Well if the iMac costs $1,500 with a 650M with only 512 MB, what do you propose a Mac mini with a 650M and 1 GB would cost? I predict it would be either the same or possibly even more.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How will Apple gimp the mini with Haswell?
- Thread starter Count Blah
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
well in the land of make believe.
they need make to it taller with a better fan/heatsink/psu.
so a i7 quad/650m gpu has to push 1k-1.2k.
I just don't see the gear being built. at 1k it will kill off too many iMacs and at 1.5k it will not sell. I actually think apple has decided this is a smart money move to keep things the way they are. Apple has decided to allow pc's to be a good move for people that need a big screen and a powerful gpu. they have been doing it for a decade and once in a while a mac pro would be okay as it may have a good gpu that allowed for a big screen experience. MY HT has a 2012 quad mac mini and a diy i7 3770k pc with a hd7970 gpu. I mix and match to my needs and while I would want just one computer the only one that can do what my diy pc/ mac mini can do would be a 6 core mac pro. which costs more burns more power and has a good but lessor gpu. I am resigned to doing things this way.
Not a terrible problem.
Indeed and I am happy with way things because I love the design of the unibody mini. Now hopefully Intel keeps up with big strides in integrated GPUs year after year beginning with Haswell.
yeah i have to say the 4000 is close to good enough. if haswell 4600 gpu is a 40% improvement i would be happy with it. my diy pc can hang in there for 2 or 3 years since the hd7970 can do just about all games on a 1080p screen
Where we are headed... over the next 10 years... are iPhone to iPad sized devices that you can use on the road as a phone - computer combo device and when you get home plug it into your 27" screen and use as your main computer.
In the short term 3 - 4 years the integrated gpu will get more powerful and will work it way up the 'fast enough for me' chain. Look back 10 years the laptop has replace the desktop as the primary home computer. The laptop went from being underpowered for most of us to fast enough for most of us.
Years ago there was a battle in my company CMOS single CPU chip vs ECL multi chip solution. ECL was a faster logic than CMOS but you couldn't fit as many gates on an ECL chip as you could on a CMOS chip. The CMOS solution won out because CPU's have a lot of internal connections and keeping them all on chip made the CMOS solution much faster than the multi chip ECL solution because you had to compromise and multiplex the i/o needed to connect the different parts of the CPU together when going ECL vs CMOS where all the CPU interconnections were internal.
The same will happen with external GPU vs combined CPU + GPU all in one package. Right now the external GPU still wins.. but the time will come when the efficiencies of a combined CPU + GPU package will win out.
yeah this pretty much sums it up. of course it does not fit my needs. figures.
mobile devices are so not needed for me. a 27 inch screen is not what I want.
My hope is a smaller mac pro for the ht rather then my diy pc plus mac mini setup that I have. I would have the small mac pro as a triple booter. mountain lion/ lion/windows 7 /windows 8 wait that is a quad booter. It is what I would like . I get as big a screen as I want multiple os and great graphics. Right now the mac pro is so out of date it is a joke. the diy pc/mini almost works perfectly. my need for a laptop is zero. I am awaiting a better iPad and or samsung galaxy as my mobile device.
There will always be the 1 percent for whom even the most powerful desktop machine isn't enough to get the work they need to do done in a timely fashion. I've worked on design projects where our team had almost 2000 CPUs worth of workstations and alpha servers on which to run our simulation batch jobs and we still hated the wait. To recompile the model took an hour if we spawned it over 18 CPUs and to run all our jobs took an overnight run of about 12 hours using those 2000 CPUs. We had it set up so those 2000 CPUs were not only in our computer labs but were also in the workstations of everyone in the complex who had a workstation on their desk. Jobs were sorted so less compute intensive jobs ran on the workstations and the more compute intensive jobs ran on beefier machines.
Not just CPU+GPU in the same package. With the HD 5200 variant of GT3 it looks like they might be also integrating 512MB-1GB of dedicated RAM for video to the same package also
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/10/crystalwell-is-very-wide-memory-for-haswell-gt3/#.USd6HjjO-Z4
This is similar to how some ARM chips (e.g., earlier A5 ) have 512MB of RAM in the chip package. Two dies in the same package ( one custom RAM and one CPU+GPU ) and the bandwidth problem for integrated graphics gets uncorked. Although, not quite integrated with respect to uniform memory space.
Long term this is good for the Mac Mini since there is limited space for soldered RAM ( too much horizontal space. ). Short term, that specific HD 5200 package is likely to be too expensive for the Mac Mini price point and probably a tad too high TDP. Another iteration (Broadwell shrink ) should put the part into the right place.
