I read in a separate article that the CPU in new Macs will have memory on-chip? 8 GB to start with, and 16 GB later, with no possibility of expansion? Just askin'. That'll be fine for most users, but not for power users. (I'm a heavy user of Adobe CC apps and have 56 GB installed.)
If the above is true, I wonder if they'll go with some kind of NUMA architecture in their very-high-end Macs.
Why would you not assume that higher end Macs simply get a different processor and memory solution? You think that because their first, low-TDP processor makes a design tradeoff that every other Mac will require bandaids?
Why would you not assume that higher end Macs simply get a different processor and memory solution? You think that because their first, low-TDP processor makes a design tradeoff that every other Mac will require bandaids?
I think that, Apple tends to try and concentrate all platforms into a single architecture. I have no idea whether they will actually do that in this case, I can't read their minds. It's all speculation at this stage.
I don't see them using different architectures in different tiers, but I guess we'll see.
I think if they were going to do that, they'd've announced all their Macs today. My own intuition is that they'll have different tiers and system architectures because trying to make a Mac Pro the same way you make a Macbook Air would just leave you with a garbage Mac Pro, and they've already had enough trouble there.
I think if they were going to do that, they'd've announced all their Macs today. My own intuition is that they'll have different tiers and system architectures because trying to make a Mac Pro the same way you make a Macbook Air would just leave you with a garbage Mac Pro, and they've already had enough trouble there.
The whole point is NOT to announce all their macs today, so that they can sell you an 8GB mac now and a 16GB mac when it comes out.
16GB is already available as a build-to-order option. And at these prices, if my Mac died today, I'd grab a Mac mini as a stopgap. But 16GB has no legs; if I bought something that I wanted to keep for 5-10 years, it would need 64GB of RAM for future-proofing.
And I think that's something that Apple will provide. I don't know if it'll be in the form of another iMac Pro, or it'll just be the top tier of iMac or what, but I think high-memory configurations will happen. And with the Mac Pro, the whole point is e
16GB is already available as a build-to-order option. And at these prices, if my Mac died today, I'd grab a Mac mini as a stopgap. But 16GB has no legs; if I bought something that I wanted to keep for 5-10 years, it would need 64GB of RAM for future-proofing.
And I think that's something that Apple will provide. I don't know if it'll be in the form of another iMac Pro, or it'll just be the top tier of iMac or what, but I think high-memory configurations will happen. And with the Mac Pro, the whole point is expandability, and I don't think they're going to drop the ball there. Say what you like about Apple, but they've shown they can learn from their mistakes on occasion, and I'm pretty sure this is one of those times.
You're probably right. I guess I was trying to make the point in my own grouchy way that these new Macs are for casual users and "Church of Steve" acolytes who must have the latest gadget. Power users will have to wait and see what Apple provides for them at some later time. And, as power users are almost certainly a small fraction of total users, the hardware meant for them will naturally not come out as fast.
Different all twisty a of in maze are you, passages little.
Memory on-chip? (Score:2)
I read in a separate article that the CPU in new Macs will have memory on-chip? 8 GB to start with, and 16 GB later, with no possibility of expansion? Just askin'. That'll be fine for most users, but not for power users. (I'm a heavy user of Adobe CC apps and have 56 GB installed.)
If the above is true, I wonder if they'll go with some kind of NUMA architecture in their very-high-end Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you not assume that higher end Macs simply get a different processor and memory solution? You think that because their first, low-TDP processor makes a design tradeoff that every other Mac will require bandaids?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you not assume that higher end Macs simply get a different processor and memory solution? You think that because their first, low-TDP processor makes a design tradeoff that every other Mac will require bandaids?
I think that, Apple tends to try and concentrate all platforms into a single architecture. I have no idea whether they will actually do that in this case, I can't read their minds. It's all speculation at this stage.
I don't see them using different architectures in different tiers, but I guess we'll see.
Re:Memory on-chip? (Score:2)
I think if they were going to do that, they'd've announced all their Macs today. My own intuition is that they'll have different tiers and system architectures because trying to make a Mac Pro the same way you make a Macbook Air would just leave you with a garbage Mac Pro, and they've already had enough trouble there.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if they were going to do that, they'd've announced all their Macs today. My own intuition is that they'll have different tiers and system architectures because trying to make a Mac Pro the same way you make a Macbook Air would just leave you with a garbage Mac Pro, and they've already had enough trouble there.
The whole point is NOT to announce all their macs today, so that they can sell you an 8GB mac now and a 16GB mac when it comes out.
Re: (Score:2)
16GB is already available as a build-to-order option. And at these prices, if my Mac died today, I'd grab a Mac mini as a stopgap. But 16GB has no legs; if I bought something that I wanted to keep for 5-10 years, it would need 64GB of RAM for future-proofing.
And I think that's something that Apple will provide. I don't know if it'll be in the form of another iMac Pro, or it'll just be the top tier of iMac or what, but I think high-memory configurations will happen. And with the Mac Pro, the whole point is e
Re: (Score:2)
16GB is already available as a build-to-order option. And at these prices, if my Mac died today, I'd grab a Mac mini as a stopgap. But 16GB has no legs; if I bought something that I wanted to keep for 5-10 years, it would need 64GB of RAM for future-proofing.
And I think that's something that Apple will provide. I don't know if it'll be in the form of another iMac Pro, or it'll just be the top tier of iMac or what, but I think high-memory configurations will happen. And with the Mac Pro, the whole point is expandability, and I don't think they're going to drop the ball there. Say what you like about Apple, but they've shown they can learn from their mistakes on occasion, and I'm pretty sure this is one of those times.
You're probably right. I guess I was trying to make the point in my own grouchy way that these new Macs are for casual users and "Church of Steve" acolytes who must have the latest gadget. Power users will have to wait and see what Apple provides for them at some later time. And, as power users are almost certainly a small fraction of total users, the hardware meant for them will naturally not come out as fast.