While iMac G5 sales have skyrocketed, PowerMac sales are have almost halved since since the G5's first quarter. Sales are worse than even the dark days of the PMG4. That either means that while Apple has become more desireable in the consumer market, it has become les desirable in the pro market, or because of the lackluster updates, nobody seems compelled to upgrade their machines. Either way this is bad for Apple.
For the success of the iMac and iPod + iTMS, i'm afraid the "cutting edge" aspect of Apple has been compromised to some degree. However, i'm pretty sure Apple will do something about it. 8)
There are many reasons why professionals would find the G5 Power Mac inadequate. One of those, I think, is the small value of the ratio ( internal expandability ) / ( case volume ) of the Power Mac, perhaps the smallest out there for this kind of machine.
List:
1. Only 3 PCI-X slots.
2. Only 3 USB Ports. Comparable PCs have 6.
3. No Professional Graphics. Consumer card drivers are poor and lack features.
4. Only a Single Optical drive slot.
5. Only two hard drive slots
When it comes right down to it, Apple tried to fit a dual processor workstation in a box the about size of a single processor ATX case. Apple had to make compromises as a result. Apple should have made a SP PowerMac G5 with an ample supply of expansion slots and a second Optical/ Hard drive bay and a six inch deeper DP xStation G5. However, Apple (As usual) choose to go with the aesthetic route over the practical one.
3. No Professional Graphics. Consumer card drivers are poor and lack features.
4. Only a Single Optical drive slot.
5. Only two hard drive slots.
I think 1 and 2 are not really that important. The 3 slots and ports included now are just fine. But the lack of external and internal drive bays are major misfeatures of the G5 case that prevent Power Mac buyers from buying.
Professional graphics cards could open up the 3D graphics market to Apple, but that would be a 2-pronged problem: good drivers for the cards and good applications be it ports or new both need to be there to enter the market. That's a tough problem.
Lastly, I think price plays a very important factor. The G5 prices 1.5 years ago was great. The price now isn't. It should have been pushed down into the $1500 to $2500 range, all duals at 1.8, 2.1 and 2.5 GHz, last January. But Apple is a margin hungry corporation. You'd think they would run the numbers and find out that either keeping the prices the same and selling less units or lowering the prices and selling more units would both turn out to be about the same in revenue or profit. The scary thought is that they did, and they know they won't be selling more units.
3. No Professional Graphics. Consumer card drivers are poor and lack features.
4. Only a Single Optical drive slot.
5. Only two hard drive slots
1. Stuff like modems,Airport cards, Bluetooth don't take up a PCI slot so you can actually "use" the 3 slots for vertical market cards. PCs typically have 5 or 6 slots but if you don't have a well integrated motherboard you're filling a few slots with the basics.
2. Comparable PCs are home based. Workstations don't use many USB devices. Unless dongles count<wink>
3. The Mac drivers on these cards support more features than their windows counterparts.
4. Never really understood the hype about dual optical drives. One very fast one seems preferrable.
5. Would love to see 3 drive bays myself but external drives seem to be more flexible for Pros who are managing multiple projects.
A Powermac isn't a Dell Dimension folks. They're aimed at folks that will toss in a $2000 cards or run external RAID. Folks that I see just beat and hammer on their Powermacs day in and day out and they survive and thrive.
I hang out like a fly on the wall and listen to these guys and gals talk. They love their Macs and they don't obsess about what the windows PC has. They design a system around the way "they" work and get to being productive.
Then I come to AI where it's obvious that a majority of us don't make our living with our computer so we have the time to sit and obsess over specs and missing drive bays. It's really comical.
sites where Pros hang out do not resemble AI folks. These people are billing by the hour and they don't fall for every little marketing spiel they receive. Sorry
Bingo. Mac Sales total around a million for the quarter. Sales of PS3, Xbox 360, and Revolution will be about 40 million per quarter. They may be cheaper chips, but IBM will still end up making about ten times more on video game chips. IBM probably found out what motorolla did: with only one user, making consumer desktop PowerPCs isn't cost effective. It's not like IBM is a charity for Apple or us, They're in business to make money.
