AMD making dual core cpu's! What about Apple?

their not making dual cores yet they expect them next year id look at freescale and ibms roadmaps before apple they do make the chips

Intel is also planning on having dual-core Prescotts in 2005.

Because of hyperthreading, the dual-core Prescott will be seen as a 4-processor system.

Did you think IBM was the only ones making dual core processors?

IBM's Power5 is dual core.... hopefully the speculated 975 will be a derived proc from the power5.

If it is... then I'd expect dual core in 2005.

Power 4 is dual core as well. Even if the 975 is derived from the P5, it doesn't need to be dual core.

AMD / IBM / Intel / Motorola = Chip Manufactures

Apple / Compaq / Dell / HP / Gateway = Computer Makers

Nuff said? (somehow I don't think so) so I'll continue... Apple will develop a box using someone's dual core CPU when it's economical for them to do so. Sure they could buy dual core Power4's but nobody (for all intents and purposes) is gonna pay the $20k+++ per box that it would cost to build it.

It amazes me, Apple is expected to compete with:

Intel *PLUS* AMD *PLUS* Dell *PLUS* Microsoft

All in all I think they're doing a pretty freakin good job given the combined wealth of the companies listed above.

Dave

Well said.

Apple shouldnt compete with Intel unless Intel enters Apple's market. However they do compete with both Dell and Microsoft, and to not take that competition seriously is a mistake. Apple may not be able to compete compleatly on price, but they could and should do a better job at it than they are today.

No..

I'm talking about what some posters here thing Apple should be doing...

AMD does this why doesn't Apple and/or why is Apple behind the curve?
Intel does that why doesn't Apple and/or why is Apple behind the curve?
Dell does this why doesn't Apple and/or why is Apple behind the curve?
Microsoft does this why doesn't Apple and/or why is Apple behind the curve?
XYZ is doing dual bonded 802.11G why doesn't Apple

Yadda yadda yadda...

Apple can't have it's fingers into everything... it's gotta pick and choose very very carefully. Give em an 80 billion dollar war chest then yea sure they SHOULD be into everything but till then Apple can't be everywhere...

That's all I'm saying...

Dave

I've been alluding to that in most of my arguments against these requests for ridiculous new products for a long time, but mostly what I see of the recent complaints are for neglecting existing products. I for one have been complaining about the lack of graphics features in PowerMacs, and that after a years time there was only a speed bump. Even if you don't have an 80 billion dollar war chest you have 12 months to make adjustments to your existing Pro machine, but all you do is increase the MHz. Sure they added a water cooler, but IBM was working on the Processors. What was the team dedicated to the PowerMac doing for 12 months? Installing a radiator?

I think my personal biaching is valid. But thats my opinion.

In all seriousness what could they have added for graphics?

9800xt is almost the nicest normal consumer card out there. Can you really expect them to add a FireGL 9800 when hardly anyone will pay the 700-900 dollars for one? It would be a waste of money to manufacture them.

The X800xt is brand new... it has barely been on the PC market more than 3 weeks. Same with the geforce 6800... Apple didn't have a whole lot of options as far as graphics.

They did update the bus... they did update the powersupply... they did update the cooling system...

This was REV B... which means updating... not re-inventing.
I suppose they could have added more memory (ram and HD)... but that just would have taken away from their profit margins big time. Personally I wish they would come without a hd and ram as a BTO option.

If this was Rev C and they didn't redesign the case, the mobo, the graphics... then I would be bitching. What does suck is they waited a year to announce this speed bump.

But I have a feeling apple was waiting it out for better chips... no go I guess.

#1) You just said it your self. "Consumer card." This is the PowerMac, Not the iMac. It's supposed to be Apples Pro level machine. Yet you cant configure a Pro level card from Apple directly, or a 3RD party. It's that simple.

#2) I wouldn't buy a FireGL not because it costs $700 because it cant handle OpenGL nor does any ATI card.

#3) The graphics card I configured in my new system costs 4 times that so price is not the issue.

