You are absolutely right a better CMOS sensor and better lens would make much more of a difference in picture quality than simply more megapixels. The public at large don't understand this because its inconvenient to marketing megapixels if the public really understood how imaging works.
Yes. When we get to the tiny sensors used in phone cameras, we're limited by s/n levels, limited dynamic range, and a host of other problems.
How much rez is possible before IQ is so low that it doesn't matter? I think 3.2 MP is ok. After all these are just for snapshots. a 6 x 8 print would be fine. 3.2 MP is also good enough to read a standard bar code, for those who would like payment programs and the like.
A lens that focusses might be handy, but truthfully, the depth of field on these tiny sensors is so great, that I haven't seen any advantage on friend's phones that do that.
Better lenses would help though. Too many of these cameras are terrible at the edges and esp. the corners.
But that's optical, so it means a bit more money. A good lens for this small format costs about $40. How many people would like to add another $35 to the cost of their phones for the better lens?
[OPINION]Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year. [/OPINION]
This sounds about right to me.
That is, even though I don't like their secret reasoning to keep the Mac Mini CPU speed pushed down low, it will probably not be raised till the iMac has been given a boost. And my guess is that will not happen for at least 8 months, given that both models were just revamped in this "Early 2009" release.
I would rather have seen them let the mini be more powerful by offering the higher cpu in the higher mini. Kind of like if they were interested in selling the greatest number of best value computers to people, rather than their obsession with fine-tweaking their product line into defined segments. I think in the long run, their intentional limiting of the lower end models loses more sales. just my opinion.
... the low-power quad chips are running at 65 W at least, which is more than the G5 used in the (then noisy) iMac.
The real problem here is the really slim form factor of the iMac. You cannot do much if the computer is like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
... Apple has two choices: either keep the current desing and use low-power laptop chips, with whatever this may mean, or introduce a new machine with more volume and use normal desktop parts. But Apple likes to innovate and apparently has not found an original way to materialize the second option, most probably because there is no other than the usual one adopted by pretty much everyone else. So there remains the first option...
The Apple obsession with THIN as a design and marketing goal is really working to their disadvantage, in my opinion.
In the iMac, there is really no user value gained by having the iMac case be thinner in each newer generation. As I look at my own white G5 iMac, I never notice how thick or thin it is. The only usage issue is, say, weight (for when I occasionally move it around) or screen real-estate area.
If they would just drop the stupid obsession with thinness, they could have an iMac that is the same height-width for the monitor, and it could be just a tad thicker to allow for increased air flow. Thus, allowing more high end (warmer) parts to be used and still achieve good cooling -- as there would be more volume for air to move through without having to have wind-tunnel fans.
In the laptops, thin may have some value, until you get to the point where you loose structural stiffness, or start throwing away ports and parts (ala the Macbook Air). but the notebook topic is another thread.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
(adding: )
In a flight of fancy, I imagine a possible Apple Engineering/Design meeting going like this:
Engineer/Designers: Hey, we have figured out a way to have the next iMac revision use the latest CPU and GPU chips, and still be quiet and cool (temerature) - but it will have to be 1/2-inch thicker to allow for more air flow around the parts.
Steve Somebody: NO! Dammit. It's got to be THIN! Thinner than the last one. That is what is important -- Being Thin!!
I don't care if it has to use last years chips or this year's low-end chips. It's just got to be THIN!
The way I do it, I do get higher performance for at least half of the lifetime of owning the machine. The other way, you never get high performance, but are always hovering around the middle.
Each way is valid. It just depends on how you use your machine.
And I get higher performance than you for the second half at a lower initial cost and my machine is typically under warranty for the whole period.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
I don't know if there is any one particular point. Their notebooks have been getting progressively thinner with every major redesign, maybe the emate was an exception, I think that was pretty thin.
Since iMac G5, they've gotten thinner, at least at the edges. iMac G5 had a thicker panel than the iMac G4, but that was a major shift, I think getting rid of the semi-bowling ball was a good idea though. Every iPod since the first 10GB model was thinner too. iphone 3g was a tiny bit thicker in the middle than the original, but being thinner at the edges make it seem thinner.
Though the new systems appear identical to the previous Mac mini () on the surface, there are some important changes internally—changes that have a positive impact to the tune of a 21 percent increase in overall system performance, according to our testing.
So much for depending solely on clock speed to make a decision.
And I get higher performance than you for the second half at a lower initial cost and my machine is typically under warranty for the whole period.
You may, but you may not. It depends on the difference in performance from the beginning, and how long it's kept.
It isn't always an issue of cost. I usually keep video cards (or at least I did when they were easier to get) until the performance drops to the level of just above the middle range of the latest series. We may be able to do that again.
With computers, it used to be easy to upgrade the cpu to move two generations ahead. with the requirements of the G5's cooling, it became impossible to replace them, and no third party ever tried.
