Why no discreet + Quad Core? Trying to mess with us?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by patent10021, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. patent10021 macrumors 68020

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    #1
    Seems like a no brainer to make or at least BTO. Why not? You can say that the people who need this don't need that or whatever but that's lame. It's one little option that could make a significant difference in someone's set up. I don't get it.
     
  2. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #2
    Heat.

    It's either dual core + discrete or quad core with integrated.

    Can only have so much heat in the one enclosure.
     
  3. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #3
    Like the above post said, heat issues. Even the AMD chip in the dual core is a pretty tame one, so with a quad that's already 10W hotter, it would just be too hot for such a small enclosure.
     
  4. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #4
    the current internal psu is 85 watts.
    you need more power the 2009 external brick is 110 watts.
    so if you want a gpu and a quad you need a brick.

    I did a few posts on the power needed around 101 to 105 watts would do it.
     
  5. patent10021 thread starter macrumors 68020

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    #5
    Reason I bring it up is because I'll probably be buying the i7 Quad since it's for Logic Pro (audio work/utilizes all cores). Even though Logic is the main purpose I'd obviously like to do other light photography/video work (hobby) on the same machine. Would be such a perfect MM with discreet graphics. What is the real world difference between the two GPUs? Huge? Only a serious graphic designer would realize the difference?
     
  6. mdgm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #6
    Get the Mini Server. Hopefully there'll be a Thunderbolt graphics card peripheral at some point if you really need better graphics.
     
  7. patent10021 thread starter macrumors 68020

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    #7
    EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thanks
     
  8. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #8
    Still confuses me though as to why a 15-17" MBP can handle a faster quad-core CPU AND a better-specced GPU, in an enclosure that is likely even more restrictive as far as power and heat dissipation goes.

    I think another part of it was either they didn't want to make the mini seem too attractive, also they design the mini with the concept that it's supposed to be a "low end" (low cost) mac. Except they don't realize what they could have if they just made a premium version.
     
  9. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #9
    I have no doubt they realize exactly what a high-spec mini would mean. Cannibalization of higher margin machines.
     
  10. Adamantoise macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    #10
    I see this line of reasoning too often.

    Lol, Apple isn't competing with Apple ... You honestly think they give a damn if you buy a Mini instead of an iMac ? Or if you buy an iPad instead of a Macbook Pro?

    At the end of the day, consumers will buy what they will. While it would be nice to get more profit per customer, trust me ... No profit is bad profit, they don't give a damn what you buy as long as you buy from them.
     
  11. monokitty macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    #11
    This simply isn't the only reason, if a reason at all.

    The Mac mini Server is a server. Even if non-server customers purchase the machine in large quantities, that doesn't change the model's purpose. Since when do server models -- run as servers -- need discrete graphics cards? Right - never.

    That's the real reason. It's not about "can't be done." Users who want dedicated graphics are expected to purchase the non-server model. Apple isn't going to put AMD graphics in the server model to please non-server clients who want a Quad Core and dedicated graphics together in a Mac mini. They expect you to buy an iMac if you want that combination.
     
  12. Mr.C macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK.
    #12
    It doesn't stop them from offering it as a BTO option for those who want it. If they sold iMac specification models without the built in display then it wouldn't even be an issue. The fact is they don't. As an alternative at least they could offer similar specification BTO options in the Mini. I have said this many times. I don't need nor want a built in display. I also don't want to have to sell the display as well as as the rest of the computer every time I want to upgrade.
     
  13. Adamantoise macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    #13
    Lol, a computer is a computer. Just because Apple calls it the server model doesn't mean it is automatically exempt from any kind of discrete graphics offerings.

    He provides a well thought out reason why Apple doesn't offer such a configuration and all you offer is conjecture.

    Short of those working at Apple, no one knows why it isn't offered. However, in my opinion, his reasoning makes more sense than the 'what-ifs' you provided.
     
  14. monokitty macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    #14
    Of course not.

    But while we're speculating, does it cost more to add AMD graphics over the HD Graphics 3000 to a machine? If so, that may or may not be another reason it's not on the server model. The units, if run for server purposes, don't need discrete graphics. Why should people who actually do buy them for server purposes pay a premium for discrete graphics they'll never need? Just some food for thought, is all.
     
  15. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #15
    I disagree. Apple can compete with Apple. Sales of high margin machines goes down = less profit. They've even said as much in that they see iPad sales potentially taking some of the laptop sales. Yes, they're still selling a product. But I'm 100% certain they'd like to sell 100,000 17" MacBook Pros over 100,000 iPads any day. I guarantee they give a damn which one you're more likely to buy.

    Apple is a business. And while they make the best computers the need to to support that business, don't be fooled in to thinking that Apple doesn't care about profits or that they're somehow above the desire to maximize shareholder benefit. Like any business, they will do what is necessary to maximize profits while still maintaining the marketshare they desire.

    A 2.3GHz quad-core i7 Mac mini with a decent graphics processor and two HDDs or SSDs for $1600 will absolutely take sales away from a much more expensive and profitable $2700 Mac Pro. Why else wouldn't Apple have an expandable, inexpensive tower for all these years (aka, the mythical "x-mac")?

