The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.
Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).
Any way, I'm surprised that more people haven't spoken about the possibility of adding cheaper machines to Apple's lineup. Why can't they introduce intel-based machines with dedicated GPUs at the current iBook/Mac mini price points, and introduce new products at lower price points with integrated GPUs. Sure, they won't be as powerful, but they will be cheaper. You don't really need Quartz 2D extreme or amazing 3D framerates to send e-mails and surf the web. Give customers the choice, that's what I say.
what are the odds Apple will have an on-board only video option for these upcoming Mac-mini's versus an upgradeable BTO?
intresting aspect, but i see this in a different way...
i dont see how apple could put a true 'upgradeable/bto' video solution in there considering the limited space in the mini, meaning every mini would have to be shipped with both a gma-950 and a ati-something chip soldered on the main board, but with the ati-chip disabled if you didnt pay for that.
(the old cripple-or-treat trick we're used to...)
i guess most will be ready to pay the extra dollar to get a descent video card, but for those who wont, apple will still have to pay for the ati-chip whether the buyer pays for it or not...
(and the firmware hackers will have the day of their life)
the on-board gma-950 in the intel imac could indicate apple was planning on playing this game with the imac buyers, but didnt for some reason...?
How would a mac mini with a celeron m and intel integrated video compare to the current ppc mac mini with a graphics card? I don't have the answer, but suspect that it could be a close race. How would it sell?
Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).
The difference is that Intel's 950 GMA has up to 10.6GB/s bandwidth on the front end with dual channel 667Mhz DDR2 RAM, so a non-Q2DE version of Quartz is actually pretty good on Intel. That is why I think the Intel Dev Kits got such good results over a G5 as both were running Quartz without the 2D extension that puts the data into the VRAM but the dev kit had more bandwidth.
If it means Apple can introduce a much cheaper iBook leaving a gap for a low end Mac Book Pro then I think it's a good idea. Especially for people who don't care one jot about 3D game performance or blazing fast core image manipulation. I'm perfectly happy with the graphics performance on my G3 500Mhz 8MB VRAM Rage128 iBook for a laptop in general usage. GMA 950 would be overkill by comparison.
How would a mac mini with a celeron m and intel integrated video compare to the current ppc mac mini with a graphics card? I don't have the answer, but suspect that it could be a close race. How would it sell?
In most aspects it would completely destroy the old model performance wise. And could also be cheaper, at least for Apple.
The problem always comes back to software though. And in the mini, lack of RAM and slow hard disks doesn't help either especially with a hungry app like Rosetta.
the on-board gma-950 in the intel imac could indicate apple was planning on playing this game with the imac buyers, but didnt for some reason...?
There's a 950 in the iMac?
I didn't know that. How odd. Perhaps it came as part of the whole chipset deal from Intel so they left it in there or maybe it can do something other than just video. Very odd.
Now gentlemen (and ladies too of course), I got too tied up working and behind on news. The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it? Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?
I'm just wondering how much change this brings to us - aside from speed gain and price drops - and how much upgrades we will have to do far as software goes. I am mainly running web designing and developer programs such as Dreaweaver, Photoshop, Flash etc., I am not sure if these app developers will have to put out versions for the new chip or not and we will have to upgrade.
In most aspects it would completely destroy the old model performance wise.
How? A MBP with a core duo is roughly 2x faster than a PB with a 1.67ghz ppc. 70% of that 2x speed improvement comes from the 2nd core. A celeron m wouldn't have that(2 cores). Throw in in the lack of a video card and it might be a close race.
The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it?
No, it's identical to the chips used by Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM etc on Windows based machines. Nothing special for Apple. We no longer think different.
Quote:
Originally posted by blade
Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally posted by blade
I'm just wondering how much change this brings to us - aside from speed gain and price drops - and how much upgrades we will have to do far as software goes.
The only speed gain so far is in laptops as Core is slower than the G5. Prices so far have remained the same or gone up slightly. The switch is about power consumption in laptops, not speed or price.
