Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

starman · Mar 23, 2016, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by subego

In what way?

I don't have to deal with two bulky things like I do with my PC, or I did with my Mac Pro. One device. Done.

Also, the screen is 2560x1440. Big enough for me.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 02:37 AM

I wouldn't call a Mini "bulky".

Are you really crunched on space? That's the one situation where I can imagine the integrated screen jumping from "nice feature" to "super useful".

Cap'n Tightpants · Mar 23, 2016, 03:07 AM

I despise them because you can't use the display on another machine, once the iMac becomes outdated. It's terribly wasteful, since monitors are one of the slowest aging components of a system.

P · Mar 23, 2016, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

I despise them because you can't use the display on another machine, once the iMac becomes outdated. It's terribly wasteful, since monitors are one of the slowest aging components of a system.

Not really. Back when we had CCFL backlights, the backlight died about when the computer needed replacing - and a CRT display, if we go further back, would wear out as well. These days we have LED backlights, but then displays are finally moving forward with Retina and higher color gamut - at the same time as computers in general don't need updating as often. Still rocking an old 2009 iMac, and while I'm probably going to replace it at some point soon, the main reason to do so is that it isn't Retina.

OreoCookie · Mar 23, 2016, 04:17 AM

With laptops nobody thinks twice about replacing the screen with the machine every time, it's just a matter of being accustomed to being able to keep the screens when changing the machines. Most (external) monitors I've used, they lasted ~1.5 computers, and towards the end, they really showed their age.

Cap'n Tightpants · Mar 23, 2016, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by P

Not really. Back when we had CCFL backlights, the backlight died about when the computer needed replacing - and a CRT display, if we go further back, would wear out as well. These days we have LED backlights, but then displays are finally moving forward with Retina and higher color gamut - at the same time as computers in general don't need updating as often. Still rocking an old 2009 iMac, and while I'm probably going to replace it at some point soon, the main reason to do so is that it isn't Retina.

I've had monitors last well over a decade, what are you doing to them?

Cap'n Tightpants · Mar 23, 2016, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

With laptops nobody thinks twice about replacing the screen with the machine every time, it's just a matter of being accustomed to being able to keep the screens when changing the machines. Most (external) monitors I've used, they lasted ~1.5 computers, and towards the end, they really showed their age.

There's considerably less material being tossed out with a notebook display, since it generally makes up less than half of the overall mass of the machine. Also, I feel that one wasteful act doesn't make another right. I'm a pretty staunch defender of repurposing and recycling.

P · Mar 23, 2016, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

I've had monitors last well over a decade, what are you doing to them?

Oh they WORK, but they lose brightness - and in the case of CRTs, lose color accuracy as well. I still have a 17" VGA CRT monitor in the basement that gets used for troubleshooting every now and then, but I wouldn't use it for my main computer.

Again, LED displays promise to last better, but then there ahve been some real performance upgrade during the lifetime of LED displays.

Laminar · Mar 23, 2016, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Computers and monitors improve asymmetrically. Getting rid of one because the other needs upgrading is wasteful, no?

A Mini attached to a monitor seems less wasteful, if less elegant.

But it's weird because of the way Macs hold their value. If you're talking about a Dell or home built PC, by all means keep the same display as you go through a few different boxes. But by nature, the iMac isn't going to drop in price like a desktop PC would after a few years. It's easy enough to sell it on Craigslist and put that toward the new machine.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

With laptops nobody thinks twice about replacing the screen with the machine every time, it's just a matter of being accustomed to being able to keep the screens when changing the machines. Most (external) monitors I've used, they lasted ~1.5 computers, and towards the end, they really showed their age.

Nobody thinks twice with a laptop because don't have an alternative with a laptop.

OreoCookie · Mar 23, 2016, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Nobody thinks twice with a laptop because don't have an alternative with a laptop.

I understand that. But if almost all desktops are all-in-ones, then nobody will either — you are just used to it being this way.

I understand the argument about the wastefulness, but honestly, being all integrated makes an iMac that much better. Plus, the screens are top notch.