You also state that


Apple has to wait on ATI to make cards because they actually make the cards, but it's not like Apple has to wait for announcements from ATI, or Nvidia like we do on graphics technology when they work with these companies. If it's been known to PC manufacturers for X amount of time it's been known to Apple for the same amount of time. They have the ability to have total accessibility before hand to get these parts readied for upcoming systems. Accept it's different with ATI because ATI makes the Mac cards themselves. After the PC ones naturally. Which is why they should invest some money in Gainward the card manufacturer that makes their Nvidia cards. Who also make Pro level cards for the PC side that are not available to Mac users.

Considering the difficulties at 90 nm, all road maps are in doubt. Even Intel is having considerable difficulties at 90 nm, and that spells trouble for everyone else. AMD has yet to ship their 90 nm parts, so lets wait and see what happens in 2H 04 first before letting the panic set in.

Good to see your still around THT.

First off, you obviously didn't get what I was saying especially since you pointed it out with your second quote below.

No way apple is going to manufacture a card that costs 600 dollars to everyone. If they were to sell the X800pro or xt right now it would be AT LEAST 600 dollars. Not enough people would buy this card and would leave apple with stockpiles of x800's. Or 6800's... which ever. It is not a smart business strategy to produce something that around 1%-3% of the purchasers of the powermac are going to buy.

In all honestly there isn't a huge difference between x800 and the 9800xt.

Next, another reason not to produce these cards could be the proposed move to PCI-E. What if apple moves over to PCI-E in about 6-7 months. That means they would have ot sell everyone of those $700 cards before they moved over. Again, they would be sitting on mass amounts of expensive cards for nothing.

In no way shape or form was it practical to manufacture these cards. I believe this is the same reason they went with the 9800pro instead of the 9800xt when the original g5's came out. I think it was even more true with this Rev though. Another thing to remember is MOST people don't do BTO any ways...

So how do you justify apple spending a bunch of money to have these cards manufactured and selling them all?

Someone said it best yesterday, Apple can't compete with everyone by themselves.

There are thousands of seats of Maya, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, ZBrush, Ei Universe, and other 3d Applications sold to Mac users. There is also Pixar who is using G5 for who knows what, and other 3D houses big, and small using Mac's in 3D in some form or another. I know Jason Schleifer of Weta Digital used to use a Mac.
Apple is not even selling a 3D workstation, and Apple knows this. Those are a few of the cards to be sold, but what about the cards to be sold once the PowerMac has it available. I don't think they would have a problem selling them personally.
If Apple started showing off the PowerMac as a plausible 3D workstation there are a lot that would sell because there are a lot of Mac users in 3D even though there are so few Mac's. The only reason for fewer Mac's is that the Mac cant keep up in graphics. It doesn't mean people don't want them. (price is sometimes an issue brought up also, but look what Apple did with Macs in schools)

But if you are that concerned about selling the off xxxxx amount of cards completely. Apple, and a 3rd party (Using NVidia) could post a Mac, and 3D graphics page with a message saying something to the affect of.

---------------------------------------------------------
Apple is committed above all else to satisfying the needs of our user base. It has come to our attention that the lack of Professional level 3D graphics cards is an issue with a growing number of our customers. In an effort to see if this growing number is great enough for us to commit ourselves to this growing field, Apple, and "Blank 3D Graphics" (<-Insert 3rd party Nvidia graphics card manufacturer here), have agreed that it "may be possible" to produce a yet undetermined amount of cards in a trial situation so we may have some idea how many users are interested, and would actually commit to buying this type of highend product from Apple, and "Blank 3D Graphics".
Before we do that please note that we said" May be possible". Because for this to happen Apple, and "Blank 3D Graphics" must reach certain number of cards, and know they will be purchased before it is financially plausible for us to continue foreword with these discussions.

So we are setting up this page for anyone interested in purchasing such a card. In the form below please fill out your name, and relevant information, and select from the list of Nvidia cards, with corresponding performance, and price that best interests you.
When, and if we have enough information we will be able to continue our discussion, and determine which card (or cards) will be produced.

