Ben, you are probably right about the threat to the distinction, and probably a little too pessimistic about the release dates: a dual-xeon Mac Pro will probably be released in Q1 (maybe late Q1) and I expect the iMac to receive nehalem during the fall (if the platform doesn't change). MWSF 2010 will probably be the notebook event (after a refresh late Q2 2009).
But with, what I believe to be, small changes in the choices of platforms from Apple, I think it would be probably easy to reposition the iMac line in order to make room for a Core i7 Mac line.
- move the iMac to desktop cpus/chipsets (dual/quad core at 65W max.), desktop cpus are way less expensive than mobile ones and the iMac is probably capable of handling those new 65W quad-core cpus (the current iMac uses overclocked mobile ones that have a TDP of 55W already and are probably pushed hard). The upcoming 65W quad-core cpus will be priced between $245 and $369. The mobile cpus used on the current iMac are priced between $241 (2.40GHz) and $851 (3.06GHz), that's almost $500 less for the high-end model:
With this line-up the only in-between is the 2.66GHz Core i7 model, but for just $200 more you can get a "similar" 24" iMac. Also I would believe than even if the new iMacs are priced slightly lower than the current ones, they would generate more margins. They would be even more attractive because of the price cut and quad-core cpus. And priced like that the Core i7 Macs would be margins machines (equivalents from Dell and others are selling for $999/1499/1999).
And if you add the new Mac mini, that could come with the following specs:
$699 Mac mini 2.00GHz, nvidia 9400m, 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD, Superdrive
$899 Mac mini 2.40GHz, nvidia 9400m, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD, Superdrive
I jacked the prices a little so that specs match those of the new MB and in hopes that FW will remain!!!
You'll have a complete desktop line-up for 2009. Everything covered. And Apple could still have only 3 desktop designs:
- Mac mini: SSF, dual-core, integrated graphics, $699-899
- iMac: AIO, 2 models, 20" and 24", dual and quad-cores, starting at $1199 and 1699
- Mac Pro: Tower, 2 models, single and dual quad-core (8 threads) cpus, starting at $1499 or $1999 and $2999
Put a better gpu in the $900 mini and $2000 + macs need better then a basic gpu.
Put a better gpu in the $900 mini and $2000 + macs need better then a basic gpu.
Why? Not everybody needs quad SLI. The Mac mini, in it's current form factor and price range, may not be suited for more than a nvidia-type integrated gpu and it's more than enough for most users. A $2000+ desktop Mac is not necessarily about the graphics performance, it's primary about processing power. For example, as a recording engineer I could care less about the gpu in my Mac, I could use integrated graphics, what I need is as many cores and clock speed as possible for the best price. You can still BTO a better video card if that's what you want.
And stop quoting the posts in their entirety when you just comment on one point, it is really annoying, bordeline disrespectful.
All you posts are about the same thing whatever thread/forum you post into: you want a gaming Mac for $800. Not gonna happen, deal with it. I'd be great if you could stop quoting my posts all together. I hate repeating myself.
Never has a Mid-tower/Cube been more necessary in Apple's line up. I like the iMac and Mac Pro. Recognise the necessity and market of both. But the gaping casm inbetween is freaking annoying and frustrating.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Finally a thread with reasonable requests for modern and better priced Apple hardware! I priced out a base model 4/core MacPro, added 1x 500GB HD and 12GB 3rd party ram for about $2,800 and that's with the pathetic 2600 card they throw in for free which is $1,000 more than a new Dell Core i7 system released this week!!
The i7 won't work in a dual-socket machine. The Xeon version of it, which will, is going to cost a lot more. $1600 per processor for the high end. That's the price if you're buying a thousand of them, who knows what Apple would pay.
Right. I see Apple not moving to the core i7 until the Xeon models are readily available and they can score a large volume discount for them. That means the Mac Pro will be holding off on the socket change for a while.
Not everybody here is talking about SLI. In fact I'm not to sure there is much interest at all in it, instead we have a healthy interest in mainstream GPUs.
