New Macs are out!

Exodist · Oct 20, 2014

I dont think anyone is directing any names at anyone here, at least not on purpose. Remember everyone its the internet. Its way to easy to take things out of context even when its meant only as a friendly discussion.

That said, I know what Nick wants. But to give the user that it would be something as simple as CPU performance alone. We could not take GPU performance into consideration. Again Apples and Oranges.
Could FCP be used as a benchmark. Yes and No. On the yes side, it would make use of those GPUs in the Mac Pro to their full potential. But then again it wouldn't make full use of the GPUs in the iMac. Giving a lop sided advantage. We could also use World of Warcraft or Crysis and the iMac would be the full winner.
The reason being is that each video card requires the software to be tailored to it, totally separate programming. You can not wright one code and it run equally on both.

As far as objectively saying computer A is better then computer B.. This is just one of those were you cant based on all things being equal. To be able to give the user what will run the best for them, you have to ask the user what type of user they are.

a) Graphics Artist, Photographer, Music Editing, Video Editing for Home or Small Business: iMac
b) CAD, Scientific Research, Commercial Video Production for Corporate or Government: Mac Pro

Apple should make this more clear.. IMHO...

pigoo3 · Oct 20, 2014

Exodist said:
That said, I know what Nick wants. But to give the user that it would be something as simple as CPU performance alone. We could not take GPU performance into consideration. Again Apples and Oranges.

Cinebench has both a cpu test and a gpu test.

Because of this inclusion of a gpu test...Cinebench (by itself IMO) is better than Geekbench which only tests the cpu.

But since Everymac.com uses Geekbench...sometimes it's nice to use Geekbench cpu results for quick comparisions...since Everymac.com has them all conveniently listed for each Mac model.

- Nick

MyMac8MyPC · Oct 24, 2014

Exodist said:
Mini is a "entry system" BYOKMD.

The word 'entry' is the key word. Entry is not neccisarily synonymous with 'low end'. At the time when Apple first introduced the Mini people were complaining that they wanted to switch from windows to OS X but that all Apple products cost way to much, and they had no reason to switch from a PC to a Mac. One of the main purposes for the Mini was to snag some of those PC customers and turn them into a Mac customer. For this the Mac mini woks very well. Over the years the Mac mini has made many new converts, who then later buy Macbook Pros and other Mac products. There are many things to love about the Mac mini, plus a lot of people simply don't want to be tied to a 21 or 27 inch monitor, so the Mini does have a place in the Apple line up. With this years Mac mini the writing is on the wall, and I'm betting that next years Mac mini will be very different from all other Mac minis. For starters it will probably have incredible performance on it's own. The worst thing about the new mini is that the RAM is not user replaceable. Looking forward to seeing the benchmarks on the new models.

Exodist · Oct 25, 2014

pigoo3 said:
Cinebench has both a cpu test and a gpu test. Because of this inclusion of a gpu test...Cinebench (by itself IMO) is better than Geekbench which only tests the cpu.

But since Everymac.com uses Geekbench...sometimes it's nice to use Geekbench cpu results for quick comparisions...since Everymac.com has them all conveniently listed for each Mac model.

- Nick

I understand it does, but you have to understand while it has the option to test on both workstation and consumer based graphics cards, it still requires two separate sets of instruction code. Part of the scientific method for testing anything is not matter how many constants you have, you can only have one variable. Hence the GPUs are what we are wanting to compare then the GPUs are the Variables, this means everything else in both hardware and software must be identical. Now I feel your looking at Cinebench as one code, and that is not true, there are many sets of code in that program that make up the application.

That said, if you want to run some workstation benchmark software and run it on both GPUs to get a comparison. Then run some consumer gaming benchmark software on both GPUs, then that is fine. You will end up with only showing the strengths and weaknesses of both GPUs, but you still could not just flat out compare the GPUs to each other. However this would be good information for the consumer when considering which system to go with to help him/her make a proper purchase.

pigoo3 · Oct 25, 2014

Exodist said:
However this would be good information for the consumer when considering which system to go with to help him/her make a proper purchase.

What do you think the main point of my recent posts have been in this thread??

Exactly what you just said

…"Information for the consumer when considering which system to go with to help him/her make a proper purchase."

The benchmarking software values from (Geekbench and Cinebench) are useful ways for the average computer consumer to compare the performance of various computer models…while they are sitting at home in front of their current computer doing some computer shopping.

