or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › News Brief: Apple ramps MacBook production
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

News Brief: Apple ramps MacBook production - Page 4

post #121 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
I have never said to eliminate the cache, just that there is a diminishing return when going beyond a certain point.. If you can show me examples of an off-the-shelf desktop app on an x86 chip benefits more than a couple percent when going from 1M to 2M, I would like to see it, but I have not seen it happen.

Jeff, they generally don't do those kinds of tests. They check different cpus. If the cache is different, there is usually some other difference as well. Just look around the web for articles about cache and you will see for yourself.

With many cpu designs the cache doesn't even begin to have a significent advantage until a lot more is added. Check out the Itanium, for example. The huge cache is credited with a good deal of the performance, particularly as the memory bus is slow, with lots of latency.
post #122 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Jeff, they generally don't do those kinds of tests. They check different cpus. If the cache is different, there is usually some other difference as well. Just look around the web for articles about cache and you will see for yourself.

Extreme Edition P4 vs. standard P4 is an example of a chip that is virtually identical except for the cache. I haven't seen those tests showing any merit for the extra cost.
post #123 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Extreme Edition P4 vs. standard P4 is an example of a chip that is virtually identical except for the cache. I haven't seen those tests showing any merit for the extra cost.

It's not exactly the same chip, even after accounting for any cache differences.

But, Jeff, let's just wait and see, ok? We're not getting anywhere this way.
post #124 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
That's the thing, it was with actual software that is in use in typical consumer systems, not some custom tweaked code with massive data sets, which is what the "big iron" stuff gets tangled with.

What, like Photoshop, Final Cut, iPhoto, iMovie, Apeture, etc.? These programs have working sets that are commonly in the multi-megabyte range and can benefit from bigger caches. If you're pushing them really hard by doing just a little bit of work on lots of different data then it isn't going to help as much. Or if your data set is really small, the extra cache doesn't help.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #125 of 149
my thinking is its going to be like the ibooks...the mac mini with a keyboard and lcd screen. so whatever the mac mini is packing, expect that to be in the macbook, with all the other features (isight, magnetic latch, magsafe) that have been circulating. it wouldn't surprise me if the price increased by around $100, but who knows, it might even go down. we'll find out soon enough.
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
post #126 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
What, like Photoshop, Final Cut, iPhoto, iMovie, Apeture, etc.? These programs have working sets that are commonly in the multi-megabyte range and can benefit from bigger caches. If you're pushing them really hard by doing just a little bit of work on lots of different data then it isn't going to help as much. Or if your data set is really small, the extra cache doesn't help.

I admit it is pretty complex, what I said was a simplification. If your data set is much larger than the cache, then increasing it but not enough to encompass the entire data set isn't necessarily a sure help either, as the first data would still need to be flushed out when later data comes in.

All of those programs generally handle files that are much larger than the processor caches being discussed. Cache helps most when the processor accesses the same bits of data several times before it needs to get flushed out. A Photoshop filter only needs a small subset of the image to operate before moving to the next subset. That subset of data would need to have nearly 1M (or larger than 1M minus the cached code) to make a difference on a per-core basis.
post #127 of 149
Call me an optimist, but I'm counting on Apple to do something surprising with these machines. They can't afford to get it wrong, and I think they know it.
post #128 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
I admit it is pretty complex, what I said was a simplification. If your data set is much larger than the cache, then increasing it but not enough to encompass the entire data set isn't necessarily a sure help either, as the first data would still need to be flushed out when later data comes in.

All of those programs generally handle files that are much larger than the processor caches being discussed. Cache helps most when the processor accesses the same bits of data several times before it needs to get flushed out. A Photoshop filter only needs a small subset of the image to operate before moving to the next subset. That subset of data would need to have nearly 1M (or larger than 1M minus the cached code) to make a difference on a per-core basis.

When it came to HD caches, Adobe used to tell us to turn that cache off (in System 9 and earlier), because PS was a "cache buster".

But, cpu caches are different. Complex instructions are loaded into the cpu cache. Data is as well, of course.

But you have to understand that not just one piece of data, or just one instruction is loaded at once. The bigger the cache, the more instructions or date will fit. What that means is that there is a greater chance of a successful cache "hit".

The ideal cache approaches the total size of RAM. That could be done with an L3, or even an L4 cache. It isn't done, because cache memory, even if off-die, is simply too expensive to substitute for standard RAM.
post #129 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by gloss
Call me an optimist, but I'm counting on Apple to do something surprising with these machines. They can't afford to get it wrong, and I think they know it.

