They pretty much have to have a quad woodcrest or continue production of the quad G5, perhaps even giving us a quad G5 upgrade. There is no way Apple will release "slower" machines than what they have now.
My pet theory is that Apple has very carefully managed clock-speed increases for the last few years. How unlikely is it that powerbooks go nicely from 1.67 GHz. to 1.8 GHz except on a new chip from a different company? It's suspiciously smooth and incremental. But then again, perhaps that's just the industry.
I predict a mix of Woodcrest and conroe in the PM with the conroe eventually falling into the iMac, the Kentsfield eventually taking over the high end. THere will never be an insanely spec'd workstation Mac because of clusted xServes. Hopefully, and most likely, the actual case of the next desktop will be smaller with more capacity.
iMac 17": 2.0GHz Conroe LV (same thing as Merom, just ships earlier)
iMac 20": 2.3GHz Conroe LV
Good Mac Pro: 2.4GHz Conroe
Better Mac Pro: 3.0GHz Conroe
Best Mac Pro: 2x 3.0GHz Woodcrest
I hope that's the way the Mac Pros work out because the single-3.0GHz is perfect for me, and I'll be naturally deterred without feeling like I'm buying inferior hardware if I don't get the dual 3.
There is one BIG THING you have to remember. What these current machines are not is designed from the beginning knowing they would have only an intel processor. The next ones will. The current ones are all legacy computers expecting to use IBM PPC's, and a possible intel transition, and their designs reflect that in terms of what they offer graphics wise etc. etc. etc.
I disagree on two counts. First, at the motherboard level these machines are all Intel because there is no commonality between Intel and PPC chips... Apple went entirely with the Intel CPUs and chipsets. The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accomodate the new designs.
Second, at the system design level the Intel chips aren't so remarkably more advanced that they enable all sorts of wonderful new applications. Yes, they deliver better performance than the G4 (although Apple never used the latest G4 so they could have gone a little farther there), and they can operate at lower power than the G5 (although Apple stopped pursuing IBM for better G5s). But the difference isn't so remarkable as to enable some wonderful new technology. And the main difference in terms of graphics is the integrated chipset graphics that everyone is complaining about.
It bears repeating that Apple switched to Intel for their long term roadmap, and I don't expect to see anything remarkable that they couldn't have done with PPC until well into 2007 or 2008. And remember, its easy to point at the last PPC machines they built and say "wow, look how much faster we are now" but then you are ignoring that the PPC would have improved had Apple stayed with it. No it wouldn't have improved by leaps and bounds (i.e. differences that have real impact), but then again neither have the Intel chips done that.
And for the comment that it took IBM 8 months to increase 200 MHz, you are overlooking the fact that Intel and AMD hardly progressed in terms of clock rate in the same period. In fact, the only really remarkable leap in the last couple of years (albeit somewhat specialized) is the Cell processor from you-know-who.
Short term the best thing about Apple using Intel is the large number of core variations and chipsets that they are producing, allowing more flexibility for Apple's various product lines. Long-term Intel's process technology looks good and will hopefully bring some truly remarkable products.
I disagree on two counts. First, at the motherboard level these machines are all Intel because there is no commonality between Intel and PPC chips... Apple went entirely with the Intel CPUs and chipsets. The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accomodate the new designs.
Second, at the system design level the Intel chips aren't so remarkably more advanced that they enable all sorts of wonderful new applications. Yes, they deliver better performance than the G4 (although Apple never used the latest G4 so they could have gone a little farther there), and they can operate at lower power than the G5 (although Apple stopped pursuing IBM for better G5s). But the difference isn't so remarkable as to enable some wonderful new technology. And the main difference in terms of graphics is the integrated chipset graphics that everyone is complaining about.
It bears repeating that Apple switched to Intel for their long term roadmap, and I don't expect to see anything remarkable that they couldn't have done with PPC until well into 2007 or 2008. And remember, its easy to point at the last PPC machines they built and say "wow, look how much faster we are now" but then you are ignoring that the PPC would have improved had Apple stayed with it. No it wouldn't have improved by leaps and bounds (i.e. differences that have real impact), but then again neither have the Intel chips done that.
And for the comment that it took IBM 8 months to increase 200 MHz, you are overlooking the fact that Intel and AMD hardly progressed in terms of clock rate in the same period. In fact, the only really remarkable leap in the last couple of years (albeit somewhat specialized) is the Cell processor from you-know-who.
Short term the best thing about Apple using Intel is the large number of core variations and chipsets that they are producing, allowing more flexibility for Apple's various product lines. Long-term Intel's process technology looks good and will hopefully bring some truly remarkable products.
I mostly agree with this.
