Sorry to spoil your fun, but the chips you'll want to upgrade to are going to be either higher speed Woodcrests (which'll work), or the eventual quad-core chips. The problem is that without an updated motherboard, you'll have 4 cores on a bus designed for 2, and sloppy performance will ensue. That's not to say that it won't be a boost, but it will be limited by the bus speed when you talk about 6-8 core machines in a 4-core motherboard.
I'm not so sure. Someone put a dual core Yonah in a single core Mini box, and it seemed to have about the same performance as the dual core model. There are a number of sites which are putting these changes up. It's beginning to become impossible to track them anymore. Most of the sites seem to be in Japan.
Yes, as they found out. These might be as well. But, don't forget that the chips are compatable, either core. The mobo's might have to be the same.
My point was that FSB is going to matter a lot more now in chips. And while the upcoming quad-core (December-January) chips might use the same mobo, we can't count on that in the future, even if they use the same socket. When you have a quad-core chip in a dual-core mobo (even a MP enabled one) FSB is gonna be the limiting factor. This will apply in the jump from 4 to 8 (or 6) cores as well.
I see, I think we had our wires crossed. I thought you were saying that that meant a Quad core chip would be fine in a mobo designed for a dual core.
David
A motherboard is not "designed" for a dual-core processor. As long as the socket is the same and the chipset is compatible, it'll work. (Rare exceptions Netburst-->Core, Coppermine-->Tualatin where some parts of the motherboard will burn the processor out.) Now, I don't see a quad-core laptop processor for awhile, Merom may/may not work in a Mini (Chipset) but hopefully it won't be a problem.
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
That doesn't seem that iffy to me. Conroe should be the iMac's processor. It's designated by intel as their desktop processor, The iMac is designated by Apple as their desktop computer. It only makes sense.
Stronger than expected, which I also noted a while back, doesn't mean great. It means just what it says.
I wasn't wrong about the Mini.
ROFL. You stated that you thought that the $100 price difference would hurt Mini sales. Yet they exceeded sales expectations. You were wrong.
When the first mini came out it greatly exceeded sales expectations by about triple (50K expectations vs 120-140K sold I forget exactly). Lemme see, so analysts once again forecasted weak mini sales because the last mini did so poorly.
Quote:
Because amazon's sales have meaning only for Amazon. The obviously fairly small number of people who buy computers from them are not the average computer buyer.
Even if you assume that Amazon doesn't show that Apple executes well against its true competitors in the upper end of the consumer market (as in not dell, hp, acer, and gateway) it should still be a good indicator of how the Apple models do against each other.
In any case, that the mini did rank higher for some period means there was high demand for the mini at least at the one retailer we can get a strong reading on.
Which means you have butkus for data and you're once again trying desperately not to admit you were wrong.
My point was that FSB is going to matter a lot more now in chips. And while the upcoming quad-core (December-January) chips might use the same mobo, we can't count on that in the future, even if they use the same socket. When you have a quad-core chip in a dual-core mobo (even a MP enabled one) FSB is gonna be the limiting factor. This will apply in the jump from 4 to 8 (or 6) cores as well.
You're right. we can't count on anything for the future. But, as for right now, it seems to be fine. Intel has announced which chips are pin compatable, This has been discussed in the PC community. As in the current Macs, the chips seem to be drop in.
No one can know whether Apple will allow that to continue in the future. But as long as they have the chips socketed, it should work. The bus speeds are up to the chip set being used on that mobo. So if a chip with a faster bus is popped in, as long as that chipset supports the higher bus speed, it will automatically change to it. In some cases, it might be necessary to have a firmware update, no big deal. Intel tells shich chipsets support which cpu's, so none of this is a secret.
And videocard. And optical drive. And no possible expansion whatsoever.
But, most people don't expand their machines, though many think that they might when they buy them. Memory, and bigger HD's, are about all that most people change. With wireless built-in, this is pretty much complete for most people.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it is complete for you, or for me.
ROFL. You stated that you thought that the $100 price difference would hurt Mini sales. Yet they exceeded sales expectations. You were wrong.
No. They did better than some analysts thought. That's not the same thing. Those analysts thought that it would do worse than the original Mini. They didn't say otherwise. Just that it did better than they though it would.
Look, really. Without numbers, numbers that apparently Apple won't give out, no one can do more than guess.
Quote:
When the first mini came out it greatly exceeded sales expectations by about triple (50K expectations vs 120-140K sold I forget exactly). Lemme see, so analysts once again forecasted weak mini sales because the last mini did so poorly.
Where did you see 50k sales expectation numbers for the quarter? Those numbers would have been a disaster! I didn't see those projections anywhere. The numbers I saw were 225 to 300k expectations, and about 225 to 250k reality.