I think they will be cheaper chips, the Cell, Xenon et al, not maybe. These chips are going into game boxes in the $200 to $400 range. 970fx CPUs go into Macs currently no cheaper than $1100. So, IBM could be making 5x to 10x the money per 970 CPU than they would with the game box CPUs. Not sure that as a business, I would give that up.
It could even be that IBM will lose money early with every Cell, 212 sq mm chip at 50 to 100 USD per chip, compared to a 970mp, ~160 sq mm chip at $200 to $500 USD per chip. IBM is likely counting on some healthy 65 nm Cell, Xenon, "Revolution" chips sales to recover the investment cost at 90 nm.
Also, lets not forget that for every G5 Mac sold, IBM has at least 2 chips sold, the 970 CPU and the system ASIC. For the duals that's 3 chips sold, all likely at a profit. Tough for corporation to give up healthy margins.
I think they will be cheaper chips, the Cell, Xenon et al, not maybe. These chips are going into game boxes in the $200 to $400 range. 970fx CPUs go into Macs currently no cheaper than $1100. ... Also, lets not forget that for every G5 Mac sold, IBM has at least 2 chips sold, the 970 CPU and the system ASIC. For the duals that's 3 chips sold, all likely at a profit. Tough for corporation to give up healthy margins.
I don't think all the chips are $1100, because Apple's selling G5 iMacs for less than that in the refurb store. My guess is they're more like $400 for the CPU and ASIC together. For a dual, $800 or so. Of the million machines per quarter that Apple is selling, fewer than half of them are 970s.
And what about IBM's costs? A fab costs billions of dollars to build, and you can only make so many millions of chips in it per month. Research ties up fab capabilities that could be making sellable chips, and you can bet Microsoft is paying a premium for the first big batch of xbox processors. There's no excess fab capability looking for work - IBM has to juggle all the paying customers.
I don't think all the chips are $1100, because Apple's selling G5 iMacs for less than that in the refurb store. My guess is they're more like $400 for the CPU and ASIC together. For a dual, $800 or so. Of the million machines per quarter that Apple is selling, fewer than half of them are 970s.
And what about IBM's costs? A fab costs billions of dollars to build, and you can only make so many millions of chips in it per month. Research ties up fab capabilities that could be making sellable chips, and you can bet Microsoft is paying a premium for the first big batch of xbox processors. There's no excess fab capability looking for work - IBM has to juggle all the paying customers.
I think he meant that the 970's are going into machines that list for no less than $1100, not that the chips themselves command that premium.
1. Stuff like modems,Airport cards, Bluetooth don't take up a PCI slot so you can actually "use" the 3 slots for vertical market cards. PCs typically have 5 or 6 slots but if you don't have a well integrated motherboard you're filling a few slots with the basics.
High end graphics card: 2 slots
Revolution 7.1 Card: 1 Slot
TV Tuner card: 1 Slot (Hopefully Apple improves compatibility and offers a DVR iApp in the near future)
Delta 44 audio interface: 1 slot
Total: 5 slots
I could buy a seperate machine for music and home purposes, but unlike some I don't exactly have money growing off of trees here.
Quote:
3. The Mac drivers on these cards support more features than their windows counterparts.
I've seen the Forceware and Catalyst drivers on the windows side. They are better written and have more features. ATI's Mac drivers aren't that bad, but the Nvidia drivers are a joke.
Quote:
4. Never really understood the hype about dual optical drives. One very fast one seems preferrable.
Try copying a home DVD or a CD you made without a second read only drive. It's a pain.
Quote:
A Powermac isn't a Dell Dimension folks. They're aimed at folks that will toss in a $2000 cards or run external RAID. Folks that I see just beat and hammer on their Powermacs day in and day out and they survive and thrive.
[/B]
It's the closest thing we have. Why don't all we home and prosumer users just leave the platform to leave it to the purity of the graphics and publishing professionals. Of course we make up 60% of sales and most of Apple's profits, but that isn't important is it? Now that I think of it, about 30% of the PowerMac sales go to gamers, so you can throw those out too. I'm sick of the 'if you need more than Apple gives you, you're not worthy of the platform' attitude.
