or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Is the current rate of PPC CPU upgrades sustainable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the current rate of PPC CPU upgrades sustainable? - Page 3

post #81 of 97
Quote:
IBM has been delivering just fine.

Well they apparently bailed out on SiLK at 130nm because of big problems.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #82 of 97
Once IBM realigned themselves to account for the lack of SiLK on 130nm, they made conservative projections for clock speed and beat them. I didn't say they were utterly paralyzed by problems (of all the fabs, only Motorola wasn't able to produce much of anything on 130nm - that Black Diamond process tech must really rock in the lab considering how hell bent Mot is on getting it to work), only that they had teething problems. They did. They worked around them, and lowered their expectations a bit, and continued forward. Just like everyone else did, except Mot (I'm not yet convinced that the 7457 is a true 130nm part).

If you do a little reading, it's not hard at all to verify that the transition from 180 to 130nm was the most difficult transition the fabs had faced in years.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #83 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
The only issue I have is that the problem with the 1.6 and 1.8 GHz machines is that they were grossly over priced to begin with. I do not believe the reconfiguration has anything to do with the production output at IBM. People simply don't want the 1.6 GHz machine because it was over priced and half the machine of the others. Going dual on the 1.8 GHz machine just gives apple a way to get rid of excess processors and change the value equation a bit.

Apple prices based on delivery expectations. They were stunned by the demand on the $2,999 model. It turned out that buyers are willing to pay that price when the technology justifies it. Apple is managing the transition across their lines in such a way to limit the damage to sales expectations of newer products may bring. Pricing is an important part of that. Imagine the hit on Apple if our expectations for a G5 notebook was only a couple of months away. Sales would plummet in the meantime and the damage to Apple would be severe.

So managing our expectations is smart. It is also smart to preserve pricing through upgrades in the line. The addition of a dual 1.8 allows Apple to pass on the savings of going into full production of the G5's and lower component costs, while maintaining a good price for them to introduce newer higher performing Powermacs. So hopefully we will see a 2.4 GHz take the top line while maintaining the 2999 price and not going higher. That way the 2 GHz will take the 2499 spot. Or maybe by then we'll be looking at 2299 and 2799.

I think that we will see new case designs in the future, a significantly smaller one for the single processor systems and priced between 1299 and 1999. And, I am hoping that the high end duals get another optical drive and two more SATA drives. This should fill out Apples headless offerings and give them something to sell the enterprise.
post #84 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Once IBM realigned themselves to account for the lack of SiLK on 130nm, they made conservative projections for clock speed and beat them. I didn't say they were utterly paralyzed by problems (of all the fabs, only Motorola wasn't able to produce much of anything on 130nm - that Black Diamond process tech must really rock in the lab considering how hell bent Mot is on getting it to work), only that they had teething problems. They did. They worked around them, and lowered their expectations a bit, and continued forward. Just like everyone else did, except Mot (I'm not yet convinced that the 7457 is a true 130nm part).

If you do a little reading, it's not hard at all to verify that the transition from 180 to 130nm was the most difficult transition the fabs had faced in years.

why compare to motorola?

try comparing to UMC and TSMC

TSMC had the first 130nm chips and UMC had the first reliable 90nm process.
post #85 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
TSMC had the first 130nm chips and UMC had the first reliable 90nm process.

Yeah and if you can believe Intel, they have 65nm parts.

It's all spin and hype. the truth is all these fabs are faced with the same issues and are at about the same point in implementing these processes.

(PS. What the hell is a "reliable" 90nm process? One that reliably gives you 20% yields?)

"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #86 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Yeah and if you can believe Intel, they have 65nm parts.

It's all spin and hype. the truth is all these fabs are faced with the same issues and are at about the same point in implementing these processes.

(PS. What the hell is a "reliable" 90nm process? One that reliably gives you 20% yields?)


its not spin and hype. tsmc and umc are way ahead of ibm in 90nm. that is the truth. if u dont believe it go visit their fabs.

ibm's foundry website doesnt even have their 90nm process listed. tsmc and umc have and they are available for order for high volume.
post #87 of 97
Tuesday, November 25, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (INTC.O), the world's largest maker of semiconductors, on Monday said it has built test chips using next-generation 65 nanometer technology and expects to be the first to produce them, in 2005.

The demonstration chips compare to 90 nanometer chips slated to be shipping in volume early next year and 130 nanometer chips that are currently in wide use.


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/techn...echnology.html

Intel's advances notwithstanding, Nr9 is right about the technical savvy of the Taiwanese. TSMC is a great outfit. Look for more innovative leaps from the Far East in the years ahead. Japan's economy had a rough spell in the 90s, but look who is still selling cars and basic electronic gizmos across the globe, with plants in far flung places. We're all in this now, with political stability and open markets as essential girders.
post #88 of 97
well, those are test chips, not mass production.

while i do expect intel to be the first producer of 65nm chips, it is interesting to note that the R&D budget of UMC is 250 million compared to intel's R&D budget of 4 billion.

considering what they have done with so much less money i think it would be wise for investors to pour more money into them.
post #89 of 97
You must be talking about a sales practice I'm not familiar with. No one I know of prices based on delivery expectations.

