Why are all macs at once equally fast?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by blanka, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #1
    Just don't get the recent Mac updates. They are all the same speed all of a sudden. No matter if you grab:
    - Top Macmini 2.6Ghz i7
    - Top MacbookPro 15 inch Retina: quad i7 2.6Ghz
    - Top iMac with BTO is quad i7 3.4 Ghz, so slightly faster, but only BTO, the normal models are even 4 thread models instead of 8 thread!
    - Normal MacPro is 3.2Ghz quad, but from the previous generation (I leave the fantasy-priced 12 core out of the comparison, you can buy a renderfarm with 4 quad mini's with 52000 points on GB for that!)
    So all score around 13000 on Geekbench.

    Isn't this weird? What is the marketing policy behind this move? They never have been so much the same.
    The mini has the best Geekbench-to-dollar value at the moment, incredible!
     
  2. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #2
    That's Intel's fault, I'd say, because they don't offer "worse" quad-core mobile chips Apple would care to use. In the end, it's a good thing for the users.
     
  3. the27thvoice macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Location:
    Norway
    #3
    Might be they are doing a little experiment. If it all scores about the same, what do people buy? Might let them learn which computer forms we truly want and which we just pick for power?

    Either way, it means I get great power for less money than I've ever paid for an Apple computer, so I'm happy.
     
  4. propower macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    #4
    +1
     
  5. namethisfile macrumors 6502a

    namethisfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #5
    apple doesn't really market tech specs or cpu's. unless apple made one back in the day for the mac pro during the g5 era. don't remember.

    unless apple can spin a cpu into the marekting equivalent of "Retina-display" or something more palpable, then apple doesn't bother with megahertz or quad cores.

    the mac pro is older gen. so these newer more efficient chips are catching up. at least in synthetic benchmarks. so, a mac mini is as powerful as the older mac pro. but, remember that a mac mini is using 5400rpm hdd's that is 2.5" form and not 3.5" form and running at 7200rpm like the mac pros; or a REAL GRAPHICS PROCESSOR UNIT unit and not integrated. they shrunk the cpu but put a gpu. who cares. put more cpu, please. oh wait....

    ----------

    you're not getting more power for less money. you're paying them more money to get less power. lol.

    get it?
     
  6. blanka, Oct 27, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2012

    blanka thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #6
    If it spins, it is outdated anyway in 2012 if it is not for storage. The Mini can equally well be equiped with SSD as the Pro. And then the speed difference through HD disappears. The mini also has more memory bandwidth.

    And for the GPU: an HD4000 is a GPU, and a decent one. That it has no VRAM does not matter, as the RAM bus of the CPU is as fast as one from a GPU. That it resides on the same chip: it is a PRO! No GPU talks faster to a CPU than an integrated one. Hence all the SOC's for mobile devices. They are pretty efficient. And Intel bakes GPU cores at 22nm as well, so the HD4000 wins on power/watt from any AMD or NVidia (who are at 28nm). The HD4000 does everything most people need. It drives 2 2560x1600 displays, does all the fancy effects of OSX, it does all the casual games from the App Store, it does all the HD video decoding.

    Most people don't need more GPU than the HD4000.
     
  7. Poki macrumors 6502a

    Poki

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    #7
    +10

    The age of moving parts inside computers is over, finally.
     
  8. namethisfile, Oct 27, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2012

    namethisfile macrumors 6502a

    namethisfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #8
    most people, sure. but what about pro users? you can give many reasons as to why hd4000 is so and so, but these reasons sound like excuses next to what are available in the mobile gpu world RIGHT NOW! right now! right now! hello kepler! hello grahics core next!

    your own post confirm the excuse-making since it sounds facetious to me that you would cite how integrated is faster since it sits on the same die as the cpu.

    the earth spins, but the earth is not outdated. we don't know if ssd is right for pro users, such as in video editing. ssd is not ideal in this world from what i've read since constant disk access or whatever it is called wears out an ssd even more so than a traditional spinning hdd writing from a mechanical needle. the ssd's electronics and how it handles data for video are inferior to old fashion mechanical drives.

    in summary, you're excuses sound lame. hd4000 might be good enough, but it is not that good.

    ----------

    you wish.

    PS---do you know why HD4000 might be good enough but not that good for apple? because 900 other ultrabook makers in the pc world use HD4000. where is kepler? where is gnc? where is apple special sauce?
     
  9. BigMa macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    #9
    Refresh rate HD4000 is capable for 2560x1600 display?

    What I still do not get is the refresh rate HD4000 will be able to drive display at 2560x1600 resolution... Will it be enough to properly display Blu-Ray movies? :confused:
    I realize I am probably asking silly questions, but I am just an artist, not a hardware Guru... :)
     
  10. fa8362 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #10
    Blu-ray is only 1920x1080 resolution.
     

Share This Page