Yeah, I'm very excited about it. Late tomorrow afternoon should be very interesting, after the presentations are over with, and the info. is all published.
I know. That's why I said that it wasn't complete for you - or for me.
What's the problem?
I guess I misunderstood your post, it seemed like you were arguing for the benefit of the iMac. I said nothing bad about the iMac; I simply said that it wasn't for me.
I guess I misunderstood your post, it seemed like you were arguing for the benefit of the iMac. I said nothing bad about the iMac; I simply said that it wasn't for me.
Sorry. The point I was making was that even though WE would not find it to be useful, others would, and as it sells so well, that's important.
Before you know it these two will be taking long showers together.
WWDC keynote is two months, and two days away, and on that note the reasons I think Apple will wait that long until delivering a new powerMac are many, but I will expand on a few.
#1) It will give Apple enough time to see what the other manufacturers are offering, and I hate that part of it because I always feel it gives Apple more room to do less with what they know rather than more.
#2) Testing the machines and getting all kinks out. Come on. We are talking about Macs. Apple designs the whole package for the reason that it always just works, and troubleshooting last minute hardware updates is just as extensive as working out the prototypes.
#3) When was the last time Steve Jobs said "Starts Shipping today" on a PowerMac?
#4) after you deduce the previous 3, if there are no problems in testing, it's possible that there is about 2 weeks from the time they are finished until WWDC. WWDC is their trademark event for the PM, and it is also where IBM, and Steve Jobs said 3GHz in a year. Apple will wait out the two weeks, and bring out the intel guy, and say with intel "THREE GHZ SHIPPING TODAY!"
Yeah, I'm very excited about it. Late tomorrow afternoon should be very interesting, after the presentations are over with, and the info. is all published.
It's d-day for Intel tomorrow. No more huffing and bluffing. It's time to show your cards Intel.
Before you know it these two will be taking long showers together.
WWDC keynote is two months, and two days away, and on that note the reasons I think Apple will wait that long until delivering a new powerMac are many, but I will expand on a few.
#1) It will give Apple enough time to see what the other manufacturers are offering, and I hate that part of it because I always feel it gives Apple more room to do less with what they know rather than more.
#2) Testing the machines and getting all kinks out. Come on. We are talking about Macs. Apple designs the whole package for the reason that it always just works, and troubleshooting last minute hardware updates is just as extensive as working out the prototypes.
#3) When was the last time Steve Jobs said "Starts Shipping today" on a PowerMac?
#4) after you deduce the previous 3, if there are no problems in testing, it's possible that there is about 2 weeks from the time they are finished until WWDC. WWDC is their trademark event for the PM, and it is also where IBM, and Steve Jobs said 3GHz in a year. Apple will wait out the two weeks, and bring out the intel guy, and say with intel "THREE GHZ SHIPPING TODAY!"
BTW, that will be dual socket Dual core 3GHz.
My 2¢
What you've said does make some sense. I dont' think they could wait much longer depending upon what pc makers do. They don't want to look behind the curve. Actually most pc vendors seemed a little slow to adopt and promote ICD machines. Maybe this will be the case core 2 duo as well. I am actually more anxious to see an iMac update as a Powermac is really going to be more than I need.
Before you know it these two will be taking long showers together.
WWDC keynote is two months, and two days away, and on that note the reasons I think Apple will wait that long until delivering a new powerMac are many, but I will expand on a few.
#1) It will give Apple enough time to see what the other manufacturers are offering, and I hate that part of it because I always feel it gives Apple more room to do less with what they know rather than more.
#2) Testing the machines and getting all kinks out. Come on. We are talking about Macs. Apple designs the whole package for the reason that it always just works, and troubleshooting last minute hardware updates is just as extensive as working out the prototypes.
#3) When was the last time Steve Jobs said "Starts Shipping today" on a PowerMac?
#4) after you deduce the previous 3, if there are no problems in testing, it's possible that there is about 2 weeks from the time they are finished until WWDC. WWDC is their trademark event for the PM, and it is also where IBM, and Steve Jobs said 3GHz in a year. Apple will wait out the two weeks, and bring out the intel guy, and say with intel "THREE GHZ SHIPPING TODAY!"
