i predict that the 13/14" wide macintel iBook models announced in january 2006 will be pentium M based, single core of course, with ATI Radeon Mobility X600 hypermemory up to 128mb vram out of 512mb built in memory of the iBook
What graphics chipset do you all think will be in the new intel macs? Built in Intel graphics on iBook and maybe ATI or Nvidia higher end chipsets in the PowerBooks? I just wanted to give that some thought because everything lately is about the processors only. Mac laptops don't have the best graphics cards in them right now, look at the difference between the ATI 9700 and the Nvidia 6600 go chips. Apple needs to step it up for the intelMacs. Any thoughts?
in the later part of first half of 2006 i predict the macintel dualcore yonah powerbooks will be equipped with nvidia go 6 series, maybe even a go 6800 256mb vram
i predict that the 13/14" wide macintel iBook models announced in january 2006 will be pentium M based, single core of course, with ATI Radeon Mobility X600 hypermemory up to 128mb vram out of 512mb built in memory of the iBook
So you predict an iBook that outspecs the current PowerBooks in any way... Some great imagination there.
So you predict an iBook that outspecs the current PowerBooks in any way... Some great imagination there.
heh chucker, i'll see you back here in january do you realise how dated the powerbook specs are? pick up any brand-name or taiwanese-name PC brochure and look at the laptops... powerbooks have really fallen behind. nonetheless for pros on the move, those mac users would still really prefer the powerbook and rightly so. for ibooks though, pros would not consider it because if you get one jan 2006 you will be running rosetta for most apps *despite* spec-for-spec the ibooks outclassing the powerbooks. remember also a 14" wide 16:10 1280x800 is a lower resolution and smaller display than the 15". 5400rpm 60gb hard disks could go into the iBook 14" wide, but this would suggest powerbooks are bumped to 7200rpm standard on the 15" and 17"...............
my long winded point is that with pro apps not really intel ready, apple has quite a lot of space to play in the first quarter of 2006. by the time unviersal binary pro apps are ready, say middle of 2006, macintel powerbooks will also be ready then, probably.
heh chucker, i'll see you back here in january do you realise how dated the powerbook specs are?
A few weeks?
Quote:
pick up any brand-name or taiwanese-name PC brochure and look at the laptops... powerbooks have really fallen behind.
Aww come on. We've been through this just yesterday. I posted a comparison between a 17-inch Dell and a 17-inch PowerBook. The price difference amounted to maybe 10-15%, and that was with a significantly lighter and smaller PowerBook than the Dell, so the Dell still wouldn't have been a good choice for many people.
Are Apple laptops lacking? Absolutely. They need to move to a more scalable CPU arch (which is evidently happening), they need to move to a faster FSB (which is also inevitably going to happen at the same time) and they need to move to PCI Express-based cards (which is most likely also going to happen). And that's it.
Quote:
remember also a 14" wide 16:10 1280x800 is a lower resolution and smaller display than the 15".
Yes, yes it is. But it's still a much more compelling choice than the 12-inch PowerBook. Which I really hope Apple kills.
Quote:
5400rpm 60gb hard disks could go into the iBook 14" wide, but this would suggest powerbooks are bumped to 7200rpm standard on the 15" and 17"...............
Which is not going to happen, if only because 7200 RPM are too hot, loud and power-guzzling for most people.
Quote:
my long winded point is that with pro apps not really intel ready, apple has quite a lot of space to play in the first quarter of 2006. by the time unviersal binary pro apps are ready, say middle of 2006, macintel powerbooks will also be ready then, probably.
And for the time in between, you want their low-end laptop to be better in many ways than their other options?
yup i might have just scammed my way to getting a brand new macintel ibook by lining up some postgraduate studies...
"Aww come on. We've been through this just yesterday. I posted a comparison between a 17-inch Dell and a 17-inch PowerBook. The price difference amounted to maybe 10-15%, and that was with a significantly lighter and smaller PowerBook than the Dell, so the Dell still wouldn't have been a good choice for many people.