In many ways I do agree with you all. It certainly wouldn't hurt for Apple to add another drive bay or optical bay.
I don't think we need the ego boosting inlation of specs that some larger PCs have. But Apple would do good to offer a wee bit more expandability.
I think that most(meaning %80) of mac consumers can get by with 4 PCI based slots whether they be PCI-X/PCI-Express or standard PCI.
You can fill your slots up easily but I think that people tend to have this neurotic desire to stuff everything in the box. I hate internal audio audio cards. Who cares if you have 24/96 if you have a bunch of buzzing and static in your line?
Hell I'd rather have the optical and other removable media seperated from the body of the computer and linked over a high speed digital interface. Then the body could be as ugly and plain as it wants to be whilst I have a nice compact desktop unit. Someday I'm going to model this with a 3D app.
I remember similar platitudes from when we were all waiting for Motorola's mythical 8400 G5. . .
The Motorola G5 was NEVER ready. What if Apple's IBM relationship has taken a turn down the same road? What if the reason IBM won't deliver a dual-core CPU to Apple is that it's not worth the investment because the Apple's volumes are too tiny? . . .
So much worry here about IBM losing interest in Apple's dual core chip, as business picks up for game console CPUs. (Not just you junkyard.) While IBM can't put as many resources behind the 970 family now, as Apple is not IBM's only customer, nonetheless the dual core 970 has high priority IMHO.
IBM has been very active with x86 servers too, but this is to keep in front of the pack in the server market. Beneath it all, IBM is working to build up the Power and Power PC line of servers. IBM want to dominate that market with its own chips, not those of Intel and AMD. IBM will support these other chip makers as long as it's to IBM's advantage, by giving customers a choice.
The dual core 970 should play a key role in IBM's own blade servers. On top of that, it is a key chip for getting the message out that Power PC is the best, or at least one of the best. IBM has stated its goal publicly -- Power everywhere.
So much worry here about IBM losing interest in Apple's dual core chip, as business picks up for game console CPUs. (Not just you junkyard.) While IBM can't put as many resources behind the 970 family now, as Apple is not IBM's only customer, nonetheless the dual core 970 has high priority IMHO.
IBM has been very active with x86 servers too, but this is to keep in front of the pack in the server market. Beneath it all, IBM is working to build up the Power and Power PC line of servers. IBM want to dominate that market with its own chips, not those of Intel and AMD. IBM will support these other chip makers as long as it's to IBM's advantage, by giving customers a choice.
The dual core 970 should play a key role in IBM's own blade servers. On top of that, it is a key chip for getting the message out that Power PC is the best, or at least one of the best. IBM has stated its goal publicly -- Power everywhere.
At least that was the case two years ago. Sometimes things don't takeoff like you want them to. I'd be very interested to see the sales numbers for both the JS20 and HS20 blades.
I remember similar platitudes from when we were all waiting for Motorola's mythical 8400 G5. The Register even had articles on Moto's new G5 beast, that was supposedly going to be on Hypertransport muthaboard and would have a fast on-die memory controller.
The Motorola G5 was NEVER ready. What if Apple's IBM relationship has taken a turn down the same road? What if the reason IBM won't deliver a dual-core CPU to Apple is that it's not worth the investment because the Apple's volumes are too tiny?
This is why I hope TS's reputation craters with the release of new Powermacs.
I'm sorry, but there's just no comparison. During the time in question, Moto's semiconductor unit was hemorraging money along with many other lines of business. As I recall their only profitable business unit was their cell phone division. If I recall correctly, a new CEO came in also. I'm not sure about that last one though. In any case, it was well publicised that all future processor projects were cancelled, and only existing designs would continue to be manufactured until they figured out what to do with the division. It was insane, R&D spending was out of control and their fabs had developed a horrible reputation in the industry. So basically they were designing chips that they didn't know how to manufacture. Rumors of new chip designs from Moto didn't turn up until the unit was spun off and Freescale was formed. Moto basically put the unit on hold until it figured out what to do with it.
That's why the Moto G5 got killed. It had nothing to do with Apple. Heck Moto is still making all the G4s for Apple.
