Intel rolls out Broadwater, says 3.2GHz Woodcrest planned - Page 4

I disagree. I don't think Apple's previous behavior will carry forward. I think they buy into Intel's product cycle and refresh just like pc vendors do. They really don't have any choice. Whether they like it or not Apple's products will be compared to pc vendors products now that the hardware is converging.

That's what I originally thought too, but on further reflection reading this thread, I realized that Apple could just entirely skip Conroe -- sticking to only Woodcrest or Extreme in the "PowerMac" and a mix of Mermon and Yohah in everything else. This strategy would nicely side-step comparisons with the vast middle of the PC market.

But, I don't really think the Mac market is overly concerned with price comparisons -- they just want a gut check that they aren't getting ripped off too badly -- and the best way for Apple to do that is to stick to using laptop chips.

...Which will be both more expensive and slower and will most obviously be a rip off compared to desktop Dells and the like. Conroe is going in the iMac IMHO as it's cheaper and you can use cheaper ram. It'll wipe the floor with MacBook Pros much to the annoyance of the whiners who somehow seem to think consumer desktops can't be faster than 'Pro' laptops.

You realize, of course, that if they were so inclined, Apple could always cripple the iMac in other ways, just to make the MBP faster?

Case in point? The iMac Core Duo is virtually unchanged from the iMac G5 in terms of features. It's mostly a different CPU, a different GPU, different chipset and different RAM, and that's it.

Except for one thing: spanning. Whereas the iMac G5 had mini-VGA and only mirroring (officially), there iMac Core Duo rather quietly received mini-DVI and spanning support.

Why's that? Well, here's one_possible explanation: the iMac G5, performance-wise, was way ahead of the PowerBook G4 of the time. As such, crippling graphics output was an easy way to at least somehow give the PowerBook an edge: it had dual-link DVI with spanning. Now that the MacBook Pro is pretty much the same speed as the iMac, this is no longer necessary, so the crippling can be gotten rid of.

Assuming the iMac receives a Conroe, which doesn't seem too unlikely, they can always do similar crippling tactics, just so the MacBook Pro can seem more, well, "Pro". We may not like it, but Apple sure does.

They do and they don't.

The problem is, Apple has more restrictive form factors to consider and completely different design goals than dull old PC companies.

For example, already some far east laptop manufacturers are talking about skipping Merom in laptops and using Conroe. Conroe is shipping a few months before Merom and at the low end 2.7Ghz is faster than the top end Merom by 400Mhz. 65W TDP (possibly less at 2.7Ghz) is around what they had to cope with with Pentium 4 laptops. They're going to be big, heavy and hungry beasts of course. Exactly the kind of laptop Apple would never do. Apple will therefore still be up against silly benchmark tests where some 12lb 'laptop' demolishes Apple's 6lb inch thick MacBook Pro.

For a long time Apple has made designing quieter computers one of it's goals. Intel have only just this week been making noises about making much quieter computers and saying that Apple has made them rethink computers. They've gone so far as even coming up with some new kind of 'Satisfaction Per Watt' metric as they continue to backpedal over their silly 'Performance Per Watt' claims which no-one really believed. Even though I personally think Apple would be mad to put Merom in the iMac, if they value silence and 'Satisfaction Per Watt' above 'Performance Per Watt' with the iMac then we could see Merom and not Conroe in the iMac.

So, it's still quite possible that Apple won't follow the PC product cycles because their computers aren't PCs.

I'd guess they'll use Intel G965 graphics instead of ATi in the next iMac. G965 is supposedly capable of running Vista in full Aero mode so it should be fine for Apple though that does depend on what Leopard brings.

New iMac at WWDC ? Possible I reckon.

I agree with that. I think we'll be seeing more frequent updates immediately. We were getting updates like that in early G3 days when processors were flying out of Motorola, but when it started to get rocky for the PPC it quickly slowed down.

There also used to be drastic leaps in performance between product lines to help differentiate consumer, and pro-sumer lines too. I'm hoping that comes back as well.

I definitely think we'll see more product updates, and some new products here soon. I know I want a convertible laptop/tablet which may, or may not happen, but the media center (The Real Digital Hub) is almost upon us IMO.

What's wrong with the performance per watt claim...Intel and Apple seem to be following that goal. Woodcrest seems to have that perf/watt thing down cold. It's almost 50% faster than any chip on the market @ 65-80 watts. Most dual-core chips hover around 100+ watts TDP.

It really doesn't matter what CPU Apple uses in the iMac -- Unless they cut the price (which they won't), it will seem like a rip-off compared to desktop Dells and the like.

