I'll be amazed if Apple offers a higher-line machine with a slower CPU clock rate, even if there are two. The last time they did that (with the dual 533 option) they caused a lot of confusion.
I'd like to see 'em go all dual, personally. But I have no idea whether they will.
Yes ideally they would all be duals. During the G4 drought Apple really pushed dual designs into people's awareness and they would do well to continue down that path even though they have a much more capable processor supplier these days. Also it would help seperate the professional and personal desktop lines so that the iMac3 can have a single G5 processor at it's heart.
My humble suggestions would be:
Dual G5 1.8GHz
Dual G5 2.5GHz
Dual G5 2.8GHz
All three models should sport DDR400 RAM or better.
I don't see Apple getting 800 MHz boosts, even if IBM's production is absolutely flying. However, given what IBM has been demonstrated as capable of doing (2.5 GHz prototypes a few months ago), I wouldn't be surprised if the high-end clock speed today is the low-end clock speed in February. It might even be better.
A (relative) pessimist's prediction:
- single 2.0 GHz
- dual 2.2 GHz
- dual 2.4 GHz
And the optimist's:
- single 2.2 GHz
- dual 2.4 GHz
- dual 2.6 GHz
You just know that the truth is somewhere in between (or not there at all), though.
NOW we're talking! Cube revived... The thing is: I have owned two powermacs, an original G4 graphite 500 MHz, and a 8600 way back. But I have never had *any* use for PCI ports. I haven't even though about using either. So a G4/G5 Mini would have none (or maybe one for the "pci entusiasts" on the G5 Mini), but it would have a AGP slot that is wicked fast (is it 8x these days), and that can hold a standard sized graphics card from nVidia or Ati. Now THAT would be my choice for a computer.
IT wouldn't have to look like a cube, it could be rectangualr, either tall or wide. Wide enough to fit a superdrive and tall enough to fit a standard size graphics card. Whats that ? 6 inches wide and 9 inches tall ?
Place a G5 in there, have FireWire (400 and/or 800), USB 2.0, gigabit ethernet (or 100Mbps is sufficient for this kind of machine I guess), DVI out, SVideo out and that cool optical out that the PowerMac G5 has.
Perfect machine for the office, for the family and for the gamer. Bundle the machine with the 17inch or 23 inch flat screen (give a 200 dollar dicounted "bundle price"), and I think Apple would have a winner!
Of course, it would cannibalilse the iMac sales, but its due for a replacement anyways. Call it the Apple SuccessfullMac or something.
What is it with people who make unrealistic predictions?
Not to single anyone out in particular (I've seen at least a few others), but posts like THT's make me scratch my head in wonderment. Dual-processor iMacs? G4 and G5 "Minis?" I don't think so. While I can't rule it out, I'm even skeptical of dual-1.8 GHz G5s at the low end of the PowerMac lineup.
It'd be nice if people kept a few common things in mind before making a prediction:
1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.
2. The iMac has a small enclosure, and probably can't fit two CPUs (at least, not without addressing heat first).
3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.
This thought process (which is common within AI) doesn't match the real world. Apple will use the processors IBM produces - Apple doesn't hold back. As IBMs processes and manufacturing improve, the number of processors > 1.6, or > 1.8, or > 2.0, or > 2.2 etc keeps going up.
I couldn't agree more. I don't know how people here got it in their heads that Apple deliberately holds back on the good stuff....
Apple wants to make money. They will give us what they know will make the most money. They DO have shareholders to look out for... Since they have been caught at the same speeds for a while, it is sometimes perceived that they do not have high enough speeds, therefore they will release machines that counter that thinking. See the G5 for a recent example. Who would have thought that we would jump from dual 1.42Ghz to dual 2.0Ghz?
Oh yeah, all of this talk about a dual iMac is garbage... The only way you will ever get a dual anything in such a small space is a huge die shrink and then probably only dual-cored machines...
1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.
It sure does, but a faster CPU is way more expensive! For the AMD Barton XP CPU the 3 GHz cost more two and half time as much as the 2.5 GHz one. So while having a more complex motherboard dual sockets, two CPUs etc do cost more the skyrocketing cost of the leading edge CPUs off set a large part of that cost.
If Apple now let the eMac linger in the G4 domain for the next year as low cost alternative and have G5 iMacs then the option of having the towers all dual again looks quite natrual to Apple and the currently steep price would look better for us buyers
So my suggestion is:
DP 1.6 (a substantial boost aviable right away)
DP 2.0 (a substantial boost aviable right away)
DP 2.x (as fast as IBM can crank them up, aviable within a resonable time frame)
3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.