Laminar · Mar 23, 2016, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by P

Still rocking an old 2009 iMac, and while I'm probably going to replace it at some point soon, the main reason to do so is that it isn't Retina.

I have a 2010 27" i7 with 12 gigs of RAM and an SSD. I have zero incentive to upgrade. Anything else would have less storage, less RAM, be less upgradeable, and have only a marginally faster processor.

P · Mar 23, 2016, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

I have a 2010 27" i7 with 12 gigs of RAM and an SSD. I have zero incentive to upgrade. Anything else would have less storage, less RAM, be less upgradeable, and have only a marginally faster processor.

Well less RAM isn't true, you can fit 64GB into the new 27"ers and they still have the RAM bay door for easy upgrades, but other than that I fully understand you. That model you have is the slightly upgraded version of mine, only difference is the new GPU and the dedicated SSD slot. Only thing I really want is a Retina display.

Laminar · Mar 23, 2016, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by P

Well less RAM isn't true, you can fit 64GB into the new 27"ers and they still have the RAM bay door for easy upgrades, but other than that I fully understand you.

But the top end 27" still only comes with 8GB, so I'd have to upgrade it. Granted, $50 for 8GB isn't bad, but I'd also have to pony up a couple hundred for an external Thunderbolt drive to mimic the 3TB internal drive I have now.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I understand that. But if almost all desktops are all-in-ones, then nobody will either — you are just used to it being this way.

I understand the argument about the wastefulness, but honestly, being all integrated makes an iMac that much better. Plus, the screens are top notch.

How much better? Quantify the improvement over a Mini and an external monitor.

I've acknowledged it's more elegant and takes less space. Is there something else?

Are those things better? Yes. Are they better enough to chuck a perfectly good panel? Arguable.

How does what I, or anyone else is used to, justify the waste?

I justify the waste on a laptop precisely the way I stated. It is justified because a practical alternative has yet to be invented. Were it to be invented, the fact I'm not used to it would be a horrible reason not to adopt it.

OreoCookie · Mar 23, 2016, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by subego

How much better? Quantify the improvement over a Mini and an external monitor.

In case of non-Retina displays, people would often pair their computer with a crappy screen. And if you want a Retina screen, I don't think you even have much choice.

Originally Posted by subego

I've acknowledged it's more elegant and takes less space. Is there something else?

It's simpler to set up and manage. My dad replaced his Mac mini with an iMac 2 years ago, and he went from a bundle of cables to just a power cable and a network cable in the back.

Originally Posted by subego

I justify the waste on a laptop precisely the way I stated. It is justified because a practical alternative has yet to be invented. Were it to be invented, the fact I'm not used to it would be a horrible reason not to adopt it.

It's really just a matter of being used to it. If you get a new car, you don't keep the engine, the tires and the transmission, you swap the whole thing. It's the same thing with buying software outright or subscribing to software: people are used to doing the former, but one isn't necessarily more natural than the other.

starman · Mar 23, 2016, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by subego

I wouldn't call a Mini "bulky".

Are you really crunched on space? That's the one situation where I can imagine the integrated screen jumping from "nice feature" to "super useful".

Yeah, actually, I am. Big desk, but two computers, four screens.

And no developer in his right mind would work off a mini.

starman · Mar 23, 2016, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

I despise them because you can't use the display on another machine, once the iMac becomes outdated. It's terribly wasteful, since monitors are one of the slowest aging components of a system.

I guess that means that part of the iMac is still worth something.

Right?

starman · Mar 23, 2016, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by subego

How much better? Quantify the improvement over a Mini and an external monitor.

I've acknowledged it's more elegant and takes less space. Is there something else?

Are those things better? Yes. Are they better enough to chuck a perfectly good panel? Arguable.

How does what I, or anyone else is used to, justify the waste?

I justify the waste on a laptop precisely the way I stated. It is justified because a practical alternative has yet to be invented. Were it to be invented, the fact I'm not used to it would be a horrible reason not to adopt it.

I'll give you a good reason: because the smart people at Apple probably figured out that the damn stuff sells.

Laminar · Mar 23, 2016, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by starman

And no developer in his right mind would work off a mini.

