Apple continues to eliminate the dGPU

[Omar F1]

We use iMacs 21" all over our work place (400+ units). Pretty high quality and productive machines, most notably their screens. Also, their failure rates are considered extremely low.

Coupled with a Magic Mouse, I think it's an excellent choice for businesses to keep you more focused and productive.

However, I don't think I'd bring one home at any cost or any time soon.

 

[2is]

The day will come where IGP will be plenty good enough, even for gaming. Just like the day came where separate 2d and 3d cards were no longer necessary. But we're not there yet.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Can't believe they still ship with 5400rpm hard drives. That just kills any performance.

 

[frozentundra123456]

We use iMacs 21" all over our work place (400+ units). Pretty high quality and productive machines, most notably their screens. Also, their failure rates are considered extremely low.

Coupled with a Magic Mouse, I think it's an excellent choice for businesses to keep you more focused and productive.

However, I don't think I'd bring one home at any cost or any time soon.

My boss has one, and I have to say the screen is beautiful, and extremely thin. Pretty much any desktop cpu is fast enough, so the compactness and beautiful screen is a big plus.

That said, they are kind of like a high end ultrabook or SP4: great if your work is paying for it, but not something I would spend my own money on.

 

[cbn]

Apple is using the 1TB 5400 Drives because they were able to buy a large lot of those drives from a surplus reseller.

That doesn't surprise me.

I found out large pools of NOS hard drives do exist:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2433743

(though Apple is obviously using something higher up on the food chain compared to what I listed listed in my link)

P.S. In some cases WD even appears to be relabeling some new drives as recertified:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2443327

My findings here and here.

So yeah, there is a situation with surplus spindle drives....and it appears it is being processed in more than one way.

 

[MrTeal]

That doesn't surprise me.

I found out large pools of NOS hard drives do exist:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2433743

(though Apple is obviously using something higher up on the food chain compared to what I listed listed in my link)

P.S. In some cases WD even appears to be relabeling some new drives as recertified:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2443327

My findings here and here.

So yeah, there is a situation with surplus spindle drives....and it appears it is being processed in more than one way.

I'm not sure finding a decent sized bunch of NOS drives is the same as Apple using them in millions of iMacs. I can't imagine Apple relying on the vagrancies of the surplus market for their iMacs when they can just use their buying power to secure stock direct from the manufacturer.

 

[cbn]

I'm not sure finding a decent sized bunch of NOS drives is the same as Apple using them in millions of iMacs. I can't imagine Apple relying on the vagrancies of the surplus market for their iMacs when they can just use their buying power to secure stock direct from the manufacturer.

Yes, I think Apple being a very large OEM could leverage surplus level pricing direct from the manufacturer.

But with SSD price per GB dropping pretty fast I wonder how long it will last?

Pretty soon, certain 256GB SSD will be around the price floor for a new Hard drive. And 256 GB is a pretty versatile size. How many people really need more than 256GB for their primary drive? This will, in part, dictate the volume of 2.5" HDD (the other being data center usage).

 

[erunion]

Yes, I think Apple being a very large OEM could leverage surplus level pricing direct from the manufacturer.

But with SSD price per GB dropping pretty fast I wonder how long it will last?

Pretty soon, certain 256GB SSD will be around the price floor for a new Hard drive. And 256 GB is a pretty versatile size. How many people really need more than 256GB for their primary drive? This will, in part, dictate the volume of 2.5" HDD (the other being data center usage).

That's missing the point. Its Apple deliberately sabotaging the base model in order to encourage people to up spend on storage options.

Apple is doing the same thing with the 6/6s. They upgraded the 2nd tier to 64gigs but kept the base at 16gig. If the base was 32gig that would plenty for almost everyone, but holding it down to 16 forces more people up to 64.

 

[cbn]

That's missing the point. Its Apple deliberately sabotaging the base model in order to encourage people to up spend on storage options.

Apple is doing the same thing with the 6/6s. They upgraded the 2nd tier to 64gigs but kept the base at 16gig. If the base was 32gig that would plenty for almost everyone, but holding it down to 16 forces more people up to 64.

This situation is different because all 21.5" iMACs and the lowest end 27" iMAC have 1TB HDD as the base.

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

So in this case, I do think Apple is getting those 1TB HDDs really cheap, but at one point does the SSD take over as the base?

 

[erunion]

This situation is different because all 21.5" iMACs and the lowest end 27" iMAC have 1TB HDD as the base.

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

So in this case, I do think Apple is getting those 1TB HDDs really cheap, but at one point does the SSD take over as the base?

That's not different. The iphone 6s and 6s Plus both offers 16GB as base.

The 256GB SSD is currently a $200 upgrade, so my answer would be that the 256GB SSD gets to take over as the base when Apple is able to charge $200 to upgrade it to 512GB.

