Mac mini makeover considered likely for Macworld

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 174
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daniel B View Post


    Does every thread have turn into an endless Firewire debate?



    Stop it!



    /Daniel



    "I'm kind of a big deal here"



    Firewire
  • Reply 102 of 174
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    ESATA is a one truck pony, that is an interface for disk/storage devices. That's it! FireWire on the other hand is an extremely flexible serial interface. I will always opt for flexibility over a limited interface unless there is a specific need to fill.



    The other reality is that Firewire has an upgrade path that is already available. It really makes no sense to compare old Firewire rates with the rates of a new interface like eSATA. Everything in the computing world either evolves and gets better or dies. Which brings us to the next issue, eSATA isn't fast enough! We are already seeing that single SATA SSD drives being limited by the interface. This will only get worst when Flash drives mature or Flash gets replaced with some of the new tech breaking out of the labs.



    What I'm basically saying is that eSATA really doesn't look like it has much of a future. It certainly lacks in flexibility.



    Dave



    Fair enough; I am grateful to Apple for bringing us Firewire and I respect its maturity and utility. I guess I under estimated the bulk of people that require it for powered applications (all three of my FW enclosures and my 2 cameras all have their own power sources.)



    As for the Mac Mini, I would think that perhaps they could remove the FW 400 port and leave an eSATA plus one FW 800 port.



    I also see some value in a merger between the Apple TV and the Mini. Why not, reduce the number of platforms to support; give the Mini some more life, and also perhaps un-encumber Apple from the current law suit they have against them :-)



    -subaqua





    Dan
  • Reply 103 of 174
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by subaqua View Post




    I also see some value in a merger between the Apple TV and the Mini. Why not, reduce the number of platforms to support; give the Mini some more life, and also perhaps un-encumber Apple from the current law suit they have against them :-)



    -subaqua

    Dan



    I've thought about this merger as well but I don't think it's going to happen for one primary reason. Cost. The AppleTV has to go down to $199 or even $149 to become a hot seller. Where the Apple TV failed was in its ability to change consumer patterns. Consumers do not have faith in streaming technology which means they followed their inclination and sought the devices with larger local storage. Once you have to put a 160GB drive into a media extender you've wrecked it's price point.



    The ideal solution is many fold.



    1. It all begins and ends with the network. 802.11 is the key along with QoS features for uninterupted audio/video streams. Apple may want revamp the current wireless access points with simultaneous 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz radios so that a person can segment the general wireless access from the A/V stuff.



    2. The Apple TV needs to enforce a "streaming first" mindset. Local storage is expensive. The ideal Apple TV would have just enough local storage to buffer streaming HD video to prevent glitches.



    3. Apple needs a companion to the Time Capsule. We need a Drobo like device that has removable drives and network access. The Apple TV or any Macs or iPhones in the home would be able to connect wirelessly and stream content from this storage. This means you have access to your media even if most of the computers are shut down. You don't want to have to stream from a running computer you want to stream from a centralized storage pool.



    4. The Apple TV needs to move to a SoC design. I'm guessing it'll be ARM/PowerVR SGX/VXD based with 16GB of flash storage embedded for buffering. This would give it a cooler running design, no moving parts and 1080p support and any other whizbang stuff you'd need. The low cost embedded flash memory generates miniscule heate and would allow Apple to dip down and hit that $149 price point.



    5. Encourage multiple purchases. If you know anyone with a Sonos wireless home system you know they LOVE the product. Apple could have the same benefit with a multipl Apple TV system and Front Row with zoning capability. It would allow the same music or video to play over all Apple TV or unique data per zone. It would allow you to watch a movie in the living room and them retire to the bedroom and pick right up from where you left off.



    The key is delivering a low cost Apple TV that can be purchased in multiples and networked. The key is stable network storage that is always-on and becomes the central pooled storage for all media files. Eventually consumers are going to run their boot partitions on SSD for the speed yet will want to access HDD for their ravenous storage needs. Apple really doesn't need a home server more than they need to offer bulletproof (for the home) network storage.



