These new 970 machines will certainly be more expensive then the lowest priced PowerMac, you can bet on that.
Wouldn't you need at least a little info before making such a careless wager?
Do you really think that a PPC 970 will be more expensive than a G4.
Some factors you may want to consider.
The G4 is 106mm squared @ .18um
The G4 requires L3 cache to increase performance.
The G4 hasn't had what one might say is Stellar Yields.
now...compare that to the PPC 970
The PPC 970 is 121mm squared. Just about %14 larger
It doesn't require L3 cache to boost speed.
We don't know what Yields will be like.
The real questions that must be asked are
"what is the cost of supporting chipsets for PPC 970's"
"Are these costs offset enough by ability to forgo on L3 cache"
"Will Apple seek to recoup R&D or increase marketshare"
I think you find that PPC 970 system can be created at the very same price points of the current Powermacs. Maybe even cheaper when you compare the pricing of two 1.25Ghz chips versus one 1.8Ghz PPC 970.
PPC 970s being high end only just doesn't add up right now. Fred Anderson says 10 Billion in revenue is possible with all cylinder clicking. I believe Apple will be doing the 970 systems right.
Public perception is that the PowerMac line is fataly underpowered. Apple therefore would certainly not use that name for the new line of 970 computers. Aggressive pricing is neither here nor there. They have lowered prices on consumer machines and the aging PowerMac line (they had no choice on the latter). But prices are still higher then the low-end Dells and Gateways. It is true that on the high-end models by Dell and Gateway, iMacs are very competitive price and feature-wise.
These new 970 machines will certainly be more expensive then the lowest priced PowerMac, you can bet on that.
Actually, for some reason, I think Apple is going to discontinue the PowerMac line as we know it, and introduce an all 970 line. The reason why is that Apple desperatly needs to do something with their Pro line-up. You know it, I know it, and the definatly know it (ref. Fred Anderson).
It wouldn't surprise me if they did something like this:
1.4 Ghz $1399 Combo Drive 60GB 512MB
1.8 GHz $1799 Combo Drive 80GB 768MB
1.8DP GHz $2199 Super Drive 100GB 768MB
2.3DP GHz $2599 Super Drive 120GB 1 GB
I know it sounds far fetched. It sounds that way coming from my fingers, however I have never heard Fred Anderson sound so committed to reducing the costs of the Macintosh.
FYI - The 970 is supposed to be cheaper to manufacture because of the type of facilities that IBM has available to them, whereas Motorola didn't for desktops.
These 970 machines will not be PowerMacs. Besides a new form factor they will have a new name. They will initially be aimed at the pro-user and not for g'ds sake sell for $1499. Any new processor based machine has always had a premium price at first intro. Until full speed manufacturing is achieved (with less rejects) don't look for the processor for at least a year in lower priced machines. Apple is going after the movie and graphics industry with these new "extreme" machines, not the gamer in college. Get real people.
Being quite real about it, that would be the death knell for Apple. Even as fast as the current PowerMacs are, if Apple decides to only perform incremental speed bumps at the same price points for another year or two my company will have no choice but to drop Mac support. It's not a threat, it's simple economics. They're no way I would be able to continue to justify the premium for performance that's just... unstellar.
As a point of interest, when has a new processor (from IBM or Moto) ever been less expensive then the previous one when first used in an Apple computer? I'm not referring to speed bumps, but new designs.
I don't know about the processors, but I know that new Powermac models almost never cost more than the previous lineup. Or at least that has been the cas for the last <2 years. Color me stupid.
Apple would practically have to give the current Powermacs away.
I'm assuming that the PPC 970 1.4Ghz system would enter no higher than 1499. Apple would need to blow out the current entry level Powermac for like $1099. Larger cuts may be needed. But who cares...this is the beginning of a new era. Apple can take the hit if they are actually able to hit these speeds.
I still wonder about the Dual 2.3 though. That's alot of heat!
Look at what Apple did with the G4 Cube. Though it was single 450mhz, others are running a dual 1ghz processor in a Cube. If the end user can do that, Apple can manage to keep the heat down in a tower.