BTW, that will be dual socket Dual core 3GHz.
My 2¢
They can announce it as early as they want and even not be done with testing at the time of the announcement. That way they can queue everyone's orders up, get the Powermac G5s sold off at cheaper prices. You said that Apple has never shipped a Powermac right after it was announced; having an extra-early release date won't change this.
I have a question that is a little off topic, but a little on topic.
Conroe Vs. Woodcrest. One is a consumer chip and one is a "enterprise" (hate that word) chip. Is there ANY drawbacks besides price for using a server chip in a workstation? I know in the graphics world, You can take a NVidia Quadro chip and an equiv. Nvidia graphics chip and the Quadro will pounce on it for modeling and live rendering. But when it comes to plain jane games, the equiv. can actually out perform the Quadro chip for 1/10th of the price.
So what I am asking, is there times when a desktop chip can out perform a server chip??
Both Conroe and Woodcrest will be used in Workstation.
Intel actually lists the Woodcrest chips as a Workstation/Server chip. The only thing that really differentiates the use is the motherboard. Server motherboards(5000P) won't have PCI-Express 16x. The workstation motherboards (5000x) will have PCI-Express 16x.
Apple HAS to use Woodcrest if they want to take the Mac Pro up to $3k and beyond. Everyone else will.
Conroe is going to make a very nice basic Server and Workstation CPU. You'll just give up on SMP and a bit on the FSB (1066MHz vs 1333MHz)
I have a question that is a little off topic, but a little on topic.
.....
So what I am asking, is there times when a desktop chip can out perform a server chip??
I assume you mean Conroe vs. Woodcrest.
It's like hmurchison said. It's mostly motherboard differences.
The woodcrest is just a high performance chip designed to be used in dual socket configurations.
Possibly in a small percentage of things if you use a single woodcrest (inadvisable) against a conroe. That smaller FSB in the conroe could take less time to execute in an app that is less dependent on memory, or has latency issues.
You wont find a single woodcrest in any manufacturers computers that has the slightest bit of brain running the show though.
Being that all new processors are dual core from this day foreword developers are going to have to take advantage of multiple processors in any way they can to stay in the game, or loose customers to developers with similar apps that are willing to exploit their programming weaknesses.
So I would say in the immediate future there may be some shareware that may, but for all intensive purposes apps that matter to the most of us will not be. And that is why we buy powerMac's.
To answer your question about the rendering thing, that is totally different. But it does not apply here really. Rendering is done by the CPU, not the GPU in 3D apps. The Quadro is designed for 3D apps, not 3D gaming, and has specialty drivers for a certain group of apps in particular. It's effect on rendering is about 0%, and it's gaming prowess is acceptable but not suited for Gaming because it's cycles are concerned with on screen rendering precise detail, not speed like a gaming card. The GPU is usually identical to the gaming card GPU though.
To answer your question about the rendering thing, that is totally different. But it does not apply here really. Rendering is done by the CPU, not the GPU in 3D apps. The Quadro is designed for 3D apps, not 3D gaming, and has specialty drivers for a certain group of apps in particular. It's effect on rendering is about 0%, and it's gaming prowess is acceptable but not suited for Gaming because it's cycles are concerned with on screen rendering precise detail, not speed like a gaming card. The GPU is usually identical to the gaming card GPU though.
That was my point. IS the quadro is used for different things thing a consumer card... IE on screen rendering. I wasn't trying to mix the cpu / gpu thing. I was using the gpu as an example of when enterprise hardware can be slower than consumer hardware. And was wondering if the woodcrest could be slower than conroe in certain things.
Comments
Alright? Thanks!
Originally posted by Placebo
Please stop gasping for attention by harassing me at every opportunity.
Alright? Thanks!
Ok...I'll leave you alone.
Originally posted by Placebo
Please stop gasping for attention by harassing me at every opportunity.
Alright? Thanks!
Is it O.K. if I harass you now that K.K.S is done?
Originally posted by Placebo
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.
I know. That's why I said that it wasn't complete for you - or for me.
What's the problem?
