All right so let's say we have 1 GB of video memory on a card. Would 1 GB of memory have had sense on the AMD Radeon 6630M?
My friend and I had a discussion about whether some OEMs add too much memory to mediocre cards.
It's used for storing textures and caching data in Motion - some games you won't be able to play with high quality textures as they can't all fit into memory, even if the GPU is fast enough to render them. 256MB video memory is a poor amount of video memory. The minimum for any system these days should be 512MB. With Apple's move towards high resolution displays, they should be moving towards that.
The HD 4000 allocates 384MB if you have 4GB RAM and 512MB if you have 8GB RAM so dedicated GPUs should be starting out with 512MB.
1GB is probably overkill for the 6630M but not 512MB. There's no harm in it really, it's like having too much system memory, the more the better.
It's used for storing textures and caching data in Motion - some games you won't be able to play with high quality textures as they can't all fit into memory, even if the GPU is fast enough to render them. 256MB video memory is a poor amount of video memory. The minimum for any system these days should be 512MB. With Apple's move towards high resolution displays, they should be moving towards that.
The HD 4000 allocates 384MB if you have 4GB RAM and 512MB if you have 8GB RAM so dedicated GPUs should be starting out with 512MB.
1GB is probably overkill for the 6630M but not 512MB. There's no harm in it really, it's like having too much system memory, the more the better.
Worst case scenario would be 256MB 630M. Personally, I want to see a 512MB 640M at least and 1GB would be great.
Apple markets quite a lot on simplicity, just works, etc. I agree with you that they should never dip below an amount that can be allocated to integrated graphics. Even at the time of release last year, this was an incredibly poor amount. Seeing as ram allocation doubles each time, 512 could have been at least acceptable last year. I dislike when Apple tries to force shorter upgrade cycles by sneaking in artificial limitations where some people will not notice them. I get it. They're pushing the laptops, but these could be some awesome little boxes. I wish they'd run them off power bricks too for quieter operation. A brick is a lot more annoying with a portable machine than one designed for stationary use. Anyway I don't feel they should be such a step down in spec desirability from the lower imacs which do include a display, keyboard, and mouse. If they were only marketed as home servers, that would be different.
All right so let's say we have 1 GB of video memory on a card. Would 1 GB of memory have had sense on the AMD Radeon 6630M?
My friend and I had a discussion about whether some OEMs add too much memory to mediocre cards.
It is a function of software requirements. If the software you are interested in won't run without xxx MB of RAM the actual GPU chip means nothing. Granted at times reccomendations are just that but some software does need what it demands in the way of VRAM.
As to making sense on a 6630M, it comes down to this; for some of us the upgrade wasn't worth the price being charged in the Mini. If the apps you use or are looking at require 512MB or more VRAM, the Mini is immediately disqualified due to its configuration. So the Mini due to its configuration is kept from running more demanding apps, that doesn't make sense.
I agree with you. Now what might we be looking at? A 640M with 1 GB of GDDR5? 630M?
Do you mean in the next Mini or it's replacement? If so it is a tough guess, Apple could go back to Integrated only Minis for all we know. Ivy Bridge is much better in this regard so it is possible though I'd hate to see it happen. I mainly want to avoid Ivy Bridge graphics right now until they have been proven in the field. Further I'm thinking we will have to wait until Mountain Lion before we really have a solid grasp on how well Ivy Bridge integrated graphics work on the Mac.
As a slight digression here realize that Apples video drivers while stable are not fast. Even Linux machines can outperform Apple hardware in side by side GPU benchmarking. That is rather alarming if you think about it as in general GPU drivers under Linux suck. This is another reason to be up in arms over Apples puny VRAM allocations.
In any event back to your question, will the next Mini come with a 640M and 1GB of VRAM. With some confidence I can say no, but would love to be proven wrong. It is a matter of Apples attitude to the Mini (which could change) that seems to be that the Mini must always be configured to be the poorest performing machine in the entire line up. That would rule out the 640m right away.
This is actually rather sad as I see no reason to keep the high end Mini down. It could be easily configured to be close to equal to the low end MBP but is consistently marketed with rather pathetic performance relative to its siblings in the lineup. Some have speculated that this is a thermal / power limitation which is very possible. If so Apple needs to invest a buck or two into a larger fan for the high end model. Frankly lots of excuses are heard that mean little, because if true it is a sign of engineering laziness.