But, I would emphasize the concept that both the G4 and 5 were at an impasse. I don't believe that Apple wasn't pushing to get more advanced chips. I feel that they were. But, as has been discussed ad nauseam, Both Freescale and IBM weren't interested. Apple's portion of their business wasn't increasing nearly as fast as the embedded portions were, and, of course, IBM had gotten several deals for other variants that looked to be much more profitable.
Freescale's dual core 600 series was far off, with a different memory model than they were using, and seemed to be too much trouble. That has also been discussed by Hannibal, and others.
The 7448 offered, at best, a marginal improvement that was simply not in the class of a dual Yonah, much less a dual Merom. so for portable use, Apple had no choice. Even had they gone to the 7448, they would have fallen even further behind this year.
The G5's could have held out for a while longer, but unless IBM has something up their sleeve that we don't know anything about, by the end of this year, they would have been severely outclassed. They are already outclassed when compared to the top Xeons, and noticeably so, by the equivalent Opterons. In video editing, Apple's strong point, the Opterons can do as much as a 30 to 40% faster render, under certain conditions. That HAD to be rectified.
IBM's refusal to even add to the cache, until late last year, even though the poor performance of the chips regarding latency has been criticized over and over again, shows that IBM has other markets in mind. Even a 1MB cache isn't really enough.
I disagree on two counts. First, at the motherboard level these machines are all Intel because there is no commonality between Intel and PPC chips... Apple went entirely with the Intel CPUs and chipsets. The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accomodate the new designs.
Second, at the system design level the Intel chips aren't so remarkably more advanced that they enable all sorts of wonderful new applications. Yes, they deliver better performance than the G4 (although Apple never used the latest G4 so they could have gone a little farther there), and they can operate at lower power than the G5 (although Apple stopped pursuing IBM for better G5s). But the difference isn't so remarkable as to enable some wonderful new technology. And the main difference in terms of graphics is the integrated chipset graphics that everyone is complaining about.
It bears repeating that Apple switched to Intel for their long term roadmap, and I don't expect to see anything remarkable that they couldn't have done with PPC until well into 2007 or 2008. And remember, its easy to point at the last PPC machines they built and say "wow, look how much faster we are now" but then you are ignoring that the PPC would have improved had Apple stayed with it. No it wouldn't have improved by leaps and bounds (i.e. differences that have real impact), but then again neither have the Intel chips done that.
After this point I am assuming you were addressing someone else because I didn't mention any of this
And for the comment that it took IBM 8 months to increase 200 MHz, you are overlooking the fact that Intel and AMD hardly progressed in terms of clock rate in the same period. In fact, the only really remarkable leap in the last couple of years (albeit somewhat specialized) is the Cell processor from you-know-who.
Short term the best thing about Apple using Intel is the large number of core variations and chipsets that they are producing, allowing more flexibility for Apple's various product lines. Long-term Intel's process technology looks good and will hopefully bring some truly remarkable products.
On points one, and two: My meaning was exactly about what you said. You just didn't get it. "The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accommodate the new designs. Yes That's exactly what my meaning was. Because they had to restrain the design to a previous make, and model size there were limits to what they could have done compared to designing a machine from the ground up. Integrated graphics may very well be in there because reorganizing a pre-existing laptop would not allow enough room to use laptop graphics cards. That is just one example. There is a rumored 17" version coming. This one is probably going to maintain the same design as the G4 version as well. In doing this Apple will gather a few switchers here and there, and I suspect we'll keep hearing complaints about the use of integrated graphics from users who would not switch because of it. I also suspect that when Apple decides to provide a new laptop design to us we will have laptop graphics cards in the pro models which will then give the allure of options to PC users, and Mac users who are not pleased with being stuck with an integrated graphics chipset. I am under the assumption that they will do the same in the iMac. I suspect that the Mac Mini, and maybe lower model iMacs will retain integrated graphics, but the MBP, 17" iMac will have a card slot. Apple new these transition Machines were just their launch pads, and they intend to make the most of the intel transition. They have proven that by starting early in releasing a non integrated version of boot-Camp outside of the "code named" Panther OS.
Because they had to restrain the design to a previous make, and model size there were limits to what they could have done compared to designing a machine from the ground up. Integrated graphics may very well be in there because reorganizing a pre-existing laptop would not allow enough room to use laptop graphics cards. That is just one example. There is a rumored 17" version coming. This one is probably going to maintain the same design as the G4 version as well. In doing this Apple will gather a few switchers here and there, and I suspect we'll keep hearing complaints about the use of integrated graphics from users who would not switch because of it. I also suspect that when Apple decides to provide a new laptop design to us we will have laptop graphics cards in the pro models which will then give the allure of options to PC users, and Mac users who are not pleased with being stuck with an integrated graphics chipset. I am under the assumption that they will do the same in the iMac. I suspect that the Mac Mini, and maybe lower model iMacs will retain integrated graphics, but the MBP, 17" iMac will have a card slot. Apple new these transition Machines were just their launch pads, and they intend to make the most of the intel transition. They have proven that by starting early in releasing a non integrated version of boot-Camp outside of the "code named" Panther OS. [/B]
I'm not sure of what you're saying here.
