or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread - Page 7

post #241 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
"I bet you were wrong at one point. Ha ha, that was funny, the time you were wrong, that I made up."


Profound, dude.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #242 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5

Apple would have been ok with the G5 on the desktop if they were willing to live with the power consumption. They would have been killed in integer apps, but FPU/SIMD would definitely have been ok.

The laptops would have been a problem though. It is doubtful that Freescale would have been able to yield low voltage (<1.1V) 2 GHz 8641D processors. AMD does it to a fashion, but they are boutique until they ramp their 65 nm fab. And IBM would have had to put some hefty millions into the G5, or any PPC in their portfolio really, to give it mobility features. They would have been better off starting a fabless PPC CPU and core logic design shop inhouse.

In the end, Intel is really the most conservative choice, or even the only choice. The economics of semiconductor manufacturing really left Apple no choice. Yonah and the ICM are wonderfuly choices for a CPU transition.

Now, if only they would do some real UI work for Mac OS X. Lots of nice UI work in apps, not much for Mac OS X.
post #243 of 947
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.

I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.
post #244 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?


If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.

I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.

If this argument about G5 improvements is correct--and it seems quite plausible to me--why did Apple switch the G5 iMac to Intel so soon? Switching the G4 computers first seems like a much better strategy (even though Apple said at their quarterly financial call that they're "thrilled" (or some such) with their current iBooks), followed by a synchronized transition of G5's to Intel later in the year. It seems to me that this would have maximized Mac sales.
post #245 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.

I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.

I doubt it. ICD is already nipping at the heals of Athlon in every test I've seen. Conroe could be vaporware but it's not hard to see Conroe beating it(Athlon) based on the results of ICD. You know where I stand. I'm buying Intel.
post #246 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
If this argument about G5 improvements is correct--and it seems quite plausible to me--why did Apple switch the G5 iMac to Intel so soon? Switching the G4 computers first seems like a much better strategy (even though Apple said at their quarterly financial call that they're "thrilled" (or some such) with their current iBooks), followed by a synchronized transition of G5's to Intel later in the year. It seems to me that this would have maximized Mac sales.

One of the reasons given for the switch before any improvements to the G5 became available is that if Apple waited, then there wouldn't have been as much of a difference as there will be now. In that case, there would be questions as to why they switched at all. By going earlier, the performance of the G5 is frozen. Therefore when Apple moves over, as they have been, the comparison is starker.

The same thing is even true for the G4. While the 7448 only offers a 10 to15% improvement over the 7447a, it would bring the older machines closer to what the Yonah offers. The Yonah would still be a ways out front, but not by as much as it is now.

More whining would ensue.
post #247 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I doubt it. ICD is already nipping at the heals of Athlon in every test I've seen. Conroe could be vaporware but it's not hard to see Conroe beating it(Athlon) based on the results of ICD. You know where I stand. I'm buying Intel.

Not only that but the rumors point to a July or August release. That's some soon-to-be-released vaporware if you ask me.
post #248 of 947
Thread Starter 
I hope the Nvidia 8 Series is available when the Mac Pros come out, I wonder how fast Apple can scramble drivers together. I'd hate to buy a new Mac with an already-outdated 7800.
post #249 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Not only that but the rumors point to a July or August release. That's some soon-to-be-released vaporware if you ask me.

When people are invested in an idea, it's difficult to disabuse them of the notion. And being invested doesn't necessarily mean with money.

Even though he's a retired engineer, he really doesn't follow the various tech sites. He also doesn't know people at several companies that are using some of these chips in pre-production machines, so he believes AMD's press.

He also thinks that Intel is going to lose all of the suites that AMD has against them, and that it will make a big difference.

I don't agree. But, as I said, it should be interesting.
post #250 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
I hope the Nvidia 8 Series is available when the Mac Pros come out, I wonder how fast Apple can scramble drivers together. I'd hate to buy a new Mac with an already-outdated 7800.

I'd rather an ATI.

But, either way, Apple isn't likely to encumber us with a truly hot card.

