I take Kuo with more regards than I would say Digitimes and this is only because Apple has doubled down on secrecy. I am not saying they need to be completely transparent but with as much is out there about Intel and their processors, Apple needs to be a tad more open.
Hopefully the iMac has good graphics and more importantly more memory. If you want a better iMac you'll end up buying the higher end model anyway, though that's no reason to be greedy on memory.
I take Kuo with more regards than I would say Digitimes and this is only because Apple has doubled down on secrecy. I am not saying they need to be completely transparent but with as much is out there about Intel and their processors, Apple needs to be a tad more open.
I don't buy this point of view, intel is very public about its product road maps and projected release dates. All one has to do is look at what Intel is up to to get minimal times until the next Apple product release. In other words Apple can't ship unless Intel is shipping.
Hopefully the iMac has good graphics and more importantly more memory. If you want a better iMac you'll end up buying the higher end model anyway, though that's no reason to be greedy on memory.
I've never really understood Apples issues with RAM. At times they have shipped base machines that could barely run OS/X much less open an app of any capability. Even today the base machine configurations leave a lot to be desired. It isn't just main system RAM but also Video RAM, used with discrete GPUs, that comes up short.
As for good graphics I think this is an off year for significant GPU improvements from either AMD or NVidia. I would expect the next big step in mobile graphics will come with the next process node shrink. So sometime next year if TSMC is the supplier.
If they want to skimp on 512 MB for the base model I begrudgingly accept that, but the upper 21.5" and base 27" deserve 1 GB as options if not the minimum.
I don't buy this point of view, intel is very public about its product road maps and projected release dates. All one has to do is look at what Intel is up to to get minimal times until the next Apple product release. In other words Apple can't ship unless Intel is shipping.
I've never really understood Apples issues with RAM. At times they have shipped base machines that could barely run OS/X much less open an app of any capability. Even today the base machine configurations leave a lot to be desired. It isn't just main system RAM but also Video RAM, used with discrete GPUs, that comes up short.
I always wondered if it was a way to artificially drive people to shorter upgrade cycles.
I always wondered if it was a way to artificially drive people to shorter upgrade cycles.
If you are talking about RAM, I doubt it. I really see it as an example of Apple being terribly cheap. It isn't like the engineers or even the management team, don't have an idea about what is suitable for an operating system release. To me it is a nickel and dime way to squeeze a few more dollars out of a product, at the expense of long term good will. In a way though I think they have realized this as the machines with non upgradeable RAM are finally shipping with reasonable amounts of RAM. As always the desktop models lag.
If you are talking about RAM, I doubt it. I really see it as an example of Apple being terribly cheap. It isn't like the engineers or even the management team, don't have an idea about what is suitable for an operating system release. To me it is a nickel and dime way to squeeze a few more dollars out of a product, at the expense of long term good will. In a way though I think they have realized this as the machines with non upgradeable RAM are finally shipping with reasonable amounts of RAM. As always the desktop models lag.
I find for a lot of lighter use cases, cpus have been good enough for some time. Ram is different, as the minimum amount needed doesn't always offer optimal performance. It can be quite noticeable. Apple has always refreshed the desktops last. I'm not sure why they continue do this. The notebooks have grown to the point where they shouldn't need to be pushed by delaying one thing for another if that is what is happening here. I think it's a little different with the Mini. It shares components with some of the notebooks. Apple is likely to wait until those are cheap and supplies are unconstrained prior to using those cpus in their least expensive line. The gpu was somewhat of a downgrade last year. If they go with one of the cheapest options, it may still be pretty flat.
I find for a lot of lighter use cases, cpus have been good enough for some time. Ram is different, as the minimum amount needed doesn't always offer optimal performance. It can be quite noticeable. Apple has always refreshed the desktops last. I'm not sure why they continue do this. The notebooks have grown to the point where they shouldn't need to be pushed by delaying one thing for another if that is what is happening here. I think it's a little different with the Mini. It shares components with some of the notebooks. Apple is likely to wait until those are cheap and supplies are unconstrained prior to using those cpus in their least expensive line. The gpu was somewhat of a downgrade last year. If they go with one of the cheapest options, it may still be pretty flat.
