i7 quad core RIP

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by grcar, Jul 26, 2015.

  1. grcar Suspended

    grcar

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    #1
    In case you have not noticed, today there is exactly one machine in the whole lineup with an i7 quad core cpu: it is an upgrade to the 21-inch iMac. I think it is not a good idea to hold your breath waiting for something good in the next rev of the mini if there is one.

    As an example of how screwed up Apple is, I visited my local Apple store the other day. There were lots of tables with watches that not many people were looking at, and a whole bunch of people in the back waiting at the genius bar to fix various kinds of mostly hand-held devices.

    The salespeople are friendly if you make an appointment with the greeter to talk to someone. The person suggested a 1.4GHz mini with 8GB and a 5k rpm disk drive. When I asked "what can you do with that?" they looked puzzled.
     
  2. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #2
    Aren't you forgetting the high-end 27" riMac? ;)
    There's plenty a base model mini can do. I would be hating the performance of the HDD though.
     
  3. grcar thread starter Suspended

    grcar

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    #3
    Oops! You are correct: two models.
     
  4. z31fanatic macrumors 6502a

    z31fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Location:
    Mukilteo, WA USA
    #4
    I am not sure why you are surprised at that. Mac computers only account for 9% of total Apple sales. No wonder you only see people with iOS devices in their stores.
     
  5. grcar thread starter Suspended

    grcar

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    #5
    You are right, Mac Rumors on July 21 reported Mac sales are 12% of revenue while iPhones and iPads are 73%. But the stores were built to handle the volume of that 12%. Better to spin off the Mac division with the stores, and let Macy's sell the watches and phones because they have bigger stores.
     
  6. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #6
    To be fair, over the last few generations of Intel CPUs, the i5 models have gone quad-core and are actually very powerful. The quad-core i5 CPUs in the latest iMacs and Macbook Pros are significantly more powerful that older i7 quad-cores.
     
  7. BigMcGuire Contributor

    BigMcGuire

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #7
    Or do what the rest of us do... Attach a UASP ssd USB 3.0 enclosure (Anker), spend $160 on a 500GB SSD (Samsung 850 EVO) and install the OS on that. Insane speed and loving it.
     
  8. grcar thread starter Suspended

    grcar

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    #8
    I agree you only get the very thin aluminum cases from Apple, but they also used to be the best, and now they are second best. Case in point: best processor in a Macbook Pro is the quad core i5, best processor in the HP Omen is a quad core i7. Where's the beef?
     
  9. chrfr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    #9
    The 15" Macbook Pro models are all quad core i7. The 13" models are all dual core, whether i5 or i7. The only quad i5s Apple sells are in iMacs.
     
  10. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #10
    If it were up the Intel engineers and research scientists to decide what is i5 and i7, then there might be some meat to what you're saying. But it's not up to them - it's up to marketing. And marketing bases it on all sorts of irrelevant criteria.

    The real question is, does the i7 in the HP Omen do something better than the i5 in the MBP? Are you loosing out on a functionality? Are there perhaps trade-offs that Apple decided weren't worth it with the i7? Maybe the i5 is more power efficient, and the extra energy usage of the i7 wasn't worth the few points of CPU benchmarks?

    I wouldn't put too much stock into the i5 v. i7 distinction - both are high-end Intel i-series CPUs. The rest is marketing.
     
  11. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #11
    It depends on what you are doing. There sure is a huge difference if you are doing video encoding. Quad i5 doesn't have hyperthreading, Quad i7 does, and it has a 25% larger L3 cache too.

    The bottom line is, despite only a 0.1Ghz clock advantage, the i7 is about 45% faster using Handbrake. That's not some meaningless synthetic benchmark, it's real-life application use.

    upload_2015-7-27_13-26-38.png

    I wouldn't be surprised if there were other scenarios where hyperthreading or a larger L3 cache are very helpful.
     
  12. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #12
    That chart concerns second generation core-i CPUs, the Sandy Bridge generation, from 2011. Back then, as the chart shows, there was a significant difference between i7 and i5.

    Today, with 4th generation and 5th generation core-i CPUs (Haswell and Broadwell, respectively) a similar chart would show the difference is less significant.

    First, some of the dual-core i5 CPUs do have hyperthreading - the quad-core i5 CPUs do not though.

    I do agree that hyperthreading and more cache is good to have and certainly helps some tasks. They certainly do - and Apple offers a Core i7 upgrade on many machines. However, for laptops, where heat dissipation and energy usage are important concerns, perhaps the trade-offs of the i7 simply aren't worth it.
     
  13. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #13
    Only way I can see Quad hitting the mini again is if they make the Quad and the Dual use the same socket. In the current Haswell CPU's used in the Mini then the Quad and Dual variants use seperate sockets so would need different boards with the sockets in them. On the 2012 models the the Dual and Quad CPU's used the same Socket so could use a single board. I cannot see Apple going fully Quad in the mini ( much as it would be nice ) due to wanting to differentiate from the iMac by more then just the lack of screen.

    Is extra parts for Apple to manufacture. Remember how if you bought a 2008 Mac Pro then the same board was used just didn't come with the CPU and Heatsink. With the 2009-2012 then used a different board for the Single and Dual Socket systems.
     
  14. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #14
    I find these discussions both interesting and frustrating.

    Apple puts a great deal into promoting there non computer line and given that people get cell phones, it is logical that the greatest sell would be found in that venue. As for the computers, Apple could certainly do a lot better with an adjustment to both their marketing and software to position the computer as the "heart" of an eco system. As for the Mini, yes Apple did castrate the machines and perhaps one day they can see the Mini as a great home center for all things Apple in the home. From iTunes server to TM functions, advanced ATV like use and more. Until such time, if at all, the Mini remains the red headed step child in the line up. (Yes I do have a couple of Minis and both are quads 2.0 and 2.6 respectively.)

    As for the newer Intel offerings, there are several CPUs to choose from and Apple cuts its deals the way they see fit and it isn't always to some of our liking. I have no need for a 27" iMac as I do graphics and use a real graphics monitor. But the next person may love it for gaming or doing office type applications. I would prefer a powerful Mac Mini or smaller iMac with an i7 quad but that isn't going to happen any time soon. So, I'll stick with my two older Minis, my laptop and in a year or two maybe be using computers that come with Gate's garbage OS. Apple left me no choice that suits my needs.
     

Share This Page