I'd love to see Apple go AMD in the Mini, maybe even some other platforms. GPU performance is really important for today's operating systems and as such AMD's APUs are still a big advantage if RAW CPU performance isn't important to a buyer. If one is buying a Mini I'd have to say CPU isn't that important to begin with.
The interesting thing here is that Intels GPUs often perform very well in OpenCL tasks. It is application specific but shouldn't be ignored.
That would be nice but let's face it Apple often switches between AMD and NVidia every couple of years often for no rational reason. As such AMD could lay the golden egg and Apple might ignore it, I'm often surprised by Apples approach to discreet GPUs.
Well we can hope! Just because an engineer is capable doesn't mean the resources and politics of the company will support his efforts.
Let's hope so.
No AMD. Never AMD. AMD is a dying company. I can't see Apple ever turning to it.
We? Is that an imperial "we"?
When pigs fly.
This will happen on the 9th of September along with a bunch of other enterprise related announcements. The whole show will wrap up with a tired old band coming out on stage and playing some grade C music and giving away songs no one wants.
Kanye West is going to stumble around on stage in his diapers and rant for an hour?
No. There have been no interface changes in OS X that would support a touch interface. Those would require enormous foundational changes, which would have been shown at WWDC. If you paid attention, there was a session where the presenter actually said there's an iPad Pro coming... and it was an iOS talk.
What presentation was that? No Apple engineer is going to mention future unannounced products at a WWDC session.
I'm just salivating at the 8-core CPU. I hope Apple put's that as a high-end option for the iMac. I'd put them all to good use! Hopefully this means I finally get to retire my 2009 iMac!
Originally Posted by ScartArt
I'm only seeing 4 core CPUs, which one has 8 cores?
There aren't any in the list that show 8 cores, only the typical i7 with 4cores and 8 threads like MBPs have had for several years.
I'm not getting excited about any of these new CPUs unless Apple is able to use two or more CPUs in the same product because of their reduced die size. After re-reading the spec sheet, these CPUs are geared towards the multitude of Windows laptops and non-wired devices (WiDi) like the Surface than they are for anything Apple produces. The words "mac" and "apple" aren't even mentioned in the spec sheet while Windows 10, DirectX and lots of generic PC garbage fills the sheet. Apple will be able to use these CPUs but I don't see them being built specifically for them.
Some people are suggesting we get new Mac announcements on September 9. It is conceivable that - given the venue seats a substantial number of people - Apple may lay out everything at one event. But I believe they couldn't fit everything in within a single 2-hour presentation. I think it will continue to follow the pattern of the last couple of years instead:
September 9
- possible "state of retail" announcements (store openings, new store designs, etc.), though this was skipped in September 2014 due to lack of time. Per Tim, "Everything's great."
- iOS 9 new feature review/refresher, including Wallet update (support for loyalty cards, department store credit cards)
- Apple Pay update (hopefully with an announcement of more countries and retailers supporting it)
- Watch OS 2.0 new feature review/refresher
- possible announcement of new Apple Watch bands, but no internal HW changes to the Watch itself
- iPhone 6s / 6s Plus announcement (filling the long presentation slot of the 6 / 6 Plus in the September 2014 event)
- AppleTV announcement, demo, SDK announcement (filling the other long presentation slot the Watch took in the September 2014 event)
- state of Apple Music, closing with a live musical performance
That sounds like about 2 hours of material to me.
October Event
- iPad updates, including new iPad Pro
- iOS 9.1 (in October 2014, iOS 8.1 was demonstrated with a couple of minor new features)
- OS X El Capitan new feature review/refresher
- updated Macs, Skylake CPUs
- Anything not covered in the September event due to time (if they don't cover Apple Pay or Apple Music at the September event, for example)
I just don't see all of that possibly fitting into a single September 9 event. Since Watch, Apple Pay, and Apple Music are still relatively new and ramping up, I think Apple has to spend a little time to tout them.
