This is really the whole crux of the argument and the whole point of this thread.
Apple needs to make up their mind. From here on out is the iMac going to be a true consumer machine priced aggressively to increase market share, or is it to be a fast prosumer machine able to justify its $1800 price tag?
Right now it's neither, and I (unfortunately) don't expect that to change with the next ho-hum speed bump. By MWSF 2004 however, Steve's going to have to pick a role for the iMac and go with it.
I think it will get a G5 in that time frame and be positioned where the Cube + 15" Studio Display was two years ago: a powerful, small footprint, quiet prosumer desktop with lots of bang for the buck.
This would of course require Apple addressing the true low end in a meaningful way. If the iMac is not to be "the computer for the rest of us", then what the hell is?
(Hint: it sure ain't the eMac.)
Great post. That sums it all up really. The iMac has become confused (poor iMac... )
If it gets a G5 by middle of next year then it would make a nice alternative to a low end tower for those who wanted power, style and simplicity (as well as a monitor thrown in for free...but you pay the price in terms of limited expansion.).
Meanwhile, if the iMac does (well, it has) abandoned its traditional 'value' space then what is going to replace it? ...a headless iCube would do for me. With limited expandability. Needs to be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry cheap. Starting model needs to get way below the starting eMac.
Matsu's upto 1.6 gig G4 consumer line is looking likely for the next half year which will allow the G4 to play 'G3' to bigger brother 'G5'.
Lemon Bon Bon
Quote:
iMac SIMPLY MUST come down to this price IMMEDIATELY. It's far from cheap and it buys a well spec'd tower INCLUDING a 17" LCD on the PC side.
pBook - good where they are (maybe $100, $200, and $300 price drops to make them irresistable)
pMac - $999 (dual G4), $1299, $1999, $2699
The iMac needs to get there right now (!!!), and the rest need to get there by next year at the latest if Apple is serious about closing the deal with the potential "switchers."
As an example, my dad had ordered an iMac when I told him about iChatAV/iSight (he can be impulsive like that). But then he started looking around and asking questions. He's not very technologically inclined, but he is a small businessman (now 90% retired) and he recognized that the iMac wasn't offering any great value at the moment. So he canceled his order. He's convinced that Apple will have to do something drastic to the iMac soon (either up the power/specs dramatically or lower the price), and he's prepared to wait. He may wait a long time if Apple doesn't come thru with the goods (he can also be very subborn). And in the meantime, Apple is out a sale in a relatively typical household.
The G4 might have taken 18 months to migrate from the tower to the iMac, and rightly so. Why the heck substitute a cool 500 MHz G3 with a hot expensive G4/500 that offer SMP that the OS 9 does not support and AV that few apps use
2004 Q1 that is 6-9 months is my bet.
2003 Q3 will see a speed bump to 1.3 Ghz or so og G4 and a ATI9000 graphics and the DVD migrating downwards (or price drops). I am sure that there are power consumption and heat issues in the iMac but less so than the PB. The very slowest Dell I could find now is a 2.2 GHz Celeron that the iMac tops out at less than half of that is embarrasing. The 4mx card is not a problem now as with a 1 GHz G4 and no L3 cache the system is CPU limited anyhow, my guess is that UT 2003 framrates is quite depressing for a top of the line home computer
The slow adaptation of the G4 was due to the 500 MHz barrier that for along time stopped the tower to get faster and also the fact that for most applications a G3 was as fast as a G4 MHz for MHz. With the G5 Apple can use a 1.2 GHz G5 and it will be both slower than the towers and faster than any G4 in use.
My dream would be that Apple in Q3 2003 would go for 1.0 -1.2 GHz G5s and skip the G4 speed bump. they wold then become far more competetive with the Intel CPUs and also pour in money in the manufacturing and development of the IBM 9x0 and that is a good thing8) To wait 18 months for the IBM 970 to replace the Motorola G4 would kill the iMac sales. For the iMac to be way behind not only the Intel/AMD but also the G5 towers....