On the other hand we have IBM. Their semiconductor division is highly profitable, and they've consistently announced that Fishkill is open for business to whomever needed processors. I don't think a matter of volume is the problem. Apple's tied to the G5 now. If it weren't currently worth it to IBM then they would just jack up the unit price, not kill the line. And don't forget, IBM has invested R&D dollars into the 970. They will seek to recoup that no matter what. I think Apple's safe with IBM.
This waiting sucks I need a new PowerMac, but won't get one without PCI Express. I keep my Macs for several years and don't want to get left behind with AGP. Luckily I'm in a position to wait. But just because we're all going crazy because of the wait, this doesn't mean we have to drum up crazy theories about why the update (which we still know nothing about) is taking so long.
If Apple had any other options, the PowerPC 7447 wouldn't be used anymore. Believe me, Apple isn't happy to be stuck with things like a 167mhz SDR bus and 4x AGP. The 970 is too power hungry, so Apple really have a choice. Freescale isn't making custom designs for Apple anymore. If it won't help their embedded market, they won't make it.
Agree. Blackmagic's MultiBridge is only available in 4 pipe PCI-e. Connect to a Mac? Sure if you buy an extra cost adaptor.
I'm pretty happy to see Blackmagic getting into PCI-E early. I but you dollars to donuts that next NAB will be a coming out party for PCI Express and video products.
I heard the guys from AJA kind of postulate that some changes would need to happen to make some functions realtime. That sounds like they mean a good PCI-E implementation.
I'm pretty happy to see Blackmagic getting into PCI-E early. I but you dollars to donuts that next NAB will be a coming out party for PCI Express and video products.
Read somewhere that PCI-e is actually cheaper to accommodate than PCI-x.
Read somewhere that PCI-e is actually cheaper to accommodate than PCI-x.
It should be. The cost/complexity of parallels signals comes from running all those tiny and individual traces around the motherboard. Replace that with a wicked fast serial pipeline and your electrical engineers actually get to go home early
The 970 is too power hungry, so Apple [doesn't] really have a choice.
Oh, I think they have a choice, and they choose not to migrate all of their lineup to the G5 CPU, amongst other features. They choose to have a super small form factor for the Mac mini. They choose to have super small form factors for their laptops. They choose to have all-in-one form factors for their low-cost desktops.
I can understand the laptops not having a 970-based CPU, but with desktops, there is nothing holding them back. A 1.6 GHz 970fx is what, 35 Watts max. A 1.8 GHz 970fx is probably 40 Watts. There's nothing technical holding Apple back from putting them into a $500 desktop. There's nothing technical holding them back from shipping a slightly upgradable (2 DIMM slots and a graphics slot) desktop with 1.6 to 2+ GHz desktops starting at $800.
There's nothing technical holding them back from shipping a 1.5 inch thick Powerbook G5 either. Also, instead of having Power Mac G5 lineup of 1.8, 2.0, 2.5, they could have shipped a 2.0, 2.2 and 2.5 GHz lineup, with Radeon 9600 cards as standard. Those are all choices that they could make or could have made.
The current lineup they have now - high-end desktop G5 and power sensitive all-in-one G5 - is also not very optimal for inventory either. If they had low-end and mid-range G5 desktops, 970 CPU, support ASICs, and graphics chips all could be waterfalled down the lineup as new higher perfomance parts (that always go into the high-end machines first) are shipped. The way they have it now, they have to squeeze the PowerMac channel dry or make sure their inventory goes down to a certain number before a revision can be shipped. I thought that was the point of the unified architecture awhile back.
It's very unusual the choices they have made. Aesthetic design rules all at Apple.
Comments
Originally posted by BenRoethig
While iMac G5 sales have skyrocketed, PowerMac sales are have almost halved since since the G5's first quarter. Sales are worse than even the dark days of the PMG4. That either means that while Apple has become more desireable in the consumer market, it has become les desirable in the pro market, or because of the lackluster updates, nobody seems compelled to upgrade their machines. Either way this is bad for Apple.