Look, child, I don't see why people are enamored with mini-PCs either. You have to cut a lot of corners to get truly small desktop PCs...Just look at http://www.mini-itx.com/ ... In what form-factor would it really save space? A cube? Do we really want that again? The Cube was small because it had a big fat external PSU, an external amplifier, no built-in speaker, nothing...Put those back in and the footprint increases. A pizza box? Flat on the table, it takes up more area than a tower. Are you going to put it underneath your 17" ASD? Straddle your 23" ACD around it? On its side it's still going to need a stand to stabilize it.
I do see Apple slimming down the current G5 tower while maintaining its expandability, and then introducing a truly expandable tower with more internal bays and more expansion slots.
I do see Apple slimming down the current G5 tower while maintaining its expandability, and then introducing a truly tower with more internal bays and more expansion slots.
Look, child, that probably will happen. Apple needs a "consumer tower".....doesn't have to be a mini-cube type thing....it should be a ....GASP....MINITOWER.....GASP..... things we had all over the place just a few years ago.
All it needs is an external drive bay, 2 internal bays, PCI slot and AGP slot. Single G5 cpu....front mounted ports.....and make it look cool as hell.
definitely possible....definitely cheaper to make......and definitely would sell.
I'll be amazed if Apple offers a higher-line machine with a slower CPU clock rate, even if there are two. The last time they did that (with the dual 533 option) they caused a lot of confusion.
I'd like to see 'em go all dual, personally. But I have no idea whether they will.
There was a 1x867 offered below my 2x800 in August/2001, but I know what you mean. I'd love to see all duals, too, and I think we will in the future, but there'll need to be greater differences in chip speed and/or configurations among the price points.
We're so accustomed to seeing 133-250Mhz increments in the product line (or 50Mhz in the Dark Days), that we expect/want dual 2.0, 2.2, 2.4s at the next refresh, but Apple won't sell many DP 2.4s at $2999 if the DP 2.0s are $1999 (much like many bought the DP 867 over the DP 1.0 or 1.25 G4s, and I believe why Apple nixed the all-DP config at the next refresh).
Once the G5 reaches 3.0 Ghz, I hope we'll see all duals in this guestimation:
2x2.0 @ $1999
2x2.5 @ $2499
2x3.0 @ $2999
Little cannibalism among pricepoints. Keep the single G5s for the iMac and PowerBook.
edit: Basically what Kane wrote if I'd paid more attention to this thread. Sorry 'bout that.
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).
Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
What is it with people who make unrealistic predictions?
Not to single anyone out in particular (I've seen at least a few others), but posts like THT's make me scratch my head in wonderment. Dual-processor iMacs? G4 and G5 "Minis?" I don't think so. While I can't rule it out, I'm even skeptical of dual-1.8 GHz G5s at the low end of the PowerMac lineup.
First off minis are hot in the market place right now. Second the new G5 is much larger than many people are willing ot deal with. As to the dual processor iMacs, it will happen sooner or later SMP is actually a cheaper way to improve performance. I wuold not be surprised if the SMP iMacs are a dual core solution.
Quote:
It'd be nice if people kept a few common things in mind before making a prediction:
1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.
Not at all - yes there is an incremental cost but it is not unmanageable. For certain classes of probelms the resultant machine can be a much bette performer thatn trying to buy a CPU fast enough to get the results you want.
Quote:
2. The iMac has a small enclosure, and probably can't fit two CPUs (at least, not without addressing heat first).
I suspect that the present IMac is dead. What they do to replace it is up in the air. But the issue of heat is a none issue G4's are running cooler than they have ever done in the past with the most recent revisions. We are talking here only a few watts beyond the original IMacs thermal load.
Quote:
3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.
While I'm not willing ot speculate on what is possible at Apple one only needs to look at the market to see what is need to fill out the product line. The G5 is big - that will turn off people right there. As I've said mini's are hot in the market place right now and the current IMacs are not meting sales expectations. This all adds up to something being offered to fill the voids. Headless or nt I do expect it to be a bit cheaper than the IMac, have limited expansion capability and a 970 based processor.
Look, child, waaay too many models. Considering the current G5 is barely expandable...
Old man, I'm not making a prediction. If I do, it'll be too depressing, therefore I put up what I want the lineup to be and close my ears to criticism. Lalalalalala... I can't hear you.
Here is how to make a low costs feature rich mini.
