If they solder in the RAM in the $600. desktop, and allow upgradable RAM in the $3000. desktop, how does that work?
You're going to have to pay a premium if you want the privilege of upgrading your own RAM which if they make prices too high, you might as well buy the Pro. : P
Same as it has been for a few years now. It isn't overpriced, especially when you look at the stats on any comparable system that is actually of anywhere close to the same size. The price is fine, but if they could get it any lower, of course that would be better for the consumer.
If they solder in the RAM in the $600. desktop, and allow upgradable RAM in the $3000. desktop, how does that work?
Very well really. That $3000 machine supplies you with pro features. A Mini is not in the same category at all.
But look at it this way, APUs be they made by AMD or Intel all suffer from the same problem that is not enough bandwidth to main memory to realize all the performance the GPUs are capable of. Intel partially solves this problem by installing a cache chip inside the chip package. AMD has gone a different route in some of its chips. Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices. This is why coming DRAM standards REQUIRE that the DRAM be soldered to the mother board in their faster incarnations.
So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM. The net result is that sooner or later your low cost PC hardware will come with the DRAM soldered in. It is the only way to get the performance that the APU chips are capable of.
On the Mac Pro you have an entirely different architecture. As such Apple can hold off with soldered in DRAM, well for the CPU they can. It looks like GPU ram is soldered in.
Honestly I'm not sure where the idea of an upside down product matrix comes from. Upgrade able RAM isn't really a big deal in the consumer world.
Same as it has been for a few years now. It isn't overpriced, especially when you look at the stats on any comparable system that is actually of anywhere close to the same size. The price is fine, but if they could get it any lower, of course that would be better for the consumer.
It would be better for Apple too. Just look at today's report, the strong points with respect to Mac sales are the iMac and the AIR. The Mini is really hurting and one reason is the perception that it is expensive. As you note one is actually getting a fairly good deal but it could be better. Actually it needs to be better to generate new demand.
It would be better for Apple too. Just look at today's report, the strong points with respect to Mac sales are the iMac and the AIR. The Mini is really hurting and one reason is the perception that it is expensive. As you note one is actually getting a fairly good deal but it could be better. Actually it needs to be better to generate new demand.
Mac sales are always dominated by the MBA and iMac. This is nothing new. Nor is there any indication that the mini is "really hurting" beyond the usual "man, they're gonna have to update this soon so I'm going to wait before I buy" issues at the end of every product cycle.
As far as Apple is concerned if they sell more iMacs instead of Mini's this is not a big problem.
But look at it this way, APUs be they made by AMD or Intel all suffer from the same problem that is not enough bandwidth to main memory to realize all the performance the GPUs are capable of. Intel partially solves this problem by installing a cache chip inside the chip package. AMD has gone a different route in some of its chips. Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices. This is why coming DRAM standards REQUIRE that the DRAM be soldered to the mother board in their faster incarnations.
Given the fact that we have faster and faster RAM DIMMS every few years means this statement is categorically false. The DDR spec goes from 100Mhz socketed DDR-200 (aka PC-1600) with 10 ns cycle times to 200Mhz DDR-400 (aka PC-3200) with 5ns cycle times.
DDR4 is coming this year and much faster than DDR3 and DDR4 is obviously NOT not soldered on to the motherboard. AMD is supporting DDR4 this year as is Intel with Haswell-E.
What you can't do with DIMMs is so tightly tune memory, memory controller and CPU to maximize RAM performance because you don't know what memory is going to get slotted in. This is how Apple gets that extra little boost to almost 100% FSB utilization which is pretty nifty.
If you're going to solder RAM in anyway for size then going this extra mile is just what Apple does and what we pay for.
Quote:
So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM. The net result is that sooner or later your low cost PC hardware will come with the DRAM soldered in. It is the only way to get the performance that the APU chips are capable of.
Except that this is false given than soldered RAM is more expensive for OEMs and the next set of standards for DDR4 means that you will see AMD APUs paired with DDR4 DIMMS late this year (unless AMD slips then early next year).
Is there even an OS X Mavericks Server out there for other Macs? If not, there should only be two Mac minis when it is finally released.
You mean a specific hardware version? The Mini is the only model with a designated server edition. The beauty of the Mini is you can build a rack system to hold multiple units, i.e. hundreds if not thousands. There are several companies who offer this service to companies who don't want the hassle of doing it in-house. You couldn't economically do that with an iMac. The new Mac Pro is a nice physical package but very few places would utilize the available computing power. It's overkill as a directory/email server. The Mini is awesome at that.
With that said, the server software is available for any device running Mavericks, so yes it can be done. Too bad Server is extremely buggy and has a lot of issues right now.
Is there even an OS X Mavericks Server out there for other Macs? If not, there should only be two Mac minis when it is finally released.