Software needs to be converted to a Universal binary with both PPC and Intel binaries in one package. This is either easy if your software was written with Apple's xCode or quite hard if it was written with CodeWarrior. Most large 3rd party applications like everything from Microsoft, Adobe and Macromedia was written with CodeWarrior and is unlikely to see an update until next year or later this year at best. Expect the usual cost of buying upgrades.
Apple's Pro apps are due in March in Universal Binary format. Upgrade costs will be nominal. I think they said $49 for Studio.
Until then, Pros need PowerPC machines, everyone else is better off with Intel and there's nothing to beat the Quad PPC still.
The sensible option for pros IMHO is to ride the year out with a PPC and wait for the Intel native applications to drop as well as whatever Apple replaces the PowerMac with. By then we should also see Intels NGMA chips (Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest). The current Core Duo chip still has one foot in the past architecture.
[B]Now gentlemen (and ladies too of course), I got too tied up working and behind on news. The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it? Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?
[B]
No and yes.
You have a LOT of catching up to do, check out the basic faqs on intel at maccentral or something. Or even the apple website.
Surprised there's not more talk about the minis. I guess based on this article, Appleinsider doesn't think the intel minis will have DVR? I'd also be curious to know what AI expects in terms of hardware configuration, solo or duo?
Pretty much anyone could guess minis at this point, it's pretty damn obvious. But what will be the specifics?
Originally posted by aegisdesign The only speed gain so far is in laptops as Core is slower than the G5. Prices so far have remained the same or gone up slightly. The switch is about power consumption in laptops, not speed or price. [/B]
There's a speed gain with the imacs as well, at least with universal software. Core is a little slower than G5. But core duo is faster than single G5 for most apps.
What prices have gone up? As far as I can tell, prices are the same, but the MBP lost a couple features.
I don't agree that all pros are best served by staying on PPC. For those using Apple apps, the intels should run very well. Not everyone can afford a quad, and some people need a portable solution.
How? A MBP with a core duo is roughly 2x faster than a PB with a 1.67ghz ppc. 70% of that 2x speed improvement comes from the 2nd core. A celeron m wouldn't have that(2 cores). Throw in in the lack of a video card and it might be a close race.
Intel 855 based chipset inc the older GMA has a graphics score of 687 on that same Sony laptop.
A Celeron M 1.4 laptop with intel integrated graphics has a score of 171 / 589.
A 1.4Ghz G4 Mac Mini with a 9200 has a score of 128 and 478 respectively.
I think it's safe to say a Celeron M 4xx and Intel GMA 950 based Mac Mini would be up to twice as fast as the outgoing G4 Mini in most regards. I don't think it will be a close race at all.
There's a speed gain with the imacs as well, at least with universal software. Core is a little slower than G5. But core duo is faster than single G5 for most apps.
Sure, if you double the number of CPUs, speed goes up.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
What prices have gone up? As far as I can tell, prices are the same, but the MBP lost a couple features.
The Intel iMac is more expensive than the outgoing PPC iMac in the UK by £30.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
I don't agree that all pros are best served by staying on PPC. For those using Apple apps, the intels should run very well. Not everyone can afford a quad, and some people need a portable solution.
Until there's pro apps native to Intel, PPC is faster. Apple apps aren't here yet. When they are, then it may be beneficial provided there are machines faster than the G5s to run them on. I don't know any pros that use laptops.
Sure, if you double the number of CPUs, speed goes up.
And that's what they've done. The new imacs are faster than the previous. Apple has yet to release an intel machine that's slower than the one it's replacing, I doubt they will.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign The Intel iMac is more expensive than the outgoing PPC iMac in the UK by £30.