When we talk "integrated graphics" we mean Intel's chip.
This is clearly not what is being used in the MBP or the iMac, both of which use ATI 1600's. That is a far better graphics solution.
But, I see that you are talking about a slot. You don't think that Apple will make the graphics subsystem in the MBP and iMac to be upgradeable, do you? Because that's very unlikely to happen.
What PC laptops have removeable graphics cards, other than, possibly, the very expensive, and heavy, machines that a few small specialty companies sell?
"My pet theory is that Apple has very carefully managed clock-speed increases for the last few years."
And that promise to be at 3 GHz with the G5 in the summer of 2004 was a smoke screen
I try to not say anything about the G(5-1)
I guess I should have said "couple of years". I think IBM told Apple they would hit 3 GHz easily and there would be a lot more good stuff after that. When IBM missed and, presumably, scaled back their roadmap (putting their efforts into the cell processor) that's when Apple decided to go with Intel. I'm sure Apple has always been in communication with Intel and kind of knew what was coming.
Since Apple was the only G5 customer and the only major G4 customer they could kind of dictate what came out when. So they planned this gradual transition. makes good sence to do it that way.
I see it as, Well Apple here is your Dual 2GHZ chip, great deal huh, we're good eh; now here's your 2.5GHz chip but looks like you'll have to water-cool it...and your 3 GHz chip is a piece of cake, oh, did we mention you'll have to cool it with liquid Helium?...but don't worry we gonna make these nice Cell chips for ya, but MS and others are in the que in front of ya to get them...you don't mind waiting do you...
Steve looks over both shoulders, looks at the IBM suits and tells them: kiss my a$$...
I think hardware multithreading is pretty much relegated to a niche server market, the only place where it could be of real value, and you won't see it on personal computers again anytime soon.
This year, 2006, there are dual-core CPUs aplenty. In 2007, quad-cores start shipping and in 2008 there will be quite a few of them coming out of 45 nm fabs. In 2010, octo-cores can come out if 32 nm pans out.
Why have multithreading when so many cores could be available in 2 to 4 years? On a high-end 2 socket system, that could be 8 to 16 cores. What sort of software needs that many threads? (Other than server related stuff.)
So, there are few of things holding multithreading back on personal computers: multi-cores are and will be available, the system architecture will be I/O bound for multi-cores let alone MT multi-cores, and software development cycles seem to operate over longer durations that fab development cycles.
MT is nice for servers where I/O bandwidth is more plentiful (and more expensive), where lots of small chunks of CPU time are required to be delivered. Intel may bring MT back in Woodcrest, but I don't see anything driving it in personal computers. It may even be multi-cores (CMP) drive MT out of server processors.
As for Cell and Xenon/Waternoose, I see that as a freebie courtesy of IBM, or something that they hope pans out 3 to 4 years into the future. Ie, the mission of game consoles is to sell games. New games can gradually tap the resources of the hardware translating to more games being sold, and a game console sold at a big loss is no problem as users continue to buy 3 or 4 games a year (or pay subscription fees). So, MT eventually will be useful.
When we talk "integrated graphics" we mean Intel's chip.
This is clearly not what is being used in the MBP or the iMac, both of which use ATI 1600's. That is a far better graphics solution.
But, I see that you are talking about a slot. You don't think that Apple will make the graphics subsystem in the MBP and iMac to be upgradeable, do you? Because that's very unlikely to happen.
What PC laptops have removeable graphics cards, other than, possibly, the very expensive, and heavy, machines that a few small specialty companies sell?
My bad. Crossed my thoughts with the mini's integrated graphics chip, but your right that I was referring to an upgradable graphics set up for both systems. So on to it. The MBP is less attractive than other performance laptops in the same range (others are cheaper) like the Alienware Area-51® m7700, and now that DELL owns Alienware they are going to market every thing as "Better than Apple" in as "many ways" as they can. For pro's looking to use laptops most would prefer to have options, and these are huge options. Options that can make a big difference that separate working situations like 2D from 3D. Gamers like to have the same options, and with windows running on the Mac both windows and Mac users/gamers having easy access to windows games on Macs things need to be shaken up, and options can make all the difference.
If Apple doesn't open up to upgradable graphics choice is what will keep the PC separate from the Mac experience, and keep the PC camp on the PC side.
Word of mouth marketing will remind PC users that on a PC they have options of going from a GeForce Go 7300, to a GeForce Go 7800 GTX, or for 3D the NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M; (and this doesn't even include ATI cards) And that's not all. All these cards can be used in laptops using SLI. Nvidia has partnered with 20 Laptop makers to offer SLI graphics in notebooks.
