Originally posted by emig647
I can't be convinced that a 2ghz 90nm g5 is cheaper or the same price that a 1.25ghz g4 was a year ago. First off... 18 months ago the 1.42 g4 was top end... 1.25ghz g4 was over 2 years ago. Second... IBM is having major problems getting 90nm procs out the door in large quantities. That drives price up. I also can't be convinced that todays products are the same price as the g4 a year ago....
1.25 is near the top end for the 7447, which is much lower wattage than the XPC7455A that got cranked all the way up to 1.42GHz. So applenut
is right here. Motorola just came back up to the ~1.5GHz range with a CPU that could run at that speed without sucking down power.
IBM's had some yield issues, true. Motorola's yield issues are the stuff of legend, and they won't go away until the CPUs are coming out of Crolles 2... which is a 90nm fab.
The G4 in the current Macs is not a year old; the 7447 is Motorola's latest and greatest, released this spring. It's a physically larger processor (fewer chips per wafer) fabbed on a smaller wafer (200mmm vs. IBM's 300mm, so fewer chips per wafer) and a larger process (130nm vs. 90nm, so... fewer chips per wafer). The odds that it's cheaper than the 970fx are slim indeed. Motorola would have to be enjoying tremendously higher yields than IBM, and it's very hard to even speculate on that possibility with a straight face, even given IBM's difficulties. Motorola spent years
longer than anyone else did trying to get anything
out of 130nm. The 7447 was delayed by nearly an entire year. It wasn't pretty.
Last I heard, the kind of 7447A Apple uses was available for $150 or so apiece in lots of 10,000. You can believe that Apple gets a better price than that.
The motherboard will be WAY more expensive for the components on it vs. the components that were on it over a year ago. Perhaps they can shave some $$$ signs off by having a better designed mobo and not a round one... obviously that costs more. One thing they do have going for them is no l3 cache.
There's no guarantee of this. HyperTransport is cheap to implement; that's a design goal. If the board is highly integrated and rectangular
, it should be cheaper. If it's large enough to not have to be double-sided, it'll be significantly cheaper. If Apple can avoid using SO-DIMMs at all, again that lowers the price (Apple isn't paying anything like retail prices for their stock RAM, BTW). One advantage of the limited BTO options that the iMac usually represents: Apple can lock in tremendous, long-term supplies of parts, and reap considerable savings and price protection in the process. By price protection I mean that they can negotiate a price for, say, RAM, and then that's what they pay for six months or a year or so regardless of where the market goes. Integration lowers cost. Consistency lowers cost.
Before when I asked if anyone had any info on the rumor of apple not purchasing any more 15" screens.... I meant standalone lcds.... not the 15.4's that go in the powerbooks. I could be wrong but I think the 17" will be bottom line in the iMacs... if rumors from earlier this year are true.
While I wouldn't be shocked to see an iMac start with the PowerBook's 15" LCD, I would fully expect Apple to meet or beat the $999 price out of the gate in that case. That LCD is a nonstandard size, and therefore it's probably exempt from the inflated pricing of commodity 15" LCDs. I'm quietly hoping that Apple goes with a 17" at the low end, and still hits $999. If they simplify, simplify, simplify they can do it.