Why Is "Broadwell" Such A Big Deal?

[Mr. Retrofire]

I have a 2009 Mac Mini that has become so slow it's almost unusable.

I'd like to replace it once a new Mac Mini is presumably announced in a couple of days, but every article I read laments that it won't have "Broadwell" processors, since said processors won't be out till next year.

My question is: why is this such a big deal that it keeps being mentioned?

Broadwell has a 3rd generation integrated USB 3.0 controller.
Broadwell has 2nd generation integrated voltage regulators.
Broadwell supports modern storage and memory standards and interfaces.
Broadwell has a 2nd generation Iris Pro integrated GPU (iGPU) which supports OpenGL 4.3 and OpenCL 2.0.
Broadwell is more efficient than previous generations. Like OS X 10.9+, it does more with less power.
Broadwell has 2nd generation AVX2 instructions (Haswell had the first AVX2 implementation). This improves encoding times in modern ffmpeg-based applications and in Handbrake (x264, a H.264 CoDec). VLC sees also some improvements. All system applications use more or less vectorized code (SSE2+, such as SSE3, SSE4.1, AVX, AVX2). Broadwell improves their performance "automatically".

People who use applications which are not optimized for Haswell/Broadwell have no right to complain that the performance improvement is in the range of 5-10 %, if compared to the previous generation hardware. Especially, if the software uses only one thread, is not 64-Bit or does not use Grand Central Dispatch (GCD).

For example, Apple made the AES en-/decryption of entire disks (startup disk, Time Machine disk, ...) nearly transparent via GCD and Intel AES-NI.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

That would be Mavericks and it's "wonderful" memory compression.

That feature should never have been enabled for Core 2 Duo CPUs and older.

That's wrong info. The Mavericks kernel uses a faster "compaction" technique first for newer or recently used "pages" (1 page = 4096 bytes), if it thinks you do not use them in the future. Mavericks uses the ultra fast WKdm compression/decompression only if it knows that the page is very old and it is unlikely, that your program needs this part of the memory in the next minutes or hours. Even iOS 7.x.x on the ARM processors uses memory compression (via WKdm).

And let us not forget that the memory compression in Mavericks is a 1st generation memory compression. I'm sure Apple improves the already assembly language optimized compression/decompression via WKdm.

And do not say that the slow Virtual Memory (VM) on a SSD is the alternative!

 

[Yvan256]

That's wrong info. The Mavericks kernel uses a faster "compaction" technique first for newer or recently used "pages" (1 page = 4096 bytes), if it thinks you do not use them in the future. Mavericks uses the ultra fast WKdm compression/decompression only if it knows that the page is very old and it is unlikely, that your program needs this part of the memory in the next minutes or hours. Even iOS 7.x.x on the ARM processors uses memory compression (via WKdm).

And let us not forget that the memory compression in Mavericks is a 1st generation memory compression. I'm sure Apple improves the already assembly language optimized compression/decompression via WKdm.

And do not say that the slow Virtual Memory (VM) on a SSD is the alternative!

I don't care what it's supposed to be in principle, on paper, in theory, etc.

Slow VM on a slow laptop HDD is faster than Maverick's memory compression on my Core 2 Duo Mac mini with 8GB of RAM because since I disabled memory compression, I never get these random pauses of a few seconds every minute or so anymore.

I use my Mac mini all day long and it runs better without that feature, you can't say otherwise because you're not me. I'd rather wait 10 seconds for a HDD memory swap every hour or so than to be annoyed by random 2-3 seconds pauses every minute or so.

 

[Neodym]

Unless they shift storage to a single mSATA SDD 'card' and use a cooler/less performant processor like the Core M, I don't see how they can drastically reduce the footprint..

<Smarta**>
No problem to reduce the _footprint_ if you build it higher (-> current Airport Extreme / Time Capsule).
</Smarta**>

 

[hugodrax]

You cannot fit within the 45W constraint of the Mac Mini a haswell CPU and have iris pro. actually no i7s would fit.

Broadwell on the otherhand is a different story

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

You cannot fit within the 45W constraint of the Mac Mini a haswell CPU and have iris pro. actually no i7s would fit.

I thought the Iris Pro Haswell CPU/iGPU combinations (i7) have the same TDP as the Ivy Bridge CPU/iGPU combinations!? Not?

 

[Tough Guy]

A better question is why is your 2009 computer running slow?

 

[colin.mcgraw]

A better question is why is your 2009 computer running slow?

The likely culprit is mentioned a few posts back (memory management introduced in a recent OSX update).

My thing is, I don't want to spend time in Terminal or elsewhere tweaking settings, I want things to "just work" as the old Apple adverts used to proclaim.

I also want to take advantage of features like AirPlay, which are disallowed in my too-old computer.

Furthermore, I'm also running into issues because my Mini's 320 GB drive is running out of space to do things like back up my 128 GB iPhone (BTW - screw Apple for not making the backup location configurable through iTunes).

All of this said, after seeing that the benchmarks for the 2014 Mini is basically the same or worse than the 2012 model, I think I'll probably wait till the next generation after all (which saddens me, but the only other option seems to be paying $400 for a several-year-old USED model on EBay, which doesn't seem worth it).

Terminal, here I come, I guess.

 

[scottsjack]

The likely culprit is mentioned a few posts back (memory management introduced in a recent OSX update).

My thing is, I don't want to spend time in Terminal or elsewhere tweaking settings, I want things to "just work" as the old Apple adverts used to proclaim.

I also want to take advantage of features like AirPlay, which are disallowed in my too-old computer.

Furthermore, I'm also running into issues because my Mini's 320 GB drive is running out of space to do things like back up my 128 GB iPhone (BTW - screw Apple for not making the backup location configurable through iTunes).

All of this said, after seeing that the benchmarks for the 2014 Mini is basically the same or worse than the 2012 model, I think I'll probably wait till the next generation after all (which saddens me, but the only other option seems to be paying $400 for a several-year-old USED model on EBay, which doesn't seem worth it).

Terminal, here I come, I guess.

Get a 2012 i5 from B&H for $499. Add 16GB of Crucial RAM for ~$140.00. Someday you can replace the OEM 500GB HDD with something bigger and faster.

 

[Tough Guy]

Get a 2012 i5 from B&H for $499. Add 16GB of Crucial RAM for ~$140.00. Someday you can replace the OEM 500GB HDD with something bigger and faster.

16GB seems like overkill. Even 8GB is probably overkill for that machine.

 

[dazed]

I was thinking of grabbing a 2012 model before they all go. I'll use it as a itunes server,so fast graphics isn't important but future expandability is.

Would 4gb ram be enough to run Yosemite and stream HD or should I get 8gb? (16gb seems excessive).


The only thing drawing me to the 2014 minis are the ac wifi(since I'm mostly streaming) and the fact it's a new Mac and so should be supported longer than the 2012 one.