During the 970 productions are there no CPUs that are below 1.6 GHz? And if IBM produce significant amounts of 1.0-1.5 Ghz 970s what the heck does IBM have for use of those?
As an example, my dad had ordered an iMac when I told him about iChatAV/iSight (he can be impulsive like that). But then he started looking around and asking questions. He's not very technologically inclined, but he is a small businessman (now 90% retired) and he recognized that the iMac wasn't offering any great value at the moment. So he canceled his order. He's convinced that Apple will have to do something drastic to the iMac soon (either up the power/specs dramatically or lower the price), and he's prepared to wait. He may wait a long time if Apple doesn't come thru with the goods (he can also be very subborn). And in the meantime, Apple is out a sale in a relatively typical household.
-DCQ
That is a big problem with Apple right now and its not just the price but the price and speed of the computers that the iMac is competing agenst in the consumer market. Apple can get away with a bit higher price with their reputation, quality, and value added software. However, the speed gap is too high right now for the iMac. Apple is not a Lotus of the car industry, who was able to compete agenst V8 sport cars with a suped up 4 cylinder. Lotus's 4 cylinder had two turbo chargers and an unrivaled suspension after all. Apples iMac only has 1 AltiVec unit, that while it helps cannot make up for the 50% speed deffacit in like priced computers that the iMac now suffers from. The will have the software to invigerate the consumer market by the end of the year (iChat could be real big), and have an excellent lin-up now (software), what they really need is to get the entry price of the iMac down to $999 or less ($799 would be better), with a minimum speed of 1.4 Ghz (1.6 would be better) topping out around 1.8 Ghz in the G4 line, or 1.2-1.6 in the G5 line. I would be very suprised if we see this happen by year end.
I think that Apple can compete as the Porsche or Sony of the computer industry, however software is only half of the equation. They need the hardware to back it up. Right now, due to production problems, the G4 is lagging so far behind that it needs to leapfrog a generation to be truely competative and really "SELL" the Mac experience, as well as have an entry point that is closer to the overall market for the products that they are selling.
But keep in mind the driving force behind the Apple Machine: Marketing. Yes, I said the most evil word in existence.
Despite the fact that it would be in Apple's best interest in terms of competition to move the highest technology to all the products as quickly as possible, Apple does not have a history or habit of doing so. To puntuate this point, they are about to ship a G5, when they are still selling G3's.
So the new iMacs will be faster. But not *that* much faster. They'll likely use the new motorola chips.
You'll likely see a PowerBook G5 before an iMac G5, simply because the PowerBook is a Professional product, and the iMac is a consumer product.
And I don't expect a PowerBook G5 until January '05.
And of course, the iBooks are the redheaded stepchildren. Whatever good technology Apple comes out with, they get it last.
Can someone explain this graph to me so that it makes sense, or post a link to the original source document?
Why does the caption reading "97 Watts: Source: IBM 970 doc" have two arrows pointing at blue dots on the "Predicted" graph that are at about 20 and 42 watts? If the caption's not pointing out where the graph hits 97, what is it trying to point out?
Why are there two red lines for "Actual"? eeTimes data vs. IBM data? If so, which one is which? How did anyone come up with a curve for the top red line from only one data point on one end?
Is there any way to know if these figures had anything to do with a dual processor system rather than a single processor?
I was just on the Gateway site and looking at the profile 4XL. The top end model has the fast pentium processor and a 200Gig HD. THe iMac needs a 200Gig HD, especially with all the video editing any Mac owner can do. The iMac should have these specs.
What I've read about Moto's G4 product is that .13u 7457 product is shipping right friggin now from certain manufacturers. There's a linky here at AI and at other sites. It's pretty impressive from a power consumption standpoint, and it manages to run 1.3Ghz with a low core voltage. Since there are also higher core voltage versions, those should have no trouble reaching 1.6-1.8Ghz while still being a drop in replacement for the 7455. I'd look for those for he rest of '03 and '04.
I really think that Apple will bring back something in the cube space -- between the iMac and the PowerMac -- hold the Pmac prices, substantially lower iMac prices and drop the cube redux WITH a G5 into the middle tier. AS it always should have been.
I recall hearing the 7457 consumes 10 watts at 1GHz, do we know what the power consumption is at 1.3GHz? I wonder if it's comparable to the 14 watts the 7455 gets at 1GHz... If it is, then I'd imagine we'll be seeing 1.3GHz iMacs sometime soon. Would be nice if it had a 200MHz bus, as well, but I won't hold my breath...
I recall hearing the 7457 consumes 10 watts at 1GHz, do we know what the power consumption is at 1.3GHz?
I happen to have the Moto 7457 hardware specification in front of me, the early one, and it says
Code:
Table 7. Power Consumption for MPC7457
Processor (CPU) Frequency Unit Notes
1 GHz 1.3 GHz
Typical 15.8 18.7 W 1, 2
Maximum 22.0 26.0 W 1, 3
...
Quote:
I wonder if it's comparable to the 14 watts the 7455 gets at 1GHz... If it is, then I'd imagine we'll be seeing 1.3GHz iMacs sometime soon.
I hope not. Which would you rather have? A 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.3 GHz 970? The power consumption for a 1.3 GHz 970 would be 34 Watts given the 47 Watts at 1.8 GHz. Or maybe the better question should be which would you rather have a 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.0 GHz 970?
Like many others, I strongly desire a cheap headless machine (with 1 AGP, 1 PCI, 1 hard disk, 1 optical, etc.) and recognize that Apple's price performance needs to be more in line with the x86 world. So, in the armchair CEO role, I would hope to see by Q4 2003, the following or thereabout.
Code:
G4 (7457) based Macs:
eMac 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 17" CRT $599
eMac 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 17" CRT $799
G4 mini 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $599
G4 mini 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $799
iBook 0.87 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $799
iBook 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $999
iBook 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 14" LCD $1299
Xserve G4 1.33 GHz - 2MB L3 - 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $1999
Xserve G4 dual 1.33 GHz - 2MB L3 - 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $2699
G5 (970) based Macs:
G5 mini 1.20 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $999
G5 mini 1.40 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 64MB video - no monitor $1299
G5 mini 1.60 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 64MB video - no monitor $1599
Power Mac dual 1.6 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC3200 - 64MB video - no mon $1999
Power Mac dual 1.8 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC3200 - 128MB video - no mon $2499
Power Mac dual 2.0 GHz - 128bit 1GB PC3200 - 128MB video - no mon $2999
Xserve G5 1.4 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $2999
Xserve G5 dual 1.4 GHz - 128bit 1GB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $3999
The low end is still not comparable price performance wise to x86, but once it's that low, people are a lot more forgiving given other redeeming features (software, industrial design, etc.). So, yes, I think the iMac should get a 1 to 1.4 GHz 970 processor and I trust Apple has the knowhow to make it quiet in a similarly stunning design as the current iMac.
I hope not. Which would you rather have? A 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.3 GHz 970? The power consumption for a 1.3 GHz 970 would be 34 Watts given the 47 Watts at 1.8 GHz. Or maybe the better question should be which would you rather have a 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.0 GHz 970?
I hope not as well, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was stating what I expect to see, not what I want to see.
If we're dreaming, then I want to see a 2GHz G5 iMac with a Radeon 9800 Pro, 1GB of dual channel PC3200, a 200GB HD, a Superdrive, and a 19" screen for $999. Unfortunately, I think iMacs with 7457 is quite a bit more realistic...
I hope not as well, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was stating what I expect to see, not what I want to see. ... Unfortunately, I think iMacs with 7457 is quite a bit more realistic...
Indeed, that is probably the case. But a 970 iMac is not an unreasonable technical feat, no? The 7457 isn't going to be that much more power efficient or cost efficient as a 1 to 1.4 GHz 970, especially if IBM has shippable quantities of 1.1 Volt 970 chips. 1.1V 1.3 GHz 970 would reduce power consumptiop down to 24 Watts... but I think your right and the 7457 will be in the next iMacs. Hopefully Apple will surprise us again.
With regard to the G5 iMac. The G4 speed bump has the advantage that it can be made with very small changes on the motherboard. With a G5 the 500+ MHz bus and all that other fancy stuff has to be there. It is my impression that the higher the speed is the trickier the layout becomes. The iMac do have some severe constrains.
No matter what route the iMac take in the short turn it has to increase its price performance a lot. Speedbumped G4 combined with a price drop and DVD burner across the line would do the trick. So would a G5 at the same price.
It would look odd if Apple would sell their servers with G4 CPUS while using the IBM 970 intended for blade servers in the iMac. So to observe when the servers switch CPUs, will give us a hint.
No matter what the scenario that will play out I can not envison iMacs using G4s until late 2004/early 2005. The G4 is not far from being at 1/3 the speed of Pentium 4 both speed and performance wise so even as a midrange to low end CPU it looks bad.
2003 H2
Low key speed bumps of varius G4s
IBM release their blade servers with the 970
Apple release their servers with the 970, politly letting IBM get out of the door first
2004Q1 performance bumped towers and a deluge of G5s
Speedbumped G4 combined with a price drop and DVD burner across the line would do the trick. So would a G5 at the same price.
So would bigger displays.
I think this would be the easiest way to increase the iMac's value proposition for the next 6-12 months while it's stuck with a G4. Hell, they could even get away with a price increase on the high-end.
15" iMac Discontinued
17" iMac Combo 1 GHz G4 $1299
17" iMac Superdrive 1.2 GHz G4 $1599
20" iMac Superdrive 1.3 GHz G4 $1999
The eMac line handles the $799-$1299 range for a year or so until Apple can go G5 in the iMac, kill the eMac and bring back the Cube as the true low-end machine.
Until we see what is happening with the powerbooks then we wont know what the immediate future specs of the imac is... or vice versa for the powerbook thread.
Comments
This is really the whole crux of the argument and the whole point of this thread.
Apple needs to make up their mind. From here on out is the iMac going to be a true consumer machine priced aggressively to increase market share, or is it to be a fast prosumer machine able to justify its $1800 price tag?
Right now it's neither, and I (unfortunately) don't expect that to change with the next ho-hum speed bump. By MWSF 2004 however, Steve's going to have to pick a role for the iMac and go with it.
I think it will get a G5 in that time frame and be positioned where the Cube + 15" Studio Display was two years ago: a powerful, small footprint, quiet prosumer desktop with lots of bang for the buck.
This would of course require Apple addressing the true low end in a meaningful way. If the iMac is not to be "the computer for the rest of us", then what the hell is?
(Hint: it sure ain't the eMac.)
Great post. That sums it all up really. The iMac has become confused (poor iMac...
If it gets a G5 by middle of next year then it would make a nice alternative to a low end tower for those who wanted power, style and simplicity (as well as a monitor thrown in for free...but you pay the price in terms of limited expansion.).
Meanwhile, if the iMac does (well, it has) abandoned its traditional 'value' space then what is going to replace it? ...a headless iCube would do for me. With limited expandability. Needs to be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry cheap. Starting model needs to get way below the starting eMac.
Matsu's upto 1.6 gig G4 consumer line is looking likely for the next half year which will allow the G4 to play 'G3' to bigger brother 'G5'.
Lemon Bon Bon
iMac SIMPLY MUST come down to this price IMMEDIATELY. It's far from cheap and it buys a well spec'd tower INCLUDING a 17" LCD on the PC side.
Low end iMac - $999
High end eMac - $799
Low end eMac - $599
As for the rest:
iBook - $1299, $999, $799
pBook - good where they are (maybe $100, $200, and $300 price drops to make them irresistable)
pMac - $999 (dual G4), $1299, $1999, $2699
The iMac needs to get there right now (!!!), and the rest need to get there by next year at the latest if Apple is serious about closing the deal with the potential "switchers."
As an example, my dad had ordered an iMac when I told him about iChatAV/iSight (he can be impulsive like that). But then he started looking around and asking questions. He's not very technologically inclined, but he is a small businessman (now 90% retired) and he recognized that the iMac wasn't offering any great value at the moment. So he canceled his order. He's convinced that Apple will have to do something drastic to the iMac soon (either up the power/specs dramatically or lower the price), and he's prepared to wait. He may wait a long time if Apple doesn't come thru with the goods (he can also be very subborn). And in the meantime, Apple is out a sale in a relatively typical household.
-DCQ
2004 Q1 that is 6-9 months is my bet.
2003 Q3 will see a speed bump to 1.3 Ghz or so og G4 and a ATI9000 graphics and the DVD migrating downwards (or price drops). I am sure that there are power consumption and heat issues in the iMac but less so than the PB. The very slowest Dell I could find now is a 2.2 GHz Celeron that the iMac tops out at less than half of that is embarrasing. The 4mx card is not a problem now as with a 1 GHz G4 and no L3 cache the system is CPU limited anyhow, my guess is that UT 2003 framrates is quite depressing for a top of the line home computer
The slow adaptation of the G4 was due to the 500 MHz barrier that for along time stopped the tower to get faster and also the fact that for most applications a G3 was as fast as a G4 MHz for MHz. With the G5 Apple can use a 1.2 GHz G5 and it will be both slower than the towers and faster than any G4 in use.
My dream would be that Apple in Q3 2003 would go for 1.0 -1.2 GHz G5s and skip the G4 speed bump.
During the 970 productions are there no CPUs that are below 1.6 GHz? And if IBM produce significant amounts of 1.0-1.5 Ghz 970s what the heck does IBM have for use of those?
Originally posted by DrBoar
The G4 might have taken 18 months to migrate from the tower to the iMac, ...
± 28, (depents on how you count)
Originally posted by DCQ
As an example, my dad had ordered an iMac when I told him about iChatAV/iSight (he can be impulsive like that). But then he started looking around and asking questions. He's not very technologically inclined, but he is a small businessman (now 90% retired) and he recognized that the iMac wasn't offering any great value at the moment. So he canceled his order. He's convinced that Apple will have to do something drastic to the iMac soon (either up the power/specs dramatically or lower the price), and he's prepared to wait. He may wait a long time if Apple doesn't come thru with the goods (he can also be very subborn). And in the meantime, Apple is out a sale in a relatively typical household.
-DCQ
That is a big problem with Apple right now and its not just the price but the price and speed of the computers that the iMac is competing agenst in the consumer market. Apple can get away with a bit higher price with their reputation, quality, and value added software. However, the speed gap is too high right now for the iMac. Apple is not a Lotus of the car industry, who was able to compete agenst V8 sport cars with a suped up 4 cylinder. Lotus's 4 cylinder had two turbo chargers and an unrivaled suspension after all. Apples iMac only has 1 AltiVec unit, that while it helps cannot make up for the 50% speed deffacit in like priced computers that the iMac now suffers from. The will have the software to invigerate the consumer market by the end of the year (iChat could be real big), and have an excellent lin-up now (software), what they really need is to get the entry price of the iMac down to $999 or less ($799 would be better), with a minimum speed of 1.4 Ghz (1.6 would be better) topping out around 1.8 Ghz in the G4 line, or 1.2-1.6 in the G5 line. I would be very suprised if we see this happen by year end.
I think that Apple can compete as the Porsche or Sony of the computer industry, however software is only half of the equation. They need the hardware to back it up. Right now, due to production problems, the G4 is lagging so far behind that it needs to leapfrog a generation to be truely competative and really "SELL" the Mac experience, as well as have an entry point that is closer to the overall market for the products that they are selling.
Despite the fact that it would be in Apple's best interest in terms of competition to move the highest technology to all the products as quickly as possible, Apple does not have a history or habit of doing so. To puntuate this point, they are about to ship a G5, when they are still selling G3's.
So the new iMacs will be faster. But not *that* much faster. They'll likely use the new motorola chips.
You'll likely see a PowerBook G5 before an iMac G5, simply because the PowerBook is a Professional product, and the iMac is a consumer product.
And I don't expect a PowerBook G5 until January '05.
And of course, the iBooks are the redheaded stepchildren. Whatever good technology Apple comes out with, they get it last.
They probably won't go G5 until 2010.
Jason
Originally posted by Matsu
Another strike against the G5 iMac
Can someone explain this graph to me so that it makes sense, or post a link to the original source document?
Why does the caption reading "97 Watts: Source: IBM 970 doc" have two arrows pointing at blue dots on the "Predicted" graph that are at about 20 and 42 watts? If the caption's not pointing out where the graph hits 97, what is it trying to point out?
Why are there two red lines for "Actual"? eeTimes data vs. IBM data? If so, which one is which? How did anyone come up with a curve for the top red line from only one data point on one end?
Is there any way to know if these figures had anything to do with a dual processor system rather than a single processor?
1.5Ghz
200Gig HD
Bluetooth
Airport XTreme
4 USB 2.0 on machine
New Pro Keyboard with USB 2.0
2 FW 400 / 1 FW 800
I really think that Apple will bring back something in the cube space -- between the iMac and the PowerMac -- hold the Pmac prices, substantially lower iMac prices and drop the cube redux WITH a G5 into the middle tier. AS it always should have been.
Originally posted by Gamblor
I recall hearing the 7457 consumes 10 watts at 1GHz, do we know what the power consumption is at 1.3GHz?
I happen to have the Moto 7457 hardware specification in front of me, the early one, and it says
Table 7. Power Consumption for MPC7457
Processor (CPU) Frequency Unit Notes
1 GHz 1.3 GHz
Typical 15.8 18.7 W 1, 2
Maximum 22.0 26.0 W 1, 3
...
I wonder if it's comparable to the 14 watts the 7455 gets at 1GHz... If it is, then I'd imagine we'll be seeing 1.3GHz iMacs sometime soon.
I hope not. Which would you rather have? A 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.3 GHz 970? The power consumption for a 1.3 GHz 970 would be 34 Watts given the 47 Watts at 1.8 GHz. Or maybe the better question should be which would you rather have a 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.0 GHz 970?
G4 (7457) based Macs:
eMac 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 17" CRT $599
eMac 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 17" CRT $799
G4 mini 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $599
G4 mini 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $799
iBook 0.87 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $799
iBook 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $999
iBook 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 14" LCD $1299
Xserve G4 1.33 GHz - 2MB L3 - 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $1999
Xserve G4 dual 1.33 GHz - 2MB L3 - 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $2699
G5 (970) based Macs:
G5 mini 1.20 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $999
G5 mini 1.40 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 64MB video - no monitor $1299
G5 mini 1.60 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 64MB video - no monitor $1599
iMac 1.20 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - 17" LCD $1299
iMac 1.40 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 64MB video - 17" LCD $1599
Powerbook 1.00 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $1499
Powerbook 1.20 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 64MB video - 15" LCD $1799
Powerbook 1.40 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 64MB video - 17" LCD $2499
Power Mac dual 1.6 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC3200 - 64MB video - no mon $1999
Power Mac dual 1.8 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC3200 - 128MB video - no mon $2499
Power Mac dual 2.0 GHz - 128bit 1GB PC3200 - 128MB video - no mon $2999
Xserve G5 1.4 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $2999
Xserve G5 dual 1.4 GHz - 128bit 1GB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $3999
The low end is still not comparable price performance wise to x86, but once it's that low, people are a lot more forgiving given other redeeming features (software, industrial design, etc.). So, yes, I think the iMac should get a 1 to 1.4 GHz 970 processor and I trust Apple has the knowhow to make it quiet in a similarly stunning design as the current iMac.
I hope not. Which would you rather have? A 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.3 GHz 970? The power consumption for a 1.3 GHz 970 would be 34 Watts given the 47 Watts at 1.8 GHz. Or maybe the better question should be which would you rather have a 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.0 GHz 970?
I hope not as well, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was stating what I expect to see, not what I want to see.
If we're dreaming, then I want to see a 2GHz G5 iMac with a Radeon 9800 Pro, 1GB of dual channel PC3200, a 200GB HD, a Superdrive, and a 19" screen for $999. Unfortunately, I think iMacs with 7457 is quite a bit more realistic...
Originally posted by Gamblor
I hope not as well, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was stating what I expect to see, not what I want to see. ... Unfortunately, I think iMacs with 7457 is quite a bit more realistic...
Indeed, that is probably the case. But a 970 iMac is not an unreasonable technical feat, no? The 7457 isn't going to be that much more power efficient or cost efficient as a 1 to 1.4 GHz 970, especially if IBM has shippable quantities of 1.1 Volt 970 chips. 1.1V 1.3 GHz 970 would reduce power consumptiop down to 24 Watts... but I think your right and the 7457 will be in the next iMacs. Hopefully Apple will surprise us again.
No matter what route the iMac take in the short turn it has to increase its price performance a lot. Speedbumped G4 combined with a price drop and DVD burner across the line would do the trick. So would a G5 at the same price.
It would look odd if Apple would sell their servers with G4 CPUS while using the IBM 970 intended for blade servers in the iMac. So to observe when the servers switch CPUs, will give us a hint.
No matter what the scenario that will play out I can not envison iMacs using G4s until late 2004/early 2005. The G4 is not far from being at 1/3 the speed of Pentium 4 both speed and performance wise so even as a midrange to low end CPU it looks bad.
2003 H2
Low key speed bumps of varius G4s
IBM release their blade servers with the 970
Apple release their servers with the 970, politly letting IBM get out of the door first
2004Q1 performance bumped towers and a deluge of G5s
Originally posted by DrBoar
Speedbumped G4 combined with a price drop and DVD burner across the line would do the trick. So would a G5 at the same price.
So would bigger displays.
I think this would be the easiest way to increase the iMac's value proposition for the next 6-12 months while it's stuck with a G4. Hell, they could even get away with a price increase on the high-end.
15" iMac Discontinued
17" iMac Combo 1 GHz G4 $1299
17" iMac Superdrive 1.2 GHz G4 $1599
20" iMac Superdrive 1.3 GHz G4 $1999
The eMac line handles the $799-$1299 range for a year or so until Apple can go G5 in the iMac, kill the eMac and bring back the Cube as the true low-end machine.
Originally posted by THT
Table 7. Power Consumption for MPC7457
Processor (CPU) Frequency Unit Notes
1 GHz 1.3 GHz
Typical 15.8 18.7 W 1, 2
Maximum 22.0 26.0 W 1, 3
...
That is the table for the 1.3v version
Table 7. Power Consumption for MPC7457
Processor (CPU) Unit Notes
1 GHz
Typical 7.5 W 1, 2
Maximum 12.5 W 1, 3
...
Deep Sleep 2.0 W 1, 3
This is the table for the 1.1v version
If I were looking to increase market share, that line up would do very nicely, thank you very much. Could you please email that to Apple?