With Intel chips, we can never go back to where we were with the G4 and earlier, but we can move current chips off, and use chips from the "tick" of the newer process, gaining a fairly large amount of performance. I know a number of people who did that with their Mac Pros. I'm planning on doing it with my new one in a couple of years, just before the next "tock".
I've only needed Apple's warranty once, long ago, for my 950. Other than that, none of my many machines, both home and at work have ever failed.
So your are telling me that you pick your computer simply and only by its clock speed.
No he's saying that clock speed, graphics, etc. are all important for some market segments, eg. "enthusiasts". These enthusiasts use 3DMark, etc. and usually go for the latest, or the mid-range with the best bang-for-buck. So these enthusiasts care about clock speed, number of cores, graphic cards for their chosen or future screen resolutions.
The "casual" user wouldn't care or understand about clock speed and so on but enthusiasts are more clued-in.
You may, but you may not. It depends on the difference in performance from the beginning, and how long it's kept.
It isn't always an issue of cost. I usually keep video cards (or at least I did when they were easier to get) until the performance drops to the level of just above the middle range of the latest series. We may be able to do that again.
In two years I have a DX10 card that's faster than the 7900 GTX.
Now if you need the frame rates of a $500 card, you need the frame rates. Buying a $200 card just doesn't cut it. But damn few really do...and ponying up the money so you can make the card last 4 years is not cost effective nor gives you very good performance after year 2.
Quote:
With computers, it used to be easy to upgrade the cpu to move two generations ahead. with the requirements of the G5's cooling, it became impossible to replace them, and no third party ever tried.
It was never easy or all that cost effective. And you never jumped two generations but at most one and a speed bump. Chip packages changed as often as they do today.
Quote:
With Intel chips, we can never go back to where we were with the G4 and earlier, but we can move current chips off, and use chips from the "tick" of the newer process, gaining a fairly large amount of performance.
Gaining a moderate amount of performance.
Quote:
I know a number of people who did that with their Mac Pros. I'm planning on doing it with my new one in a couple of years, just before the next "tock".
Are you seriously suggesting that upgrading the same generation Xeon Precision Workstations (as those Mac Pros) from Dell would actually be more cost effective than buying strategy buying a mid end $1500 Dell Conroe box and then a mid-end $1500 Dell Core i7 box?
Say you wanted to upgrade your Xeon 2.66Ghz octo to a 3.0Ghz octo today (non-Nehalem). That's $929 from Newegg for one X5450.
You're seriously going to drop nearly $2K for .34Ghz upgrade?
Quote:
I've only needed Apple's warranty once, long ago, for my 950. Other than that, none of my many machines, both home and at work have ever failed.
Mini: OpenGL 3246, Single Core Render: 2271, Multi Core Render: 4374
MBP: OpenGL 3118, Single Core Render: 2127, Multi Core Render: 3988
Mini: 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, 9400M
MBP: 2.16Ghz Core 2, 2GB RAM, X1600
The new base mini is good enough for light gaming even with no upgrades. The score should go up a little when I put a pair of memory sticks in there and bump it to 4GB.
I should run my 1st gen Mac Pro as well sometime. My old mini is now sitting disconnected on the floor and I'm too lazy to hook it back up. Maybe later...but a Santa Rosa Mini would be more interesting anyway.
I think you're right. Apple had to keep even the higher priced Mac mini at 2 GHz in the standard configuration to differentiate the iMac with clockspeed.
Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year.
[/OPINION]
What do you mean by that?
Are you referring to jobs denunciation of using clock speed to prove superiority as he did in the 2001 article, "Macs are not about megahertz, says Jobs"* or in 1997 when he introduced the PowerPC G3"??
Are you referring to jobs denunciation of using clock speed to prove superiority as he did in the 2001 article, "Macs are not about megahertz, says Jobs"* or in 1997 when he introduced the PowerPC G3"??
He's saying there's little difference between the mini and the low end iMac. Had they made the top end Mini 2.26 it would be even more obvious. However, after the mobile Nehalems arrive, the iMacs go to them while the Minis stay Penryn. Then maybe the top end mini (and maybe even the bottom one) get a speed bump to 2.26 Ghz or more. No need to keep the mini capped at a low clock speed.
Are you referring to jobs denunciation of using clock speed to prove superiority as he did in the 2001 article, "Macs are not about megahertz, says Jobs"* or in 1997 when he introduced the PowerPC G3"??
While true Apple always tried to expose the myth, it wasn't until AMD came around with the Athlon and intel needed another 1.0ghz to match AMD's benchmark results. That said, it wasn't until Apple switched to intel that they truly became competitive on a hertz by hertz level. Like AMD, apple had their Alvertic (spelling), that helped encoding, rendering, speed, plug-INS, and so on, but at the time, there was always a faster PC counter part and could be built at a fraction of the price. Ironically, like today. Apple is falling behind compared to the market, albeit desktops simply aren't selling.
