Why there's no 670mx BTO option for hi-end 21.5?

[kaellar]

The thing I noticed is the fact that my maxed-out 21.5 doesn't get hotter than 75C/70C for CPU/GPU respectively under full load (OCCT) while being pretty silent.
Keeping in mind, that 650m in 2012 iMac is pretty overclocked (as rMBP's one), it's TDP probably goes around 55W instead of 45W stock.
670MX has 75W TDP. Assuming the fact that cooling system is pretty much an overpower for its components, the question is - why there's no 670MX BTO?
What do you guys think? And btw, who would like to get an iMac with that kind of GPU?

[parrafin]

Originally Posted by kaellar

The thing I noticed is the fact that my maxed-out 21.5 doesn't get hotter than 75C/70C for CPU/GPU respectively under full load (OCCT) while being pretty silent.
Keeping in mind, that 650m in 2012 iMac is pretty overclocked (as rMBP's one), it's TDP probably goes around 55W instead of 45W stock.
670MX has 75W TDP. Assuming the fact that cooling system is pretty much an overpower for its components, the question is - why there's no 670MX BTO?
What do you guys think? And btw, who would like to get an iMac with that kind of GPU?

The problem lies with space, the better GPUs require more power which generates more heat therefore requiring a much larger heat sink, passive cooling mechanism, fans or whatever. In the 27" they have much more room to play with so can include the better chips.

This is another reason why 13"MBPs don't have a dedicated GPU, they wouldn't be able to keep the form factor.

In the history of Apple's BTO range in terms of iMacs, they have always only had RAM and HDD options for base models (21.5 and 27) and left the CPU upgrades for the higher models, with only the high end 27" being given the option of a GPU upgrade.

Also, if the iMacs had a 670MX BTO option, there will always be people who would say 'Why there's no 680MX BTO option for hi-end 21.5?'. The majority if people using a 21.5" aren't professional users or gamers, therefore have no need for a more powerful card, the 650M is usually more than enough.

[kaellar]

Originally Posted by parrafin

The problem lies with space, the better GPUs require more power which generates more heat therefore requiring a much larger heat sink, passive cooling mechanism, fans or whatever. In the 27" they have much more room to play with so can include the better chips.

But from what I see, the cooling system HAS the room/handicap/whatever for hotter components. The motherboard space is also not an issue, teardown photos show the components located very freely on it.

From my POV it's pure marketing - "you don't need more powerful GPU in smaller iMacs". I disagree. You don't have to be a pro gamer to take an advantage of more GPU power, since 650m barely satisfies casual gamer's needs assuming it has to deal with FullHD all the time.

The number of those who want more powerful GPU in 21.5 iMac is much higher than the number of those who have money and/or desk space for top end 27 iMac.

[mikeorchard]

Originally Posted by kaellar

But from what I see, the cooling system HAS the room/handicap/whatever for hotter components. The motherboard space is also not an issue, teardown photos show the components located very freely on it.

From my POV it's pure marketing - "you don't need more powerful GPU in smaller iMacs". I disagree. You don't have to be a pro gamer to take an advantage of more GPU power, since 650m barely satisfies casual gamer's needs assuming it has to deal with FullHD all the time.

The number of those who want more powerful GPU in 21.5 iMac is much higher than the number of those who have money and/or desk space for top end 27 iMac.

Nope, you're wrong.

[ihuman:D]

Originally Posted by mikeorchard

Nope, you're wrong.

Nope, you're wrong.

[forty2j]

Now now children.

Marketing, particularly ensuring limited choices are available, is probably a large part of it. Apple is very careful not to scattershot the market with every possible offering, both to eliminate some analysis paralysis from the consumers and to reduce supply chain complexity. While a 21" 670MX would be a tempting offering for many, they figure most who spring for the extra GPU would spring for the extra screen real estate as well.

[kaellar]

Originally Posted by mikeorchard

Nope, you're wrong.

Any arguments? Nope? Ok. Very interesting POV bro..

----------

Originally Posted by forty2j

While a 21" 670MX would be a tempting offering for many, they figure most who spring for the extra GPU would spring for the extra screen real estate as well.

Yep, that's what pisses me off the most.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by kaellar

But from what I see, the cooling system HAS the room/handicap/whatever for hotter components. The motherboard space is also not an issue, teardown photos show the components located very freely on it.

From my POV it's pure marketing - "you don't need more powerful GPU in smaller iMacs". I disagree. You don't have to be a pro gamer to take an advantage of more GPU power, since 650m barely satisfies casual gamer's needs assuming it has to deal with FullHD all the time.

The number of those who want more powerful GPU in 21.5 iMac is much higher than the number of those who have money and/or desk space for top end 27 iMac.

Apple has always limited configurations and bundled upgrades. It's profitable for them, regardless of what they could do. Unfortunately that is the way it is. If you want to order a Mac, it has to fall within the configurations that are offered.

[mikeorchard]

Originally Posted by kaellar

Any arguments? Nope? Ok. Very interesting POV bro..

I find it hard to come up with arguments to counter statements like "The number of those who want more powerful GPU in 21.5 iMac is much higher than the number of those who have money and/or desk space for top end 27 iMac" which are just plucked out of thin air without any basis in reality.

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest that maybe Apple have a better idea of the cooling capacity and requirements of the 21.5" model with 675MX chip than a customer on an internet forum. I'm also going to suggest that Apple have a better idea of how much space the motherboard has to accommodate the extra components for such chip. I'm also going to suggest that Apple have the past decades worth of sales figures for every Mac that's ever been released and therefore use them to decide which models sell best with which configurations and which make the most money.

In summary, Apple knows more than any of us on this forum. It may be marketing, it may be profit motivated, it may be that the 21.5" model doesn't have the technical requirements for a more powerful GPU like the 675MX, either way it doesn't really matter and this thread was pointless from the start.

[parrafin]

Originally Posted by kaellar

But from what I see, the cooling system HAS the room/handicap/whatever for hotter components. The motherboard space is also not an issue, teardown photos show the components located very freely on it.

From my POV it's pure marketing - "you don't need more powerful GPU in smaller iMacs". I disagree. You don't have to be a pro gamer to take an advantage of more GPU power, since 650m barely satisfies casual gamer's needs assuming it has to deal with FullHD all the time.

The number of those who want more powerful GPU in 21.5 iMac is much higher than the number of those who have money and/or desk space for top end 27 iMac.

That non existent 'room' in the iMac you're referring to would be eliminated when a 675MX GPU is added. Combined with the increased power rating and heat, they have a problem.

How can you say that the components are sitting 'freely' within the computer? Considering the lengths Apple goes to for form factor and disregard for user serviceability, do you really think they would allow components to sit freely as you describe, or have a smaller design? The teardown pics of both 27 and 21.5 show good use of space, just because the logic board itself is small doesn't mean that components are sitting freely.

I didn't mention 'pro gamers', they would be using windows machines designed for gaming, unlike Macs. Also, a 650M isn't a bad card. Many professionals are more than happy with the performance in 15 MBPs with similar resolutions (16XXx1050).

Your next point is totally irrelevant and wrong, I'm not even going to bother commenting on it.
-I will say that 1080p is no longer 'full HD', but is now classed as HD ready, 1440p is now Full HD standard.

[kaellar]

It looks like you folks didn't even bother yourselves to read my posts and just began to confront.

First of all, there's no talk about 675mx, which is 100+W TDP card. It's about 670mx which is only 20-25w higher TDP than iMac's OC'd 650m.

I'm talking about cooling system handicap because I see my iMac being able to cool its internals really easily.
I can bring you an example - it's Clevo p150e enclosure my friend has. He bought it with 660m first. Its performance wasn't enough for him plus the cooling system seemed to not even notice it had a graphics card under load. So he switched his 660m (which has lower clocks than iMac's 650m) to 670mx with Deviltech and now has no problem with it.

When I said "freely" I didn't mean all the internals, I meant the motherboard PCB utilization only. Compare MBA's or rMBP's motherboard photos to iMac MB's ones and you'll get what I'm trying to say.

P.S. 1080p IS FullHD. 1440p is 1440p, no more no less. What is THAT obviously wrong with me saying that not everyone needs 1440p screen to play games with better comfort than 650m can provide?

[throAU]

Because apple don't do infinite variations of customizaton for any of their products.

Technical reason or not - you get 2-3 variations of the product line and that's about it. Maybe a couple of minor BTO tweaks, but nothing major.

They picked a few configurations based on criteria only known to apple (and I'm sure will include shipping X volume of a component to get a good price to maintain their margins instead of heaps of different variants - this is one major reason why their margins can be so high).

[njean777]

Its is because they want more money. That is your answer you are looking for. Also if apple wanted they could fit a dedicated gpu in the 13in MBP, Asus did it, Apple most certainly can as well.

[parrafin]

Originally Posted by kaellar

It looks like you folks didn't even bother yourselves to read my posts and just began to confront.

First of all, there's no talk about 675mx, which is 100+W TDP card. It's about 670mx which is only 20-25w higher TDP than iMac's OC'd 650m.

I'm talking about cooling system handicap because I see my iMac being able to cool its internals really easily.
I can bring you an example - it's Clevo p150e enclosure my friend has. He bought it with 660m first. Its performance wasn't enough for him plus the cooling system seemed to not even notice it had a graphics card under load. So he switched his 660m (which has lower clocks than iMac's 650m) to 670mx with Deviltech and now has no problem with it.

When I said "freely" I didn't mean all the internals, I meant the motherboard PCB utilization only. Compare MBA's or rMBP's motherboard photos to iMac MB's ones and you'll get what I'm trying to say.

P.S. 1080p IS FullHD. 1440p is 1440p, no more no less. What is THAT obviously wrong with me saying that not everyone needs 1440p screen to play games with better comfort than 650m can provide?

Yes, I put down 675MX rather than 670MX - my bad. The problem with that train of thought is that when you get into the mindset of saying 'its only another 5 Watts' or 'its only another 10 watts', then every major component is increased and the iMac is suddenly very power hungry and hot. They have to draw the line somewhere, and amongst other reasons (wanting more money) they don't allow BTO card upgrades for 21.5 iMacs.

As I've been saying, it's not all about cooling! It's about space as well! And money! And profit margins!

Comparing it to a PC is hardly fair, they've always have and always will be easier to upgrade, also having changeable PSUs makes things easier.

I am aware that compared to MBA and rMBPs they are a bit more spread out on the board, but compare that to a $2000 gaming PC and you'll see why I was questioning your use of free, which I believed was reffering to amount of free space.

Many TV manufactures are releasing 1440p TV sets, and putting 1080p ones in their 'HD Ready' categories on their sites. That's where my reasoning came from

[kaellar]

Originally Posted by parrafin

Comparing it to a PC is hardly fair, they've always have and always will be easier to upgrade, also having changeable PSUs makes things easier.

I actually didn't compare it to a PC. I compared it to the laptop, which is far more fair, I believe