1. A high integration 970, that is a chip with an on board memory controller.
2. A new high integration bus interface chip. Since the memory controller is now gone and much bandwidth has been freed up this should work out nicely. This chip would supply all I/O for the machine. In otherwords SATA, USB, Firewire, Networking and a graphics port and whatever.
Note: This means that your logic board has two main chips, video and memroy to worry about.
3. Move to notebook form factor SATA drives. These should just be coming on the market and will save on power and space.
4. No sound hardware, rely instead on external USB speakers.
I realize that as described above we loose a bit of flexibility, it the expansion realm, but how many people even bother to put PCI cards in their machines anymore. With a bit of design effort though this machine could fit inot a lunch box. And that would be without the minitaurized mother boards of a portable. This brings up the interesting possibility of using existing portable chipsets or even more so a freshly design 970 chipset for both portable and compact usage.
Look at it this way if a whole computer can be stuffed into a laptop it should be a piece of cake to do a mini desk top. I;m not talking the current PC route whcih has normal motherboards stuffed into mini or mivro enclosures, we are talking a motherboard purposefully designed for a minmalist machine.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).
Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).
Even though the 7457 has more transistors than the 970, it's die size (98 sq mm) is actually smaller than the 970 (118 sq mm). IBM's floorplan for the 970 seems atrocious considering how tightly they've packed the 750fx, 35 sq mm for 39M transistors. Since the 7457 is 20% smaller than the 970, and given the same yields, the 7457 should be cheaper.
If the 970 has much better yield than the 7457, than the 970 may be cheaper. Moto seems to have had a lot of yield problems with their 130 nm process, so the 970 may very well have been cheaper for a few months. Who knows.
Quote:
Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
Apple sells an eMac with a 1 GHz 7455 CPU, combo optical, 128 MB RAM and 40 GB disk for 799$. They also sell an 800 MHz iBook G3 for 899$. Given the integration issues for these all-in-one machines, I'm sure they can sell a headless G4 mini for 700$. My G4 mini idea would just be the El Capitan case shrunk to a 12x12x9 size.
Here is how to make a low costs feature rich mini.
1. A high integration 970, that is a chip with an on board memory controller.
2. A new high integration bus interface chip. Since the memory controller is now gone and much bandwidth has been freed up this should work out nicely. This chip would supply all I/O for the machine. In otherwords SATA, USB, Firewire, Networking and a graphics port and whatever.
Note: This means that your logic board has two main chips, video and memroy to worry about.
3. Move to notebook form factor SATA drives. These should just be coming on the market and will save on power and space.
4. No sound hardware, rely instead on external USB speakers.
I realize that as described above we loose a bit of flexibility, it the expansion realm, but how many people even bother to put PCI cards in their machines anymore. With a bit of design effort though this machine could fit inot a lunch box. And that would be without the minitaurized mother boards of a portable. This brings up the interesting possibility of using existing portable chipsets or even more so a freshly design 970 chipset for both portable and compact usage.
Look at it this way if a whole computer can be stuffed into a laptop it should be a piece of cake to do a mini desk top. I;m not talking the current PC route whcih has normal motherboards stuffed into mini or mivro enclosures, we are talking a motherboard purposefully designed for a minmalist machine.
Thanks
Dave
I don't see anything in the first three which is going to bring down costs.
1) Design/test/fabricate new processor - huge cost
2) Design/test/fabricate new controller - huge cost
3) Change to much more expensive discs.
Yes, you cold manage a simpler, cheaper motherboard, and getting rid of the PCI(X) would also reduce costs (although not much), same for the onboard audio.
A whole computer can be shoved into a very small form factor, but it is a lot more expensive than putting one in a big box.
If a new processor with onboard memory controller appears anyway, then it makes good sense to try something like this, but to design one specifically would be ludicrous at the volume it is likely to sell at.
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
I'll be amazed if Apple offers a higher-line machine with a slower CPU clock rate, even if there are two. The last time they did that (with the dual 533 option) they caused a lot of confusion.
I'd like to see 'em go all dual, personally. But I have no idea whether they will.
Yes ideally they would all be duals. During the G4 drought Apple really pushed dual designs into people's awareness and they would do well to continue down that path even though they have a much more capable processor supplier these days. Also it would help seperate the professional and personal desktop lines so that the iMac3 can have a single G5 processor at it's heart.
My humble suggestions would be:
Dual G5 1.8GHz
Dual G5 2.5GHz
Dual G5 2.8GHz
All three models should sport DDR400 RAM or better.