Why not? The iMac still has mobile processors and graphics, right?

starman · Mar 23, 2016, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Why not? The iMac still has mobile processors and graphics, right?

Ever try compiling something big on a mini? Or run the simulator?

No, thanks.

Laminar · Mar 23, 2016, 02:54 PM

Couldn't you make the same comparison from Mac Pro to iMac? Or from a current-gen homemade PC to a Mac Pro?

What are the actual chipset differences between the Mini and the iMac that make such a big difference? You can certainly buy a Mini that's faster than an iMac.

P · Mar 23, 2016, 03:17 PM

Why not? The iMac still has mobile processors and graphics, right?

Nope. The CPU was the mobile variant between 2006 and 2009 and has been the desktop variant ever since - with an exception for the extreme low-end variant at some points. The GPU is technically a mobile SKU, but the top model uses more power than technically allowed by the spec and is not AFAIK sold in any laptop anywhere.

Laminar · Mar 23, 2016, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by P

Nope. The CPU was the mobile variant between 2006 and 2009 and has been the desktop variant ever since - with an exception for the extreme low-end variant at some points. The GPU is technically a mobile SKU, but the top model uses more power than technically allowed by the spec and is not AFAIK sold in any laptop anywhere.

Is EveryMac wrong?

iMac "Core i5" 3.3 27-Inch (5K, Late 2015) Specs (Retina 5K, Late 2015, MK482LL/A, iMac17,1, A1419, 2834) @ EveryMac.com

This model is powered by a 14 nm, 64-bit "Sixth Generation" Intel Mobile Core i5 "Skylake" (I5-6600) processor which includes four independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 6 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).

starman · Mar 23, 2016, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Couldn't you make the same comparison from Mac Pro to iMac? Or from a current-gen homemade PC to a Mac Pro?

What are the actual chipset differences between the Mini and the iMac that make such a big difference? You can certainly buy a Mini that's faster than an iMac.

I was all over a new Mac Pro until I saw the price tag.

ort888 · Mar 23, 2016, 04:37 PM

The Mac Pro seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem.

It's such a ridiculously niche product.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

What are the actual chipset differences between the Mini and the iMac that make such a big difference? You can certainly buy a Mini that's faster than an iMac.

I was curious about this too.

P · Mar 23, 2016, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Is EveryMac wrong?

iMac "Core i5" 3.3 27-Inch (5K, Late 2015) Specs (Retina 5K, Late 2015, MK482LL/A, iMac17,1, A1419, 2834) @ EveryMac.com

In a word: Yes.

Apple identifies it as a 3.3 GHz quad-core CPU with turbo boost up to 3.9 GHz.

iMac - Tech Specs - Apple

Everymac has correctly identified this as the i5-6600 CPU:

Intel® Core™ i5-6600 Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.90 GHz) Specifications

Which is a desktop CPU. That is not immediately obvious from that page unless you start looking at the supported products and such, but the listed socket is "FCLGA 1151", which denotes a desktop socket.

Everymac's test "Mobile Core" is most likely a typo. There is no good mobile chip that matches. The fastest i5 mobile quad is 2.6 GHz standard, 3.5 GHz max turbo:

Intel® Core™ i5-6440HQ Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.50 GHz) Specifications

If we instead look at the similarly named i7-6500U, that is only a dual core:

Intel® Core™ i7-6500U Processor (4M Cache, up to 3.10 GHz) Specifications

The mobile chip closest to Apple's specs is the i7-6920HQ:

Intel® Core™ i7-6920HQ Processor (8M Cache, up to 3.80 GHz) Specifications

But even that has slightly lower clock and, crucially, a lower TDP. Which brings me to...

P · Mar 23, 2016, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Couldn't you make the same comparison from Mac Pro to iMac? Or from a current-gen homemade PC to a Mac Pro?

What are the actual chipset differences between the Mini and the iMac that make such a big difference? You can certainly buy a Mini that's faster than an iMac.

Beacuse TDP.