Originally posted by onlooker
Well intel is letting them all out of the bag shortly. Intel Processors @ Computex
Yeah, I'm very excited about it. Late tomorrow afternoon should be very interesting, after the presentations are over with, and the info. is all published.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ok...I'll leave you alone.
I'm disappointed in you now.
Originally posted by melgross
I know. That's why I said that it wasn't complete for you - or for me.
What's the problem?
I guess I misunderstood your post, it seemed like you were arguing for the benefit of the iMac. I said nothing bad about the iMac; I simply said that it wasn't for me.
Originally posted by Placebo
I guess I misunderstood your post, it seemed like you were arguing for the benefit of the iMac. I said nothing bad about the iMac; I simply said that it wasn't for me.
Sorry. The point I was making was that even though WE would not find it to be useful, others would, and as it sells so well, that's important.
I guess I should have written it differently.
WWDC keynote is two months, and two days away, and on that note the reasons I think Apple will wait that long until delivering a new powerMac are many, but I will expand on a few.
#1) It will give Apple enough time to see what the other manufacturers are offering, and I hate that part of it because I always feel it gives Apple more room to do less with what they know rather than more.
#2) Testing the machines and getting all kinks out. Come on. We are talking about Macs. Apple designs the whole package for the reason that it always just works, and troubleshooting last minute hardware updates is just as extensive as working out the prototypes.
#3) When was the last time Steve Jobs said "Starts Shipping today" on a PowerMac?
#4) after you deduce the previous 3, if there are no problems in testing, it's possible that there is about 2 weeks from the time they are finished until WWDC. WWDC is their trademark event for the PM, and it is also where IBM, and Steve Jobs said 3GHz in a year. Apple will wait out the two weeks, and bring out the intel guy, and say with intel "THREE GHZ SHIPPING TODAY!"
BTW, that will be dual socket Dual core 3GHz.
My 2¢
Originally posted by onlooker
Before you know it these two will be taking long showers together.
I almost spit out my Diet Mt. Dew all over my iMac screen with that comment!!
Also, you make very good points about the PM (or MP?) release. Almost too good of sense... Are you making plastics right now as we speak??
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, I'm very excited about it. Late tomorrow afternoon should be very interesting, after the presentations are over with, and the info. is all published.
It's d-day for Intel tomorrow. No more huffing and bluffing. It's time to show your cards Intel.
Originally posted by onlooker
Before you know it these two will be taking long showers together.
WWDC keynote is two months, and two days away, and on that note the reasons I think Apple will wait that long until delivering a new powerMac are many, but I will expand on a few.
#1) It will give Apple enough time to see what the other manufacturers are offering, and I hate that part of it because I always feel it gives Apple more room to do less with what they know rather than more.
#2) Testing the machines and getting all kinks out. Come on. We are talking about Macs. Apple designs the whole package for the reason that it always just works, and troubleshooting last minute hardware updates is just as extensive as working out the prototypes.
#3) When was the last time Steve Jobs said "Starts Shipping today" on a PowerMac?
#4) after you deduce the previous 3, if there are no problems in testing, it's possible that there is about 2 weeks from the time they are finished until WWDC. WWDC is their trademark event for the PM, and it is also where IBM, and Steve Jobs said 3GHz in a year. Apple will wait out the two weeks, and bring out the intel guy, and say with intel "THREE GHZ SHIPPING TODAY!"
BTW, that will be dual socket Dual core 3GHz.
My 2¢
What you've said does make some sense. I dont' think they could wait much longer depending upon what pc makers do. They don't want to look behind the curve. Actually most pc vendors seemed a little slow to adopt and promote ICD machines. Maybe this will be the case core 2 duo as well. I am actually more anxious to see an iMac update as a Powermac is really going to be more than I need.
Originally posted by onlooker
Before you know it these two will be taking long showers together.
WWDC keynote is two months, and two days away, and on that note the reasons I think Apple will wait that long until delivering a new powerMac are many, but I will expand on a few.
#1) It will give Apple enough time to see what the other manufacturers are offering, and I hate that part of it because I always feel it gives Apple more room to do less with what they know rather than more.