The best choice for editing HD video content on a Laptop would be a SLI enabled laptop with a pair of NVIDIA GeForce Go 7800 GTX GPUs using the NVIDIA nForce4 SLI media communications processor (MCP). Things like that will keep pro video editors using laptops with Adobe Premiere Pro, and After effects instead of FCP-HD, After effects, and Motion.
On to the iMac. (I'll keep it short)
People keep asking for the (failed) headless Mac again because the iMac graphics isn't enough, and it's not upgradable. If Apple offered upgradable graphics cards in the iMac I'd say 70% of them would forget about it. As for size they could easily use Go series cards for laptops, and outperform the current ones.
It's obvious that Apple is going directly after the biggest piece of the PC market that they can get their hands on. If they want to get half of what they would like of it they need to show PC users that Apple know's what they want, and Apple can provide it. Hell half of this shit Mac users want too. Believe me. I would love to have the option of SLI in a PowerMac, but that's another thing entirely.
My bad. Crossed my thoughts with the mini's integrated graphics chip, but your right that I was referring to an upgradable graphics set up for both systems. So on to it. The MBP is less attractive than other performance laptops in the same range (others are cheaper) like the Alienware Area-51® m7700, and now that DELL owns Alienware they are going to market every thing as "Better than Apple" in as "many ways" as they can. For pro's looking to use laptops most would prefer to have options, and these are huge options. Options that can make a big difference that separate working situations like 2D from 3D. Gamers like to have the same options, and with windows running on the Mac both windows and Mac users/gamers having easy access to windows games on Macs things need to be shaken up, and options can make all the difference.
If Apple doesn't open up to upgradable graphics choice is what will keep the PC separate from the Mac experience, and keep the PC camp on the PC side.
Word of mouth marketing will remind PC users that on a PC they have options of going from a GeForce Go 7300, to a GeForce Go 7800 GTX, or for 3D the NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M; (and this doesn't even include ATI cards) And that's not all. All these cards can be used in laptops using SLI. Nvidia has partnered with 20 Laptop makers to offer SLI graphics in notebooks.
The best choice for editing HD video content on a Laptop would be a SLI enabled laptop with a pair of NVIDIA GeForce Go 7800 GTX GPUs using the NVIDIA nForce4 SLI media communications processor (MCP). Things like that will keep pro video editors using laptops with Adobe Premiere Pro, and After effects instead of FCP-HD, After effects, and Motion.
On to the iMac. (I'll keep it short)
People keep asking for the (failed) headless Mac again because the iMac graphics isn't enough, and it's not upgradable. If Apple offered upgradable graphics cards in the iMac I'd say 70% of them would forget about it. As for size they could easily use Go series cards for laptops, and outperform the current ones.
It's obvious that Apple is going directly after the biggest piece of the PC market that they can get their hands on. If they want to get half of what they would like of it they need to show PC users that Apple know's what they want, and Apple can provide it. Hell half of this shit Mac users want too. Believe me. I would love to have the option of SLI in a PowerMac, but that's another thing entirely.
You're speaking about build to order options from these companies? Not user replaceable boards.
The largest part of the PC market doesn't change their graphics cards. Whatever comes with the machine, dies with the machine,.
People keep asking for the (failed) headless Mac again because the iMac graphics isn't enough, and it's not upgradable. If Apple offered upgradable graphics cards in the iMac I'd say 70% of them would forget about it. As for size they could easily use Go series cards for laptops, and outperform the current ones.
There has, of course, been much previous discussion of this topic. It seems to me that Apple has tried this twice, once with the Cube, and again with the single processor G5 tower. Neither was successful. I think that there are 2 reasons. One is that I think that the price of these machines would be higher than most people would think acceptable. A 20" iMac minus the screen would cost $1700 - $400 = $1300. From there, add the costs of more memory slots, or upgradeable graphics, or a faster PowerMac-like CPU, or FW800, or whatever PowerMac feature you think the computer should have, and the computer will cost nearly as much as a PowerMac. The second reason is that no two people agree exactly which features should be present. While you want the graphics, others want more memory slots and, in G5 days, a PowerMac-speed FSB. Apple apparently has concluded that they can't make money designing & selling this computer.
Comments
P4 has a problem with bubbles in it's extrem long pipeline. HT helped to fill them.
My pet theory is that Apple has very carefully managed clock-speed increases for the last few years. How unlikely is it that powerbooks go nicely from 1.67 GHz. to 1.8 GHz except on a new chip from a different company? It's suspiciously smooth and incremental. But then again, perhaps that's just the industry.
I predict a mix of Woodcrest and conroe in the PM with the conroe eventually falling into the iMac, the Kentsfield eventually taking over the high end. THere will never be an insanely spec'd workstation Mac because of clusted xServes. Hopefully, and most likely, the actual case of the next desktop will be smaller with more capacity.
