or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Briefly: Intel Mac mini in production; iBooks due at later date
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Briefly: Intel Mac mini in production; iBooks due at later date - Page 2

post #41 of 136
Question Question

if half of the sales were from laptop, i suspect why apple like to release intel Mac Mini before MacBook (iBook), strange

earlier reports mentioned that Mac Book were eating up the inventory of 1.67Ghz Duo

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #42 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by shanmugam
Question Question

if half of the sales were from laptop, i suspect why apple like to release intel Mac Mini before MacBook (iBook), strange


Well the problem could simply be that the hardware for the laptop is not available yet. The possibilities in clude apple wanting a specific ultra low voltage part, products modified by Intel for Apples use or maybe a inntegrated chips set for ATI or somebody.
Quote:

earlier reports mentioned that Mac Book were eating up the inventory of 1.67Ghz Duo

I suspect that Intel will have production problems. There are a number of reasons for this but don't expect Intel to be able to handle all their customers or potential customers for the core duos for awhile.

************************************************** ********

In any event I think that may people here are going to be disapointed if they think that the iBook replacement won't have integrated video. It is the one sure way for Apple to innovate on this platfrom. Further there are options besides Intel for integrated chip sets. Engineering wise there are to many advantages for Apple not to go this way and very few disadvantages.

Lets face it the current iBooks have had crippled video systems for some time, modern integrated systems will allow Apple to move away from this issue and remain competitive.

The other thing that bothers me a bit is that Apple has bought up at least a couple of manufactures specializing in graphics hardware and we have yet to really see this tech implemented in Apple computing hardware. It could very well be that Apple is working with a supplier to support Apple specific tech on their chip sets.

In any event I don't see a timing issue like others. All the iBooks really need to be is a low power device with great battery life.

Dave
post #43 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").

That is not what a loss-leader is. A loss-leader is a product that is bought at no or negative profit - think console or printer - that leads to the purchase of a much more profitable peripheral or item required periodically - think game or ink cartridge.

The only thing your description would make up in volume would be a larger loss. Loss leaders eventually lead to profit, not marketshare.
post #44 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
It is easy to discount Intel integrated graphics, especially because in the past they sucked. Really really badly. The newest chipsets from Intel are, however, quite impressive. Some advantages include, but are not limited to:

4. Actually very powerful. Intel's latest integrated graphics chipsets are quite fast, and would more than suffice for entry level hardware.


I would say that's an overstatement. Take a look at the benchmarks for the Intel GMA 950 (the most likely integrated solution that an iBook or Mini would use):

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427

It is completely blown away by the NVidia 6200 and ATI X300 parts. The 6200 and X300 are low-end parts, so that's not a good showing at all. Apple should not offer integrated graphics except in really, really cheap machines. And maybe not even then.
post #45 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1617350,00.asp


Okay. And the conclusion of that review is: "...the [bottom-of-the-line] X300 smokes everything [including the Intel GMA 900 integrated graphics]. It's amazing what even a $100 add-in card can do for game performance"
post #46 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by jouster
That is not what a loss-leader is. A loss-leader is a product that is bought at no or negative profit - think console or printer - that leads to the purchase of a much more profitable peripheral or item required periodically - think game or ink cartridge.

The only thing your description would make up in volume would be a larger loss. Loss leaders eventually lead to profit, not marketshare.

Right, I understand that. And my point was that Apple has avoided this (rightly so). I'm not suggesting they should do it at all. I was simply saying that they won't (if history is any indication) sell something like Mac mini at a loss to build market share in something else (like what? they sell computers...so selling their computers at a loss to make a profit in...ummm...computers is dumb...but is what has often been suggested here by folks in the past).
post #47 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Right, I understand that. And my point was that Apple has avoided this (rightly so). I'm not suggesting they should do it at all. I was simply saying that they won't (if history is any indication) sell something like Mac mini at a loss to build market share in something else (like what? they sell computers...so selling their computers at a loss to make a profit in...ummm...computers is dumb...but is what has often been suggested here by folks in the past).

Gotcha.

Then we agree. There's no way Apple, can, should, or will do this sort of thing. They make their money on hardware and that isn't going to change.

The argument you describe is falacious, and you're right to say that it appears on forums a lot. I don't want to say that Apple doesn't care about marketshare, but I think it's obvious that they're not interested in sacrificing profit just to increase it.