Again it would be nice to have at least one slot for an SSD. However smaller is the wrong direction to go for this platform.
Here is what I'd like to see:
A slightly larger case to offer up more room for a powersupply bulk up. This would allow for some of the features that are needed below.
We still need a model with a descrete GPU, however if Apple screws us again I can't see a rush in sales. So the descrete GPU needs to be an upper midrange model with at least 512 MB of VRAM and preferably 1GB. The midrange GPU and RAM is in part the reason for a bigger box/power supply.
I agree quad cores should be a priority but I'm not sure Intel has one suitable for the machine. I'd actually like to see AMDs Trinity processor in the Mini as the GPU would be a huge win for the Mini. In any event I want to see laptop processors in the machine but I do wish that they could support high wattage units. The Mini should be close to equal to Apples laptop lines performance wise.
at least two TB ports.
USB 3 obviously.
SSD over PCI Express. Hopefully Apple defines a card format that wors on the Mini, iMac and the coming Mac Pro replacement. Apples new laptops are demonstrating rather impressive SSD performance right now, it is obvious that SATA will soon need to be replaced.
Bulk storage is still a real need so two bays for magnetic drives are required.
An expansion slot.
Hardware theft protection, so that the machine can always be found on the Internet.
Plenty of RAM capacity. Ideally expansion to 32 GB. Further ship the damn machine with at least 4GB of RAM IN THE BASE MACHINE. Apple has spent far to many years selling this thing without enough RAM. Use desktop RAM modules.
Note that this is only slightly more than the current machine, with a strong emphasis on the currently poor GPU implementation. The expansion slot could be a completely different format for all I care, the goal is a port to allow customization of the machine.
Of all Apples desktops I see the Mini as the best of their desktops right now. Unfortunately that isn't saying much as the machine is chronically underpowered even when paying extra for an upper tier model. Without much effort Apple could turn the machine into a far more desirable computer.
What you are asking for might be called the "Mini-Max" which obviously needs a new and larger enclosure. I like it, but that convinces me that the chances of Apple making such a model are something approaching zero which is too bad because not everyone wants the smallest imaginable box or the all-in-one of the iMac. Actually, there have been calls for a small tower for a very long time and you can see how Apple have responded.
This topic hasn't had a post in a few days so allow me to ask.
The mini is the least expensive Mac you can buy so why does are sales for it pretty bad. Is $599 still too high a price point for the specs it offers on the base model?
This topic hasn't had a post in a few days so allow me to ask.
The mini is the least expensive Mac you can buy so why does are sales for it pretty bad. Is $599 still too high a price point for the specs it offers on the base model?
I am not sure anyone can say if sales for the mini are bad or not; I was not so sure Apple broke out individual model sales of the Macs, I personally think that the whole experience that comes from using a Mac is well worth $599-$1000; however I do not feel constrained from spending some money, so someone's milage may vary :-P
This topic hasn't had a post in a few days so allow me to ask.
The mini is the least expensive Mac you can buy so why does are sales for it pretty bad. Is $599 still too high a price point for the specs it offers on the base model?
I am not sure anyone can say if sales for the mini are bad or not; I was not so sure Apple broke out individual model sales of the Macs, I personally think that the whole experience that comes from using a Mac is well worth $599-$1000; however I do not feel constrained from spending some money, so someone's milage may vary :-P
I'd be surprised if it sold well. It's a great computer but Apple are terrible at selling it. If you walked into an Apple Store, even if you were impressed by the $599 price, if you tried to walk out with a full kit, you'd have no choice but to spend:
Mac Mini - $599
27" Cinema display - $999
cheapest keyboard - $49
cheapest mouse - $19.95
total = $1667
Why bother when all of the iMacs are better value than that? While there are shoppers who know how to look for an affordable setup, it's not your average buyer.
Now, 3rd parties offer 23" IPS displays for $200-300 so that's at least $700 less, making the total $867-967, which undercuts the entry iMac by $230-330. Apple should start stocking 3rd party displays in their stores if they aren't prepared to make an affordable 23" display themselves.