For the success of the iMac and iPod + iTMS, i'm afraid the "cutting edge" aspect of Apple has been compromised to some degree. However, i'm pretty sure Apple will do something about it. 8)
Originally posted by PB
There are many reasons why professionals would find the G5 Power Mac inadequate. One of those, I think, is the small value of the ratio ( internal expandability ) / ( case volume ) of the Power Mac, perhaps the smallest out there for this kind of machine.
List:
1. Only 3 PCI-X slots.
2. Only 3 USB Ports. Comparable PCs have 6.
3. No Professional Graphics. Consumer card drivers are poor and lack features.
4. Only a Single Optical drive slot.
5. Only two hard drive slots
When it comes right down to it, Apple tried to fit a dual processor workstation in a box the about size of a single processor ATX case. Apple had to make compromises as a result. Apple should have made a SP PowerMac G5 with an ample supply of expansion slots and a second Optical/ Hard drive bay and a six inch deeper DP xStation G5. However, Apple (As usual) choose to go with the aesthetic route over the practical one.
Originally posted by hmurchison
...and then fed 10lbs of haggis :.
Ahh, Haggis - The reason the Scots invented Whisky - Eating it without a few drams in you is cruel and unusual punishment
Originally posted by BenRoethig
List:
1. Only 3 PCI-X slots.
2. Only 3 USB Ports. Comparable PCs have 6.
3. No Professional Graphics. Consumer card drivers are poor and lack features.
4. Only a Single Optical drive slot.
5. Only two hard drive slots.
I think 1 and 2 are not really that important. The 3 slots and ports included now are just fine. But the lack of external and internal drive bays are major misfeatures of the G5 case that prevent Power Mac buyers from buying.
Professional graphics cards could open up the 3D graphics market to Apple, but that would be a 2-pronged problem: good drivers for the cards and good applications be it ports or new both need to be there to enter the market. That's a tough problem.
Lastly, I think price plays a very important factor. The G5 prices 1.5 years ago was great. The price now isn't. It should have been pushed down into the $1500 to $2500 range, all duals at 1.8, 2.1 and 2.5 GHz, last January. But Apple is a margin hungry corporation. You'd think they would run the numbers and find out that either keeping the prices the same and selling less units or lowering the prices and selling more units would both turn out to be about the same in revenue or profit. The scary thought is that they did, and they know they won't be selling more units.
1. Only 3 PCI-X slots.
2. Only 3 USB Ports. Comparable PCs have 6.
3. No Professional Graphics. Consumer card drivers are poor and lack features.
4. Only a Single Optical drive slot.
5. Only two hard drive slots
1. Stuff like modems,Airport cards, Bluetooth don't take up a PCI slot so you can actually "use" the 3 slots for vertical market cards. PCs typically have 5 or 6 slots but if you don't have a well integrated motherboard you're filling a few slots with the basics.
2. Comparable PCs are home based. Workstations don't use many USB devices. Unless dongles count<wink>
3. The Mac drivers on these cards support more features than their windows counterparts.
4. Never really understood the hype about dual optical drives. One very fast one seems preferrable.
5. Would love to see 3 drive bays myself but external drives seem to be more flexible for Pros who are managing multiple projects.
A Powermac isn't a Dell Dimension folks. They're aimed at folks that will toss in a $2000 cards or run external RAID. Folks that I see just beat and hammer on their Powermacs day in and day out and they survive and thrive.
I hang out like a fly on the wall and listen to these guys and gals talk. They love their Macs and they don't obsess about what the windows PC has. They design a system around the way "they" work and get to being productive.
Then I come to AI where it's obvious that a majority of us don't make our living with our computer so we have the time to sit and obsess over specs and missing drive bays. It's really comical.
sites where Pros hang out do not resemble AI folks. These people are billing by the hour and they don't fall for every little marketing spiel they receive. Sorry
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Bingo. Mac Sales total around a million for the quarter. Sales of PS3, Xbox 360, and Revolution will be about 40 million per quarter. They may be cheaper chips, but IBM will still end up making about ten times more on video game chips. IBM probably found out what motorolla did: with only one user, making consumer desktop PowerPCs isn't cost effective. It's not like IBM is a charity for Apple or us, They're in business to make money.