The share price and billions in the bank would seem to support this course of action.
post #48 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.

And the Celeron M 4xx parts are likely to be a further $100 cheaper yet offer almost identical performance to the Core Solo for most people. And I'd bet on Intel 950 GMA graphics too which despite the protests will still be way faster than the outgoing ATi 9200, the Nvidia 5200 and quite possibly the ATi 9600 in laptops. It'll do Core graphics no problem.

Sure, it'll barf on DOOM III but who expects a Mac Mini to run 3D games.
post #49 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Quartz Extreme and 2D Extreme will be standard moving forward.

They will need their own dedicate GPU.

And an Intel Integrated Graphics chip *IS* a dedicated GPU. What you don't get is the dedicated RAM for your GPU but with PCI Express and faster DDR2 RAM, that's less of an issue than in the G4 past and I'd argue, a completely non-issue in a budget laptop, sub-notebook or Mac Mini. Indeed, it's actually a GOOD IDEA in a sub-notebook.

Intel rightly argues that for 90% of people out there, running fast 3D games isn't important whereas extremely low power consumption and the GPU costing about $5 to $10 is.

That's not to say Apple will do it. The 10% of the people who might spout FUD on gaming forums also flap their lips far too much. And there's always someone complaining they can't run Final Cut Studio on an iBook.
post #50 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign


Sure, it'll barf on DOOM III but who expects a Mac Mini to run 3D games.

Heh, I'd still take it.

My iBook G3 barfs on the Doom 3 trailer......

post #51 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And the Celeron M 4xx parts are likely to be a further $100 cheaper yet offer almost identical performance to the Core Solo for most people.

agreed.
celerons it is. core solo/duo bto, maybe...

Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And I'd bet on Intel 950 GMA graphics too which despite the protests will still be way faster than the outgoing ATi 9200, the Nvidia 5200 and quite possibly the ATi 9600 in laptops. It'll do Core graphics no problem.

here i dont agree.
the gma-950 is basically a 900 speedbumped from 333 to 400 mhz.
the x300 (which is more or less like the 9550 that can be found in the current ibook but in pci-e flavor) is much faster and x300 got some nice features that are really good for core image hardware acceleration which the gma950 is missing too.

afaik, the x300 runs just about even with the nvidia 6200 in their respective 'leech-of-the-main-ram' mode.


still a low-end gma-950 would probably be quite enough for most people, but so would a ibook g3...


edit: i see bigmig already covered this, sorry.
born to lose, live to win
Reply
born to lose, live to win
Reply
post #52 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1617350,00.asp

As I have said, Intel integrated graphics used to suck. Full stop. That is, however, changing.

Yeah 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 EE on a dual channel DDR2-553 memory subsystem. Surely what we expect in a Mac mini or iBook

The fun with GMA is that it runs nicely on a highend system and sucks very bad on a slow system.
post #53 of 136
It all has to do with cost. We know that Apple pays more for Intel's chips than they did for IBM and Freescale's. That's been shown.

To, the question is what Apple can afford to put into these machines.

We all agree (I hope) that Apple should not sell without making a proper profit. Therefore, the question is: What can Apple put into these machines and not have the price RISE? So many have been talking about a $700 or $800 iBook. But can it really be done without some compromise? Can they keep it at the same price, and make it better?

The iBook has a power problem as well. It's been said by Hannibal, and others that a Duo chip is out of the question for the iBook, and probably for the Mini as well. Cost, power, heat. If they don't enlarge the Mini somewhat, stuffing a Duo inside might be a problem. And certainly not for the $500 model.

The iBook is known for having better battery life than the Powerbook. We can see from the Macbook Pro's, that battery life is one thing that doesn't benefit.

The newer Integrated Graphics that Intel will be coming out with soon is rated to run Vista's "Glass", so it should Run Apple's various Quartz environments as well.
post #54 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The newer Integrated Graphics that Intel will be coming out with soon is rated to run Vista's "Glass", so it should Run Apple's various Quartz environments as well.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the current GMA 950 runs Vista fully already. However, Quartz has much, much lower requirements than Vista does.
post #55 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It all has to do with cost. We know that Apple pays more for Intel's chips than they did for IBM and Freescale's. That's been shown.