I agree. People don't realize the only iMac worth getting is at least the $1,799 model with the dedicated video card in it, the 9400 is a joke. Plus the previous models all used 4GB of ram, these can only use 3.75 because the 9400 eats up to 256MB of it, how is that 'more bang for the buck'??
In two years I have a DX10 card that's faster than the 7900 GTX.
Now if you need the frame rates of a $500 card, you need the frame rates. Buying a $200 card just doesn't cut it. But damn few really do...and ponying up the money so you can make the card last 4 years is not cost effective nor gives you very good performance after year 2.
That $200 card doesn't make it. It would be a waste. I upgrade my cards more quickly than my computers.
Quote:
It was never easy or all that cost effective. And you never jumped two generations but at most one and a speed bump. Chip packages changed as often as they do today.
That's not quite true.
Quote:
Gaining a moderate amount of performance.
Not true again.
Going from the current dual 2.66 GHz 4 core chip configuration I ordered, to a dual 3.3 GHz 6 core chip configuration will give a lot of oomph. The later chips will also do more than two speed bumps in turbo mode. Three at least.
Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that upgrading the same generation Xeon Precision Workstations (as those Mac Pros) from Dell would actually be more cost effective than buying strategy buying a mid end $1500 Dell Conroe box and then a mid-end $1500 Dell Core i7 box?
I have no interest in buying a Windows based home machine. None at all.
Quote:
Say you wanted to upgrade your Xeon 2.66Ghz octo to a 3.0Ghz octo today (non-Nehalem). That's $929 from Newegg for one X5450.
You're seriously going to drop nearly $2K for .34Ghz upgrade?
That's not the upgrade.
Quote:
Yes, so warranties are worthless in the equation.
They're insurance. I would buy Applecare for a laptop. For well over 200 machines over the years (most for my business of course), I've only needed the warranty once.
While true Apple always tried to expose the myth, it wasn't until AMD came around with the Athlon and intel needed another 1.0ghz to match AMD's benchmark results. That said, it wasn't until Apple switched to intel that they truly became competitive on a hertz by hertz level. Like AMD, apple had their Alvertic (spelling), that helped encoding, rendering, speed, plug-INS, and so on, but at the time, there was always a faster PC counter part and could be built at a fraction of the price. Ironically, like today. Apple is falling behind compared to the market, albeit desktops simply aren't selling.
The megahertz (I suppose today it's the Gigahertz) myth is only true across processor families. It's not true within processor families. some people do forget that.
But even so, it's only half a myth. Once you know the performance per "Hertz", you can figure out how they compare.
It is strange. If you look at the 24" LED Cinema Display, it actually looks and feels quite solid, and even somewhat bulky in some ways compared to Samsungs and LGs around the 22" and 24" mark.
Maybe Apple, as brilliant as the team is, painted themselves into a corner with the iMac Aluminium and its thinness. Maybe they did not anticipate people like Nvidia struggling to go down to 40nm ~ look at the latest generation of Nvidia's GPUs - GTX260 and 285, etc. Dual slot, big, hot, each drawing 100+Watts at load!... (I know, they're desktop parts and ATI isn't that much better in that area though the RV770 is very impressive)... Maybe they did not anticipate (and actually I don't know what the expectation was) low power quadcore Core 2 laptop CPUs by end of 2008. Maybe. But unlikely.
The thing is, the iMac has always been the most important and highest selling Mac... until about last year or a bit before that, wherever the turning point was that laptops eclipsed desktops and the Macbook usurped the legendary iMac.
Clearly the Apple iMac requires a revolution in and of itself, with regard to Apple redefining the desktop computer. Evolutionary progress on Mac Mini and iMac, well, I guess a safe bet in these times. US unemployment at 8% currently, IIRC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't know if there is any one particular point. Their notebooks have been getting progressively thinner with every major redesign, maybe the emate was an exception, I think that was pretty thin.
Since iMac G5, they've gotten thinner, at least at the edges. iMac G5 had a thicker panel than the iMac G4, but that was a major shift, I think getting rid of the semi-bowling ball was a good idea though. Every iPod since the first 10GB model was thinner too. iphone 3g was a tiny bit thicker in the middle than the original, but being thinner at the edges make it seem thinner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young
(adding: )
In a flight of fancy, I imagine a possible Apple Engineering/Design meeting going like this:
Engineer/Designers: Hey, we have figured out a way to have the next iMac revision use the latest CPU and GPU chips, and still be quiet and cool (temerature) - but it will have to be 1/2-inch thicker to allow for more air flow around the parts.
Steve Somebody: NO! Dammit. It's got to be THIN! Thinner than the last one. That is what is important -- Being Thin!!
I don't care if it has to use last years chips or this year's low-end chips. It's just got to be THIN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young
The Apple obsession with THIN as a design and marketing goal is really working to their disadvantage, in my opinion.