TDP stands for Thermal Design Point, and is the amount of energy that the computer must be designed to transmit away from the CPU to make it run at full speed. The fastest Mac mini thus released has a CPU with a TDP of 28W:

Intel® Core™ i7-4578U Processor (4M Cache, up to 3.50 GHz) Specifications

Why does this matter? Because clock speeds. Turbo means that the clock speed is increased as long as the chip can maintain a stable temperature, and into the calculation of how high the clock can go goes the information about how much energy is being vented away as heat. The CPU in a Mac mini must stay below that 28W number at all times (and even less for a lower-end model), while the CPU in an iMac can run up to 65W. Even worse - the 28W number for the Mac mini includes the GPU, while the 65W number for the iMac is the CPU only - the GPU can use another 100W or so.

In practice this means that the iMac can run its 4 cores at a minimum of 3.3 GHz and usually more, and go all the way up to 3.9 GHz if it is forced to drop down to one core. The Mac mini on the other hand will be forced to stay near its base clock for most of its run, and anyway only has 2 cores. When compiling code, this really does make a difference. You can usually use all 4 cores, and the iMac will turbo each of them up as needed. The mini only has 2 cores, and it will remain at base clock unless you submerge it in liquid N2 or something.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

In case of non-Retina displays, people would often pair their computer with a crappy screen. And if you want a Retina screen, I don't think you even have much choice.

It's simpler to set up and manage. My dad replaced his Mac mini with an iMac 2 years ago, and he went from a bundle of cables to just a power cable and a network cable in the back.

It's really just a matter of being used to it. If you get a new car, you don't keep the engine, the tires and the transmission, you swap the whole thing. It's the same thing with buying software outright or subscribing to software: people are used to doing the former, but one isn't necessarily more natural than the other.

Good point about the retina, but if that's not needed, then the ability to connect a Mini to whatever screen, good or bad, is a feature, not a bug.

The simplicity I would put in the "more elegant" category.

The car is more similar to the laptop. If there were a practical way to transfer those parts I'd consider not doing so to be wasteful (which is not the same thing as natural). With software, we aren't even discussing waste anymore.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by P

Beacuse TDP.

Very informative! Thank you!

starman · Mar 23, 2016, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

You can certainly buy a Mini that's faster than an iMac.

You can buy a 4.4 GHz i7 Mini?

No, you can't.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

The Mac Pro seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem.

It's such a ridiculously niche product.

I'd get one if the last refresh was more recent than two years ago.

subego · Mar 23, 2016, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by starman

I'll give you a good reason: because the smart people at Apple probably figured out that the damn stuff sells.

This is a bad reason to scrap a serviceable panel.

OreoCookie · Mar 23, 2016, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by subego

The car is more similar to the laptop. If there were a practical way to transfer those parts I'd consider not doing so to be wasteful (which is not the same thing as natural). With software, we aren't even discussing waste anymore.

You're right that part of it is wasteful, but we are moving away from this kind of modularity in computers. With cars, I think you could think of modular battery packs. Tesla showed off how to change a battery pack in a few minutes, if these battery packs came in standardized sizes, you could pull up to a “battery station” and replace the battery of your electric car.

With computers you used to have a good degree of modularity: desktop (or towers) would accept expansion cards, you could change the CPU, the GPU and add memory. The reason modularity went away was the speed of change: memory types and CPU sockets would change too often so that it was not practical to keep your expansion cards. The monitor is the exception because technological progress was comparably slow and monitors long-lived.

Perhaps in the future when progress slows down, we will go back to a more modular approach with computers, but I doubt it.

Laminar · Mar 24, 2016, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by starman

You can buy a 4.4 GHz i7 Mini?

No, you can't.

Faster than an iMac, not every iMac.

Laminar · Mar 24, 2016, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by P

Beacuse TDP.

TDP stands for Thermal Design Point, and is the amount of energy that the computer must be designed to transmit away from the CPU to make it run at full speed. The fastest Mac mini thus released has a CPU with a TDP of 28W:

Awesome info, thanks.

starman · Mar 24, 2016, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Faster than an iMac, not every iMac.

Well, you didn't specify which.

Laminar · Mar 24, 2016, 11:05 AM

Then why'd you jump to the assumption that I had to be wrong?

starman · Mar 24, 2016, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Then why'd you jump to the assumption that I had to be wrong?

