I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5
Apple would have been ok with the G5 on the desktop if they were willing to live with the power consumption. They would have been killed in integer apps, but FPU/SIMD would definitely have been ok.
The laptops would have been a problem though. It is doubtful that Freescale would have been able to yield low voltage (<1.1V) 2 GHz 8641D processors. AMD does it to a fashion, but they are boutique until they ramp their 65 nm fab. And IBM would have had to put some hefty millions into the G5, or any PPC in their portfolio really, to give it mobility features. They would have been better off starting a fabless PPC CPU and core logic design shop inhouse.
In the end, Intel is really the most conservative choice, or even the only choice. The economics of semiconductor manufacturing really left Apple no choice. Yonah and the ICM are wonderfuly choices for a CPU transition.
Now, if only they would do some real UI work for Mac OS X. Lots of nice UI work in apps, not much for Mac OS X.
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.
I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?
If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.
I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.
If this argument about G5 improvements is correct--and it seems quite plausible to me--why did Apple switch the G5 iMac to Intel so soon? Switching the G4 computers first seems like a much better strategy (even though Apple said at their quarterly financial call that they're "thrilled" (or some such) with their current iBooks), followed by a synchronized transition of G5's to Intel later in the year. It seems to me that this would have maximized Mac sales.
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.
I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.
I doubt it. ICD is already nipping at the heals of Athlon in every test I've seen. Conroe could be vaporware but it's not hard to see Conroe beating it(Athlon) based on the results of ICD. You know where I stand. I'm buying Intel.
If this argument about G5 improvements is correct--and it seems quite plausible to me--why did Apple switch the G5 iMac to Intel so soon? Switching the G4 computers first seems like a much better strategy (even though Apple said at their quarterly financial call that they're "thrilled" (or some such) with their current iBooks), followed by a synchronized transition of G5's to Intel later in the year. It seems to me that this would have maximized Mac sales.
One of the reasons given for the switch before any improvements to the G5 became available is that if Apple waited, then there wouldn't have been as much of a difference as there will be now. In that case, there would be questions as to why they switched at all. By going earlier, the performance of the G5 is frozen. Therefore when Apple moves over, as they have been, the comparison is starker.
The same thing is even true for the G4. While the 7448 only offers a 10 to15% improvement over the 7447a, it would bring the older machines closer to what the Yonah offers. The Yonah would still be a ways out front, but not by as much as it is now.
I doubt it. ICD is already nipping at the heals of Athlon in every test I've seen. Conroe could be vaporware but it's not hard to see Conroe beating it(Athlon) based on the results of ICD. You know where I stand. I'm buying Intel.
Not only that but the rumors point to a July or August release. That's some soon-to-be-released vaporware if you ask me.
I hope the Nvidia 8 Series is available when the Mac Pros come out, I wonder how fast Apple can scramble drivers together. I'd hate to buy a new Mac with an already-outdated 7800.
Not only that but the rumors point to a July or August release. That's some soon-to-be-released vaporware if you ask me.
When people are invested in an idea, it's difficult to disabuse them of the notion. And being invested doesn't necessarily mean with money.
Even though he's a retired engineer, he really doesn't follow the various tech sites. He also doesn't know people at several companies that are using some of these chips in pre-production machines, so he believes AMD's press.
He also thinks that Intel is going to lose all of the suites that AMD has against them, and that it will make a big difference.
I don't agree. But, as I said, it should be interesting.
I hope the Nvidia 8 Series is available when the Mac Pros come out, I wonder how fast Apple can scramble drivers together. I'd hate to buy a new Mac with an already-outdated 7800.
I'd rather an ATI.
But, either way, Apple isn't likely to encumber us with a truly hot card.
When the Express models came out, everyone was jumping up and down over the 7800 GT, declaring how wonderful it was to be getting a "high end" video card.
I kept posting that the GT was, at best, a mid range card.
I'm concerned that apple will do the same thing here again. Even if it is a 7900 or a 1900, is will be a middling card, at high end pricing.
But, either way, Apple isn't likely to encumber us with a truly hot card.
When the Express models came out, everyone was jumping up and down over the 7800 GT, declaring how wonderful it was to be getting a "high end" video card.
I kept posting that the GT was, at best, a mid range card.