Is that comparing the original price of the PPC, or after they put it on the clearance discount? Here in the states the prices are the same.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Until there's pro apps native to Intel, PPC is faster. Apple apps aren't here yet. When they are, then it may be beneficial provided there are machines faster than the G5s to run them on. I don't know any pros that use laptops. [/B]
You're talking about the speed of the apps, not the machine. Logic pro has already shipped (a pro app), and it runs very well on the intel boxes, way faster than the old imacs and powerbooks. The other apps are due to ship in a month tops. And just because you don't know any "pros" that use laptops doesn't mean they don't exist. You think people are dropping $2500 or more on a laptop so grandma can email pix of the grandkids?
Thanks guys for bringing me up to speed. Usually I'm good at following the trends but lately just got too much on my plates.
So if the Intel processor isn't much gain for us and isn't much of a price drop, why is Apple swithing to it? Just for less power consumption? If a dual G5 processor is faster than a core duo Intel, I'd rather stay with PowerPC.
On Apple's site they mention that there is a good speed gain with iMacs but I couldn't find anything about the desktops. I am more interesed in the desktops, I need the computing power for graphics and designing. If Intel doesn't really give us any gain in the higher end machines what's the switch is really for?
Intel 855 based chipset inc the older GMA has a graphics score of 687 on that same Sony laptop.
A Celeron M 1.4 laptop with intel integrated graphics has a score of 171 / 589.
A 1.4Ghz G4 Mac Mini with a 9200 has a score of 128 and 478 respectively.
I think it's safe to say a Celeron M 4xx and Intel GMA 950 based Mac Mini would be up to twice as fast as the outgoing G4 Mini in most regards. I don't think it will be a close race at all.
Can't argue with your data, although I don't see the 2x speed in the numbers (ie 171 is not 2x 128 )
It's been stated before. Intel's prices are well known. The prices for IBM and Freescale's chips are as well. Apple doesn't get special prices on any of this. It's purely sold, and priced, by volume.
Comments
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.
That said, I think that Apple will be pushing the mini as a media machine, and integrated cards really aren't good enough yet.
I agree with your statement.
Of course, these days, I hesitate to put anything beyond Apple's decisions.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.
Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).
Any way, I'm surprised that more people haven't spoken about the possibility of adding cheaper machines to Apple's lineup. Why can't they introduce intel-based machines with dedicated GPUs at the current iBook/Mac mini price points, and introduce new products at lower price points with integrated GPUs. Sure, they won't be as powerful, but they will be cheaper. You don't really need Quartz 2D extreme or amazing 3D framerates to send e-mails and surf the web. Give customers the choice, that's what I say.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
what are the odds Apple will have an on-board only video option for these upcoming Mac-mini's versus an upgradeable BTO?
intresting aspect, but i see this in a different way...
i dont see how apple could put a true 'upgradeable/bto' video solution in there considering the limited space in the mini, meaning every mini would have to be shipped with both a gma-950 and a ati-something chip soldered on the main board, but with the ati-chip disabled if you didnt pay for that.
(the old cripple-or-treat trick we're used to...)
i guess most will be ready to pay the extra dollar to get a descent video card, but for those who wont, apple will still have to pay for the ati-chip whether the buyer pays for it or not...
(and the firmware hackers will have the day of their life)
the on-board gma-950 in the intel imac could indicate apple was planning on playing this game with the imac buyers, but didnt for some reason...?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).
The difference is that Intel's 950 GMA has up to 10.6GB/s bandwidth on the front end with dual channel 667Mhz DDR2 RAM, so a non-Q2DE version of Quartz is actually pretty good on Intel. That is why I think the Intel Dev Kits got such good results over a G5 as both were running Quartz without the 2D extension that puts the data into the VRAM but the dev kit had more bandwidth.
If it means Apple can introduce a much cheaper iBook leaving a gap for a low end Mac Book Pro then I think it's a good idea. Especially for people who don't care one jot about 3D game performance or blazing fast core image manipulation. I'm perfectly happy with the graphics performance on my G3 500Mhz 8MB VRAM Rage128 iBook for a laptop in general usage. GMA 950 would be overkill by comparison.