Are Apple laptops lacking? Absolutely. They need to move to a more scalable CPU arch (which is evidently happening), they need to move to a faster FSB (which is also inevitably going to happen at the same time) and they need to move to PCI Express-based cards (which is most likely also going to happen). And that's it."
okay, fair enough. just keeping the mac fans honest nah, it's just that i'm bitter about the apple tax ~ yes, i am an ungrateful bastard.
"Yes, yes it is. But it's still a much more compelling choice than the 12-inch PowerBook. Which I really hope Apple kills."
yeah, 12-inch powerbook (with nvidia go 5200!!! wow!!)
is hmmm, not that stellar right now.
"Which is not going to happen, if only because 7200 RPM are too hot, loud and power-guzzling for most people."
well... apparently 5400rpm drives are in strong demand so if seagate, maxtor, toshiba, or some genius comes out economical and quiet 7200rpm drives (just around the corner) that would be perfect for apple powerbooks...
"And for the time in between, you want their low-end laptop to be better in many ways than their other options?"
yes. because i am planning to get an ibook in january or february, 12 inch or 14 inch widescreen and I WILL NOT pay for a powerbook (just totally not worth it and not right for me right now)
I think the Mac Mini will gain PCIe, DDR2 and use cheap and low-power graphics chipsets with little onboard memory such as the Nvidia GeForce 6200 32MB Turbo Cache or 32MB ATI x1300 with Hypermemory.
They'll be a vast improvement over the ATI 9200 in the Mini yet won't compete with anything in the iMac or PowerMac.
dude, no offense but are you high or something? no way apple is going to put an X1300 in a MAC MINI - the imac G5 only has an X600...! yes, the X300 is old but a lot of people are still using it, and fer chrissakes apple is still using a 9200 for the mac mini... and this is better than intel gma900 rubbish out there on many a Dull...!
As far as I know, they've never done shared video memory though (at least since the 68040 days).
Amorya
Actually, Apple uses shared memory video in one model in 2005 - and, in fact, in the ONLY Intel-CPU model they sell! The developer kit machine. So, the only real evidence so far is that Apple WILL use shared memory video.
The people on this board just want to believe so many things that they completely ignore facts in their wild speculation.
I'm seeing PCI-e standard on the highend and iMac; with SLI as an option on the Powermacs. Hopefully you can buy PC videocards and just put them in this time around, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't provided that they have Mac OS X drivers (because now there's no architecture difference and need for different flashes of ROM, unless I'm missing something)
I'm seeing PCI-e standard on the highend and iMac; with SLI as an option on the Powermacs.
I don't see SLI happening. Note that it's an nVidia-proprietary technique. ATi has their own called CrossFire. There is no standard for this at this point, and even if there was, there would be little to no use for Apple for these kinds of setups.
Quote:
Hopefully you can buy PC videocards and just put them in this time around, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't provided that they have Mac OS X drivers (because now there's no architecture difference and need for different flashes of ROM, unless I'm missing something)
The architecture never had anything to do with that. OpenFirmware vs. BIOS did. If Apple were to use EFI, maybe there'll be a backwards-compatible layer so no need for additional drivers, but I'm not looking forward to that either... think 512x384 resolution when booting. Yeouch.
... The architecture never had anything to do with that. OpenFirmware vs. BIOS did. ...
Actually, I think Placebo is partly right; the difference of the board had to do both with OF and the endian issue. EFI is not ready, and in the Intel/PC world there is no realistic alternative to BIOS at this time.
Now here's my speculation: This whole transition is about eliminating the Mac quirks. People should be able to buy a video card, period. Soon, they will. (Note: this is pure speculation. If you want to believe that Apple will produce quirky hardware so consumers can continue to get ripped off, go ahead. The only actual evidence we have is the developer system, and it's as generic as a PC can be.)
dude, no offense but are you high or something? no way apple is going to put an X1300 in a MAC MINI - the imac G5 only has an X600...! yes, the X300 is old but a lot of people are still using it, and fer chrissakes apple is still using a 9200 for the mac mini... and this is better than intel gma900 rubbish out there on many a Dull...!