I'm concerned that apple will do the same thing here again. Even if it is a 7900 or a 1900, is will be a middling card, at high end pricing.
I have yet to figure out why your impressed with ATI. I have not found an ATI card for general/or highend 3d purposes that can match an Nvidia. There is not a benchmark online that says they are even close. And when it comes to real 3D they don't come near a QuadroFX.
One of the reasons given for the switch before any improvements to the G5 became available is that if Apple waited, then there wouldn't have been as much of a difference as there will be now. In that case, there would be questions as to why they switched at all. By going earlier, the performance of the G5 is frozen. Therefore when Apple moves over, as they have been, the comparison is starker.
The same thing is even true for the G4. While the 7448 only offers a 10 to15% improvement over the 7447a, it would bring the older machines closer to what the Yonah offers. The Yonah would still be a ways out front, but not by as much as it is now.
More whining would ensue.
I don't understand your argument. What you're arguing is that the longer Apple waited the less justification for switching at all, if I read this correctly. I think that the generally-agreed-on justification for switching is laptop performance, and the gap between G4's and Core Duos wasn't and isn't closing. I don't know what the rationale is for switching a solid performer & seller, the iMac G5, precipitously. This leaves me a little bit uncertain about Apple's view of the world. If I were in the market for a desktop computer, I would be hesitant to buy a G5 because I don't see any evidence that Apple is committed to making it work well in the future, with good version of 10.5, for example. Meanwhile, would anyone actually buy a G4 iBook?
I am not arguing that Apple's decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so. I would guess that Apple could only get good pricing on Core Duos if they bought x of them, where x is larger than the number of MBP's that they could sell, that the iBook Core Duo would be too expensive (both in the prices that would have to be charged and in its effect on MBP sales) or too hard to engineer (heat and battery life issues with starting production runs of the Core Duo) in the initial switch, that the iMac Core Duo was easy to engineer, and that the downside associated with lost G5 sales was judged acceptable. Of course, there are those who imagine that Apple did this just to show IBM who's in charge, but I rather doubt this.
I have yet to figure out why your impressed with ATI. I have not found an ATI card for general/or highend 3d purposes that can match an Nvidia. There is not a benchmark online that says they are even close. And when it comes to real 3D they don't come near a QuadroFX.
I disagree. The FireGL cards are very good cards as well.
For video work, NVidia really sucks. ATI's video quality is SO much better, it's not even close. And Nvidia has the nerve to charge extra for their second rate software.
I don't understand your argument. What you're arguing is that the longer Apple waited the less justification for switching at all, if I read this correctly. I think that the generally-agreed-on justification for switching is laptop performance, and the gap between G4's and Core Duos wasn't and isn't closing. I don't know what the rationale is for switching a solid performer & seller, the iMac G5, precipitously. This leaves me a little bit uncertain about Apple's view of the world. If I were in the market for a desktop computer, I would be hesitant to buy a G5 because I don't see any evidence that Apple is committed to making it work well in the future, with good version of 10.5, for example. Meanwhile, would anyone actually buy a G4 iBook?
I am not arguing that Apple's decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so. I would guess that Apple could only get good pricing on Core Duos if they bought x of them, where x is larger than the number of MBP's that they could sell, that the iBook Core Duo would be too expensive (both in the prices that would have to be charged and in its effect on MBP sales) or too hard to engineer (heat and battery life issues with starting production runs of the Core Duo) in the initial switch, that the iMac Core Duo was easy to engineer, and that the downside associated with lost G5 sales was judged acceptable. Of course, there are those who imagine that Apple did this just to show IBM who's in charge, but I rather doubt this.
I'm not saying that there would be less justification. If you read my post carefully, you would see that I was talking about PERCEPTION.
I am not arguing that Apple's [iMac G5 to iMac CD] decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so.
I simply think Apple wasn't willing to live with the power consumption of a G5. In 2006, the iMac would have had to move to a a 2+ GHz 970mp dual-core chip to be competitive at the price points it was at, and that would have meant some unpleasant decisions about form factor and such. Not to mention that it would still be stomped in integer apps anyways.
Overall, the G5 was in the same performance trajectory as the G4 was when compared to x86. It simply was a shallower or slower one. The performance difference between the G5 and Intel ICD would have grown through time, but Apple could have managed in 2006 with the G5 on the desktop. 2H 06 and 2007 would have been difficult.