Quote:
The Mac mini, in it's current form factor and price range, may not be suited for more than a nvidia-type integrated gpu and it's more than enough for most users.
A blanket statement covering way to much teritory. Don't get me wrong the new nVidia chip found in the new laptops is impressive but I think it is a stretch to call it good enough for most users. As to the Mini well it is so old that new nVidia harware will be more than a minor upgrade. Still it is not enough for everybody.
Frankly this has been a long standing problem with Apples hardware. They simply have not had a midrange desktop machine with what could be called BETTER GPU performance.
Quote:
A $2000+ desktop Mac is not necessarily about the graphics performance, it's primary about processing power.
To each his own. What is important on that $2000 mac is really up to the user. But to pit it mildly you are living in the past if the only thing that is important to you is processor performance.
Quote:
For example, as a recording engineer I could care less about the gpu in my Mac, I could use integrated graphics, what I need is as many cores and clock speed as possible for the best price. You can still BTO a better video card if that's what you want.
See this really bothered me because I think you are missing just how much a good GPU might help you out. The Floating Point processors in a GPU could be very useful in a sound processing app written to use them. Considering the number of them on a GPU you won't be getting equal performance anytime soon from mainstream processors.
Quote:
And stop quoting the posts in their entirety when you just comment on one point, it is really annoying, bordeline disrespectful.
Not as annoying as posts from people that mid the whole point of GPUs in modern hardware. In effect they are the replacement for AltVec. Yeah not exactly one to one there but the idea is that they provide a very fast array of FP processors.
Quote:
All you posts are about the same thing whatever thread/forum you post into: you want a gaming Mac for $800. Not gonna happen, deal with it. I'd be great if you could stop quoting my posts all together. I hate repeating myself.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it right though. I just don't think you grasp where Apple is going with OpenCL and the use of GPUs for acceleration. You can't dismiss the desire for better GPUs as simply a gaming play. There are a number of reasons, very valid reasons, to want more than an integrated Intel GPU in your Mac. Those reasons won't shrink in the future either.
Why? Not everybody needs quad SLI. The Mac mini, in it's current form factor and price range, may not be suited for more than a nvidia-type integrated gpu and it's more than enough for most users. A $2000+ desktop Mac is not necessarily about the graphics performance, it's primary about processing power. For example, as a recording engineer I could care less about the gpu in my Mac, I could use integrated graphics, what I need is as many cores and clock speed as possible for the best price. You can still BTO a better video card if that's what you want.
And stop quoting the posts in their entirety when you just comment on one point, it is really annoying, bordeline disrespectful.
All you posts are about the same thing whatever thread/forum you post into: you want a gaming Mac for $800. Not gonna happen, deal with it. I'd be great if you could stop quoting my posts all together. I hate repeating myself.
I don't want a $800 gameing mac I want a $800 to $1900 desktop with low end video at the base level and better as you move up a $50 card is ok at the bottom but in a $2000 system in a $2500 in a $3000 system come up bump it up to the $50 - $120 level there.
There are good low end dual dvi cards at $50 that most people will be ok with if. On board is ok for a $500 to $700 system but give use the slot to add a real video card. And in a high end system with as many cores and clock speed as possible on board video slows the system down by useing system ram.
also a 1 cpu desktop at $1500 should have a $150 to $200 level video card
1 cpu desktop at $1200 is ok with a $50 to $100 one.
1 cpu desktop at $800 - $1000 is ok with a $50 one.
1 cpu desktop at $1700 - $2000 is dual gpu in SLI / cross fire or a X2 card level system.
Don't have prices levels make it full BTO if you must have prices level don't put that $50 gpu in $1200 + systems or lower the price points.
That is what is bad about the imac want a faster cpu you must get a bigger screen. Want to have the 8800 you must get a fast cpu with a big screen.
You should be able to up the cpu with out have being forced to buy other stuff that is faster / bigger but have a fixed system with better cpu and still the same low end video card is out of place small bumps will do it there.