If at that time we believe we will reach our minimum sales goal we will post a pre-order page to insure that we will make our minimum sales, and when a yet undetermined amount of pre-orders have been placed at that time "Blank 3D Graphics" will produce a yet undetermined amount of cards.
Until the yet undetermined amount of pre-orders go into production any orders will be fully refundable.

-------------------------------------------------

I think something like that would take care of any concerns. If it's a problem of underselling cards, or having to produce X amount to make it worth it for a 3Rd party to bother. I think it could work.
If it happened Apple could also start selling the PowerMac as a real DCC work station, and they would also have far, and beyond the best looking HD/DV workstation.

If I were an Apple corporate sales rep my commissions would be awesome. These machines could easily sell themselves. Because it's a Mac, and their back! Those words put fear into PC manufacturers because they are true. The Mac is hibernating, and they fear the day it wakes up.

Here's what Apple should do.

1. Get an IBM dual core CPU out ASAP. Add ondie memory controllers and increase the die size to accomdate the second core. Speeeeeeeeeeeed

2. Get Nvidia and ATI onboard or buy 3D Labs from that hell hole that is Creative.

3. Acquire Luxology and ship Mac and Linux versions. Add extra features in the Mac version that integrate it nicely into a Shake/FCP workflow.

4. Market the hell out of it. Create section on the Apple Store dedicated to showing DCC machines and Video setups(they have something similar now but it's too simplistic)

Alias was too expensive at $60 million dollars. Apple needs to get in on the ground level for 3D

Back OT I have no doubt that IBM has dual cores coming. You will always see roadmaps coming from AMD and Intel. Just because IBM doesn't divulge as much info doesn't mean they are working on it.

I'll bite onlooker... that could possibly work.

But I still stand by my main point... PCI-E is coming... why produce all of these AGP 8x cards when the technology will be extinct soon? If this were PCI-E types I'd say for apple to go for it. Someone also mentioned that pc sales needs to drive price down before apple can really use it. Think about how overpriced the x800xt is right now... for not that much performance gain over the 9800xt. Either way by the time pci-e comes out for apple machines, then prices will be acceptable.

I agreed with what you were saying right up until you said that. The new line of graphics chips from nVidia and ATI are considerably faster than the old generation. That said ATI and nVidia are both still ramping up production so I'm not overly surprised they aren't announced yet. It would have been nice to see an announcement saying they're coming but no big deal.

What do you mean they aren't announced yet? You can get a 9600 and a x800pro right now... I don't think the x800xt is announced yet...

But cinebench (I know this is a particular program and doesn't show all around results) shows that the x800pro does not have much of a performance gain over the 9800xt... From what I have read the x800pro and 6800 are about neck and neck... sometimes the x800pro edging it by a small margin.

Either way, I still feel not many would purchase them. Maybe onlooker maybe have a point with that petition. My only problem with it is it isn't very professional to do that when a company is the size of Apple.

The latest cards are more about improved capability than improved base performance. Not only can they do more, they can also do more faster than previous cards. They show the least improvement when they are doing lots of less complex operations -- the 9800 is quite capable in that department. The new hardware will really outshine the 9800 when you run more complicated shaders on it, and most software isn't currently using very complex shaders... they're not even leveraging the 9600's capabilities yet!

Apple should be aiming for their next motherboard revision (6-9 months from now) to incorporate PCIe and ship with the recently announced ATI/nVidia GPUs. Not shipping these parts before then won't actually adversely affect anyone.


The lack of "pro" 3D graphics hardware is an interesting question. There are certainly higher end and more feature complete boards available for the PC, but what fraction of the pro market really needs those capabilities? Given proper software support the 9800 ought to do just fine for most pro users, with the only real issue being the anti-alias line draw support (the equivalent nVidia GPU doesn't have that issue). For many pros even the 9600 does the job. Nonetheless Apple would do well to get a proper "pro" 3D card into the Mac, if only to satisfy the small fraction of pro users that really need it, and the much larger number of them who just suffer from techno-lust.

I hate the fact that you keep using ATI as an example when their OpenGL is a known tragedy amongst the 3D community.