The cost of the processor is irrelevent. The important element is what Apple will charge.
That very much depends on the line up. Are we going to ever see the PC7457-RM in any machines and if so how will that effect the PM line up? There is no question that the MPC7457-RM would be a significant improvement, which would allow Apple to position 970 based machines at a premium.
On the other hand, the G4 based PM's are a joke in the sense that they are no longer competitive in the media based applications, so is there a market for middeling performance machines.
We have all seen the adverse publicity around the Adobe comparrison. I hope that the experiment is repeated when 970 machines are released.
I am hoping to add 970's to our companies desktops.
I'm praying for an aggressive price point to be able to do this.
Beginning with my Graphics station I need to justify the price over the $1400 spent on a Dell that came with a nice 19" Monitor, harman/kardon speakers and subwoofer (bought Sept. 2001), in addition to the costs of switching / cross-grading Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.
Apple needs to understand this scenario if they are going to gain market-share. Pricing systems need to take into account the cost of unseating the non Mac systems as well as the hardware costs. This also holds true for production houses moving from 9 to X.
Cost of ownership is a wash between OS X and XP as well as hardware reliability (with Dell) in my opinion.
I'm putting off all purchases until I see these 2.3GHz Duals. If this processor performs better than a Power4 in different areas I would not be all that worried about about a Dual Xeon at all. Although, if these machines are not so hot I'm buying a Dual Xeon, and keeping my current PowerMac.
i have reason to believe that even with those specs.
you will find the 970's to be stellar!
Don't get me wrong, I believe that Apple will introduce the PPC970 across the PowerMac line as soon as possible, and at prices at or lower the than current ones. At these prices the performance we'll see (keeping fingers crossed that the disk access and virtual memory management shims will have improved by them) be spectacular. They've set a goal for a 5% marketshare and more aggressive pricing, and I'm taking this to heart.
My "death knell" comment was in response to the implication that Apple would keep the current PowerMac line, and only introduce the PPC970 in a new premium workstation and/or low end server line aimed at graphics and video professionals. Well, we've got a couple hundred Mac desktops and laptops, and only two (soon to be three) Mac servers. Once the PPC970 is out there the ugly lack of performance in the single processor G4 boxes will be ripped wide open. If they're not targeting the "affordable" desktop market with the PPC970 boxes, then I won't be buying. I'm sure a lot of other folks feel the same way, I'm sure Apple knows this, and I'm darned sure we'll see PPC970 Macs priced where everyone will want to buy one. That's how you build market share.
I believe that a dual 2.3 is entirely plausible. Yeah, it may cost $5,000, it may require its own reactor, and it may heat a small village, but it will leave no question that the performance gap is officially closed. Just a little jab to the Wintel world, "Here's what we got." And it will only get better.
You mean exactly like they did with the Quicksilver 1Ghz - dual at the top only? Of course it's possible they would put the top chip in the dual. The reason this isn't to be trusted isn't because they woudn't do that, it's because 1) MacBeDoobie has no track record, and 2) because a 2.3Ghz machine isn't consistent with what we currently know about the 970.
I think the situation is a bit different -- with the QS 1 GHz their yields were pretty good and they were falling way behind compared to x86... they didn't really have a choice but to try and compete. The 970 will stand up much better and a dual 1.8 would be cooler, plenty fast, and would yield well. @2.3 GHz the power output is going to be close to 60W, so two of them would be 120W. That's an awful lot of power and heat.
this makes no sense - why the hell is there a lower Mhz difference between the two slower machines with just one cpu and a 500 Mhz difference to the faster one with two cpus? i think 1.4 single, 1.8 dual, 2.x dual or even 1.4 SP, 1.6 DP and 2.0 DP will make much more sense... ???????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, it's not that far off. 1.4-1.8 is 400mhz. 1.8-2.3 is 500mhz, so not that much of a difference. Apple has had top end with duals only before, and a dual 2.3ghz would be the closest Apple would have to a workstation type speed/config for highend users.