If it wasn't for the allocated RAM the base model isn't that bad. That is sad too as more RAM would cost Apple a few bucks these days.
What bothers me about the Mini isn't the base model as every company needs an entry level machine. Rather it is the uprated models that Apple is soaking users for that is bothersome. For all that extra cash there is an expectation that you will atually get something of value for it. In this regards if you look at the Mini with the GPU, you are paying a lot ($200$) for for very little in the way of descrete GPU and a minor CPU bump. Frankly it is pathetic. The same thing applies to the server model, here you are paying even more ($400) for a minor upgrade to quad core, a slow quad core at that.
This topic hasn't had a post in a few days so allow me to ask.
Waking us up are you?
The mini is the least expensive Mac you can buy so why does are sales for it pretty bad. Is $599 still too high a price point for the specs it offers on the base model?
When released the Minis aren't priced too good considering the performance installed but are extremely short on RAM. Sadly Mac OS these days requires a lot of RAM to really work well. I say "performance installed" because it looks like Apple purposefully restricts the performance of the Mini to force up sales. I'm not even sure Apple considers it a product in its own right and rather sees it as a sales tool. In a way the Minis should perform as well as the MBP or better.
In a nut shell I don't have a problem with an entry level Mini even if Apple is RAM stingy. What I have a problem with is the offerings above that that are at best a bit of a joke as far as value for the buck goes. I don't even mind that the Mini is a laptop equivalent in a box, I'd do expect a significant performance delta when buying the unrated model though.
Well being that they built in an HDMI port in all of the minis for HDTV hookup and showed that on their website as well as how to add memory, those are two things that they have going for it.
I'd be surprised if it sold well. It's a great computer but Apple are terrible at selling it.
You got that right! Sometimes I think Apple is ashamed to have the Minis in its stores. Apple would rather have third parties move the product.
If you walked into an Apple Store, even if you were impressed by the $599 price, if you tried to walk out with a full kit, you'd have no choice but to spend:
Mac Mini - $599
27" Cinema display - $999
You would think that Apple would team up with a third party and offer a non branded 20" monitor for say $250. These days $250 for a no frills monitor is expensive.
Not exactly cost competitive is it. This might be why third parties actually have lots of luck selling the Mini as it can be offered up with a decent monitor at a much better price.
Why bother when all of the iMacs are better value than that?
It isn't just the iMacs, every laptop they offer is a better deal, Especially if you are looking for an all Apple installation. Even the AIRs offer better value.
While there are shoppers who know how to look for an affordable setup, it's not your average buyer.
Sometimes I wonder if the average buyer even knows that the Mini exists.
Now, 3rd parties offer 23" IPS displays for $200-300 so that's at least $700 less, making the total $867-967, which undercuts the entry iMac by $230-330. Apple should start stocking 3rd party displays in their stores if they aren't prepared to make an affordable 23" display themselves.
I'm pretty much convinced that Apple sees the Mini as a third party solution, the lack of a reasonable Apple monitor highlights this point. Really at the near by Apple store the Mini is actually hard to find in the store. Then there is the hilarity of trying to sell people on the entry level Mini by attaching a $1000 monitor. Maybe this is Apples sense of humor coming through.
So yeah Apple needs to work this out in some manner, either by offering a third party entry level display or making one themselves.
Well being that they built in an HDMI port in all of the minis for HDTV hookup
Actually that has been a big factor in the Minis success. Many people use it as a home theater PC. Unfortunately that means it isn't being used as a general purpose Mac.
and showed that on their website as well as how to add memory, those are two things that they have going for it.
Not really, the ease of adding RAM is nice but what isn't so nice is the need toads RAM in the first place. Apples stinginess with RAM is probably one of the biggest negatives when it comes to Apples desktops in general but is extremely bad in the Mini. By the time you are done allocating for video and system you have a base Mini with about 1.5 GB of RAM available which is pathetic in a desktop that ships at $600.
Also yes, I was sending a wake-up call : P
There does seem to be light at the end of the tunnel though. If one looks at the new laptops that came out it does look like Apple is starting to get a clue here. So maybe the next Mini will address the RAM issue and ship in such a way that it can actually run Mac OS well. So maybe this means Apple got a wake up call a little while ago and will ship a respectable Mini.