Your right about PCIe though - It's coming, but there are still more Macs with AGP now than PCIe that could use it, and at this stage it would start to excite the 3D community with talk of acceptable 3D capable Apple workstations.
We also don't truly know when PCIe is going to be regularly integrated into PC motherboards let alone Macs, (well I don't anyway) but the down side to PCIe exclusivity is that is there would be only these graphics cards for new PowerMacs with PCIe. I think a great portion of users that would make this possible would be unable to get a card at that point if that (PCIe cards first) were the case. Because after buying Maya, or Lightwave, (or whatever you use) you may be too broke to get a $3,500.00 PowerMac, and a $2/$3,000.00 graphics card on top of that. And again price, and pro really isn't an issue because these cards need to be at that level so bringing in lesser cards would just totally defeat the purpose.

That is if Apple wanted to actually break even, or profit the first time they had highend graphics cards ready - PCIe could be a mistake. If they just went with PCIe some users might have to wait until a second generation of 3D readied Macs before they will have enough money to afford such a thing. But on the other hand those users in waiting may not matter because Apple could possibly still sell enough to do just fine without selling to those who are not doing this professionally yet, or just can't afford all 3 purchases combined.
But if the card(s) is/are AGP - previous AGP PowerMac owners become potential purchase candidates if they are into 3D

On a last note, I've read a few places that when PCIe is adopted there will still probably be an AGP port on most of the early motherboards before being PCIe exclusive. If Apple were to do the same, and not go PCIe exclusive on the first motherboard then making the 1st generation Pro 3D card be an AGP version on purpose would be seriously beneficial in many ways for reasons I already mentioned, or alluded to, but I'll go over them again.

#1 Older Machines can use them - which in turn also applies to #2

#2 Making the second generation Pro 3D card a PCIe version for the second generation of PCIe motherboard in the PowerMac - that is then assumably a PCIe graphics exclusive motherboard version. Then that would give the last PowerMac with the AGP, and PCIe port upgradability which in turn looks good for sales future to 3D users to think of a Mac as a possible 3D option in the future, but that also guarantees more sales of the 3D cards for Mac's in their second generation because of the last generation still has the option to upgrade to it. So you see... Going with PCIe on this is probably a mistake.

With "that" in mind. "that" being 2 things.
#1) AGP for the first generation of 3D cards, and
#2) AGP, and PCIe in the first generation of PCIe motherboards.

I don't think the PCIe transition would be as successful as it could be, and any 3D graphics card would sell less units if it were done differently.

Without "that" in both ways (singularly, and together) I think the move to PCIe is like entering a room with only one door, and it is to enter only.

I'm sure you can tell by my writing that I'm pretty tired, and falling asleep at the keyboard, but I think (hope) my points came out clear enough

I meant to make this point earlier...

Only a few applications really take advantage of the higher end cards. Over the semi-high end cards. If you're a gamer you won't see anything. If you're in Cinema4d you might see a little more. If you're in Maya you will see even more. However, even in maya comparing the 9800xt to the x800pro or xt you won't see a HUGE difference. Programmer is right in the fact that many programs still haven't tapped into the 9600's maximum performance. E

Again he is right in that they should be focusing on the next motherboard when PCI-e is a true standard... or closer to becoming one.

So what should I be comparing to? Any other company besides NVidia will result in a 1k+ graphics card.


How many users are going to shell out $6,500 JUST to use a mac? Why not spend ~ $2k on a PC and bare with windows. Is a mac really going to make the work productivity any faster?

I do agree with you that apple needs to do something about the graphics cards. What I don't understand is why apple's is so much more and why you can't stick a PC card in and flash the rom like you used to be able to on the ati 8500, geforce 2 and 3... oh and the 3dfx voodoo 5500. If apple could get back to that stage we could easily have High end graphics cards.

No, you're misinterpreting Programmer's post. Many programs might not have tapped into the 9600's max performance, but many programs and especially games has. The X800 is clearly superior in performance for a great many games, to the 9800. See Anandtech.

