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.
Supply Shortages Hint at Possible Mac Mini Refresh
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah give us a new mini;
Iam using my c2d mini with broadcom hd (intel gma 950 onboard...)as my HTPC and Fileserver with SL Server; Iam running some vmware instances on it so a new CPU would be great for me; eyeTV doesn't support my broadcom chip so a higher CPU stepping and/ord VDA decoder support would be nice to watch HD TV Stream, too...
And I agree: better a C2D with NVIDIA than an INTEL 10000x Core with INTEL gfx....The Core Is aren't that mach faster and I don't need hyperboost or how they call it
I switched to apple 2 years ago (10years Linux user/12 years windows experience) and never regret that step
No compomises, just working and good looking hard- and software...And i can use nearly every unix software under OS X...
Have a nice weekend...
Iam using my c2d mini with broadcom hd (intel gma 950 onboard...)as my HTPC and Fileserver with SL Server; Iam running some vmware instances on it so a new CPU would be great for me; eyeTV doesn't support my broadcom chip so a higher CPU stepping and/ord VDA decoder support would be nice to watch HD TV Stream, too...
And I agree: better a C2D with NVIDIA than an INTEL 10000x Core with INTEL gfx....The Core Is aren't that mach faster and I don't need hyperboost or how they call it
I switched to apple 2 years ago (10years Linux user/12 years windows experience) and never regret that step
No compomises, just working and good looking hard- and software...And i can use nearly every unix software under OS X...
Have a nice weekend...
Please Apple do not turn the mini in to a media centre, some of us actually use the mini for computing purposes. Sure for some it'll be nice to connect to a big TV, but the majority of Mini users use it as a computer. I love the quiet, low power use device as it is.
AMD/ATI just showed off Fusion at Computex yesterday
http://sites.amd.com/us/fusion/APU/Pages/fusion.aspx
wouldn't surprise me if the Mini is the first to use it
http://sites.amd.com/us/fusion/APU/Pages/fusion.aspx
wouldn't surprise me if the Mini is the first to use it
REALLY?
Would you like to reconsider?
It's been there since the PowerMac G5 days...
For one, Arrandale = Clarkdale - 1MB cache. Same goes for the i5 mobile chips, the ones in the Macbook Pro that spank a Core 2 in multithreaded benches. For two, as far as performance goes, that's the only real difference. For three, GEEKBENCH = SYNTHETIC. Synthetic benchmarks are crap. Also, I dug up a more comprehensive bench suite and edited the post a bit later. It shows the i3 wrecking the Core 2 Duo with a much wider variety of tests.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/7.html
Except that said post has now disappeared. Why in the heck are the mods on this site so touchy and trigger-happy?
Well since you asked so nicely, sit and I shall read you a story from the book of KnightWRX...
Hmm, so the Core 2 is available at a 24% higher clock than the i3. The limited architectural improvements of the i3 do not give you a 24% clock-for-clock improvement. Then give the Core 2 twice the cache, far less power consumption, and no ball-and-chain video and you just have a processor line that was and is much much better designed.
But that's understandable, because the newest Core 2s are the top of a line, while the i3 is the dead bottom. People should understand that a cool name may mean you're getting the latest, but it says nothing about getting the greatest.
Oh, well nm.
It does ?
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei3/mobile/specifications.htm
Hum.. mobile Core i3, 3 MB Cache.
Let's see what Apple uses :
http://www.apple.com/ca/macbookpro/specs-13inch.html
Looking at Intel's site, this gives us the P8600 or P8800 :
Why do you insist on being wrong and keep pointing out stuff that doesn't matter ? L2 cache matters if you're cache bound, something that probably no one here would even notice in their day to day use of the computer.
Sure you can get 6MB L2 Core 2 Duos, Apple doesn't use them and like I said before, doesn't really matter. Tech specs is nerd porn.
I just re-imported most of my CD collection yesterday (in higher format than previously) on my new Mini. I can understand the merit of discontinuing the optical drive on the laptops where lesser weight, thinner size, extra HD, better battery (not that they really need it at this point anyway) or redesigned space for i5/7 + discrete graphics chip could all be really useful. But the Mini doesn't need that, it's an intro computer which works wonderfully as a media center so you want to be able to play your CD/DVD's (not to mention install software, I ran into one annoying case already with my netbook). Size-wise it really doesn't need to be any smaller IMO.
Bottom line is I can't imagine the public at large would go for it without the optical drive, at least not yet.
Yeah I like how the mods think a post is a troll when really it isn't, and they get rid it but they do nothing to clean up the really bad, not very well thought out posts. Attention mods; you can't just get rid of the trolls, you have to deal with the bad posters that add nothing to a thread too, it can't be one or the other, it has to be both otherwise you might as well not even bother.
Someone who understands. What you said is very similar to what I said when I wrote to Apple regarding its "Which Mac Are You" slogan. I told them I'm the Mac they aren't building.