There is always an OSX server. It doesn't matter whether they market one that way or not. The configuration difference is simple enough that it's not like it holds anything up. I pointed out that Apple kind of wrote themselves into a corner in terms of shared hardware options. The cpus would be higher in cost than what they typically use. Last year that was offset by removing discrete graphics from the middle one. They only go to the nearest $99 in terms of price. If they followed the 13" and 15" rmbp cpu options, both might go up in price unless they started way on the low end of that rounding curve. I kind of doubt it.
Given the fact that we have faster and faster RAM DIMMS every few years means this statement is categorically false. The DDR spec goes from 100Mhz socketed DDR-200 (aka PC-1600) with 10 ns cycle times to 200Mhz DDR-400 (aka PC-3200) with 5ns cycle times.
We can argue all day about this but I stand by my statements. Fast RAM is truly pointless if the processor has to retrieve data from a foot away, distance impacts the speed of the devices. This doesn't even get into the issues of maintaining signal integrity.
Look at Apples A series processors and the PoP variants. That arrangement gives Apple real performance advantages.
DDR4 is coming this year and much faster than DDR3 and DDR4 is obviously NOT not soldered on to the motherboard. AMD is supporting DDR4 this year as is Intel with Haswell-E.
Yes this is true, hopefully AMD will be implementing a Kaveri variant with all four memory controller working because in the end that is the only way to get the bandwidth needed for the built in GPU. however this says nothing about my point that to implement the absolute fastest solutions you would need to solder the RAM in place.
What you can't do with DIMMs is so tightly tune memory, memory controller and CPU to maximize RAM performance because you don't know what memory is going to get slotted in. This is how Apple gets that extra little boost to almost 100% FSB utilization which is pretty nifty.
Which directly supports what I've ben saying.
If you're going to solder RAM in anyway for size then going this extra mile is just what Apple does and what we pay for.
Except that this is false given than soldered RAM is more expensive for OEMs and the next set of standards for DDR4 means that you will see AMD APUs paired with DDR4 DIMMS late this year (unless AMD slips then early next year).
That is baloney, soldered RAM should be far cheaper for the OEM. There is no need for sockets and the memory chips can be machine inserted. Of course you need a motherboard refactored for soldered in RAM but with the high integration we have in Kaveri, Haswell and Broadwell this isn't a problem anymore. In the case of AMD they very much need that faster RAM as it is pretty obvious that the processor is suffering from bandwidth issues.
I never said you wouldn't see DDR4 DIMMS in new systems, please read again what I've posted. As for AMD, it is pretty obvious that they have more capable Kaveri systems in the wind. It looks like the first release is more about backwards compatibility to support FM2+ boards. However don't believe that DDR4 is a sure thing, those Kaveri memory controller apparently can support GDDR RAMs also or it is at least being planned.
We can argue all day about this but I stand by my statements. Fast RAM is truly pointless if the processor has to retrieve data from a foot away, distance impacts the speed of the devices. This doesn't even get into the issues of maintaining signal integrity.
DDR4 will be much faster than DDR3 and you will see an impact on performance. This would mean that the speed increase is not "truly pointless".
Quote:
Yes this is true, hopefully AMD will be implementing a Kaveri variant with all four memory controller working because in the end that is the only way to get the bandwidth needed for the built in GPU. however this says nothing about my point that to implement the absolute fastest solutions you would need to solder the RAM in place.
No. Your statement was:
Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices.
This is false. A 5-10% improvement between socketed and non-socketed DDR3 will be eclipsed by the speed improvement by going to DDR4.
Quote:
Which directly supports what I've ben saying.
No, it doesn't because that tuning doesn't imply that socketed RAM cannot be made faster.
Quote:
That is baloney, soldered RAM should be far cheaper for the OEM. There is no need for sockets and the memory chips can be machine inserted. Of course you need a motherboard refactored for soldered in RAM but with the high integration we have in Kaveri, Haswell and Broadwell this isn't a problem anymore. In the case of AMD they very much need that faster RAM as it is pretty obvious that the processor is suffering from bandwidth issues.
No, it's more expensive because instead of one motherboard SKU from a supplier you have to deal with whatever number of memory configurations you want to sell. BTO costs will increase and the margins are already slim. I believe what Apple does is do the different motherboards in different shifts so there's no need for a parallel assembly line but that's still more work (aka money) than simply installing the desired number of DIMMs during assembly. Also any DRAM failure after installation means replacement of the MB as opposed to a DIMM swap.
Also for motherboards with 4 DIMM slots the board space could be prohibitive to fully equip the board with 32GB RAM.
For Apple with fewer models and motherboards doing 4, 8 and 16 BTO is viable...especially given the RAM markup price.