In reference to the 9600, what Programmer is talking about is shader program length (because there are limits). Newer cards can do longer programs, while sustaining higher performance.

Also, the 9800 is still a very powerful card for pro usage. But nonetheless, it's still room for improvement. There's a reason for that Apple lists the 9800 card or better as the recommended one.

But I'll stop here. This is way off topic.

We weren't talking about games, we were talking about high end graphics programs.

But you were still wrong.

Wrong about what? The shaders? What program takes major advantage over these between the 9800xt and the x800pro?

Apple fell behind the curve a long time ago, and are remaining there ever-despairingly so. I doubt we'll ever see a dual core desktop PPC chip in an Apple branded computer until late in 2005 at the earliest. Predictably behind the competition as always.

It costs the same to configure a PC with the same speeds/features, and how many users would pay would be determined by the pre-orders.

Also I found the Q FX 4000 for 1,995.00 which is much less than my original search.

ATI's best effort at a 3D card is the ATi FireGL X2-256t.

Toms hardware did a comparison of the ATi FireGL X2-256t vs. the Nvidia Quadro FX 1100.
The Nvidia Quadro FX 1100 is about 4x slower, or less in real world performance than the Quadro FX 4000.
Check out what toms hardwares conclusion was of the Quadro FX 1100, and the FireGL X2-256t

BTW the 256t is more expensive than the 1100.

TOMS HARDWARE LINK_

(taken from the Nvidia web site)

The NVIDIA Quadro® FX 4000 sets a new bar for workstation graphics, shattering the limits of performance, programmability, precision, and quality for professional CAD, DCC, and scientific applications. Featuring a revolutionary new architecture with 2x the geometry and fill rate, 5x the hardware pixel read-back performance and 1.25x the memory bandwidth of previous generation workstation graphics, and with support for ultra-fast GDDR3 memory, the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 is the first ultra high-end workstation graphics solution on the planet. Implementation of rotated grid FSAA introduces far greater sophistication in the multi-sampling pattern, significantly increasing color accuracy and visual quality of edges and lines without compromising performance.

Performance:
Highest Workstation Application Performance
Next-generation architecture enables over 2x improvement in geometry and fill rates with the industrys highest performance for professional CAD, DCC, and scientific applications.

Precision:_
NVIDIA High-Precision Dynamic-Range (HPDR) Technology
HPDR sets new standards for image clarity and quality through floating point capabilities in shading, filtering, texturing, and blending. Enables unprecedented rendered image quality for visual effects processing.

Programmability:
Next-Generation Vertex & Pixel Programmability
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 GPUs introduce infinite length vertex programs and dynamic flow control, removing the previous limits on complexity and structure of shader programs. With full support for Vertex and Shader Model 3.0, NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 GPUs deliver sophisticated effects never before imagined for real-time graphics systems.

Quality:_
Rotated-Grid Full-Scene Antialiasing (FSAA)
The rotated-grid FSAA sampling algorithm introduces far greater sophistication in the sampling pattern, significantly increasing color accuracy and visual quality for edges and lines, reducing jaggies while maintaining performance.

Quadro FX 4000
Memory Size = 256MB
Memory Interface = 256-bit
Graphics Memory Bandwidth = 32.0GB/sec
Display Connectors = DVI-I+DVI-I+Stereo
Dual-Link DVI = 2
proe-02 = 45.1
ugs-03 = 59.0
3dsmax-02 = 29.2

3D Primitive Perf
Triangles per Second = 133 Million
Texels per Second/Fill Rate = 4.5 Billion

Relative 3D Application Performance
SPEC PROE-02 = 4.3
SPEC UGS-03 = 6.1

(Below taken from CGnetworks)

The new NV40GL GPU contains significantly more hardware than previous Quadro generations: 16 pixel pipelines, six vertex shader units, and two fragment/pixel shader units per pipeline. NVIDIA claims 4-8 times faster pixel shader FP32 support, and twice the geometry and fill rate performance over the Quadro FX 3000. We'll look into these performance claims when the final board arrives for us to perform benchmarks.