When the Express models came out, everyone was jumping up and down over the 7800 GT, declaring how wonderful it was to be getting a "high end" video card.

I kept posting that the GT was, at best, a mid range card.

I'm concerned that apple will do the same thing here again. Even if it is a 7900 or a 1900, is will be a middling card, at high end pricing.
post #251 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'd rather an ATI.

But, either way, Apple isn't likely to encumber us with a truly hot card.

When the Express models came out, everyone was jumping up and down over the 7800 GT, declaring how wonderful it was to be getting a "high end" video card.

I kept posting that the GT was, at best, a mid range card.

I'm concerned that apple will do the same thing here again. Even if it is a 7900 or a 1900, is will be a middling card, at high end pricing.

I have yet to figure out why your impressed with ATI. I have not found an ATI card for general/or highend 3d purposes that can match an Nvidia. There is not a benchmark online that says they are even close. And when it comes to real 3D they don't come near a QuadroFX.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #252 of 947
Thread Starter 
Their Mac OS X drivers have customarily been better than Nvidia's.
post #253 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
One of the reasons given for the switch before any improvements to the G5 became available is that if Apple waited, then there wouldn't have been as much of a difference as there will be now. In that case, there would be questions as to why they switched at all. By going earlier, the performance of the G5 is frozen. Therefore when Apple moves over, as they have been, the comparison is starker.

The same thing is even true for the G4. While the 7448 only offers a 10 to15% improvement over the 7447a, it would bring the older machines closer to what the Yonah offers. The Yonah would still be a ways out front, but not by as much as it is now.

More whining would ensue.

I don't understand your argument. What you're arguing is that the longer Apple waited the less justification for switching at all, if I read this correctly. I think that the generally-agreed-on justification for switching is laptop performance, and the gap between G4's and Core Duos wasn't and isn't closing. I don't know what the rationale is for switching a solid performer & seller, the iMac G5, precipitously. This leaves me a little bit uncertain about Apple's view of the world. If I were in the market for a desktop computer, I would be hesitant to buy a G5 because I don't see any evidence that Apple is committed to making it work well in the future, with good version of 10.5, for example. Meanwhile, would anyone actually buy a G4 iBook?

I am not arguing that Apple's decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so. I would guess that Apple could only get good pricing on Core Duos if they bought x of them, where x is larger than the number of MBP's that they could sell, that the iBook Core Duo would be too expensive (both in the prices that would have to be charged and in its effect on MBP sales) or too hard to engineer (heat and battery life issues with starting production runs of the Core Duo) in the initial switch, that the iMac Core Duo was easy to engineer, and that the downside associated with lost G5 sales was judged acceptable. Of course, there are those who imagine that Apple did this just to show IBM who's in charge, but I rather doubt this.
post #254 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Their Mac OS X drivers have customarily been better than Nvidia's.

If you say so, but the Nvidia's rout them on a Mac so I still don't see what the point is of using them.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #255 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I have yet to figure out why your impressed with ATI. I have not found an ATI card for general/or highend 3d purposes that can match an Nvidia. There is not a benchmark online that says they are even close. And when it comes to real 3D they don't come near a QuadroFX.

I disagree. The FireGL cards are very good cards as well.

For video work, NVidia really sucks. ATI's video quality is SO much better, it's not even close. And Nvidia has the nerve to charge extra for their second rate software.
post #256 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
I don't understand your argument. What you're arguing is that the longer Apple waited the less justification for switching at all, if I read this correctly. I think that the generally-agreed-on justification for switching is laptop performance, and the gap between G4's and Core Duos wasn't and isn't closing. I don't know what the rationale is for switching a solid performer & seller, the iMac G5, precipitously. This leaves me a little bit uncertain about Apple's view of the world. If I were in the market for a desktop computer, I would be hesitant to buy a G5 because I don't see any evidence that Apple is committed to making it work well in the future, with good version of 10.5, for example. Meanwhile, would anyone actually buy a G4 iBook?