Slightly off topic but I see over on www.theregister.com a company has debuted new RRAM technology to replace flash. I'm wondering if Apple will adopt such tech in 2014 on Macs or portable devices. RRAM would replace flash nicely especially in portable devices. One of the reasons I'm less and less concerned about the lack of drive bays on the Mac Pro is the rapid advancement we are seeing in different solid state technologies.
Now if we could only get Apple to put more that one of these PCI Express storage slots in its next generation of desk top products. I'm still more than a little disappointed that Apple will apparently not supply a storage socket on the second GPU in the new Mac Pro. Seems like a simple thing to do to improve the machines versatility.
Nice find. - performance is staggering. Longevity brilliant. Power consumption great. I also read the other article from the Japanaese researchers that seem to confirm the claims.
Production set to start in 2014 but volume for mass market some time away - no doubt data centres would be all over this.
When are they going to update the full length keyboard and Bluetooth keyboard.... I need a new keyboard and I don't want to buy something without USB 3.0 or Bluetooth 4.0
Can some one tell them to make one that's rechargeable using a lightning cable as well... God I hate Apple's so slow innovation.
I think Dark Defender was being somewhat sarcastic, but usb3 keyboards would allow you to plug higher bandwidth devices into extra usb ports on them. Personally I only used the keyboard ports for software licenses that required hardware dongles.
Nice find. - performance is staggering. Longevity brilliant. Power consumption great.
For Apple power consumption would be the big deal here. It is hard to say when the product would become cost effective, but late 2014 isn't out of the question as it appears production tooling is easy to integrate.
I also read the other article from the Japanaese researchers that seem to confirm the claims.
Well wear will be interesting to see over realtime. I have no doubt about the claims being basically correct. It is interesting that magnetic drive tech has been around for years, decades really, but flash could very well be a flash in the pan. Yeah I said that. We will see many solid state options in the coming years. This is why I see Apple as being on the right track dropping magnetic drives in the base Mac Pro.
Production set to start in 2014 but volume for mass market some time away - no doubt data centres would be all over this.
Volume is something you would expect to ramp overtime. In something like the Mac Pro they should be able to meet demand for that machine early on. The 2014 Mac Pro could be very interesting with 14nm technology and vast amounts of solid state storage that is incredibly fast.
This might not be the case. Remember the current Haswell based laptops, that are shipping, have processors optimized for low thermal power while bumping GPU performance considerably. This has resulted in either slight increases in CPU performance or in some cases regressions.
Depending upon the route Apple takes with the desktop machines we could see a strong CPU performance increase from higher clock rates. With so many variants of the Haswell chip and its GPU options it is hard to say for sure what Apple will put in the iMac. If the put a Haswell in the iMac with a high performance integrated GPU we might see a regression in CPU performance. If on the other hand Apple goes with one of the lesser Haswell GPUs supported by a discrete GPU we could see a performance gain. On top of all of that Intel will apparently market Haswell chips with no integrated GPU at all.
So who really knows.
The only other things that would make the iMac interesting is TB 2 support, accessibility improvements and a move to SSD only support. I can actually see TB 2 and SSD support as possible with accessibility (to the SSD and other wear parts) being wishful thinking. Even if iMacs only improvement this go around was the SSD stick from the Mac Pro it would be a significant improvement to the machine. As to GPU cards well that is interesting too as I thought AMD had "new" cards coming this fall. New cards being basically relabels for this year.
Now is that interesting? I don't know, I guess it depends upon the user. In any event I don't have a problem with what is in the machine but rather how you get to it, I just see the current iMac design as more of a joke than anything.
It's clearly not going to be more accessible now they're removed the DVD drive. And they'll eliminate the HD platter next.
Why would you want to get inside?
8 gigs of ram is more than plenty for a base model. The upper tiers are easy to upgrade ram wise.
External SSDs and the move of the Mac Pro to make storage external also counter the need to access the internals.