The more likely alternative to going with Conroe and cutting prices is that Apple will up-content the iMacs, say with larger screens, and/or redesign the enclosure to be thinner/more stylish. (The iMac is quite thick for a "laptop on a stick").

Although they then also need FB-DIMMS which consume another 5W each, and also a north bridge at 22W. Overall it's more than an Opteron even if it is faster.

Here's Intel's recent thoughts on 'Performance Per Watt'...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...el_spw_metric/

I'm sure most people don't find the iMac cheap, or even inexpensive but it's far from being a rip-off. It does however depend on what you value. If you value performance then it'll matter if it's a Conroe. If you value design then it doesn't.

I also think it highly unlikely they'll make it thinner. It's NOT a laptop on a stick. It's only recently that it's used a laptop CPU in it and that's merely a stopgap because Intel doesn't have a decent desktop CPU. Conroe is about the same power consumption as G5 so I'd imagine they'd get back to that and leave the form alone - it's IMHO the best thing they've designed in ages.

Wow, people on the Internet will argue about anything, even silly jokes. The point is that laptop hardware (which the current iMac uses) potentially has some 'style' advantages which Apple could exploit to prevent the inevitable comparisons with the Dell Special.

(And actually, the iMac G5 was the only iMac that didn't use a laptop-style mobo and CPU, so history favors staying with yohnah/mermon in this product segment.)

Precisely. The iMac G3 and iMac G4 were both "laptop on a stick" designs, from a technical point of view. The iMac G3's motherboard was, to my knowledge, based on an earlier PowerBook G3's.

With the exception of the 3.5-inch drive, the iMacs (G5 excluded) have always been rather laptop-like, internally. Before someone points it out: this obviously excludes the screen. I did say 'internally' for a reason.

How much do Opterons consume?

Full-grown?

About 10lbs. of monkey chow a day

;^p

I think this deserves further discussion. The restrictive form factor of Apple products is self imposed. Nobody told Apple to make them that way, they decided that on their own. Therefore with desktops, I don't want a performance 'hit' just to save a quater inch here and 6 ounces there. With notebooks yes the form factor is a top proirity. But with iMac perfomance should take priority over form factor. How many times do you move an iMac after you set it up?

The new iMac will not have integrated graphics. In a machine that sells for $1200-1400, integrated graphics is not an option. Or should I say "non-dedicated-memory graphics" is not an option. The iMac will continue to have a -600 level graphics card in it, or maybe a -300 level. Whether they go Nvidia or ATI might flip-flop around. Since I have no idea when the next graphics generation are coming, I'd say that the iMac will stay with an x1600 in August or September, unless an x2300 is cheaper and better. (Yeah, just checked, no R600s until December, so it'll stay x1600)

Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
The new iMac will not have integrated graphics. In a machine that sells for $1200-1400, integrated graphics is not an option. Or should I say "non-dedicated-memory graphics" is not an option.

Agreed.


Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Whether they go Nvidia or ATI might flip-flop around....I'd say that the iMac will stay with an x1600 in August or September, unless an x2300 is cheaper and better.

I'm hoping that a new Rev of an iMac in time for Christmas buying frenzy might get a bump up to an x1800, but that's wishful thinking perhaps. They *might* go to nVidia but we're seeing all ATI in the line up now. A nVidia 7800GT might be nice for the iMac's next revision. NOT going to happen though

I'm hoping that by Christmass buying season that Apple will be in a position to start lowering prices again and we will see a $499 MacMini entry model and a $999 iMac entry model.

According to reports the Yonah's are moving down in price, so there is room for Apple to do this with the MacMini, possibly even moving up to an all dual core line-up and reducing the price but that is a little optamistic.

More to the point though is that Apple has publicly stated that they would like to get the iMac price down but were not able to do so due to parts costs. I would assume that this has always been due to the cost of the LCD screen, and more reciently the G5 processor. Today the prices of the 17" and 20" LCD pannels have dropped quite a bit since the iMac G5's introduction. Intel is doing a lot of the circutry R&D that Apple used to do, and the new processors don't cost any more than the G5 did and probably less. If Apple chooses a pin compatible processor for the next revision then most of the R&D is done and paid for so Apple should be able to set an entry model down closer to the $999 "Sweet Spot" that they used to enjoy with the imac. This would also make it much more competative with the Dell's of the world.

@homenow, If there is a price drop it will come towards the very end of the product life cycle.
I'm pretty sure Apple will be using all different processors soon in each model. Chances are more likely Apple will probably keep the speed, and quality of their new computers on par with where it is, and they will not go low cost beyond what they already have unless intel can get newly available processor prices down. Processor speeds, and cores are growing at a rapid rate right now, and if your talking about using old tech, or tech that is remaining stagnant. You could possibly buy a used one after the new versions come out, and update the processor but you'll have other technology disadvantages at that point vs. a new one for a little more. After you figure in the cost of the used one and an updated processor, it's probably cheaper just to get the new one. They are not that much anyway.

Huh? As far as I know, SO-DIMM is only a form factor, which is determined by the memory sockets. (Might be wrong on this, though) The memory type is determined by the Northbridge chipset, not by the processor.

But indeed, the Conroe should be a first choice for the iMac. It is proven to handle the heat of a G5, and the C2D should not be much hotter, if at all. If they can get it in there, it would be stupid not to.

Originally posted by Zandros
Huh? As far as I know, SO-DIMM is only a form factor, which is determined by the memory sockets. (Might be wrong on this, though)...

Yeah the current iMacs could have used SO-DIMM or ordinary DIMM for the Yonah thingamijig, Apple went with SO-DIMM for design reasons, I guess.

Originally posted by Zandros
But indeed, the Conroe should be a first choice for the iMac. It is proven to handle the heat of a G5, and the C2D should not be much hotter, if at all. If they can get it in there, it would be stupid not to.

Well, I think quite a few of us are hoping for that in the next iMac incarnation. Core 2 Duo aka CONROE..... YEAH! [hopefully]

You miss my point. In the case of the iMac when it switched to LCD screens the price of the the iMac up and Apple increased the size of the screen as they came down in price. For the consumer a 17" wide screen is a good size, and the 20" is large. I don't think that there is a need to increase the size to 23" for the top end in the market that they are targeting the iMac toward. Since the iMac 17" came out the price of LCD screens, particularly the 17" monitors, have come down considerably. Also wide screen monitors are becoming more available.

In today's ads there is a Viewsonic 20.1" wide-screen monitor on sale for $349 (after rebates), a Xerox 19" windscreen for $199 (after rebates), and a Sony 17" for $199 (after rebates). A year ago these prices were a good $100 higher for similar monitors. There is probably a good $100 that Apple could cut off the price of the iMac based on the reduced parts cost of the LCD monitor alone, and from what I have read the price of LCD panels is expected to continue to drop throughout the rest of the year.

Further Apple could probably find other cost "savings" (smaller HD, Combo Drive, etc) to get a $999 iMac on the market without using "Old" processors, or they could keep the current version with an updated Yonah processor for the entry model to achieve the "sweet spot" of under $1000 while still updating the higher end $1299 and $1699 models to the newer processor. Apple has publicly stated in the past that they would like to get the iMac's price down to this level again and I think that today they can without "crippling" the iMac in terms of prcessor or memory or lowering their "original" profit margin for this model. They definatly have some room to maneuver with the reduced parts price of the LCD alone, and if you take into account the lower prices of other componets such as HD's, Super Drives, wireless networking, BlueTooth, during the same time period I would estimate that this is a realistic "entry" price for the iMac in today's market.

As for the Mac Mini, I would imagine that they will continue using the Yonah at least until the end of the year. They can achieve the $100 price drop for their entry model with the reduced parts cost of the Yonah processor that were expected a month or so ago. This might be a little less realistic than the above iMac scenerio becouse the Mini is alreay pretty bare bones but I would imagine that there is some room for lowering the entry price of the Mini even if it is only $50 on the low end model.

Firstoff, I hope Apple does nothing to prevent CPU upgradeability in the Mac Pros.

Second, I hope that they actually make attempts at offering the latest and greatest graphics cards this time around.

And third, I hope that CPU speedbumps offered by Intel are immediately reflected in the product lineup instead of six months of waiting.


The third point, however, I doubt will be the case simply because Apple lacks the volume of sales to allow new clockspeeds to be introduced every few months yet still clear inventory satisfactorily without capital loss.

What makes people think that the published prices that get quoted for Intel products has anything to do with the price Apple pays?

for all we know they may only get charged the price that exists after the chip has been on the market for 6-months (or some other predetermined method)...

That wouldn't preclude them from reducing prices after awhile, but I'd suspect that would only happen on older models when new models come out..

Agreed I guess I didn't fully understand your statement/question, but as for the last part on the Mac-Mini I think that falls right into what I was saying about end of the life cycle could see a reduced price.