I am not arguing that Apple's decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so. I would guess that Apple could only get good pricing on Core Duos if they bought x of them, where x is larger than the number of MBP's that they could sell, that the iBook Core Duo would be too expensive (both in the prices that would have to be charged and in its effect on MBP sales) or too hard to engineer (heat and battery life issues with starting production runs of the Core Duo) in the initial switch, that the iMac Core Duo was easy to engineer, and that the downside associated with lost G5 sales was judged acceptable. Of course, there are those who imagine that Apple did this just to show IBM who's in charge, but I rather doubt this.

I'm not saying that there would be less justification. If you read my post carefully, you would see that I was talking about PERCEPTION.
post #257 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
If you say so, but the Nvidia's rout them on a Mac so I still don't see what the point is of using them.

Again, not true.
post #258 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
I am not arguing that Apple's [iMac G5 to iMac CD] decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so.

I simply think Apple wasn't willing to live with the power consumption of a G5. In 2006, the iMac would have had to move to a a 2+ GHz 970mp dual-core chip to be competitive at the price points it was at, and that would have meant some unpleasant decisions about form factor and such. Not to mention that it would still be stomped in integer apps anyways.

Overall, the G5 was in the same performance trajectory as the G4 was when compared to x86. It simply was a shallower or slower one. The performance difference between the G5 and Intel ICD would have grown through time, but Apple could have managed in 2006 with the G5 on the desktop. 2H 06 and 2007 would have been difficult.

The big issue with the iMac was that it's really a laptop form factor masquerading as a desktop. So its power issues where more acute than say the Power Mac G5 where Apple turned a monster of a cooling system into design "art."
post #259 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Apple turned a monster of a cooling system into design "art."

And people wonder why PowerMacs are so expensive?!?

;^p
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #260 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.

I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.

Intel is still in for some tough financial times for the next 3 quarters. They have to dump millions of Pentium CPUs at some very low costs. In Q3, we could probably buy all P4 CPUs (660s, 840s, 950s) except for the EEs for under $200. There are going to be some great deals coming.

But it isn't a great thing for Intel's bottom line. They'll take back the performance crown though. Good for Apple!

Who knows, maybe the overseas markets will suck them up.
post #261 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Intel is still in for some tough financial times for the next 3 quarters. They have to dump millions of Pentium CPUs at some very low costs. In Q3, we could probably buy all P4 CPUs (660s, 840s, 950s) except for the EEs for under $200. There are going to be some great deals coming.

But it isn't a great thing for Intel's bottom line. They'll take back the performance crown though. Good for Apple!

Who knows, maybe the overseas markets will suck them up.

I'm not too concerned. AMD has had a good 2 1/2 years, the first in a long long time.

Intel has made great strides already. AMD is now keeping quiet about their plans for the next two years. Hell, they're keeping quiet about their plans for the next year. They used to be so exuberant. Either they have something major, and don't want to give up the beans ala Apple, which I doubt, or they have nothing more than the reworked current line, which they hinted is what we will see early 2007. If that's the case, then they will be in trouble for the long term, as Intel is really moving. Their new socket 939, with DDR2, has shown no performance improvements worth talking about. So, we'll see.
post #262 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I disagree. The FireGL cards are very good cards as well.

For video work, NVidia really sucks. ATI's video quality is SO much better, it's not even close. And Nvidia has the nerve to charge extra for their second rate software.


Hmmm... and where have you been? I'm guessing you have never heard of the NVIDIA QuadroFX SDI series? ATI doesn't have a card that matchhes the 4000 which is a few years old let alone come close to performing like a QFX 5500 SDI.

Nvidia QuadroFX 5500 SDI

On another note I'm totally excited that the Quadro's have been updated. (1GB RAM) The QuadroFX 5500 (regular version) in a Quad Woodcrest Mac Pro is going to kick some serious tail.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #263 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Hmmm... and where have you been? I'm guessing you have never heard of the NVIDIA QuadroFX SDI series? ATI doesn't have a card that matchhes the 4000 which is a few years old let alone come close to performing like a QFX 5500 SDI.

Nvidia QuadroFX 5500 SDI

That aside I'm excited to the Quadro's updated. The QuadroFX 5500 (regular version) in a Quad Woodcrest Mac Pro is going to kick some serious tail.