I think people are being optimistic discussing a 2012 Mac Mini. I think it will stay as it is until mid-2013 when Apple will merge together the Mac Pro and Mac Mini lines into a single new pro product. Until then, Apple can enjoy increased profit margins on existing hardware as components costs continue to fall but prices remain the same.
…Apple will merge together the Mac Pro and Mac Mini lines into a single new pro product.
Why in the world would they kill a consumer product that sells well and a pro product that sells well (enough for its demographic) to make a worse "pro" product that doesn't appeal to anyone but the "xMac" crowd, which currently consists of about 20 forum members?
I think people are being optimistic discussing a 2012 Mac Mini. I think it will stay as it is until mid-2013 when Apple will merge together the Mac Pro and Mac Mini lines into a single new pro product. Until then, Apple can enjoy increased profit margins on existing hardware as components costs continue to fall but prices remain the same.
After the Mac Pro fiasco anything is possible.
However the Mini could easily be morphed into something that makes more sense in Apples product line up. Plus if Apple had any sense they would offer up a Mini bundle. By bundle I mean a box that is 100% ready to go when unpacked.
Now I could see Apple offering up a common box upon which they cover to completely different classes of uses. One class would be high performance computing, in otherwords a Mac Pro replacement. The other being midrange desktop users. The idea being to use a common platform to comtrol costs. However this would not really be a Mini.
Sometimes my imagination runs away from me but imagine that Apple and Intel have teamed up to work on a MIC product designed for the desktop user. Instead of 50 + cores that Xeon Phi - Knights Corner supposedly has, lets imagine a smaller processor of let's say 24 cores going into a Mini or iMac or we could go to twelve cores, whatever is required power wise. So instead of getting a GPU the Mini gets a 24 core co-processor / vector processor. Again bits and pieces of info has my mind running wild, but as we have seen with TB, Apple and Intel can work together in secret.
Comments
It's used for storing textures and caching data in Motion - some games you won't be able to play with high quality textures as they can't all fit into memory, even if the GPU is fast enough to render them. 256MB video memory is a poor amount of video memory. The minimum for any system these days should be 512MB. With Apple's move towards high resolution displays, they should be moving towards that.
The HD 4000 allocates 384MB if you have 4GB RAM and 512MB if you have 8GB RAM so dedicated GPUs should be starting out with 512MB.
1GB is probably overkill for the 6630M but not 512MB. There's no harm in it really, it's like having too much system memory, the more the better.
Worst case scenario would be 256MB 630M. Personally, I want to see a 512MB 640M at least and 1GB would be great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's used for storing textures and caching data in Motion - some games you won't be able to play with high quality textures as they can't all fit into memory, even if the GPU is fast enough to render them. 256MB video memory is a poor amount of video memory. The minimum for any system these days should be 512MB. With Apple's move towards high resolution displays, they should be moving towards that.
The HD 4000 allocates 384MB if you have 4GB RAM and 512MB if you have 8GB RAM so dedicated GPUs should be starting out with 512MB.
1GB is probably overkill for the 6630M but not 512MB. There's no harm in it really, it's like having too much system memory, the more the better.
Worst case scenario would be 256MB 630M. Personally, I want to see a 512MB 640M at least and 1GB would be great.
Apple markets quite a lot on simplicity, just works, etc. I agree with you that they should never dip below an amount that can be allocated to integrated graphics. Even at the time of release last year, this was an incredibly poor amount. Seeing as ram allocation doubles each time, 512 could have been at least acceptable last year. I dislike when Apple tries to force shorter upgrade cycles by sneaking in artificial limitations where some people will not notice them. I get it. They're pushing the laptops, but these could be some awesome little boxes. I wish they'd run them off power bricks too for quieter operation. A brick is a lot more annoying with a portable machine than one designed for stationary use. Anyway I don't feel they should be such a step down in spec desirability from the lower imacs which do include a display, keyboard, and mouse. If they were only marketed as home servers, that would be different.
It is a function of software requirements. If the software you are interested in won't run without xxx MB of RAM the actual GPU chip means nothing. Granted at times reccomendations are just that but some software does need what it demands in the way of VRAM.
