ok, i blew the math (not really, of course, no one is xpcting the shortfall to be picked up in a month, but details, details)......i don't know why everyone is getting so hostile.....simply put no one here can tell us that the problems at Fishkill AREN'T 970 related; only that you hope it to be the case. Unless someone here would like to step up with that proof.
Keep those fingers crossed, kids.
Furthermore, no one ca tell me why it's a bad idea to get more money flowing to IBM AND get G5's in whatever products can support them, only that in their inestimible wisdom, it's not happening any time soon. Again, no evidence, only the orthodoxy of AIFH says this to be the case.....
Finally, I never claimed to have any evidence, only an idea to get IBM more money so they would see the profitability of Fishkill, 970's and so forth. I never claimed I was smarter than Our Lord Steve, either. My claim is this:
a G5 iMac is good for IBM, good for Apple and good for users. Feel free to disagree with that as much as you like.
simply put no one here can tell us that the problems at Fishkill AREN'T 970 related
If you actually read the article that generated this useless thread, the issue IS NOT fab related, but not enough bookings for the fab, i.e. it is operating below capacity and therefore not profitable at this moment. The 970 has been produced (in test runs) in much older fabs than EFishkill. Producing the chip is not an issue.
You really think Apple is IBMs only revenue stream for the 970.
Quote:
In a quest for a bigger piece of the entry-level server market, IBM Corp. has drawn up a three-year plan for producing and marketing systems that pair Linux and IBM's own 64-bit PowerPC family of processors, sources report.
<!--SNIP-->
IBM is poised to introduce two tiers of products: a low-end blade server and an "ultra -low-end" (ULE) rack/deskside model. The initial blade server will be based on the Power PC 970 processor (known internally as the GPUL), which made its debut this month in Apple Computer Inc.'s Power Mac G5 line.
Well you may be right, just found some leaked pictures of the IBM Engineering Lab at Deadfish, no wonder no one is signing up for chip engineering and manufacturing.
. . . Furthermore, no one ca tell me why it's a bad idea to get more money flowing to IBM AND get G5's in whatever products can support them, only that in their inestimible wisdom, it's not happening any time soon.
Hey, I think it is a good idea and, if I'm not mistaken, so do many others here. However, it takes time to redesign motherboards and Apple does not have an unlimited numbers of engineers. It will happen, but not overnight.
the iMac will come with a G5... it's a question of when, not if.
and just so that we're all clear that apple can use the 970 on a scaled down motherboard:
Quote:
Peter Sandon: The processor design itself supports several ratios. The one that Apple announced was a 2:1 ratio. And the processor supports at least 3, 4 and 6 as other ratios.
the iMac will come with a G5... it's a question of when, not if. . .
I agree. If I'm not mistaken, the iMac is special to Steve Jobs and he wants it to succeed. Rather than make it cheaper, I think Apple will go for making the iMac an up scale home computer and put a G5 into it. I also agree that it may run with a little slower bus, but that is not what makes the biggest difference in power dissipation. Rather, it is lower voltage and clock rate.
For example, from early IBM comments, a 1.8 GHz 970 is rated running at normal operating voltage. That same 970 is rated at 1.2 GHz running at minimum operation voltage. The power dissipation is more than cut in half, from 42 Watts to 19 Watts.
The other thing for getting lower power is to wait for the 90 nanometer 970 chip, which will be lower power to begin with. Drop the operating voltage and clock rate, and it goes down even more.
With IBM having about the same yields for 2 GHz 970 as Motorola has for G4 above 1 GHz, why not go G5? If that means having to put the power supply in an external brick or having to have the half dome in metal to use it as a heat sink so be it.
So what if Motorola suddenly shurn out 1.3 GHz low power 7457. The iMac would then get at best a 1.3 GHz CPU, L3 cache and 200 MHz bus, while better than 1.0 GHz no L3 and 133 MHz it is still trailing behind all windows boxes
1.3 gig for the iMac2 is simply not enough against the PCs it's competing with.
In PC world there are PCs for less than the entry iMac2 that have 2.6 gig processors, twice the ram, massive hard drive AND DVD RW drives!
Moreover, the 3.2 gig Intel chip is out, it's in PC towers that already cost less than the non-available G5 but more importantly for Apple's consumer machine, LESS than the top end iMac and NEAR the price of the 'entry' (pathetic) level iMac2.
The iMac2 looks caught in quicksand by comparison.
The whole line needs a damn shake. 17 inch on two models. 19 inch on the high end and 15 inches on a verrrrrry cheap entry model. That 'hemisphere' needs a redesign IF it's holding back 970 style power.
A lower power 970 motherboard with lower clocked 970s? I can see that. I read too that the motherboard ratios can be varied.
The iMac2 would benefit from a 1.4 G5 (well, can you guys tell me where the low power 1.2 970 and/or 1.4 970 went?) on a lower power motherboard. They've had ages to anticpate the G5. They could put the powerbrick outside. I'd find that acceptable. Behind the table on the floor...along with the rest of the cables from your printer and scanner. And a better graphics card! Especially on the top end!