The big issue with the iMac was that it's really a laptop form factor masquerading as a desktop. So its power issues where more acute than say the Power Mac G5 where Apple turned a monster of a cooling system into design "art."
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.
I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.
Intel is still in for some tough financial times for the next 3 quarters. They have to dump millions of Pentium CPUs at some very low costs. In Q3, we could probably buy all P4 CPUs (660s, 840s, 950s) except for the EEs for under $200. There are going to be some great deals coming.
But it isn't a great thing for Intel's bottom line. They'll take back the performance crown though. Good for Apple!
Who knows, maybe the overseas markets will suck them up.
Intel is still in for some tough financial times for the next 3 quarters. They have to dump millions of Pentium CPUs at some very low costs. In Q3, we could probably buy all P4 CPUs (660s, 840s, 950s) except for the EEs for under $200. There are going to be some great deals coming.
But it isn't a great thing for Intel's bottom line. They'll take back the performance crown though. Good for Apple!
Who knows, maybe the overseas markets will suck them up.
I'm not too concerned. AMD has had a good 2 1/2 years, the first in a long long time.
Intel has made great strides already. AMD is now keeping quiet about their plans for the next two years. Hell, they're keeping quiet about their plans for the next year. They used to be so exuberant. Either they have something major, and don't want to give up the beans ala Apple, which I doubt, or they have nothing more than the reworked current line, which they hinted is what we will see early 2007. If that's the case, then they will be in trouble for the long term, as Intel is really moving. Their new socket 939, with DDR2, has shown no performance improvements worth talking about. So, we'll see.
Comments
Originally posted by Programmer
I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5
Apple would have been ok with the G5 on the desktop if they were willing to live with the power consumption. They would have been killed in integer apps, but FPU/SIMD would definitely have been ok.
The laptops would have been a problem though. It is doubtful that Freescale would have been able to yield low voltage (<1.1V) 2 GHz 8641D processors. AMD does it to a fashion, but they are boutique until they ramp their 65 nm fab. And IBM would have had to put some hefty millions into the G5, or any PPC in their portfolio really, to give it mobility features. They would have been better off starting a fabless PPC CPU and core logic design shop inhouse.
In the end, Intel is really the most conservative choice, or even the only choice. The economics of semiconductor manufacturing really left Apple no choice. Yonah and the ICM are wonderfuly choices for a CPU transition.
Now, if only they would do some real UI work for Mac OS X. Lots of nice UI work in apps, not much for Mac OS X.
I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.
Originally posted by Programmer
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?
If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.
I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.
If this argument about G5 improvements is correct--and it seems quite plausible to me--why did Apple switch the G5 iMac to Intel so soon? Switching the G4 computers first seems like a much better strategy (even though Apple said at their quarterly financial call that they're "thrilled" (or some such) with their current iBooks), followed by a synchronized transition of G5's to Intel later in the year. It seems to me that this would have maximized Mac sales.
Originally posted by melgross
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.
I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.
I doubt it. ICD is already nipping at the heals of Athlon in every test I've seen. Conroe could be vaporware but it's not hard to see Conroe beating it(Athlon) based on the results of ICD. You know where I stand. I'm buying Intel.
Originally posted by dh87
If this argument about G5 improvements is correct--and it seems quite plausible to me--why did Apple switch the G5 iMac to Intel so soon? Switching the G4 computers first seems like a much better strategy (even though Apple said at their quarterly financial call that they're "thrilled" (or some such) with their current iBooks), followed by a synchronized transition of G5's to Intel later in the year. It seems to me that this would have maximized Mac sales.
One of the reasons given for the switch before any improvements to the G5 became available is that if Apple waited, then there wouldn't have been as much of a difference as there will be now. In that case, there would be questions as to why they switched at all. By going earlier, the performance of the G5 is frozen. Therefore when Apple moves over, as they have been, the comparison is starker.
The same thing is even true for the G4. While the 7448 only offers a 10 to15% improvement over the 7447a, it would bring the older machines closer to what the Yonah offers. The Yonah would still be a ways out front, but not by as much as it is now.
More whining would ensue.
Originally posted by backtomac
I doubt it. ICD is already nipping at the heals of Athlon in every test I've seen. Conroe could be vaporware but it's not hard to see Conroe beating it(Athlon) based on the results of ICD. You know where I stand. I'm buying Intel.