As to making sense on a 6630M, it comes down to this; for some of us the upgrade wasn't worth the price being charged in the Mini. If the apps you use or are looking at require 512MB or more VRAM, the Mini is immediately disqualified due to its configuration. So the Mini due to its configuration is kept from running more demanding apps, that doesn't make sense.
Do you mean in the next Mini or it's replacement? If so it is a tough guess, Apple could go back to Integrated only Minis for all we know. Ivy Bridge is much better in this regard so it is possible though I'd hate to see it happen. I mainly want to avoid Ivy Bridge graphics right now until they have been proven in the field. Further I'm thinking we will have to wait until Mountain Lion before we really have a solid grasp on how well Ivy Bridge integrated graphics work on the Mac.
As a slight digression here realize that Apples video drivers while stable are not fast. Even Linux machines can outperform Apple hardware in side by side GPU benchmarking. That is rather alarming if you think about it as in general GPU drivers under Linux suck. This is another reason to be up in arms over Apples puny VRAM allocations.
In any event back to your question, will the next Mini come with a 640M and 1GB of VRAM. With some confidence I can say no, but would love to be proven wrong. It is a matter of Apples attitude to the Mini (which could change) that seems to be that the Mini must always be configured to be the poorest performing machine in the entire line up. That would rule out the 640m right away.
This is actually rather sad as I see no reason to keep the high end Mini down. It could be easily configured to be close to equal to the low end MBP but is consistently marketed with rather pathetic performance relative to its siblings in the lineup. Some have speculated that this is a thermal / power limitation which is very possible. If so Apple needs to invest a buck or two into a larger fan for the high end model. Frankly lots of excuses are heard that mean little, because if true it is a sign of engineering laziness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Again it would be nice to have at least one slot for an SSD. However smaller is the wrong direction to go for this platform.
Here is what I'd like to see:
A slightly larger case to offer up more room for a powersupply bulk up. This would allow for some of the features that are needed below.
We still need a model with a descrete GPU, however if Apple screws us again I can't see a rush in sales. So the descrete GPU needs to be an upper midrange model with at least 512 MB of VRAM and preferably 1GB. The midrange GPU and RAM is in part the reason for a bigger box/power supply.
I agree quad cores should be a priority but I'm not sure Intel has one suitable for the machine. I'd actually like to see AMDs Trinity processor in the Mini as the GPU would be a huge win for the Mini. In any event I want to see laptop processors in the machine but I do wish that they could support high wattage units. The Mini should be close to equal to Apples laptop lines performance wise.
at least two TB ports.
USB 3 obviously.
SSD over PCI Express. Hopefully Apple defines a card format that wors on the Mini, iMac and the coming Mac Pro replacement. Apples new laptops are demonstrating rather impressive SSD performance right now, it is obvious that SATA will soon need to be replaced.
Bulk storage is still a real need so two bays for magnetic drives are required.
An expansion slot.
Hardware theft protection, so that the machine can always be found on the Internet.
Plenty of RAM capacity. Ideally expansion to 32 GB. Further ship the damn machine with at least 4GB of RAM IN THE BASE MACHINE. Apple has spent far to many years selling this thing without enough RAM. Use desktop RAM modules.
Note that this is only slightly more than the current machine, with a strong emphasis on the currently poor GPU implementation. The expansion slot could be a completely different format for all I care, the goal is a port to allow customization of the machine.
Of all Apples desktops I see the Mini as the best of their desktops right now. Unfortunately that isn't saying much as the machine is chronically underpowered even when paying extra for an upper tier model. Without much effort Apple could turn the machine into a far more desirable computer.
What you are asking for might be called the "Mini-Max" which obviously needs a new and larger enclosure. I like it, but that convinces me that the chances of Apple making such a model are something approaching zero which is too bad because not everyone wants the smallest imaginable box or the all-in-one of the iMac. Actually, there have been calls for a small tower for a very long time and you can see how Apple have responded.
The mini is the least expensive Mac you can buy so why does are sales for it pretty bad. Is $599 still too high a price point for the specs it offers on the base model?