I think they will be cheaper chips, the Cell, Xenon et al, not maybe. These chips are going into game boxes in the $200 to $400 range. 970fx CPUs go into Macs currently no cheaper than $1100. So, IBM could be making 5x to 10x the money per 970 CPU than they would with the game box CPUs. Not sure that as a business, I would give that up.
It could even be that IBM will lose money early with every Cell, 212 sq mm chip at 50 to 100 USD per chip, compared to a 970mp, ~160 sq mm chip at $200 to $500 USD per chip. IBM is likely counting on some healthy 65 nm Cell, Xenon, "Revolution" chips sales to recover the investment cost at 90 nm.
Also, lets not forget that for every G5 Mac sold, IBM has at least 2 chips sold, the 970 CPU and the system ASIC. For the duals that's 3 chips sold, all likely at a profit. Tough for corporation to give up healthy margins.
Originally posted by THT
I think they will be cheaper chips, the Cell, Xenon et al, not maybe. These chips are going into game boxes in the $200 to $400 range. 970fx CPUs go into Macs currently no cheaper than $1100. ... Also, lets not forget that for every G5 Mac sold, IBM has at least 2 chips sold, the 970 CPU and the system ASIC. For the duals that's 3 chips sold, all likely at a profit. Tough for corporation to give up healthy margins.
I don't think all the chips are $1100, because Apple's selling G5 iMacs for less than that in the refurb store. My guess is they're more like $400 for the CPU and ASIC together. For a dual, $800 or so. Of the million machines per quarter that Apple is selling, fewer than half of them are 970s.
And what about IBM's costs? A fab costs billions of dollars to build, and you can only make so many millions of chips in it per month. Research ties up fab capabilities that could be making sellable chips, and you can bet Microsoft is paying a premium for the first big batch of xbox processors. There's no excess fab capability looking for work - IBM has to juggle all the paying customers.
Originally posted by cubist
I don't think all the chips are $1100, because Apple's selling G5 iMacs for less than that in the refurb store. My guess is they're more like $400 for the CPU and ASIC together. For a dual, $800 or so. Of the million machines per quarter that Apple is selling, fewer than half of them are 970s.
And what about IBM's costs? A fab costs billions of dollars to build, and you can only make so many millions of chips in it per month. Research ties up fab capabilities that could be making sellable chips, and you can bet Microsoft is paying a premium for the first big batch of xbox processors. There's no excess fab capability looking for work - IBM has to juggle all the paying customers.
I think he meant that the 970's are going into machines that list for no less than $1100, not that the chips themselves command that premium.
Originally posted by hmurchison
1. Stuff like modems,Airport cards, Bluetooth don't take up a PCI slot so you can actually "use" the 3 slots for vertical market cards. PCs typically have 5 or 6 slots but if you don't have a well integrated motherboard you're filling a few slots with the basics.
High end graphics card: 2 slots
Revolution 7.1 Card: 1 Slot
TV Tuner card: 1 Slot (Hopefully Apple improves compatibility and offers a DVR iApp in the near future)
Delta 44 audio interface: 1 slot
Total: 5 slots
I could buy a seperate machine for music and home purposes, but unlike some I don't exactly have money growing off of trees here.
3. The Mac drivers on these cards support more features than their windows counterparts.
I've seen the Forceware and Catalyst drivers on the windows side. They are better written and have more features. ATI's Mac drivers aren't that bad, but the Nvidia drivers are a joke.
4. Never really understood the hype about dual optical drives. One very fast one seems preferrable.
Try copying a home DVD or a CD you made without a second read only drive. It's a pain.
A Powermac isn't a Dell Dimension folks. They're aimed at folks that will toss in a $2000 cards or run external RAID. Folks that I see just beat and hammer on their Powermacs day in and day out and they survive and thrive.
[/B]
It's the closest thing we have. Why don't all we home and prosumer users just leave the platform to leave it to the purity of the graphics and publishing professionals. Of course we make up 60% of sales and most of Apple's profits, but that isn't important is it? Now that I think of it, about 30% of the PowerMac sales go to gamers, so you can throw those out too. I'm sick of the 'if you need more than Apple gives you, you're not worthy of the platform' attitude.