Not only that but the rumors point to a July or August release. That's some soon-to-be-released vaporware if you ask me.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Not only that but the rumors point to a July or August release. That's some soon-to-be-released vaporware if you ask me.
When people are invested in an idea, it's difficult to disabuse them of the notion. And being invested doesn't necessarily mean with money.
Even though he's a retired engineer, he really doesn't follow the various tech sites. He also doesn't know people at several companies that are using some of these chips in pre-production machines, so he believes AMD's press.
He also thinks that Intel is going to lose all of the suites that AMD has against them, and that it will make a big difference.
I don't agree. But, as I said, it should be interesting.
Originally posted by Placebo
I hope the Nvidia 8 Series is available when the Mac Pros come out, I wonder how fast Apple can scramble drivers together. I'd hate to buy a new Mac with an already-outdated 7800.
I'd rather an ATI.
But, either way, Apple isn't likely to encumber us with a truly hot card.
When the Express models came out, everyone was jumping up and down over the 7800 GT, declaring how wonderful it was to be getting a "high end" video card.
I kept posting that the GT was, at best, a mid range card.
I'm concerned that apple will do the same thing here again. Even if it is a 7900 or a 1900, is will be a middling card, at high end pricing.
Originally posted by melgross
I'd rather an ATI.
But, either way, Apple isn't likely to encumber us with a truly hot card.
When the Express models came out, everyone was jumping up and down over the 7800 GT, declaring how wonderful it was to be getting a "high end" video card.
I kept posting that the GT was, at best, a mid range card.
I'm concerned that apple will do the same thing here again. Even if it is a 7900 or a 1900, is will be a middling card, at high end pricing.
I have yet to figure out why your impressed with ATI. I have not found an ATI card for general/or highend 3d purposes that can match an Nvidia. There is not a benchmark online that says they are even close. And when it comes to real 3D they don't come near a QuadroFX.
Originally posted by melgross
One of the reasons given for the switch before any improvements to the G5 became available is that if Apple waited, then there wouldn't have been as much of a difference as there will be now. In that case, there would be questions as to why they switched at all. By going earlier, the performance of the G5 is frozen. Therefore when Apple moves over, as they have been, the comparison is starker.
The same thing is even true for the G4. While the 7448 only offers a 10 to15% improvement over the 7447a, it would bring the older machines closer to what the Yonah offers. The Yonah would still be a ways out front, but not by as much as it is now.
More whining would ensue.
I don't understand your argument. What you're arguing is that the longer Apple waited the less justification for switching at all, if I read this correctly. I think that the generally-agreed-on justification for switching is laptop performance, and the gap between G4's and Core Duos wasn't and isn't closing. I don't know what the rationale is for switching a solid performer & seller, the iMac G5, precipitously. This leaves me a little bit uncertain about Apple's view of the world. If I were in the market for a desktop computer, I would be hesitant to buy a G5 because I don't see any evidence that Apple is committed to making it work well in the future, with good version of 10.5, for example. Meanwhile, would anyone actually buy a G4 iBook?
I am not arguing that Apple's decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so. I would guess that Apple could only get good pricing on Core Duos if they bought x of them, where x is larger than the number of MBP's that they could sell, that the iBook Core Duo would be too expensive (both in the prices that would have to be charged and in its effect on MBP sales) or too hard to engineer (heat and battery life issues with starting production runs of the Core Duo) in the initial switch, that the iMac Core Duo was easy to engineer, and that the downside associated with lost G5 sales was judged acceptable. Of course, there are those who imagine that Apple did this just to show IBM who's in charge, but I rather doubt this.
Originally posted by Placebo
Their Mac OS X drivers have customarily been better than Nvidia's.
If you say so, but the Nvidia's rout them on a Mac so I still don't see what the point is of using them.
Originally posted by onlooker
I have yet to figure out why your impressed with ATI. I have not found an ATI card for general/or highend 3d purposes that can match an Nvidia. There is not a benchmark online that says they are even close. And when it comes to real 3D they don't come near a QuadroFX.
I disagree. The FireGL cards are very good cards as well.
For video work, NVidia really sucks. ATI's video quality is SO much better, it's not even close. And Nvidia has the nerve to charge extra for their second rate software.
