I thought this was interesting...
http://www.macworld.com/article/2146360/lab-tested-the-mac-pro-daisy-chain-challenge.html
http://www.macworld.com/article/2146360/lab-tested-the-mac-pro-daisy-chain-challenge.html
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mac Hardware and Software |OT| - All things Macintosh
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
I agree that SSD should be standard. What makes it an absolute must is the iMac's "fuck usability" chassis style that prevents reasonable access to the drive. If the drive slot was accessible, I wouldn't personally mind so much that machines come with throwaway HDDs and Apple charges an arm and a leg for BTO upgrades; then you could at least buy an iMac off the shelf and fix the drive situation without much trouble. I don't know if Apple's PCIe SSDs actually cost substantially more to make than slower SSDs, but if they do, then the low-cost iMac should take advantage of those savings and come with a normal 128GB SSD as default. Yes, PCIe is much faster, but that's what upgrades are for, and for many uses I would personally prefer a cheap 1TB SSD to a screaming fast small SSD. The real performance cliff is between "SSD" and "not SSD", and being on the bottom of that cliff isn't acceptable in 2014.
Apple's usual CPU overkill is evident in the current low-end iMac. There's an easy $70 to be saved by switching the CPU to an i5-4430S that has totally indistinguishable performance for an average user, or $140 by going to a i3-4130 that drops two cores but - I'm guessing - is also indistinguishable for the majority of users. Apple thinks a dualcore is good enough for "Pro" users in the rMBP 13", surely a faster dualcore is good enough in a websurfing desktop then.
A decent price for the resulting machine is $1k / 1kE. That has plenty of room for margins. The current low end price is ridiculous.
Well historically the cheapest an iMac has ever been sold new is $899*--and the last time that happened was in 2009 with the 9,1 20" C2D. $1299 is honestly not that far out of the line historically--although it's odd the price jumped $300 with these last two revs, considering the design remained the same. I think you're right that the culprit is Intel--their chip prices have inflated as of late.
*$799 if you count them selling the Bondi Blue after the release of the DV and DV/SE.
Totally insane.
The takeaway for me was that position in the chain didn't seem to hurt performance, which is contrary to what I always assumed for whatever reason.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
In my opinion, the pixels are so small that you don't notice any so-called "blurriness" in a properly designed HiDPI app when using higher resolution settings. I use 1920x1200 Retina and things are amazing. Retina is designed to eliminate any perceptual pixel lines and that's what it does best for me.
You are however using more GPU power of course because at 1920x1200 you are pushing literally 4K resolution. But in my machine the GPU's are more than powerful enough. Not sure how well the 13" will power that resolution or if it'll even be an option on that model (The max might be 1680x1050 on the 13" anyway) so I don't know how the normal Iris would perform. But if the limit is lower than 1920x1200 it should still be fine.
Non-Retina apps will have noticeable jaggies of course. But then again they would on "Best for Retina" anyway. They'll just be less noticeable at a higher setting.
Err, what? I pointed out that Intel has perfectly good, substantially cheaper processors, but Apple is in their usual fashion choosing to stuff their machines with unnecessarily fast and expensive processors even at the low end. They could have a low-end iMac with a fast dualcore that was $140 cheaper than the current low end before having to give up a cent of profit - that $140 would come out of Intel's pocket. If Apple lowered the price further so they'd just retain their profit margin, the low end iMac would instantly be about $200 cheaper. The "culprit" that's causing Apple's machines to have awful value is Apple.
In this particular case, about $70 of the unnecessarily expensive CPU's price is in the GPU within. Which takes us to the other way Apple's performance component choices result in awful value: their GPU lineups make no sense whatsoever. They stuff iMacs with anemic GPUs that cost way more than basic integrated and yet do not satisfy anyone who wouldn't have been satisfied with basic integrated. There's no reason for an iMac to contain an Iris Pro 5200. Either people do not need a GPU beyond basic integrated, or they want a pretty substantial GPU, or they want as much as they can get. When iMacs get an update, a sensible GPU selection for the small one would be 1) Intel HD 4600, 2) Nvidia 860m. For the large iMac, add 3) Nvidia 880m. That's it. No idiotic 840m-845m-"oh, you can upgrade to 860m but only if you also pay $150 extra for a 5% faster Intel CPU you don't need" progression.
Well it was last updated 6 months ago and I don't think there will be major update next 3 or 4 months time. I can't really guess which month because Intel hasn't release the date when Broadwell mobile CPU will be available. If you want Broadwell update then are you willing to wait til Q4 2014 if not then buy now.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
Any spec differences in the processor other than frequency?
Either way, combined with the price drop, not a bad upgrade. 8GB of RAM really should have been made the default, though.
dark_prinny
Banned
No Retina in the updated Air is really disappointing.
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/04/29/updated-macbook-airs-faster-haswell/
I disagree. I prefer (1) more battery life and (2) lower price to Retina in my MacBook Air.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
No it's not.