And there is loads of spare capacity for the Fishkill plant.
(Enough for Apple to add a headless desktop Mac to the consumer mix, and a G5 mini-tower. It's not that IBM can't deliver but that it doesn't have enough custom...it seems!)
Personally, I think Apple and IBM can't wait for the 970 to go 0.09. It means that Apple can use it in everything. IBM gets loads more revenue and more of Fishkill gets booked up to do its job. Clearly, the plant isn't being stretched by the current clients. Apple can begin stretching that capacity with a 970 in everything from a 1.4 gig eMac to a 1.2-1.8 gig Powerbook range to a 3 gig Dual POWERMac come this time next year. You can cite competition...I'll say that Apple would be better served suing Moto' for a billion and using that dosh on R$D at IBM, advertising, sweetning the deals at major business and edu' establishments, expanding the Apple stores to go international, bribing reporters to say nice things about the Mac...and bringing Autocad development to the Mac.
This is a good thing for Apple. With 0.09 Apple can drop Moto' in 04. Exactly when, I'm not sure. By June 04?
The G4 is struggling to break the 1.4 gig barrier. The bus is ancient. 1.3 gig will 'do' for now for the Powerbook in say...September. But if Moto' had faster chips, Apple would use them. They can't because Moto' are taking ages to make them. It's obvious why we have millions of Powerbook threads.
It's only a good thing to keep two suppliers when they're both relevant and competing. Moto' are two years behind the curve with their cpus.
That may change in 2004. I doubt it.
The good news is that Fishkill has the capacity for Apple to grow. Silver lining and all that.
The iMac2 would benefit from a 1.4 G5 (well, can you guys tell me where the low power 1.2 970 and/or 1.4 970 went?) on a lower power motherboard.
Nobody are mentioning the lower-clocked versions of the G5, because every piece of info about them will not be revealed until Apple finally announces the elusive PowerBook G5, and the iMac G5
You know, it's a pretty safe bet that sub 1.4 G5's don't even exist. We already know that the G5 is hotter and more expensive than originally thought. It isn't going near an iMac untill it shrinks. Does the iMac use MPC or XPC 7455?, because the MPC variety is CHEAP (under 100usd), certainly cheaper than any G5 would be, and that's amplified by the dirt cheap architecture.
It's time for Apple to just drop the iMac prices to eMac levels, commoditize the eMac or get rid of it and throw in a cube redux (with G5) in between iMac and pMac. iMac keeps the G4 (which may surprise people by the time .09u G5's are ready.
I suspect that the AIO buyer is more interested in price and features than in outright performance. A 15" LCD basically costs nothing now, I can find them for under 300 Canadian at retail, about 200USD. It's basically to the point where any cost savings for a 17" CRT are eaten up by the shipping costs (increased weight/bulk of the CRT unit.)
iMacs are not underperforming so much as they are insanely overpriced.
For the arm and design I'll spot them a 100 premium over eMac levels at the low end.
To that end, what the iMac line should like in US dollars:
899, Combo drive 15" iMac.
1099, Combo drive 17" iMac.
1399, Superdrive 17" iMac.
eMacs? <799 or bust w/ combo, 699 to edu. (and for gawd sakes change that screen to a more tolerable trinitron!)
All of them G4's, 7447/57, .13u (1.33-1.8Ghz by mid '04), 512KB L2, psuedo DDR, yadda yadda... Would you cry about G4's at those prices? I don't think so.
What's more that opens room for a cube redux at 1499-1599ish. Think "PM G5 lite." Same single CPU and I/O, but 500 USD cheaper and less expansion (AGP, 4 RAM slots, and CPU daughtercard only), no extra drive bays, but they can be changed out with standard drives.)
You know, it's a pretty safe bet that sub 1.4 G5's don't even exist. We already know that the G5 is hotter and more expensive than originally thought. It isn't going near an iMac untill it shrinks. Does the iMac use MPC or XPC 7455?, because the MPC variety is CHEAP (under 100usd), certainly cheaper than any G5 would be, and that's amplified by the dirt cheap architecture.
It's time for Apple to just drop the iMac prices to eMac levels, commoditize the eMac or get rid of it and throw in a cube redux (with G5) in between iMac and pMac. iMac keeps the G4 (which may surprise people by the time .09u G5's are ready.
I suspect that the AIO buyer is more interested in price and features than in outright performance. A 15" LCD basically costs nothing now, I can find them for under 300 Canadian at retail, about 200USD. It's basically to the point where any cost savings for a 17" CRT are eaten up by the shipping costs (increased weight/bulk of the CRT unit.)
iMacs are not underperforming so much as they are insanely overpriced.
For the arm and design I'll spot them a 100 premium over eMac levels at the low end.
To that end, what the iMac line should like in US dollars:
899, Combo drive 15" iMac.
1099, Combo drive 17" iMac.
1399, Superdrive 17" iMac.
eMacs? <799 or bust w/ combo, 699 to edu. (and for gawd sakes change that screen to a more tolerable trinitron!)