Originally posted by dh87
I don't understand your argument. What you're arguing is that the longer Apple waited the less justification for switching at all, if I read this correctly. I think that the generally-agreed-on justification for switching is laptop performance, and the gap between G4's and Core Duos wasn't and isn't closing. I don't know what the rationale is for switching a solid performer & seller, the iMac G5, precipitously. This leaves me a little bit uncertain about Apple's view of the world. If I were in the market for a desktop computer, I would be hesitant to buy a G5 because I don't see any evidence that Apple is committed to making it work well in the future, with good version of 10.5, for example. Meanwhile, would anyone actually buy a G4 iBook?
I am not arguing that Apple's decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so. I would guess that Apple could only get good pricing on Core Duos if they bought x of them, where x is larger than the number of MBP's that they could sell, that the iBook Core Duo would be too expensive (both in the prices that would have to be charged and in its effect on MBP sales) or too hard to engineer (heat and battery life issues with starting production runs of the Core Duo) in the initial switch, that the iMac Core Duo was easy to engineer, and that the downside associated with lost G5 sales was judged acceptable. Of course, there are those who imagine that Apple did this just to show IBM who's in charge, but I rather doubt this.
I'm not saying that there would be less justification. If you read my post carefully, you would see that I was talking about PERCEPTION.
Originally posted by onlooker
If you say so, but the Nvidia's rout them on a Mac so I still don't see what the point is of using them.
Again, not true.
Originally posted by dh87
I am not arguing that Apple's [iMac G5 to iMac CD] decision is irrational or unjustified, only that without knowing the detailed arguments it appears so.
I simply think Apple wasn't willing to live with the power consumption of a G5. In 2006, the iMac would have had to move to a a 2+ GHz 970mp dual-core chip to be competitive at the price points it was at, and that would have meant some unpleasant decisions about form factor and such. Not to mention that it would still be stomped in integer apps anyways.
Overall, the G5 was in the same performance trajectory as the G4 was when compared to x86. It simply was a shallower or slower one. The performance difference between the G5 and Intel ICD would have grown through time, but Apple could have managed in 2006 with the G5 on the desktop. 2H 06 and 2007 would have been difficult.
The big issue with the iMac was that it's really a laptop form factor masquerading as a desktop. So its power issues where more acute than say the Power Mac G5 where Apple turned a monster of a cooling system into design "art."
Originally posted by THT
?Apple turned a monster of a cooling system into design "art."
And people wonder why PowerMacs are so expensive??!?
;^p
Originally posted by melgross
I was at a meeting tonight, where one of the guys and I were talking stocks. He has 15,000 shares of AMD, and he's convinced that AMD will smother Intel at the end of the year, and that Conroe et al is vaporware, AND that the Conroe vs. Athlon tests were fixed.
I couldn't convince him otherwise. The meeting is about once a month, so it should be interesting as the year goes on.
Intel is still in for some tough financial times for the next 3 quarters. They have to dump millions of Pentium CPUs at some very low costs. In Q3, we could probably buy all P4 CPUs (660s, 840s, 950s) except for the EEs for under $200. There are going to be some great deals coming.
But it isn't a great thing for Intel's bottom line. They'll take back the performance crown though. Good for Apple!
Who knows, maybe the overseas markets will suck them up.
Originally posted by THT
Intel is still in for some tough financial times for the next 3 quarters. They have to dump millions of Pentium CPUs at some very low costs. In Q3, we could probably buy all P4 CPUs (660s, 840s, 950s) except for the EEs for under $200. There are going to be some great deals coming.
But it isn't a great thing for Intel's bottom line. They'll take back the performance crown though. Good for Apple!
Who knows, maybe the overseas markets will suck them up.
I'm not too concerned. AMD has had a good 2 1/2 years, the first in a long long time.
Intel has made great strides already. AMD is now keeping quiet about their plans for the next two years. Hell, they're keeping quiet about their plans for the next year. They used to be so exuberant. Either they have something major, and don't want to give up the beans ala Apple, which I doubt, or they have nothing more than the reworked current line, which they hinted is what we will see early 2007. If that's the case, then they will be in trouble for the long term, as Intel is really moving. Their new socket 939, with DDR2, has shown no performance improvements worth talking about. So, we'll see.