Quote:
I never said you wouldn't see DDR4 DIMMS in new systems, please read again what I've posted.
Yes, lets read what you posted:
Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices.
and
So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM.
Of course the fasted coming standard interface in 2014 is socketed DDR4 RAM which doesn't required soldered in RAM and doubles the speed of DDR3. So out of curiosity what coming standard RAM interface requires soldered in RAM that you are referring to? GDDR6? LOL.
Quote:
As for AMD, it is pretty obvious that they have more capable Kaveri systems in the wind. It looks like the first release is more about backwards compatibility to support FM2+ boards. However don't believe that DDR4 is a sure thing, those Kaveri memory controller apparently can support GDDR RAMs also or it is at least being planned.
DDR4 may or may not slip from Q4 2014 to Q1 2015 but they pretty much are a sure thing. At double the speed of DDR3 why wouldn't AMD and Intel use DDR4? Especially when the DRAM makers are all moving toward DDR4 to get higher ASPs while they can?
Using GDDR as system RAM has tradeoffs that might make sense in a console but probably not so much a computer. Much higher bandwidth but also much higher latency and much higher cost. Also larger IMC footprint. Pairing GDDR5 with a low cost APU makes little sense. The cost delta for adding GDDR5 to a APU is as much as simply putting in a discrete GPU. Even worse when using GDDR6.
Comments
You're going to have to pay a premium if you want the privilege of upgrading your own RAM which if they make prices too high, you might as well buy the Pro. : P
Way to much money for this.
Way to much money for this.
Same as it has been for a few years now. It isn't overpriced, especially when you look at the stats on any comparable system that is actually of anywhere close to the same size. The price is fine, but if they could get it any lower, of course that would be better for the consumer.
Very well really. That $3000 machine supplies you with pro features. A Mini is not in the same category at all.
But look at it this way, APUs be they made by AMD or Intel all suffer from the same problem that is not enough bandwidth to main memory to realize all the performance the GPUs are capable of. Intel partially solves this problem by installing a cache chip inside the chip package. AMD has gone a different route in some of its chips. Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices. This is why coming DRAM standards REQUIRE that the DRAM be soldered to the mother board in their faster incarnations.
So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM. The net result is that sooner or later your low cost PC hardware will come with the DRAM soldered in. It is the only way to get the performance that the APU chips are capable of.
On the Mac Pro you have an entirely different architecture. As such Apple can hold off with soldered in DRAM, well for the CPU they can. It looks like GPU ram is soldered in.
Honestly I'm not sure where the idea of an upside down product matrix comes from. Upgrade able RAM isn't really a big deal in the consumer world.
It would be better for Apple too. Just look at today's report, the strong points with respect to Mac sales are the iMac and the AIR. The Mini is really hurting and one reason is the perception that it is expensive. As you note one is actually getting a fairly good deal but it could be better. Actually it needs to be better to generate new demand.
It would be better for Apple too. Just look at today's report, the strong points with respect to Mac sales are the iMac and the AIR. The Mini is really hurting and one reason is the perception that it is expensive. As you note one is actually getting a fairly good deal but it could be better. Actually it needs to be better to generate new demand.
Mac sales are always dominated by the MBA and iMac. This is nothing new. Nor is there any indication that the mini is "really hurting" beyond the usual "man, they're gonna have to update this soon so I'm going to wait before I buy" issues at the end of every product cycle.
As far as Apple is concerned if they sell more iMacs instead of Mini's this is not a big problem.
But look at it this way, APUs be they made by AMD or Intel all suffer from the same problem that is not enough bandwidth to main memory to realize all the performance the GPUs are capable of. Intel partially solves this problem by installing a cache chip inside the chip package. AMD has gone a different route in some of its chips. Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices. This is why coming DRAM standards REQUIRE that the DRAM be soldered to the mother board in their faster incarnations.
Given the fact that we have faster and faster RAM DIMMS every few years means this statement is categorically false. The DDR spec goes from 100Mhz socketed DDR-200 (aka PC-1600) with 10 ns cycle times to 200Mhz DDR-400 (aka PC-3200) with 5ns cycle times.
DDR4 is coming this year and much faster than DDR3 and DDR4 is obviously NOT not soldered on to the motherboard. AMD is supporting DDR4 this year as is Intel with Haswell-E.
What you can't do with DIMMs is so tightly tune memory, memory controller and CPU to maximize RAM performance because you don't know what memory is going to get slotted in. This is how Apple gets that extra little boost to almost 100% FSB utilization which is pretty nifty.
If you're going to solder RAM in anyway for size then going this extra mile is just what Apple does and what we pay for.
Except that this is false given than soldered RAM is more expensive for OEMs and the next set of standards for DDR4 means that you will see AMD APUs paired with DDR4 DIMMS late this year (unless AMD slips then early next year).