Do we really know this at all? I'm thinking that unless someone here works in Apple purchasing...the best we have is educated guesses.
post #56 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I'm sure I read somewhere that the current GMA 950 runs Vista fully already. However, Quartz has much, much lower requirements than Vista does.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.

Migration to OpenGL 2

So how many OpenGL 2 video cards are there currently in the market? And since Leopard will be demonstrated in June with OpenGL 2 support what are the odds Apple will have an on-board only video option for these upcoming Mac-mini's versus an upgradeable BTO?
post #57 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.

Nope, that's not the case. The Intel Dev Kits were using Intel GMA 950 chips and supported Quartz Extreme, Core Image and OpenGL. Anything from a 900 up does.

There's also plenty of pirates on the OSX86Project forums asking which Intel 9xx series chipset motherboard they should buy to run their ripped off copies of OSX on.
post #58 of 136
Having an integrated graphics card does not fit the direction Apple is heading with Quartz. They are moving more and more of Quartz on to the graphics card, with the latest (Quartz 2D Extreme) being almost entirely on the card. The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme. Now the backing store would be back in main RAM, and has to compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. I highly doubt apple will move backwards from dedicated video memory that is already included with both the iBook and mini.


Here are some diagrams from the Ars Technica review of Tiger.

This one shows how Quartz Extreme works:


And, this one shows Quartz 2D Extreme:
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
post #59 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Do we really know this at all? I'm thinking that unless someone here works in Apple purchasing...the best we have is educated guesses.

It's been stated before. Intel's prices are well known. The prices for IBM and Freescale's chips are as well. Apple doesn't get special prices on any of this. It's purely sold, and priced, by volume. Since Apple isn't accepting co-op advertising rebates from Intel, they are, if anything, at a disadvantage to Intel's other customers who do.
post #60 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Having an integrated graphics card does not fit the direction Apple is heading with Quartz. They are moving more and more of Quartz on to the graphics card, with the latest (Quartz 2D Extreme) being almost entirely on the card. The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme. Now the backing store would be back in main RAM, and has to compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. I highly doubt apple will move backwards from dedicated video memory that is already included with both the iBook and mini.


Here are some diagrams from the Ars Technica review of Tiger.

This one shows how Quartz Extreme works:


And, this one shows Quartz 2D Extreme:

And MS is doing exactly the same thing with Glass, in Vista. Not the exact same technology, of course, but close enough. Vista will have more daunting requirements for the full "experience" of Glass than Apple will have for all of it's forms of quartz.

Now, what I would like to see, and I'm fairly sure that most people here would like to see as well, is the resolution independent GUI that both Apple and MS are supposed to be working on.
post #61 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme.

The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.

That said, I think that Apple will be pushing the mini as a media machine, and integrated cards really aren't good enough yet.
post #62 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.

That said, I think that Apple will be pushing the mini as a media machine, and integrated cards really aren't good enough yet.

I agree with your statement.

Of course, these days, I hesitate to put anything beyond Apple's decisions.
post #63 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.

Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).

Any way, I'm surprised that more people haven't spoken about the possibility of adding cheaper machines to Apple's lineup. Why can't they introduce intel-based machines with dedicated GPUs at the current iBook/Mac mini price points, and introduce new products at lower price points with integrated GPUs. Sure, they won't be as powerful, but they will be cheaper. You don't really need Quartz 2D extreme or amazing 3D framerates to send e-mails and surf the web. Give customers the choice, that's what I say.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #64 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
what are the odds Apple will have an on-board only video option for these upcoming Mac-mini's versus an upgradeable BTO?

intresting aspect, but i see this in a different way...

i dont see how apple could put a true 'upgradeable/bto' video solution in there considering the limited space in the mini, meaning every mini would have to be shipped with both a gma-950 and a ati-something chip soldered on the main board, but with the ati-chip disabled if you didnt pay for that.
(the old cripple-or-treat trick we're used to...)

i guess most will be ready to pay the extra dollar to get a descent video card, but for those who wont, apple will still have to pay for the ati-chip whether the buyer pays for it or not...

(and the firmware hackers will have the day of their life)


the on-board gma-950 in the intel imac could indicate apple was planning on playing this game with the imac buyers, but didnt for some reason...?
born to lose, live to win
Reply
born to lose, live to win
Reply
post #65 of 136
How would a mac mini with a celeron m and intel integrated video compare to the current ppc mac mini with a graphics card? I don't have the answer, but suspect that it could be a close race. How would it sell?
post #66 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).