I understand the low power obsession with mobile devices, but am not happy with the use of Vampire Video (Intel Integrated Graphics) on many Mac desktops.
Could someone explain to me what's so great with the Xeon lineup? After seeing benchmarks pitting the MacPro against iMac's and MacBook Pro's with results only sometimes in favour of the Xeon beast pro I just don't get it.
Am I missing something? Or does it require Xeon specific optimisation to fully make it shine, which no one seem to care about/ have the skill to do, because the install base is too small to care?
Should we get excited about a Xeon laptop offering?
Oh, like, say ECC RAM?
In my opinion any computer without is a toy, well, sort of like any computer without a file system like ZFS that protects against bit rot.
Over the decades been bitten by this more than once.
Of course, if all you do is post selfies on FB and look up bus schedules on your computer, then who cares...
What presentation was that? No Apple engineer is going to mention future unannounced products at a WWDC session.
It's only a few minutes into the iPad Multitasking lecture. He says "Remember last year, we showed you a bunch of interface changes that later made sense in light of a then-unnacounced product?" And then he went on to basically say the same thing was happening there in his talk about the iPad and added "emphasis on P" and everyone in the room understood him.
edit: "Optimizing Your App for Multitasking on iPad in iOS 9" I think it is. It's pretty soon into the lecture.
You can get 64GB DDR4 ECC memory on a laptop with the Xeon. Xeons also scale up to more cores. At the quad-core level with typical RAM usage, there's no real-world advantage to using a Xeon. I'd be surprised if Apple used it in their laptops.
Benchmarks can be very misleading so you really need to reference which ones you are talking about. Given that Xeon is about multi core performance with apps and workloads optimized for such hardware. Given the right user the Mac Pro will run circles around anything else in Apples line up.
Yes! I can't tell you what exactly but obviously you don't understand how many highly threaded apps work nor how multitasking operating systems can support advanced professionals.
Yes you should get excited. Just don't expect Apple to deliver one.
Thanks mate, for taking your time.
I'm a typical end user, artist creator that demands fast performance for graphics and video creation in high resolutions. I'm stuck with semi professional tools from Adobe, Toon Boom and Apple etc. They say it's for professionals, and it is, but when looking at the performance of most software it's somewhat sad. I just know how well they should run if they was coded right. I was asking for years about proper multi threaded rendering in the animation software I'm using, and finally they did it. Great now. Perhaps everything can't be multi threaded, but I'd expect the developers to be a bit more creative when threading their apps. And Apple should just nail their software. An app like Compressor should be faster on the Mac Pro. Right now it's faster on a MacBook Pro. It's not right. It's confusing for an end user like me.
I'd love to see Apple go AMD in the Mini, maybe even some other platforms. GPU performance is really important for today's operating systems and as such AMD's APUs are still a big advantage if RAW CPU performance isn't important to a buyer. If one is buying a Mini I'd have to say CPU isn't that important to begin with.
The interesting thing here is that Intels GPUs often perform very well in OpenCL tasks. It is application specific but shouldn't be ignored.
That would be nice but let's face it Apple often switches between AMD and NVidia every couple of years often for no rational reason. As such AMD could lay the golden egg and Apple might ignore it, I'm often surprised by Apples approach to discreet GPUs.
Well we can hope! Just because an engineer is capable doesn't mean the resources and politics of the company will support his efforts.
Let's hope so.
Those OpenCL Intel tasks are 1.1 compliant and some 1.2. The AMD line up is 100% 2.x compliant OpenCL and a lot of features in the 2.x range matter to Apple improving system-wide performance.
Nothing Intel produces with OpenCL can touch AMD's position. The designs are long since done for the Zen FX and Zen APU. The latest news from China is that HBM2 is exclusive again in 2016 for AMD and that means not 4GB (4 x 1GB) HBM limits, but 32GB HBM2 (4 x 8GB) configuration limits.
The key will be manufacturing moving forward with Samsung/GloFo 14nm FinFET, already announced by AMD and also leveraging TSMC 16nm FinFET.