Make the iMac line into something like this:
1.2GHz (15-inch)
1.4GHz (17-inch)
1.6GHz (17-inch "Extreme")
A (relative) pessimist's prediction:
- single 2.0 GHz
- dual 2.2 GHz
- dual 2.4 GHz
And the optimist's:
- single 2.2 GHz
- dual 2.4 GHz
- dual 2.6 GHz
You just know that the truth is somewhere in between (or not there at all), though.
2499 = 2x2.2 GHz Power Mac G5
1999 = 2x1.8 GHz Power Mac G5
1799 = 1x2.0 GHz G5 Mini
1599 = 1x1.8 GHz G5 Mini
1399 = 1x1.6 GHz G5 Mini
1799 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 iMac
1399 = 2x1.00 GHz G4 iMac
1299 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0999 = 1x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0699 = 1x1.00 GHz G4 Mini
Originally posted by THT
2999 = 2x2.5 GHz Power Mac G5
2499 = 2x2.2 GHz Power Mac G5
1999 = 2x1.8 GHz Power Mac G5
1799 = 1x2.0 GHz G5 Mini
1599 = 1x1.8 GHz G5 Mini
1399 = 1x1.6 GHz G5 Mini
1799 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 iMac
1399 = 2x1.00 GHz G4 iMac
1299 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0999 = 1x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0699 = 1x1.00 GHz G4 Mini
NOW we're talking! Cube revived... The thing is: I have owned two powermacs, an original G4 graphite 500 MHz, and a 8600 way back. But I have never had *any* use for PCI ports. I haven't even though about using either. So a G4/G5 Mini would have none (or maybe one for the "pci entusiasts" on the G5 Mini), but it would have a AGP slot that is wicked fast (is it 8x these days), and that can hold a standard sized graphics card from nVidia or Ati. Now THAT would be my choice for a computer.
IT wouldn't have to look like a cube, it could be rectangualr, either tall or wide. Wide enough to fit a superdrive and tall enough to fit a standard size graphics card. Whats that ? 6 inches wide and 9 inches tall ?
Place a G5 in there, have FireWire (400 and/or 800), USB 2.0, gigabit ethernet (or 100Mbps is sufficient for this kind of machine I guess), DVI out, SVideo out and that cool optical out that the PowerMac G5 has.
Perfect machine for the office, for the family and for the gamer. Bundle the machine with the 17inch or 23 inch flat screen (give a 200 dollar dicounted "bundle price"), and I think Apple would have a winner!
Of course, it would cannibalilse the iMac sales, but its due for a replacement anyways. Call it the Apple SuccessfullMac or something.
.:BoeManE:.
What is it with people who make unrealistic predictions?
Not to single anyone out in particular (I've seen at least a few others), but posts like THT's make me scratch my head in wonderment. Dual-processor iMacs? G4 and G5 "Minis?" I don't think so. While I can't rule it out, I'm even skeptical of dual-1.8 GHz G5s at the low end of the PowerMac lineup.
It'd be nice if people kept a few common things in mind before making a prediction:
1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.
2. The iMac has a small enclosure, and probably can't fit two CPUs (at least, not without addressing heat first).
3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.
Originally posted by jwdawso
This thought process (which is common within AI) doesn't match the real world. Apple will use the processors IBM produces - Apple doesn't hold back. As IBMs processes and manufacturing improve, the number of processors > 1.6, or > 1.8, or > 2.0, or > 2.2 etc keeps going up.
I couldn't agree more. I don't know how people here got it in their heads that Apple deliberately holds back on the good stuff....
Oh yeah, all of this talk about a dual iMac is garbage... The only way you will ever get a dual anything in such a small space is a huge die shrink and then probably only dual-cored machines...
1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.
It sure does, but a faster CPU is way more expensive! For the AMD Barton XP CPU the 3 GHz cost more two and half time as much as the 2.5 GHz one. So while having a more complex motherboard dual sockets, two CPUs etc do cost more the skyrocketing cost of the leading edge CPUs off set a large part of that cost.
If Apple now let the eMac linger in the G4 domain for the next year as low cost alternative and have G5 iMacs then the option of having the towers all dual again looks quite natrual to Apple and the currently steep price would look better for us buyers
So my suggestion is:
DP 1.6 (a substantial boost aviable right away)
DP 2.0 (a substantial boost aviable right away)
DP 2.x (as fast as IBM can crank them up, aviable within a resonable time frame)
Originally posted by THT
2999 = 2x2.5 GHz Power Mac G5
2499 = 2x2.2 GHz Power Mac G5
1999 = 2x1.8 GHz Power Mac G5
1799 = 1x2.0 GHz G5 Mini
1599 = 1x1.8 GHz G5 Mini
1399 = 1x1.6 GHz G5 Mini
1799 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 iMac
1399 = 2x1.00 GHz G4 iMac
1299 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0999 = 1x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0699 = 1x1.00 GHz G4 Mini
Look, child, waaay too many models. Considering the current G5 is barely expandable...