    So..keep the mini and Apple TV separate is my recommendation.
  • Reply 104 of 174
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by subaqua View Post


    I also see some value in a merger between the Apple TV and the Mini. Why not, reduce the number of platforms to support; give the Mini some more life, and also perhaps un-encumber Apple from the current law suit they have against them :-)



    -subaqua





    Dan



    Yes, I see the simplicity of moving to a common platform for both but we should remember what Steve Jobs has said in the past on this matter... televisions and computers don't mix as they serve very different purposes. For that reason alone I don't think there will be a merged product but that's not to say there won't be more sharing of internal architecture.
  • Reply 105 of 174
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post


    Yes, I see the simplicity of moving to a common platform for both but we should remember what Steve Jobs has said in the past on this matter... televisions and computers don't mix as they serve very different purposes. For that reason alone I don't think there will be a merged product but that's not to say there won't be more sharing of internal architecture.



    I think the two need to architecturally move in different areas.



    Mac mini = general computing and games + internet access.



    Apple TV= playing back media content it could evolve into games and internet but its primary reason for existence is to playback media. There are easier ways of getting media to playback than going with a general purpose CPU and motherboard.
  • Reply 106 of 174
    ssassa Posts: 47member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Firewire may have gotten it's roots in Video with Mini DV cameras but has since become more of a factor in the audio world. The reason for this is that video ingesting isn't latency sensitive but bandwith sensitive whilst audio is latency sensitive but not really bandwith sensitive. Firewire is vastly more important for audio interfaces now vs video interfaces.



    True, FW devices are common in both the Audio AND the video worlds, BUT anyone using any of the pro audio devices that are FW isn't likely to be using a Mac Mini. Everyone I have encountered using Cubase or anything similar is using FAR more powerful hardware. A lot of people are putting 10K drives on their rigs, not the 5400rpm drives that come standard in the Mac Mini. While I predict Apple will bump the CPU up to something better I doubt it will be powerful enough that most people mixing and editing multiple audio sources is going to suddenly be considering a Mac Mini for a DAW.



    I could slap together a generic Wintel machine for <$400 that has FW and a far more powerful CPU than the latest Mac Mini and if you are really patient you could use as a poorman's DAW, but the reality is that anyone even remotely serious is going to spring for something far more powerful than what even the next Mac Mini will probably offer.





    Quote:

    No this simply isn't true nor is it informed. FW is important in multiple ways. I've already mentioned the audio benefits but you also have the ability to run IP over FW and FW over Coax is going to be large for supplying routing of media throughout homes (see www.hanaalliance.org/). FW is a peer to peer protocol as well so it's beginning to be used in automotive applications as well.



    FW is also used in some military hardware too, but what does that have to do with whether I need FW in a basic desktop computer? Nothing. Ditto, with using FW in cars. As for IP over FW while the standard has been aroung for a long time there has been a dearth of uses of it.



    Quote:

    eSATA is a one trick pony and unpowered at that. It's faster than that FW but you don't get any of the other benefits. Personally I'd like to have FW800 and eSATA but if I'm given a choice I'm going with the more flexible connection. Firewire.



    I don't know about you, but if I have to pick I would go with whatever I would get the most use out of and for the 90%+ of people who don't do AV work that would be eSATA.



    Furthermore, using your flawed line of reasoning Apple should have thrown WiMax and WUSB on their laptops while they are at it, because that would increase flexibility, but we all know that is silly insofar as that people especially in this economy are most concerned about things that they are fairly certain that they are going to use. They aren't interested in paying additional for things they aren't likely to ever use. Virtually everybody who uses their computer for anything beyond browsing the web has data that they don't want to lose (pictures, documents, music, etc.) so everyone ought to have some form of external backup. eSATA is already more popular than FW on external drives and that gap is only growing. Furthermore, eSATA is already faster than FW800 and FW3200 appears to be vaporware. We will likely see SATA/600 before FW3200, which has greater bandwidth capabilities than FW3200 presuming that we ever see FW3200. It doesn't take a genius to see that FW doesn't have much future in external storage.



    Sure, some have noted that even consumer SSDs are already testing the limits of the SATA/300 interface and will quickly hit even the limits of SATA/600 nevermind some of the expensive SLC based enterprise SSDs that need to be plugged directly into a PCIe slot which already would tax SATA/600, but SATA was never designed to last forever. Even though we squeezed a lot of years out of PATA, SATA like PATA before it will be replaced as newer storage technologies make it obsolete. There are already plans for external PCIe to deal with the looming limitations that neither SATA/600 nor FW3200 would be able to deal with. Nevertheless I find this debate silly insofar as on a low end machine like this, this isn't likely to be an issue users will deal with in the near future.