Not quite sure, but are you really arguing that there won't be an i7 for either the iMacs or the MBPs?
The Desktop line of Intel processors do not go into the iMac or Macbook Pro [obviously]. They are never the enthusiast designs. Apple skips those and only goes mid-range Xeon with the Mac Pro.
The Desktop line of Intel processors do not go into the iMac or Macbook Pro [obviously]. They are never the enthusiast designs. Apple skips those and only goes mid-range Xeon with the Mac Pro.
Gotcha. I can never keep up with the intel processor numbers. I thought that might be what you meant when you said 'i5-6500'. I'm aware of the different categories of i5 and i7 but never remember their numbers. Thanks for clarifying.
Out of curiosity, though, I know that the iMacs get mobile GPUs but I thought they got desktop CPUs, just not Xeons. The iMacs don't get desktop processors?
In my opinion any computer without is a toy, well, sort of like any computer without a file system like ZFS that protects against bit rot.
Over the decades been bitten by this more than once.
Yeah, Apple was rumoured years ago to be working on a ZFS-like FS upgrade. Never came to light. No one seems to know why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
Out of curiosity, though, I know that the iMacs get mobile GPUs but I thought they got desktop CPUs, just not Xeons. The iMacs don't get desktop processors?
In the bad-ole days, Apple started using mobile processors in the All-in-Ones partly for heat reasons, but mainly because it gave them economies of scale for the Powerbook/MacBook line when buying PowerPC chips from IBM.
Nowadays we are back to the point where the iMac and MacBook Pro numbers are each high enough on their own to justify separate processor buys. But Apple keeps making the iMac stupidly thin to save on shipping costs (and pockets the savings.) So heat dissipation is now a bigger issue.
Benchmarks can be very misleading so you really need to reference which ones you are talking about. Given that Xeon is about multi core performance with apps and workloads optimized for such hardware. Given the right user the Mac Pro will run circles around anything else in Apples line up.
If you look at the clock speed of the Xeons, you'll notice as the core count goes up the clock speed comes down. In small quick tasks, the higher clocked iMac can actually be faster than an 8-12 core Mac Pro, but in tasks such as rendering full length videos or shading 3D animated scenes, the Mac Pro will eat through that much faster while the iMac starts to overheat.
How is ECC RAM superior? (I ask because I don't know, and would like to learn, so just be to the point, please.)
I think this wording is a pretty good summary:
"ECC RAM can recover from small errors in bits, by utilizing parity bits. Since servers are a shared resource where up-time and reliability are important, ECC RAM is generally used with only a modest difference in price. ECC RAM is also used in CAD/CAM workstations were small bit errors could cause calculation mistakes which become more significant problems when a design goes to manufacturing." -- Waldo@Serverfault
ECC ram is used in servers and high end workstations (CAD/CAM),
non-ECC is in most computers you find in consumer computers (Mac Pro has ECC).
Yeah, Apple was rumoured years ago to be working on a ZFS-like FS upgrade. Never came to light. No one seems to know why.
Because when they were using it NetApp was suing Sun then Oracle over file system patents (lawsuit dropped in 2010). Sun/Oracle would not indemnify Apple from infringement so Apple dropped it. When Oracle bought Sun it whacked the last nail in the coffin. As a result the original ZFS work was removed from OS X and never released.
Comments
No AMD. Never AMD. AMD is a dying company. I can't see Apple ever turning to it.
Kanye West is going to stumble around on stage in his diapers and rant for an hour?
What presentation was that? No Apple engineer is going to mention future unannounced products at a WWDC session.
There are many good reasons to prefer AMD in things like the Mini.
For one it gives manufactures leverage with Intel.
Two; intel needs the competition, the last couple of years should make that obvious.
Three; GPU performance is very important in machines like the Mini. For many users and uses for the Mini the GPU is far mor important than the CPU.
Four; Apple could easily knock a $100 or so of the price of the Mini keeping the machine competitive in the marketplace.