Not everybody here is talking about SLI. In fact I'm not to sure there is much interest at all in it, instead we have a healthy interest in mainstream GPUs.
Was I talking to you, Dave?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
A blanket statement covering way to much teritory. Don't get me wrong the new nVidia chip found in the new laptops is impressive but I think it is a stretch to call it good enough for most users. As to the Mini well it is so old that new nVidia harware will be more than a minor upgrade. Still it is not enough for everybody.
It would be a good enough update for the Mac mini. Joe was asking for a better (than the 9400m) gpu in the Mac mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Frankly this has been a long standing problem with Apples hardware. They simply have not had a midrange desktop machine with what could be called BETTER GPU performance.
We were not talking about a midrange desktop machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
To each his own. What is important on that $2000 mac is really up to the user. But to pit it mildly you are living in the past if the only thing that is important to you is processor performance.
Exactly, the base model of a $2000 Mac doesn't need to have a top of the line GPU (because not everybody would need one). BTO options will allow people who want one to get one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
See this really bothered me because I think you are missing just how much a good GPU might help you out. The Floating Point processors in a GPU could be very useful in a sound processing app written to use them. Considering the number of them on a GPU you won't be getting equal performance anytime soon from mainstream processors.
When Snow Leopard will be released and when developers start using smartly the APIs, that may be the case, but today, there is no "sound processing app" written for them, and I don't believe that Digidesign (or others) will be eager to rewrite Pro Tools (or equivalent) for GPUs: they have their own DSP cards that do the work and more. The fact is that it took almost a year for Digidesign to have a Leopard version of Pro Tools, I don't think they will be able to release a Snow Leopard version in 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Not as annoying as posts from people that mid the whole point of GPUs in modern hardware. In effect they are the replacement for AltVec. Yeah not exactly one to one there but the idea is that they provide a very fast array of FP processors.
I never said that better GPUs are useless. I just said that the Mac mini with a 9400m GPU is OK for most people (and will be in the future), and that not every Mac should have top of the line GPUs that's what BTO options are for (I'm starting repeating myself...). The fact is that almost every 8XXX, 9XXX and 2XX gpu from nvidia are CUDA compatible, that means that almost all current Macs (except the Mac mini) are/will be capable of GPU acceleration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Repeating yourself doesn't make it right though. I just don't think you grasp where Apple is going with OpenCL and the use of GPUs for acceleration. You can't dismiss the desire for better GPUs as simply a gaming play. There are a number of reasons, very valid reasons, to want more than an integrated Intel GPU in your Mac. Those reasons won't shrink in the future either.
Dave
You make a generality of very precise points which is absolutly irrelevant. Saying that I "can't dismiss the desire for better GPUs as simply a gaming play" is out of context, Joe wants a better gpu for gaming, just ask him : Is it really about OpenCL and GPU acceleration or just because PCs at the same price have a better/dedicated gpu?
Just look at his post above and I believe you can see his line of reasoning:
- a desktop is a desktop (whatever form factor)
- a $XXX desktop should have a $XX gpu
- a $YYY desktop should have a $YY gpu
...
Oh, and there's a mention of SLI and CrossFire and X2...
I don't agree with what he says. And I think that your answer was out of line, not to the point of what was really being discussed at all.
Apple's going forwards with this whole OpenCL stuff. So the lack of current GPUs is baffling. It's not like they haven't been out for half a year nearly now?
Maybe we'll see the focus return to desktop Macs early next year. I like the iPod, iPhone and laptops but I'm ready for some desktop news. And to be frank, it's about time Apple began spicing up it's desktop line with a 'bit' more choice. If you count the Mini, iMac, Macbook, Air and MB Pro you have five laptops. I'd like more choice than just the Mac Pro...
Surely Apple could engineer the ulimate consumer desktop. Maybe the Cube was nearly it. The Mac Pro is too much. Why so black and white. Can I have just a little grey?
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Good thread. Some good arguments for and against.