In the iMac, there is really no user value gained by having the iMac case be thinner in each newer generation. As I look at my own white G5 iMac, I never notice how thick or thin it is. The only usage issue is, say, weight (for when I occasionally move it around) or screen real-estate area.
If they would just drop the stupid obsession with thinness, they could have an iMac that is the same height-width for the monitor, and it could be just a tad thicker to allow for increased air flow. Thus, allowing more high end (warmer) parts to be used and still achieve good cooling -- as there would be more volume for air to move through without having to have wind-tunnel fans.
In the laptops, thin may have some value, until you get to the point where you loose structural stiffness, or start throwing away ports and parts (ala the Macbook Air). but the notebook topic is another thread.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
That $200 card doesn't make it. It would be a waste. I upgrade my cards more quickly than my computers.
Really? Pray tell what you're doing that requires the 7900GTX? Which is completely outclassed by the 9600 GT barely two years later?
Quote:
Going from the current dual 2.66 GHz 4 core chip configuration I ordered, to a dual 3.3 GHz 6 core chip configuration will give a lot of oomph. The later chips will also do more than two speed bumps in turbo mode. Three at least.
Well, The Gulftowns (desktop chip, not Xeon) will still be LGA 1366 but Intel still isn't sure if it will work with existing X58 boards. That uncertainty carries to the Xeons. intels' 6 core Dunningtons are Caneland processors, not Seaburgs.
Beckton is the Nehalem 8 core and I dunno that it will be compatible with the Gainstowns (doubtful). It seems likely that Intel might do a 6 core Nehalem Xeon even if it hasn't announced it yet. But there's no certainty that they will be clocked very high. The Dunningtons top at 2.66Ghz despite having 3.4Ghz Harpertowns and 2.93 Tigertons.
Given the roadmap has Gainstown at 3.2Ghz at the top end, I wouldn't expect it to be much more than a Dunnington-like Nehalem...that may be destined for 4-way and up servers and not workstations like the Mac Pro.
So the odds of you upgrading to 6 core 3.3Ghz chips in your current Mac Pro seems to be 50-50 at best. Either it will be not much faster than 2.66Ghz or it will be for the other Xeon line or both like the Dunningtons...which mostly run in blade servers and other high density applications.
And in any case it will likely cost you $1600+ per chip on the retail market. Which is what the 3.4 X5492s cost today. You're seriously going to drop $3200 for that upgrade when you can get a new Mac Pro instead?
Even if the top end Mac Pro is $6K who on earth thinks that's a good deal? God help you if you manage to munge up the install and break something in the process. You now have a 5K+ doorstop or a $1600 piece of costume jewelry.
It is strange. If you look at the 24" LED Cinema Display, it actually looks and feels quite solid, and even somewhat bulky in some ways compared to Samsungs and LGs around the 22" and 24" mark.
Maybe Apple, as brilliant as the team is, painted themselves into a corner with the iMac Aluminium and its thinness. Maybe they did not anticipate people like Nvidia struggling to go down to 40nm ~ look at the latest generation of Nvidia's GPUs - GTX260 and 285, etc. Dual slot, big, hot, each drawing 100+Watts at load!... (I know, they're desktop parts and ATI isn't that much better in that area though the RV770 is very impressive)... Maybe they did not anticipate (and actually I don't know what the expectation was) low power quadcore Core 2 laptop CPUs by end of 2008. Maybe. But unlikely.
The thing is, the iMac has always been the most important and highest selling Mac... until about last year or a bit before that, wherever the turning point was that laptops eclipsed desktops and the Macbook usurped the legendary iMac.
Clearly the Apple iMac requires a revolution in and of itself, with regard to Apple redefining the desktop computer. Evolutionary progress on Mac Mini and iMac, well, I guess a safe bet in these times. US unemployment at 8% currently, IIRC.
You can be sure that Apple knows of every development its partners are undergoing well before we hear of it.
Why do you think they went from the PPC when the G5 was running much cooler than the Prescott, and IBM was moving it up in speed faster than the Prescott was being ramped up?
Remember how shocked we were when Jobs showed that chart of how Intel's power/performance was going to move in the next several years vs IBM's PPC?
It was almost unbelievable at the time, but well before Intel announced the first Yonah, and the Core chips, Apple knew.
Comments
You are absolutely right a better CMOS sensor and better lens would make much more of a difference in picture quality than simply more megapixels. The public at large don't understand this because its inconvenient to marketing megapixels if the public really understood how imaging works.
Yes. When we get to the tiny sensors used in phone cameras, we're limited by s/n levels, limited dynamic range, and a host of other problems.
How much rez is possible before IQ is so low that it doesn't matter? I think 3.2 MP is ok. After all these are just for snapshots. a 6 x 8 print would be fine. 3.2 MP is also good enough to read a standard bar code, for those who would like payment programs and the like.