I'm just salivating at the 8-core CPU. I hope Apple put's that as a high-end option for the iMac. I'd put them all to good use! Hopefully this means I finally get to retire my 2009 iMac!
I'm only seeing 4 core CPUs, which one has 8 cores?
There aren't any in the list that show 8 cores, only the typical i7 with 4cores and 8 threads like MBPs have had for several years.
I'm not getting excited about any of these new CPUs unless Apple is able to use two or more CPUs in the same product because of their reduced die size. After re-reading the spec sheet, these CPUs are geared towards the multitude of Windows laptops and non-wired devices (WiDi) like the Surface than they are for anything Apple produces. The words "mac" and "apple" aren't even mentioned in the spec sheet while Windows 10, DirectX and lots of generic PC garbage fills the sheet. Apple will be able to use these CPUs but I don't see them being built specifically for them.
Some people are suggesting we get new Mac announcements on September 9. It is conceivable that - given the venue seats a substantial number of people - Apple may lay out everything at one event. But I believe they couldn't fit everything in within a single 2-hour presentation. I think it will continue to follow the pattern of the last couple of years instead:
September 9
- possible "state of retail" announcements (store openings, new store designs, etc.), though this was skipped in September 2014 due to lack of time. Per Tim, "Everything's great."
- iOS 9 new feature review/refresher, including Wallet update (support for loyalty cards, department store credit cards)
- Apple Pay update (hopefully with an announcement of more countries and retailers supporting it)
- Watch OS 2.0 new feature review/refresher
- possible announcement of new Apple Watch bands, but no internal HW changes to the Watch itself
- iPhone 6s / 6s Plus announcement (filling the long presentation slot of the 6 / 6 Plus in the September 2014 event)
- AppleTV announcement, demo, SDK announcement (filling the other long presentation slot the Watch took in the September 2014 event)
- state of Apple Music, closing with a live musical performance
That sounds like about 2 hours of material to me.
October Event
- iPad updates, including new iPad Pro
- iOS 9.1 (in October 2014, iOS 8.1 was demonstrated with a couple of minor new features)
- OS X El Capitan new feature review/refresher
- updated Macs, Skylake CPUs
- Anything not covered in the September event due to time (if they don't cover Apple Pay or Apple Music at the September event, for example)
I just don't see all of that possibly fitting into a single September 9 event. Since Watch, Apple Pay, and Apple Music are still relatively new and ramping up, I think Apple has to spend a little time to tout them.
Not a fan.
I understand the low power obsession with mobile devices, but am not happy with the use of Vampire Video (Intel Integrated Graphics) on many Mac desktops.
Oh, like, say ECC RAM?
In my opinion any computer without is a toy, well, sort of like any computer without a file system like ZFS that protects against bit rot.
Over the decades been bitten by this more than once.
Of course, if all you do is post selfies on FB and look up bus schedules on your computer, then who cares...
What presentation was that? No Apple engineer is going to mention future unannounced products at a WWDC session.
It's only a few minutes into the iPad Multitasking lecture. He says "Remember last year, we showed you a bunch of interface changes that later made sense in light of a then-unnacounced product?" And then he went on to basically say the same thing was happening there in his talk about the iPad and added "emphasis on P" and everyone in the room understood him.
edit: "Optimizing Your App for Multitasking on iPad in iOS 9" I think it is. It's pretty soon into the lecture.
Thanks mate, for taking your time.
I'm a typical end user, artist creator that demands fast performance for graphics and video creation in high resolutions. I'm stuck with semi professional tools from Adobe, Toon Boom and Apple etc. They say it's for professionals, and it is, but when looking at the performance of most software it's somewhat sad. I just know how well they should run if they was coded right. I was asking for years about proper multi threaded rendering in the animation software I'm using, and finally they did it. Great now. Perhaps everything can't be multi threaded, but I'd expect the developers to be a bit more creative when threading their apps. And Apple should just nail their software. An app like Compressor should be faster on the Mac Pro. Right now it's faster on a MacBook Pro. It's not right. It's confusing for an end user like me.