Originally posted by backtomac
How would a mac mini with a celeron m and intel integrated video compare to the current ppc mac mini with a graphics card? I don't have the answer, but suspect that it could be a close race. How would it sell?
In most aspects it would completely destroy the old model performance wise. And could also be cheaper, at least for Apple.
The problem always comes back to software though. And in the mini, lack of RAM and slow hard disks doesn't help either especially with a hungry app like Rosetta.
Originally posted by tubgirl
the on-board gma-950 in the intel imac could indicate apple was planning on playing this game with the imac buyers, but didnt for some reason...?
There's a 950 in the iMac?
I didn't know that. How odd. Perhaps it came as part of the whole chipset deal from Intel so they left it in there or maybe it can do something other than just video. Very odd.
I'm just wondering how much change this brings to us - aside from speed gain and price drops - and how much upgrades we will have to do far as software goes. I am mainly running web designing and developer programs such as Dreaweaver, Photoshop, Flash etc., I am not sure if these app developers will have to put out versions for the new chip or not and we will have to upgrade.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
In most aspects it would completely destroy the old model performance wise.
How? A MBP with a core duo is roughly 2x faster than a PB with a 1.67ghz ppc. 70% of that 2x speed improvement comes from the 2nd core. A celeron m wouldn't have that(2 cores). Throw in in the lack of a video card and it might be a close race.
Originally posted by blade
The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it?
No, it's identical to the chips used by Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM etc on Windows based machines. Nothing special for Apple. We no longer think different.
Originally posted by blade
Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?
Yes.
Originally posted by blade
I'm just wondering how much change this brings to us - aside from speed gain and price drops - and how much upgrades we will have to do far as software goes.
The only speed gain so far is in laptops as Core is slower than the G5. Prices so far have remained the same or gone up slightly. The switch is about power consumption in laptops, not speed or price.
Software needs to be converted to a Universal binary with both PPC and Intel binaries in one package. This is either easy if your software was written with Apple's xCode or quite hard if it was written with CodeWarrior. Most large 3rd party applications like everything from Microsoft, Adobe and Macromedia was written with CodeWarrior and is unlikely to see an update until next year or later this year at best. Expect the usual cost of buying upgrades.
Apple's Pro apps are due in March in Universal Binary format. Upgrade costs will be nominal. I think they said $49 for Studio.
Until then, Pros need PowerPC machines, everyone else is better off with Intel and there's nothing to beat the Quad PPC still.
The sensible option for pros IMHO is to ride the year out with a PPC and wait for the Intel native applications to drop as well as whatever Apple replaces the PowerMac with. By then we should also see Intels NGMA chips (Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest). The current Core Duo chip still has one foot in the past architecture.
Originally posted by blade
[B]Now gentlemen (and ladies too of course), I got too tied up working and behind on news. The new Intel core duo is a chip designed exclusively for the Apple machines, or in other words not the same chip Billy G. currently uses for his Windoze machines, is it? Is the core OS still going to remain the same, that is Darwin - UNIX?
[B]
No and yes.
You have a LOT of catching up to do, check out the basic faqs on intel at maccentral or something. Or even the apple website.
Surprised there's not more talk about the minis. I guess based on this article, Appleinsider doesn't think the intel minis will have DVR? I'd also be curious to know what AI expects in terms of hardware configuration, solo or duo?
Pretty much anyone could guess minis at this point, it's pretty damn obvious. But what will be the specifics?
Originally posted by aegisdesign The only speed gain so far is in laptops as Core is slower than the G5. Prices so far have remained the same or gone up slightly. The switch is about power consumption in laptops, not speed or price. [/B]
There's a speed gain with the imacs as well, at least with universal software. Core is a little slower than G5. But core duo is faster than single G5 for most apps.
What prices have gone up? As far as I can tell, prices are the same, but the MBP lost a couple features.
I don't agree that all pros are best served by staying on PPC. For those using Apple apps, the intels should run very well. Not everyone can afford a quad, and some people need a portable solution.