I didn't think the 970 went to 2.3ghz tho, I thought it only scaled to 1.8-2.0ghz and the taking it to .09nm (?) would allow it to scale to 2.4ghz and then the 970+ would scale close to 3.0ghz.
The cost of the processor is irrelevent. The important element is what Apple will charge.
Yes, it's not a matter of economy. It's a matter of marketing. Hypothetic dual [email protected] GHz just cannot be priced as current dual [email protected] GHz. Even if it's economically possible, they can't afford it.
I have several technical questions: is the dual [email protected] GHz likely in terms of the bus speed, companion chip, memory controller etc.? Can they simply install some jumpers on the motherboard to set the CPU/bus frequency they want (like in your $500 PC)? Can we now tell anything certain about the companion chips design?
Yes, it's not a matter of economy. It's a matter of marketing. Hypothetic dual [email protected] GHz just cannot be priced as current dual [email protected] GHz. Even if it's economically possible, they can't afford it.
I have several technical questions: is the dual [email protected] GHz likely in terms of the bus speed, companion chip, memory controller etc.? Can they simply install some jumpers on the motherboard to set the CPU/bus frequency they want (like in your $500 PC)? Can we now tell anything certain about the companion chips design?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the frontside bus of the 970 is locked to half the processor speed. For a 2.3 ghz 970 you will have a doublepumped 575mhz bus = 1,15 ghz. The 970 has a memory controller built in, and you will obviously need to have a pretty fast memory system to saturate the bandwith of the processor bus.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the frontside bus of the 970 is locked to half the processor speed. For a 2.3 ghz 970 you will have a doublepumped 575mhz bus = 1,15 ghz. The 970 has a memory controller built in, and you will obviously need to have a pretty fast memory system to saturate the bandwith of the processor bus.
I'm sorry I might have phrased my question poorly. For all we know, yes, 970 is locked to half the processor speed. Can they clock it to any reasonably arbitrary figure? Double-pumped 450MHz for 1.8GHz or double-pumped 750MHz for 3GHz CPUs? Is it all as simple as setting a couple of jumpers on the motherboard? I am not sure about it because the said 575MHz bus sounds a bit crazy. Does Apple have such chips at all?
Yes, it's not a matter of economy. It's a matter of marketing. Hypothetic dual [email protected] GHz just cannot be priced as current dual [email protected] GHz. Even if it's economically possible, they can't afford it.
So even if the price of the 970 for Apple is the same as they pay for the G4 there is a some law of nature that stops Apple from selling them at the same pricepoint?
If Apple was the dominant supplier of personal computers they could charge far more for the 970 than the G4. But with less than 5% market share and more than 3 years of very poor CPU performance and failing tower sales they can not do that.
The dual 2.3 GHz 970 might be a pentium killer, but only if the stage is set right. In non SMP application or against dual Xeon it will not be a killer, as it looks. It will fare much better than the G4 and keep its ground but probably not beat the Pentiums.
Exactly what market beaviour stops apple from selling much faster 970 at the same price as the current towers?
The Mac user: This 970 tower is much faser than the dual 1.25 I bought a year ago! So I will either keep my G4 or buy a windows box!
The PC user: That top of the line Mac sure is faster than my current P4 3 GHz! To bad it is too cheap, I better find the most expensive brand of dual Xeon boxes on the market!
When the B&W G3 came out, crammed with new features and blazing performance (compared both with Mac and PC). The low end G3/300 was priced simliar to the previous low end and it was faster than the previous top of the line beige G3. I do not recall any uproar of dissapointment with that
I'm sorry I might have phrased my question poorly. For all we know, yes, 970 is locked to half the processor speed. Can they clock it to any reasonably arbitrary figure? Double-pumped 450MHz for 1.8GHz or double-pumped 750MHz for 3GHz CPUs? Is it all as simple as setting a couple of jumpers on the motherboard? I am not sure about it because the said 575MHz bus sounds a bit crazy. Does Apple have such chips at all?
I asked the same question about that bus speed a few weeks ago. It seems to be what people who are "in the know" think.
If Apple has the processor yet is an entirely different question. But before we thought we knew that it was going to be in a PowerMac those outrageous sounding bus speeds were explained a few times, and it made perfect sense. And actually, it does not seem that unreasonable once you crunch other #'s based on what is known about it's architecture.
Comments
These new 970 machines will certainly be more expensive then the lowest priced PowerMac, you can bet on that.
Wouldn't you need at least a little info before making such a careless wager?
Do you really think that a PPC 970 will be more expensive than a G4.
Some factors you may want to consider.
The G4 is 106mm squared @ .18um
The G4 requires L3 cache to increase performance.
The G4 hasn't had what one might say is Stellar Yields.
now...compare that to the PPC 970
The PPC 970 is 121mm squared. Just about %14 larger
It doesn't require L3 cache to boost speed.
We don't know what Yields will be like.
The real questions that must be asked are
"what is the cost of supporting chipsets for PPC 970's"
"Are these costs offset enough by ability to forgo on L3 cache"
"Will Apple seek to recoup R&D or increase marketshare"
I think you find that PPC 970 system can be created at the very same price points of the current Powermacs. Maybe even cheaper when you compare the pricing of two 1.25Ghz chips versus one 1.8Ghz PPC 970.
PPC 970s being high end only just doesn't add up right now. Fred Anderson says 10 Billion in revenue is possible with all cylinder clicking. I believe Apple will be doing the 970 systems right.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Public perception is that the PowerMac line is fataly underpowered. Apple therefore would certainly not use that name for the new line of 970 computers. Aggressive pricing is neither here nor there. They have lowered prices on consumer machines and the aging PowerMac line (they had no choice on the latter). But prices are still higher then the low-end Dells and Gateways. It is true that on the high-end models by Dell and Gateway, iMacs are very competitive price and feature-wise.
These new 970 machines will certainly be more expensive then the lowest priced PowerMac, you can bet on that.
Actually, for some reason, I think Apple is going to discontinue the PowerMac line as we know it, and introduce an all 970 line. The reason why is that Apple desperatly needs to do something with their Pro line-up. You know it, I know it, and the definatly know it (ref. Fred Anderson).
It wouldn't surprise me if they did something like this:
1.4 Ghz $1399 Combo Drive 60GB 512MB
1.8 GHz $1799 Combo Drive 80GB 768MB
1.8DP GHz $2199 Super Drive 100GB 768MB
2.3DP GHz $2599 Super Drive 120GB 1 GB
I know it sounds far fetched. It sounds that way coming from my fingers, however I have never heard Fred Anderson sound so committed to reducing the costs of the Macintosh.
FYI - The 970 is supposed to be cheaper to manufacture because of the type of facilities that IBM has available to them, whereas Motorola didn't for desktops.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
These 970 machines will not be PowerMacs. Besides a new form factor they will have a new name. They will initially be aimed at the pro-user and not for g'ds sake sell for $1499. Any new processor based machine has always had a premium price at first intro. Until full speed manufacturing is achieved (with less rejects) don't look for the processor for at least a year in lower priced machines. Apple is going after the movie and graphics industry with these new "extreme" machines, not the gamer in college. Get real people.
Being quite real about it, that would be the death knell for Apple. Even as fast as the current PowerMacs are, if Apple decides to only perform incremental speed bumps at the same price points for another year or two my company will have no choice but to drop Mac support. It's not a threat, it's simple economics. They're no way I would be able to continue to justify the premium for performance that's just... unstellar.
10:2
you will find the 970's to be stellar!
that has nothing to do with economics!
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple would practically have to give the current Powermacs away.
I'm assuming that the PPC 970 1.4Ghz system would enter no higher than 1499. Apple would need to blow out the current entry level Powermac for like $1099. Larger cuts may be needed. But who cares...this is the beginning of a new era. Apple can take the hit if they are actually able to hit these speeds.
I still wonder about the Dual 2.3 though. That's alot of heat!
Look at what Apple did with the G4 Cube. Though it was single 450mhz, others are running a dual 1ghz processor in a Cube. If the end user can do that, Apple can manage to keep the heat down in a tower.
That very much depends on the line up. Are we going to ever see the PC7457-RM in any machines and if so how will that effect the PM line up? There is no question that the MPC7457-RM would be a significant improvement, which would allow Apple to position 970 based machines at a premium.
On the other hand, the G4 based PM's are a joke in the sense that they are no longer competitive in the media based applications, so is there a market for middeling performance machines.
We have all seen the adverse publicity around the Adobe comparrison. I hope that the experiment is repeated when 970 machines are released.
I'm praying for an aggressive price point to be able to do this.
Beginning with my Graphics station I need to justify the price over the $1400 spent on a Dell that came with a nice 19" Monitor, harman/kardon speakers and subwoofer (bought Sept. 2001), in addition to the costs of switching / cross-grading Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.
Apple needs to understand this scenario if they are going to gain market-share. Pricing systems need to take into account the cost of unseating the non Mac systems as well as the hardware costs. This also holds true for production houses moving from 9 to X.
Cost of ownership is a wash between OS X and XP as well as hardware reliability (with Dell) in my opinion.
-tink
Originally posted by whoami
i have reason to believe that even with those specs.
you will find the 970's to be stellar!
Don't get me wrong, I believe that Apple will introduce the PPC970 across the PowerMac line as soon as possible, and at prices at or lower the than current ones. At these prices the performance we'll see (keeping fingers crossed that the disk access and virtual memory management shims will have improved by them) be spectacular. They've set a goal for a 5% marketshare and more aggressive pricing, and I'm taking this to heart.
My "death knell" comment was in response to the implication that Apple would keep the current PowerMac line, and only introduce the PPC970 in a new premium workstation and/or low end server line aimed at graphics and video professionals. Well, we've got a couple hundred Mac desktops and laptops, and only two (soon to be three) Mac servers. Once the PPC970 is out there the ugly lack of performance in the single processor G4 boxes will be ripped wide open. If they're not targeting the "affordable" desktop market with the PPC970 boxes, then I won't be buying. I'm sure a lot of other folks feel the same way, I'm sure Apple knows this, and I'm darned sure we'll see PPC970 Macs priced where everyone will want to buy one. That's how you build market share.
10:2
Originally posted by BRussell
You mean exactly like they did with the Quicksilver 1Ghz - dual at the top only? Of course it's possible they would put the top chip in the dual. The reason this isn't to be trusted isn't because they woudn't do that, it's because 1) MacBeDoobie has no track record, and 2) because a 2.3Ghz machine isn't consistent with what we currently know about the 970.
I think the situation is a bit different -- with the QS 1 GHz their yields were pretty good and they were falling way behind compared to x86... they didn't really have a choice but to try and compete. The 970 will stand up much better and a dual 1.8 would be cooler, plenty fast, and would yield well. @2.3 GHz the power output is going to be close to 60W, so two of them would be 120W. That's an awful lot of power and heat.
Originally posted by Krassy
this makes no sense - why the hell is there a lower Mhz difference between the two slower machines with just one cpu and a 500 Mhz difference to the faster one with two cpus? i think 1.4 single, 1.8 dual, 2.x dual or even 1.4 SP, 1.6 DP and 2.0 DP will make much more sense... ???????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, it's not that far off. 1.4-1.8 is 400mhz. 1.8-2.3 is 500mhz, so not that much of a difference. Apple has had top end with duals only before, and a dual 2.3ghz would be the closest Apple would have to a workstation type speed/config for highend users.
I didn't think the 970 went to 2.3ghz tho, I thought it only scaled to 1.8-2.0ghz and the taking it to .09nm (?) would allow it to scale to 2.4ghz and then the 970+ would scale close to 3.0ghz.
Originally posted by Addison
The cost of the processor is irrelevent. The important element is what Apple will charge.
Yes, it's not a matter of economy. It's a matter of marketing. Hypothetic dual [email protected] GHz just cannot be priced as current dual [email protected] GHz. Even if it's economically possible, they can't afford it.
I have several technical questions: is the dual [email protected] GHz likely in terms of the bus speed, companion chip, memory controller etc.? Can they simply install some jumpers on the motherboard to set the CPU/bus frequency they want (like in your $500 PC)? Can we now tell anything certain about the companion chips design?
Originally posted by costique
Yes, it's not a matter of economy. It's a matter of marketing. Hypothetic dual [email protected] GHz just cannot be priced as current dual [email protected] GHz. Even if it's economically possible, they can't afford it.
I have several technical questions: is the dual [email protected] GHz likely in terms of the bus speed, companion chip, memory controller etc.? Can they simply install some jumpers on the motherboard to set the CPU/bus frequency they want (like in your $500 PC)? Can we now tell anything certain about the companion chips design?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the frontside bus of the 970 is locked to half the processor speed. For a 2.3 ghz 970 you will have a doublepumped 575mhz bus = 1,15 ghz. The 970 has a memory controller built in, and you will obviously need to have a pretty fast memory system to saturate the bandwith of the processor bus.
Originally posted by NETROMac
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the frontside bus of the 970 is locked to half the processor speed. For a 2.3 ghz 970 you will have a doublepumped 575mhz bus = 1,15 ghz. The 970 has a memory controller built in, and you will obviously need to have a pretty fast memory system to saturate the bandwith of the processor bus.
I'm sorry I might have phrased my question poorly. For all we know, yes, 970 is locked to half the processor speed. Can they clock it to any reasonably arbitrary figure? Double-pumped 450MHz for 1.8GHz or double-pumped 750MHz for 3GHz CPUs? Is it all as simple as setting a couple of jumpers on the motherboard? I am not sure about it because the said 575MHz bus sounds a bit crazy. Does Apple have such chips at all?
quote: _ _ _ _ \t _
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's not a matter of economy. It's a matter of marketing. Hypothetic dual [email protected] GHz just cannot be priced as current dual [email protected] GHz. Even if it's economically possible, they can't afford it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So even if the price of the 970 for Apple is the same as they pay for the G4 there is a some law of nature that stops Apple from selling them at the same pricepoint?
If Apple was the dominant supplier of personal computers they could charge far more for the 970 than the G4. But with less than 5% market share and more than 3 years of very poor CPU performance and failing tower sales they can not do that.
The dual 2.3 GHz 970 might be a pentium killer, but only if the stage is set right. In non SMP application or against dual Xeon it will not be a killer, as it looks. It will fare much better than the G4 and keep its ground but probably not beat the Pentiums.
Exactly what market beaviour stops apple from selling much faster 970 at the same price as the current towers?
The Mac user: This 970 tower is much faser than the dual 1.25 I bought a year ago! So I will either keep my G4 or buy a windows box!
The PC user: That top of the line Mac sure is faster than my current P4 3 GHz! To bad it is too cheap, I better find the most expensive brand of dual Xeon boxes on the market!
When the B&W G3 came out, crammed with new features and blazing performance (compared both with Mac and PC). The low end G3/300 was priced simliar to the previous low end and it was faster than the previous top of the line beige G3. I do not recall any uproar of dissapointment with that
Originally posted by costique
I'm sorry I might have phrased my question poorly. For all we know, yes, 970 is locked to half the processor speed. Can they clock it to any reasonably arbitrary figure? Double-pumped 450MHz for 1.8GHz or double-pumped 750MHz for 3GHz CPUs? Is it all as simple as setting a couple of jumpers on the motherboard? I am not sure about it because the said 575MHz bus sounds a bit crazy. Does Apple have such chips at all?
I asked the same question about that bus speed a few weeks ago. It seems to be what people who are "in the know" think.
If Apple has the processor yet is an entirely different question. But before we thought we knew that it was going to be in a PowerMac those outrageous sounding bus speeds were explained a few times, and it made perfect sense. And actually, it does not seem that unreasonable once you crunch other #'s based on what is known about it's architecture.