I’ve long considered an Apple “puck” that wirelessly connects to a monitor via Airplay. I really thought that would be a new version of the mini (perhaps called the Nano?) once the Apple silicon came out.
The Air is cool and quiet and inexpensive.
That's an Air.
So the "laptop" in this scenario is just a screen and keyboard with a wireless chip with display controller? A major issue with this idea is lag if the mini is the actual computer and the need to still be tied to the mini even wirelessly there is a limit to how far I can walk away (again without spiking lag). So I have to put the mini somewhere and then I can't leave too far from that location without picking it up again. All parts of the Air or iPad or laptop comes with me. The more things I have to independently keep track of makes any such solution inherently less mobile. For instance, even buying an external hard drive for laptop that serves not as a time machine backup but an extension of my file system would be a massive pain in the butt to constantly haul around with the laptop. Some people do that, most don't.
Those new Frore Air jets could be nice for redesigned Apple TV, Minis, and iMacs* to slim them down even more while still providing active cooling that is very nearly silent but there's no real reason to get rid of an HDMI or even more a TB/USB-C port for those designs. The USB-C style plugs are not that big - especially for a device that is largely meant to stay put (plus unless wireless charging really improves for a device that size, you'd still have to have a small power plug - which could be USB-C!). And it can still connect via Airplay if that's more to the setup's benefit. And yeah I could see the attraction of a glass/metal box communicating completely wirelessly with its monitor, mouse and keyboard (and there has been work on fully wireless monitor setups). But I'm a little dubious about the proposal above where this is a mobile setup replacing an Air.
The g3 and g4 performed decently well in the PowerBooks even against Intel's contemporary 32-bit offerings. The problem is that intel had a better roadmap that included dual-core designs that were going to offer more performance per watt and 64-bit capability with the Core2 duo lines. There was also the added impossibility of shoehorning the G5 into a laptop.
My view is that just because Intel has taken this to an extreme (pun intended), that doesn't mean there's not some room for increasing power consumption in a modest way on the Studio and MP. And given that most programs are single-threaded, I would think that they could keep the power increase modest and still achieve practically useful results (at least for the CPU) by offering a high "turbo boost" clock on just one or two CPU cores in the Studio and MP.No I understand, silicon is silicon is silicon* and I agree with you Apple seems to push the limits of what's possible with its scaling already with its base chips and would have to redesign them to scale "desktop" chips more - it's just that if as fast as SC desktop chips as possible damn the watts became the design priority, that would inexorably lead them down the same path Intel took. However, I'll admit that I've talked about boosting GPU clocks for the Ultra and hypothetical Extreme. Taken to the extreme, I guess it's not that much different philosophically, but I'll add that in the context of Apple's actual chips I'd bet raising GPU performance through clocks is more doable for more reasonable power increases than SC CPU performance is.
*Unless you're in Finland Check my post on the other site
r/Privacy awaits the intrepid. (Many surmise that this is merely limited-hangout, since there's no need for spooks to wait for the ability to do what they can already accomplish with current technology.)
You are posing this question with, as its erroneous premise, that I conveyed an impression that I believed such in my last post (where I said nothing at all about ads, app-stores, the future of a company, or its revenues).
Sorry, I'm confused! It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the issue isn't the power scaling, it's the chip's ability to be stable at higher clocks, but then how does the power scaling you're referencing inform us of this? Also, can you please supply a link--I couldn't find the data you posted.
Those benchmarks are extremely misleading, and because of that the whole argument is flawed.But even the M1 Pro
And M1 Max
Yes both them not that much faster than M1
I think the Pro is still behind the PS5 on raw GPU performance. Console games also tend to be better optimized than Mac versions of the same games. Optimization is expensive, and it makes more sense to spend that money for common platforms than for rare ones.
In my penulutimate post I was distinguishing between whether the barrier was practical (the power vs. clock curve is too steep), or absolute (chips won't run stably at higher voltage). And I was suggesting it was the latter, since even with a steep curve, I thought a Studio or MP should be able to accommodate the power and thermals for a turbo boost on just one or two cores.
Yes! About the size of a hockey puck, with lots of ports. Most of the time it’d stay connected to the monitor with a single USB power cable, and for me, also connected to an audio interface, external SSD, and musical keyboard.