You're wrong. There's one feature of the X1300 Apple can't resist -- hardware H.264 acceleration. And the 64bit memory ATI 9200 is not better than the GMA900 or GMA950--every benchmark shows it.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother arguing with zealots.
Comments
Originally posted by MjolnirMkII
What graphics chipset do you all think will be in the new intel macs? Built in Intel graphics on iBook and maybe ATI or Nvidia higher end chipsets in the PowerBooks? I just wanted to give that some thought because everything lately is about the processors only. Mac laptops don't have the best graphics cards in them right now, look at the difference between the ATI 9700 and the Nvidia 6600 go chips. Apple needs to step it up for the intelMacs. Any thoughts?
in the later part of first half of 2006 i predict the macintel dualcore yonah powerbooks will be equipped with nvidia go 6 series, maybe even a go 6800 256mb vram
Originally posted by sunilraman
i predict that the 13/14" wide macintel iBook models announced in january 2006 will be pentium M based, single core of course, with ATI Radeon Mobility X600 hypermemory up to 128mb vram out of 512mb built in memory of the iBook
So you predict an iBook that outspecs the current PowerBooks in any way... Some great imagination there.
Next?
So you predict an iBook that outspecs the current PowerBooks in any way... Some great imagination there.
heh
my long winded point is that with pro apps not really intel ready, apple has quite a lot of space to play in the first quarter of 2006. by the time unviersal binary pro apps are ready, say middle of 2006, macintel powerbooks will also be ready then, probably.
Originally posted by sunilraman
heh
A few weeks?
pick up any brand-name or taiwanese-name PC brochure and look at the laptops... powerbooks have really fallen behind.
Aww come on. We've been through this just yesterday. I posted a comparison between a 17-inch Dell and a 17-inch PowerBook. The price difference amounted to maybe 10-15%, and that was with a significantly lighter and smaller PowerBook than the Dell, so the Dell still wouldn't have been a good choice for many people.
Are Apple laptops lacking? Absolutely. They need to move to a more scalable CPU arch (which is evidently happening), they need to move to a faster FSB (which is also inevitably going to happen at the same time) and they need to move to PCI Express-based cards (which is most likely also going to happen). And that's it.
remember also a 14" wide 16:10 1280x800 is a lower resolution and smaller display than the 15".
Yes, yes it is. But it's still a much more compelling choice than the 12-inch PowerBook. Which I really hope Apple kills.
5400rpm 60gb hard disks could go into the iBook 14" wide, but this would suggest powerbooks are bumped to 7200rpm standard on the 15" and 17"...............
Which is not going to happen, if only because 7200 RPM are too hot, loud and power-guzzling for most people.
my long winded point is that with pro apps not really intel ready, apple has quite a lot of space to play in the first quarter of 2006. by the time unviersal binary pro apps are ready, say middle of 2006, macintel powerbooks will also be ready then, probably.
And for the time in between, you want their low-end laptop to be better in many ways than their other options?
yup
"Aww come on. We've been through this just yesterday. I posted a comparison between a 17-inch Dell and a 17-inch PowerBook. The price difference amounted to maybe 10-15%, and that was with a significantly lighter and smaller PowerBook than the Dell, so the Dell still wouldn't have been a good choice for many people.
Are Apple laptops lacking? Absolutely. They need to move to a more scalable CPU arch (which is evidently happening), they need to move to a faster FSB (which is also inevitably going to happen at the same time) and they need to move to PCI Express-based cards (which is most likely also going to happen). And that's it."
okay, fair enough. just keeping the mac fans honest
"Yes, yes it is. But it's still a much more compelling choice than the 12-inch PowerBook. Which I really hope Apple kills."
yeah, 12-inch powerbook (with nvidia go 5200!!! wow!!)
is hmmm, not that stellar right now.