If the Mini ever gets updated or replaced, we should be in pretty good shape. The 9400M really blurs the line between Integrated graphics and a low end dedicated GPU. It faired quite a bit better than the Radeon 2400xt in the Macworld's graphics tests. Its not a world better compared to mid-range to high end graphics, but it holds it own.
If the Mini ever gets updated or replaced, we should be in pretty good shape. The 9400M really blurs the line between Integrated graphics and a low end dedicated GPU. It faired quite a bit better than the Radeon 2400xt in the Macworld's graphics tests. Its not a world better compared to mid-range to high end graphics, but it holds it own.
Exactly. I'm already getting the notion that integrated graphics have to suck by default out of my head. This will let me view the fusion of the CPU and GPU on the same die without prejudice.
I think Apple is going to be supporting better GPU options because going forward from 2009 the GPU is now going to be a vital part of everyday computing. It means they have to engineer their machines for the increased heat that a GPU will offer under constant load.
I'm ready to ante up for a Mac with a decent GPU. Just give me the options.
Comments
I wouldn't give the Mini another price hike, but I really like that lineup. .
+++
I just hope they can shoehorn desktop cpus into the iMac.
+++
I just hope they can shoehorn desktop cpus into the iMac.
If anybody can shoehorn stuff in, it's Apple.
Ben, you are probably right about the threat to the distinction, and probably a little too pessimistic about the release dates: a dual-xeon Mac Pro will probably be released in Q1 (maybe late Q1) and I expect the iMac to receive nehalem during the fall (if the platform doesn't change). MWSF 2010 will probably be the notebook event (after a refresh late Q2 2009).
But with, what I believe to be, small changes in the choices of platforms from Apple, I think it would be probably easy to reposition the iMac line in order to make room for a Core i7 Mac line.
- move the iMac to desktop cpus/chipsets (dual/quad core at 65W max.), desktop cpus are way less expensive than mobile ones and the iMac is probably capable of handling those new 65W quad-core cpus (the current iMac uses overclocked mobile ones that have a TDP of 55W already and are probably pushed hard). The upcoming 65W quad-core cpus will be priced between $245 and $369. The mobile cpus used on the current iMac are priced between $241 (2.40GHz) and $851 (3.06GHz), that's almost $500 less for the high-end model:
$1199 20" iMac dual-core 2.66GHz (E8200 $163), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, low-end GPU
$1399 20" iMac quad-core 2.33GHz (Q8200s $245), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, midrange GPU
$1699 24" iMac quad-core 2.66GHz (Q9400s $320), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, midrange GPU
$1899 24" iMac quad-core 2.83GHz (Q9550s $369), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, high-end GPU
I didn't apply the full price cut on the cpus, because I believe the iMac will receive more expensive LED-BL displays too.
- release a Core i7 Mac, with an enclosure similar to the Mac Pro (or a new/smaller one if they want to):
$1499 quad-core 2.66GHz (Core i7 920 $284), 3GB RAM, HDD, ODD, basic GPU (BTO options)
$1999 quad-core 2.93GHz (Core i7 940 $562), 3GB RAM, HDD, ODD, basic GPU (BTO options)
$2499 quad-core 3.20GHz (Core i7 965 $999), 3GB RAM, HDD, ODD, basic GPU (BTO options)
- then the new Mac Pro with only dual-cpu configurations:
$2999 dual quad 2.53GHz (2x Xeon E5540 $744 each), 6GB RAM, HDD, ODD, basic GPU (BTO options)
$3999 dual quad 2.80GHz (2x Xeon X5560 $1,172 each), 6GB RAM, HDD, ODD, basic GPU (BTO options)
$4999 dual quad 3.20GHz (2x Xeon W5580 $1,600 each), 6GB RAM, HDD, ODD, basic GPU (BTO options)
With this line-up the only in-between is the 2.66GHz Core i7 model, but for just $200 more you can get a "similar" 24" iMac. Also I would believe than even if the new iMacs are priced slightly lower than the current ones, they would generate more margins. They would be even more attractive because of the price cut and quad-core cpus. And priced like that the Core i7 Macs would be margins machines (equivalents from Dell and others are selling for $999/1499/1999).
