Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 5, 2013, 08:44 AM   #151
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattferg View Post
Sorry, you're mistaken. Haswell is the fourth generation, v4.

Nehalem - Sandy Bridge - Ivy Bridge - Haswell

Thus the Xeon E3-1200 v3 you mentioned is an Ivy Bridge chip.
No, the E3-1200 series only started with Sandy Bridge. V3 is Haswell.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgk.emu View Post
MR users: "Can't wait for Haswell!"
Mr users...the day of release: "What rubbish these chips are!"

820,000 people are going to have some varying opinions. The group that are happy about something that has been released are drowned out by those who are not, and those who are excited about something coming drown out those who are not (because they likely don't even post about it).
Umbongo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 08:50 AM   #152
Razeus
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hopefully the new iMac's for 2013 will have Haswell and more reasonble pricing for going with a SSD drive instead of a hard drive.
__________________

Website, Pictures & Tweets
Razeus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 05:50 PM   #153
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
Huh? The Mac mini had USB 3 support with the last refresh.
Yeah, which is when I bought one and hence my statement.

Quote:
The Mac mini (just as every other Mac) has and will receive annual updates. Apple has their update times in sync with Intel and not with Nvidia/AMD.
Apple updates the Mini when they feel like updating it. It is NOT updated when Intel updates their chips. It's usually dead last (save the Mac Pro) to get an update and hence my other point, that even when a new chipset does come out, the Mini is halfway along to the next Intel chipset release date before you can typically get one.

Quote:
Also the Mac mini is just that: a small form factor PC. If you want a gaming rig out of it I suggest to build your own, but I will still be bigger then the Mac
I never bought it for a gaming rig. I bought it as a server. However, that doesn't mean I don't want as fast a GPU as I can get, even so (I do play older games on it sometimes).

Thus, my whole point (which you seemed to have missed based on your reply) is that it'd be nice if Apple would get a timely update of the Mac Mini out instead of waiting 4-7 months. The MBP typically gets updated within a month of the Intel release, sometimes before the general release.

Quote:
There is just so much one can do in such a little enclosure.
It can do the same thing a MBP can do with a small enclosure. They could have easily included an Nvidia or ATI GPU if they wanted to (the 2011 Mac Mini had a separate GPU option). Besides, the Mini is unneccssarily small. In fact, I have no idea what they based their size dimensions on, given it's a desktop computer. They could easily make it slightly longer and include a full blown desktop GPU if they wanted to (which they apparently don't).

Quote:
The new updated integrated graphic from Haswell should be powerful enough to play games at low resolutions and medium settings, so they exactly appeal to 99% of potential customers of a Mac mini.
Which is precisely why I lamented the Haswell chipset coming out a half of a year after buying a new Mini (but as I said, the new Mini probably won't come out until somewhere between late October and December).

Quote:
If you want a better graphic either wait for Broadwell next year (which will have a new graphic uArch) or get an iMac which is bigger both in size and price.
The iMac includes a monitor I simply don't need and is therefore a waste of money.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 06:08 PM   #154
TyPod
macrumors 68000
 
TyPod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: And Yourself?
This is great! Hopefully they stick these in the iMac's sooner than later.
__________________
01010100 01111001 01101100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01001100 01101001 01100100 01100100 01101001 01100011 01101111 01100001 01110100 powerhourplaylists.com
TyPod is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 06:10 PM   #155
AutoUnion39
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Damn, Haswell looks like it will be tremendous. Maybe I should waited on my rMBP.

sigh, i'll get the next major update in a few years then
__________________
rMBP 15| MBA| riPad| TV| AEBS| 5S|Galaxies
AutoUnion39 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2013, 09:52 AM   #156
milo
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattferg View Post
Sorry, you're mistaken. Haswell is the fourth generation, v4.
That's not what Intel says. Here's their list of haswell xeons, for example Intel® Xeon® Processor E3-1225 v3

http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced...meText=Haswell


Sites like newegg are also calling these new E3 v3 has well.

Intel Intel Xeon E3-1220V3 Haswell 3.1GHz 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1150 80W Quad-Core Server Processor BX80646E31220V3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116907

Intel's numbering doesn't include a "v" for Sandy Bridge (it would be v1 but I haven't seen that designation used anywhere), Ivy Bridge is v2, and Haswell is v3. I'm not sure what made you think their "vX" numbering started with Nehalem.
milo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 12:05 AM   #157
mrxak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Drifting through space in a broken escape pod
Quote:
Originally Posted by flux73 View Post
So you don't believe Apple is testing OS X on ARM in their labs in anticipation for future ARM chips that might be powerful enough to meet their needs?

It might not happen anytime soon, but if you don't think they're considering all the possibilities several years down the road, you're the one who's crazy: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/...h-anytime-soon
OS X is already running on ARM. iOS uses the same kernel. Of course they have OS X running on some ARM chip in some lab. That doesn't mean ARM is suitable for a laptop.
__________________
Phones Will Kill You
mrxak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2013, 11:37 AM   #158
Galatian
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Berlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
Apple updates the Mini when they feel like updating it. It is NOT updated when Intel updates their chips. It's usually dead last (save the Mac Pro) to get an update and hence my other point, that even when a new chipset does come out, the Mini is halfway along to the next Intel chipset release date before you can typically get one.
Sorry for responding so late, but I only had time this friday to check Wiki for reference:
  • February 2006 - Intel Core Solo T1200 - officially released July 2006
  • September 2006 - Intel Core Duo T2300 - Speedbump
  • August 2007 - Intel Core 2 Duo T5600 - August 2006
  • March 2009 - Intel Core 2 Duo P7350 - Mid 2008
  • October 2009 - Intel Core 2 Duo P8800 - Q2 2009 (Speedbump)
  • June 2010 - Intel Core 2 Duo P8800 - Introduction Unibody
  • July 2011 - Intel Core i5 2415M - Q1 2011
  • October 2012 - Intel Core i5 3210M - June 2012

As you can see, Apple has been - within reason - using the newest chips available. Core and Core 2 had a pretty long run, but the differences were small. Other then that you can pretty much predict when Apple will release new hardware, because IT IS linked to the Intel schedule.

Quote:
I never bought it for a gaming rig. I bought it as a server. However, that doesn't mean I don't want as fast a GPU as I can get, even so (I do play older games on it sometimes).
The only time Apple released a discrete chip was in the 2011 version with the option to get the Radeon HD 6630M. While it is/was faster than the then current Intel solution HD3000, neither solution is good for gaming new games. And if you want to play older games both are equally fine. I gather this is what Apple was thinking, which is why they skipped a discrete GPU in the 2012 version. I'm not saying I don't get where you are going, but I think Apple prioritized the hardware need differently. Most people are happy with a small and quiet Mac mini. They won't need any discreet graphic card on that.

Quote:
Thus, my whole point (which you seemed to have missed based on your reply) is that it'd be nice if Apple would get a timely update of the Mac Mini out instead of waiting 4-7 months. The MBP typically gets updated within a month of the Intel release, sometimes before the general release.
I'm not going to find you the relevant informations again, but a quick comparison on wikipedia will reveal that both the Mac mini and the Mac Book Pro's received their updates on the same time frame. Granted that Mac Book Pro received a lot more speed bumps, but I hardly call them update. Big architectural changes happened synchronously (that is usually at an Apple event, which just *oh-wonder* happens always shortly after Intel released new processors.

