No, you are contradicting yourself. Removing quads is either good business or it isn't. They should be removed from the imac.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No Quads in the 15/28 w Broadwells !!!
- Thread starter QuietGamer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, you are contradicting yourself. Removing quads is either good business or it isn't. They should be removed from the imac.
I think
should offer quads for all their macs, but they don't.The reason is, that 99% of customers do not need them.
Those who need them are forced to buy iMacs and MPs.
No great mystery here.
I am repeating myself.
Intel hasn't yet released a single integrated-graphics, sub-28W, quad-core mainstream CPU. (Some of the Atom CPUs are quad-core, but four of those cores fall well short of two Core ix cores.)
I can only find one single sub-28W quad-core Core ix CPU, the embedded Core i7-4702EC, which is 2 GHz, has no turbo, and has no graphics. This means you would NEED external graphics, which would eat up your power savings. It is meant for embedded uses like file server devices.
Having no quad-core CPUs in the sub-28W range is not a surprise. Intel uses 35W-class CPUs for quad-core. The 35W-and-above Broadwell are coming later in the year, including quad-core models.
I can only find one single sub-28W quad-core Core ix CPU, the embedded Core i7-4702EC, which is 2 GHz, has no turbo, and has no graphics. This means you would NEED external graphics, which would eat up your power savings. It is meant for embedded uses like file server devices.
Having no quad-core CPUs in the sub-28W range is not a surprise. Intel uses 35W-class CPUs for quad-core. The 35W-and-above Broadwell are coming later in the year, including quad-core models.
I don't need a survey to know that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.
What apps would make use of a quadcore?
Last edited:
Sorry, only in your world.
That would only be true if they were marketed to the same users.
I think, we will see a Mac mini redesing this year, because the Mac mini celebrates in 2015 it's is 10th Birthday 
It was first introduced in January 10, 2005 with an an PowerPC G4 with speed from 1.25 to 1.5 GHz, 256 MB RAM and Radeon 9200 graphics (32 or 64 MB versions).
It was first introduced in January 10, 2005 with an an PowerPC G4 with speed from 1.25 to 1.5 GHz, 256 MB RAM and Radeon 9200 graphics (32 or 64 MB versions).
Why do you think that a quad-core would perform any better within the 15/28W design envelope than a dual-core? After all, the only reason why we have multi-core CPUs is because we can't make single cores fast enough. With such constrained thermal design, quad-core architecture kind of looses its main advantage. It is likely that one would need to clock these CPUs so low, that any performance benefit over two cores would be negligible.
The next Mini will be the size of the current Apple TV or smaller and will never be capable of quad core x86 chip because of TDP.
It will be for entry level Mac OS X. There will probably be fewer options than the current 2014.
Any power computing will require an iMac.
My 2015/2016 prediction.
No inside information but trending in that direction for Apple. Flat and Thin.
Apple is not interested in competing in the Mini PC market they started. Not enough$$$ profit.
It will be for entry level Mac OS X. There will probably be fewer options than the current 2014.
Any power computing will require an iMac.
My 2015/2016 prediction.
No inside information but trending in that direction for Apple. Flat and Thin.
Apple is not interested in competing in the Mini PC market they started. Not enough
$$$ profit.
Last edited:
They cannot cater to every niche market.
If they aren't addressing niche markets they are not satisfying all of their customers.
Huh?
Their customers are people who buy their products without always bitching about what they aren't getting.
Hobbyists and early adopter types, like the very ones that frequent this site, aren't usually worth catering to because we have pretty specific demands.
Their customers are people who buy their products without always bitching about what they aren't getting.
Hobbyists and early adopter types, like the very ones that frequent this site, aren't usually worth catering to because we have pretty specific demands.
Just repeating the same thing, over and over, doesn't make it true. I might agree that a MAJORITY of users don't need a quad core, but to spew a figure like 99% is just ridiculous. Not only does a quad core insure a PC/Mac will be usable for a longer period of time, but many Mac owners use their Macs for more than just email and web browsing. Heard of that little niche product called Photoshop?
How about using a Mac mini as a small office server using OS X Server? You think only hand-full of people do that? I would NEVER use a dual core Mini as an office server.