#2) Testing the machines and getting all kinks out. Come on. We are talking about Macs. Apple designs the whole package for the reason that it always just works, and troubleshooting last minute hardware updates is just as extensive as working out the prototypes.
#3) When was the last time Steve Jobs said "Starts Shipping today" on a PowerMac?
#4) after you deduce the previous 3, if there are no problems in testing, it's possible that there is about 2 weeks from the time they are finished until WWDC. WWDC is their trademark event for the PM, and it is also where IBM, and Steve Jobs said 3GHz in a year. Apple will wait out the two weeks, and bring out the intel guy, and say with intel "THREE GHZ SHIPPING TODAY!"
BTW, that will be dual socket Dual core 3GHz.
My 2¢
They can announce it as early as they want and even not be done with testing at the time of the announcement. That way they can queue everyone's orders up, get the Powermac G5s sold off at cheaper prices. You said that Apple has never shipped a Powermac right after it was announced; having an extra-early release date won't change this.
Conroe Vs. Woodcrest. One is a consumer chip and one is a "enterprise" (hate that word) chip. Is there ANY drawbacks besides price for using a server chip in a workstation? I know in the graphics world, You can take a NVidia Quadro chip and an equiv. Nvidia graphics chip and the Quadro will pounce on it for modeling and live rendering. But when it comes to plain jane games, the equiv. can actually out perform the Quadro chip for 1/10th of the price.
So what I am asking, is there times when a desktop chip can out perform a server chip??
Intel actually lists the Woodcrest chips as a Workstation/Server chip. The only thing that really differentiates the use is the motherboard. Server motherboards(5000P) won't have PCI-Express 16x. The workstation motherboards (5000x) will have PCI-Express 16x.
Apple HAS to use Woodcrest if they want to take the Mac Pro up to $3k and beyond. Everyone else will.
Conroe is going to make a very nice basic Server and Workstation CPU. You'll just give up on SMP and a bit on the FSB (1066MHz vs 1333MHz)
Originally posted by emig647
I have a question that is a little off topic, but a little on topic.
.....
So what I am asking, is there times when a desktop chip can out perform a server chip??
I assume you mean Conroe vs. Woodcrest.
It's like hmurchison said. It's mostly motherboard differences.
The woodcrest is just a high performance chip designed to be used in dual socket configurations.
Possibly in a small percentage of things if you use a single woodcrest (inadvisable) against a conroe. That smaller FSB in the conroe could take less time to execute in an app that is less dependent on memory, or has latency issues.
You wont find a single woodcrest in any manufacturers computers that has the slightest bit of brain running the show though.
Being that all new processors are dual core from this day foreword developers are going to have to take advantage of multiple processors in any way they can to stay in the game, or loose customers to developers with similar apps that are willing to exploit their programming weaknesses.
So I would say in the immediate future there may be some shareware that may, but for all intensive purposes apps that matter to the most of us will not be. And that is why we buy powerMac's.
To answer your question about the rendering thing, that is totally different. But it does not apply here really. Rendering is done by the CPU, not the GPU in 3D apps. The Quadro is designed for 3D apps, not 3D gaming, and has specialty drivers for a certain group of apps in particular. It's effect on rendering is about 0%, and it's gaming prowess is acceptable but not suited for Gaming because it's cycles are concerned with on screen rendering precise detail, not speed like a gaming card. The GPU is usually identical to the gaming card GPU though.
Originally posted by onlooker
To answer your question about the rendering thing, that is totally different. But it does not apply here really. Rendering is done by the CPU, not the GPU in 3D apps. The Quadro is designed for 3D apps, not 3D gaming, and has specialty drivers for a certain group of apps in particular. It's effect on rendering is about 0%, and it's gaming prowess is acceptable but not suited for Gaming because it's cycles are concerned with on screen rendering precise detail, not speed like a gaming card. The GPU is usually identical to the gaming card GPU though.
That was my point. IS the quadro is used for different things thing a consumer card... IE on screen rendering. I wasn't trying to mix the cpu / gpu thing. I was using the gpu as an example of when enterprise hardware can be slower than consumer hardware. And was wondering if the woodcrest could be slower than conroe in certain things.