A lens that focusses might be handy, but truthfully, the depth of field on these tiny sensors is so great, that I haven't seen any advantage on friend's phones that do that.
Better lenses would help though. Too many of these cameras are terrible at the edges and esp. the corners.
But that's optical, so it means a bit more money. A good lens for this small format costs about $40. How many people would like to add another $35 to the cost of their phones for the better lens?
[OPINION]Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year. [/OPINION]
This sounds about right to me.
That is, even though I don't like their secret reasoning to keep the Mac Mini CPU speed pushed down low, it will probably not be raised till the iMac has been given a boost. And my guess is that will not happen for at least 8 months, given that both models were just revamped in this "Early 2009" release.
I would rather have seen them let the mini be more powerful by offering the higher cpu in the higher mini. Kind of like if they were interested in selling the greatest number of best value computers to people, rather than their obsession with fine-tweaking their product line into defined segments. I think in the long run, their intentional limiting of the lower end models loses more sales. just my opinion.
... the low-power quad chips are running at 65 W at least, which is more than the G5 used in the (then noisy) iMac.
The real problem here is the really slim form factor of the iMac. You cannot do much if the computer is like that.
... Apple has two choices: either keep the current desing and use low-power laptop chips, with whatever this may mean, or introduce a new machine with more volume and use normal desktop parts. But Apple likes to innovate and apparently has not found an original way to materialize the second option, most probably because there is no other than the usual one adopted by pretty much everyone else. So there remains the first option...
The Apple obsession with THIN as a design and marketing goal is really working to their disadvantage, in my opinion.
In the iMac, there is really no user value gained by having the iMac case be thinner in each newer generation. As I look at my own white G5 iMac, I never notice how thick or thin it is. The only usage issue is, say, weight (for when I occasionally move it around) or screen real-estate area.
If they would just drop the stupid obsession with thinness, they could have an iMac that is the same height-width for the monitor, and it could be just a tad thicker to allow for increased air flow. Thus, allowing more high end (warmer) parts to be used and still achieve good cooling -- as there would be more volume for air to move through without having to have wind-tunnel fans.
In the laptops, thin may have some value, until you get to the point where you loose structural stiffness, or start throwing away ports and parts (ala the Macbook Air). but the notebook topic is another thread.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
(adding: )
In a flight of fancy, I imagine a possible Apple Engineering/Design meeting going like this:
Engineer/Designers: Hey, we have figured out a way to have the next iMac revision use the latest CPU and GPU chips, and still be quiet and cool (temerature) - but it will have to be 1/2-inch thicker to allow for more air flow around the parts.
Steve Somebody: NO! Dammit. It's got to be THIN! Thinner than the last one. That is what is important -- Being Thin!!
I don't care if it has to use last years chips or this year's low-end chips. It's just got to be THIN!
Like you say, that's one way of looking at it.
The way I do it, I do get higher performance for at least half of the lifetime of owning the machine. The other way, you never get high performance, but are always hovering around the middle.
Each way is valid. It just depends on how you use your machine.
And I get higher performance than you for the second half at a lower initial cost and my machine is typically under warranty for the whole period.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
I don't know if there is any one particular point. Their notebooks have been getting progressively thinner with every major redesign, maybe the emate was an exception, I think that was pretty thin.
Since iMac G5, they've gotten thinner, at least at the edges. iMac G5 had a thicker panel than the iMac G4, but that was a major shift, I think getting rid of the semi-bowling ball was a good idea though. Every iPod since the first 10GB model was thinner too. iphone 3g was a tiny bit thicker in the middle than the original, but being thinner at the edges make it seem thinner.
Though the new systems appear identical to the previous Mac mini () on the surface, there are some important changes internally—changes that have a positive impact to the tune of a 21 percent increase in overall system performance, according to our testing.
So much for depending solely on clock speed to make a decision.
And I get higher performance than you for the second half at a lower initial cost and my machine is typically under warranty for the whole period.
You may, but you may not. It depends on the difference in performance from the beginning, and how long it's kept.
It isn't always an issue of cost. I usually keep video cards (or at least I did when they were easier to get) until the performance drops to the level of just above the middle range of the latest series. We may be able to do that again.
With computers, it used to be easy to upgrade the cpu to move two generations ahead. with the requirements of the G5's cooling, it became impossible to replace them, and no third party ever tried.
With Intel chips, we can never go back to where we were with the G4 and earlier, but we can move current chips off, and use chips from the "tick" of the newer process, gaining a fairly large amount of performance. I know a number of people who did that with their Mac Pros. I'm planning on doing it with my new one in a couple of years, just before the next "tock".
I've only needed Apple's warranty once, long ago, for my 950. Other than that, none of my many machines, both home and at work have ever failed.
So your are telling me that you pick your computer simply and only by its clock speed.