And if you add the new Mac mini, that could come with the following specs:
$699 Mac mini 2.00GHz, nvidia 9400m, 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD, Superdrive
$899 Mac mini 2.40GHz, nvidia 9400m, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD, Superdrive
I jacked the prices a little so that specs match those of the new MB and in hopes that FW will remain!!!
You'll have a complete desktop line-up for 2009. Everything covered. And Apple could still have only 3 desktop designs:
- Mac mini: SSF, dual-core, integrated graphics, $699-899
- iMac: AIO, 2 models, 20" and 24", dual and quad-cores, starting at $1199 and 1699
- Mac Pro: Tower, 2 models, single and dual quad-core (8 threads) cpus, starting at $1499 or $1999 and $2999
Put a better gpu in the $900 mini and $2000 + macs need better then a basic gpu.
Put a better gpu in the $900 mini and $2000 + macs need better then a basic gpu.
Why? Not everybody needs quad SLI. The Mac mini, in it's current form factor and price range, may not be suited for more than a nvidia-type integrated gpu and it's more than enough for most users. A $2000+ desktop Mac is not necessarily about the graphics performance, it's primary about processing power. For example, as a recording engineer I could care less about the gpu in my Mac, I could use integrated graphics, what I need is as many cores and clock speed as possible for the best price. You can still BTO a better video card if that's what you want.
And stop quoting the posts in their entirety when you just comment on one point, it is really annoying, bordeline disrespectful.
All you posts are about the same thing whatever thread/forum you post into: you want a gaming Mac for $800. Not gonna happen, deal with it. I'd be great if you could stop quoting my posts all together. I hate repeating myself.
Never has a Mid-tower/Cube been more necessary in Apple's line up. I like the iMac and Mac Pro. Recognise the necessity and market of both. But the gaping casm inbetween is freaking annoying and frustrating.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Finally a thread with reasonable requests for modern and better priced Apple hardware! I priced out a base model 4/core MacPro, added 1x 500GB HD and 12GB 3rd party ram for about $2,800 and that's with the pathetic 2600 card they throw in for free which is $1,000 more than a new Dell Core i7 system released this week!!
Intel® Core?i7-920 Processor(8MB L2 Cache, 2.66GHz)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-Bit\t
12GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs\t
1TB Performance RAID 0 (2 x 500GB SATA 3Gb/s 7200 RPM HDDs)
512MB ATI Radeon HD 4850
2YR WRRTY
Total Cost WITH warranty $1,839!!
For the love of whomever gives your football team the winning TD with :30 left on the clock GIVE US BETTER CHOICES!!
The i7 won't work in a dual-socket machine. The Xeon version of it, which will, is going to cost a lot more. $1600 per processor for the high end. That's the price if you're buying a thousand of them, who knows what Apple would pay.
Right. I see Apple not moving to the core i7 until the Xeon models are readily available and they can score a large volume discount for them. That means the Mac Pro will be holding off on the socket change for a while.
Why? Not everybody needs quad SLI.
Not everybody here is talking about SLI. In fact I'm not to sure there is much interest at all in it, instead we have a healthy interest in mainstream GPUs.
The Mac mini, in it's current form factor and price range, may not be suited for more than a nvidia-type integrated gpu and it's more than enough for most users.
A blanket statement covering way to much teritory. Don't get me wrong the new nVidia chip found in the new laptops is impressive but I think it is a stretch to call it good enough for most users. As to the Mini well it is so old that new nVidia harware will be more than a minor upgrade. Still it is not enough for everybody.
Frankly this has been a long standing problem with Apples hardware. They simply have not had a midrange desktop machine with what could be called BETTER GPU performance.
A $2000+ desktop Mac is not necessarily about the graphics performance, it's primary about processing power.