Please come on over and join the party in here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=109923661
And find out why it's possibly not disappointing.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
That doesn't answer my question.
Looking through the models, it looks like maybe the cache might be the same size, but the GPU might be 100MHz higher? Maybe?
Even if they have bumped up the nominal clocks a bit (didn't check), don't expect the results to be any different. The GPU will still suck. What's more, it's thermal limited in the Air already, so you might not get any more real-world continuous (e.g. game) performance, just get the GPU to throttle itself a little faster.
Those of you with machines that have the 750m, how happy are you with it? I am only really interested in Blizzard and Valve games but i'd like decent performance for those.
I am currently umming and ahhing between a maxed out 21" iMac and an extra (Asus) monitor, 15" MBP and a 27" iMac with the 780m. The Mini line seems fairly dead right now and if something new does come out of WWDC I am not expecting anything more than Iris Pro graphics so that's out.
I am currently umming and ahhing between a maxed out 21" iMac and an extra (Asus) monitor, 15" MBP and a 27" iMac with the 780m. The Mini line seems fairly dead right now and if something new does come out of WWDC I am not expecting anything more than Iris Pro graphics so that's out.
Those are pretty different solutions. What hardware do you have now, and other than for running the games, what do you need from an upgrade?
If you're going to buy at least a low end iMac-class machine in any case, and throwing an extra $200 at it gives you enough to run your games adequately, that's fine. But before throwing an extra $700 at a MBP or an extra $1000 at an iMac to get more GPU, you should seriously consider the possibility of getting a non-Mac desktop or laptop specifically for games, since Apple's price per GPU performance is hilariously bad at the high end of the price range. Something like a $700 desktop will crush the 750m iMac in performance while a $1k desktop will crush the high-end 780m iMac.
They are yes and all involve some level of compromise. I had a 20" iMac but it broke yesterday (PSU failure) so I need a new machine. My only requirement is that it run Mac OS.
I had considered building a Hackintosh, I even have a 8GB USB stick with Mavericks ready to go but I have a big move coming up and i'd rather have a more compact machine without a mess of wires. Ultimately if I can run Diablo 3, WoW, L4D2 and the like at 60fps on high settings I am happy.
I opened up Left 4 Dead 2 for about 5 minutes and was getting ~90 fps with everything on High at 1440p with a 680MX, so I'd guess you'd get better performance with a 780M. Your mileage may vary. I don't particularly care about gaming, but the experience with my iMac has been pleasant when the mood/right game strikes.
Post it!!! I'd love to see it
If getting two separate computers isn't an option, I think the small iMac with 750m is the least bad of your choices. It isn't that expensive when you need a decent Mac anyway.
You should be able to get your target quality or close enough with 750m at 1080p. For getting really solid 60fps (as in staying above it 99% of the time or so), you might have to turn a few IQ settings towards medium in the most demanding Blizzard/Valve titles, but nothing that would make the games ugly. They have very low requirements after all.
While the 780M in the high-end iMac performs a lot better in a vacuum, the horrible price/perf is a problem, and that problem is compounded by the GPU being permanently married to a display with twice the amount of pixels, which wipes out a lot of the performance advantage. It's just not enough to run a 1440p display with demanding games and high IQ, though it should deal with Blizzard/Valve stuff.
http://www.craftograph.com/compactsplash/ is the case. Mine is one of two that exist in blue and one of only 20 made by the original manufacturer.
So Pretty
Next to a Mac Pro
How I have it set up. Will have Premiere, Photoshop and Encore each on their own screen at times.
Specs.
Love it so much. I'm a couple parts away from the full water-cool loop, everything is air cooled for now.
My problem is that if I were going to make a Hackintosh, I'd be more interested in doing an interesting case design than expanding the hardware options. This guy's stuff is awesome: http://slipperyskip.com/page23.html
I'm probably going to set up my old mini as a server soon, might think about case mods once it becomes something I can live with if I fry accidentally
I'm probably going to set up my old mini as a server soon, might think about case mods once it becomes something I can live with if I fry accidentally
I can only wish that Jony Ive was inspired by art deco and art nouveau as well as Rams and 60's design
I can only wish that Jony Ive was inspired by art deco and art nouveau as well as Rams and 60's design
Does that guy make the whole computer, or just the case?
"Makes" the computer insofar as assembles the components? Yeah.
Yes that's what I was wondering, if he just delivers to you the case or if he also delivers to you an assembled and functioning computer (that you can possibly upgrade for fiddle with yourself later on). Thanks.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...with-in-key-displays-capacitive-touch-sensors
Future MacBook keyboards may come loaded with in-key displays, capacitive touch sensors
Future MacBook keyboards may come loaded with in-key displays, capacitive touch sensors
ProfessorX
Unconfirmed Member
The laptop wouldn't be able to close properly if the hard shell case covered the area around the trackpad and keyboard.