Apple doesn't have to do anything special to kneecap the Mac Mini. The iMac has more space (and bigger fan) so as long as the discrete GPUs also get better there will remain a performance gap between the two. The higher price point of the iMac allows for more and more expensive components while still allowing the same percentage margin. Also hotter ones also. Over time, the newest Mac mini will get better than a fixed in time iMac (or Mac Pro ).
The title of this thread is how will apple gimp the mini with haswell. I'm going to say that Apple is not gimping the mini at all. In fact, fearing that the Mini would take away sales of the more expensive iMac would be a mistake on Apple's part. Apple should look at all of their machines not as competing with another Apple machine but as competing with machines from HP, Dell, Levovo, etc.
Think design compromise. You are looking at size, weight, power, noise, cost and deciding between those. The mini just fits into a market that Apple wants to go after.
There is a world of difference between 1% seeking more power, and for the mini to be given a GPU/GT3 to allow more programs to be run at acceptable levels for the given CPU in the mini.
It can be done quite easily, but Apple won't do it. And sadder still, they won't even allow it as as a custom configuration. I think that is the issue a lot of us have when it comes to the mini. NOT giving consumers what they want, and Apple specifically choosing to put out something lesser than they could - demand for it be damned.
Wanna bet? Apple will find some new way to GIMP the mini so it is not as compelling an option as the iMac/Pro.
it is not the "1st hit" to get hooked. The Mac mini is more affordable because for lots of folks that is all they can pay for. The more expensive Mac models are not an option. That is the budget and the machine is a tool that does the job they need. For those who have limited budget and need something else, then they buy something else. Apple is OK with "only" having 7-8% of the overall PC market.
No. You confused. What is frowned upon is adding more expensive components to the Mac mini that will shrink the margins. So Mini's with more expensive CPUs , more expensive GPUs , more expensive VRAM , more expensive blah blah blah.
The mini has a price zone to hit. Price is a constraint that the vast majority of customers have to deal with. So Apple gives the products distinct zones so the products are developed for those markets.
It also has space constraints. To keep margins high it has to re-use parts that Apple buys in bulk ( laptop parts like HDDs , CPU packages , etc. ).
Or wait. The games can't get to now are more in reach of the mini over the next couple of years. Over time the mini will capture a larger share. You have the flawed notion that Apple's strategy don't have a long term component to them.
The margins means they don't have to goose sales for quarter-to-quarter or 1 year-over-year intervals. It is a long term race where the units bring in more than enough money to get to the next , better, generation. Just staying on that treadmill long term will lead to very satisfactory results.
More money should buy more performance. However, there is no need for there to be large price overlap of products. That is just needless fratricide. It is only "needed" if want to sell everything to everybody. Apple doesn't have that "need".
This is mostly just hand waving. Upgradability has to be a major issue, so make it a major issue.
Whether Mac Mini gets GT3 graphics or not is primarily an issue of how much Intel charges for GT3 and whether the GT3 graphics TDP and space requirements match that of the mini. If there are inexpensive, low space required GT3 parts then the Mini will probably get them.
As long as there is competitive AMD/Nvidia discrete solutions Apple can put a gap between the Mini and iMac using those. Even more so if the GT3 parts are more expensive. Again, it is easier to add those to the iMac than the mini due to the higher price point.
The 21.5" iMac primarily doesn't have access to the RAM is more so making the 'door' to get to the RAM harder to see more so than some other agenda. The Mini's solution to hiding the "door" to get to the RAM is quite good with respect to seeing when the mini is in normal use.
The mini is restricted to a small parts price budget than the iMac. You can invent all kinds of conspiracy theories you want but plus the reuse of laptop ( Macbook/MBP 13" like parts). Is primarily it.
I hear ya deconstruct60. My counter would simply be this...
Don't change the base makeup of the mini. No need to put the top of the line components in the base model of the mini. I agree 100% percent. Obviously the next rev, whenever that is, MUST contain the HD4600. That, other than effectively no GPU(GT1), will be the only option that would even work in a base mini setup(component price wise). We are in 100% agreement there. BUT!!! what I am saying is that many people would desire a tier 2/3 version of the mini with GT3. Either that or as an BTO option.
Your version of events are not changed if the GT3 is included in an upper tier or BTO option. The mini gets upgraded as usual with a new chipset, but those who want what haswell will bring with regards to the power of the on-chip GPU(GT3) will not be given that option, IMHO.
Why is it so bad to offer it up? Apple has purposely offered LESS, by way of GPU, in the mini than they could have. Even when it had discrete graphics, Apple purposely starved the memory, so as to have it NOT compete with the iMac.