Anyway...
The current high-end becomes the mid-end. The low-end remains a single CPU machine. In January:
1x1800 MHz - $1800
2x2000 MHz - $2400
2x2400 MHz - $3000
Originally posted by Commodus
3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.
Look, child, I don't see why people are enamored with mini-PCs either. You have to cut a lot of corners to get truly small desktop PCs...Just look at http://www.mini-itx.com/ ... In what form-factor would it really save space? A cube? Do we really want that again? The Cube was small because it had a big fat external PSU, an external amplifier, no built-in speaker, nothing...Put those back in and the footprint increases. A pizza box? Flat on the table, it takes up more area than a tower. Are you going to put it underneath your 17" ASD? Straddle your 23" ACD around it? On its side it's still going to need a stand to stabilize it.
I do see Apple slimming down the current G5 tower while maintaining its expandability, and then introducing a truly expandable tower with more internal bays and more expansion slots.
Originally posted by Eugene
I do see Apple slimming down the current G5 tower while maintaining its expandability, and then introducing a truly tower with more internal bays and more expansion slots.
Look, child, that probably will happen. Apple needs a "consumer tower".....doesn't have to be a mini-cube type thing....it should be a ....GASP....MINITOWER.....GASP..... things we had all over the place just a few years ago.
All it needs is an external drive bay, 2 internal bays, PCI slot and AGP slot. Single G5 cpu....front mounted ports.....and make it look cool as hell.
definitely possible....definitely cheaper to make......and definitely would sell.
Originally posted by Amorph
I'll be amazed if Apple offers a higher-line machine with a slower CPU clock rate, even if there are two. The last time they did that (with the dual 533 option) they caused a lot of confusion.
I'd like to see 'em go all dual, personally. But I have no idea whether they will.
There was a 1x867 offered below my 2x800 in August/2001, but I know what you mean. I'd love to see all duals, too, and I think we will in the future, but there'll need to be greater differences in chip speed and/or configurations among the price points.
We're so accustomed to seeing 133-250Mhz increments in the product line (or 50Mhz in the Dark Days), that we expect/want dual 2.0, 2.2, 2.4s at the next refresh, but Apple won't sell many DP 2.4s at $2999 if the DP 2.0s are $1999 (much like many bought the DP 867 over the DP 1.0 or 1.25 G4s, and I believe why Apple nixed the all-DP config at the next refresh).
Once the G5 reaches 3.0 Ghz, I hope we'll see all duals in this guestimation:
- 2x2.0 @ $1999
- 2x2.5 @ $2499
- 2x3.0 @ $2999
Little cannibalism among pricepoints. Keep the single G5s for the iMac and PowerBook.edit: Basically what Kane wrote if I'd paid more attention to this thread. Sorry 'bout that.
Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
Originally posted by Commodus
Argh!
What is it with people who make unrealistic predictions?
Not to single anyone out in particular (I've seen at least a few others), but posts like THT's make me scratch my head in wonderment. Dual-processor iMacs? G4 and G5 "Minis?" I don't think so. While I can't rule it out, I'm even skeptical of dual-1.8 GHz G5s at the low end of the PowerMac lineup.
First off minis are hot in the market place right now. Second the new G5 is much larger than many people are willing ot deal with. As to the dual processor iMacs, it will happen sooner or later SMP is actually a cheaper way to improve performance. I wuold not be surprised if the SMP iMacs are a dual core solution.
Quote:
It'd be nice if people kept a few common things in mind before making a prediction:
1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.
Not at all - yes there is an incremental cost but it is not unmanageable. For certain classes of probelms the resultant machine can be a much bette performer thatn trying to buy a CPU fast enough to get the results you want.
Quote:
2. The iMac has a small enclosure, and probably can't fit two CPUs (at least, not without addressing heat first).
I suspect that the present IMac is dead. What they do to replace it is up in the air. But the issue of heat is a none issue G4's are running cooler than they have ever done in the past with the most recent revisions. We are talking here only a few watts beyond the original IMacs thermal load.
Quote:
3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.