And that promise to be at 3 GHz with the G5 in the summer of 2004 was a smoke screen
I try to not say anything about the G(5-1)
Originally posted by wmf
Some obvious predictions:
iMac 17": 2.0GHz Conroe LV (same thing as Merom, just ships earlier)
iMac 20": 2.3GHz Conroe LV
Good Mac Pro: 2.4GHz Conroe
Better Mac Pro: 3.0GHz Conroe
Best Mac Pro: 2x 3.0GHz Woodcrest
I hope that's the way the Mac Pros work out because the single-3.0GHz is perfect for me, and I'll be naturally deterred without feeling like I'm buying inferior hardware if I don't get the dual 3.
Originally posted by onlooker
There is one BIG THING you have to remember. What these current machines are not is designed from the beginning knowing they would have only an intel processor. The next ones will. The current ones are all legacy computers expecting to use IBM PPC's, and a possible intel transition, and their designs reflect that in terms of what they offer graphics wise etc. etc. etc.
I disagree on two counts. First, at the motherboard level these machines are all Intel because there is no commonality between Intel and PPC chips... Apple went entirely with the Intel CPUs and chipsets. The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accomodate the new designs.
Second, at the system design level the Intel chips aren't so remarkably more advanced that they enable all sorts of wonderful new applications. Yes, they deliver better performance than the G4 (although Apple never used the latest G4 so they could have gone a little farther there), and they can operate at lower power than the G5 (although Apple stopped pursuing IBM for better G5s). But the difference isn't so remarkable as to enable some wonderful new technology. And the main difference in terms of graphics is the integrated chipset graphics that everyone is complaining about.
It bears repeating that Apple switched to Intel for their long term roadmap, and I don't expect to see anything remarkable that they couldn't have done with PPC until well into 2007 or 2008. And remember, its easy to point at the last PPC machines they built and say "wow, look how much faster we are now" but then you are ignoring that the PPC would have improved had Apple stayed with it. No it wouldn't have improved by leaps and bounds (i.e. differences that have real impact), but then again neither have the Intel chips done that.
And for the comment that it took IBM 8 months to increase 200 MHz, you are overlooking the fact that Intel and AMD hardly progressed in terms of clock rate in the same period. In fact, the only really remarkable leap in the last couple of years (albeit somewhat specialized) is the Cell processor from you-know-who.
Short term the best thing about Apple using Intel is the large number of core variations and chipsets that they are producing, allowing more flexibility for Apple's various product lines. Long-term Intel's process technology looks good and will hopefully bring some truly remarkable products.
Originally posted by smalM
If a cpu is able to feed all its working units properly without HT then you don't need it.
P4 has a problem with bubbles in it's extrem long pipeline. HT helped to fill them.
No. Simple as that.
They removed it temporarally for the new designs. But they will bring it back.
Intel can't keep adding cores to the chip.The expense and heat produced will, again, become unreasonable.
Read up on HT before you comment on it.
Originally posted by Programmer
I disagree on two counts. First, at the motherboard level these machines are all Intel because there is no commonality between Intel and PPC chips... Apple went entirely with the Intel CPUs and chipsets. The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accomodate the new designs.
Second, at the system design level the Intel chips aren't so remarkably more advanced that they enable all sorts of wonderful new applications. Yes, they deliver better performance than the G4 (although Apple never used the latest G4 so they could have gone a little farther there), and they can operate at lower power than the G5 (although Apple stopped pursuing IBM for better G5s). But the difference isn't so remarkable as to enable some wonderful new technology. And the main difference in terms of graphics is the integrated chipset graphics that everyone is complaining about.
It bears repeating that Apple switched to Intel for their long term roadmap, and I don't expect to see anything remarkable that they couldn't have done with PPC until well into 2007 or 2008. And remember, its easy to point at the last PPC machines they built and say "wow, look how much faster we are now" but then you are ignoring that the PPC would have improved had Apple stayed with it. No it wouldn't have improved by leaps and bounds (i.e. differences that have real impact), but then again neither have the Intel chips done that.
And for the comment that it took IBM 8 months to increase 200 MHz, you are overlooking the fact that Intel and AMD hardly progressed in terms of clock rate in the same period. In fact, the only really remarkable leap in the last couple of years (albeit somewhat specialized) is the Cell processor from you-know-who.
Short term the best thing about Apple using Intel is the large number of core variations and chipsets that they are producing, allowing more flexibility for Apple's various product lines. Long-term Intel's process technology looks good and will hopefully bring some truly remarkable products.
I mostly agree with this.
But, I would emphasize the concept that both the G4 and 5 were at an impasse. I don't believe that Apple wasn't pushing to get more advanced chips. I feel that they were. But, as has been discussed ad nauseam, Both Freescale and IBM weren't interested. Apple's portion of their business wasn't increasing nearly as fast as the embedded portions were, and, of course, IBM had gotten several deals for other variants that looked to be much more profitable.