    Quote:

    Actually MDP supports TMDS functionality of DVI/HDMI. It means that you're simply a MDP-->HDMI cable away from an adapter free connection. Monoprice is already working on a MDP to HDMI cable.



    So we should ship a computer that requires either a cable or an adapter that isn't commonly sold in stores just to use the computer because Monoprice is working on a MDP to HDMI cable? How is pushing a non-standard version of DP going to help Apple get more converts? If anything it will hurt since most consumers buying a $600-800 computer aren't going to be in the market for a monitor with DP anytime in the near future. Ironically, unless they buy the Apple LED display they will get NONE of the benefits of DP(MPD>DP is still MIA) meanwhile most users simply get the privilege of having to buy either additional adapters or cables just to hook up anything. Sounds like a bum deal to me. It is an added cost with no clear benefit for them. DP on the Mac Pro? That makes sense. DP on the Mac Mini? That seems silly.



    Quote:

    If the MDP connector has %100 of the functionality of the full size connector then the queston becomes "why should I use more real estate for the full size connector?



    Maybe because there is no compelling reason to go to a smaller connector? What exactly was wrong with the standard DP connector exactly? It is a port that the VESA actually recognizes, which we can't say about MDP. For the 99.99%+ of us who won't be in the market for a monitor with DP in the next 3-4 years adding DP of any variety gives us no upside (ie. benefits), but obvious downsides of needing to buying more expensive cables for no particularly good reason.



    Quote:

    Anyone who cannot see the benefits of DisplayPort technology should not be commentating on a large scale to other tech enthusiasts. It's license free which HDMI is not. It supports better color gamut over HDMI. It has aux channels that can run audio or other signals. You will be able to daisychain multiple monitors with a cable. There is not internal and external interface like TMDS with HDMI/DVI. It supports 2560x1600 without needing to use dual link TMDS. 4 K resolution over a single cable will be feasible with DisplayPort 2.0.



    I visited the Displayport booth at CES this year and I must say that there are certainly a lot of advantages of DP so your claim that I am somehow completely ignorant upon the benefits of DisplayPort are completely off target. Nevertheless while Displayport is very forward thinking for most of the applications I can see DP being far superior than HDMI or DVI aren't exactly things that someone buying a Mac Mini is likely to care about. It is great that I can theoretically support quad HD on a single cable or that I can get better color gamut, but for the target audience for the Mac Mini this is largely much ado about nothing. Most of the quad HD panels I saw at CES are either still not available for sale(eg. 150" Panasonic) or the price tag exceeds the price of a new car for a lot of people(ie. they aren't going to be in most people's living rooms anytime soon).



    While some of the people buying Mac Pros might be potential customers for a display using DP, I would wager that for the vast majority of Mac Mini users will wonder what the purpose of the port considering that nothing they own or are likely to purchase can use that port without forcing them to buy an adapter or a cable that converts from MDP, which of course none of the monitors that they will purchase will likely include.



    Quote:

    Agreed. FW on the consumer computers is probably going bye bye. Though DisplayPort on the Mini immediately makes it a better HTPC along with that MDP to HDMI cable. I'm tempted to do this solution versus getting an AppleTV so that I have a full computing environment. In this way I really wouldn't need an optical drive because I'll have my HD DVD and eventually Blu-ray to spin upscaled DVD.



    I don't see any short term benefit to going to DP. If you are in the market for a 2160p HT than sure I imagine that most 2160p HT displays are going to require DP, but for most normal people I don't see DP being a requirement in the typical lifetime of the next Mac Mini. I guess it is neat to to be able to taunt your geek friends that you are so cool because your computer has DP, but realistically the graphics chipset on the Mac Mini isn't going to support that resolution anyways so in many respects DP on the MM will be largely just be for show.
  • Reply 107 of 174
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I'm just wondering how many people are actually limited by the connection to their drives. If you're a prosumer or pro and you have a 4 TB Array hooked up to your computer then it's easy to make a case for eSATA.