If you want to talk about one card fine. But I know a lot of companies that won't touch Nvidia, and for video editing, they are terrible. Not everything is 3D.

Every time a card gets updated is good. Apple should offer more than a mid reange, not very good performer, and the highest card that Nvidia makes. They need to offer a better game card, lower range 3D cards, and ATI as well.

Let us make the choice. I don't know about you, but I don't like the fact that a $3.300 machine has choices of a low end card, a low-medium card, and the top 3D card. And, just from one company. What kind of chioce is that?


Talking about a Woodcrest Quad. I've been saying that I didn't believe that the Conroe would be a good choice, except for maybe the low end machine, at best. The Woodcrest is the ONLY chip to compete with the Opteron's, and the only chip to compete with itself on other Intel workstations.

Well, it may be coming true!

http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...2006/4/22/3712
post #264 of 947
Look. All I was saying was it's obvious Nvidia is making the better video editing card contrary to what you were aware of. So I put it up, and there it is. Like it or not there is no denying it. The Nvidia SDI series is the cream of the crop between the two in alll areas. Sure Apple could offer both ATI, and Nvidia cards, but if they are only going to offer one I would have to go with Nvidia. Cause ATI comparatively sucks ass. In ALL areas.

As far as the Mac Pro goes I thank you for the link, but that's not confirming anything for me. Just cause some clown at Ars finally says it - doesn't give it any more credibility. I already put that together in here months ago. AFAIAC that guy is a bit late to the party.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #265 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Look. All I was saying was it's obvious Nvidia is making the better video editing card contrary to what you were aware of. So I put it up, and there it is. Like it or not there is no denying it. The Nvidia SDI series is the cream of the crop between the two in alll areas. Sure Apple could offer both ATI, and Nvidia cards, but if they are only going to offer one I would have to go with Nvidia. Cause ATI comparatively sucks ass. In ALL areas.

As far as the Mac Pro goes I thank you for the link, but that's not confirming anything for me. Just cause some clown at Ars finally says it - doesn't give it any more credibility. I already put that together in here months ago. AFAIAC that guy is a bit late to the party.

I still don't agree. It's well known that Nvidia's video is truely bad. Most post houses don't use it.

And, of course, the link doesn't prove it, but it's just another bit of information that it's likely.
post #266 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Look. All I was saying was it's obvious Nvidia is making the better video editing card contrary to what you were aware of.

You fail to address melgross's correct point that ATi's video output quality is far, far beter than nVidia's. Always has been. Of course, matrox has a slight edge on that over ATi, even, but that's another matter.

Performance is what you keep bringing up, but performance isn't everything.
post #267 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
You fail to address melgross's correct point that ATi's video output quality is far, far beter than nVidia's. Always has been.

Performance is what you keep bringing up, but performance isn't everything.

Actually no it hasn't. Why don't you back that up with a link to a side by side performance benchmark with an ATI vs. Nvidia SDI series card to prove it?
Also who is the biggest video editor in movies. AVID? I know they used it on starwars so I imagine that it's used at ILM. For some reason Adobe recommends the SDI series for use with their video products. Go figure.

If performance means so little why are people complaining about the ATI cards used in the iMac, and the MBP as being just not enough for them, and they would prefer a better graphics card. Of corse being that you have no need for performance I'm sure it's enough for you, and your email, and forum browsing so what would it matter.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #268 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
I don't know what the rationale is for switching a solid performer & seller, the iMac G5, precipitously.

Seems pretty obvious to me -- the iMac is a low power environment (compared to the PowerMac) so the G5 they could put in it was constrained. Putting a Core Duo in there allows them to get better performance in most software (especially consumer level), it accelerates their migration to Intel time table, its probably cheaper, and it puts a perceptual stake in the ground for their target market.