To each his own. What is important on that $2000 mac is really up to the user. But to pit it mildly you are living in the past if the only thing that is important to you is processor performance.
For example, as a recording engineer I could care less about the gpu in my Mac, I could use integrated graphics, what I need is as many cores and clock speed as possible for the best price. You can still BTO a better video card if that's what you want.
See this really bothered me because I think you are missing just how much a good GPU might help you out. The Floating Point processors in a GPU could be very useful in a sound processing app written to use them. Considering the number of them on a GPU you won't be getting equal performance anytime soon from mainstream processors.
And stop quoting the posts in their entirety when you just comment on one point, it is really annoying, bordeline disrespectful.
Not as annoying as posts from people that mid the whole point of GPUs in modern hardware. In effect they are the replacement for AltVec. Yeah not exactly one to one there but the idea is that they provide a very fast array of FP processors.
All you posts are about the same thing whatever thread/forum you post into: you want a gaming Mac for $800. Not gonna happen, deal with it. I'd be great if you could stop quoting my posts all together. I hate repeating myself.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it right though. I just don't think you grasp where Apple is going with OpenCL and the use of GPUs for acceleration. You can't dismiss the desire for better GPUs as simply a gaming play. There are a number of reasons, very valid reasons, to want more than an integrated Intel GPU in your Mac. Those reasons won't shrink in the future either.
Dave
Why? Not everybody needs quad SLI. The Mac mini, in it's current form factor and price range, may not be suited for more than a nvidia-type integrated gpu and it's more than enough for most users. A $2000+ desktop Mac is not necessarily about the graphics performance, it's primary about processing power. For example, as a recording engineer I could care less about the gpu in my Mac, I could use integrated graphics, what I need is as many cores and clock speed as possible for the best price. You can still BTO a better video card if that's what you want.
And stop quoting the posts in their entirety when you just comment on one point, it is really annoying, bordeline disrespectful.
All you posts are about the same thing whatever thread/forum you post into: you want a gaming Mac for $800. Not gonna happen, deal with it. I'd be great if you could stop quoting my posts all together. I hate repeating myself.
I don't want a $800 gameing mac I want a $800 to $1900 desktop with low end video at the base level and better as you move up a $50 card is ok at the bottom but in a $2000 system in a $2500 in a $3000 system come up bump it up to the $50 - $120 level there.
There are good low end dual dvi cards at $50 that most people will be ok with if. On board is ok for a $500 to $700 system but give use the slot to add a real video card. And in a high end system with as many cores and clock speed as possible on board video slows the system down by useing system ram.
also a 1 cpu desktop at $1500 should have a $150 to $200 level video card
1 cpu desktop at $1200 is ok with a $50 to $100 one.
1 cpu desktop at $800 - $1000 is ok with a $50 one.
1 cpu desktop at $1700 - $2000 is dual gpu in SLI / cross fire or a X2 card level system.
Don't have prices levels make it full BTO if you must have prices level don't put that $50 gpu in $1200 + systems or lower the price points.
That is what is bad about the imac want a faster cpu you must get a bigger screen. Want to have the 8800 you must get a fast cpu with a big screen.
You should be able to up the cpu with out have being forced to buy other stuff that is faster / bigger but have a fixed system with better cpu and still the same low end video card is out of place small bumps will do it there.
Not everybody here is talking about SLI. In fact I'm not to sure there is much interest at all in it, instead we have a healthy interest in mainstream GPUs.
Was I talking to you, Dave?
A blanket statement covering way to much teritory. Don't get me wrong the new nVidia chip found in the new laptops is impressive but I think it is a stretch to call it good enough for most users. As to the Mini well it is so old that new nVidia harware will be more than a minor upgrade. Still it is not enough for everybody.
It would be a good enough update for the Mac mini. Joe was asking for a better (than the 9400m) gpu in the Mac mini.
Frankly this has been a long standing problem with Apples hardware. They simply have not had a midrange desktop machine with what could be called BETTER GPU performance.