Apple sell, basically when all is said and done, AIO kit.
The iMac is just a more powerful iPad on a stick.
I love it though.
The next year or so should see some kick ass improvements on the iMac front from 'retina' 4k(?) screens to even more powerful gpus and SSDs as standard.
There was a time when the iMac was a 'so-so' performer. That is no longer the case. Even in the GPU area which I often derided. The 680mx was in the top 8 gpus for a while. Not bad at all...
It's clearly not going to be more accessible now they're removed the DVD drive. And they'll eliminate the HD platter next.
I have no need for a DVD drive so that I don't care about.
Why would you want to get inside?
It isn't exactly a need to get inside. What is is is a need to be able to access wear parts without becoming a magician.
8 gigs of ram is more than plenty for a base model. The upper tiers are easy to upgrade ram wise.
Is it really that difficult to make RAM or even an SSD blade accessible? SSDs actually do wear out something that doesn't really happen on a magnetic drive. If anything SSDs need to be more accessible. Beyond that who ever said 8GB is enough, the industry is ripe with people who thought that only to have their base machines eclipsed in a year or two.
External SSDs and the move of the Mac Pro to make storage external also counter the need to access the internals.
Not really! You still need to repair. Further due to their smaller size currently you could be forced into a boot drive upgrade over time.
Apple sell, basically when all is said and done, AIO kit.
The iMac is just a more powerful iPad on a stick.
Err, not really. You are talking to a heavy iPad user here. Even so I see a huge difference between how I use an iPad and my MBP.
I love it though.
The next year or so should see some kick ass improvements on the iMac front from 'retina' 4k(?) screens to even more powerful gpus and SSDs as standard.
I think SSDs as standard are closer than some expect.
There was a time when the iMac was a 'so-so' performer. That is no longer the case. Even in the GPU area which I often derided. The 680mx was in the top 8 gpus for a while. Not bad at all...
Lemon Bon Bon.
I've never really knocked iMac for its performance. I really don't like its unserviceable nature though.
Comments
Hopefully the iMac has good graphics and more importantly more memory. If you want a better iMac you'll end up buying the higher end model anyway, though that's no reason to be greedy on memory.
I've never really understood Apples issues with RAM. At times they have shipped base machines that could barely run OS/X much less open an app of any capability. Even today the base machine configurations leave a lot to be desired. It isn't just main system RAM but also Video RAM, used with discrete GPUs, that comes up short.
As for good graphics I think this is an off year for significant GPU improvements from either AMD or NVidia. I would expect the next big step in mobile graphics will come with the next process node shrink. So sometime next year if TSMC is the supplier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I don't buy this point of view, intel is very public about its product road maps and projected release dates. All one has to do is look at what Intel is up to to get minimal times until the next Apple product release. In other words Apple can't ship unless Intel is shipping.
I've never really understood Apples issues with RAM. At times they have shipped base machines that could barely run OS/X much less open an app of any capability. Even today the base machine configurations leave a lot to be desired. It isn't just main system RAM but also Video RAM, used with discrete GPUs, that comes up short.
I always wondered if it was a way to artificially drive people to shorter upgrade cycles.
If you are talking about RAM, I doubt it. I really see it as an example of Apple being terribly cheap. It isn't like the engineers or even the management team, don't have an idea about what is suitable for an operating system release. To me it is a nickel and dime way to squeeze a few more dollars out of a product, at the expense of long term good will. In a way though I think they have realized this as the machines with non upgradeable RAM are finally shipping with reasonable amounts of RAM. As always the desktop models lag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
If you are talking about RAM, I doubt it. I really see it as an example of Apple being terribly cheap. It isn't like the engineers or even the management team, don't have an idea about what is suitable for an operating system release. To me it is a nickel and dime way to squeeze a few more dollars out of a product, at the expense of long term good will. In a way though I think they have realized this as the machines with non upgradeable RAM are finally shipping with reasonable amounts of RAM. As always the desktop models lag.