You didn't read my suggestion very closely, did you?
An iMac doesn't have dual ethernet, or a space option to delete the optical drive in favor of a second hard drive, NOR does it have the PCI-E slots that I suggest for discreet graphics or other expansion.
And, it is useless to go headless as a single-processor-socket blade server. Why would anyone want to spend a LOT of money built into the price, to have a monitor built into the computer, when you don't want a monitor? Or when you want a portrait-orientation monitor, or when you want two matching monitors. Dual-head with two different monitors with different color response, let alone possible resolution differences, is not wonderful.
The versatility of NOT BEING TIED TO A BUILT IN MONITOR is a BIG POINT for some people. As might be a set of basic front panel ports, rather than reaching around and fumbling for iMac ports (or apple monitor ports), or attached hubs cluttering things up.
I know a lot of computer lab environments, corporate workstations or office desks that could use a computer as I describe, who don't need the overkill of a full-on Mac Pro, that is not to preclude someone from wanting something like that on their home desk, or in their AV stack as a moderately powerful HTPC, or even a home media server.
Maybe people buy an Apple monitor, maybe they don't. But Apple Monitors are inescapably HUGELY EXPENSIVE, whether they have to try to compete or not. That bears on anyone, private or commercial, that has a budget to meet.
Sometimes that will make iMac an attractive value proposition, instead of a headless, more expandable and versatile system. Again, some uses, don't need a monitor at all. VERSATILITY used to be a commonly used word, at one point...
By your reasoning, they shouldn't even sell the Mac Mini that they currently do, because it could theoretically give someone an opportunity NOT to use an Apple monitor. HEAVEN FORBID.
At no point have I suggested that this proposal should be instead of iMac, nor Mac Mini. A headless, expandable, moderately powerful Mac priced between Mini and Mac Pro would have appeal to power users, and would not diminish the value of an iMac to someone who WANTS an all-in-one form factor.
Apple used to sell LCs, Performas, Quadras, and other machines, along side the SE, SE30, MacPlus, Color Classic, and such. The Sawtooth and later G4 towers used to be a bit more manageable than the HUGE aluminum towers now, and sold at a much closer margin to the earlier iMacs, and weren't necessarily overkill for all but the most demanding users. What I suggest would be an even more lithe desktop, AV-rack, or server-rack option.
I believe the term is "PRODUCT DIVERSITY." Goes hand in hand with the versatility I mentioned earlier.
The small form factor is very nice on the Mac Mini, as long as the machine meets the needs of the user. It is essentially a fully functional desktop computer in the form factor of a "net-top", and silent about it.
What is keeping Apple from not introducing a 4th form factor? Some un-written law?
They have tiny.
They have HUGE.
They have [all-in-one] encapsulated.
They even have four distinct laptop bodies, and three net-enabled personal devices, and two more music players, and a TV attachment.
The only thing missing, for actual computers, is moderate-size, moderate power, and VERSATILE.
Mini doesn't need to abandon it's post. It is a good machine where it is, with some updates as appropriate. A nice little fully-functional machine.
The Mac Pro is a freight train, for people who need one, but it's correspondingly huge, heavy, can get noisy, and expensive.
iMac is great for what it does, but it isn't expandable, nor versatile in it's form factor. It either fits your needs well, or it doesn't. Not much middle ground.
Follow the money and you'll get it. Apple doesn't want to cannibalize Mac Pro sales for one. Most pro users who buy Mac Pros probably don't need all the power of one but that doesn't stop them from buying it. And if you're a working pro, you'll write it off anyway. From what I've been reading, the Mac Pro's mobo can handle hardware raid (eg raid 5) just fine but they disable it in firmware so Apple they can sell you their $800+ hardware card instead. Or the ridiculous price Apple charges for ram. Again, follow the money. That said, I still love my Mac Pro. It's so well built it makes everything else Apple makes look really cheap.
I personally think something like the G4 Cube Apple used to sell would fit the bill perfectly these days. The reason why the Cube failed was it was too expensive for what is was but if they sold something like that now and made it reasonably price (say $1199), it would at least give the average business owner/power user an expansion path to walk down for one.
This seems very interesting! A mini Mac to take everywhere seems genius. It looks very good for businesses but I wonder if it will live up to the expectations of many people.
It's the setup for the next sentence, which relates to the post I quoted. Jeez, don't be a prick.
Because you don't understand. It's not SD vs. HD. It's the size of the TV vs. the distance people are sitting from it. For most homes, given the size of their TV and how far they are sitting from it, people can't see a difference between 720p and 1080i or p. So, the benefits of BR are lost, and streaming 720p from iTunes fills the need nicely.
I don't doubt your reasoning. You are quite likely correct.
However, things are getting tight, budget wise. Not everyone can just "write off" everything they want anymore.
The economics of most consumers, private, corporate, industrial, etc... are changing, and fiscal policies are dialing back, and battening down. What money is spent needs to go further, and buy more value, not more un-used excess.