Is there even an OS X Mavericks Server out there for other Macs? If not, there should only be two Mac minis when it is finally released.
You mean a specific hardware version? The Mini is the only model with a designated server edition. The beauty of the Mini is you can build a rack system to hold multiple units, i.e. hundreds if not thousands. There are several companies who offer this service to companies who don't want the hassle of doing it in-house. You couldn't economically do that with an iMac. The new Mac Pro is a nice physical package but very few places would utilize the available computing power. It's overkill as a directory/email server. The Mini is awesome at that.
With that said, the server software is available for any device running Mavericks, so yes it can be done. Too bad Server is extremely buggy and has a lot of issues right now.
What he said! :O)
Is there even an OS X Mavericks Server out there for other Macs? If not, there should only be two Mac minis when it is finally released.
There is always an OSX server. It doesn't matter whether they market one that way or not. The configuration difference is simple enough that it's not like it holds anything up. I pointed out that Apple kind of wrote themselves into a corner in terms of shared hardware options. The cpus would be higher in cost than what they typically use. Last year that was offset by removing discrete graphics from the middle one. They only go to the nearest $99 in terms of price. If they followed the 13" and 15" rmbp cpu options, both might go up in price unless they started way on the low end of that rounding curve. I kind of doubt it.
Look at Apples A series processors and the PoP variants. That arrangement gives Apple real performance advantages. Yes this is true, hopefully AMD will be implementing a Kaveri variant with all four memory controller working because in the end that is the only way to get the bandwidth needed for the built in GPU. however this says nothing about my point that to implement the absolute fastest solutions you would need to solder the RAM in place. Which directly supports what I've ben saying.
That is baloney, soldered RAM should be far cheaper for the OEM. There is no need for sockets and the memory chips can be machine inserted. Of course you need a motherboard refactored for soldered in RAM but with the high integration we have in Kaveri, Haswell and Broadwell this isn't a problem anymore. In the case of AMD they very much need that faster RAM as it is pretty obvious that the processor is suffering from bandwidth issues.
I never said you wouldn't see DDR4 DIMMS in new systems, please read again what I've posted. As for AMD, it is pretty obvious that they have more capable Kaveri systems in the wind. It looks like the first release is more about backwards compatibility to support FM2+ boards. However don't believe that DDR4 is a sure thing, those Kaveri memory controller apparently can support GDDR RAMs also or it is at least being planned.
We can argue all day about this but I stand by my statements. Fast RAM is truly pointless if the processor has to retrieve data from a foot away, distance impacts the speed of the devices. This doesn't even get into the issues of maintaining signal integrity.
DDR4 will be much faster than DDR3 and you will see an impact on performance. This would mean that the speed increase is not "truly pointless".
No. Your statement was:
Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices.
This is false. A 5-10% improvement between socketed and non-socketed DDR3 will be eclipsed by the speed improvement by going to DDR4.
No, it doesn't because that tuning doesn't imply that socketed RAM cannot be made faster.
No, it's more expensive because instead of one motherboard SKU from a supplier you have to deal with whatever number of memory configurations you want to sell. BTO costs will increase and the margins are already slim. I believe what Apple does is do the different motherboards in different shifts so there's no need for a parallel assembly line but that's still more work (aka money) than simply installing the desired number of DIMMs during assembly. Also any DRAM failure after installation means replacement of the MB as opposed to a DIMM swap.
Also for motherboards with 4 DIMM slots the board space could be prohibitive to fully equip the board with 32GB RAM.
For Apple with fewer models and motherboards doing 4, 8 and 16 BTO is viable...especially given the RAM markup price.
Yes, lets read what you posted:
Either way there is a physical fact that you can not significantly speed up RAM subsystems with socketed devices.
and
So we have the reality that APUs, the low cost processor solution in future machines, requires a fast memory system. The second reality is that the fastest coming standard interfaces require soldered in RAM.
Of course the fasted coming standard interface in 2014 is socketed DDR4 RAM which doesn't required soldered in RAM and doubles the speed of DDR3. So out of curiosity what coming standard RAM interface requires soldered in RAM that you are referring to? GDDR6? LOL.
DDR4 may or may not slip from Q4 2014 to Q1 2015 but they pretty much are a sure thing. At double the speed of DDR3 why wouldn't AMD and Intel use DDR4? Especially when the DRAM makers are all moving toward DDR4 to get higher ASPs while they can?
Using GDDR as system RAM has tradeoffs that might make sense in a console but probably not so much a computer. Much higher bandwidth but also much higher latency and much higher cost. Also larger IMC footprint. Pairing GDDR5 with a low cost APU makes little sense. The cost delta for adding GDDR5 to a APU is as much as simply putting in a discrete GPU. Even worse when using GDDR6.
Let's go Apple.