Freescale's dual core 600 series was far off, with a different memory model than they were using, and seemed to be too much trouble. That has also been discussed by Hannibal, and others.
The 7448 offered, at best, a marginal improvement that was simply not in the class of a dual Yonah, much less a dual Merom. so for portable use, Apple had no choice. Even had they gone to the 7448, they would have fallen even further behind this year.
The G5's could have held out for a while longer, but unless IBM has something up their sleeve that we don't know anything about, by the end of this year, they would have been severely outclassed. They are already outclassed when compared to the top Xeons, and noticeably so, by the equivalent Opterons. In video editing, Apple's strong point, the Opterons can do as much as a 30 to 40% faster render, under certain conditions. That HAD to be rectified.
IBM's refusal to even add to the cache, until late last year, even though the poor performance of the chips regarding latency has been criticized over and over again, shows that IBM has other markets in mind. Even a 1MB cache isn't really enough.
Originally posted by Programmer
I disagree on two counts. First, at the motherboard level these machines are all Intel because there is no commonality between Intel and PPC chips... Apple went entirely with the Intel CPUs and chipsets. The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accomodate the new designs.
Second, at the system design level the Intel chips aren't so remarkably more advanced that they enable all sorts of wonderful new applications. Yes, they deliver better performance than the G4 (although Apple never used the latest G4 so they could have gone a little farther there), and they can operate at lower power than the G5 (although Apple stopped pursuing IBM for better G5s). But the difference isn't so remarkable as to enable some wonderful new technology. And the main difference in terms of graphics is the integrated chipset graphics that everyone is complaining about.
It bears repeating that Apple switched to Intel for their long term roadmap, and I don't expect to see anything remarkable that they couldn't have done with PPC until well into 2007 or 2008. And remember, its easy to point at the last PPC machines they built and say "wow, look how much faster we are now" but then you are ignoring that the PPC would have improved had Apple stayed with it. No it wouldn't have improved by leaps and bounds (i.e. differences that have real impact), but then again neither have the Intel chips done that.
After this point I am assuming you were addressing someone else because I didn't mention any of this
And for the comment that it took IBM 8 months to increase 200 MHz, you are overlooking the fact that Intel and AMD hardly progressed in terms of clock rate in the same period. In fact, the only really remarkable leap in the last couple of years (albeit somewhat specialized) is the Cell processor from you-know-who.
Short term the best thing about Apple using Intel is the large number of core variations and chipsets that they are producing, allowing more flexibility for Apple's various product lines. Long-term Intel's process technology looks good and will hopefully bring some truly remarkable products.
On points one, and two: My meaning was exactly about what you said. You just didn't get it. "The internal layouts of the iMac and MacBook Pro were substantially reorganized to accommodate the new designs. Yes That's exactly what my meaning was. Because they had to restrain the design to a previous make, and model size there were limits to what they could have done compared to designing a machine from the ground up. Integrated graphics may very well be in there because reorganizing a pre-existing laptop would not allow enough room to use laptop graphics cards. That is just one example. There is a rumored 17" version coming. This one is probably going to maintain the same design as the G4 version as well. In doing this Apple will gather a few switchers here and there, and I suspect we'll keep hearing complaints about the use of integrated graphics from users who would not switch because of it. I also suspect that when Apple decides to provide a new laptop design to us we will have laptop graphics cards in the pro models which will then give the allure of options to PC users, and Mac users who are not pleased with being stuck with an integrated graphics chipset. I am under the assumption that they will do the same in the iMac. I suspect that the Mac Mini, and maybe lower model iMacs will retain integrated graphics, but the MBP, 17" iMac will have a card slot. Apple new these transition Machines were just their launch pads, and they intend to make the most of the intel transition. They have proven that by starting early in releasing a non integrated version of boot-Camp outside of the "code named" Panther OS.
Originally posted by melgross
Read up on HT before you comment on it.
Thanks Massa for the advice to us stupids!
Originally posted by onlooker
Because they had to restrain the design to a previous make, and model size there were limits to what they could have done compared to designing a machine from the ground up. Integrated graphics may very well be in there because reorganizing a pre-existing laptop would not allow enough room to use laptop graphics cards. That is just one example. There is a rumored 17" version coming. This one is probably going to maintain the same design as the G4 version as well. In doing this Apple will gather a few switchers here and there, and I suspect we'll keep hearing complaints about the use of integrated graphics from users who would not switch because of it. I also suspect that when Apple decides to provide a new laptop design to us we will have laptop graphics cards in the pro models which will then give the allure of options to PC users, and Mac users who are not pleased with being stuck with an integrated graphics chipset. I am under the assumption that they will do the same in the iMac. I suspect that the Mac Mini, and maybe lower model iMacs will retain integrated graphics, but the MBP, 17" iMac will have a card slot. Apple new these transition Machines were just their launch pads, and they intend to make the most of the intel transition. They have proven that by starting early in releasing a non integrated version of boot-Camp outside of the "code named" Panther OS. [/B]
I'm not sure of what you're saying here.