I am not sure anyone can say if sales for the mini are bad or not; I was not so sure Apple broke out individual model sales of the Macs, I personally think that the whole experience that comes from using a Mac is well worth $599-$1000; however I do not feel constrained from spending some money, so someone's milage may vary :-P
I'd be surprised if it sold well. It's a great computer but Apple are terrible at selling it. If you walked into an Apple Store, even if you were impressed by the $599 price, if you tried to walk out with a full kit, you'd have no choice but to spend:
Mac Mini - $599
27" Cinema display - $999
cheapest keyboard - $49
cheapest mouse - $19.95
total = $1667
Why bother when all of the iMacs are better value than that? While there are shoppers who know how to look for an affordable setup, it's not your average buyer.
Now, 3rd parties offer 23" IPS displays for $200-300 so that's at least $700 less, making the total $867-967, which undercuts the entry iMac by $230-330. Apple should start stocking 3rd party displays in their stores if they aren't prepared to make an affordable 23" display themselves.
If it wasn't for the allocated RAM the base model isn't that bad. That is sad too as more RAM would cost Apple a few bucks these days.
What bothers me about the Mini isn't the base model as every company needs an entry level machine. Rather it is the uprated models that Apple is soaking users for that is bothersome. For all that extra cash there is an expectation that you will atually get something of value for it. In this regards if you look at the Mini with the GPU, you are paying a lot ($200$) for for very little in the way of descrete GPU and a minor CPU bump. Frankly it is pathetic. The same thing applies to the server model, here you are paying even more ($400) for a minor upgrade to quad core, a slow quad core at that.
Waking us up are you?
When released the Minis aren't priced too good considering the performance installed but are extremely short on RAM. Sadly Mac OS these days requires a lot of RAM to really work well. I say "performance installed" because it looks like Apple purposefully restricts the performance of the Mini to force up sales. I'm not even sure Apple considers it a product in its own right and rather sees it as a sales tool. In a way the Minis should perform as well as the MBP or better.
In a nut shell I don't have a problem with an entry level Mini even if Apple is RAM stingy. What I have a problem with is the offerings above that that are at best a bit of a joke as far as value for the buck goes. I don't even mind that the Mini is a laptop equivalent in a box, I'd do expect a significant performance delta when buying the unrated model though.
Also yes, I was sending a wake-up call : P
I'm pretty much convinced that Apple sees the Mini as a third party solution, the lack of a reasonable Apple monitor highlights this point. Really at the near by Apple store the Mini is actually hard to find in the store. Then there is the hilarity of trying to sell people on the entry level Mini by attaching a $1000 monitor. Maybe this is Apples sense of humor coming through.
So yeah Apple needs to work this out in some manner, either by offering a third party entry level display or making one themselves.
There does seem to be light at the end of the tunnel though. If one looks at the new laptops that came out it does look like Apple is starting to get a clue here. So maybe the next Mini will address the RAM issue and ship in such a way that it can actually run Mac OS well. So maybe this means Apple got a wake up call a little while ago and will ship a respectable Mini.
Why in the world would they kill a consumer product that sells well and a pro product that sells well (enough for its demographic) to make a worse "pro" product that doesn't appeal to anyone but the "xMac" crowd, which currently consists of about 20 forum members?
Well let's hope so.
The big problem is that sort of Mini should be shipping now. RAM has never been so cheap and Mac OS certainly could use it.
After the Mac Pro fiasco anything is possible.
However the Mini could easily be morphed into something that makes more sense in Apples product line up. Plus if Apple had any sense they would offer up a Mini bundle. By bundle I mean a box that is 100% ready to go when unpacked.
Now I could see Apple offering up a common box upon which they cover to completely different classes of uses. One class would be high performance computing, in otherwords a Mac Pro replacement. The other being midrange desktop users. The idea being to use a common platform to comtrol costs. However this would not really be a Mini.
Sometimes my imagination runs away from me but imagine that Apple and Intel have teamed up to work on a MIC product designed for the desktop user. Instead of 50 + cores that Xeon Phi - Knights Corner supposedly has, lets imagine a smaller processor of let's say 24 cores going into a Mini or iMac or we could go to twelve cores, whatever is required power wise. So instead of getting a GPU the Mini gets a 24 core co-processor / vector processor. Again bits and pieces of info has my mind running wild, but as we have seen with TB, Apple and Intel can work together in secret.