In many ways I do agree with you all. It certainly wouldn't hurt for Apple to add another drive bay or optical bay.
I don't think we need the ego boosting inlation of specs that some larger PCs have. But Apple would do good to offer a wee bit more expandability.
I think that most(meaning %80) of mac consumers can get by with 4 PCI based slots whether they be PCI-X/PCI-Express or standard PCI.
You can fill your slots up easily but I think that people tend to have this neurotic desire to stuff everything in the box. I hate internal audio audio cards. Who cares if you have 24/96 if you have a bunch of buzzing and static in your line?
Hell I'd rather have the optical and other removable media seperated from the body of the computer and linked over a high speed digital interface. Then the body could be as ugly and plain as it wants to be whilst I have a nice compact desktop unit. Someday I'm going to model this with a 3D app.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
I remember similar platitudes from when we were all waiting for Motorola's mythical 8400 G5. . .
The Motorola G5 was NEVER ready. What if Apple's IBM relationship has taken a turn down the same road? What if the reason IBM won't deliver a dual-core CPU to Apple is that it's not worth the investment because the Apple's volumes are too tiny? . . .
So much worry here about IBM losing interest in Apple's dual core chip, as business picks up for game console CPUs. (Not just you junkyard.) While IBM can't put as many resources behind the 970 family now, as Apple is not IBM's only customer, nonetheless the dual core 970 has high priority IMHO.
IBM has been very active with x86 servers too, but this is to keep in front of the pack in the server market. Beneath it all, IBM is working to build up the Power and Power PC line of servers. IBM want to dominate that market with its own chips, not those of Intel and AMD. IBM will support these other chip makers as long as it's to IBM's advantage, by giving customers a choice.
The dual core 970 should play a key role in IBM's own blade servers. On top of that, it is a key chip for getting the message out that Power PC is the best, or at least one of the best. IBM has stated its goal publicly -- Power everywhere.
Originally posted by snoopy
So much worry here about IBM losing interest in Apple's dual core chip, as business picks up for game console CPUs. (Not just you junkyard.) While IBM can't put as many resources behind the 970 family now, as Apple is not IBM's only customer, nonetheless the dual core 970 has high priority IMHO.
IBM has been very active with x86 servers too, but this is to keep in front of the pack in the server market. Beneath it all, IBM is working to build up the Power and Power PC line of servers. IBM want to dominate that market with its own chips, not those of Intel and AMD. IBM will support these other chip makers as long as it's to IBM's advantage, by giving customers a choice.
The dual core 970 should play a key role in IBM's own blade servers. On top of that, it is a key chip for getting the message out that Power PC is the best, or at least one of the best. IBM has stated its goal publicly -- Power everywhere.
At least that was the case two years ago. Sometimes things don't takeoff like you want them to. I'd be very interested to see the sales numbers for both the JS20 and HS20 blades.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
I remember similar platitudes from when we were all waiting for Motorola's mythical 8400 G5. The Register even had articles on Moto's new G5 beast, that was supposedly going to be on Hypertransport muthaboard and would have a fast on-die memory controller.
The Motorola G5 was NEVER ready. What if Apple's IBM relationship has taken a turn down the same road? What if the reason IBM won't deliver a dual-core CPU to Apple is that it's not worth the investment because the Apple's volumes are too tiny?
This is why I hope TS's reputation craters with the release of new Powermacs.
I'm sorry, but there's just no comparison. During the time in question, Moto's semiconductor unit was hemorraging money along with many other lines of business. As I recall their only profitable business unit was their cell phone division. If I recall correctly, a new CEO came in also. I'm not sure about that last one though. In any case, it was well publicised that all future processor projects were cancelled, and only existing designs would continue to be manufactured until they figured out what to do with the division. It was insane, R&D spending was out of control and their fabs had developed a horrible reputation in the industry. So basically they were designing chips that they didn't know how to manufacture. Rumors of new chip designs from Moto didn't turn up until the unit was spun off and Freescale was formed. Moto basically put the unit on hold until it figured out what to do with it.