I agree. In doing that, the prices will also be justiable, and they might even make some noise at E3. I don't know what it is they have ready to release, but it isn't just antoher Core Duo Asus in a shiny polycarbonate case with maglatch and magsafe. I will be quite surprised if these are only the rather dull machines that most are predicting. This is why Steve is having trouble delivering one for under $1000. There will be one or more major surprises.
post #130 of 149
we have waited so long for these darn things i think they should be delivered to us like this!!!!!!!!!

post #131 of 149
Call me optimistic, but I really hoped that we would get the new g965 integrated graphics chipset instead of the GM950. They were supposed to be due in Q3 along with Conroe, but with the Intel annoncement that they are early, one might think that they also have the new chipsets ready. The g965 has such better specs that I wouldn't mind being unable to order a dedicated graphics chip as an option.
post #132 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by Boukman
Call me optimistic, but I really hoped that we would get the new g965 integrated graphics chipset instead of the GM950. They were supposed to be due in Q3 along with Conroe, but with the Intel annoncement that they are early, one might think that they also have the new chipsets ready. The g965 has such better specs that I wouldn't mind being unable to order a dedicated graphics chip as an option.

I've been looking forward to it as well. I have been hoping that a newer Mini would show up with it in August.
post #133 of 149
.
post #134 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by crees!
.

???
post #135 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
???

Inadvertant post without the ability to delete.
post #136 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Reports from companies that follow sales of various items, have reported that. Apple uses this data themselves in their reports. Jobs used it during MacWorld when reporting sales.

Wrong... Did you read this yet?

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1727
post #137 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Wrong... Did you read this yet?

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1727

Not wrong. This is newer data. Did you notice the time I used? MacWorld.
post #138 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Not wrong. This is newer data. Did you notice the time I used? MacWorld.

MacWorld? What are you talking about? The Intel mini wasn't even released at the time of MacWorld. Below is your quote to which I had originally asked the question: "What data do you have to support your statement that the $100 price increase has hurt mini sales?"

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross


All I'm saying now, is that I hope Apple doesn't have to raise the price above $999, because raising the price of the Mini has hurt sales. I don't think anyone here wants that to happen to the MacMook as well.


And now you're using MacWorld as an answer... Like I said, Wrong.
post #139 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
[B]MacWorld? What are you talking about? The Intel mini wasn't even released at the time of MacWorld. Below is your quote to which I had originally asked the question: "What data do you have to support your statement that the $100 price increase has hurt mini sales?"

You are misinterpeting what I said. I used Macworld as an example of Apple using these companies for the numbers. He did that at MacWorld.


Quote:
And now you're using MacWorld as an answer... Like I said, Wrong.

The numbers about the Mini came out shortly after it went on sale. Reports said that sales were about the same as before, evan as the sales of the new iMac have surged. That was a while ago. Apparently, those numbers are up somewhat now. Even the UBS report said that sales for them were "relatively strong". Not a greatly enthusiastic statement.

These reports were even quoted here. But, you know how difficult it can be to find these things when you want them.
post #140 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Even the UBS report said that sales for them were "relatively strong". Not a greatly enthusiastic statement.

ROFL. Nice spin. I guess the comments like "stronger than expected" dont fit your opinion and so aren't (mis) quoteworthy. The "relatively solid demand" comment comes from checks for sales at CompUSA. I did not find any instance of "relatively strong" in the AppleInsider article. That seems pretty good for CompUSA since that's not typically where I'd go to find a mac.

Mini sales evidently were not hurt badly and even if they were hurt there was no direct evidence that price was the key factor (and not say the integrated graphics).

But for both sets of naysayers (price and integrated graphics) it seems the mini has turned out well for Apple thus far.

Vinea
post #141 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
ROFL. Nice spin. I guess the comments like "stronger than expected" dont fit your opinion and so aren't (mis) quoteworthy. The "relatively solid demand" comment comes from checks for sales at CompUSA. I did not find any instance of "relatively strong" in the AppleInsider article. That seems pretty good for CompUSA since that's not typically where I'd go to find a mac.

Mini sales evidently were not hurt badly and even if they were hurt there was no direct evidence that price was the key factor (and not say the integrated graphics).

But for both sets of naysayers (price and integrated graphics) it seems the mini has turned out well for Apple thus far.

Vinea

It's not spin. But if you can't bear the idea than any Apple product isn't doing just "great", then you will spin it yourself. After all, no one had any idea that the sales of the cube, which was hailed, and advertised heavily by Apple, were so poor that Apple would feel compelled to discontinue it. Only after that happened did we find out that they had sold only 50,000 units a quarter.

I'm certainly not saying that here. But, the Mini has been described as a modest sucess. It is outsold by the iMac, confounding the predictions.