    The case for both technologies is difficult when taken from the context of the storage needs for the avg consumer whereby USB 2.0 is just fine.



    You hardly need a 4TB RAID array to enjoy the benefits of FW800 or eSATA. USB 2.0 is a bottleneck for even mainstream 5400RPM external drives. The only people who use it for external storage are people who don't know better or whose computer doesn't have Firewire or eSATA.
  • Reply 108 of 174
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSA View Post


    While some of the people buying Mac Pros might be potential customers for a display using DP, I would wager that for the vast majority of Mac Mini users will wonder what the purpose of the port considering that nothing they own or are likely to purchase can use that port without forcing them to buy an adapter or a cable that converts from MDP, which of course none of the monitors that they will purchase will likely include.

    ...



    I don't see any short term benefit to going to DP. If you are in the market for a 2160p HT than sure I imagine that most 2160p HT displays are going to require DP, but for most normal people I don't see DP being a requirement in the typical lifetime of the next Mac Mini. I guess it is neat to to be able to taunt your geek friends that you are so cool because your computer has DP, but realistically the graphics chipset on the Mac Mini isn't going to support that resolution anyways so in many respects DP on the MM will be largely just be for show.



    I completely agree. DP is pointless for the vast majority of individuals buying a Mac Mini. It saves space, and has some nice features, but hardly anyone is going to be using it unless Apple moves their entire monitor line to mini-DP only (which is ludicrous but will probably happen), and even then I would assume most buying the budget-minded mini will be using it with far cheaper monitors than Apple Cinema displays, most of which will not even have a DP connector for years.
  • Reply 109 of 174
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    "Notebook computer."



    ...is not what he said.
  • Reply 110 of 174
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSA


    True, FW devices are common in both the Audio AND the video worlds, BUT anyone using any of the pro audio devices that are FW isn't likely to be using a Mac Mini. Everyone I have encountered using Cubase or anything similar is using FAR more powerful hardware. A lot of people are putting 10K drives on their rigs, not the 5400rpm drives that come standard in the Mac Mini. While I predict Apple will bump the CPU up to something better I doubt it will be powerful enough that most people mixing and editing multiple audio sources is going to suddenly be considering a Mac Mini for a DAW.



    The reason why people are buying beefy computers to run DAW is to run Virtual Instruments and effects plugins. A convolution reverb takes a lot of CPU grunt. However the efficacy at which a Mac mini could produce audio is wholly dependant on the style of music being made. The less CPU crunching effects and instruments you need to run the better. A Core2 Duo Mac mini with FW and a FW interface actually makes for a fantastic audio computer. 10k drives are important for latency which audio applications need to keep low for accurate monitoring. I plan on getting a SSD because they're actually better than a 10k drive in throughput and latency. I'll store my loops and other stuff on an external drive.



    Apple will likely drop FW in the mini but for all the wrong reasons.
  • Reply 111 of 174
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iDave View Post


    ...is not what he said.



    But is what he meant.



    Heck, the iPhone is a computer. I listened back to the conference call, the whole conversation at the time was revolving around netbooks and MacBooks. He was talking about MacBooks, and basically was saying; we go for higher price, higher quality. The mini was not on the radar during the call.
  • Reply 112 of 174
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daniel B View Post


    Does every thread have turn into an endless Firewire debate?



    Stop it!



    /Daniel



    Either people with < 50 posts are here, on behalf of Apple Marketing, to espouse the reasons against FireWire, or they are non-OS X users who have no focus other than attempting to move the platform away from any tactical advantage and thus proclaim it just a PC clone, then to demand the company slash prices and become a Packard Bell.
  • Reply 113 of 174
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Heck, the iPhone is a computer.



    So was my Atari game machine back in the early 80s. It did a great job with Missile Command.



    I listened to that portion of the conference call twice since it was such an interesting statement. (The webcast is no longer available at Apple's site.) The question was whether or not Apple had any thoughts of making and selling less expensive computers. Jobs said "we don't know how to make a $500 computer..." He wasn't talking about laptops, and I thought at the time it was a funny statement considering the Mac mini was introduced at $499. He was calling the original mini a piece of junk, which I'm sure he thinks it is.
  • Reply 114 of 174
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It is more a question of what will be out at the time the Mini is introduced. It is agreed that the current chips are expensive but that does have to hold at production time. Frankly All Apple would have to do is to agree to clock a special run of i7s a little slower than normal and have intel put a unique part number on them. Let's face it Intel has bent over backwards for Apple already in this reguard.