That's why the Moto G5 got killed. It had nothing to do with Apple. Heck Moto is still making all the G4s for Apple.
On the other hand we have IBM. Their semiconductor division is highly profitable, and they've consistently announced that Fishkill is open for business to whomever needed processors. I don't think a matter of volume is the problem. Apple's tied to the G5 now. If it weren't currently worth it to IBM then they would just jack up the unit price, not kill the line. And don't forget, IBM has invested R&D dollars into the 970. They will seek to recoup that no matter what. I think Apple's safe with IBM.
This waiting sucks I need a new PowerMac, but won't get one without PCI Express. I keep my Macs for several years and don't want to get left behind with AGP. Luckily I'm in a position to wait. But just because we're all going crazy because of the wait, this doesn't mean we have to drum up crazy theories about why the update (which we still know nothing about) is taking so long.
Originally posted by Arty50
This waiting sucks I need a new PowerMac, but won't get one without PCI Express.
Agree. Blackmagic's MultiBridge is only available in 4 pipe PCI-e. Connect to a Mac? Sure if you buy an extra cost adaptor.
Originally posted by Arty50
IHeck Moto is still making all the G4s for Apple.
If Apple had any other options, the PowerPC 7447 wouldn't be used anymore. Believe me, Apple isn't happy to be stuck with things like a 167mhz SDR bus and 4x AGP. The 970 is too power hungry, so Apple really have a choice. Freescale isn't making custom designs for Apple anymore. If it won't help their embedded market, they won't make it.
Originally posted by Dave J
Agree. Blackmagic's MultiBridge is only available in 4 pipe PCI-e. Connect to a Mac? Sure if you buy an extra cost adaptor.
I'm pretty happy to see Blackmagic getting into PCI-E early. I but you dollars to donuts that next NAB will be a coming out party for PCI Express and video products.
I heard the guys from AJA kind of postulate that some changes would need to happen to make some functions realtime. That sounds like they mean a good PCI-E implementation.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm pretty happy to see Blackmagic getting into PCI-E early. I but you dollars to donuts that next NAB will be a coming out party for PCI Express and video products.
Read somewhere that PCI-e is actually cheaper to accommodate than PCI-x.
Originally posted by Dave J
Read somewhere that PCI-e is actually cheaper to accommodate than PCI-x.
It should be. The cost/complexity of parallels signals comes from running all those tiny and individual traces around the motherboard. Replace that with a wicked fast serial pipeline and your electrical engineers actually get to go home early
Originally posted by BenRoethig
The 970 is too power hungry, so Apple [doesn't] really have a choice.
Oh, I think they have a choice, and they choose not to migrate all of their lineup to the G5 CPU, amongst other features. They choose to have a super small form factor for the Mac mini. They choose to have super small form factors for their laptops. They choose to have all-in-one form factors for their low-cost desktops.
I can understand the laptops not having a 970-based CPU, but with desktops, there is nothing holding them back. A 1.6 GHz 970fx is what, 35 Watts max. A 1.8 GHz 970fx is probably 40 Watts. There's nothing technical holding Apple back from putting them into a $500 desktop. There's nothing technical holding them back from shipping a slightly upgradable (2 DIMM slots and a graphics slot) desktop with 1.6 to 2+ GHz desktops starting at $800.
There's nothing technical holding them back from shipping a 1.5 inch thick Powerbook G5 either. Also, instead of having Power Mac G5 lineup of 1.8, 2.0, 2.5, they could have shipped a 2.0, 2.2 and 2.5 GHz lineup, with Radeon 9600 cards as standard. Those are all choices that they could make or could have made.
The current lineup they have now - high-end desktop G5 and power sensitive all-in-one G5 - is also not very optimal for inventory either. If they had low-end and mid-range G5 desktops, 970 CPU, support ASICs, and graphics chips all could be waterfalled down the lineup as new higher perfomance parts (that always go into the high-end machines first) are shipped. The way they have it now, they have to squeeze the PowerMac channel dry or make sure their inventory goes down to a certain number before a revision can be shipped. I thought that was the point of the unified architecture awhile back.
It's very unusual the choices they have made. Aesthetic design rules all at Apple.