Quote:
Even if you assume that Amazon doesn't show that Apple executes well against its true competitors in the upper end of the consumer market (as in not dell, hp, acer, and gateway) it should still be a good indicator of how the Apple models do against each other.
For Amazon's market, yes. no doubt. But as we can see that Amazon's sales numbers don't corrispond to market reality, we can't say that the Apple rankings are comparable to their overall sales either. They are suggestive, I will give you that. But just how close do they come? We can't say. If the overall numbers are so far off, those may be as well. What kind of person is buying from Amazon? Does (s)he compare to the person buying from Apple? Or CompUsa? Or elsewhere? We don't know.
That all I'm saying. I love seeing those numbers, but I just don't know they they mean.
Quote:
In any case, that the mini did rank higher for some period means there was high demand for the mini at least at the one retailer we can get a strong reading on.
No, it may not mean anything.
Quote:
Which means you have butkus for data and you're once again trying desperately not to admit you were wrong.
You do this all the time, and not just with me. You use information that has no meaning for your argument, and then you insult me because I show that it doesn't. Then you get angry when I respond in kind.
But, most people don't expand their machines, though many think that they might when they buy them. Memory, and bigger HD's, are about all that most people change. With wireless built-in, this is pretty much complete for most people.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it is complete for you, or for me.
I WAS TALKING
ABOUT
WHAT I WANT
The iMac is suitable for many people's needs and desires, but I'd rather have something a bit more expandable.
Comments
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Sorry to spoil your fun, but the chips you'll want to upgrade to are going to be either higher speed Woodcrests (which'll work), or the eventual quad-core chips. The problem is that without an updated motherboard, you'll have 4 cores on a bus designed for 2, and sloppy performance will ensue. That's not to say that it won't be a boost, but it will be limited by the bus speed when you talk about 6-8 core machines in a 4-core motherboard.
I'm not so sure. Someone put a dual core Yonah in a single core Mini box, and it seemed to have about the same performance as the dual core model. There are a number of sites which are putting these changes up. It's beginning to become impossible to track them anymore. Most of the sites seem to be in Japan.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not so sure. Someone put a dual core Yonah in a single core Mini box, and it seemed to have about the same performance as the dual core model.
That's because it's the same mobo, designed for a dual core CPU.
David
Originally posted by iMacfan
That's because it's the same mobo, designed for a dual core CPU.
David
Yes, as they found out. These might be as well. But, don't forget that the chips are compatable, either core. The mobo's might have to be the same.
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, as they found out. These might be as well. But, don't forget that the chips are compatable, either core. The mobo's might have to be the same.
I see, I think we had our wires crossed. I thought you were saying that that meant a Quad core chip would be fine in a mobo designed for a dual core.
David
it will happen only when they release Woodcrest?
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, as they found out. These might be as well. But, don't forget that the chips are compatable, either core. The mobo's might have to be the same.
My point was that FSB is going to matter a lot more now in chips. And while the upcoming quad-core (December-January) chips might use the same mobo, we can't count on that in the future, even if they use the same socket. When you have a quad-core chip in a dual-core mobo (even a MP enabled one) FSB is gonna be the limiting factor. This will apply in the jump from 4 to 8 (or 6) cores as well.
Originally posted by shanmugam
what happened to the PRICE CUT for Yonah, Pentium D & Pentium 4 announcement which suppose to be 28th May
it will happen only when they release Woodcrest?
I've been wondering that myself...
Originally posted by iMacfan
I see, I think we had our wires crossed. I thought you were saying that that meant a Quad core chip would be fine in a mobo designed for a dual core.
David
A motherboard is not "designed" for a dual-core processor. As long as the socket is the same and the chipset is compatible, it'll work. (Rare exceptions Netburst-->Core, Coppermine-->Tualatin where some parts of the motherboard will burn the processor out.) Now, I don't see a quad-core laptop processor for awhile, Merom may/may not work in a Mini (Chipset) but hopefully it won't be a problem.
Originally posted by backtomac
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
The one that isn't a Disposable Computer.
Originally posted by Placebo
The one that isn't a Disposable Computer.
All computers are disposable. I think you're going with "the one that doesn't have a disposable screen"
Originally posted by theapplegenius
All computers are disposable. I think you're going with "the one that doesn't have a disposable screen"
And videocard. And optical drive. And no possible expansion whatsoever.
Originally posted by backtomac
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
That doesn't seem that iffy to me. Conroe should be the iMac's processor. It's designated by intel as their desktop processor, The iMac is designated by Apple as their desktop computer. It only makes sense.
Originally posted by melgross
Stronger than expected, which I also noted a while back, doesn't mean great. It means just what it says.
I wasn't wrong about the Mini.