We were not talking about a midrange desktop machine.
To each his own. What is important on that $2000 mac is really up to the user. But to pit it mildly you are living in the past if the only thing that is important to you is processor performance.
Exactly, the base model of a $2000 Mac doesn't need to have a top of the line GPU (because not everybody would need one). BTO options will allow people who want one to get one.
See this really bothered me because I think you are missing just how much a good GPU might help you out. The Floating Point processors in a GPU could be very useful in a sound processing app written to use them. Considering the number of them on a GPU you won't be getting equal performance anytime soon from mainstream processors.
When Snow Leopard will be released and when developers start using smartly the APIs, that may be the case, but today, there is no "sound processing app" written for them, and I don't believe that Digidesign (or others) will be eager to rewrite Pro Tools (or equivalent) for GPUs: they have their own DSP cards that do the work and more. The fact is that it took almost a year for Digidesign to have a Leopard version of Pro Tools, I don't think they will be able to release a Snow Leopard version in 2009.
Not as annoying as posts from people that mid the whole point of GPUs in modern hardware. In effect they are the replacement for AltVec. Yeah not exactly one to one there but the idea is that they provide a very fast array of FP processors.
I never said that better GPUs are useless. I just said that the Mac mini with a 9400m GPU is OK for most people (and will be in the future), and that not every Mac should have top of the line GPUs that's what BTO options are for (I'm starting repeating myself...). The fact is that almost every 8XXX, 9XXX and 2XX gpu from nvidia are CUDA compatible, that means that almost all current Macs (except the Mac mini) are/will be capable of GPU acceleration.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it right though. I just don't think you grasp where Apple is going with OpenCL and the use of GPUs for acceleration. You can't dismiss the desire for better GPUs as simply a gaming play. There are a number of reasons, very valid reasons, to want more than an integrated Intel GPU in your Mac. Those reasons won't shrink in the future either.
Dave
You make a generality of very precise points which is absolutly irrelevant. Saying that I "can't dismiss the desire for better GPUs as simply a gaming play" is out of context, Joe wants a better gpu for gaming, just ask him : Is it really about OpenCL and GPU acceleration or just because PCs at the same price have a better/dedicated gpu?
Just look at his post above and I believe you can see his line of reasoning:
- a desktop is a desktop (whatever form factor)
- a $XXX desktop should have a $XX gpu
- a $YYY desktop should have a $YY gpu
...
Oh, and there's a mention of SLI and CrossFire and X2...
I don't agree with what he says. And I think that your answer was out of line, not to the point of what was really being discussed at all.
Apple's going forwards with this whole OpenCL stuff. So the lack of current GPUs is baffling. It's not like they haven't been out for half a year nearly now?
Maybe we'll see the focus return to desktop Macs early next year. I like the iPod, iPhone and laptops but I'm ready for some desktop news. And to be frank, it's about time Apple began spicing up it's desktop line with a 'bit' more choice. If you count the Mini, iMac, Macbook, Air and MB Pro you have five laptops. I'd like more choice than just the Mac Pro...
Surely Apple could engineer the ulimate consumer desktop. Maybe the Cube was nearly it. The Mac Pro is too much. Why so black and white. Can I have just a little grey?
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Good thread. Some good arguments for and against.
If the Mini ever gets updated or replaced, we should be in pretty good shape. The 9400M really blurs the line between Integrated graphics and a low end dedicated GPU. It faired quite a bit better than the Radeon 2400xt in the Macworld's graphics tests. Its not a world better compared to mid-range to high end graphics, but it holds it own.
Exactly. I'm already getting the notion that integrated graphics have to suck by default out of my head. This will let me view the fusion of the CPU and GPU on the same die without prejudice.
I think Apple is going to be supporting better GPU options because going forward from 2009 the GPU is now going to be a vital part of everyday computing. It means they have to engineer their machines for the increased heat that a GPU will offer under constant load.
I'm ready to ante up for a Mac with a decent GPU. Just give me the options.