 

[RussianSensation]

So Samsung's Samsung display is better than Apple's Samsung display? Cool trolling.

What are you talking about? Retailers like Apple, Dell, and HP use only A graded panels from the display OEMs for their high end units (ultrasharp, cinema and imac displays, etc).

I think you both didn't understand my comment or I didn't communicate it effectively. It's possible to buy an LG or a Samsung or a 4K Korean monitor that's going to offer a way better user experience than the small LG/Samsung premium panels Apple uses. You can throw 4K, 5K, 8K but it's still a tiny 21.5" screen. I provided 3 examples of monitors which are all far superior for actual real world usability for games, movies and productivity. It would cost about the same to build an awesome Skylake NUC and buy any of those panels (and my list wasn't even exhaustive but a random selection I threw out there) and it'll blow the DOORS OFF in terms of user experience.

And, if someone wants the Apple OSX, no problem, build a PC Windows/Hackintosh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ1byvvV3Ok

Alternatively, one could just buy a Skylake laptop and just dock it at home via DisplayPort/HDMI -- this way the user gets a superior experience of owning a laptop + a superior screen. Unless it's some bean counter buying these for a school district or there is a major limitation in terms of fitting 27" iMac in workplaces/at home, the 21.5" iMac 4K is a rip-off/bad product. If someone wants an Apple iMac, they should step up to the 27". Most Apple users own a Mac for at least 3-4 years from what I've read and therefore, $300 extra over the 4K 21.5" gets them into a way better user experience.

I don't get the fascination people have with small desktop monitors. Even when I was 18, I was already using a 19" CRT. That was a long time ago. 21.5" desktop for $1500 is just ludicrous, sorry. If this was a Windows AIO, it would get ripped apart in 2 seconds.

We use iMacs 21" all over our work place (400+ units). Pretty high quality and productive machines, most notably their screens. Also, their failure rates are considered extremely low.

Coupled with a Magic Mouse, I think it's an excellent choice for businesses to keep you more focused and productive.

And how is that better over buying a Mac Mini + 34" Class 21:9 UltraWide™ WQHD IPS Curved LED Monitor (34.0" Diagonal). Would cost almost the same and the user experience would be 10X better for productivity. Anyone actually dead serious about productivity and maximizing desktop real estate is not going to buy a 21.5" 4K monitor. Fact is, the choice to purchase iMacs 21" models by businesses is made by bean counters not professionals who will use the products in the automotive, aerospace, financial, or other similar industries.

Also, the budget $1099 iMac 21" I can understand to be purchased in 400-500 units for work, but in this thread we are discussing a 21.5" 4K model for $1500. How does that product make any sense when the 27" one is $1800, which comes with a discrete GPU, Skylake CPU (not Broadwell), and panels to upgrade the RAM for way cheaper than the stupid amounts Apple charges??

Sorry, but the $1500 iMac 21.5" 4K model is a pure marketing brand image product. It looks horrible in Apple's line-up against the 27" 5K model.

Can't believe they still ship with 5400rpm hard drives. That just kills any performance.

"The 2010 MacBook Air made SSDs the default storage option five (!) years ago, but all of the iMacs still ship with 5400RPM rotating hard drives by default. I've been using the base model iMac as my primary desktop for a few days now. I don't know if it's because I've gotten used to my 2012 iMac's Fusion Drive over the last three years or if El Capitan is just better optimized for SSDs than HDDs, but it. Is. Excruciating." ~ ArsTechnica

Anyone who has used a 5400rpm mechnanical drive after using an SSD for years will want to rip their hair out when trying to use their computer the same way. Try doing anything with a mechanical drive while having 50 tabs open, 10 excel files, a PowerPoint presentation, 3-5 word documents, 3-4 Adobe PDFs, listening to a YouTube video (music) in the background, while you are extracting a zipped attachment. Game over. Maybe some people think productivity is having 5-6 tabs open and running iTunes?

Even the 27" base models have a 5400 rpm 1TB, but an Elite Xbox One comes with a 1TB SSHD. Worse, the 1TB Fusion drive upgrade that costs +$100 only has a 24GB SSD component.

That means the bare minimum upgrade means:

$1499 base
+ $300 2TB Fusion drive (has 128GB SSD)
OR
+ $200 256GB SSD

That means in reality, to make a 21.5" 4K iMac even worthwhile buying implies the cost goes up at least $200 for the 256GB SSD, but then you basically need an external HDD to store media, etc. That means add another $60-100 at least.

The sheep will line-up though.

 

[cbn]

That's not different. The iphone 6s and 6s Plus both offers 16GB as base.

The 256GB SSD is currently a $200 upgrade, so my answer would be that the 256GB SSD gets to take over as the base when Apple is able to charge $200 to upgrade it to 512GB.