I find for a lot of lighter use cases, cpus have been good enough for some time. Ram is different, as the minimum amount needed doesn't always offer optimal performance. It can be quite noticeable. Apple has always refreshed the desktops last. I'm not sure why they continue do this. The notebooks have grown to the point where they shouldn't need to be pushed by delaying one thing for another if that is what is happening here. I think it's a little different with the Mini. It shares components with some of the notebooks. Apple is likely to wait until those are cheap and supplies are unconstrained prior to using those cpus in their least expensive line. The gpu was somewhat of a downgrade last year. If they go with one of the cheapest options, it may still be pretty flat.
Slightly off topic but I see over on www.theregister.com a company has debuted new RRAM technology to replace flash. I'm wondering if Apple will adopt such tech in 2014 on Macs or portable devices. RRAM would replace flash nicely especially in portable devices. One of the reasons I'm less and less concerned about the lack of drive bays on the Mac Pro is the rapid advancement we are seeing in different solid state technologies.
Now if we could only get Apple to put more that one of these PCI Express storage slots in its next generation of desk top products. I'm still more than a little disappointed that Apple will apparently not supply a storage socket on the second GPU in the new Mac Pro. Seems like a simple thing to do to improve the machines versatility.
I also read the other article from the Japanaese researchers that seem to confirm the claims.
Production set to start in 2014 but volume for mass market some time away - no doubt data centres would be all over this.
Can some one tell them to make one that's rechargeable using a lightning cable as well... God I hate Apple's so slow innovation.
OT, but a fair question.
Theres this tho, good reviews and $59 http://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/wireless-solar-keyboard-k750-mac?crid=26
@ RobM
I think Dark Defender was being somewhat sarcastic, but usb3 keyboards would allow you to plug higher bandwidth devices into extra usb ports on them. Personally I only used the keyboard ports for software licenses that required hardware dongles.
I was trying reverse spin and genuinely trying to help
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This might not be the case. Remember the current Haswell based laptops, that are shipping, have processors optimized for low thermal power while bumping GPU performance considerably. This has resulted in either slight increases in CPU performance or in some cases regressions.
Depending upon the route Apple takes with the desktop machines we could see a strong CPU performance increase from higher clock rates. With so many variants of the Haswell chip and its GPU options it is hard to say for sure what Apple will put in the iMac. If the put a Haswell in the iMac with a high performance integrated GPU we might see a regression in CPU performance. If on the other hand Apple goes with one of the lesser Haswell GPUs supported by a discrete GPU we could see a performance gain. On top of all of that Intel will apparently market Haswell chips with no integrated GPU at all.
So who really knows.
The only other things that would make the iMac interesting is TB 2 support, accessibility improvements and a move to SSD only support. I can actually see TB 2 and SSD support as possible with accessibility (to the SSD and other wear parts) being wishful thinking. Even if iMacs only improvement this go around was the SSD stick from the Mac Pro it would be a significant improvement to the machine. As to GPU cards well that is interesting too as I thought AMD had "new" cards coming this fall. New cards being basically relabels for this year.
Now is that interesting? I don't know, I guess it depends upon the user. In any event I don't have a problem with what is in the machine but rather how you get to it, I just see the current iMac design as more of a joke than anything.
It's clearly not going to be more accessible now they're removed the DVD drive. And they'll eliminate the HD platter next.
Why would you want to get inside?
8 gigs of ram is more than plenty for a base model. The upper tiers are easy to upgrade ram wise.
External SSDs and the move of the Mac Pro to make storage external also counter the need to access the internals.
Apple sell, basically when all is said and done, AIO kit.
The iMac is just a more powerful iPad on a stick.
I love it though.
The next year or so should see some kick ass improvements on the iMac front from 'retina' 4k(?) screens to even more powerful gpus and SSDs as standard.
There was a time when the iMac was a 'so-so' performer. That is no longer the case. Even in the GPU area which I often derided. The 680mx was in the top 8 gpus for a while. Not bad at all...
Lemon Bon Bon.
But I'm obviously keen to see how the Mac Pro plays out...
Lemon Bon Bon.
I've never really knocked iMac for its performance. I really don't like its unserviceable nature though.