Apple may very well have been stuned by the sales of the 2 GHz model, but that is really a sign of not knowing their markets, and not understanding deeply the frustrations of some of their customers. I'm not really sure what there is to manage the G5 more or less completely replaced the previous desktop pro line. Yeah they did keep around a G4 to service those customers who needed it, but that is only wise management.

As far as preserving prices, for Apple ot have had ot make adjustments so early after the debut of the G5 shows more than a tiny issue. You may want to believe they are passing on savings to you but from my perspective they are trying to make up for missing the mark. But as far as picking price points, lets face it there are anumber of issues beyond the blessed price points. Things such as competition, momentum,, market share have an impact on price.

I really like a new case idea. I think this would be a very good complement to the G5. Something literaly toaster size would be very nice. The only thing I'd be concerned about is that Apple seems to un justifiably limit the pefromance of its compact models. It should not be to difficult to get a revised 970 into a toaster size machine. I do hope though that they pay attention to expansion ports in such a machine.

Dave



Quote:
Originally posted by stingerman
Apple prices based on delivery expectations. They were stunned by the demand on the $2,999 model. It turned out that buyers are willing to pay that price when the technology justifies it. Apple is managing the transition across their lines in such a way to limit the damage to sales expectations of newer products may bring. Pricing is an important part of that. Imagine the hit on Apple if our expectations for a G5 notebook was only a couple of months away. Sales would plummet in the meantime and the damage to Apple would be severe.

So managing our expectations is smart. It is also smart to preserve pricing through upgrades in the line. The addition of a dual 1.8 allows Apple to pass on the savings of going into full production of the G5's and lower component costs, while maintaining a good price for them to introduce newer higher performing Powermacs. So hopefully we will see a 2.4 GHz take the top line while maintaining the 2999 price and not going higher. That way the 2 GHz will take the 2499 spot. Or maybe by then we'll be looking at 2299 and 2799.

I think that we will see new case designs in the future, a significantly smaller one for the single processor systems and priced between 1299 and 1999. And, I am hoping that the high end duals get another optical drive and two more SATA drives. This should fill out Apples headless offerings and give them something to sell the enterprise.
post #90 of 97
From Mac Bidouille :

Due to the high demand of chip, TSMC, UMC and SMIC, the 3 companies from Taiwan, are going to raise the price by a 10 to 15 % margin in the beginning of 2004.

Graphic card should cost some more bucks. But computers should also. Many mobo's componements are fabbed by these companies. It's the same for Wifi cards.



So it's true that these companies are good, but i think it's great that IBM done is own fabbing and has his independance. Otherwise, we just consider a bigger price for our beloved G5.
post #91 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
I really like a new case idea. I think this would be a very good complement to the G5. Something literaly toaster size would be very nice. The only thing I'd be concerned about is that Apple seems to un justifiably limit the pefromance of its compact models. It should not be to difficult to get a revised 970 into a toaster size machine. I do hope though that they pay attention to expansion ports in such a machine.

Dave

I think Apple will need to release a thinner PowerMac G4 formed case with the style a combined Aluminum and Plastic with a single 970 processor in it for the enterprise and SMB market.
post #92 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
From Mac Bidouille :

Due to the high demand of chip, TSMC, UMC and SMIC, the 3 companies from Taiwan, are going to raise the price by a 10 to 15 % margin in the beginning of 2004.

Graphic card should cost some more bucks. But computers should also. Many mobo's componements are fabbed by these companies. It's the same for Wifi cards.



So it's true that these companies are good, but i think it's great that IBM done is own fabbing and has his independance. Otherwise, we just consider a bigger price for our beloved G5.

well the reason they have high demand is because their competition (eg IBM foundry services) is not competitive. IBM's process is more expensive and lower yielding, u never kno if the G5 is going to be cheaper if IBM doesnt spend that R&D and capital on their foundries and instead spend that on purchasing services from a pure foundry.
post #93 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
well the reason they have high demand is because their competition (eg IBM foundry services) is not competitive. IBM's process is more expensive and lower yielding, u never kno if the G5 is going to be cheaper if IBM doesnt spend that R&D and capital on their foundries and instead spend that on purchasing services from a pure foundry.

Independance has a price. US as a much better army than Taiwan, but is it a reason to rely only on others ?
post #94 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Independance has a price. US as a much better army than Taiwan, but is it a reason to rely only on others ?

who says we are relying on US? i can kill china with my bare hands
post #95 of 97
Nr9 may be a troll, but he's a funny troll
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #96 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
who says we are relying on US? i can kill china with my bare hands


post #97 of 97
This all reminds me of when I was in high school and the guys would argue Chevy vs. Ford vs. Dodge.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Is the current rate of PPC CPU upgrades sustainable?