When we talk "integrated graphics" we mean Intel's chip.
This is clearly not what is being used in the MBP or the iMac, both of which use ATI 1600's. That is a far better graphics solution.
But, I see that you are talking about a slot. You don't think that Apple will make the graphics subsystem in the MBP and iMac to be upgradeable, do you? Because that's very unlikely to happen.
What PC laptops have removeable graphics cards, other than, possibly, the very expensive, and heavy, machines that a few small specialty companies sell?
Originally posted by smalM
Thanks Massa for the advice to us stupids!
Always glad to be of service.
But, you called yourself stupid. I didn't. Uninformed, yes.
The advice still stands.
Originally posted by DrBoar
"My pet theory is that Apple has very carefully managed clock-speed increases for the last few years."
And that promise to be at 3 GHz with the G5 in the summer of 2004 was a smoke screen
I try to not say anything about the G(5-1)
I guess I should have said "couple of years". I think IBM told Apple they would hit 3 GHz easily and there would be a lot more good stuff after that. When IBM missed and, presumably, scaled back their roadmap (putting their efforts into the cell processor) that's when Apple decided to go with Intel. I'm sure Apple has always been in communication with Intel and kind of knew what was coming.
Since Apple was the only G5 customer and the only major G4 customer they could kind of dictate what came out when. So they planned this gradual transition. makes good sence to do it that way.
Steve looks over both shoulders, looks at the IBM suits and tells them: kiss my a$$...
This year, 2006, there are dual-core CPUs aplenty. In 2007, quad-cores start shipping and in 2008 there will be quite a few of them coming out of 45 nm fabs. In 2010, octo-cores can come out if 32 nm pans out.
Why have multithreading when so many cores could be available in 2 to 4 years? On a high-end 2 socket system, that could be 8 to 16 cores. What sort of software needs that many threads? (Other than server related stuff.)
So, there are few of things holding multithreading back on personal computers: multi-cores are and will be available, the system architecture will be I/O bound for multi-cores let alone MT multi-cores, and software development cycles seem to operate over longer durations that fab development cycles.
MT is nice for servers where I/O bandwidth is more plentiful (and more expensive), where lots of small chunks of CPU time are required to be delivered. Intel may bring MT back in Woodcrest, but I don't see anything driving it in personal computers. It may even be multi-cores (CMP) drive MT out of server processors.
As for Cell and Xenon/Waternoose, I see that as a freebie courtesy of IBM, or something that they hope pans out 3 to 4 years into the future. Ie, the mission of game consoles is to sell games. New games can gradually tap the resources of the hardware translating to more games being sold, and a game console sold at a big loss is no problem as users continue to buy 3 or 4 games a year (or pay subscription fees). So, MT eventually will be useful.
Originally posted by DrBoar
"My pet theory is that Apple has very carefully managed clock-speed increases for the last few years."
And that promise to be at 3 GHz with the G5 in the summer of 2004 was a smoke screen
I try to not say anything about the G(5-1)
Intel actually delivers without the need for watercooling.
Originally posted by theapplegenius
Intel actually delivers without the need for watercooling.
It's amazing at just how many watercooling upgrades are out there though.
Also, it was stated a while ago that Intel was investigating watercooling as well.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not sure of what you're saying here.
When we talk "integrated graphics" we mean Intel's chip.
This is clearly not what is being used in the MBP or the iMac, both of which use ATI 1600's. That is a far better graphics solution.
But, I see that you are talking about a slot. You don't think that Apple will make the graphics subsystem in the MBP and iMac to be upgradeable, do you? Because that's very unlikely to happen.
What PC laptops have removeable graphics cards, other than, possibly, the very expensive, and heavy, machines that a few small specialty companies sell?
My bad. Crossed my thoughts with the mini's integrated graphics chip, but your right that I was referring to an upgradable graphics set up for both systems. So on to it. The MBP is less attractive than other performance laptops in the same range (others are cheaper) like the Alienware Area-51® m7700, and now that DELL owns Alienware they are going to market every thing as "Better than Apple" in as "many ways" as they can. For pro's looking to use laptops most would prefer to have options, and these are huge options. Options that can make a big difference that separate working situations like 2D from 3D. Gamers like to have the same options, and with windows running on the Mac both windows and Mac users/gamers having easy access to windows games on Macs things need to be shaken up, and options can make all the difference.
If Apple doesn't open up to upgradable graphics choice is what will keep the PC separate from the Mac experience, and keep the PC camp on the PC side.