The NAND in the phones is soldered onto the motherboard.

On the iMAC the optional SSD is removable, but it is proprietary PCIe:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+EMC+2638+Teardown/17829/

But for the SATA 3 port, wouldn't a buyer have the aftermarket option to replace the 1TB HDD with a SATA SSD?

If so, then Apple needs to be careful how much they pay for those 1TB HDDs.

 

[Omar F1]

........
And how is that better over buying a Mac Mini + 34" Class 21:9 UltraWide™ WQHD IPS Curved LED Monitor (34.0" Diagonal). Would cost almost the same and the user experience would be 10X better for productivity. Anyone actually dead serious about productivity and maximizing desktop real estate is not going to buy a 21.5" 4K monitor. Fact is, the choice to purchase iMacs 21" models by businesses is made by bean counters not professionals who will use the products in the automotive, aerospace, financial, or other similar industries.

Also, the budget $1099 iMac 21" I can understand to be purchased in 400-500 units for work, but in this thread we are discussing a 21.5" 4K model for $1500. How does that product make any sense when the 27" one is $1800, which comes with a discrete GPU, Skylake CPU (not Broadwell), and panels to upgrade the RAM for way cheaper than the stupid amounts Apple charges??

Sorry, but the $1500 iMac 21.5" 4K model is a pure marketing brand image product. It looks horrible in Apple's line-up against the 27" 5K model.

Oh sorry, I'm mainly talking about previous generations of 21.5" models, definitely not the crazily overpriced new models ($1.5K, wth?).

I'd say 34" would be useful where such space is needed. For a normal workplace, however, it might be distracting rather than actually useful. Professional work is a totally different story though.

 

[Burpo]

Yes, a 34" wide, would be great for running 2 PC's to it. Has me rethinking my work space, especially at the price point I'm seeing for 1440P.. $649 for this Dell U3415W Black 34" Curved LED (promo code EMCKAKS26).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...15-Index-_-LargeFormatDisplays-_-24260239-S0A

 

[Mopetar]

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Apple users don't game because they can't game therefore they don't game.

I think a lot of them do, but it's the type of games like WoW or LoL that aren't very graphically demanding. I would be surprised if the Intel graphics were enough for either of those games at lower resolutions.

That aside, the iMacs have pretty much used mobile GPUs for years now due to the slim profile and cooling restrictions this imposes so even with the discrete GPU, if you're serious about PC gaming you're not going to be doing it on a Mac.

I'm somewhat curious about the M390 and M395 parts that they have listed though as I haven't seen any reference to those previously and not even AMD has any information about them published. Are they something new or just rebranded/custom parts for Apple?

Also, they probably should have gone with NV for the graphics as they have better power efficiency for this generation which makes more sense from Apple's perspective.

 

[2is]

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Apple users don't game because they can't game therefore they don't game. Apple is basically selling low to mid level laptop with a nice screen. Even the dedicated GPU option on the more expensive machine is just a mobile solution.

Apple products were always expensive, but for many years the innovation and quality was enough to provide value to the fans. Innovation has stifled, so Apple is resorting the tried and true process of reducing capability while maintaining price point. They need to be careful because its a double edged sword.

I'm an Apple user... I game... Just not on my Apple devices

 

[NTMBK]

I'm somewhat curious about the M390 and M395 parts that they have listed though as I haven't seen any reference to those previously and not even AMD has any information about them published. Are they something new or just rebranded/custom parts for Apple?

Given that the M395 has 2GB of VRAM, it's got either a 256-bit bus or a 512-bit bus (unlikely in this power envelope). I suspect that it is a Tonga based chip.

 

[Blue_Max]

That aside, the iMacs have pretty much used mobile GPUs for years now due to the slim profile and cooling restrictions this imposes so even with the discrete GPU, if you're serious about PC gaming you're not going to be doing it on a Mac.
[...]
Also, they probably should have gone with NV for the graphics as they have better power efficiency for this generation which makes more sense from Apple's perspective.

Yep. They've been using "mobile" graphics since pretty much the very onset of the thin iMac. If heat/noise is such a large issue for them, I'm also a bit surprised they didn't go with the lower-wattage, cooler-running nVidia chips this go-round. They have a fickle on-again, off-again relationship with both of 'em.

I'm half-surprised they don't SLI a pair of cooler-running units though. The iMac design provides lots of room in the back to spread that cooling around so it'd make perfect sense to have a pair of 50-75W units, rather than a single 100W heater they're trying to cool down. But they can't make an iMac too good either or they'll cannibalize the market for the Mac 'pro'. :hmm:

...but you guys have said it already - it's as if mac users just aren't gamers and they almost don't WANT them to be. Not high-brow "snooty" enough, perhaps.