The PowerMac will be the last to go because peak performance on an unlimited power/heat budget is where the G5 excels, especially on media-oriented apps, and it is what the pro desktop machine needs. Intel's new generation top performance chips aren't available until closer to year end, and then they'll be able to demonstrate a clear improvement over a 2.5 GHz dual dual G5. Plus the Universal Binaries for the big pro apps weren't going to arrive until later this year (some have already, others are pending).
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #269 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Seems pretty obvious to me -- the iMac is a low power environment (compared to the PowerMac) so the G5 they could put in it was constrained. Putting a Core Duo in there allows them to get better performance in most software (especially consumer level), it accelerates their migration to Intel time table, its probably cheaper, and it puts a perceptual stake in the ground for their target market.

The PowerMac will be the last to go because peak performance on an unlimited power/heat budget is where the G5 excels, especially on media-oriented apps, and it is what the pro desktop machine needs. Intel's new generation top performance chips aren't available until closer to year end, and then they'll be able to demonstrate a clear improvement over a 2.5 GHz dual dual G5. Plus the Universal Binaries for the big pro apps weren't going to arrive until later this year (some have already, others are pending).

I sat thru a presentation last week where a Apple employee said that he ran a test on his dual G5 which took two hours (Handbrake recoding a video file from DVD) which the 20" iMac Intel chip machine did the same task in 30 minutes. That's right, one fourth of the time of a dual G5!

I believe that the reason for the "Mac Pro" (tower) timing is simply that Intel will not be releasing the chip which is intended for it until shortly before the expected release date of the "Mac Pro".

Apple may be able to cut the lead time between the release of the CPUs and product shipping by producing the units without CPU and installing the CPU at the last (when they become available). If Apple chooses to do things this way, it would indicate a high degree of confidence, based upon testing of preproduction chips, that Intel will be able to ship the CPU "as advertised". Otherwise the risk of having to change the machines already producted because of a change in the final production CPU would be too risky.

It will be interesting to see how this develops as it will indicate the state of the emerging relationship with Intel.
post #270 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Actually no it hasn't. Why don't you back that up with a link to a side by side performance benchmark with an ATI vs. Nvidia SDI series card to prove it?
Also who is the biggest video editor in movies. AVID? I know they used it on starwars so I imagine that it's used at ILM. For some reason Adobe recommends the SDI series for use with their video products. Go figure.

If performance means so little why are people complaining about the ATI cards used in the iMac, and the MBP as being just not enough for them, and they would prefer a better graphics card. Of corse being that you have no need for performance I'm sure it's enough for you, and your email, and forum browsing so what would it matter.

People's complaints mean nothing. If Apple got a better deal on an Nvidia, they would have used that, and people would still be complaining.

Go to any of the tech sites yourself that have tested these cards with video, and you will see that all of them agree that ATI's video output is far superior.
post #271 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by RBR
I sat thru a presentation last week where a Apple employee said that he ran a test on his dual G5 which took two hours (Handbrake recoding a video file from DVD) which the 20" iMac Intel chip machine did the same task in 30 minutes. That's right, one fourth of the time of a dual G5!

I believe that the reason for the "Mac Pro" (tower) timing is simply that Intel will not be releasing the chip which is intended for it until shortly before the expected release date of the "Mac Pro".

Apple may be able to cut the lead time between the release of the CPUs and product shipping by producing the units without CPU and installing the CPU at the last (when they become available). If Apple chooses to do things this way, it would indicate a high degree of confidence, based upon testing of preproduction chips, that Intel will be able to ship the CPU "as advertised". Otherwise the risk of having to change the machines already producted because of a change in the final production CPU would be too risky.

It will be interesting to see how this develops as it will indicate the state of the emerging relationship with Intel.

Just remember this;

Apple was the first company to get the Yonah in shipping quantities. Several PC manufacturers complained about that.

Intel is pushing the Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest forward to the 3rd quarter. Apple pushed its developer conference back to August, in the 3rd quarter.

Why did Apple do that?

With the knowledge we now have about the delivery schedule of these chips, it's a reasonable assumption that it is not a coincidence.

Also remember that compared to the rest of the industry, Apple's sales are miniscule (hopefully, not forever, but that's a different argument). That would mean that as the ramp-up in production for these chips proceeds, they would have enough chips for Apple to sell, while the big vendors might pass.