Because it was a poorly written statement. The context was that a mini isn't good for devs because they're just not fast enough for smooth development. The rebut was "you can get a mini that's faster than an iMac". I suppose technically you can, but that wasn't the point if I'm using a 4GHz system.

ort888 · Mar 24, 2016, 11:48 AM

I sometimes have to laugh when someone says "you could never do ________ on this Mac... you really need an ________"

I'm pretty sure you can do just about anything you want on any Mac Apple currently sells. It may be a little slower, but you can do it.

I've heard sales people in stores trying to talk people into all sorts of crazy powerful machines... and I've had to talk to them later and say "look, I do this stuff for a living and my computer is slower than the one he said you couldn't use, and trust me, you can totally use it. It's just fine."

Hawkeye_a · Mar 24, 2016, 11:51 AM

If they had a quad-core mini on sale like they did a few years ago, i would have purchased one.

Laminar · Mar 24, 2016, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Because it was a poorly written statement.

It was a specifically-worded statement.

subego · Mar 24, 2016, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

I sometimes have to laugh when someone says "you could never do ________ on this Mac... you really need an ________"

I'm pretty sure you can do just about anything you want on any Mac Apple currently sells. It may be a little slower, but you can do it.

I've heard sales people in stores trying to talk people into all sorts of crazy powerful machines... and I've had to talk to them later and say "look, I do this stuff for a living and my computer is slower than the one he said you couldn't use, and trust me, you can totally use it. It's just fine."

While I wouldn't say you can't do 4K visual effects on a Mini, you really shouldn't.

Laminar · Mar 24, 2016, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by subego

While I wouldn't say you can't do 4K visual effects on a Mini, you really shouldn't.

Oculus says you can't do Oculus on a Mac.

Oculus VR founder says they won’t support Mac until Apple ‘releases a good computer’ | 9to5Mac

ort888 · Mar 24, 2016, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by subego

While I wouldn't say you can't do 4K visual effects on a Mini, you really shouldn't.

There are obviously edge cases. 3D animation, professional video editing, hardcore gaming, etc...

And yes, you'll have a better time doing some stuff on better machines, but you can do it on anything.

The specific incident I always remember was a sales person trying to convince a college kid that they needed a Mac Pro (circa 2003ish) to do Illustrator work. Uh, yeah, no you don't. I had been using Illustrator for years at that point and had done it on machines with 1/10 the power of the what they were trying to convince them was the bare minimum.

reader50 · Mar 24, 2016, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

The specific incident I always remember was a sales person trying to convince a college kid that they needed a Mac Pro (circa 2003ish) to do Illustrator work.

That sales person was ahead of his/her time. Glad to see retailers hiring better nerds again.

Originally Posted by subego

Coff... Power Mac... Coff... {new models not introduced at the event}

Agreed. I'm still waiting too.

Chongo · Mar 24, 2016, 02:06 PM

It's amazing how the current iMac's are far more powerful than older power Macs were once. I paid about the same price for my 27" late 2013 as I did for the 1.25 dual chipped silver door PPC power Mac.

P · Mar 24, 2016, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Oculus says you can't do Oculus on a Mac.

Oculus VR founder says they won’t support Mac until Apple ‘releases a good computer’ | 9to5Mac

Because of the GPU, never an Apple priority. Also because he is being a bit disingenuous - he compares to the dual D700 in the MP and says that they're far too weak. This is true, but mostly because they're old (the Tahiti chip they're based on is an early 2012 chip) and underclocked to support higher performance DP math and similar that regular GPUs doesn't. The 2014 respin of that chip, codename Tonga, is in the top iMac, and it scores far higher in VR tests despite being a single chip with far less memory bandwidth. I'm sure he would argue that that is also too weak, because he would, but it is not far off

P · Mar 24, 2016, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Perhaps in the future when progress slows down, we will go back to a more modular approach with computers, but I doubt it.

I think that it is pretty clear where we are going: everything on one SOC. One CPU with integrated everything, memory connected directly on the chip (HBM or whatever comes after). Storage, some analog circuitry, and ports on a stub of a motherboard. Zero modularity for the end user.