I have a G4 Cube. I loved that machine before it just stopped booting, but I could have seen it do just a bit more. Dual monitors, an expansion slot... stuff like that... but the G4 Tower was the same, or selectively slightly lower price, with that expandability. (I had a sawtooth G4 tower, too. The first new mac I ever bought, rather than hand-me-down used machines, before and a couple since. However, for my work, I procure dozens of new high-end laptops every year... for other users... so stockholders need not worry that I don't usually buy new machines. ;-) But I can't just ignore what my budget, and my users can afford to pay for. I can't just assume they can afford top-dollar.)
There used to be overlap there between G4 Cube and G4 Tower, with G4 imac being another line.
Now there is a sizeable gap between Mac Mini and Mac Pro, and iMac is still what I consider to be another line.
I hope others haven't gotten me wrong, I do like the mac mini quite well, and very plausible for me to buy one at some point, and I do hope it gets good, well-thought-out upgrades.
I just see another product in my mind's eye that is more versatile and middle-range than Apple's other desktops, and fully acknowledge that it is entirely unlikely for Apple to do that, unfortunately.
I use a hand-me-down Mac Pro at home. I don't need most of that machine, and a new Mini would probably do everything that huge tower is currently doing. But the hand-me-down is a good machine, and significantly less expensive than buying any new Apple. As I said, money is tight in some places. And at work, I see several places where a mini-tower would work quite well, as well as being a nice future hand-me-down, or a nice new apple machine purchase for my purposes.
What gets me is that they'll nuke ALL of your posts in one thread, even ones that are perfectly legitimate. One post that they don't like for whatever inane reason gets everything bagged. The sad thing is that, like you said, some truly idiotic crap sticks around because they apparently agree with it. I've seen some stupid in these forums that can almost rival Yahoo Answers (which is a truly depressing fountain of human idiocy), yet the mods don't touch those. I'm not saying that this should become an unmoderated hellhole like 4chan, but come on guys, get some perspective.
Sorry buddy, but you said the Core i3 "destroys" the Core 2 Duo in real world application. That's not how it works. Generally, real world applications don't even support multithreading, so your argument is blown straight out of the window. That synthetic benchmark is the best results you're gonna get.
Also, did you seriously just say "destroys" after posting those benchmarks? For one, I already said the i3 is better when comparing the same clock speed. But it's not much better, making higher clocked Core 2 Duo's (like the E8600 missing from those benchmarks) easily comparable. Stop grasping for straws. The last anandtech benchmarks you posted showed the Core 2 Duo demolishing the Core i3 in every game it was played on. Your argument has fallen flat.
And if you want to know why mods delete your posts, you shouldn't be calling users "bonafide retards". Might want to read the TOS on MacRumors. Insulting someone is an instantly bannable offense.
You didn't even look at that page, did you? The Core 2 is soundly beaten in nearly every multithreaded bench, and just about anything even remotely related to multimedia is multithreaded, not to mention what happens when you're running multiple applications at once. I'm seeing some pretty darned big gains over the Core 2 in that page. Try actually looking through more than just the first few charts you see.
Did you just seriously try to use games as a way of measuring raw CPU performance? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? Games are only dependent on the CPU up to a certain point and only rarely will they stress a modern CPU. Games also rarely use more than two cores. The few that do (if you look at Crysis and Dirt 2 on the Techpowerup bench, for instance) have the i3 showing significant gains over the Core 2. Starcraft 2 will be another good one for benching dual vs dual hyperthreaded vs quad when it hits as it seems to use four cores pretty effectively. Please educate yourself before trying to point out flaws. Also, how much does that e8600 cost compared to the base i3? And if you hunt around, you'll find that the i3 still beats it in multithreaded apps. We're looking at total CPU performance and capability here.
And how does that justify nuking multiple posts you make in a thread, including ones that are legit?
I looked at the page. It was them comparing a similarly clocked Core 2 Duo to a similarly clocked Core i3. No one here is arguing the Core i3 isn't better than the Core 2 Duo clock for clock. But from what I did see, it pretty much confirms that the 3.33GHz E8600 will fare very well against the Core i3 chips. Your benchmarks show nothing new, you actually think you are proving something here?
Boy, you really are drinking the Intel kool-aid when it comes to these i3 processors. It was your quote, not mine. "Take a look at the real-world stuff. x264 encoding, CS4, some games"
Let's do a real comparison of these anandtech benchmarks that you posted shall we? http://www.anandtech.com/show/2921/2
The E8600 outperformed the Core i3 in EVERY game. The Core 2 Duo outperformed the Core i3 in sysmark 2007. The only time the Core i3 was in front it was by 1 or 2 seconds proving you are just wasting your time trying to argue.
Well, from the posts I saw both of them had insults in them.
Any gains you would have from Apple using Core i3s would be offset by the poor performance of the Intel GPU. End of story. You can argue the metrics/error margins/nerd porn all day, there's no changing that fact.