Originally posted by backtomac
How? A MBP with a core duo is roughly 2x faster than a PB with a 1.67ghz ppc. 70% of that 2x speed improvement comes from the 2nd core. A celeron m wouldn't have that(2 cores). Throw in in the lack of a video card and it might be a close race.
See http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php
A Pentium M 1.6 has a CPU score of 216
Intel 855 based chipset inc the older GMA has a graphics score of 687 on that same Sony laptop.
A Celeron M 1.4 laptop with intel integrated graphics has a score of 171 / 589.
A 1.4Ghz G4 Mac Mini with a 9200 has a score of 128 and 478 respectively.
I think it's safe to say a Celeron M 4xx and Intel GMA 950 based Mac Mini would be up to twice as fast as the outgoing G4 Mini in most regards. I don't think it will be a close race at all.
Originally posted by minderbinder
There's a speed gain with the imacs as well, at least with universal software. Core is a little slower than G5. But core duo is faster than single G5 for most apps.
Sure, if you double the number of CPUs, speed goes up.
Originally posted by minderbinder
What prices have gone up? As far as I can tell, prices are the same, but the MBP lost a couple features.
The Intel iMac is more expensive than the outgoing PPC iMac in the UK by £30.
Originally posted by minderbinder
I don't agree that all pros are best served by staying on PPC. For those using Apple apps, the intels should run very well. Not everyone can afford a quad, and some people need a portable solution.
Until there's pro apps native to Intel, PPC is faster. Apple apps aren't here yet. When they are, then it may be beneficial provided there are machines faster than the G5s to run them on. I don't know any pros that use laptops.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sure, if you double the number of CPUs, speed goes up.
And that's what they've done. The new imacs are faster than the previous. Apple has yet to release an intel machine that's slower than the one it's replacing, I doubt they will.
Originally posted by aegisdesign The Intel iMac is more expensive than the outgoing PPC iMac in the UK by £30.
Is that comparing the original price of the PPC, or after they put it on the clearance discount? Here in the states the prices are the same.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Until there's pro apps native to Intel, PPC is faster. Apple apps aren't here yet. When they are, then it may be beneficial provided there are machines faster than the G5s to run them on. I don't know any pros that use laptops. [/B]
You're talking about the speed of the apps, not the machine. Logic pro has already shipped (a pro app), and it runs very well on the intel boxes, way faster than the old imacs and powerbooks. The other apps are due to ship in a month tops. And just because you don't know any "pros" that use laptops doesn't mean they don't exist. You think people are dropping $2500 or more on a laptop so grandma can email pix of the grandkids?
So if the Intel processor isn't much gain for us and isn't much of a price drop, why is Apple swithing to it? Just for less power consumption? If a dual G5 processor is faster than a core duo Intel, I'd rather stay with PowerPC.
On Apple's site they mention that there is a good speed gain with iMacs but I couldn't find anything about the desktops. I am more interesed in the desktops, I need the computing power for graphics and designing. If Intel doesn't really give us any gain in the higher end machines what's the switch is really for?
Again, appreciate the update guys.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
See http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php
A Pentium M 1.6 has a CPU score of 216
Intel 855 based chipset inc the older GMA has a graphics score of 687 on that same Sony laptop.
A Celeron M 1.4 laptop with intel integrated graphics has a score of 171 / 589.
A 1.4Ghz G4 Mac Mini with a 9200 has a score of 128 and 478 respectively.
I think it's safe to say a Celeron M 4xx and Intel GMA 950 based Mac Mini would be up to twice as fast as the outgoing G4 Mini in most regards. I don't think it will be a close race at all.
Can't argue with your data, although I don't see the 2x speed in the numbers (ie 171 is not 2x 128 )
Originally posted by melgross
It's been stated before. Intel's prices are well known. The prices for IBM and Freescale's chips are as well. Apple doesn't get special prices on any of this. It's purely sold, and priced, by volume.
OK...educated guesses. Thanks.