Word of mouth marketing will remind PC users that on a PC they have options of going from a GeForce Go 7300, to a GeForce Go 7800 GTX, or for 3D the NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M; (and this doesn't even include ATI cards) And that's not all. All these cards can be used in laptops using SLI. Nvidia has partnered with 20 Laptop makers to offer SLI graphics in notebooks.
The best choice for editing HD video content on a Laptop would be a SLI enabled laptop with a pair of NVIDIA GeForce Go 7800 GTX GPUs using the NVIDIA nForce4 SLI media communications processor (MCP). Things like that will keep pro video editors using laptops with Adobe Premiere Pro, and After effects instead of FCP-HD, After effects, and Motion.
On to the iMac. (I'll keep it short)
People keep asking for the (failed) headless Mac again because the iMac graphics isn't enough, and it's not upgradable. If Apple offered upgradable graphics cards in the iMac I'd say 70% of them would forget about it. As for size they could easily use Go series cards for laptops, and outperform the current ones.
It's obvious that Apple is going directly after the biggest piece of the PC market that they can get their hands on. If they want to get half of what they would like of it they need to show PC users that Apple know's what they want, and Apple can provide it. Hell half of this shit Mac users want too. Believe me. I would love to have the option of SLI in a PowerMac, but that's another thing entirely.
Originally posted by onlooker
My bad. Crossed my thoughts with the mini's integrated graphics chip, but your right that I was referring to an upgradable graphics set up for both systems. So on to it. The MBP is less attractive than other performance laptops in the same range (others are cheaper) like the Alienware Area-51® m7700, and now that DELL owns Alienware they are going to market every thing as "Better than Apple" in as "many ways" as they can. For pro's looking to use laptops most would prefer to have options, and these are huge options. Options that can make a big difference that separate working situations like 2D from 3D. Gamers like to have the same options, and with windows running on the Mac both windows and Mac users/gamers having easy access to windows games on Macs things need to be shaken up, and options can make all the difference.
If Apple doesn't open up to upgradable graphics choice is what will keep the PC separate from the Mac experience, and keep the PC camp on the PC side.
Word of mouth marketing will remind PC users that on a PC they have options of going from a GeForce Go 7300, to a GeForce Go 7800 GTX, or for 3D the NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M; (and this doesn't even include ATI cards) And that's not all. All these cards can be used in laptops using SLI. Nvidia has partnered with 20 Laptop makers to offer SLI graphics in notebooks.
The best choice for editing HD video content on a Laptop would be a SLI enabled laptop with a pair of NVIDIA GeForce Go 7800 GTX GPUs using the NVIDIA nForce4 SLI media communications processor (MCP). Things like that will keep pro video editors using laptops with Adobe Premiere Pro, and After effects instead of FCP-HD, After effects, and Motion.
On to the iMac. (I'll keep it short)
People keep asking for the (failed) headless Mac again because the iMac graphics isn't enough, and it's not upgradable. If Apple offered upgradable graphics cards in the iMac I'd say 70% of them would forget about it. As for size they could easily use Go series cards for laptops, and outperform the current ones.
It's obvious that Apple is going directly after the biggest piece of the PC market that they can get their hands on. If they want to get half of what they would like of it they need to show PC users that Apple know's what they want, and Apple can provide it. Hell half of this shit Mac users want too. Believe me. I would love to have the option of SLI in a PowerMac, but that's another thing entirely.
You're speaking about build to order options from these companies? Not user replaceable boards.
The largest part of the PC market doesn't change their graphics cards. Whatever comes with the machine, dies with the machine,.
Originally posted by melgross
It's amazing at just how many watercooling upgrades are out there though.
Also, it was stated a while ago that Intel was investigating watercooling as well.
Watercooling is great, I have it in my PC. But it shouldn't be necessary.
Originally posted by onlooker
People keep asking for the (failed) headless Mac again because the iMac graphics isn't enough, and it's not upgradable. If Apple offered upgradable graphics cards in the iMac I'd say 70% of them would forget about it. As for size they could easily use Go series cards for laptops, and outperform the current ones.
There has, of course, been much previous discussion of this topic. It seems to me that Apple has tried this twice, once with the Cube, and again with the single processor G5 tower. Neither was successful. I think that there are 2 reasons. One is that I think that the price of these machines would be higher than most people would think acceptable. A 20" iMac minus the screen would cost $1700 - $400 = $1300. From there, add the costs of more memory slots, or upgradeable graphics, or a faster PowerMac-like CPU, or FW800, or whatever PowerMac feature you think the computer should have, and the computer will cost nearly as much as a PowerMac. The second reason is that no two people agree exactly which features should be present. While you want the graphics, others want more memory slots and, in G5 days, a PowerMac-speed FSB. Apple apparently has concluded that they can't make money designing & selling this computer.