    As to chip set yeah as we currently understand it the chip selection is limited but that doesn't mean that Apple couldn't roll their own. It is not like they don't have experience here to do so. The could even bridge to hyperteansport to make use of GPUs supporting that interface.



    I know i7 is a stretch for early next year but it is the platform to go to for a new long lasting generation of Minis.



    Nvidia has already said that the 9400M started out as a desktop concept and that Apple refocused efforts on the Laptop market. So I take this to mean that what is in the 9400M is a cut down implementation of a larger chip. It also appears that the execution units are modular enough that a few could easily be added to a desktop chip while keeping power managable. Now this is more hope than anything but it is interesting how strong the collaboration between Apple and Nvidia is.



    In any event yes Apple likes to manage costs by keeping parts interchangeable across platforms. That is very important for a low volume manufacture. That however isn't what Apple is anymore especially with the mac Mini.



    It is a given that SSD are a bit expensive in the larger size right now but let's look at this as a potential hybrid approach. Say a 32 to 64 GB flash storage system was implemented as a system code storage pool and user and log data went to magnetic storage. The flash drive then only needs to be optimized for reads this controlling costs. Of course this won't work well if you are a user with tons of apps and other code installed but for many users it would be a low cost solution to much better performance. Code segments and apps in general would load much faster. Sure we are talking crappy writes but how often is software installed or updated?



    Atom would be good for a Mac Nano! Let's face it for certain types of servers Atom would be fine. It might also be fine for task specific Mac applications. It won't however deliver the performance that Mini users want.



    Twelve months is a long time. There are however several things that Apple could do here. One is roll their own support chip something they have had a lot of experience with on PPC. The could also cut a deal with intel for a "special run" which would be nothing more than a relabeled special run that is undercoocked with respect to the high performance chips on the market at the time.



    Maybe i7 doesn't mean a $500 computer but it doesn't mean impossible either.



    Express Card is certainly a possibility but frankly I see it as less than perfect. Mostly because of two things. One is the rather fragile mechanical housing that the cards are often inserted in. The other is the lack of lanes. A mezzazine card can be more robust if a bit fiddly to install.



    What ever they go with it needs to provide a quality mechanical and electrical interface.









    Quote:

    Well technically Nehalem/i7 was really about increasing the performance of everything BUT the processor core. The processor core itself has been enhanced with hyper-threading, but it's really not much different than the core from Core 2. It is everything else in the platform that has been changed. The memory controller has been moved onto the processor die, all the cores are on a single die (like AMD K10), there is a new 3-level caching system, and the ancient FSB has been replaced with Quickpath.



    Which from Apples standpoint makes i7 a lot like AMD and PPC processors. Also quickpath ought to be easier to work with as all the memory traffic gets it's own path. Frankly quickpath is exactly why I could see Apple adopting i7 early. They have slot of experience themselves and they have PA Semi. If anybody could successfully introduce an i7 chipset for relatively low cost machines it is Apple.



    Moreso if they are working with Nvidia we could see Apple being the first to deliver a two chip i7 solution. Now that may seem like grasping at straws but there are Apple excutives on reccord as saying the will soon have hardware on the market others can't compete with. I'm fairly certain we haven't seen that hardware yet. So is it really that much of a stretch to think that Apple would go i7 in a big way.



    You are making an assumption here that cool desktop chips won't be out early next year. You also assume that Apple would want to run them flat out in the Mini, it is not like Apple doesn't have options here.



    As to the integrated GPU version I don't think Apple is all that interested as they look like they have gone all in with respect to OpenCL. As such they will continue to leverage the better performing solutions.





    Well that might be useful but still I think an under clocked i7 running at say 2.5GHz would give Apple a better more salable machine. As cooler chips come out they would be able to easily bump up the clock speed while otherwise keeping the execution environment constant.



    I know it is a stretch but a Mini replacement that leads off with i7 would create a massive storm of interest.