No he's saying that clock speed, graphics, etc. are all important for some market segments, eg. "enthusiasts". These enthusiasts use 3DMark, etc. and usually go for the latest, or the mid-range with the best bang-for-buck. So these enthusiasts care about clock speed, number of cores, graphic cards for their chosen or future screen resolutions.
The "casual" user wouldn't care or understand about clock speed and so on but enthusiasts are more clued-in.
You may, but you may not. It depends on the difference in performance from the beginning, and how long it's kept.
It isn't always an issue of cost. I usually keep video cards (or at least I did when they were easier to get) until the performance drops to the level of just above the middle range of the latest series. We may be able to do that again.
Example:
7900GTX - 2006 High end card. $500.
vs
7600 GT - 2006 Mid grade card. $200.
9600 GT - 2008 Mid grade card. $189 (beats the 7900GTX)
In two years I have a DX10 card that's faster than the 7900 GTX.
Now if you need the frame rates of a $500 card, you need the frame rates. Buying a $200 card just doesn't cut it. But damn few really do...and ponying up the money so you can make the card last 4 years is not cost effective nor gives you very good performance after year 2.
With computers, it used to be easy to upgrade the cpu to move two generations ahead. with the requirements of the G5's cooling, it became impossible to replace them, and no third party ever tried.
It was never easy or all that cost effective. And you never jumped two generations but at most one and a speed bump. Chip packages changed as often as they do today.
With Intel chips, we can never go back to where we were with the G4 and earlier, but we can move current chips off, and use chips from the "tick" of the newer process, gaining a fairly large amount of performance.
Gaining a moderate amount of performance.
I know a number of people who did that with their Mac Pros. I'm planning on doing it with my new one in a couple of years, just before the next "tock".
Are you seriously suggesting that upgrading the same generation Xeon Precision Workstations (as those Mac Pros) from Dell would actually be more cost effective than buying strategy buying a mid end $1500 Dell Conroe box and then a mid-end $1500 Dell Core i7 box?
Say you wanted to upgrade your Xeon 2.66Ghz octo to a 3.0Ghz octo today (non-Nehalem). That's $929 from Newegg for one X5450.
You're seriously going to drop nearly $2K for .34Ghz upgrade?
I've only needed Apple's warranty once, long ago, for my 950. Other than that, none of my many machines, both home and at work have ever failed.
Yes, so warranties are worthless in the equation.
Mini: OpenGL 3246, Single Core Render: 2271, Multi Core Render: 4374
MBP: OpenGL 3118, Single Core Render: 2127, Multi Core Render: 3988
Mini: 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, 9400M
MBP: 2.16Ghz Core 2, 2GB RAM, X1600
The new base mini is good enough for light gaming even with no upgrades. The score should go up a little when I put a pair of memory sticks in there and bump it to 4GB.
I should run my 1st gen Mac Pro as well sometime. My old mini is now sitting disconnected on the floor and I'm too lazy to hook it back up. Maybe later...but a Santa Rosa Mini would be more interesting anyway.
-----
CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **
Tester : NA
Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo
MHz : 2.0
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6
Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 9400 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 2271 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 4374 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.93
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3246 CB-GFX
************************************************** **
CINEBENCH R10
************************************************** **
Tester : NA
Processor : Intel Core 2
MHz : 2.16
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.5.6
Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 2127 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 3988 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.87
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3118 CB-GFX
************************************************** **
[OPINION]
I think you're right. Apple had to keep even the higher priced Mac mini at 2 GHz in the standard configuration to differentiate the iMac with clockspeed.
Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year.
[/OPINION]
What do you mean by that?
Are you referring to jobs denunciation of using clock speed to prove superiority as he did in the 2001 article, "Macs are not about megahertz, says Jobs"* or in 1997 when he introduced the PowerPC G3"??
*http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...2091647,00.htm
? Megahertz Myth; Rise of the Myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth
What do you mean by that?
Are you referring to jobs denunciation of using clock speed to prove superiority as he did in the 2001 article, "Macs are not about megahertz, says Jobs"* or in 1997 when he introduced the PowerPC G3"??
*http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...2091647,00.htm
? Megahertz Myth; Rise of the Myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth
He's saying there's little difference between the mini and the low end iMac. Had they made the top end Mini 2.26 it would be even more obvious. However, after the mobile Nehalems arrive, the iMacs go to them while the Minis stay Penryn. Then maybe the top end mini (and maybe even the bottom one) get a speed bump to 2.26 Ghz or more. No need to keep the mini capped at a low clock speed.
What do you mean by that?
Are you referring to jobs denunciation of using clock speed to prove superiority as he did in the 2001 article, "Macs are not about megahertz, says Jobs"* or in 1997 when he introduced the PowerPC G3"??
*http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...2091647,00.htm
? Megahertz Myth; Rise of the Myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth
No more iPhone typing for me. Geeeeeez.