The difference is that Intel's 950 GMA has up to 10.6GB/s bandwidth on the front end with dual channel 667Mhz DDR2 RAM, so a non-Q2DE version of Quartz is actually pretty good on Intel. That is why I think the Intel Dev Kits got such good results over a G5 as both were running Quartz without the 2D extension that puts the data into the VRAM but the dev kit had more bandwidth.

If it means Apple can introduce a much cheaper iBook leaving a gap for a low end Mac Book Pro then I think it's a good idea. Especially for people who don't care one jot about 3D game performance or blazing fast core image manipulation. I'm perfectly happy with the graphics performance on my G3 500Mhz 8MB VRAM Rage128 iBook for a laptop in general usage. GMA 950 would be overkill by comparison.
post #67 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
How would a mac mini with a celeron m and intel integrated video compare to the current ppc mac mini with a graphics card? I don't have the answer, but suspect that it could be a close race. How would it sell?

In most aspects it would completely destroy the old model performance wise. And could also be cheaper, at least for Apple.

The problem always comes back to software though. And in the mini, lack of RAM and slow hard disks doesn't help either especially with a hungry app like Rosetta.
post #68 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by tubgirl
the on-board gma-950 in the intel imac could indicate apple was planning on playing this game with the imac buyers, but didnt for some reason...?

There's a 950 in the iMac?

I didn't know that. How odd. Perhaps it came as part of the whole chipset deal from Intel so they left it in there or maybe it can do something other than just video. Very odd.
post #69 of 136
Now gentlemen (and ladies too of course), I got too tied up working and behind on news. The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it? Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?

I'm just wondering how much change this brings to us - aside from speed gain and price drops - and how much upgrades we will have to do far as software goes. I am mainly running web designing and developer programs such as Dreaweaver, Photoshop, Flash etc., I am not sure if these app developers will have to put out versions for the new chip or not and we will have to upgrade.
post #70 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
In most aspects it would completely destroy the old model performance wise.

How? A MBP with a core duo is roughly 2x faster than a PB with a 1.67ghz ppc. 70% of that 2x speed improvement comes from the 2nd core. A celeron m wouldn't have that(2 cores). Throw in in the lack of a video card and it might be a close race.
post #71 of 136
[
post #72 of 136
Well, it would certinly be hard to resist a new mini if it is released tomorrow, anyone want my G4 1.2 mini with 512, 40gig HDD and wifi for $450?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #73 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by blade
The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it?

No, it's identical to the chips used by Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM etc on Windows based machines. Nothing special for Apple. We no longer think different.

Quote:
Originally posted by blade
Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by blade
I'm just wondering how much change this brings to us - aside from speed gain and price drops - and how much upgrades we will have to do far as software goes.

The only speed gain so far is in laptops as Core is slower than the G5. Prices so far have remained the same or gone up slightly. The switch is about power consumption in laptops, not speed or price.

Software needs to be converted to a Universal binary with both PPC and Intel binaries in one package. This is either easy if your software was written with Apple's xCode or quite hard if it was written with CodeWarrior. Most large 3rd party applications like everything from Microsoft, Adobe and Macromedia was written with CodeWarrior and is unlikely to see an update until next year or later this year at best. Expect the usual cost of buying upgrades.

Apple's Pro apps are due in March in Universal Binary format. Upgrade costs will be nominal. I think they said $49 for Studio.

Until then, Pros need PowerPC machines, everyone else is better off with Intel and there's nothing to beat the Quad PPC still.

The sensible option for pros IMHO is to ride the year out with a PPC and wait for the Intel native applications to drop as well as whatever Apple replaces the PowerMac with. By then we should also see Intels NGMA chips (Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest). The current Core Duo chip still has one foot in the past architecture.
post #74 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by blade
[B]Now gentlemen (and ladies too of course), I got too tied up working and behind on news. The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it? Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?
[B]

No and yes.

You have a LOT of catching up to do, check out the basic faqs on intel at maccentral or something. Or even the apple website.


Surprised there's not more talk about the minis. I guess based on this article, Appleinsider doesn't think the intel minis will have DVR? I'd also be curious to know what AI expects in terms of hardware configuration, solo or duo?