    Dave



    Core i7 will be included in the Mac Mini when Core i8 is ready for Mac Pros.
  • Reply 115 of 174
    [QUOTE=SSA;1352043]I am confused on why you are so adamant about the Firewire, especially if you don't edit video. Most external HDDs are more likely to have eSATA then FW these days and eSATA has better potential bandwidth than FW400 or FW800 so as far as I am concerned unless you are going to be hooking up a DV camera FW of any variety isn't needed. Especially considering the low end processors that are typical on the Mac Mini while you can edit video on the machine the vast majority of people who are going to be editing video are going to be buying at least an iMac if not a Mac Pro.





    Well, truth be told, if Firewire is dropped, I'd like to think they would replace it with FW800. I am a photographer with several large FW hard drives and other FW devices. Dropping FW altogether would force me to purchase MORE stuff to replace it. I have 2.5TB of FW400 hard drives, I don't relish the though of having to replace 6-8 external drive enclosures just because somebody thinks a standard is dead. Decent quality, reliable HD enclosures are about $75-$100 apiece these days, so I am sure you can see my point there. FW800 is backwards compatible, it merely requires an inexpensive adapter to use FW400 drives.



    Yes, I could purchase a iMac or MacPro, however I began my photography career on film and learned to shoot what I needed to print, rather than shoot like a machine gun and fix it in Photoshop. Consequently, my work does not require extensive editing to make it print or web ready. So, the Mac Mini is actually a very cost effective solution. Besides, A MacPro is overkill and really just too expensive. As far as the iMac goes, I just don't have the room for a 24" iMac, my workspace is limited and along with hard drives, scanner, printer and other assorted gear, there is just no room for that beast as much as it would be nice to have.
  • Reply 116 of 174
    I would love to see 5.1 optical, or HDMI out...



    :P giggle



    Laters...
  • Reply 117 of 174
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rezwits View Post


    I would love to see 5.1 optical, or HDMI out...



    :P giggle



    Laters...



    No worries DisplayPort support up to 8 channels of 24-bit audio and sampling

    rates up to 96 kilohertz.



    The future's bright.



    Macs already support optical out



    Quote:

    Headphone/optical digital audio output (minijack)

    Audio line in/optical digital audio input (minijack)



    Here's the cable you'll need
  • Reply 118 of 174
    There's no f-ing way you're going to see an i7 processor in either the iMac or mini. Setting aside the high cost- it's a high-end CPU paired with a "performance" chipset -the i7 runs damn hot. At any given clock speed, Nehalem uses about 40W more power than Penryn. There are reasons for this increase, and the performance increase is just as significant, but that power still gets turned into heat.



    Cooling such a beast requires big heatsinks and big fans.
  • Reply 119 of 174
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    There's no f-ing way you're going to see an i7 processor in either the iMac or mini. Setting aside the high cost- it's a high-end CPU paired with a "performance" chipset -the i7 runs damn hot. At any given clock speed, Nehalem uses about 40W more power than Penryn. There are reasons for this increase, and the performance increase is just as significant, but that power still gets turned into heat.



    Cooling such a beast requires big heatsinks and big fans.



    The power requirements are valid, but do remember that Apple are using mobile platforms, not desktop. Mobile chips can be a lot more expensive at a given clock speed. Where the desktop 3ghz core 2 duo may only cost $180, the mobile C2D cost $850.
  • Reply 120 of 174
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    There's no f-ing way you're going to see an i7 processor in either the iMac or mini. Setting aside the high cost- it's a high-end CPU paired with a "performance" chipset -the i7 runs damn hot. At any given clock speed, Nehalem uses about 40W more power than Penryn. There are reasons for this increase, and the performance increase is just as significant, but that power still gets turned into heat.



    Cooling such a beast requires big heatsinks and big fans.



    That's is true of the current Nehalem processors; they are enthusiast/gaming/workstation class processors. In the 2nd half of 09 we will see some more appropriate Nehalem processors, Lynnfield and Havendale, that support dual channel DDR-3 instead of triple channel, and forgo the QPI bus for a built in PCIe 16X bus and DMI bus.



    The mobile version, Clarksfield and Auburndale, aren't even expected until early 2010. But they'll be mobile bersions of the lower end Nehalems.
Sign In or Register to comment.