Going back to the days of the clones, Apple was hit with this very same phenomenon. The smaller vendors always got the fastest chips a couple of months ahead of Apple, because of the ramp-up.

So, we might see all of those lines of chips being used.

AND, if Apple does choose to come out with some mid-price machine, it might be with a Conroe. That machine would have better cooling capacity than the iMac, but would cost less than a tower. It would have to compete against all of the other mid-price machines using Conroe's. I'm not saying that they will do it, of course, but if they do...
post #272 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
If this argument about G5 improvements is correct--and it seems quite plausible to me--why did Apple switch the G5 iMac to Intel so soon? Switching the G4 computers first seems like a much better strategy (even though Apple said at their quarterly financial call that they're "thrilled" (or some such) with their current iBooks), followed by a synchronized transition of G5's to Intel later in the year. It seems to me that this would have maximized Mac sales.

Apple also said that it was seeing a pause in sales of PowerPC macs... The iMac and the PowerBook were the two best-selling macs out there, so if Apple hadn't changed their processors first (and people had suspended buying in anticipation of an Intel PowerBook), then the pause in mac sales would have been even more pronounced. Also, take into account the fact that the iBook is more targeted towards the education and low-end consumer markets, and Apple indicated it doesn't see a whole bunch of education buying until around July.

My bet: the Intel iBooks are waiting on price cuts on Core Duos, coming in at some point during May.
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
post #273 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Dirk
Apple also said that it was seeing a pause in sales of PowerPC macs... The iMac and the PowerBook were the two best-selling macs out there, so if Apple hadn't changed their processors first (and people had suspended buying in anticipation of an Intel PowerBook), then the pause in mac sales would have been even more pronounced. Also, take into account the fact that the iBook is more targeted towards the education and low-end consumer markets, and Apple indicated it doesn't see a whole bunch of education buying until around July.

My bet: the Intel iBooks are waiting on price cuts on Core Duos, coming in at some point during May.

That's a good assumption. And, May is almost here.
post #274 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
AND, if Apple does choose to come out with some mid-price machine, it might be with a Conroe. That machine would have better cooling capacity than the iMac, but would cost less than a tower. It would have to compete against all of the other mid-price machines using Conroe's. I'm not saying that they will do it, of course, but if they do...

I could be wrong but I assume Conroe should work fine in an iMac too.

[edit]
stupid me: said that already earlier in this thread... anyway
[/edit]
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #275 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by gar
I could be wrong but I assume Conroe should work fine in an iMac too.

[edit]
stupid me: said that already earlier in this thread... anyway
[/edit]

That's ok, I also said it earlier on this thread.

It's just that if Apple did come out with some middle machine, they would want to differentiate it more. And what better way, than to use a different chip?

With IBM, there was no choice. Same with Freescale. You could either go fairly low with the G4, or high with the G5. Nothing in between. It really limited Apple's options. Many things are now open to them that weren't in the past.
post #276 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
People's complaints mean nothing. If Apple got a better deal on an Nvidia, they would have used that, and people would still be complaining.

Go to any of the tech sites yourself that have tested these cards with video, and you will see that all of them agree that ATI's video output is far superior.

You keep blathering on about this but you can not show me one shred of evidence.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #277 of 947
Thread Starter 
YOU PEOPLE ARE HAVING A PISSING CONTEST OVER "FACTS" THAT COULD BE CHANGED AT ANY MOMENT BY EITHER COMPANY RELEASING A NEW CARD. GIVE IT A REST.
post #278 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
YOU PEOPLE ARE HAVING A PISSING CONTEST OVER "FACTS" THAT COULD BE CHANGED AT ANY MOMENT BY EITHER COMPANY RELEASING A NEW CARD. GIVE IT A REST.

Your PC keyboard's caps lock is broken.
post #279 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Your PC keyboard's caps lock is broken.

Oh. It's so funny. \
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #280 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
You keep blathering on about this but you can not show me one shred of evidence.

I was curious too, so I used Google.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1916966,00.asp

Mmmm, Google.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread