what the 970 will mean for the iMac

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Ok, I'm going on the assumption that there will be 970 powermacs this summer/fall.

Given that assumption I would expect this for the iMac (I'm only doing top of the line).



1.42 Ghz G4 on 167Mhz bus

1 meg L3

64 meg radeon 9000.

17 inch LCD

$1700



What do you think?

Remember, this is based on the 970 appearing this summer/fall. Please do not hijack the thread into a debate on whether or not the 970 will in fact appear.

Thanks
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Hm, can I qualify a response using the 970? Assuming the 970 appears at fast enough speeds (i.e 1.8 GHz), then it'd be possible that something of that nature may occur. If it's more in line with 1.6 GHz or so, then I'd say a 1.25 GHz G4 would probably make more sense.
  • Reply 2 of 30
    endymionendymion Posts: 375member
    Of course with IBM touting speeds of 1.8-2.5 GHz for the 970 I don't think we'll have to worry about it appearing at 1.6
  • Reply 3 of 30
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    [quote]Originally posted by MCQ:

    <strong>Hm, can I qualify a response using the 970? Assuming the 970 appears at fast enough speeds (i.e 1.8 GHz), then it'd be possible that something of that nature may occur. If it's more in line with 1.6 GHz or so, then I'd say a 1.25 GHz G4 would probably make more sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I honestly don't think it would matter. I mean, all the pros who would be buying the 970's would realize how much faster it was than a G4. I just don't see any pro saying "I should go with the 1.42 Ghz iMac instead of the 1.2 Ghz 970."



    [ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Flounder ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 30
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    depending on the price...perhaps a 970 1.6 chip is cheaper than a G4 1.4 chip...in which case, can the iMac go to a low 970 chip (1.4 to 1.6) leaving the 1.8 to 2.5 for the powermacs (and maybe the pm are duals and the iMac is a single)



    g
  • Reply 5 of 30
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    [quote]Originally posted by thegelding:

    <strong>depending on the price...perhaps a 970 1.6 chip is cheaper than a G4 1.4 chip...in which case, can the iMac go to a low 970 chip (1.4 to 1.6) leaving the 1.8 to 2.5 for the powermacs (and maybe the pm are duals and the iMac is a single)



    g</strong><hr></blockquote>



    yeah, I'd thought about that

    I didn't want to seem TOO optimistic though
  • Reply 6 of 30
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    [quote]Originally posted by Flounder:

    <strong>



    I honestly don't think it would matter. I mean, all the pros who would be buying the 970's would realize how much faster it was than a G4. I just don't see any pro saying "I should go with the 1.42 Ghz iMac instead of the 1.2 Ghz 970."



    [ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Flounder ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The problem will not be selling the 970 over the G4 to the pro's, but the real possability that Apple might, based on past upgrades, give a pittifully underpowered high end iMac (1.25 Ghz) instead of putting their most powerfull (1.42 or faster) G4.
  • Reply 7 of 30
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    yeah, , i also thought it almost insane to mention....but price and availability will be the key...if the 970 is cheap and plentiful, apple will gobble them up...pent up demand for fast macs will show it's ugly (or beautiful) head...970 iMacs and 970 dual PM would fly...off the shelves



    but this is apple...so they will likely start with more G4 iMacs and single proc. 970 PMs



    g
  • Reply 8 of 30
    I remember seeing the volume price for the 1Ghz G4 and thinking it was pretty high. Since moto hasn't moved any G4 to the 0.13 micron process I can imagine any faster chips are relatively rare and even more expensive. Taking that, and mixing in a very healthy dose of optimism, I could see the PPC970 costing Apple less per chip than a higher speed G4.



    Then there's the marketing side. I'm sure folks at Apple realize a large barrier to market share growth is the lack of performance (or perception thereof) in their consumer line compared to wintel boxes. Sure, the PowerMac duals are blazingly fast (yes, they really are), but Apple's value price line pales in speed comparisons to x86 based alternatives. These boxes are the bait on the hook for first time buyers and potential switchers, and Apple wants to make them as appealing as possible. Performance is a big part of the appeal of a new system, just look at Apple's drive to replace the sluggish IE with Safari, if Apple can pull it off cheaply enough I think we'll see PPC970s in Apple's next rev iMacs.



    *keeping all fingers and toes crossed*
  • Reply 9 of 30
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,129member
    I have absolutely NO faith in Apple putting even the top G4 in the next iMac. This is a company that has always guttend their consumer lineup performancewise.



    I think we see a 1.25Ghz iMac and maybe a decent helping of Cache.



    Same bus. Same MB
  • Reply 10 of 30
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    When the PowerMac goes 970 and the 7457 arrives, I think we'll see the iMac get that fastest G4s available at a reasonable price. No L3 cache. These ought to be fast machines though since the 7457 has double the L2 cache and should be available up to ~1.6 GHz at reasonable good power levels. Exactly what speeds and when will depend entirely on the yields Motorola gets for this chip.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    blazernzblazernz Posts: 18member
    totally agree although a 1.42 GHZ imac would be nice I really think it is a dream and that a 1.25 GHZ machine is more likely. I don't see any drastic changes really, I would love to see the radeon 9000 and an increase in the cache. The bus speed will be the same and I'd like to see 17's accross the line.
  • Reply 12 of 30
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I thinik it would be more like summer/fall or maybe fall/winter.
  • Reply 13 of 30
    drboardrboar Posts: 477member
    For a 970 to get the SPEC2000 of a 1.42 Ghz G4 the 970 has to reach 620 Mhz for the integers and 320 Mhz for the floating point calculations. So even a bottom of the barrel 1.0 GHz would at least double the performance of the current iMacs. So the only real reason to wait with the 970 would be complications in motherboard designs and so on. With IBM talking about 1.8-2.5 GHz and showing a prototype next week 1GHz CPU should be aviable pretty soon.



    When Apple have have balance in production and demand of 970 towers and servers i really see no reason to not put them in the iMacs.
  • Reply 14 of 30
    I'm still hoping for the early introduction of the PPC970 in iMacs, after all Apple said they're shooting for 5-10% market share, but if that doesn't happen we most likely won't see either the current PowerMac's MPC7455 or the upcoming MPC7457 in an iMac either. They'll either use a MPC7447 or a faster version of the iMac's current MPC7445, because neither of these support pricey L3 cache, and Apple really is notoriously cheap.



    What does this mean? Bad news and more bad news, I'm afraid. According to Motorola the MPC7447 production starts in Q4 2003, and I would think that would mean a fall/winter update. If Apple wants to perform a summer update (an I would think they would) we're left with the MPC7445 which we haven't seen scale above 1GHz, and which will be inserted into a machine with a lot less cooling power than the PowerMac towers. I'm totally guessing here, but I would think this means incremental increases in processor speed at best.



    Which brings me back to my first point. It's looking like the PPC970 will be available before the MPC7447, the PPC970 doesn't support L3 cache which keeps cost down, and IBM has documented its performance and heat dissapation at the *smirk* slower speed of 1.2GHz which would suit the iMac well. Depending on the per chip cost of the PPC970 I would think it's a shoe in to be included in the iMac line simultaneously or soon after its release in the PowerMacs.
  • Reply 15 of 30
    vr6vr6 Posts: 77member
    [Major Rant Mode]

    sad as it is, Apple has to put the highest MHz processor it can into iMacs to get them moving. The company has this marketing strategy that, by putting the faster processors into only the pro models, continuously encourages Consumers to hold off buying because something faster is obviously in the pipeline.



    The differentiation between the Pro and Consumer lines needs to be 1) dual procs instead of single procs, 2) expandability, 3) other PRO features. MHz holdback only retards sales of Consumer models. Instead of fearing that Pros will buy iMacs if they had fast processors in them, the marketing folks should be more concerned about all of the Consumers who AREN'T buying iMacs because they know there is a faster processor availble.



    I'm amazed that Apple can't see this or refuses to make this decision. They are seriously holding back Consumer sales.



    I'm in the market for a new iMac, although I'm not desperate, and I just can't bring myself to buy one when I know that a 42% faster processor is already out on the market!!!



    This isn't about price, it's about creating a competitive product - and Apple's behaviour in specing iMacs indicates they are more concerned about competing with themselves than with the other 95% of computer sales out there.



    WAKE UP APPLE!

    [\\Major Rant Mode]
  • Reply 16 of 30
    ensoniqensoniq Posts: 128member
    I happen to agree with the last 2 posts. The PPC 970 may come to the consumer products at the same time or very soon after the professional machines are updated.



    Here is what we know:



    1 - Apple's machines have had a reputation for being "slow" in the PC world since the Motorola G4 fiasco left us stranded at 500 MHz for nearly a year while Intel/AMD broke the 1 GHz mark.



    2 - Though Motorola has gotten us to 1.42 GHz now, most people feel that Apple is still "way behind" PCs in speed. We know that's not true (the megahertz myth), but the majority of the buying public does not.



    3 - Based on benchmarks (which admitedly may or may not be completely accurate), all signs point to the PPC 970 at ANY speed being twice as fast as the G4 in integer performance, and nearly 3 times faster than a G4 in floating point.



    4 - Original documents on the PPC 970 reported that the processor would debut at 1.2 GHz speeds. The latest report indicates speeds from 1.8 to 2.5 GHz. It's unknown if IBM will still release the 1.2 GHz chip. But if they did, that means the spread between a low end 1.2 and high end 2.5 is 1.3 GHz, or just over twice as fast.



    5 - Apple's current top of the line machines are the 1 GHz iMac and the 1.42 GHz PowerMac. Ignoring the dual processor issue which the majority of programs don't take advantage of yet, that's only a 400 MHz spread between the two top of the line machines. Clearly, Apple has ways to distinguish between the pro and consumer lines, aside from the processor speed.



    The only thing that remains unknown is cost. How much IBM charges Apple per chip will be the deciding factor on when we see the PPC 970 in the consumer line.



    If the 1.2 GHz PPC 970 is roughly the same cost or less than the 1 GHz G4, then Apple would be foolish to not begin using it immediately across the board. For the same exact price as they charge now, Apple could sell 1.2 GHz PPC iMacs that are 2-3 times faster (depending on what you're doing) than the G4 iMacs they sell now. Same iMac features, same price, but TWICE as fast. Who wouldn't want one? And yet there's still plenty of gap between the 1.2 GHz and 2.5 GHz that no one needs to worry about the iMac stepping on the PowerMac toes for the pro buyers. They will still want the latest, greatest, and fastest at almost any cost.



    But assuming Apple doesn't use the PPC 970 right away in the consumer machines, I do think it's very likely that the iMacs will be bumped right away to Motorola's highest speed chips. Once the PPC 970 is out and the pro machines speed has jumped so far, Apple would no longer have any reason to "cripple" the iMacs. If the G4 was only being used in laptops (for heat issues) and consumer desktops, there would be plenty of high speed chips to go around. Again, only cost per chip might make a slight impact on this decision.



    The 970 sure incites people to spend hours of time speculating. Let's hope only 1/10th of all the things we all hope for come true for Apple during 2003.



    -- Ensoniq
  • Reply 17 of 30
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by vr6:

    <strong>

    sad as it is, Apple has to put the highest MHz processor it can into iMacs to get them moving. The company has this marketing strategy that, by putting the faster processors into only the pro models, continuously encourages Consumers to hold off buying because something faster is obviously in the pipeline.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    When is it not obvious that something faster is in the pipeline?



    [quote]<strong>I'm in the market for a new iMac, although I'm not desperate, and I just can't bring myself to buy one when I know that a 42% faster processor is already out on the market!!! </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Considering that the 1.42GHz clockspeed is probably pushing the 7455 to the very limits of its design tolerance, it would probably reduce an iMac to a pile of slag. You get higher speeds out of a given CPU by feeding it more power, and toward the limits of the CPU's design life you get diminishing returns. That's why the PowerMacs have those ungodly heatsinks and huge fans.



    The only sensible reason to buy a computer is that it does what you need. Go use an iMac. If it does what you need, buy it. It's a given that something faster will come along, so don't worry about that.



    I expect that the next speedbump will come if: The low-voltage 970 is cheap and plentiful enough to power them, or (more likely) when the 7457 arrives. The iMac tends to follow the PowerBooks, because they both operate under size and heat constraints.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yeah but, the whole iMac dome can be one huge heat-sink, you just need to run more heat pipinng from the CPU to to the dome and eek a few more CFM from the fan. Just like putting a bigger rad on a car. The iMac doesn't have to deal with battery life issues and it could have a mild processor throttling feature to keep it from getting too hot while not reducing performance too much. I suspect the ghz part was a cost saving move more than anything else. I'm sure they could get it to work reliably in the iMac, they just would rather not spend 300USD on the CPU when they can get buy spending 90-100.



    Otherwise, yeah, I agree, iMacs will get faster pretty much in lock step with the PB's, but as always for cost, not heat reasons.
  • Reply 19 of 30
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Yeah but, the whole iMac dome can be one huge heat-sink, you just need to run more heat pipinng from the CPU to to the dome and eek a few more CFM from the fan.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And the economical justification for doing this to put in a rare, hot CPU into a costly machine for six months is...



    [quote]<strong>Otherwise, yeah, I agree, iMacs will get faster pretty much in lock step with the PB's, but as always for cost, not heat reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The two reasons are not mutually exclusive. Using the PB's technology gives their industrial design options that it would not otherwise have, besides keeping the component cost down.
  • Reply 20 of 30
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Since it will be over a year before the next iMac update, the PPC 970 means SQUAT!



    Regardless of the Powermacs, you can bet that Apple will do one of two things with the iMac in a year's time:



    A) Axe it. "Don't sell no more, we don't understand why?!!?"



    B) Juice it up with a blistering 1.2 GHz G4.
Sign In or Register to comment.