Compared to the Quadro FX 3000, the FX 4000 will feature:

Support for Microsoft Vertex Shader 3.0 and Pixel Shader 3.0. FP32 format support is now a requisite.

Support for High Dynamic Range (HDR) rendering. NVIDIA is claiming full hardware support for the OpenEXR 16-bit floating-point standard.

Integrated programmable video processor (meant to support encoding and decoding of MPEG2/4)

A new rotated grid sampling full-screen anti-alias scheme (RG-FSAA). NVIDIA claims that 4x RG-FSAA is superior in quality to 8x ordered grid FSAA in the Quadro FX 3000.

Like previous performance-oriented Quadro products, the new model Quadros are for professional applications that frequently feature multiple rendering windows._ The Quadro FX 4000 and Quadro FX 4000 SDI offer additional capabilities over and above the consumer-oriented GeForce 6800:

Antialiased points and lines for wireframe display.

OpenGL logic operations.

Up to eight clip regions (GeForce 6800 supports one).

Hardware accelerated clip planes.

Memory usage optimization for multiple simultaneous graphics windows.

Support for two-sided lighting.

Hardware overlay planes.

Support for quad-buffered stereo for shutter glasses.



(Raves from highend companies, and even Adobe)

"Designers need their work to be as realistic as possible as early in the design stage as possible. CATIA® V5 accelerated by NVIDIA Quadro FX graphics allows designers to create and interact with complex 3D models with ultra-realistic material aspects in real time. New NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 capabilities like extended programmability, infinite program lengths, and 32-bit shader precision promise to further increase CATIA user productivity and design quality."

Jean-Luc Cuinier
R&D manager at Dassault Systèmes

www.3ds.com

"The NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 combines complete floating point performance, extended programmability, and high-precision dynamic range technology allowing mental ray® customers, for the first time, to leverage the GPU for dramatically accelerated photorealistic rendering of complex visual effects. To take full advantage of key new features of the just-released version 3.3 of mental ray, we recommend the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 as the graphics platform of choice."

Rolf Herken
CEO and CTO, Mental Images

www.mentalimages.com

"Professionals using Adobe software can now take full advantage of breakthrough computer graphics hardware to drive stunning 3D animations. The NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 drives great new features in the Adobe Video Collection like Premiere Pros GPU Effects and After Effects real-time, high-quality 3D compositing."

David Trescot
Senior director of digital video products at Adobe

www.adobe.com

"With the performance that weve seen, Alias is very excited about the radically new graphics architecture within the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000. With the introduction of many exciting new technologies, we anticipate professionals using Maya will be able to take digital artwork created for movies and games to significantly higher levels of realism."

Rob Hoffmann
Senior Maya product marketing manager, Alias

www.alias.com

"The new rotated-grid antialiasing of the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 makes NVIDIAs product line quality a lot more realistic, even for the most demanding designers eye. NVIDIA is once again helping SolidWorks deliver industry-leading quality to engineers and designers without compromising performance."

Antony Hervo, Hardware Partner Manager at SolidWorks Corporation.

www.solidworks.com


If Apple decides to do it they might as well do it right, and give us the real deal, (NVIDIA), or it will probably be overlooked.

IBM and or Freescale will make it happen or not, Apple does not make processors, they just use them. IBM has wanted a consumer level multi-core processor since shortly after the G3 cam out and IBM and Moto released the "Wish List" of features for the G4, which included multi-core chips. Apple and Moto chose to add the SIMD to the G4, not IBM. I would imagine that IBM will have a multi-core "Desktop" processor as soon as the design is economically feasible.

I agree with @homenow. It will happen, but you may be right in saying it may be that far off in the future.
When the PowerMac G4 500 was introduced the wait before any real upgrades was so long it made my skin crawl. I think the PowerMacs should be updated in at least some way every 6 months minimum. , but we just waited 12 months for a bump that wasn't that bad, but it should have been a more impressive update for 12 a month break between.
So in following how the G4 was, and after seeing what just happened in 12 months I'd say you could be quite-right that IBM, and Apple may not have a Dual core CPU until late 2005, or later which is a tragedy because IBM, and Apple are in striking distance of the competition.
They each could make great pathways in conforming users of other systems if they could get each of their acts together where they are now lacking. It's probably less difficult for Apple to improve by offering the better graphics needed for such a transition because the parts, and technology are there, but IBM has to develop their technology, and have it in quantity on their part, and that is one of the issues they seem to be having a hard time with now.