While true Apple always tried to expose the myth, it wasn't until AMD came around with the Athlon and intel needed another 1.0ghz to match AMD's benchmark results. That said, it wasn't until Apple switched to intel that they truly became competitive on a hertz by hertz level. Like AMD, apple had their Alvertic (spelling), that helped encoding, rendering, speed, plug-INS, and so on, but at the time, there was always a faster PC counter part and could be built at a fraction of the price. Ironically, like today. Apple is falling behind compared to the market, albeit desktops simply aren't selling.
Example:
7900GTX - 2006 High end card. $500.
vs
7600 GT - 2006 Mid grade card. $200.
9600 GT - 2008 Mid grade card. $189 (beats the 7900GTX)
In two years I have a DX10 card that's faster than the 7900 GTX.
Now if you need the frame rates of a $500 card, you need the frame rates. Buying a $200 card just doesn't cut it. But damn few really do...and ponying up the money so you can make the card last 4 years is not cost effective nor gives you very good performance after year 2.
That $200 card doesn't make it. It would be a waste. I upgrade my cards more quickly than my computers.
It was never easy or all that cost effective. And you never jumped two generations but at most one and a speed bump. Chip packages changed as often as they do today.
That's not quite true.
Gaining a moderate amount of performance.
Not true again.
Going from the current dual 2.66 GHz 4 core chip configuration I ordered, to a dual 3.3 GHz 6 core chip configuration will give a lot of oomph. The later chips will also do more than two speed bumps in turbo mode. Three at least.
Are you seriously suggesting that upgrading the same generation Xeon Precision Workstations (as those Mac Pros) from Dell would actually be more cost effective than buying strategy buying a mid end $1500 Dell Conroe box and then a mid-end $1500 Dell Core i7 box?
I have no interest in buying a Windows based home machine. None at all.
Say you wanted to upgrade your Xeon 2.66Ghz octo to a 3.0Ghz octo today (non-Nehalem). That's $929 from Newegg for one X5450.
You're seriously going to drop nearly $2K for .34Ghz upgrade?
That's not the upgrade.
Yes, so warranties are worthless in the equation.
They're insurance. I would buy Applecare for a laptop. For well over 200 machines over the years (most for my business of course), I've only needed the warranty once.
No more iPhone typing for me. Geeeeeez.
While true Apple always tried to expose the myth, it wasn't until AMD came around with the Athlon and intel needed another 1.0ghz to match AMD's benchmark results. That said, it wasn't until Apple switched to intel that they truly became competitive on a hertz by hertz level. Like AMD, apple had their Alvertic (spelling), that helped encoding, rendering, speed, plug-INS, and so on, but at the time, there was always a faster PC counter part and could be built at a fraction of the price. Ironically, like today. Apple is falling behind compared to the market, albeit desktops simply aren't selling.
The megahertz (I suppose today it's the Gigahertz) myth is only true across processor families. It's not true within processor families. some people do forget that.
But even so, it's only half a myth. Once you know the performance per "Hertz", you can figure out how they compare.
Maybe Apple, as brilliant as the team is, painted themselves into a corner with the iMac Aluminium and its thinness. Maybe they did not anticipate people like Nvidia struggling to go down to 40nm ~ look at the latest generation of Nvidia's GPUs - GTX260 and 285, etc. Dual slot, big, hot, each drawing 100+Watts at load!... (I know, they're desktop parts and ATI isn't that much better in that area though the RV770 is very impressive)... Maybe they did not anticipate (and actually I don't know what the expectation was) low power quadcore Core 2 laptop CPUs by end of 2008. Maybe. But unlikely.
The thing is, the iMac has always been the most important and highest selling Mac... until about last year or a bit before that, wherever the turning point was that laptops eclipsed desktops and the Macbook usurped the legendary iMac.
Clearly the Apple iMac requires a revolution in and of itself, with regard to Apple redefining the desktop computer. Evolutionary progress on Mac Mini and iMac, well, I guess a safe bet in these times. US unemployment at 8% currently, IIRC.
I don't know if there is any one particular point. Their notebooks have been getting progressively thinner with every major redesign, maybe the emate was an exception, I think that was pretty thin.
Since iMac G5, they've gotten thinner, at least at the edges. iMac G5 had a thicker panel than the iMac G4, but that was a major shift, I think getting rid of the semi-bowling ball was a good idea though. Every iPod since the first 10GB model was thinner too. iphone 3g was a tiny bit thicker in the middle than the original, but being thinner at the edges make it seem thinner.
(adding: )
In a flight of fancy, I imagine a possible Apple Engineering/Design meeting going like this:
Engineer/Designers: Hey, we have figured out a way to have the next iMac revision use the latest CPU and GPU chips, and still be quiet and cool (temerature) - but it will have to be 1/2-inch thicker to allow for more air flow around the parts.
Steve Somebody: NO! Dammit. It's got to be THIN! Thinner than the last one. That is what is important -- Being Thin!!