Pretty much anyone could guess minis at this point, it's pretty damn obvious. But what will be the specifics?
post #75 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign The only speed gain so far is in laptops as Core is slower than the G5. Prices so far have remained the same or gone up slightly. The switch is about power consumption in laptops, not speed or price. [/B]

There's a speed gain with the imacs as well, at least with universal software. Core is a little slower than G5. But core duo is faster than single G5 for most apps.

What prices have gone up? As far as I can tell, prices are the same, but the MBP lost a couple features.

I don't agree that all pros are best served by staying on PPC. For those using Apple apps, the intels should run very well. Not everyone can afford a quad, and some people need a portable solution.
post #76 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
How? A MBP with a core duo is roughly 2x faster than a PB with a 1.67ghz ppc. 70% of that 2x speed improvement comes from the 2nd core. A celeron m wouldn't have that(2 cores). Throw in in the lack of a video card and it might be a close race.

See http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

A Pentium M 1.6 has a CPU score of 216

Intel 855 based chipset inc the older GMA has a graphics score of 687 on that same Sony laptop.

A Celeron M 1.4 laptop with intel integrated graphics has a score of 171 / 589.

A 1.4Ghz G4 Mac Mini with a 9200 has a score of 128 and 478 respectively.


I think it's safe to say a Celeron M 4xx and Intel GMA 950 based Mac Mini would be up to twice as fast as the outgoing G4 Mini in most regards. I don't think it will be a close race at all.
post #77 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
There's a speed gain with the imacs as well, at least with universal software. Core is a little slower than G5. But core duo is faster than single G5 for most apps.

Sure, if you double the number of CPUs, speed goes up.

Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
What prices have gone up? As far as I can tell, prices are the same, but the MBP lost a couple features.

The Intel iMac is more expensive than the outgoing PPC iMac in the UK by £30.

Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
I don't agree that all pros are best served by staying on PPC. For those using Apple apps, the intels should run very well. Not everyone can afford a quad, and some people need a portable solution.

Until there's pro apps native to Intel, PPC is faster. Apple apps aren't here yet. When they are, then it may be beneficial provided there are machines faster than the G5s to run them on. I don't know any pros that use laptops.
post #78 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sure, if you double the number of CPUs, speed goes up.

And that's what they've done. The new imacs are faster than the previous. Apple has yet to release an intel machine that's slower than the one it's replacing, I doubt they will.

Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign The Intel iMac is more expensive than the outgoing PPC iMac in the UK by £30.

Is that comparing the original price of the PPC, or after they put it on the clearance discount? Here in the states the prices are the same.

Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Until there's pro apps native to Intel, PPC is faster. Apple apps aren't here yet. When they are, then it may be beneficial provided there are machines faster than the G5s to run them on. I don't know any pros that use laptops. [/B]

You're talking about the speed of the apps, not the machine. Logic pro has already shipped (a pro app), and it runs very well on the intel boxes, way faster than the old imacs and powerbooks. The other apps are due to ship in a month tops. And just because you don't know any "pros" that use laptops doesn't mean they don't exist. You think people are dropping $2500 or more on a laptop so grandma can email pix of the grandkids?
post #79 of 136
Thanks guys for bringing me up to speed. Usually I'm good at following the trends but lately just got too much on my plates.

So if the Intel processor isn't much gain for us and isn't much of a price drop, why is Apple swithing to it? Just for less power consumption? If a dual G5 processor is faster than a core duo Intel, I'd rather stay with PowerPC.

On Apple's site they mention that there is a good speed gain with iMacs but I couldn't find anything about the desktops. I am more interesed in the desktops, I need the computing power for graphics and designing. If Intel doesn't really give us any gain in the higher end machines what's the switch is really for?

Again, appreciate the update guys.
post #80 of 136
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
See http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

A Pentium M 1.6 has a CPU score of 216

Intel 855 based chipset inc the older GMA has a graphics score of 687 on that same Sony laptop.

A Celeron M 1.4 laptop with intel integrated graphics has a score of 171 / 589.

A 1.4Ghz G4 Mac Mini with a 9200 has a score of 128 and 478 respectively.


I think it's safe to say a Celeron M 4xx and Intel GMA 950 based Mac Mini would be up to twice as fast as the outgoing G4 Mini in most regards. I don't think it will be a close race at all.

Can't argue with your data, although I don't see the 2x speed in the numbers (ie 171 is not 2x 128 )
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Briefly: Intel Mac mini in production; iBooks due at later date