Those OpenCL Intel tasks are 1.1 compliant and some 1.2. The AMD line up is 100% 2.x compliant OpenCL and a lot of features in the 2.x range matter to Apple improving system-wide performance.
Nothing Intel produces with OpenCL can touch AMD's position. The designs are long since done for the Zen FX and Zen APU. The latest news from China is that HBM2 is exclusive again in 2016 for AMD and that means not 4GB (4 x 1GB) HBM limits, but 32GB HBM2 (4 x 8GB) configuration limits.
The key will be manufacturing moving forward with Samsung/GloFo 14nm FinFET, already announced by AMD and also leveraging TSMC 16nm FinFET.
The Desktop line of Intel processors do not go into the iMac or Macbook Pro [obviously]. They are never the enthusiast designs. Apple skips those and only goes mid-range Xeon with the Mac Pro.
The Desktop line of Intel processors do not go into the iMac or Macbook Pro [obviously]. They are never the enthusiast designs. Apple skips those and only goes mid-range Xeon with the Mac Pro.
Gotcha. I can never keep up with the intel processor numbers. I thought that might be what you meant when you said 'i5-6500'. I'm aware of the different categories of i5 and i7 but never remember their numbers. Thanks for clarifying.
Out of curiosity, though, I know that the iMacs get mobile GPUs but I thought they got desktop CPUs, just not Xeons. The iMacs don't get desktop processors?
In my opinion any computer without is a toy, well, sort of like any computer without a file system like ZFS that protects against bit rot.
Over the decades been bitten by this more than once.
Yeah, Apple was rumoured years ago to be working on a ZFS-like FS upgrade. Never came to light. No one seems to know why.
Out of curiosity, though, I know that the iMacs get mobile GPUs but I thought they got desktop CPUs, just not Xeons. The iMacs don't get desktop processors?
In the bad-ole days, Apple started using mobile processors in the All-in-Ones partly for heat reasons, but mainly because it gave them economies of scale for the Powerbook/MacBook line when buying PowerPC chips from IBM.
Nowadays we are back to the point where the iMac and MacBook Pro numbers are each high enough on their own to justify separate processor buys. But Apple keeps making the iMac stupidly thin to save on shipping costs (and pockets the savings.) So heat dissipation is now a bigger issue.
Benchmarks can be very misleading so you really need to reference which ones you are talking about. Given that Xeon is about multi core performance with apps and workloads optimized for such hardware. Given the right user the Mac Pro will run circles around anything else in Apples line up.
If you look at the clock speed of the Xeons, you'll notice as the core count goes up the clock speed comes down. In small quick tasks, the higher clocked iMac can actually be faster than an 8-12 core Mac Pro, but in tasks such as rendering full length videos or shading 3D animated scenes, the Mac Pro will eat through that much faster while the iMac starts to overheat.
How is ECC RAM superior? (I ask because I don't know, and would like to learn, so just be to the point, please.)
I think this wording is a pretty good summary:
"ECC RAM can recover from small errors in bits, by utilizing parity bits. Since servers are a shared resource where up-time and reliability are important, ECC RAM is generally used with only a modest difference in price. ECC RAM is also used in CAD/CAM workstations were small bit errors could cause calculation mistakes which become more significant problems when a design goes to manufacturing." -- Waldo@Serverfault
ECC ram is used in servers and high end workstations (CAD/CAM),
non-ECC is in most computers you find in consumer computers (Mac Pro has ECC).
Yeah, Apple was rumoured years ago to be working on a ZFS-like FS upgrade. Never came to light. No one seems to know why.
Because when they were using it NetApp was suing Sun then Oracle over file system patents (lawsuit dropped in 2010). Sun/Oracle would not indemnify Apple from infringement so Apple dropped it. When Oracle bought Sun it whacked the last nail in the coffin. As a result the original ZFS work was removed from OS X and never released.