Well the new display IS significant. I don't know that it has much to do with the domestic market (Steve doesn't believe that the family will watch TV on a computer) since the uptake on HD broadcasts in the US has been pretty dismal I understand; and anyway it costs too much.
Its for the pro market obviously but more significantly for the 'Hollywood' market that Steve is now going for. HiDef CRT monitors cost $30,000 and more (even then they 'cheat' on the resolution). Some method of using this monitor as a HiDef video monitor would immediately sell a bucketload of them.
At NAB Apple or a 3rd party needs to bring out a relatively cheap HD Serial to DVI interface box.
Hopefully we will also see a prieview of 'Shake OSX' and something from the Spruce DVD buyout.
What's still missing from the equation however is the rack mount quad G5 Apple 'RenderBeast'
Matsu Answer me one question, Why the SDRam price jumped more than a double in the past few months, did they included some new features in the SDRam?
I don't see what you are bragging about, it's not like are are going to buy an iMac anytime soon, or it is wrong for apple to increase the price, the fact is the price of LCD and Ram rose without adding new feature in themselve, if apple needs to raise the price to make a profit so be it.
iMac is a very low margine product, so even a 30 dollars rise in material cost could be a big problem for apple.
Matsu, it looks to me that you just don't understand some economic principles. With the current market situation, component shortage, and the already razor thin profit margins on iMacs, Apple really had no choice but to raise the prices on the iMac. Like Steve said, it was that or cut specs. Would you rather Apple have kept the prices the same and have a loss for the quarter? The year?
This is one of those things Apple does looking at the long term results, like when they "took their medicine" back in late 2000 when the computer industry got hit hard. It will help Apple's profits stay afloat during this shortage period, that has no end in sight, but by no means are these going to be permanent iMac prices.
Can anything be said about these G5s except that they're fast?? Isn't there anything that you can give to us Dorsal, that would give an idea of its speed, even if its only for a menial task?
<strong>Can anything be said about these G5s except that they're fast?? Isn't there anything that you can give to us Dorsal, that would give an idea of its speed, even if its only for a menial task?</strong><hr></blockquote>
LoL my prediction for G5 is it'll be really fast .....
I don't know where this 800 or 866MHz figure comes from, but I have not mentioned it. The 7500 has a 10 stage pipeline (main) and a pipeline of undetermined length for the FPU units. It apears to be made on a 130nm process (given the amount of die surface area in relation to the on die cache and memory controller) so 866MHz would be a very low balled estimate. The processor speed is based on a ratio of the RapidIO bus; in this case 500MHz * 3, or 1.5GHz. The minimum ratio is 2:1 therefore on a 500MHz system bus you will at the minimum acheive 1.0GHz. The memory controller operates externally with memory at a fixed rate, either 133MHz (266MHz DDR) or 166MHz (333MHz DDR) and is asyncronous with the RapidIO main bus. Internally with the CPU core it is a 256bit wide bus similar to one used by IBM called CoreConnect and operates on the backside of the bus at a fixed ratio speed.
<strong>I don't know where this 800 or 866MHz figure comes from, but I have not mentioned it. The 7500 has a 10 stage pipeline (main) and a pipeline of undetermined length for the FPU units. It apears to be made on a 130nm process (given the amount of die surface area in relation to the on die cache and memory controller) so 866MHz would be a very low balled estimate. The processor speed is based on a ratio of the RapidIO bus; in this case 500MHz * 3, or 1.5GHz. The minimum ratio is 2:1 therefore on a 500MHz system bus you will at the minimum acheive 1.0GHz. The memory controller operates externally with memory at a fixed rate, either 133MHz (266MHz DDR) or 166MHz (333MHz DDR) and is asyncronous with the RapidIO main bus. Internally with the CPU core it is a 256bit wide bus similar to one used by IBM called CoreConnect and operates on the backside of the bus at a fixed ratio speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Three Dorsal posts in one thread? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Now I'm really starting to get nervous! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
What about some idea of the G5s speed, all we here about is it clocks speeds, what about its performance, is it twice as fast as a 1Ghz dual G4, for instance, or dual 2000 athlon XPs?
<strong>Hopefully we can expect to see a 1.8Ghz G5 with 333Mhz DDR, not a 866Mhz 266DDR system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's hope so. Even at 1.8GHz Apple is still lagging far behind the competition. Even If it were a DP 1.8GHz /w 333MHz DDR by MWNY Apple would still be playing folow the leader.
I have to re-post because the thing that totally drives the steak through is that damn intel commercail with the aliens playing the asteroid field game. At the end of it the line is "Leave 'Em In The Dust."
I used to laugh at those intel commercails, but that is the one that every time I see it I know that at this time we are getting smoked, and it does not seem that we are ever going to make it out of this hole.
onlooker- at 1.8 ghz, apple would in no way be behind wintel. AMD are around there and no one smokes them for being behind. I can't remember the source, but about 6 months ago, I read an assesment of various processor architectures by a guy who was involved in processor design and was in no way a mac fanatic. His view (backed by tests) was that was ppc was roughly 20% more efficient than x86 at any given clock speed. That is completely ignoring altivec or anything. No, a 1ghz g4 will not smoke a P4 on most tasks. A 1.8ghz G5 with massively improved memory architecture will be a different kettle of fish. With altivec, DP and other advancements, the G5 will be more than competitive, whether it is a new architecture or simply an improved G4.
Seriously...let's not exaggerate here. I don't think there is a single person here who wouldn't be ecstatic to own a 1.5 GHz PPC (SP or DP) with RIO, DDR and the rest. I also think at least a few of us would probably wet our pants if had a chance to see how fast said machine would be compared to just about anything we've seen.
Given how admirably the existing dual gig machine performs with much outdated technologies under the hood - there's little doubt its replacement would kick the crap out of most Wintel boxes. Even at 1.5 GHz....
Numbers don't interest me. Performance interests me. Wintel and AMD can duke it with their 20 stage pipelines all they want. Come summer what some of us will be running will likely make their cookoffs completely irrelevant.
Comments
Its for the pro market obviously but more significantly for the 'Hollywood' market that Steve is now going for. HiDef CRT monitors cost $30,000 and more (even then they 'cheat' on the resolution). Some method of using this monitor as a HiDef video monitor would immediately sell a bucketload of them.
At NAB Apple or a 3rd party needs to bring out a relatively cheap HD Serial to DVI interface box.
Hopefully we will also see a prieview of 'Shake OSX' and something from the Spruce DVD buyout.
What's still missing from the equation however is the rack mount quad G5 Apple 'RenderBeast'
I don't see what you are bragging about, it's not like are are going to buy an iMac anytime soon, or it is wrong for apple to increase the price, the fact is the price of LCD and Ram rose without adding new feature in themselve, if apple needs to raise the price to make a profit so be it.
iMac is a very low margine product, so even a 30 dollars rise in material cost could be a big problem for apple.
This is one of those things Apple does looking at the long term results, like when they "took their medicine" back in late 2000 when the computer industry got hit hard. It will help Apple's profits stay afloat during this shortage period, that has no end in sight, but by no means are these going to be permanent iMac prices.
Anyway, back to the G5 dammit. Dorsal come back!
I think it will be here MWNY.
<strong>Can anything be said about these G5s except that they're fast?? Isn't there anything that you can give to us Dorsal, that would give an idea of its speed, even if its only for a menial task?</strong><hr></blockquote>
LoL my prediction for G5 is it'll be really fast .....
"it's like asking what is your favorite breath of air? you say, 'whichever one i'm taking that gets me to the next one' " (j.s.)
"meantime life outside goes on all around you...and if my thought-dreams could b seen, they 'd probably put my head in a guillitine." (r.z.)
-gd
<strong>I don't know where this 800 or 866MHz figure comes from, but I have not mentioned it. The 7500 has a 10 stage pipeline (main) and a pipeline of undetermined length for the FPU units. It apears to be made on a 130nm process (given the amount of die surface area in relation to the on die cache and memory controller) so 866MHz would be a very low balled estimate. The processor speed is based on a ratio of the RapidIO bus; in this case 500MHz * 3, or 1.5GHz. The minimum ratio is 2:1 therefore on a 500MHz system bus you will at the minimum acheive 1.0GHz. The memory controller operates externally with memory at a fixed rate, either 133MHz (266MHz DDR) or 166MHz (333MHz DDR) and is asyncronous with the RapidIO main bus. Internally with the CPU core it is a 256bit wide bus similar to one used by IBM called CoreConnect and operates on the backside of the bus at a fixed ratio speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Three Dorsal posts in one thread? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Now I'm really starting to get nervous! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
How about some info on new portable products? I know you were disappointed at the MWSF announcements. Any word on future products?
<strong>Hopefully we can expect to see a 1.8Ghz G5 with 333Mhz DDR, not a 866Mhz 266DDR system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does the processor speed have to do with how fast the machine is? More Mhz BS that is not relavent when comparing processors.
<strong>German Apple System Profiler Snapshot</strong><hr></blockquote>
866MHz G5?? Gawd I hope not! It better be at least 1.2 GHz!!
<strong>Hopefully we can expect to see a 1.8Ghz G5 with 333Mhz DDR, not a 866Mhz 266DDR system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's hope so. Even at 1.8GHz Apple is still lagging far behind the competition. Even If it were a DP 1.8GHz /w 333MHz DDR by MWNY Apple would still be playing folow the leader.
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
I used to laugh at those intel commercails, but that is the one that every time I see it I know that at this time we are getting smoked, and it does not seem that we are ever going to make it out of this hole.
Yep.. That one drives it home.
What we need is a miracle at MWNY.
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Given how admirably the existing dual gig machine performs with much outdated technologies under the hood - there's little doubt its replacement would kick the crap out of most Wintel boxes. Even at 1.5 GHz....
Numbers don't interest me. Performance interests me. Wintel and AMD can duke it with their 20 stage pipelines all they want. Come summer what some of us will be running will likely make their cookoffs completely irrelevant.