 

[Anteaus]

I think the lack of gaming on Apple platforms is more about Steve Jobs purposely steering away from it. He wasn't a fan of gaming therefore it simply wasn't part of his larger vision, although he didn't prevent it from showing up organically. After the Bungie/Microsoft thing I think it became a personal mission to never let gaming be the focus of any specific design decision.

The problem I see with the Mac design today is that it continues to only cater to WWSJD (What Would Steve Jobs do?) crowd. I have zero problem with Apple continuing to develop their traditional product lines, but they now have a real opportunity to invest some of the cash into new product lines that people actually want.

Examples:

1. A more mainstream mac in the 500-1000 dollar range that ships without the display and has the same upgrade options as any consumer PC.

2. A Mac pro that is actually pro, meaning it needs give up some aesthetics for adaptability. It needs more space for internal storage as well support for multiple CPUs.

3. Apple needs to create or partner with developers to create a new generation of high end video/audio editing tools that will help bring those customers back to the table. Once upon a time, Apple was considered the pinnacle of editing platforms. Microsoft makes the majority of its cash in business licensing. Apple needs to start fighting for some of that market.

After the iPhone become huge Steve Jobs moved focus away from pro and more toward consumer use. This was a huge deal then, but Apple now shares that market space with products that are in many cases as good as and in some cases arguable better than what Apple produces and at more competitive prices.

If Tim Cook expects things to stay bright by only refreshing the iPhone and incrementally raising the price he is going to have problem. Also, the gimmick is simply shoving a larger screen onto smaller products won't work long term.

 

[ALIVE]

Apple for their own autistic reasons shoot themselves on the foot

imacs while they were supposed to be the cheap macs to gap the price between macs and pc in price area they end up to be a fancy product that cost lots of money for so low performance.

back in the 1995 i was looking for my first pc
apple offered
ecc ram great
scsi drives over ide drives great
mac os over windows even greater
but the price!?!?!?!? awful

apple is always loosing in the price
they need a cheap line so they can have a wider base of people and start getting applications into Macintosh.

they lost the train long time ago and programms that were initially mac only we have them on pc decades now. but they did not have programs going into their system or the games

in a monitor what it matter is dpi now we can make monitors with more dpi but do ti??
if a pixels too small then the eye will not see it while that may be good to make circles look more circles it does not mean you get more space to work

it does not matter if your monitor 22 inch can do 4000 5000 or even 10.000 pixels in the end when you end up writing this post in the forum you need the letter to be at a specific minimum to be readable and that means all that dpi will be useless

dpi mattered in the early when the pixel size was big but from 2000 and going to 100dpi pixel is small enough and does not need to go lower.
okey we go to 200dpi for what to use 2 pixels instead of 1 to draw the same things???


the placebo effect is huge to people
sale them numbers
the bigger the better even if in reality they offer nothing

 

[RussianSensation]

Yes, a 34" wide, would be great for running 2 PC's to it. Has me rethinking my work space, especially at the price point I'm seeing for 1440P.. $649 for this Dell U3415W Black 34" Curved LED (promo code EMCKAKS26).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...15-Index-_-LargeFormatDisplays-_-24260239-S0A

Adorama has it for $630 now. But ya, 4K, 5K, 8K, there is no way that a 21.5" screen can compete with a 3440x1440 34" one for games, movies, productivity, etc.

Most importantly, this screen is stand-alone and you can use it with future desktop CPU upgrades. The $1500 iMac can't be used later as a display once the hardware inside of it becomes outdated. In 10 years, that iMac is basically trash bin material but a 3440x1440 34" display could be used and enjoyed by your kids, grand kids, etc.. :biggrin:

 

[defferoo]

I can't wait for Thunderbolt to be fast enough to make external dGPUs viable. it would be great to be able to just plug you GPU into a computer for gaming. and since most gaming is GPU limited, you could just use a laptop + external dGPU for gaming and independently upgrade the GPU as needed.

 

[Rakehellion]

I can't wait for Thunderbolt to be fast enough to make external dGPUs viable. it would be great to be able to just plug you GPU into a computer for gaming. and since most gaming is GPU limited, you could just use a laptop + external dGPU for gaming and independently upgrade the GPU as needed.

It is already fast enough and possible with an enclosure, but who wants a GPU over Thunderbolt?

 

[Anteaus]

I can't wait for Thunderbolt to be fast enough to make external dGPUs viable. it would be great to be able to just plug you GPU into a computer for gaming. and since most gaming is GPU limited, you could just use a laptop + external dGPU for gaming and independently upgrade the GPU as needed.

I'm not sure how that's feasible. GPUs required dedicated lanes to the CPU as it is. I can't imagine adding another interface layer which will only slow things down. Who knows what the future may bring though.

 

[Rakehellion]

Already been done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_wAxRs0YAE