- Nick

Slydude · Oct 25, 2014

I suppose I wasn't surprised by the shift to soldered on memory in the Mini's. It's going to upset some people now but I think the day is not far of when most "consumer" systems (low end or not, Mac/PC) will have soldered on ram.

It would not surprise me a bit if there isn't marketing dat somewhere suggesting that a sizable majority of computer users never both to upgrade the ram in their systems.. Byt the time it becomes insufficient they've gotten the itch for a new machine.

pigoo3 · Oct 25, 2014

Not trying to take the thread in a different direction. But it never ceases to amaze me when someone posts a thread saying…"Should I replace my hard drive or get a new computer?"

REALLY!! If the HD is the only problem…why would any sane logical person even think about spending $1000+ on a new computer…if a $50-$75 brand new HD will solve the problem.

So I guess the same "illogic" applies to ram upgrades. Seems like so many folks (not all but many) seem to feel that the solution to their computer problems is to always just get a new computer. Not something simple like a replacement HD or a ram upgrade…let's just spend $1000+ on a new computer. Crazy!

Of course now Apple is making it "easy" for everyone!

If the amount of ram or storage space REALLY is the problem…with non-upgradeable ram and basically non-upgradeable storage on newer Apple computers…now folks DO NEED to buy a whole new computer to solve these issues.

- Nick

Exodist · Oct 25, 2014

pigoo3 said:
What do you think the main point of my recent posts have been in this thread??.......

- Nick

LOL yea true.. I just was reading it a different way.. :Oops:

Exodist · Oct 25, 2014

pigoo3 said:
Not trying to take the thread in a different direction. But it never ceases to amaze me when someone posts a thread saying…"Should I replace my hard drive or get a new computer?"

REALLY!! If the HD is the only problem…why would any sane logical person even think about spending $1000+ on a new computer…if a $50-$75 brand new HD will solve the problem.

So I guess the same "illogic" applies to ram upgrades. ........
- Nick

I agree... Its completely insane IMHO to buy a new computer when only a drive has went out. My biggest complaint about the RAM being fixed to the board isnt upgrading, but replacement if it goes out. Now keep in mind most RAM if it does die, will do it within the first month of ownership. And darn sure within the first year. So warranty will cover it. But wouldnt it be cheaper to have the local Apple store fix it on spot instead of sending it in to Apple, which takes away from customers time owning the machine, costing Apple in shipping cost and likely just a replacement of RAM turinng into a replacement of the system board or whole system.

Its IMHO is just not a logical cost saving when RAM seats are dirt cheap. All computers should have a little bit of expandability or ability to replace parts. Even if it isnt practical for the home users to replace/repair.

Take the MBA for example. The flash drive can be replaced. However you need a small torx screw driver to get at the insides of the system. So while it isn't practical for average joe to get into to. Its at least doable at a local Mac store.

If Apple doesnt want home users to get into the system. Just patent a special driver and screw for the system and only lend those to certified Apple stores. Surely there can be a balance.

pigoo3 · Oct 25, 2014

Exodist said:
LOL yea true.. I just was reading it a different way..

You got it!

My main point was…published benchmark program scores can be a very useful to someone sitting at home considering the purchase of a new computer. Using the scores to compare/contrast the performance of computer models that may be under consideration.

These same benchmarking programs can also be used by folks posting video reviews on You Tube…which can also be helpful to someone considering a new computer (same model being video reviewed).

- Nick

pigoo3 · Oct 25, 2014

Exodist said:
My biggest complaint about the RAM being fixed to the board isnt upgrading, but replacement if it goes out.

Totally agree.

Soldered ram problems basically turn the repair into a logic board replacement (expensive)!

Pretty soon…if a problem is not keyboard, display, or trackpad related…it will be a logic board replacement. This is very easy from a diagnosis perspective…but not from a cost perspective (cost to the computer owner).

It's sort of like an automobile. Why replace the whole cars engine…just because of a busted alternator belt!

- Nick

New Macs are out!

Exodist

pigoo3

Well-known member

MyMac8MyPC

Exodist

pigoo3

Well-known member

Slydude

Well-known member

pigoo3

Well-known member

Exodist

Exodist

pigoo3

Well-known member

pigoo3

Well-known member

Shop Amazon