While I'm not willing ot speculate on what is possible at Apple one only needs to look at the market to see what is need to fill out the product line. The G5 is big - that will turn off people right there. As I've said mini's are hot in the market place right now and the current IMacs are not meting sales expectations. This all adds up to something being offered to fill the voids. Headless or nt I do expect it to be a bit cheaper than the IMac, have limited expansion capability and a 970 based processor.
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
Look, child, waaay too many models. Considering the current G5 is barely expandable...
Old man, I'm not making a prediction. If I do, it'll be too depressing, therefore I put up what I want the lineup to be and close my ears to criticism. Lalalalalala... I can't hear you.
1. A high integration 970, that is a chip with an on board memory controller.
2. A new high integration bus interface chip. Since the memory controller is now gone and much bandwidth has been freed up this should work out nicely. This chip would supply all I/O for the machine. In otherwords SATA, USB, Firewire, Networking and a graphics port and whatever.
Note: This means that your logic board has two main chips, video and memroy to worry about.
3. Move to notebook form factor SATA drives. These should just be coming on the market and will save on power and space.
4. No sound hardware, rely instead on external USB speakers.
I realize that as described above we loose a bit of flexibility, it the expansion realm, but how many people even bother to put PCI cards in their machines anymore. With a bit of design effort though this machine could fit inot a lunch box. And that would be without the minitaurized mother boards of a portable. This brings up the interesting possibility of using existing portable chipsets or even more so a freshly design 970 chipset for both portable and compact usage.
Look at it this way if a whole computer can be stuffed into a laptop it should be a piece of cake to do a mini desk top. I;m not talking the current PC route whcih has normal motherboards stuffed into mini or mivro enclosures, we are talking a motherboard purposefully designed for a minmalist machine.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by rickag
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).
Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
Originally posted by rickag
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).
Even though the 7457 has more transistors than the 970, it's die size (98 sq mm) is actually smaller than the 970 (118 sq mm). IBM's floorplan for the 970 seems atrocious considering how tightly they've packed the 750fx, 35 sq mm for 39M transistors. Since the 7457 is 20% smaller than the 970, and given the same yields, the 7457 should be cheaper.
If the 970 has much better yield than the 7457, than the 970 may be cheaper. Moto seems to have had a lot of yield problems with their 130 nm process, so the 970 may very well have been cheaper for a few months. Who knows.
Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
Apple sells an eMac with a 1 GHz 7455 CPU, combo optical, 128 MB RAM and 40 GB disk for 799$. They also sell an 800 MHz iBook G3 for 899$. Given the integration issues for these all-in-one machines, I'm sure they can sell a headless G4 mini for 700$. My G4 mini idea would just be the El Capitan case shrunk to a 12x12x9 size.
Originally posted by wizard69
Here is how to make a low costs feature rich mini.
1. A high integration 970, that is a chip with an on board memory controller.
2. A new high integration bus interface chip. Since the memory controller is now gone and much bandwidth has been freed up this should work out nicely. This chip would supply all I/O for the machine. In otherwords SATA, USB, Firewire, Networking and a graphics port and whatever.
Note: This means that your logic board has two main chips, video and memroy to worry about.
3. Move to notebook form factor SATA drives. These should just be coming on the market and will save on power and space.
4. No sound hardware, rely instead on external USB speakers.
I realize that as described above we loose a bit of flexibility, it the expansion realm, but how many people even bother to put PCI cards in their machines anymore. With a bit of design effort though this machine could fit inot a lunch box. And that would be without the minitaurized mother boards of a portable. This brings up the interesting possibility of using existing portable chipsets or even more so a freshly design 970 chipset for both portable and compact usage.
Look at it this way if a whole computer can be stuffed into a laptop it should be a piece of cake to do a mini desk top. I;m not talking the current PC route whcih has normal motherboards stuffed into mini or mivro enclosures, we are talking a motherboard purposefully designed for a minmalist machine.
Thanks
Dave
I don't see anything in the first three which is going to bring down costs.
1) Design/test/fabricate new processor - huge cost
2) Design/test/fabricate new controller - huge cost
3) Change to much more expensive discs.
Yes, you cold manage a simpler, cheaper motherboard, and getting rid of the PCI(X) would also reduce costs (although not much), same for the onboard audio.
A whole computer can be shoved into a very small form factor, but it is a lot more expensive than putting one in a big box.
If a new processor with onboard memory controller appears anyway, then it makes good sense to try something like this, but to design one specifically would be ludicrous at the volume it is likely to sell at.
michael