Here, technology is advancing to the point where the on-chip GPU might be able to compete with an upper-low or LOW-mid discrete graphic setup. It would seem logical, from a consumer perspective, to offer it up in a system that has gone all built-in CPU/GPU. People would be willing to pay more for something that is obviously an improvement over base(additional tier/BTO). Apple has one compelling reason for NOT doing it, like they have with the graphics of the mini all along - so the mini does not cut into the iMac sales. In this case, Apple will GIMP the haswell mini by not offering the very good on-chip GPU version of haswell, IMHO.
Don't change the base makeup of the mini. No need to put the top of the line components in the base model of the mini. I agree 100% percent. Obviously the next rev, whenever that is, MUST contain the HD4600. That, other than effectively no GPU(GT1), will be the only option that would even work in a base mini setup(component price wise). We are in 100% agreement there. BUT!!! what I am saying is that many people would desire a tier 2/3 version of the mini with GT3. Either that or as an BTO option.
Your version of events are not changed if the GT3 is included in an upper tier or BTO option. The mini gets upgraded as usual with a new chipset, but those who want what haswell will bring with regards to the power of the on-chip GPU(GT3) will not be given that option, IMHO.
Why is it so bad to offer it up? Apple has purposely offered LESS, by way of GPU, in the mini than they could have. Even when it had discrete graphics, Apple purposely starved the memory, so as to have it NOT compete with the iMac.
Here, technology is advancing to the point where the on-chip GPU might be able to compete with an upper-low or LOW-mid discrete graphic setup. It would seem logical, from a consumer perspective, to offer it up in a system that has gone all built-in CPU/GPU. People would be willing to pay more for something that is obviously an improvement over base(additional tier/BTO). Apple has one compelling reason for NOT doing it, like they have with the graphics of the mini all along - so the mini does not cut into the iMac sales. In this case, Apple will GIMP the haswell mini by not offering the very good on-chip GPU version of haswell, IMHO.
Last edited:
They do certainly compete on price (cost). Far more folks are going to buy iMacs than Mac Pros simply because a complete system costs less than a new Mac + display.
Apple won't even let any mobile Mac get anywhere near the iPad's price zone.
That is also part of the design challenge. For a fixed price (and defacto required corporate standard margin ) how can each team put the best performance into that system that will be reliable over a long term (i.e., doesn't run too hot , or too loud , or etc. ).
It isn't so much competing against Dell, Lenovo, HP etc as opposed to identifying a fixed market of customers and selling them what closely matches their needs. Some features that the other system vendors offer can offer insights into what those primary needs are. Other features not so much. Most of the other system vendors are generally using a shotgun design everything and see what sticks strategy. They actually don't have deep insights on many of these features. Yes there is overlap in how the products are targeted, but the needs, motivations, and mechanisms for targeting are different.
It depends upon how much GT3 costs. It looks like there are going to be multiple GT3 options.
" ... The top GT3 graphics unit will be marketed as HD 5200, and slower GPUs will be branded as HD 5100 or HD 5000. ... "
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013012702_Haswell_GT3_graphics_to_launch_in_Q3_2013.html
I suspect that the lower GT3 may either be no RAM integrated into the package and representative bandwidth hit or a much smaller RAM capacity (e.g., 512MB vs 1GB ). Either of which will be reduced performance. The Intel demos at CES and other shows with GT3 being roughly on par with a 650M ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/...rformance-compared-to-nvidias-geforce-gt-650m ) it very likely was the HD5200.
They didn't purposely starved the memory. horizontally soldering memory takes looks of space. The mini is space limited. ... hence mini. You could change the mini into a different, significantly larger product, but then it wouldn't be a mini anymore.
You are arguing outside the normal for the mini. The vast majority of mini's had no discrete GPUs.
Original 2005 yes. ( 32MB VRAM G4 based so not all that surprising. )
2006 no ( Intel GMA 950 )
late 2006 no ( Intel GMA 950 )
2007 no ( Intel GMA 950 )
2009 no ( Nvidia 9400M )
late 2009 no ( Nvidia 9400M )
2010 no ( Nvidia 320M )
2011 partially ( either HD300 or discrete 6630M 256MB VRAM )
2012 no ( HD4000 )
There have been two minor forays into very limited VRAM discrete solutions. There is no "new" crippling here with the lack of discrete solutions that require VRAM.
Other than your previously mentions quest for margins. Having a longer BTO page isn't going to give them higher margins in general. It primarily adds costs and complexity to the production process. That tends to drive the options higher in price. The higher price leads to few folks selecting the options.
With the price driven high enough the BTO option will likely loose as many customers as it gains. All it primarily do is lead to "noise" and typically confusion among most customers. That tends to drive a drop to lower margins.