There is a HUGE divide between desktop Macs. There should be something in between a dual core Mac Mini and a $4000 professional Mac Pro. iMac's are great if you don't already already have a monitor or don't care that you can't ever upgrade it, but there are more than 1% of us that want something in between.
Why? Why wouldn't you use a dual core as a server? There's very little that takes CPU processing especially in OSX Server. IO is way more important (serving up wiki's, web pages, time machine server, etc. etc.). Maybe we have a different definition of Small Office (i.e. less than 20 individuals).....
Edit: Many still use old Xservers that only used dual core Core2duo's as small office servers. The i5's in the current mini's are twice the speed of those.
Edit 2: And from an IO standpoint, the 2014 is better than the 2012 (dual Thunderbolt 2 ports)
Last edited:
I seriously doubt there will be a Broadwell version of the Mini considering Skylake is right around the corner.
Broadway's focus is low power; Skylake (should) be out before the fall, so by the time the desktop systems are refreshed they should be on Skylake. Unless they abandon the Mini for another couple of years.
I strongly disagree.
The computer industry is going towards cooler, more efficienty cpus.
One reason
took the quadcore out of the mac mini was that it created more heat.More heat tends to make systems last shorter not longer.
Claiming that a dual core would last longer is really unfounded.
----------
99% is a guess of course.
It means that the vast majority of users and apps never utilize so many cores.
----------
When
discontinued the quadcore, I went out and bought the last one in my store.I brought it back within the 14day period, because I realized that 4-cores are pointless.
I use Lr, Ps and many other apps. There is barely any advantage to a quadcore.
Oh, you mean the world of rationally constructed arguments? Yeah, that's the world I live in.
Are you living under a bridge perchance?
No - are you selling one? Even if your arguments were rational, they're pointless. What you need to do to sort out your universe is:
- start building your own PCs with COTS components;
- start your own computer company; or
- take over someone else's computer company (ideally, Apple).
I am pretty sure I'd be a good customer of a company you ran, but I don't know whether you'd sell to enough people to stay in business.
I mean that sincerely.
Not quite ready to buy Apple yet, I'd rather go for a company where customers are more important than shareholders, and "form follows function", not vice versa (plus they'd probably force you to take Bono in the deal).No - are you selling one? Even if your arguments were rational, they're pointless. What you need to do to sort out your universe is:
- start building your own PCs with COTS components;
- start your own computer company; or
- take over someone else's computer company (ideally, Apple).
I am pretty sure I'd be a good customer of a company you ran, but I don't know whether you'd sell to enough people to stay in business.
Just because my first computer was a Mac, doesn't mean my last one has to be a Mac. I'm just waiting to see how badly they can screw up the next MacPro before I jump ship.
This gets very tangential, but...once a company is publicly owned, it's hard to run it other than for the shareholders, at least outwardly. (That doesn't stop management of some public companies from treating both customers and stockholders as sheep to be shorn, but that's yet another topic.)
Agree on your second paragraph, and it's hard to know exactly where things will go. PC as appliance seems to be a significant industry theme. On the other hand, I don't need to cross these bridges until we come to them...one computer at a time.
The models for the 15" rMBP will be the later quad-core models, which will have more PCIe lanes. These are for "thin and light" computers, like the MacBook Air (and *MAYBE* the 13" rMBP.)
The 13" rMBP already uses only integrated graphics, so these would work for it.
And these types are usually the ones other family members contact for tech support. I am advising my extended families to look elsewhere. The big $$$ demanded by purchasing upgraded internals at the time of purchase now makes the Mac a MUCH less cost effective purchase than they have EVER been.
No one wants disposable machines at a premium price. And with 4 gigs of RAM, the base macs are exactly that.
This problem is easily solved: Don't buy any upgrades.
The base mac mini is perfect for its intended use and you can even stick an ssd in later.
I still have the base 2012 mini and i runs fine since the day I bought it.
I could upgrade the ram, but what for? It's an expensive, pointless upgrade.
I will however stick in an ssd at some point and that is also still possible with the 2014 model.
Nothing is upgradeable in the 2012 mini either except for ram and hd.
Soon hds will be someow soldered, too and that is it then.
It's not nice, but the computer industry has changed.
For most peoples use the specs become increasingly irrelevant and don't change much over time.