I don't care if it has to use last years chips or this year's low-end chips. It's just got to be THIN!
The Apple obsession with THIN as a design and marketing goal is really working to their disadvantage, in my opinion.
In the iMac, there is really no user value gained by having the iMac case be thinner in each newer generation. As I look at my own white G5 iMac, I never notice how thick or thin it is. The only usage issue is, say, weight (for when I occasionally move it around) or screen real-estate area.
If they would just drop the stupid obsession with thinness, they could have an iMac that is the same height-width for the monitor, and it could be just a tad thicker to allow for increased air flow. Thus, allowing more high end (warmer) parts to be used and still achieve good cooling -- as there would be more volume for air to move through without having to have wind-tunnel fans.
In the laptops, thin may have some value, until you get to the point where you loose structural stiffness, or start throwing away ports and parts (ala the Macbook Air). but the notebook topic is another thread.
I am not sure when "Thin" became the Apple Mantra.
That $200 card doesn't make it. It would be a waste. I upgrade my cards more quickly than my computers.
Really? Pray tell what you're doing that requires the 7900GTX? Which is completely outclassed by the 9600 GT barely two years later?
Going from the current dual 2.66 GHz 4 core chip configuration I ordered, to a dual 3.3 GHz 6 core chip configuration will give a lot of oomph. The later chips will also do more than two speed bumps in turbo mode. Three at least.
Well, The Gulftowns (desktop chip, not Xeon) will still be LGA 1366 but Intel still isn't sure if it will work with existing X58 boards. That uncertainty carries to the Xeons. intels' 6 core Dunningtons are Caneland processors, not Seaburgs.
Beckton is the Nehalem 8 core and I dunno that it will be compatible with the Gainstowns (doubtful). It seems likely that Intel might do a 6 core Nehalem Xeon even if it hasn't announced it yet. But there's no certainty that they will be clocked very high. The Dunningtons top at 2.66Ghz despite having 3.4Ghz Harpertowns and 2.93 Tigertons.
Given the roadmap has Gainstown at 3.2Ghz at the top end, I wouldn't expect it to be much more than a Dunnington-like Nehalem...that may be destined for 4-way and up servers and not workstations like the Mac Pro.
So the odds of you upgrading to 6 core 3.3Ghz chips in your current Mac Pro seems to be 50-50 at best. Either it will be not much faster than 2.66Ghz or it will be for the other Xeon line or both like the Dunningtons...which mostly run in blade servers and other high density applications.
And in any case it will likely cost you $1600+ per chip on the retail market. Which is what the 3.4 X5492s cost today. You're seriously going to drop $3200 for that upgrade when you can get a new Mac Pro instead?
Even if the top end Mac Pro is $6K who on earth thinks that's a good deal? God help you if you manage to munge up the install and break something in the process. You now have a 5K+ doorstop or a $1600 piece of costume jewelry.
http://www.google.com/products/catal...402#ps-sellers
I have no interest in buying a Windows based home machine. None at all.
That's not the point. That Apple makes it hard to do the buy cheaper and upgrade more often is an issue but the general strategy is sound.
That's not the upgrade.
That's the CURRENT upgrade. If not this then what did you many friends upgrade from and what did they upgrade to?
It is strange. If you look at the 24" LED Cinema Display, it actually looks and feels quite solid, and even somewhat bulky in some ways compared to Samsungs and LGs around the 22" and 24" mark.
Maybe Apple, as brilliant as the team is, painted themselves into a corner with the iMac Aluminium and its thinness. Maybe they did not anticipate people like Nvidia struggling to go down to 40nm ~ look at the latest generation of Nvidia's GPUs - GTX260 and 285, etc. Dual slot, big, hot, each drawing 100+Watts at load!... (I know, they're desktop parts and ATI isn't that much better in that area though the RV770 is very impressive)... Maybe they did not anticipate (and actually I don't know what the expectation was) low power quadcore Core 2 laptop CPUs by end of 2008. Maybe. But unlikely.
The thing is, the iMac has always been the most important and highest selling Mac... until about last year or a bit before that, wherever the turning point was that laptops eclipsed desktops and the Macbook usurped the legendary iMac.
Clearly the Apple iMac requires a revolution in and of itself, with regard to Apple redefining the desktop computer. Evolutionary progress on Mac Mini and iMac, well, I guess a safe bet in these times. US unemployment at 8% currently, IIRC.
You can be sure that Apple knows of every development its partners are undergoing well before we hear of it.
Why do you think they went from the PPC when the G5 was running much cooler than the Prescott, and IBM was moving it up in speed faster than the Prescott was being ramped up?
Remember how shocked we were when Jobs showed that chart of how Intel's power/performance was going to move in the next several years vs IBM's PPC?
It was almost unbelievable at the time, but well before Intel announced the first Yonah, and the Core chips, Apple knew.
They always know.