Quote:
It can do the same thing a MBP can do with a small enclosure. They could have easily included an Nvidia or ATI GPU if they wanted to (the 2011 Mac Mini had a separate GPU option). Besides, the Mini is unneccssarily small. In fact, I have no idea what they based their size dimensions on, given it's a desktop computer. They could easily make it slightly longer and include a full blown desktop GPU if they wanted to (which they apparently don't).
Again: You are an extremely small minority. The Mac mini was always marketed as the cheapest entry into the Mac ecosystem. Apple always uses the most efficient computer components (they always use mobile graphic chips sans Mac Pro).

Quote:
Which is precisely why I lamented the Haswell chipset coming out a half of a year after buying a new Mini (but as I said, the new Mini probably won't come out until somewhere between late October and December).
Again the 2012 Mac Mini came out in October. Apple has pretty much 2 release windows: one in early Q2 at WWDC and one in late Q3. Intel had problems getting the 22nm 3D-Transitor technology up and running. Intel is actually on the 12 month tick-tock cycle, but I haven't stuck too that, because they were/are running into technical problems. The Haswell chips that will (probably) go into the 2013 Mac mini are scheduled for release in Q3. Intel had a very shattered lunch with Haswell this time around (probably because their CEO also left...). If you always want to have the newest thing at launch, you should build your own rigs. Apple has their very precise release schedule which is somewhat timed with the Intel release scheduled, which has in fact been delayed to some extent.

Quote:
The iMac includes a monitor I simply don't need and is therefore a waste of money.
Ok...again you are the small minority. It sounds like you want the mythical xMac. It will not happen. You can build yourself a hackintosh, but it in a small form factor enclosure and get your big discrete graphic card in their. That thing is just simply something that would not appeal to 99% of the Mac crowd.
__________________
iPhone 5S Gold 64 GB -- 13" retina MacBook Pro
Galatian is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2013, 04:29 PM   #159
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
The only time Apple released a discrete chip was in the 2011 version with the option to get the Radeon HD 6630M.
Not quite. The original Mac Mini G4 had an ATI 9200 in it and Apple actually marketed the fact (as if Integrated chipsets were for crap PCs only). Only with the Intel set did they move to an Integrated GPU and one wonders where all the bravado went to at the time.

Quote:
Ok...again you are the small minority. It sounds like you want the mythical xMac. It will not happen. You can build yourself a hackintosh, but it in a small form factor enclosure and get your big discrete graphic card in their. That thing is just simply something that would not appeal to 99% of the Mac crowd.
Actually, I wanted a Mini for a server. I was planning on building a Hackintosh later on for gaming and video editing, but I'm thinking a Playstation 4 may actually be a better idea seeing I could use it in my 93" home theater with 6.1 surround. The few games that don't always translate well for a console (e.g. RPG) don't always have monster requirements (e.g. Diablo 3).

But I do support the idea of an expandable Mac and think there's a substantial market for it (and don't care if it cannibalizes the iMac or Mac Mini sales seeing as if it's BETTER, it should sell better). I had some hope when Mr. Jobs died as Apple could finally move in a better direction, but it seems Steve chose his replacement based on the same vision of oh-so-pretty pretty fashion shows over technology.

As it stands now, PCI for the Mac is pretty much DEAD. There will be no Macs available by the end of the year that can use them except USED ones. This is a shame. Apple has more than enough capital to sustain a true professional, sever and even a gamer market. Even if they only broke even at best with some of those lines, they would keep Apple's reputation up and increase market share in those areas. As I've said in times past, if Apple doesn't want to make those types of machines, they could license only specific models for those markets to another company to make under strict standards (i.e. not a clone market, just outsourcing approved models to someone else).
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2013, 06:18 PM   #160
bigwig
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by junctionscu View Post
I would argue that ARM designs can't match Intel performance without completely losing their power efficiency advantage.
I would argue that Intel's power advantange is primarily a process advantage, not a CPU design one. x86, after all, has billions of transistors sucking up juice. An ARM is a fraction of that, ergo ARM power should be measurably smaller at the same clock frequency. Put ARM on Intel's 22nm process and I'd bet you'd have some interesting results.
bigwig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2013, 07:56 AM   #161
Galatian
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Berlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
Not quite. The original Mac Mini G4 had an ATI 9200 in it and Apple actually marketed the fact (as if Integrated chipsets were for crap PCs only). Only with the Intel set did they move to an Integrated GPU and one wonders where all the bravado went to at the time.
That maybe, but your point was, that the Mac minis are not timed with the Intel release pattern, so I was strictly talking about Intel Macs. Furthermore I already explained that Apple has shifted their approach to the Mac mini and made it the cheapest entry into the Mac OS X world.

Quote:
Actually, I wanted a Mini for a server. I was planning on building a Hackintosh later on for gaming and video editing, but I'm thinking a Playstation 4 may actually be a better idea seeing I could use it in my 93" home theater with 6.1 surround. The few games that don't always translate well for a console (e.g. RPG) don't always have monster requirements (e.g. Diablo 3).
If you just care for gaming, you might as well just built your own Windows gaming rig. Consoles are always a choice as well (BTW: Diablo III is announced to brought to consoles).

Quote:
But I do support the idea of an expandable Mac and think there's a substantial market for it (and don't care if it cannibalizes the iMac or Mac Mini sales seeing as if it's BETTER, it should sell better). I had some hope when Mr. Jobs died as Apple could finally move in a better direction, but it seems Steve chose his replacement based on the same vision of oh-so-pretty pretty fashion shows over technology.

As it stands now, PCI for the Mac is pretty much DEAD. There will be no Macs available by the end of the year that can use them except USED ones. This is a shame. Apple has more than enough capital to sustain a true professional, sever and even a gamer market. Even if they only broke even at best with some of those lines, they would keep Apple's reputation up and increase market share in those areas. As I've said in times past, if Apple doesn't want to make those types of machines, they could license only specific models for those markets to another company to make under strict standards (i.e. not a clone market, just outsourcing approved models to someone else).
This discussion has been going on for years. The question remains, who needs and upgradeable PC? Seriously most people buy new Computer after 3-5 years. I built my own gaming Windows gaming rig and while I certainly could upgrade there is just simply no reason too. CPU increases are (mobile aside) very small (my 4,5 GHz Core i5-3570K) is on par with Haswell and probably the Haswell refresh next year as well. Skylake will probably be faster but by what margin? 10-15% IPC increase. For desktop use that's just simply not really worth the upgrade cost. If you have a workstation where time=money sure.
The same with graphic cards. I have a 670 GTX in my rig which (at the time) offered the best bang for the buck on the green camp. It is overclocked to 680 levels so it easily competes with the 770 GTX.
DDR3 has been around for sometime as well as SATA III.
If you want to upgrade you might as well upgrade the whole computer with a new mainboard (which usually have to with a new uArch from Intel) to get all the new features (DDR4 and SATA Express comes to mind).

Also let's face it: 95% of Mac users have no clue what is running inside their Mac. Just look at all the people who think they need to completly blow all the money on the best options Apple has. There are several threads were people purchased the iMac with the big Core i7 just for gaming purpose, while Hyperthreading barely makes any difference and sometimes even slows down a game compared to an i5 without HT. Same with the graphic card. Some people actually think that the 680MX is a 680GTX desktop card. It might be comparable to a 660Ti desktop card and barely produces smooth frame rates on a 2560x1440 screen ON WINDOWS, yet alone on the bad ports that Mac games usually are, when you play newer games.