"Which is not going to happen, if only because 7200 RPM are too hot, loud and power-guzzling for most people."
well... apparently 5400rpm drives are in strong demand so if seagate, maxtor, toshiba, or some genius comes out economical and quiet 7200rpm drives (just around the corner) that would be perfect for apple powerbooks...
"And for the time in between, you want their low-end laptop to be better in many ways than their other options?"
yes. because i am planning to get an ibook in january or february, 12 inch or 14 inch widescreen and I WILL NOT pay for a powerbook (just totally not worth it and not right for me right now)
They'll be a vast improvement over the ATI 9200 in the Mini yet won't compete with anything in the iMac or PowerMac.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I wouldn't be that surprised if Apple came out with a lower-cost iBook with integrated graphics.
If Apple does sell an iBook with integrated graphics then it will be their low-end ("emachine") model which might be what they sell/lease to schools.
Originally posted by sunilraman
umm... you mean x300 hypermemory not x1300 right?
X1300.
An X1300 with 32 or 64 MB onboard and Hypermemory would probably cost Apple around $25.
The X300 is old.
Originally posted by Amorya
As far as I know, they've never done shared video memory though (at least since the 68040 days).
Amorya
Actually, Apple uses shared memory video in one model in 2005 - and, in fact, in the ONLY Intel-CPU model they sell! The developer kit machine. So, the only real evidence so far is that Apple WILL use shared memory video.
The people on this board just want to believe so many things that they completely ignore facts in their wild speculation.
Originally posted by cubist
Actually, Apple uses shared memory video in one model in 2005 - and, in fact, in the ONLY Intel-CPU model they sell!
Except Steve has explicitly stated that the DTK is not to be considered a product, and that it says very little about future Macs, Intel-based or not.
Originally posted by cubist
Actually, Apple uses shared memory video in one model in 2005 - and, in fact, in the ONLY Intel-CPU model they sell! The developer kit machine.
In fact they do not sell the developer kit
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm seeing PCI-e standard on the highend and iMac; with SLI as an option on the Powermacs.
I don't see SLI happening. Note that it's an nVidia-proprietary technique. ATi has their own called CrossFire. There is no standard for this at this point, and even if there was, there would be little to no use for Apple for these kinds of setups.
Hopefully you can buy PC videocards and just put them in this time around, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't provided that they have Mac OS X drivers (because now there's no architecture difference and need for different flashes of ROM, unless I'm missing something)
The architecture never had anything to do with that. OpenFirmware vs. BIOS did. If Apple were to use EFI, maybe there'll be a backwards-compatible layer so no need for additional drivers, but I'm not looking forward to that either... think 512x384 resolution when booting. Yeouch.
Originally posted by Chucker
... The architecture never had anything to do with that. OpenFirmware vs. BIOS did. ...
Actually, I think Placebo is partly right; the difference of the board had to do both with OF and the endian issue. EFI is not ready, and in the Intel/PC world there is no realistic alternative to BIOS at this time.
Now here's my speculation: This whole transition is about eliminating the Mac quirks. People should be able to buy a video card, period. Soon, they will. (Note: this is pure speculation. If you want to believe that Apple will produce quirky hardware so consumers can continue to get ripped off, go ahead. The only actual evidence we have is the developer system, and it's as generic as a PC can be.)
Originally posted by cubist
Actually, I think Placebo is partly right; the difference of the board had to do both with OF and the endian issue.
Um. What can a ROM do about endian? And as far as I know, GPUs' endianness is entirely irrelevant of that of the CPU.
EFI is not ready, and in the Intel/PC world there is no realistic alternative to BIOS at this time.
This is the first time I hear that EFI is not an option to Apple.
Originally posted by sunilraman
dude, no offense but are you high or something?
You're wrong. There's one feature of the X1300 Apple can't resist -- hardware H.264 acceleration. And the 64bit memory ATI 9200 is not better than the GMA900 or GMA950--every benchmark shows it.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother arguing with zealots.