ROFL. You stated that you thought that the $100 price difference would hurt Mini sales. Yet they exceeded sales expectations. You were wrong.
When the first mini came out it greatly exceeded sales expectations by about triple (50K expectations vs 120-140K sold I forget exactly). Lemme see, so analysts once again forecasted weak mini sales because the last mini did so poorly.
Because amazon's sales have meaning only for Amazon. The obviously fairly small number of people who buy computers from them are not the average computer buyer.
Even if you assume that Amazon doesn't show that Apple executes well against its true competitors in the upper end of the consumer market (as in not dell, hp, acer, and gateway) it should still be a good indicator of how the Apple models do against each other.
In any case, that the mini did rank higher for some period means there was high demand for the mini at least at the one retailer we can get a strong reading on.
Which means you have butkus for data and you're once again trying desperately not to admit you were wrong.
Vinea
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Here's a question for someone in the know...is aluminum expensive for Apple to use?
Nothing compaired to Titanium, and they used that forever, besides Aluminum can act like a heat sink, or conductor.
What do you have in mind??
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
My point was that FSB is going to matter a lot more now in chips. And while the upcoming quad-core (December-January) chips might use the same mobo, we can't count on that in the future, even if they use the same socket. When you have a quad-core chip in a dual-core mobo (even a MP enabled one) FSB is gonna be the limiting factor. This will apply in the jump from 4 to 8 (or 6) cores as well.
You're right. we can't count on anything for the future. But, as for right now, it seems to be fine. Intel has announced which chips are pin compatable, This has been discussed in the PC community. As in the current Macs, the chips seem to be drop in.
No one can know whether Apple will allow that to continue in the future. But as long as they have the chips socketed, it should work. The bus speeds are up to the chip set being used on that mobo. So if a chip with a faster bus is popped in, as long as that chipset supports the higher bus speed, it will automatically change to it. In some cases, it might be necessary to have a firmware update, no big deal. Intel tells shich chipsets support which cpu's, so none of this is a secret.
Originally posted by Placebo
And videocard. And optical drive. And no possible expansion whatsoever.
But, most people don't expand their machines, though many think that they might when they buy them. Memory, and bigger HD's, are about all that most people change. With wireless built-in, this is pretty much complete for most people.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it is complete for you, or for me.
Originally posted by vinea
ROFL. You stated that you thought that the $100 price difference would hurt Mini sales. Yet they exceeded sales expectations. You were wrong.
No. They did better than some analysts thought. That's not the same thing. Those analysts thought that it would do worse than the original Mini. They didn't say otherwise. Just that it did better than they though it would.
Look, really. Without numbers, numbers that apparently Apple won't give out, no one can do more than guess.
Quote:
When the first mini came out it greatly exceeded sales expectations by about triple (50K expectations vs 120-140K sold I forget exactly). Lemme see, so analysts once again forecasted weak mini sales because the last mini did so poorly.
Where did you see 50k sales expectation numbers for the quarter? Those numbers would have been a disaster! I didn't see those projections anywhere. The numbers I saw were 225 to 300k expectations, and about 225 to 250k reality.
Quote:
Even if you assume that Amazon doesn't show that Apple executes well against its true competitors in the upper end of the consumer market (as in not dell, hp, acer, and gateway) it should still be a good indicator of how the Apple models do against each other.
For Amazon's market, yes. no doubt. But as we can see that Amazon's sales numbers don't corrispond to market reality, we can't say that the Apple rankings are comparable to their overall sales either. They are suggestive, I will give you that. But just how close do they come? We can't say. If the overall numbers are so far off, those may be as well. What kind of person is buying from Amazon? Does (s)he compare to the person buying from Apple? Or CompUsa? Or elsewhere? We don't know.
That all I'm saying. I love seeing those numbers, but I just don't know they they mean.
Quote:
In any case, that the mini did rank higher for some period means there was high demand for the mini at least at the one retailer we can get a strong reading on.
No, it may not mean anything.
Quote:
Which means you have butkus for data and you're once again trying desperately not to admit you were wrong.
You do this all the time, and not just with me. You use information that has no meaning for your argument, and then you insult me because I show that it doesn't. Then you get angry when I respond in kind.
[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by melgross
But, most people don't expand their machines, though many think that they might when they buy them. Memory, and bigger HD's, are about all that most people change. With wireless built-in, this is pretty much complete for most people.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it is complete for you, or for me.
I WAS TALKING
ABOUT
WHAT I WANT
The iMac is suitable for many people's needs and desires, but I'd rather have something a bit more expandable.
Originally posted by Placebo
I WAS TALKING
ABOUT
WHAT I WANT
You know, some people get shot or stabbed in the face for repeatedly using caps lock to communicate on the internet.