I wouldn't make the mistake of comparing the 970 family chips and the G5 descendants with the G4 development. Also, I think that the driving force in adding multi-cores to these chips is going to be IBM, not Apple, because this will make their PowerPC blade servers more attractive.

I like that thought "12 months to install a radiator". People should put this into perspective, waiting 12 hours to have a new radiator installed in a car is excessive. Here we have waited over 12 months for what amounts to a radiator install.

That 2.5 GHz machine owuld have been a nice speed bump after 3-6 months. The current machine is a total insult to anybody with any brains at all. What does Apple want us to do, sit back for another year and watch them get farther and farther behind the technology curve while they milk the customer for every penny they have?

I suppose that one can alway hope that WWDC will bring a machine with PCI-Exprees and other modern features, but lets face it it doesn't look good. So it is a reasonable question, what has Apple engineering been up to for the last year or so? The thought of a kick ass iMac replacement does whirl around in ones mind but I just have the feeling we will be waiting even longer for that machine.

Thanks
Dave

What Rev this machine is really has no bearing on the value of the machine as seen buy the market place. Apples memory allocations are always seen in the market as being stingy in the extreme. In some cases the allocations where so bad as to have a dramatic impact on the performance of their hardware.

Further is you really believe that delivering the machines with a reasonable allocation of memory would so grossly impact Apples profit margin (highest in the industry) then do take a close look at the retail and wholesale prices of memory. There simply is not enough difference in price to have a significnat impact on profits. I mean do you really believe that Apples margins come soley from the RAM installed on its machines? If so that thought is garbage.

Thanks
dave

Dave only Intel is above 2.5Ghz for their processor and that's because of their superpiplining. Apple/IBM are right were they need to be. I thought the 3Ghz goal was a little excessive for a company that was stuck at 500mhz for 18 months. If any good comes from it, it will be getting Steve to shut his mouth for once and let the engineers work.

Apple simply is not going to rev the G5 motherboard to PCI Express in less than a year. We were ALL dreamin' PCI Express is not ready in volume. The cards are not ready. People are already voicing displeasure at the need to wait until July for the 2.5s.

The next update will contain the new goodies. I see some good stuff coming and next spring sounds definitely plausible for incorporating recent tech. New OS...new HW features.

I said this earlier, but I'll say it again. It would be much wiser to offer a motherboard with a PCIe, and an AGP slot on your first motherboard that had PCIe as a feature if you were Apple. Wait to go PCIe exclusive until your second motherboard that featured PCIe.

For reasons I already listed.

You seem to miss the whole point, the price of everything that is in these machines has dropped dramatically since last year. It would no have hurt Apple to enhance the machines a bit to offer better value to the customer. Frankly its a shame that Apple still charges top dollar for their hardware and then configures those machines with a limited amount of memory. It is certainly no favor for the customer and really hurts them in sales.

As to PCI express if Apple waits another year to bring that out they will have been extremely foolish. It makes no difference how old the current rev of the motherboard is, it is a matter of keeping position in the market. Frankly it would have been better to wait to July or August even for a machine that supports PCI-Express. The current machines will have to be replaced shortly by anybody that is expecting high performance and needs it. Investment wise they just won't have the life to justify the price unless you are in a very performance sensitive business.

Many people are going to sit back and simply say nice try Apple but I'll wait until you get your act together again.

Thanks
Dave

*sigh*

Are you an Apple reseller? My guess is not. I am, and the reason that the boxes stay with minimal RAM is to allow me and others like me an opportunity to increase OUR margins, since we're often running at around 5% gross on top of DAC. RAM is not the deal-breaker you think it is.