If just need something to protect that area. I've got a keyboard cover and a case covering the rest of the device. The only exposed area is that section.
ProfessorX
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.twelvesouth.com/product/surfacepad-for-macbook
Amazon might have a cheaper knockoff.
I never really felt like I was missing something for not having one of those personally.
ProfessorX
Unconfirmed Member
It's an amazing laptop.
No one regrets their purchases before the refresh.
TBH I don't think there's anything significant that the 13" rMBP can get right now, and the only big thing 15" can get is a better GPU.
DJ_Lae
Member
My (well, my wife's) Air arrived yesterday and it's kind of neat messing around with my first Mac since my old Powermac 6100. I did dabble with those horrible puck iMacs in university but they didn't leave the fondest memories.
It's interesting to see what has, and especially what has not changed. Menu bar's still there, structure is basically the same as it was back in System 7.
The only thing that really annoys me is not hardware related, it's warranty. AppleCare is $280 for this thing. My wife's iPhone, which I paid $100 more for than this computer, has AppleCare at $100. There is an extra year of warranty with the laptop, but man that's ridiculous.
It's interesting to see what has, and especially what has not changed. Menu bar's still there, structure is basically the same as it was back in System 7.
The only thing that really annoys me is not hardware related, it's warranty. AppleCare is $280 for this thing. My wife's iPhone, which I paid $100 more for than this computer, has AppleCare at $100. There is an extra year of warranty with the laptop, but man that's ridiculous.
ProfessorX
Unconfirmed Member
Well you do get a three years almost no questions asked and no additional cost full repair and replacement policy, as well as unlimited tech support. So it doesn't seem like such a bad deal to me.
DJ_Lae
Member
Oh I'm still probably going to buy it because we had a really good experience with AppleCare for the iPhone, it just seems weird that it's effectively twice as expensive as the phone given their respective pricepoints.
I suppose the comparison would be more fair with the cheapest iPhone and most expensive 13" laptop rather than the other way around.
ProfessorX
Unconfirmed Member
Well for one thing. It's insurance. So the price is based not only upon the price of the devices. It also depends upon (1) Apple's expected cost to provide that insurance, (2) how much profit Apple wants to make off of the insurance, (3) how much Apple thinks people are willing to pay for the insurance, (4) how much the insurance costs to provide. Keep in mind that most people pay $200 for their iPhone. Most people pay $1000 or a lot more for their laptop. The iPhone insurance also comes with a $50 per broken phone replacement charge, and the Laptop Apple care comes with no such charge. And I am guessing that people are much more likely to want substantially more phone tech support with a laptop than with an iPhone. I'm not saying that I know for certain whether or not it is all fair and correct, I am just saying that it is not as simple as looking at your cost that you paid for each device and comparing that to the AppleCare cost to you.
The "tech support for software" part is largely worthless for anyone who knows their way around computers, though. It only covers stuff that either doesn't give you problems to begin with, or can be trivially googled. Anything in OS X where I could have used some advice has been well outside the scope of Applecare.
DJ_Lae
Member
Oh I would probably have no use for the tech support either, it would be repairs or nothing. And your point about the subsidized price for the iPhone having a bearing on its AppleCare cost is probably right on, I forgot that most people pay way less for it.
Anyway, the hardware itself is great, we're really enjoying it.
Especially nice is a trackpad I don't actually hate. It's amazing how functional it is when every Windows laptop and even the older Mac laptops I've used have been near useless things. With this Air I don't miss a mouse as much as I expected.
Anyway, the hardware itself is great, we're really enjoying it.
Especially nice is a trackpad I don't actually hate. It's amazing how functional it is when every Windows laptop and even the older Mac laptops I've used have been near useless things. With this Air I don't miss a mouse as much as I expected.
But there are plenty of people out there who cannot actually find the answers they need on the internet themselves, and it's there for them. I don't even include it in my cost-benefit analysis; at $300 the peace of mind and potential for avoiding repair costs is well worth it for laptops. Haven't ever bought it for my phone or Mac and doubt I will.
Since AC price doesn't scale according to BTO options, I find it too expensive to be worth it particularly for base models and close-to-base models.
The value of "peace of mind" is individual, and for me it's near zero. I can afford a repair or buying a new laptop when I need one, so all I need to be concerned with when considering whether to buy AC is expected value. If you treat your laptop well, there's not that big of a chance of it falling apart exactly between 1 and 3 years of age. My personal experience is that I have owned a series of Mac laptops for over a decade, some of them even bought used, and not one of them has ever failed on me before I sold them off.
I did get Applecare for my last Air due to various circumstances (got student discount on AC, was planning on selling the Air just before it was three years old and AC helps it to retain value in that circumstance, etc.). I didn't get AC for my new one, which I intend to keep as long as it's functioning.