Relative to the previous offerings the HD4600 is a good on die GPU option.
You seem to be laboring on the point that every possible Haswell option won't be in a Mini. No, they won't. They will have a variety of price and/or TDP points that are incompatible with the rest of the min's design constraints. Apple isn't, and never has, primarily designed the mini around the GPU. That isn't going to change in the 2013 Haswell iteration.
That doesn't mean the GPU performance won't see a substantive increase.
The additional max unified RAM cap will likely also help in many cases for a wider range of users.
Yes, too many BTO options - specifically graphical improvements for the mini that many people have been clamoring for - is bad for Apple. I agree with you. Only it's not for the reasons you cite.
The 4600 will be a nice upgrade for the mini. Perhaps akin to the 3000->4000 jump. It's just that there is another option with haswell. And it's VERY doubtful that Apple would ever make it available in the mini, even though it would turn the mini into an amazing little machine that people would be buying in droves.
You say it's because adding another BTO option would be inconvenient for Apple, I say it's because Apple doesn't want the mini being THAT good.
Again, you are correct, Apple' primary design for the mini has not been around the GPU. I believe it's because they don't want to hurt the sales of the iMac/MB/MBP/MP, you think otherwise. You even cite the VERY limited discrete GPUs, yet don't see the intentional crippling of them as evidence of Apple desiring the mini to be Less than it could be.
The 4600 will be a nice upgrade for the mini. Perhaps akin to the 3000->4000 jump. It's just that there is another option with haswell. And it's VERY doubtful that Apple would ever make it available in the mini, even though it would turn the mini into an amazing little machine that people would be buying in droves.
You say it's because adding another BTO option would be inconvenient for Apple, I say it's because Apple doesn't want the mini being THAT good.
Again, you are correct, Apple' primary design for the mini has not been around the GPU. I believe it's because they don't want to hurt the sales of the iMac/MB/MBP/MP, you think otherwise. You even cite the VERY limited discrete GPUs, yet don't see the intentional crippling of them as evidence of Apple desiring the mini to be Less than it could be.
Last edited:
Spot on, the Mac Mini used to cost less than half the nearest iMac or macbook, now its almost as expensive as the entry level Airs and iMacs, if people want a "gateway" into apple its usually via an iPad or iPhone, rather than an OSX device, making the Mini +a Monitor + and adapter to use a monitor unless you spend 1000 on a thunderbolt display or use a TVset
I would argue that the Mac mini continues to get better and better at $599 than it has in the past. The exception being 2010 when they first introduced the unibody design and you were paying $700 for a Core 2 Duo processor, 320 GB HDD, and 2 GB of RAM.Yes when it first started, it was $499 and that was a good price. Perhaps they should go back to that, though I would fear they would try and slip in an i3 in it.
The minimum should be an i5 dual-core if not a lower powered i7 quad-core at 35W for $599. 4 GB is the minimum but it should 8 GB of RAM.
When my laptop blew up last year, I spent 2 months working purely on an iPad, plugged into a 23" screen with the bluetooth KB. The future isn't that far off.
I actually quite enjoyed the experience and now that I'm back on a Mini, found that my workflow has improved because it helped my identify and remove several inefficient or unnecessary things.
Think about it- consumer media for the masses, while corporate governments create content with real computers. That's very bad.
Go on. I'm curious. What do you consider a real computer and how does it relate to the mini.
Whatever MacRumors is running. The issue is the growing divide between content creation and mass consumption. Professional work is already licensed and regulated beyond reach for most people, and iOS is little more than a cable box menu to the user. This is a propagandist's dream in the wrong hands, and people won't have the tools or the bandwidth to fight back, to compete with the Pros... Good luck fighting the New York Times on a Mini.
It's related in the context of xlii's post.
The NY Times hardly means anything anymore. At least that is just my view.I see your point somewhat in the sense of people liking a shiny gadget to carry around with them instead of sitting at home but a small box with a mobile quad-core processor is nothing to sneer at.
Wrong. Shiny or non shiny little boxes will be plenty, unless you need more to control your armies of botnets which you are using to conduct DDoS attacks against the man.
Between the mini and intell NUC boxes, that is plenty of power. If someone wants to spend 500 on a shiny tablet instead of pc, that is their choice, not a limitation of their options.
Indeed. Even Tim Cook does a lot of his work on his iPad.
News on Haswell seems quite of quiet as of late. Perhaps Intel has doubled down on leaks finally?
Do you decide what's plenty of speech, soft drink, and privacy for a person? Equal rights will need equal processing power as humans advance. Governments produce Hollywood-grade propaganda and distribute it as no small citizen is capable. That's not right.