What you don't seem to be getting, is that sales numbers from CompUsa will reflect sales numbers anywhere else. If Apple did what most every other company did, then they would break down sales numbers, and let it be known just how each model is doing. As they refuse to allow even the most basic information out, the only way to get a handle on it is to check third party retailers. If you bothered to listen to the investor conferance call that Apple had, you would see just how difficult it is to pin them down on almost anything. Most questions involving numbers are answered with "we can't tell you that because of competitive reasons".

While I'm not saying that Apple must give all of this out, as they have in the past, investors have to find out the numbers in a different way.

If CompUsa's numbers rise or fall, that will reflect what is happening in Apple's own stores, or on their site.

A "stronger than expected" doesn't tell us anything about absolute numbers. If Apple had been selling about 225,000 units a quarter, the estimated number before the switch, and the expected numbers were 175,000, a significant drop, but ended up being 190,000, then they would be "stronger than expected", but still disappointing.
post #142 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's not spin. But if you can't bear the idea than any Apple product isn't doing just "great", then you will spin it yourself. After all, no one had any idea that the sales of the cube, which was hailed, and advertised heavily by Apple, were so poor that Apple would feel compelled to discontinue it. Only after that happened did we find out that they had sold only 50,000 units a quarter.

I'm certainly not saying that here. But, the Mini has been described as a modest sucess. It is outsold by the iMac, confounding the predictions.

If the predictions were that it would outsell the iMac, then how can "stronger than expected" be seen as "Not greatly enthusiastic" except as "spin"? Because of only "relatively solid demand" at the more PC oriented CompUSA chain?

Amazon top sellers - Category Computers:

Apple iBook #1
Apple Mac Book Pro #2
Sony VIAO Notebook #3
Apple Mac Book Pro #4
Apple Mac Mini Core Duo #5
Apple iMac 20" #6.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...721110-9938206

Amazon top sellers - Category Desktops:

Apple Mac Mini Core Duo #1
Apple iMac 20" #2
Apple iMac 17" #3
4-5 Books
Apple Mac Mini Core Solo #6
7 Book
HP Pavillion Media Center (AMD 64) #8

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...rent-id=541966

Quote:
What you don't seem to be getting, is that sales numbers from CompUsa will reflect sales numbers anywhere else.

You mean like Amazon?

Quote:
A "stronger than expected" doesn't tell us anything about absolute numbers. If Apple had been selling about 225,000 units a quarter, the estimated number before the switch, and the expected numbers were 175,000, a significant drop, but ended up being 190,000, then they would be "stronger than expected", but still disappointing.

When the report is that intel mac sales are strong and mini sales are higher than expected given that the prior mini was a good performer that would indicate that expectations would not be so low as to be dissapointing if met.

We had a similar article about this time last year where analysis from PiperJaffray indicated that mac mini shipments exceeded expecations when they blew their estimates by a large margin (138K vs 50K).

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1000

Do you believe UBS would estimate closer to the 138K number or the 50K number? Especially if the general "prediction" was that they would outsell iMacs?

Why defend a throwaway statement that is now shown to be untrue by spinning positive news as possibly bad? Did the word disspointing appear in any of the articles that quote the UBS analysis?

Because it hurts the assertion that the market wont tolerate a >$999 MacBook? When the iPod is both a good music player and a status symbol? There can also be rebates, promos and edu discounts for back-to-school purchases to take the bite out of a higher MSRP.

Vinea
post #143 of 149
This little squabble is really...um...fascinating.
post #144 of 149
Come on Apple let's be havin yer new iBooks.

I can't wait to start bitching about them in a new thread. LOL.
post #145 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by netdog
This little squabble is really...um...fascinating.

Every squabble on the internet is little.

Vinea
post #146 of 149
post #147 of 149
I just read the entire thread and only this thread, so if my thoughts have been posted else where, so be it.

My thought is that the mac mini Core Duo (799$) will get a price drop of 50$ to 100$, so it could be possible for Apple to release the macbooks starting at 999$.

My thought is based on some posters saying that Apple wouldn't release a macbook at 999 because of the mac mini being at 799 and the price drop of intel processors in may.
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
post #148 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
See you back here in a few days. I love a high noon showdown.

Well Sir, I hate to say "I told you so," but, I told you so!

The MacBook starts at $1099, just as I predicted.
post #149 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Well Sir, I hate to say "I told you so," but, I told you so!

The MacBook starts at $1099, just as I predicted.

Humble pie, gotta love it! You called it right and I missed it! Now the secret is out! I am not an AppleInsider afterall!!

You got me!!
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › News Brief: Apple ramps MacBook production