So who would need a beefier Graphic card? The non existent hardcore Mac gamers? As long as Apple is so slow in adapting newer version off Open.Gl and has nothing like Direct.X up their sleeves, Mac gaming will remain a niche at best. Apple knows this and they surely don't see pouring a lot of resources into developing a competing gaming API financially worthwhile, especially since 95% of Mac users are fine with playing Angry Birds on their Mac...

Apples hardware is about efficiency. A desktop graphic card is - compared to their mobile counterparts - not very energy efficient. Performance per Watt heavily supports mobile chips and that's where Apple is going. In fact's it's this whole package of efficiency + design + software that makes a Mac a Mac. I wouldn't pay the Apple tax if any of that were missing and neither would 99% of the Mac users.
__________________
iPhone 5S Gold 64 GB -- 13" retina MacBook Pro
Galatian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2013, 03:30 PM   #162
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
That maybe, but your point was, that the Mac minis are not timed with the Intel release pattern, so I was strictly talking about Intel Macs. Furthermore I already explained that Apple has shifted their approach to the Mac mini and made it the cheapest entry into the Mac OS X world.
I'm just pointing out a FACT that contradicts your plainly stated false claim. If you can't flipping deal with it, that's your problem.

Quote:
If you just care for gaming, you might as well just built your own Windows gaming rig. Consoles are always a choice as well (BTW: Diablo III is announced to brought to consoles).
I guess you missed the part where I said I needed a replacement server for my whole house audio/video system and that's the primary function of this Mac Mini, not a gaming rig (i.e. it fits on a desk with another computer so I can share monitor/keyboard). Gaming is just an extra. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a better GPU. Obviously, since Apple insists on using the cheapest garbage available in their computers (premium computers my arse), the GPU will only get better when Intel catches up with NVidia and ATI. Otherwise, Apple will continue to spend as little money as possible. The bottom line is a $1000 computer shouldn't be using Intel integrated graphics. Premium prices should have premium features. Apple has never seemed to truly get that when it comes to graphics.

Quote:
This discussion has been going on for years. The question remains, who needs and upgradeable PC? Seriously most people buy new Computer after 3-5 years.
You do realize that expandability does NOT just mean "upgrades". It means configurability first and foremost. You can't expect a computer maker to have someone's perfect machine right there out of the box. It's already been pointed out to you that Apple does not have any machine suitable for gaming (iMacs included which use MOBILE GPUs), let alone at a reasonable price. You could built a PC using an expandable motherboard for around $1000 that would perfectly suitable for mid-range gaming. In short, the "xMac" isn't needed so much for upgrading as it's needed to configure a machine the way a user wants it, rather than how Tim Cook thinks it should be. The worst part is that it would cost Apple next to nothing to bring one to market since it could easily use standard parts that Apple could mark up to 40%-80% more than it's worth like they do nearly everything. There is no excuse for a lack of such a machine other than Tim Cook's fashion sense won't allow it (and Jobs hated anything that wasn't slimmer than him).

Quote:
I built my own gaming Windows gaming rig and while I certainly could upgrade there is just simply no reason too. CPU increases are (mobile aside) very small (my 4,5 GHz Core i5-3570K) is on par with Haswell and probably the Haswell refresh next year as well. Skylake will probably be faster but by what margin? 10-15% IPC increase. For desktop use that's just simply not
Why would you need a new CPU? Gaming requires better GPUs by a factor of about 3. Most motherboards won't even take upgrades unless you put a sub-par CPU in there to begin with and upgrading the motherboard is almost like buying a new computer. GPU cars, on the other hand are constantly being upgraded every year and that's where an upgrade could be useful for gaming.

Quote:
The same with graphic cards. I have a 670 GTX in my rig which (at the time) offered the best bang for the buck on the green camp. It is overclocked to 680 levels so it easily competes with the 770 GTX.
And all of this has what to do with Macintoshes that aren't upgradeable at all anymore and can't be overclocked? You're only making my point that Apple has ignored the gaming market for over a decade. If there are few people buying and playing games on the Mac it's because Apple has done NOTHING to improve the situation over the years. I mean NOTHING. The guy that came up with Cider single-handedly did more for OSX gaming than Apple did in an entire decade and that's the sad truth.

Quote:
Also let's face it: 95% of Mac users have no clue what is running inside their Mac. Just look at all the people who think they need to completly blow all the
99% of Windows users are clueless too. It's besides the point. You make a Mac that has a sign next to it that says it's great for gaming, you solve the ignorance problem.

Quote:
So who would need a beefier Graphic card? The non existent hardcore Mac gamers?
You can't get hardcore Mac gamers if Apple won't provide good gaming hardware. It's a chicken/egg situation and Apple is the one that needs to fix it. The thing is that it's NOT HARD TO FIX. Just provide a simple off-the-shelf solution with a pretty case and you're done. I've seen gaming "cubes" for Lan parties that would work great. Apple has always liked cubes. They could even outsource it. There is simply no good reason to not offer that type of hardware just like there is no good reason to not offer a Mac Pro with PCI expansion. They can still push their stupid trash can design. But killing off entire markets is just plain STUPID. Ignoring an obvious market like gaming is almost as stupid. It's easier than ever to port games to OSX since the Intel switch and things like Cider. All Apple has to do is provide the hardware and perhaps a little driver tweaking. It'd cost them next to nothing to do and would make quite a few people happy. Hell, if nothing else I could at least boot into Windows to run the games on the better hardware. You can't fix crappy hardware even by using Boot Camp.

Quote:
As long as Apple is so slow in adapting newer version off Open.Gl and has nothing like Direct.X up their sleeves, Mac gaming will remain a niche at best. Apple knows this
You just created a freaking paradox now. Apple is the one that COULD update OpenGL if they wanted to! In other words, IF Apple put out a gaming rig, they COULD move on up to the latest OpenGL. It's not like they have to develop OpenGL; someone else did that FOR them.

Quote:
and they surely don't see pouring a lot of resources into developing a competing gaming API financially worthwhile, especially since 95% of Mac users are fine with playing Angry Birds on their Mac...
Look at the way games are selling for iOS. They could be selling that way for the Mac too. It's Apple's stupid fault gaming sucks on the Mac and NO ONE ELSE's. And WTF would they need a "competing API" when someone else already developed OpenGL to compete for them? All they have to do is insert the latest version into OSX. If they would let NVidia and ATI make the OSX drivers (oh no, we can't let developers look under the hood! OMG!? They might learn the secret of life!), they'd have even less resources to spend.

Apple could immediately increase OSX gaming just by putting some code into OSX that lets them run iOS games directly (like the developer kits can already do for testing). Frankly, most developers could release Mac versions with little difficulty anyway, but they don't seem to care. But Apple could easily fix it and the iPad HD versions would look great on a Mac. They've just added official joystick/pad support for iOS7 so it's even EASIER to combine the two. Not all fun games need a ton of fancy hardware, but they do need to run.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2013, 04:19 PM   #163
Galatian
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Berlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
I'm just pointing out a FACT that contradicts your plainly stated false claim. If you can't flipping deal with it, that's your problem.
Hypocrite much? I stated Apple has been on an Intel release schedule for the past several years and actually took the time to provide the relevant information after you claimed I was wrong. Now you show up and say I'm wrong become the Mac mini G4 which was powered with a non-Intel CPU, was not timed with Intel release schedule? I give up to that logic. My statement that Apple releases the Mac mini according to the Intel schedule is correct and I have shown enough evidence to prove it. You have stated one argument to disprove me and even failed to do so by bringing up a product completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:
I guess you missed the part where I said I needed a replacement server for my whole house audio/video system and that's the primary function of this Mac Mini, not a gaming rig (i.e. it fits on a desk with another computer so I can share monitor/keyboard). Gaming is just an extra. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a better GPU. Obviously, since Apple insists on using the cheapest garbage available in their computers (premium computers my arse), the GPU will only get better when Intel catches up with NVidia and ATI. Otherwise, Apple will continue to spend as little money as possible. The bottom line is a $1000 computer shouldn't be using Intel integrated graphics. Premium prices should have premium features. Apple has never seemed to truly get that when it comes to graphics.
I'm beginning to think you are a troll. It sounds like you really don't need nor want an Apple product. Apple produces well designed, small and efficient computer devices. The Mac Mini is pretty cheap. Sure you can fit a little bit better mobile graphic card in their, but anything else is just adding too much heat. And again why bother? You know 5 frames per second more on a cheap mobile graphic chipset is not going to make a game more playable compared to a game running at 15 frames per second on an HD4000 or soon to be released Iris 5200. That's the point people don't get about the AMD APUs either: If you can't hit above 30 (preferably 60) frames per second on modern games why even bother with dealing all the downsides? The downside on the Mac Mini would be higher heat output, louder fans and higher cost (remember the Mac mini is the entry to the Mac world).

That being said the Mac mini is fine just for an HTPC use. If you want more I wouldn't go Apple anyway since it doesn't even support native Blu-Ray playback. You have soooo many choices even within the Apple ecosystem (streaming to an Apple TV for example). But for some reason you insist that your Mac mini replacement should be a...Mac mini? And then you complain that it doesn't have a good graphic card...yet you say you don't really need it? I'm not sure where you're getting at, but it sounds like you should first prioritize what you actually need and purchase accordingly. Don't blame Apple for not having a product that suits you. They still do for a majority of people, otherwise they wouldn't sell.

Quote:
You do realize that expandability does NOT just mean "upgrades". It means configurability first and foremost. You can't expect a computer maker to have someone's perfect machine right there out of the box. It's already been pointed out to you that Apple does not have any machine suitable for gaming (iMacs included which use MOBILE GPUs), let alone at a reasonable price. You could built a PC using an expandable motherboard for around $1000 that would perfectly suitable for mid-range gaming. In short, the "xMac" isn't needed so much for upgrading as it's needed to configure a machine the way a user wants it, rather than how Tim Cook thinks it should be. The worst part is that it would cost Apple next to nothing to bring one to market since it could easily use standard parts that Apple could mark up to 40%-80% more than it's worth like they do nearly everything. There is no excuse for a lack of such a machine other than Tim Cook's fashion sense won't allow it (and Jobs hated anything that wasn't slimmer than him).
I don't know how you can state that but if I put together a system comparable to an iMac including an precalibrated IPS panel, loudspeaker, a good touchpad/touchmouse and keyboard, you'll end up pretty much the same money, yet without a operating system or programs.

Quote:
Why would you need a new CPU? Gaming requires better GPUs by a factor of about 3. Most motherboards won't even take upgrades unless you put a sub-par CPU in there to begin with and upgrading the motherboard is almost like buying a new computer. GPU cars, on the other hand are constantly being upgraded every year and that's where an upgrade could be useful for gaming
.

Graphics cards speed also increase in the same speed like CPU does, so you might as well exchange them all within 4 years to see tangible difference. But again that's not the point of a Mac. 99% of Mac users wouldn't even bother to open their Mac up even if they could. Why would Apple start designing a machine for a minority? That's the point you are not getting. You are implying that upgradeability or even more configurability (and let's face it Apple pretty much let's you choose from all the normal CPU choices on an iMac or Mac Pro for example on the used Intel Socket) is something Mac purchaser look for. They don't. They don't care. In fact they ask for it not be upgradeable, because they prefer a neat design that just works. And they don't care too much about a graphic card, because there simply is not big gaming going on on Mac OSX and even if Apple would put better graphic cards inside, what makes you think developers wouldn't cheap out again and use crappy ports? Mac have an even smaller install base then PCs. Why would a developer, who develop mainly for PS3 and XBox 360 and then perhaps port to PC even bother to port yet again to an even lower install base that has proven to be difficult to deal with, because their App store models suggests games that cost 5$ and not 60$ like a console version.


And all of this has what to do with Macintoshes that aren't upgradeable at all anymore and can't be overclocked? You're only making my point that Apple has ignored the gaming market for over a decade. If there are few people buying and playing games on the Mac it's because Apple has done NOTHING to improve the situation over the years. I mean NOTHING. The guy that came up with Cider single-handedly did more for OSX gaming than Apple did in an entire decade and that's the sad truth.

Quote:
99% of Windows users are clueless too. It's besides the point. You make a Mac that has a sign next to it that says it's great for gaming, you solve the ignorance problem.
That's not the point I was making. The point is, people don't purchase Macs to game anyway. The purchase to work on them or the purchase them for light internet use or whatnot. People don't go out and buy them for gaming, even if it were great.

Quote:
You can't get hardcore Mac gamers if Apple won't provide good gaming hardware. It's a chicken/egg situation and Apple is the one that needs to fix it. The thing is that it's NOT HARD TO FIX. Just provide a simple off-the-shelf solution with a pretty case and you're done. I've seen gaming "cubes" for Lan parties that would work great. Apple has always liked cubes. They could even outsource it. There is simply no good reason to not offer that type of hardware just like there is no good reason to not offer a Mac Pro with PCI expansion. They can still push their stupid trash can design. But killing off entire markets is just plain STUPID. Ignoring an obvious market like gaming is almost as stupid. It's easier than ever to port games to OSX since the Intel switch and things like Cider. All Apple has to do is provide the hardware and perhaps a little driver tweaking. It'd cost them next to nothing to do and would make quite a few people happy. Hell, if nothing else I could at least boot into Windows to run the games on the better hardware. You can't fix crappy hardware even by using Boot Camp.
Again why bother? Why make an xMac when nobody cares about it anyway? And again just putting a beefier grafic card inside doesn't make Mac OS X a good gaming system. The software lacks as well. And puplishers are again very unlikely to develop for such a small install base. Even if every Mac had a bigger graphic card inside, only a minority would be interested in gaming. Small install base stays small install base. Yo

Quote:
You just created a freaking paradox now. Apple is the one that COULD update OpenGL if they wanted to! In other words, IF Apple put out a gaming rig, they COULD move on up to the latest OpenGL. It's not like they have to develop OpenGL; someone else did that FOR them.
No paradox: They certainly could, but they don't. I'm on your side here. I just pointed out that there is little interest to macing Macs gaming machine from both Apple, the consumer and gaming puplishers.

Quote:
Look at the way games are selling for iOS. They could be selling that way for the Mac too. It's Apple's stupid fault gaming sucks on the Mac and NO ONE ELSE's. And WTF would they need a "competing API" when someone else already developed OpenGL to compete for them? All they have to do is insert the latest version into OSX. If they would let NVidia and ATI make the OSX drivers (oh no, we can't let developers look under the hood! OMG!? They might learn the secret of life!), they'd have even less resources to spend.
Yes because how many games use OpenGL? Most of them use DirectX, especially all those coming from XBox 360. And again how many people do you think would buy a gaming mac? Do you seriously think people would switch over from a Windows PC gaming rig to get a Mac gaming rig? It is a negligible amount for Apple to bother and it would be a negligible amount for nvidia/AMD to bother and it would be a negligible amount for publishers to bother.

Quote:
Apple could immediately increase OSX gaming just by putting some code into OSX that lets them run iOS games directly (like the developer kits can already do for testing). Frankly, most developers could release Mac versions with little difficulty anyway, but they don't seem to care. But Apple could easily fix it and the iPad HD versions would look great on a Mac. They've just added official joystick/pad support for iOS7 so it's even EASIER to combine the two. Not all fun games need a ton of fancy hardware, but they do need to run.
Last time I checked all the big iOS games are also availabe on the Mac. Galaxy on Fire 2 HD comes to mind. But then again those really don't even tax an integrated graphic processor at all, which was the point of the whole discussion to begin with
__________________
iPhone 5S Gold 64 GB -- 13" retina MacBook Pro
Galatian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2013, 12:11 AM   #164
JordanNZ
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
If they would let NVidia and ATI make the OSX drivers (oh no, we can't let developers look under the hood! OMG!? They might learn the secret of life!), they'd have even less resources to spend.

Apple could immediately increase OSX gaming just by putting some code into OSX that lets them run iOS games directly (like the developer kits can already do for testing). Frankly, most developers could release Mac versions with little difficulty anyway, but they don't seem to care. But Apple could easily fix it and the iPad HD versions would look great on a Mac. They've just added official joystick/pad support for iOS7 so it's even EASIER to combine the two. Not all fun games need a ton of fancy hardware, but they do need to run.
NVidia and AMD already write the drivers for OSX. It's a misconception that Apple write the drivers themselves. You can actually download newer drivers off the NVidia website than what's shipping in 10.8.4.

And porting games between iOS and OSX is easy with xcode.
JordanNZ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2013, 03:30 AM   #165
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwig View Post
I would argue that Intel's power advantange is primarily a process advantage, not a CPU design one. x86, after all, has billions of transistors sucking up juice. An ARM is a fraction of that, ergo ARM power should be measurably smaller at the same clock frequency. Put ARM on Intel's 22nm process and I'd bet you'd have some interesting results.
The OP is talking about performance
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2013, 10:08 AM   #166
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
Hypocrite much? I stated Apple has been on an Intel release schedule for the past several years and actually took the time to provide the relevant information after you claimed I was wrong.
You said there was only ONE MAC MINI with discrete graphics. I don't know WTF you're whining on about in the rest. It wasn't meant to be a discussion or a chance for you to rant. It was a correction. Get over it. WTF does Intel have do with that specific comment? A Mac Mini is still a Mac Mini. You are the one that brought up Intel cycles, but you implied that the Mac Mini was designed for integrated graphics when in fact the very first one used a separate chipset and Apple even BRAGGED about that fact. I said all that before, but you just ignore all the facts that make you look bad and rant on about the ones you think don't.

Quote:
Now you show up and say I'm wrong become the Mac mini G4 which was powered with a non-Intel CPU, was not timed with Intel release schedule?
WTF does that have to do with your absolute statement that no Mac Mini except ONE ever had a discrete GPU? It implies that Apple only ever intended the Mini to be an integrated bottom barrel POS, when in fact, it was marketed as a small desktop that lets you keep your existing keyboard, mouse and monitor (i.e. designed to encourage PC users to convert).

Quote:
I'm beginning to think you are a troll.
Well, then you've never read any of comments elsewhere on this board for the past 6 years. If you want to get confrontational over simple comments, I can reply in kind all day long. I tend to treat people the same way I'm treated (within guidelines at least) and frankly you're acting pretty ridiculous at this point.

Quote:
It sounds like you really don't need nor want an Apple product.
It sounds you don't know WTF you're talking about. My god you overreact. My ORIGINAL statement was simply I would have preferred to know about the Intel 5000 in November when I bought it. I didn't buy it to be a game machine and that's not it's primary function (which is to replace a PowerMac SERVER I use to send iTunes video and music and photos all around the house to AppleTVs). It also does much better than my Windows machine for converting video to .M4A for iTunes seeing it has a Quad i7 chipset. For everything but games, it's fine. HOW THE HELL you conclude from that information that I don't want or need an Apple product when my entire whole house audio/video system is Apple and my MBP music production studio is BEYOND ALL LOGIC. I never said I had to have a game machine. I simply said I'd have preferred the Intel 5000 since it's quite a big improvement over the 4000 and approaches a 650M, which really isn't too terrible for games made in the past two years.

Quote:
Apple produces well designed, small and efficient computer devices. The Mac Mini is pretty cheap.
You must live in another Universe if you think it's "cheap" by today's computer standards (do you know what a PC goes for these days?). I paid $1100 for it with 8GB and two hard drives in the Quad i7 configuration. Yeah, I could have built a Hackintosh with potential upgrade issues for the next OS that would game well, but this is a 24/7/365 server that hides on the back of my desk. No Hackintosh will do that. Again, your "LOGIC" lacks 100%.

Quote:
Sure you can fit a little bit better mobile graphic card in their, but anything else is just adding too much heat. And again why bother?
Do you know anything about ventilation? Have you seen the new Mac Pro? Small doesn't have to mean not well ventilated. And no one is forcing Apple to make the Mini the exact size it is anyway. My point is your logic if flawed.

Quote:
You know 5 frames per second more on a cheap mobile graphic chipset is not going to make a game more playable compared to a game running at 15
frames per second on an HD4000 or soon to be released Iris 5200. That's
The 5000 is 50% faster. If a game is running at its low points at 20fps, that means it will run at 30fps. In short, it will make a lot more games be playable at higher resolutions. People have made bigger deals about a 10% increase in CPU power. 50% is a decent increase for a 6 month wait.

I mean honestly, you are 1000% more confrontational than you need to be. I made a COMMENT in this thread and you're ATTACKING like the country's defense depends on it. You are simply OUT OF LINE.

Quote:
That being said the Mac mini is fine just for an HTPC use. If you want more I
Who said ANYTHING about using for HTPC use???? I said SERVER, not HTPC. I already use AppleTVs in the various rooms of the house. The Mac Mini is an Internet terminal and iTunes server and converter, not a HTPC. I don't watch movies on it.

Quote:
wouldn't go Apple anyway since it doesn't even support native Blu-Ray playback.
Even though I don't use it for that, my Mac Mini with its USB3 BD drive plays Blu-Ray movies (yes commercial ones) LIVE just fine using VLC with the appropriate plugins.

Quote:
You have soooo many choices even within the Apple ecosystem (streaming to an Apple TV for example).
I said several messages ago I use it as a SERVER for a whole house audio/video system. What flipping part of that have you missed? Did you even LOOK at my signature where it says I have THREE AppleTVs and two more Airport Express units? That's FIVE rooms of audio and/or video not counting the den itself.

Quote:
But for some reason you insist that your Mac mini replacement should be a...Mac mini? And then you complain that it doesn't have a good graphic
And once again the communication breaks down and you imply something I NEVER said. This is my FIRST Mac Mini, dude. It replaces an upgraded PowerMac G4 Digital Audio. iTunes is no longer supported on that machine and so it was time to replace it. It worked perfectly fine as a server right up until I replaced at the end of November, start of December.

Quote:
you. They still do for a majority of people, otherwise they wouldn't sell.
More flawed logic. Just because something "sells" that doesn't mean something ELSE might not sell BETTER. My god, is that really SO HARD to comprehend??? Frankly, I've concluded you're in your teens to early 20s or you wouldn't be acting this way. Only the new iOS generation thinks like this.

Quote:

I don't know how you can state that but if I put together a system comparable to an iMac including an precalibrated IPS panel, loudspeaker, a good touchpad/touchmouse and keyboard, you'll end up pretty much the same money, yet without a operating system or programs.
That sounds pretty crappy. My home theater is a 93" HDTV projection system with 6.1 sound. My living room is a 47" HDTV Plasma with 6 foot tall Carver ribbon speakers with custom active crossovers. I don't need to buy a pre-calibrated anything and my audio systems cost me $7000 and $5000 respectively.

Quote:
That's not the point I was making. The point is, people don't purchase Macs to game anyway. The purchase to work on them or the purchase them for light internet use or whatnot. People don't go out and buy them for gaming, even if it were great.
And MY point is that IF Apple would offer a gaming Mac, they MIGHT start buying them for gaming use, even if it were to boot into Windows (Apple used to make Macs that ran Windows better than competitors). Such people would make easy converts to Mac gaming over time with Steam offering the Mac versions for free with purchase in many cases, etc. The point is just because something is a certain way NOW, that doesn't mean it has to STAY that way (your view it seems). That kind of thinking leads to death of companies that think the status quo is "good enough".

Quote:
Again why bother? Why make an xMac when nobody cares about it anyway?
Where the hell do you get "nobody" from??? I've seen a LOT of people over the years BEG for this system to appear and you hear the same old tired fanboy BS in reply. "No one wants one". Where is this "no one" data coming from? OTHER FANBOYS is the answer. People that think the world revolves around them conclude just because they don't want one, NO ONE wants one. The weird thing is, however, despite the mentality, they also seem to have a "follow the leader" mentality. You can't even give an opinion around here without a legion of fanboys jumping all over your comments with drivel like go somewhere else or you're a troll. It's ridiculous.

Quote:
And again just putting a beefier grafic card inside doesn't make Mac OS X a good gaming system. The software lacks as well. And puplishers are again very unlikely to develop for such a small install base. Even if every Mac had a bigger graphic card inside, only a minority would be interested in gaming. Small install base stays small install base. Yo
I already dealt with this BS. You IGNORED it as usual and seem to think repeating the same nonsense over and over will somehow make it true.

Quote:
Yes because how many games use OpenGL? Most of them use DirectX,
OpenGL 4.x covers the same features nicely and is simple to convert over with things like Cider if only Apple would support 4.x

Quote:
people do you think would buy a gaming mac? Do you seriously think people would switch over from a Windows PC gaming rig to get a Mac gaming rig? It
Again, you can run Windows on a Mac. Offer superior hardware and people will buy it. Besides, MOST people don't buy a computer to do just ONE thing. Maybe a hardcore gamer would, but most game sales aren't just too hard core gamers. The long term goal is to improve Mac gaming. But you just give up instantly as "why bother" and that thinking is not my style.

Quote:
is a negligible amount for Apple to bother and it would be a negligible amount for nvidia/AMD to bother and it would be a negligible amount for publishers to bother.
In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT more games for the Mac now than ever because they're easier than ever for gaming companies and Aspyr to convert. Your logic says they won't bother. They're already bothering DESPITE Apple's total lack of support. You logic is so flawed it's ridiculous. There over well over 50 MILLION Intel Macs out there (probably closer to 70 million from what I've seen). Most of these people don't pirate games. That's a lot of potential sales even as-is. It's why Aspyr bothers and that's ALL they do.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2013, 03:31 PM   #167
Galatian
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Berlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
You said there was only ONE MAC MINI with discrete graphics. I don't know WTF you're whining on about in the rest. It wasn't meant to be a discussion or a chance for you to rant. It was a correction. Get over it. WTF does Intel have do with that specific comment? A Mac Mini is still a Mac Mini. You are the one that brought up Intel cycles, but you implied that the Mac Mini was designed for integrated graphics when in fact the very first one used a separate chipset and Apple even BRAGGED about that fact. I said all that before, but you just ignore all the facts that make you look bad and rant on about the ones you think don't.


WTF does that have to do with your absolute statement that no Mac Mini except ONE ever had a discrete GPU? It implies that Apple only ever intended the Mini to be an integrated bottom barrel POS, when in fact, it was marketed as a small desktop that lets you keep your existing keyboard, mouse and monitor (i.e. designed to encourage PC users to convert).
Yes I stand corrected. There was also a non-Intel Mac mini with discrete graphic before. The point was, that ever since Apple switched to x86 with Intel they positioned the Mac mini as a cheap entry into the Mac ecosystem. I tend to see Power PC Macs and Intel Mac as to separate entities and since they are in fact architecturally different in both soft- and hardware, I'm not so far off.

Quote:
Well, then you've never read any of comments elsewhere on this board for the past 6 years. If you want to get confrontational over simple comments, I can reply in kind all day long. I tend to treat people the same way I'm treated (within guidelines at least) and frankly you're acting pretty ridiculous at this point.
I'm sorry if I came off as overly offensive; it was not my intention. Maybe it's because English is not my native language, so again I apologize if it came over like that.

Quote:
It sounds you don't know WTF you're talking about. My god you overreact. My ORIGINAL statement was simply I would have preferred to know about the Intel 5000 in November when I bought it. I didn't buy it to be a game machine and that's not it's primary function (which is to replace a PowerMac SERVER I use to send iTunes video and music and photos all around the house to AppleTVs). It also does much better than my Windows machine for converting video to .M4A for iTunes seeing it has a Quad i7 chipset. For everything but games, it's fine. HOW THE HELL you conclude from that information that I don't want or need an Apple product when my entire whole house audio/video system is Apple and my MBP music production studio is BEYOND ALL LOGIC. I never said I had to have a game machine. I simply said I'd have preferred the Intel 5000 since it's quite a big improvement over the 4000 and approaches a 650M, which really isn't too terrible for games made in the past two years.
Your original statement was this:

"Apple updates the Mini when they feel like updating it. It is NOT updated when Intel updates their chips. It's usually dead last (save the Mac Pro) to get an update and hence my other point, that even when a new chipset does come out, the Mini is halfway along to the next Intel chipset release date before you can typically get one."

I'm sorry but I simply disagree with the statement and I have provided relevant information to back this claim up. Ever since Apple switched to Intel they had an almost yearly update cadence with the then new Intel chips.

Also Haswell has been in the works for years and was planned to be released in 2013. I'm not quite sure how you can blame anybody but yourself for not being up to date on what's on the horizon. In fact Intel demonstrated a working Haswell chip at the 2011 Intel Developer Forum. The HD5000 was shown to run Skyrim at the Intel Developer Forum 2012. Also not all Haswell chips are released yet. Some are slated for a Q3 release. (Almost) every chip you can get right now have the HD4600 inside and I would place a bet that Apple actually has to wait until the HD5000 or Iris 5100/5200 chips are released, because those are the ones that will probably find their way inside the new Mac mini, Mac Book Pro and perhaps even entry level iMac.

Quote:
You must live in another Universe if you think it's "cheap" by today's computer standards (do you know what a PC goes for these days?). I paid $1100 for it with 8GB and two hard drives in the Quad i7 configuration. Yeah, I could have built a Hackintosh with potential upgrade issues for the next OS that would game well, but this is a 24/7/365 server that hides on the back of my desk. No Hackintosh will do that. Again, your "LOGIC" lacks 100%.
Ok let's run it down:

Apple Mac mini 2012 Basis Version
  • 2.5 GHz dual-Core Intel Core i5
  • 4 GB RAM
  • 500 GB HDD

It costs 629€

A self made comparable PC
  • Case: Fractal Design NODE 304 80€
  • Mainboard: ASRock Z77E-ITX 120€
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-3210M 160€ (that's the one used by Apple but as a mobile processor this will obviously not fit inside a Socket 1155 mainboard)
  • HDD: Samsung HN-M500MBB 500 GB 45€
  • RAM: G.Skill DIMM 4 GB DDR3-1600 Kit 35€
  • PSU: be quiet! SFX Power 300W 50€
  • Antenna: probably 10€
  • Windows 7 Home Premium 160€

All together: 660€ give or take. I'm not even going to stark running down the cost for a iMac comparable setup.

Quote:
Do you know anything about ventilation? Have you seen the new Mac Pro? Small doesn't have to mean not well ventilated. And no one is forcing Apple to make the Mini the exact size it is anyway. My point is your logic if flawed.
How is my logic flawed? People buy the Mac mini ergo they must be fine with it's size. Size, design and efficiency is one of the aspects Apple is focusing on and people choose Apple for it. What would be the sense in making a bigger case just to fit a discrete graphic card in their for some fringe use scenarios? That's the point you are not getting. You are making the assumption that everybody wants or need a discrete graphic chip in the Mac mini. Reality is, barely anybody does.

Also we have yet to see how well the new design of the Mac Pro will ventilate it. In fact who know's if they won't use the same design for the new Mac mini?

Quote:
The 5000 is 50% faster. If a game is running at its low points at 20fps, that means it will run at 30fps. In short, it will make a lot more games be playable at higher resolutions. People have made bigger deals about a 10% increase in CPU power. 50% is a decent increase for a 6 month wait.
I consider 30 frames per second barely playable especially on first person shooters but your mileage may very. Besides if it barely touched 30 frames per second chances are it will dip well below that on different levels. Also we still don't know what processor Apple will use. They can use either HD4600 or Iris 5200 and the speed difference will be anything between 20% and 100%. So yes depending on which chip they choose it will be a nice incease, but that was already clear over a year ago. Haswell was on the horizon, so you could have waited. I just simply don't get this point:

"Which is precisely why I lamented the Haswell chipset coming out a half of a year after buying a new Mini (but as I said, the new Mini probably won't come out until somewhere between late October and December)."

The Mac mini came out when the then new Ivy Bridge chips were available (and I have shown data to prove that). The new Mac mini will almost certainly come out in October as well. So exactly one year later. Intel hasn't begun shipping Iris 5200 equipped chips yet.

I simply don't get your problem: Apple is at the mercy of Intel in this regard. No chips = no new Mac mini, hence my entire point, that Apple updates their - and let me make this very clear before any further argument arises - Intel equipped product line, when new chips are available. The only major difference to this was the 2012 iMac, but that was, in a likelihood, delayed because of the screen laminating issue.

Quote:
I mean honestly, you are 1000% more confrontational than you need to be. I made a COMMENT in this thread and you're ATTACKING like the country's defense depends on it. You are simply OUT OF LINE.
Again I'm sorry if I came off confrontational I'm anything but an Apple apologist, believe me. Your initial problem was this:

"What sucks about having to wait to get the Mac Mini with USB3 is that only 6 months later, the GPU is completely out of date even with Intel, let alone stand-alones and there is no way to just replace the GPU in it. But just because a better integrated GPU is now becoming available, Apple might take another year to update the Mac Mini so I can't just replace it either. The GPU is the weakest part of the Mini, after all and so it's a bit of an irritating situation. Yes, other Macs face similar problems, but they often get updated more often (well, the MBP does, at least)."

I responded because there were several false statements in this:
  1. Apple updates in a timely manner and I have already showed enough evidence on that
  2. Intel hasn't even released the entire Haswell lineup, yet you claim your Mac mini is outdated

By the time the all Haswell chips are released Apple will update their Mac mini. It will not be outdated by any standard.

Quote:
Who said ANYTHING about using for HTPC use???? I said SERVER, not HTPC. I already use AppleTVs in the various rooms of the house. The Mac Mini is an Internet terminal and iTunes server and converter, not a HTPC. I don't watch movies on it.
You said:

"[...]I needed a replacement server for my whole house audio/video system and that's the primary function of this Mac Mini[...]"

To me this implies, that you store all your media files on their and either stream of directly view off from your Mac mini. The definition to a HTPC by wikipedia is:

"A Home Theater PC (HTPC) or Media Center computer is a convergence device that combines some or all the capabilities of a personal computer with a software application that supports video, photo, audio playback, and sometimes video recording functionality."

Yet I'm still not sure just what a better graphic card might bring onto the table for that usage scenario? Maybe I should have started out with that question. All you ever said was:

"[...]That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a better GPU.[...]"

Sure I would like a better GPU as well, but given the price point, size and usage scenario I simply don't need nor request it. Neither do 99% of other Mac mini users. In fact the Quick Sync function from your so so called "[...]cheapest garbage available[...]" Intel processors are speeding up encoding processes much more then any other GPU using solution today. I'm not even sure if encoding software supports GPUs on Mac OS X yet.
For gaming purposes I consider any mobile chip barely usable. If you want to game you will need at a bare minimum a 650M for newer games. That will increase the BOM cost of the Mac Mini easily by 200-300 €, yet who actually needs it? I'm sure Apple has done the math and know exactly what models are being sold. I think it is foolish from you to believe that demand for a bigger graphic card is huge and people will be selling their grandma to get such an Mac. But let's agree to disagree on that. I see your point and I personally would like an Mac with a bigger graphic card as well. On the other hand I completely understand that it will not be a huge market for Apple.

Quote:
Even though I don't use it for that, my Mac Mini with its USB3 BD drive plays Blu-Ray movies (yes commercial ones) LIVE just fine using VLC with the appropriate plugins.
I said and bolded for emphasize:

"That being said the Mac mini is fine just for an HTPC use. If you want more I wouldn't go Apple anyway since it doesn't even support native Blu-Ray playback."

I consider external BD drive + VLC + Plugins pretty much not native.

Quote:
I said several messages ago I use it as a SERVER for a whole house audio/video system. What flipping part of that have you missed? Did you even LOOK at my signature where it says I have THREE AppleTVs and two more Airport Express units? That's FIVE rooms of audio and/or video not counting the den itself.

And once again the communication breaks down and you imply something I NEVER said. This is my FIRST Mac Mini, dude. It replaces an upgraded PowerMac G4 Digital Audio. iTunes is no longer supported on that machine and so it was time to replace it. It worked perfectly fine as a server right up until I replaced at the end of November, start of December.
Yeah...no...I got that. You need a new Mac mini as your media file server (let's call it that way, before you complain about the word HTPC again), because new iTunes doesn't run on it. And you feel like Apple when you purchased it in October it was already outdated, because a)Ivy Bridge was supposedly out for months back then (a fact I have - backed up with evidence - disproven) and b)Haswell just launched (although the relevant chips for a Mac mini refresh haven't even been shown). Furthermore you would prefer a beefier graphic card inside and you would even be fine with a bigger case in turn. I have told you several times now that you are a minority here. Also you feel like Apple uses cheap component for the Mac mini and charges an arm and a leg for it (which I have also disproven with hard facts).
Question and I don't mean this in any condescending way: Why don't you build your own a nice small form factor PC and run iTunes for Windows on it?

Quote:
More flawed logic. Just because something "sells" that doesn't mean something ELSE might not sell BETTER. My god, is that really SO HARD to comprehend??? Frankly, I've concluded you're in your teens to early 20s or you wouldn't be acting this way. Only the new iOS generation thinks like this.
You are right it doesn't. But given the fact that Apple does not provide any discrete graphic card anymore implies to me that either a)people didn't want to pay extra for little performance increase or b)didn't care for graphic power on a Mac mini at all. Is it SO HARD to comprehend that people don't go into a Apple store and go: "Woo this huge, ugly Apple box a nVidia GTX Titan inside...I need to buy that."? They go into a store and see a neat small efficient computer that suits all their needs. Why change a running system? That's what defines Apple.

Quote:
That sounds pretty crappy. My home theater is a 93" HDTV projection system with 6.1 sound. My living room is a 47" HDTV Plasma with 6 foot tall Carver ribbon speakers with custom active crossovers. I don't need to buy a pre-calibrated anything and my audio systems cost me $7000 and $5000 respectively.
I'm sorry but you really lost me on that. I don't see how this is at all relevant to my post, which compared the price of an iMac to the price of a comparable self build PC. All in all an Apple iMac is really not more expensive then a custom PC. Please check or point out exactly what the relevance to my sentence was, otherwise I will have to assume, that you simply don't read/grasp my comments, which would - in the end - make this discussion a huge waste of time.

Quote:
And MY point is that IF Apple would offer a gaming Mac, they MIGHT start buying them for gaming use, even if it were to boot into Windows (Apple used to make Macs that ran Windows better than competitors). Such people would make easy converts to Mac gaming over time with Steam offering the Mac versions for free with purchase in many cases, etc. The point is just because something is a certain way NOW, that doesn't mean it has to STAY that way (your view it seems). That kind of thinking leads to death of companies that think the status quo is "good enough".
First: Show me one time where Windows ran better on a Mac then on a comparable Windows PC. When I think about all the headaches I had with the BIOS emulation of Bootcamp I can hardly believe that claim.

Second: I already told you several times why people don't bother for gaming on Mac, but I'll collect them in a nice list for you
  • Harsh competition - there is Windows, XBox, Playstation and Nintendo as direct Soft-/Hardware competitors
  • Install base is very small and probably the percentage of Mac owners who are actually interested to game is even smaller
  • No gaming API like DirectX - many games have to be ported and that takes away money and time, which has to be put into consideration against the small possible market

Sure Apple could do something about their hardware and software, but that still leaves the question about the install base. There are roughly 60 Million Mac users. Let's say 10% want to game. That's only 6 Million customers. The XBox 360 sold 73 Million units, which actually equals 73 Million customers for games. Playstation 3 has 77 Million units sold. Publishers focus to develop on that front. Macs are just an afterthought and usually a crappy one at that (they have a large overhead compared to native programs and hence run slower...not to mention they appear much later). What would the incentive be to switch over to Mac? There is non from a developers standpoint. There is also non from a gamers standpoint. So why would Apple even bother? Just for the hopes of making a Mac hip enough for gamers? You do realize Apples shareshoulders would not be happy with such a wild guess.

Quote:
Where the hell do you get "nobody" from??? I've seen a LOT of people over the years BEG for this system to appear and you hear the same old tired fanboy BS in reply. "No one wants one". Where is this "no one" data coming from? OTHER FANBOYS is the answer. People that think the world revolves around them conclude just because they don't want one, NO ONE wants one. The weird thing is, however, despite the mentality, they also seem to have a "follow the leader" mentality. You can't even give an opinion around here without a legion of fanboys jumping all over your comments with drivel like go somewhere else or you're a troll. It's ridiculous.
Yeah well people tend to scream loudest if something doesn't work their way as opposed to when it does work their way. Or have you ever heard anybody say: no Apple please don't release the xMac, it is not needed. Just because the xMac crowd is the most vocal, doesn't mean it is the majority.

I think I have shown several times now that your use case for the Mac mini is a fringe case. Don't let it sound like this is the normal use case for it.

Quote:
I already dealt with this BS. You IGNORED it as usual and seem to think repeating the same nonsense over and over will somehow make it true.
Yeah but you don't seem to get it so let's agree to disagree.

Quote:
OpenGL 4.x covers the same features nicely and is simple to convert over with things like Cider if only Apple would support 4.x
I'm no software engineer and I doubt you are one either. Simple to convert is a gross overstatement. Cider ports are not all that good, at least when you look at all the forum posts.
__________________
iPhone 5S Gold 64 GB -- 13" retina MacBook Pro
Galatian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2013, 03:32 PM   #168
Galatian
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Berlin
And here is the rest, because I'm only allowed to post 20000 words

Quote:
Again, you can run Windows on a Mac. Offer superior hardware and people will buy it. Besides, MOST people don't buy a computer to do just ONE thing. Maybe a hardcore gamer would, but most game sales aren't just too hard core gamers. The long term goal is to improve Mac gaming. But you just give up instantly as "why bother" and that thinking is not my style.
I completely understand your thinking, but you need to understand what's in the interest of shareholders. Mac gaming is something that neither Apple, nor shareholder, nor gamer, nor publishers are interested in. Why would publisher bother with yet another system? Why would gamers fork out top dollar for a fancy Mac? Why would Apple try to even tackle that huge gaming market, when it has no foothold in it and is already dominated by heavily fortified competitors? Why would shareholders even give green light to such an idea?

You seem to think just because you want to game on a Mac with high end card, that everybody else should.

Quote:
In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT more games for the Mac now than ever because they're easier than ever for gaming companies and Aspyr to convert. Your logic says they won't bother. They're already bothering DESPITE Apple's total lack of support. You logic is so flawed it's ridiculous. There over well over 50 MILLION Intel Macs out there (probably closer to 70 million from what I've seen). Most of these people don't pirate games. That's a lot of potential sales even as-is. It's why Aspyr bothers and that's ALL they do.
I already ran the numbers for you. Not all 70 millions Mac owners are potential gamers. In fact at university I have yet to see one Mac owner who does bother. I'm the only gamer and I don't do it on a Mac.
Aspyr does what it does because they have a monopoly on that. It still remains a niche no matter what.
Also a quick look at the Mac App store reveals that most of the games sold are either a) ports from iOS or b) old(er) Windows games.
No hardcore gamer want's to play Angry Birds on their gaming rig. Where are the newer titles? Bioshock: Infinite? Metro: Last Light? Anno 2070?
__________________
iPhone 5S Gold 64 GB -- 13" retina MacBook Pro
Galatian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2013, 10:39 PM   #169
JordanNZ
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
OpenGL 4.x covers the same features nicely and is simple to convert over with things like Cider if only Apple would support 4.x
4.x support is coming with Mavericks. And as far as I'm aware, Cider only supports D3D9.
JordanNZ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 09:27 AM   #170
milo
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanNZ View Post
4.x support is coming with Mavericks. And as far as I'm aware, Cider only supports D3D9.
If I remember correctly, so far it has full 4.1 and partial 4.2 (maybe 15%?). A huge step for them although it would be great to see them catch all the way up to whatever the latest is.
milo is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Updates MacBook Airs with Faster Haswell Processors and $100 Price Drop [Updated] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 297 Jul 22, 2014 08:25 AM
Intel to Supply Apple with Special High-End Haswell Processors for MacBook Pro MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 587 Sep 3, 2013 11:27 PM
Apple Updates WWDC App with Bug Fixes Ahead of Next Week's Conference MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 23 Jun 10, 2013 04:19 AM
Intel's 'Haswell' Desktop Processors Detailed for Spring 2013 Launch MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 126 Dec 17, 2012 12:50 AM
Intel Launches Dual-Core and Ultra-Low Voltage Ivy Bridge Processors MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 124 Jun 7, 2012 03:13 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC