Let's say a 2Ghz GPUL was $900 for Apple. What would you assume two G4+ 1.25Ghz procs cost. Probably at least $600 and this machine is already $3300.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
wait a minute! you're predicting that APPLE will be paying something like $900 per processor?!?!
are you out of your friggin' mind?
a CONSUMER can buy a brand new <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4846-1.htm"; target="_blank">2.8GHz P4</a> for about $450. And everyone knows that Intel charges a huge premium for the top two or three chips in the lineup. come on, even the new 2200+ Athlon XP (with a relatively new core) is only <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4824-1.htm"; target="_blank">$144!</a>
<strong>Apple has tried the three tiered thing with the cube, and it flopped horribly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, what you say is technically true, but I think you're not considering sufficiently that the difference at the time between a Cube and a PMac, performance-wise, was not very well defined. If GP-UL-based PMacs will indeed appear they'll be priced--as has been pointed out--so deservedly dearly to justify the introduction of a middle-range machine, let's call it Cube II.
I don't think that under these different conditions a mid-range product will flop like the Cube did at its time...
[quote] don't see how this could be anything byt true, when you consider both what can happen and what the realities of marketing and sales are.
<hr></blockquote>
Funny you mention the "realities of marketing and sales"
I've been in Sales and you never hold back. If Apple was to be foolish enough to come out with GPUL as a single core when Dual Core are available then I guess they would deserver to watch the further erosion of their marketshare. Consumers realize that while things are out their price range that doesn't always mean it'll stay that way. Here's my point.
GPUL Based machines are Apples Technology Tour De Force. The Xserves will employ them and here is where you will see cutting edge tech hit first. For users who need power and money isn't a limitation ,within reason, Apple stands to make a bundle in margin.
What's preventing Apple from Utilizing G4's even at 90 nanos? Nothing. Perhaps G5's are coming but perhaps not.
Apple doesn't stand to profit from bringing GPUL out and underpricing it if it's performance is exemplary. Apple needs to increase their range. They need a machine that Pros can "dig deep" for. They need a capable midrange and a more powerful low end. Pushing the GPUL down in price only serves to compress this range and leaves us in the same situation where in now.
wait a minute! you're predicting that APPLE will be paying something like $900 per processor?!?!
are you out of your friggin' mind?
a CONSUMER can buy a brand new <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4846-1.htm"; target="_blank">2.8GHz P4</a> for about $450. And everyone knows that Intel charges a huge premium for the top two or three chips in the lineup. come on, even the new 2200+ Athlon XP (with a relatively new core) is only <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4824-1.htm"; target="_blank">$144!</a>
so, really, get it together man!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ummmm P4 isn't Dual Core nor is it 64bit. They're not competitiors. The Xeon is the closer competitor and it's only 2.2Ghz at roughly $300 each.
You're confusing "consumer" processors with Big Iron procs like the Power4
Apple doesn't stand to profit from bringing GPUL out and underpricing it if it's performance is exemplary. </strong><hr></blockquote>
that's like saying if Zenith had only been selling B&W TV's for the past three years, and suddenly jumped to HDTV (where the rest of the crowd is) they could charge an arm and a leg more than other companies, just because for ZENITH it was a huge leap?!
past products and out-of-whack pricing schemes don't really mean anything when bringing new products out if you're in a relatively competetive market. (which Apple clearly is)
I agree, "prosumer" is a very ugly and meaningless word. What I mean is a market segment that needs/wants to upgrade the video card, install a larger HD (ok, you can do this on the iMac), change the optical drive, and continue using the same monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The word you're looking for is "professional."
A graphic designer who works full-time making designs so good that the CEO of IBM comes to his doorstep personally to beg for them does not need zillions of internal drive bays, or PCI slots, or a big, loud box. It requires some attitude adjustment to say this, but Freehand, Painter and even Photoshop don't require that much horsepower relative to newcomers BLAST, Shake, Maya, and Oracle 9, or even to stalwarts like Lightwave and Logic (once you get a full set of real-time effects plugins going...).
The Mac got its foothold among designers by not being like a computer in the first place. No arcane commands, no fiddling with hardware. It was simple, elegant and intuitive. In a lot of ways, the Cube was a return to that paradigm. Out of the box, it was a quiet, powerful, fully equipped workstation that allowed your choice of monitor. All it needs to become a perfect professional workstation for the majority of Apple's customers is to become horizontally oriented, fit a 7" AGP card (which rules out the very high end, but then, this machine isn't the very high end), and sprout a very fast serial connection (2Gbps Fibre Channel being my current favorite) in addition to the USB and Firewire ports. The FC port would allow for the fastest varieties of FireWire, opening up the options of clustering, adding high-speed storage arrays and PCI chassis simply by plugging them in, etc. (Think Secret did mention a while back that the Cube had originally been planned with a high-speed port intended for expansion modules, for what that's worth). Maybe they could cram two processors in, since OS X thrives on dual processors.
Finally, instead of being an oddly laid-out, wierdly positioned premium machine, it would be the PowerMac. "The ultimate OS X workstation."
It's a thought, anyway. I have a Cube, and I love it, so I have a vested interest in seeing that it gets thawed out and restored to its proper place as a coveted, droolworthy machine.
that's like saying if Zenith had only been selling B&W TV's for the past three years, and suddenly jumped to HDTV (where the rest of the crowd is) they could charge an arm and a leg more than other companies, just because for ZENITH it was a huge leap?!
past products and out-of-whack pricing schemes don't really mean anything when bringing new products out if you're in a relatively competetive market. (which Apple clearly is)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ick that's a HORRIBLE analogy. No the correct "TV" Analogy would be Zenith now has HDTV and now in an elite class that allows them to price accordingly. GPUL is going to compete with IBM's Linux/GPUL machines and you're in for a shocker if you think Apple is going to be shipping GPUL sub $3k computer initially. IBM won't ...why should Apple?
The niche is out there. Imagine a SGI/Shake user looking to migrate to Apple. Think they're going to worry about paying $10k for a GPUL Powermac/Shake bundle? Nope
<strong>I have a Cube, and I love it, so I have a vested interest in seeing that it gets thawed out and restored to its proper place as a coveted, droolworthy machine. </strong><hr></blockquote>
"If the GPUL doesn't surface for another year, then 4x current G4s will be right in line, or perhaps slightly ahead, of the high end PCs that will be available in a year, and those PCs will be available for $2k. If Apple is happy with their current Price/Performance ratio, then yes, they'll up the price in accordance with the performance gains; but, if they want to be in business in two years, the price of new machines will be in line with current offerings."
Sorry, Hmurch.
Apple need the GPUL in the 'power'Mac. On a per CPU basis, the current 'power'Mac is ridiculously far behind! Gamlor % figures show that a GPUL is needed to get Apple back in the game. It may give them a 'fair' lead IF it comes out before 2004. They need the GPUL to regain some credibility for the 'power'Macs. I'm sure the current models seem compelling for £3K if you live in an 'Apple only reality' and you've got money to burn.
Gamblor's right on the money.
It's ridiculous to suggest that Apple will only use this processor in a £4 K box.
You completely missed the point about the flexibility of the GPUL.
Once you're getting multicore and that kind of bandwidth...you have the flexibility to do both what you're talking and what I'm talking about.
Not to mention the option of Quad processors also! Something not likely to happen on the current bus...become a possibility for GPUL the '4K' bracket you're talking about. If not multi/quad processor then surely scale the amount of cores to match the market bracket.
Yeesh, I'm glad you're not in charge of Apple, we'd have £4K Ubermacs and the 'mid range' continuing to take a beating...and be suffering a severe case of penis envy.
Like I said, the Moto' 'G5' if launched in Jan' will buy Apple time. Fair game. It puts Apple back on track. But it won't stay in 'Power'Macs for a whole year. Well, I don't see it. It just won't be enough to fend off the 'competition' for the same amount of time as the current 'G4' or risk further erosion of 'power'Mac sales.
If I'm in charge of Apple? I see my 'power'Mac sales are getting stuffed and I need to give my users a compelling technological reason to buy POWERMacs in droves again at the prices I'm charging. (And also to compensate them for the years of MotoSH*T they've had to eat...)
Ummmm P4 isn't Dual Core nor is it 64bit. They're not competitiors. The Xeon is the closer competitor and it's only 2.2Ghz at roughly $300 each.
You're confusing "consumer" processors with Big Iron procs like the Power4 </strong><hr></blockquote>
[sarcasm] wow, you're totally right. i feel so dumb.[/sarcasm]
as new processors come out, do you think they just keep getting more expensive, while the old ones stay at their old prices? ID-TEN-T!
do you think when AMD's new consumer hammer comes out it'll be priced at four times as much as the current processors if it offers 2x performance, uses smaller process, and goes 64 bit?! not a friggin chance!
have you ever even paid attention to chip prices? (i mean in the real world, not just in 'murchland')
"The niche is out there. Imagine a SGI/Shake user looking to migrate to Apple. Think they're going to worry about paying $10k for a GPUL Powermac/Shake bundle? Nope"
'Nope.' There is NO way Apple are going to bring out a 64 bit processor 'JUST' for a $10K 'niche'. You're dreaming.
At nearly '3K', 'power'Macs aint cheap as it is.
It would be a recipe for disaster. Apple would have the chance with GPUL to differentiate into your workstation market. But they'd be foolish to exclude the 'power'Mac from that equation.
Miss out on the chance to drive POWERmac sales through the roof.
...and you're in for a shocker if you think Apple is going to be shipping GPUL sub $3k computer initially.</strong><hr></blockquote>
first, i never made ANY comment about what the boxes would ship for, just that you're an idiot if you think Apple is going to be paying $900 per GPUL. Will Apple charge a preium for it's boxes? always has, always will.
as for what exactly those boxes will be, or where they'll fit in the product mix, who knows. But i can't imagine Apple selling these $4K UberMacs with GPULs and letting the current PM's linger. If MOT makes some progress on the G4-> line, then maybe that will continue to be the proc for PM's, while the GPUL is only used in $4+ UberMacs, i don't know.
again, my only point is that there's NO WAY IN HELL Apple will be paying $900+ per processor for GP-UL's, regardless of how great they are.
Apple need the GPUL in the 'power'Mac. On a per CPU basis, the current 'power'Mac is ridiculously far behind! Gamlor % figures show that a GPUL is needed to get Apple back in the game. It may give them a 'fair' lead IF it comes out before 2004. They need the GPUL to regain some credibility for the 'power'Macs. I'm sure the current models seem compelling for £3K if you live in an 'Apple only reality' and you've got money to burn.
Gamblor's right on the money.
<hr></blockquote>
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt WRONG!
GPUL is needed for Apples entry into the Workstation Arena. They might not even call these Powermacs meaning they could easily say "we have no plans to use IBM's chip in Powermacs"
Now here's why Apple doesn't need GPUL in Powermacs. What prevents Apple from moving beyond Dual Procs. Memory Bandwidth. ApplePI and 6.4GBps throughput is Theory 1.6GBps for a Quad Setup.
[quote] It's ridiculous to suggest that Apple will only use this processor in a £4 K box.
You completely missed the point about the flexibility of the GPUL.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes but your reasoning seems to stem from what YOU want and not what Apple wants. I haven't missed any points. Apple is about Bottom Line flexibility is great for Gymnasts but here Apple needs to get "cheese" for their flexability.
[quote]Yeesh, I'm glad you're not in charge of Apple, we'd have £4K Ubermacs and the 'mid range' continuing to take a beating...and be suffering a severe case of penis envy. <hr></blockquote>
As for Penis Envy I cannot help you with any insecurities but I digress. You're not thinking logically. If you need a Workstation $4-5k is on par with the current pricing. These machines have Quadro level Graphics and more memory capability.
Why doesn't Apple had Quadro's
Why don't Powermacs have more than 4 memory slots?
Why doesn't Apple have more HD Bays.
Why isn't Renderman available for Powermacs?
Could it be the truth. The current Powermacs aren't up to snuff architecturally. GPUL isn't going to be some magic panacea that will take all these issues away.
You guys forget that Shake was Nothing Reals "small" app. Tremor is the 800lb Gorilla. Houses using Tremor have paid $5k multiple times over to access it. GPUL is going to be for these people and it will eventually filter down to us.
"A graphic designer who works full-time making designs so good that the CEO of IBM comes to his doorstep personally to beg for them does not need zillions of internal drive bays, or PCI slots, or a big, loud box. It requires some attitude adjustment to say this, but Freehand, Painter and even Photoshop don't require that much horsepower relative to newcomers BLAST, Shake, Maya, and Oracle 9, or even to stalwarts like Lightwave and Logic (once you get a full set of real-time effects plugins going...)."
Part of me says, a 'Cube' to replace the 'power'Macs and nudge them up to 'murch's 'Uberclass' Mac is fair. But after the .13 G4 die shrink? Could a GPUL work in one? If so. I agree.
I'd love a Cube sitting on my desk. But, they were too overpriced and under performed.
Stick in a GPUL and a Radeon 9700 and I'd tear your, my granny's...or my left arm off for one.
"The Mac got its foothold among designers by not being like a computer in the first place. No arcane commands, no fiddling with hardware. It was simple, elegant and intuitive. In a lot of ways, the Cube was a return to that paradigm."
It tried too. But Apple thought they could push the 'premium' envelope. Guess what happened.
If they replaced the 'power'Macs with them...then they'd have to offer somethign a damn sight more compelling.
"Out of the box, it was a quiet, powerful, fully equipped workstation that allowed your choice of monitor. All it needs to become a perfect professional workstation for the majority of Apple's customers is to become horizontally oriented, fit a 7" AGP card (which rules out the very high end, but then, this machine isn't the very high end), and sprout a very fast serial connection (2Gbps Fibre Channel being my current favorite) in addition to the USB and Firewire ports. The FC port would allow for the fastest varieties of FireWire, opening up the options of clustering, adding high-speed storage arrays and PCI chassis simply by plugging them in, etc. (Think Secret did mention a while back that the Cube had originally been planned with a high-speed port intended for expansion modules, for what that's worth). Maybe they could cram two processors in, since OS X thrives on dual processors."
I agree with much of what you're onto here. I'd love a GPUL Cube that could throw Maya or Lightwave around...
"Finally, instead of being an oddly laid-out, wierdly positioned premium machine, it would be the PowerMac. "The ultimate OS X workstation."
It could be. Inspired Apple design flawed Apple marketing. Where've we heard that before?
And yes, it was 'weirdly' laid out. I never did get the ports from the bottom and 'cd' out the top thing. Ports out the back, slot load from the front. And the 'skirt'? Waste of expensive plastic. And stick that ugly vent out the back.
"It's a thought, anyway. I have a Cube, and I love it, so I have a vested interest in seeing that it gets thawed out and restored to its proper place as a coveted, droolworthy machine."
I agree with your sentiment here.
It's Apple's call I guess. But if they want my money...they'd have to make it a cheap edu' box or a seriously beefed up 'mod' to replace the 'power'Macs.
<strong>"Agreed. No way GPULs will be that expensive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that ***re's no way a GPUL processor will cost Apple $900. However, workstations differ from PCs in one fundamental respect: In a PC, *** CPU is almost always way too powerful for *** mo***rboard. In a workstation, everything is fast, and bandwidth is abundant. This means *** whole mo***rboard is expensive, and ***re are no places to cut costs. If Apple decides to release a real workstation - say, a big fat switched fabric based on HyperTransport with 6.4GB/s bandwidth as a general rule (that's a bit excessive, I admit) and a scalable NUMA architecture to allow for multiple multicored processors - ***n you're talking about something that would really do a dual-core GPUL (or two, or four, or eight ) justice - and that would cost enough that $5 for *** package would be a very good price.
[edit: OK, who's *** smartalek who censored t h e?]
Nope. I think you've got an iCEO complex...circa' 'Sculley' era.
So you're saying that 'power'Macs are architecturally flawed and the GPUL will magically bypass that problem...into a new workstation market...leaving the current 'mid range' (excuse me...) with a glorified G4 'rio' for how long? You're dreaming. Your logic is seriously flawed.
The GPUL will be used in the 'power'Macs because by this time next year, THEY'LL NEED TO USE IT.
PCs will be using the same architecture will be offering boxes for a fifth of the price you're talking about. Apple is no Sgi. The x86 workstation will and (IS) currently eating 'power'Mac sales alive.
The GPUL is Apple's chance to get the 'flagship' back on track.
It doesn't exclude the use of it in a workstation. Just like the G4s currently occupy both 'low, mid and high' end at the moment.
Apple will need to sell more 'powers' to bring the price down. Apple is about making technology affordable (in their own words.) You'll see the GPUL in 'power'Macs, trust me
Comments
<strong>
Let's say a 2Ghz GPUL was $900 for Apple. What would you assume two G4+ 1.25Ghz procs cost. Probably at least $600 and this machine is already $3300.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
wait a minute! you're predicting that APPLE will be paying something like $900 per processor?!?!
are you out of your friggin' mind?
a CONSUMER can buy a brand new <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4846-1.htm"; target="_blank">2.8GHz P4</a> for about $450. And everyone knows that Intel charges a huge premium for the top two or three chips in the lineup. come on, even the new 2200+ Athlon XP (with a relatively new core) is only <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4824-1.htm"; target="_blank">$144!</a>
so, really, get it together man!
<strong>Apple has tried the three tiered thing with the cube, and it flopped horribly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, what you say is technically true, but I think you're not considering sufficiently that the difference at the time between a Cube and a PMac, performance-wise, was not very well defined. If GP-UL-based PMacs will indeed appear they'll be priced--as has been pointed out--so deservedly dearly to justify the introduction of a middle-range machine, let's call it Cube II.
I don't think that under these different conditions a mid-range product will flop like the Cube did at its time...
ZoSo
Smash Volley.
Concentricity.
Agreed. No way GPULs will be that expensive.
They'll be in 'POWER'Macs. It's pretty obvious.
They maybe in workstations...but they'll just have more of the same GPUL.
Lemon Bon Bon
<hr></blockquote>
Funny you mention the "realities of marketing and sales"
I've been in Sales and you never hold back. If Apple was to be foolish enough to come out with GPUL as a single core when Dual Core are available then I guess they would deserver to watch the further erosion of their marketshare. Consumers realize that while things are out their price range that doesn't always mean it'll stay that way. Here's my point.
GPUL Based machines are Apples Technology Tour De Force. The Xserves will employ them and here is where you will see cutting edge tech hit first. For users who need power and money isn't a limitation ,within reason, Apple stands to make a bundle in margin.
What's preventing Apple from Utilizing G4's even at 90 nanos? Nothing. Perhaps G5's are coming but perhaps not.
Apple doesn't stand to profit from bringing GPUL out and underpricing it if it's performance is exemplary. Apple needs to increase their range. They need a machine that Pros can "dig deep" for. They need a capable midrange and a more powerful low end. Pushing the GPUL down in price only serves to compress this range and leaves us in the same situation where in now.
<strong>
wait a minute! you're predicting that APPLE will be paying something like $900 per processor?!?!
are you out of your friggin' mind?
a CONSUMER can buy a brand new <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4846-1.htm"; target="_blank">2.8GHz P4</a> for about $450. And everyone knows that Intel charges a huge premium for the top two or three chips in the lineup. come on, even the new 2200+ Athlon XP (with a relatively new core) is only <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4824-1.htm"; target="_blank">$144!</a>
so, really, get it together man!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ummmm P4 isn't Dual Core nor is it 64bit. They're not competitiors. The Xeon is the closer competitor and it's only 2.2Ghz at roughly $300 each.
You're confusing "consumer" processors with Big Iron procs like the Power4
<strong>
Apple doesn't stand to profit from bringing GPUL out and underpricing it if it's performance is exemplary. </strong><hr></blockquote>
that's like saying if Zenith had only been selling B&W TV's for the past three years, and suddenly jumped to HDTV (where the rest of the crowd is) they could charge an arm and a leg more than other companies, just because for ZENITH it was a huge leap?!
past products and out-of-whack pricing schemes don't really mean anything when bringing new products out if you're in a relatively competetive market. (which Apple clearly is)
<strong>
I agree, "prosumer" is a very ugly and meaningless word. What I mean is a market segment that needs/wants to upgrade the video card, install a larger HD (ok, you can do this on the iMac), change the optical drive, and continue using the same monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The word you're looking for is "professional."
A graphic designer who works full-time making designs so good that the CEO of IBM comes to his doorstep personally to beg for them does not need zillions of internal drive bays, or PCI slots, or a big, loud box. It requires some attitude adjustment to say this, but Freehand, Painter and even Photoshop don't require that much horsepower relative to newcomers BLAST, Shake, Maya, and Oracle 9, or even to stalwarts like Lightwave and Logic (once you get a full set of real-time effects plugins going...).
The Mac got its foothold among designers by not being like a computer in the first place. No arcane commands, no fiddling with hardware. It was simple, elegant and intuitive. In a lot of ways, the Cube was a return to that paradigm. Out of the box, it was a quiet, powerful, fully equipped workstation that allowed your choice of monitor. All it needs to become a perfect professional workstation for the majority of Apple's customers is to become horizontally oriented, fit a 7" AGP card (which rules out the very high end, but then, this machine isn't the very high end), and sprout a very fast serial connection (2Gbps Fibre Channel being my current favorite) in addition to the USB and Firewire ports. The FC port would allow for the fastest varieties of FireWire, opening up the options of clustering, adding high-speed storage arrays and PCI chassis simply by plugging them in, etc. (Think Secret did mention a while back that the Cube had originally been planned with a high-speed port intended for expansion modules, for what that's worth). Maybe they could cram two processors in, since OS X thrives on dual processors.
Finally, instead of being an oddly laid-out, wierdly positioned premium machine, it would be the PowerMac. "The ultimate OS X workstation."
It's a thought, anyway. I have a Cube, and I love it, so I have a vested interest in seeing that it gets thawed out and restored to its proper place as a coveted, droolworthy machine.
<strong>
that's like saying if Zenith had only been selling B&W TV's for the past three years, and suddenly jumped to HDTV (where the rest of the crowd is) they could charge an arm and a leg more than other companies, just because for ZENITH it was a huge leap?!
past products and out-of-whack pricing schemes don't really mean anything when bringing new products out if you're in a relatively competetive market. (which Apple clearly is)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ick that's a HORRIBLE analogy. No the correct "TV" Analogy would be Zenith now has HDTV and now in an elite class that allows them to price accordingly. GPUL is going to compete with IBM's Linux/GPUL machines and you're in for a shocker if you think Apple is going to be shipping GPUL sub $3k computer initially. IBM won't ...why should Apple?
The niche is out there. Imagine a SGI/Shake user looking to migrate to Apple. Think they're going to worry about paying $10k for a GPUL Powermac/Shake bundle? Nope
<strong>I have a Cube, and I love it, so I have a vested interest in seeing that it gets thawed out and restored to its proper place as a coveted, droolworthy machine.
It still is! How much d'you want for that?
ZoSo
Sorry, Hmurch.
Apple need the GPUL in the 'power'Mac. On a per CPU basis, the current 'power'Mac is ridiculously far behind! Gamlor % figures show that a GPUL is needed to get Apple back in the game. It may give them a 'fair' lead IF it comes out before 2004. They need the GPUL to regain some credibility for the 'power'Macs. I'm sure the current models seem compelling for £3K if you live in an 'Apple only reality' and you've got money to burn.
Gamblor's right on the money.
It's ridiculous to suggest that Apple will only use this processor in a £4 K box.
You completely missed the point about the flexibility of the GPUL.
Once you're getting multicore and that kind of bandwidth...you have the flexibility to do both what you're talking and what I'm talking about.
Not to mention the option of Quad processors also! Something not likely to happen on the current bus...become a possibility for GPUL the '4K' bracket you're talking about. If not multi/quad processor then surely scale the amount of cores to match the market bracket.
Yeesh, I'm glad you're not in charge of Apple, we'd have £4K Ubermacs and the 'mid range' continuing to take a beating...and be suffering a severe case of penis envy.
Like I said, the Moto' 'G5' if launched in Jan' will buy Apple time. Fair game. It puts Apple back on track. But it won't stay in 'Power'Macs for a whole year. Well, I don't see it. It just won't be enough to fend off the 'competition' for the same amount of time as the current 'G4' or risk further erosion of 'power'Mac sales.
If I'm in charge of Apple? I see my 'power'Mac sales are getting stuffed and I need to give my users a compelling technological reason to buy POWERMacs in droves again at the prices I'm charging. (And also to compensate them for the years of MotoSH*T they've had to eat...)
Time will provide the 'right' answer.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Ummmm P4 isn't Dual Core nor is it 64bit. They're not competitiors. The Xeon is the closer competitor and it's only 2.2Ghz at roughly $300 each.
You're confusing "consumer" processors with Big Iron procs like the Power4
[sarcasm] wow, you're totally right. i feel so dumb.[/sarcasm]
as new processors come out, do you think they just keep getting more expensive, while the old ones stay at their old prices? ID-TEN-T!
do you think when AMD's new consumer hammer comes out it'll be priced at four times as much as the current processors if it offers 2x performance, uses smaller process, and goes 64 bit?! not a friggin chance!
have you ever even paid attention to chip prices? (i mean in the real world, not just in 'murchland')
And I think you're confusing the Power4 with the GPUL.
Lemon Bon Bon
'Nope.' There is NO way Apple are going to bring out a 64 bit processor 'JUST' for a $10K 'niche'. You're dreaming.
At nearly '3K', 'power'Macs aint cheap as it is.
It would be a recipe for disaster. Apple would have the chance with GPUL to differentiate into your workstation market. But they'd be foolish to exclude the 'power'Mac from that equation.
Miss out on the chance to drive POWERmac sales through the roof.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
...and you're in for a shocker if you think Apple is going to be shipping GPUL sub $3k computer initially.</strong><hr></blockquote>
first, i never made ANY comment about what the boxes would ship for, just that you're an idiot if you think Apple is going to be paying $900 per GPUL. Will Apple charge a preium for it's boxes? always has, always will.
as for what exactly those boxes will be, or where they'll fit in the product mix, who knows. But i can't imagine Apple selling these $4K UberMacs with GPULs and letting the current PM's linger. If MOT makes some progress on the G4-> line, then maybe that will continue to be the proc for PM's, while the GPUL is only used in $4+ UberMacs, i don't know.
again, my only point is that there's NO WAY IN HELL Apple will be paying $900+ per processor for GP-UL's, regardless of how great they are.
<strong>"You're confusing "consumer" processors with Big Iron procs like the Power4 "
And I think you're confusing the Power4 with the GPUL.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
THANK YOU! much better than i said it.
if apple were to start buying the chip in the 1 to 2 million unit range then shouldn't that price go down.
also,
the current price of the pwoer 4 includes big time RD that as somone else pointed out means that they can amortize this out faster?
ps/.
what if the three tier is
imac,ibook G4
powermacs g5
workstation gp-up 6k and up
(although i believe we will see the chip in a $3500 machine at the outset. (if not less)
Apple need the GPUL in the 'power'Mac. On a per CPU basis, the current 'power'Mac is ridiculously far behind! Gamlor % figures show that a GPUL is needed to get Apple back in the game. It may give them a 'fair' lead IF it comes out before 2004. They need the GPUL to regain some credibility for the 'power'Macs. I'm sure the current models seem compelling for £3K if you live in an 'Apple only reality' and you've got money to burn.
Gamblor's right on the money.
<hr></blockquote>
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt WRONG!
GPUL is needed for Apples entry into the Workstation Arena. They might not even call these Powermacs meaning they could easily say "we have no plans to use IBM's chip in Powermacs"
Now here's why Apple doesn't need GPUL in Powermacs. What prevents Apple from moving beyond Dual Procs. Memory Bandwidth. ApplePI and 6.4GBps throughput is Theory 1.6GBps for a Quad Setup.
[quote] It's ridiculous to suggest that Apple will only use this processor in a £4 K box.
You completely missed the point about the flexibility of the GPUL.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes but your reasoning seems to stem from what YOU want and not what Apple wants. I haven't missed any points. Apple is about Bottom Line flexibility is great for Gymnasts but here Apple needs to get "cheese" for their flexability.
[quote]Yeesh, I'm glad you're not in charge of Apple, we'd have £4K Ubermacs and the 'mid range' continuing to take a beating...and be suffering a severe case of penis envy. <hr></blockquote>
As for Penis Envy I cannot help you with any insecurities but I digress. You're not thinking logically. If you need a Workstation $4-5k is on par with the current pricing. These machines have Quadro level Graphics and more memory capability.
Why doesn't Apple had Quadro's
Why don't Powermacs have more than 4 memory slots?
Why doesn't Apple have more HD Bays.
Why isn't Renderman available for Powermacs?
Could it be the truth. The current Powermacs aren't up to snuff architecturally. GPUL isn't going to be some magic panacea that will take all these issues away.
You guys forget that Shake was Nothing Reals "small" app. Tremor is the 800lb Gorilla. Houses using Tremor have paid $5k multiple times over to access it. GPUL is going to be for these people and it will eventually filter down to us.
Hmmm.
"A graphic designer who works full-time making designs so good that the CEO of IBM comes to his doorstep personally to beg for them does not need zillions of internal drive bays, or PCI slots, or a big, loud box. It requires some attitude adjustment to say this, but Freehand, Painter and even Photoshop don't require that much horsepower relative to newcomers BLAST, Shake, Maya, and Oracle 9, or even to stalwarts like Lightwave and Logic (once you get a full set of real-time effects plugins going...)."
Part of me says, a 'Cube' to replace the 'power'Macs and nudge them up to 'murch's 'Uberclass' Mac is fair. But after the .13 G4 die shrink? Could a GPUL work in one? If so. I agree.
I'd love a Cube sitting on my desk. But, they were too overpriced and under performed.
Stick in a GPUL and a Radeon 9700 and I'd tear your, my granny's...or my left arm off for one.
"The Mac got its foothold among designers by not being like a computer in the first place. No arcane commands, no fiddling with hardware. It was simple, elegant and intuitive. In a lot of ways, the Cube was a return to that paradigm."
It tried too. But Apple thought they could push the 'premium' envelope. Guess what happened.
If they replaced the 'power'Macs with them...then they'd have to offer somethign a damn sight more compelling.
"Out of the box, it was a quiet, powerful, fully equipped workstation that allowed your choice of monitor. All it needs to become a perfect professional workstation for the majority of Apple's customers is to become horizontally oriented, fit a 7" AGP card (which rules out the very high end, but then, this machine isn't the very high end), and sprout a very fast serial connection (2Gbps Fibre Channel being my current favorite) in addition to the USB and Firewire ports. The FC port would allow for the fastest varieties of FireWire, opening up the options of clustering, adding high-speed storage arrays and PCI chassis simply by plugging them in, etc. (Think Secret did mention a while back that the Cube had originally been planned with a high-speed port intended for expansion modules, for what that's worth). Maybe they could cram two processors in, since OS X thrives on dual processors."
I agree with much of what you're onto here. I'd love a GPUL Cube that could throw Maya or Lightwave around...
"Finally, instead of being an oddly laid-out, wierdly positioned premium machine, it would be the PowerMac. "The ultimate OS X workstation."
It could be. Inspired Apple design flawed Apple marketing. Where've we heard that before?
And yes, it was 'weirdly' laid out. I never did get the ports from the bottom and 'cd' out the top thing. Ports out the back, slot load from the front. And the 'skirt'? Waste of expensive plastic. And stick that ugly vent out the back.
"It's a thought, anyway. I have a Cube, and I love it, so I have a vested interest in seeing that it gets thawed out and restored to its proper place as a coveted, droolworthy machine."
I agree with your sentiment here.
It's Apple's call I guess. But if they want my money...they'd have to make it a cheap edu' box or a seriously beefed up 'mod' to replace the 'power'Macs.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>"Agreed. No way GPULs will be that expensive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that ***re's no way a GPUL processor will cost Apple $900. However, workstations differ from PCs in one fundamental respect: In a PC, *** CPU is almost always way too powerful for *** mo***rboard. In a workstation, everything is fast, and bandwidth is abundant. This means *** whole mo***rboard is expensive, and ***re are no places to cut costs. If Apple decides to release a real workstation - say, a big fat switched fabric based on HyperTransport with 6.4GB/s bandwidth as a general rule (that's a bit excessive, I admit) and a scalable NUMA architecture to allow for multiple multicored processors - ***n you're talking about something that would really do a dual-core GPUL (or two, or four, or eight
[edit: OK, who's *** smartalek who censored t h e?]
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Nope. I think you've got an iCEO complex...circa' 'Sculley' era.
So you're saying that 'power'Macs are architecturally flawed and the GPUL will magically bypass that problem...into a new workstation market...leaving the current 'mid range' (excuse me...) with a glorified G4 'rio' for how long? You're dreaming. Your logic is seriously flawed.
The GPUL will be used in the 'power'Macs because by this time next year, THEY'LL NEED TO USE IT.
PCs will be using the same architecture will be offering boxes for a fifth of the price you're talking about. Apple is no Sgi. The x86 workstation will and (IS) currently eating 'power'Mac sales alive.
The GPUL is Apple's chance to get the 'flagship' back on track.
It doesn't exclude the use of it in a workstation. Just like the G4s currently occupy both 'low, mid and high' end at the moment.
Apple will need to sell more 'powers' to bring the price down. Apple is about making technology affordable (in their own words.) You'll see the GPUL in 'power'Macs, trust me
Lemon Bon Bon