might produce the same effect on a later version of OSX. 
    I have to read up on that policy but some of the issues of the past are behind us now. Hardware just doesn't get updated as rapidly anymore. At least not at the level requiring major driver rewrites. The GPU companies are now taking two years or more to introduce a major new architecture and often these are refinements of past designs. I just see hardware being viable for longer than it has been in the past.

    You look at Haswell refresh and the GPU world in general and the best you can say is that it isn't like the old days when six months later you can double performance.
     
    I know some C++, and I have the latest revision of the Stroustrup book which covers C++ 11. I just need a large enough block of time to go through it in detail. It's around 1200 pages and doesn't entirely constitute light reading.

    I've only written a couple of programs in C++ and that was a long time ago. One I even used at work for years. For the programming I do now the competing world of scripting languages like C++ often grasp my interest. That being said I like to think that I at least keep myself informed as to what is going on in the C++ world. As you note just about every tome dedicated to C++ is rather thick and at times dense. I just concentrate on the parts I'm likely to use.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 117 of 123
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Benchmarks are one thing if you use your machine that way but I tend to run my machine in ways that can make use of cores.

     

    Which is why multi-core benchmarks single-core benchmarks are both available.  The numbers posted are all 64 bit multi-core benchmarks.

     

    In any case single core performance is still key to how snappy a machine feels since some things cannot be parallelized effectively.

     

    Quote:

    In the case on a low end iMac, Mini and the like I have this feeling that I would be happy with an ARM based machine with lots of cores where lots is more than 4 and possibly 8. Now I don't see Apple going this route but the idea appeals to my desire to see a compact high performance machine. If Apple got the processor to run each core a a maximum of 2 watts, that would be 16 watts of power plus everything else, so let's say a 30 watt SoC. That would slot into a compact Mini nicely and might even make for a passable iMac.

     

    No it wouldn't make for a passible iMac or even passable Mini.  The performance delta between the Core i5 and the A7 is large whether on a processor or core basis.  The Core i3 edu iMac is nothing to write home about and an ARM based Mac even slower.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 118 of 123
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    Is it out of the realm of possibility to at least get options for 16 GB of RAM and a 256 GB PCIe SSD in the low cost iMac?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 119 of 123
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    winter wrote: »
    Is it out of the realm of possibility to at least get options for 16 GB of RAM and a 256 GB PCIe SSD in the low cost iMac?

    You can with the i3 edu.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 120 of 123
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    I currently use my Mac mini along with my HDTV as a monitor although I'm moving soon and being that I have to share with a roommate, I can't use the computer if he is using the TV so I may just settle for an iMac.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.