    It isn't rocket science. Apple, or any company for that matter, is in it for one reason - make computers that sell so they can make the most money. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
     
  16. Adamantoise macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    #16
    Really? You're just going to pretend that Apple has never offered BTO configurations before?

    Lol, Apple gives you a choice if you want discrete graphics or not in the Dual Core models ... Which grants more support to the theory that it is indeed cooling constraints that exempted discrete graphics from the Quad Core model.

    Seems like a better explanation than "Apple doesn't want to compete with itself"

    ----------

    Look, the problem with your reasoning is you believe that every $1600 Mac Mini (your hypothetical one) sold could have been a Mac Pro. Lol, that's simply not true.

    You're talking as if Apple is the only computer company in existence. Instead of shelling out more money for the Mac Pro, customers would simply go to another manufacturer whose product offers more bang per buck.
     
  17. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #17
    Of course not, but the calculations are even more complex than that. They have to build, market, support and store these additional (hypothetical) Mac mini models. Even if they sell 10 for every Mac Pro they might have sold, it might not hit their threshold. Apple could sell a lot of stuff they don't. A cheaper 8GB iPhone 4. A 128GB iPad. A small tower Mac with a desktop-class Core processor rather than server-grade Xeon processors. But they don't. Not because they want to be dicks about it, but because they've made a conscious business decision to sell a subset of products where manufacturing and other backend support costs allow them to maximize profits with anticipated sales.

    Look, I don't have an MBA degree, but it's very clear that Apple chooses to ignore certain markets and product lines - even though they would likely be successful - to concentrate on a smaller subset and maximize the profits there. A mid-tower Mac probably wouldn't have the profit margin they desire, despite the fact that it would probably sell like gangbusters. It's not like someone in Cupertino never thought of it.

    Billions and billions in the bank, so they must know what they're doing.
     
  18. Adamantoise macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    #18
    Right, I understand all that.

    But that's a different discussion. What we're discussing here is if Apple's decision to not make a Quad Core Mini with Discrete GPU is one based on engineering constraints (heating) or one based on strategic pricing (maximizing profit).

    Seeing as the Quad Core Mini wouldn't need any parts that Apple doesn't already have in inventory, I'm saying there's more evidence that it's an engineering decision and not simply "Apple doesn't want to compete with itself".

    I've worked in Supply Chain, if the parts are readily available then manufacturing isn't a sourcing issue. I think it doesn't exist because the Mini is too small to take it all in.
     
  19. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #19
    But the fact that they can build a higher spec computer (both in CPU and graphics) into a form factor even smaller than a mini (15" MBP) is a pretty strong argument against "engineering constraints".
     
  20. vitzr macrumors 68030

    vitzr

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #20
    Uncle Steve doesn't think it's needed.

    He's created the 'Post PC" era, to do away with those pesky computers we use :)
     
  21. MJL macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    #21
    What's a server? A number cruncher? A File Server? A Web Server? A Music Server? Requirements are totally different. It is comparing apples to oranges.

    In a home environment a server is normally a file server.

    These are machines that can do sporadically some heavy work but not continously.

    Offering a GPU in the quad would mean a redesign of the power supply and has not done that at this stage.Carrying on about this just shows your own lack of understanding of business and engineering principles.

    IIRC: Many expected an i3 / i5 offering for the 2011 mini's and instead Apple delivered i5 / i7 and a quad to boot.

    You can please some people some of the time but not all people all the time. Now please shut up about your GPU in the server.
     
  22. Adamantoise macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    #22
    The 15" Macbook Pro has a larger footprint/surface area to dissipate heat than the Mac Mini does.

    Ambient cooling is more dependent on surface area in unibody constructions. The internal cooling is completely dependent on the fan radius, and rpms.
     
  23. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #23
    no the mbp has a battery that is why they can do it. the engineering constraint is the 85 watt psu inside the mini is as big as you can make. so if you want a brick free mini with a discrete cpu and a quad core. you need to drop most of the usb jacks. 2 max. and drop the firewire jack. of course if thunderbolt ever comes out with hookups that are worth while problem solved.

    only one day after the new minis came i did this thread.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1191667&highlight=


    it was meet with a lot of anger
    it is still the only way to get a gpu and a quad in a mini.

    or add a battery under the mini and a small external power adapter like a mbp 15 inch magconnector.
     
  24. Lokheed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #24
    I'm surprised no one has posted "because Steve Jobs wants you to buy two." :rolleyes:

    Like Steve Jobs is rubbing himself with money right now, and laughing maniacally. Like things like market demand, engineering limitations, costs, etc. don't factor into it...

    Raise your hand if you've turned a failing business around in the past decade to be one of the most valuable companies in the world? No? Nobody?

    Pretty sure Apple (no, not just Steve Jobs, Apple isn't one guy working out of his garage) knows a thing or two. Yeah, of course they could make a mini with a battery, or a blu-ray player, or a 2 GB GPU. Would it be successful? Hardly. They got a thumb on what people want and how to continue being profitable.
     
  25. jwhazel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    #25
    I'm confused. The 15" mbpro has a quad core + gpu, uses an 85w psu and it powers an optical drive and display. The mini has an 85W adapter and doesn't have enough juice for a quad core + gpu and keep all it's ports :confused:
     

Share This Page