All of them G4's, 7447/57, .13u (1.33-1.8Ghz by mid '04), 512KB L2, psuedo DDR, yadda yadda... Would you cry about G4's at those prices? I don't think so.
What's more that opens room for a cube redux at 1499-1599ish. Think "PM G5 lite." Same single CPU and I/O, but 500 USD cheaper and less expansion (AGP, 4 RAM slots, and CPU daughtercard only), no extra drive bays, but they can be changed out with standard drives.)
The cube ran with no fans which is one thing I hear a lot of people saying that they loved about it. With a G5 this would be out of the question I think.
As usual Matsu, I find myself agreeing with the broad thrust of your argument and the numerous well reasoned examples and points you make.
Your point about the commodity eMac are bullseye especially when you consider it is merely an 'iMac' afterall, the original 'commodity' computer...from Apple...would you believe
As such, I'm very disappointed Apple haven't been able to drive the 'iMac' down in price as they should have. They've had since what, '99?
That eMac screen is pretty average looking to me. Yeesh, there are sound 19 inch trinitrons for very cheap prices. I know, I got one for my Athlon (spit) pc and it's razor sharp. The eMac screen looks sleepy and blurry eyed by comparison.
I'd love to see 'your' G5 Cube. In the latest Personal Computer World mag...I've seen a shuttle reviewed. It's got some pretty nifty 'condensatiion/pipe' cooling. It's got a hot, high-end Athlon 2 gig plus cpu in there and an Ati Radeon 9700 in there with other stuff! Looks very compact but, BUT(!) pc ugly! It's shaped like a cuboid. Looks 'Cube' square from the front...but it's longer or 'deeper' if you will. It blew away alot of the 'mini' towers and desktops in the review and came out top in performance!!!
Now, if said company can stick an egg fryer Athlon in such a tight space then there's nothing stopping Apple from pushing the iMac2 price down and 'mini' towering the Cube. There must be demand. These 'shuttle's are going like hotcakes. Seems like everybody in pc land is making them. Yeesh, Apple were ahead of the game with the Cube and behind in so many ways. Mostly price and lame G4 processor.
iMac2 does need a price reduct. I don't know what's with it. Even Fred Anderson sounded somewhat apologetic about it in the conference call! Well, duh! Drop the price. Yeesh, for a couple of hundred about the entry iMac you can get a 3.2 gig Pentium 4 which will blow it out the water! With DRW and bigger screen, bigger ram and hard drive. To me, the top end should be £999 inc VAT with another model underneath. This leaves room for the 'mini' tower range under the G5...which is currently occupied by the G4 towers. A dirt cheap eMac, couple of models £595 and under. A scaleable headless Mac, configurable with a G4/G5 could run the gamut of this price range.
If Looprumors is right about a Sept' iMac bump then I'm hoping price is slashed. I wonder if it's going to get the same lame 1.3 gig G4 that the Powerbook might?
Something for everybody and a desktop range flexible enough for the 95% Apple is after.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
The implication of multiple bus ratios for the PPC 970 is for higher clocked CPUs (2+ GHz), since everyone seems to believe that Apple can't raise the bus data rate higher than 1 GHz. I don't agree with that, PC1200 RDRAM exists after all and I think the 970 elastic bus is less demanding than Rambus buses (it doesn't have to account for multiple devices on one channel like a Rambus channel has to).
Apple doesn't really need the higher bus ratios (3:1 et al) for <1.4 GHz PPC 970 machines since the processor bus-to-memory bus is asynchronous. A 1.2 GHz PPC 970 would have a 600 MHz bus, and in this instance, Apple can use either single channel PC2700/PC3200 or dual channel PC2100 DDR SDRAM and be fine for all machines running from 1 GHz to 1.4 GHz.
1999 entry price. That's all you need to know. Now, while the diff between the top config and the bottom is only 1000 USD, that doesn't neccessarily mean the G5 is cheap and you're paying for everything else, more liekly it means that theres a minimum cost to doing the Mobo/CPU combo right, and that even with less RAM capacity and regular old PCI, it still ocsts a bit to make a G5 platform, but perhaps it doesn't cost too much to boost it, ie. the 2nd G5 doesn't cost as much once you've paid for the PS/Mobo/controler/buses. That's good new for pros, but not great news for iMac/powerbook customers. The minimum config costs, and that's what you'd get, moreover the costs would be exacerbated by the miniturization penalty you have to pay to get the thing to fit into an iMac (with the better PS) or PB.
Look at the case, yes the size is for SILENT cooling, but it's big, it's got a lot of fans, and it doesn't have a ton of room. Is it cool? Yes, compared to desktop X86, is it cooler than 7447/57? No, and the Mobo heat/cost numbers probably stack up not so well at all against plain old 7445/55.
IBM mentioned 1.2Ghz, but with a debut at 1.6 and looking to 3Ghz in 12 months, it's a safe bet that 1.2 is just a guestimation for the purposes of Microprocessor forum presentations and not a real product. And since you can't see one, it's a much safer guess that dropping the speed to 1.2 doesn't get a chip as cool as IBM originally extrapolated from non-shipping samples.
One solution for the iMac might involve moving the powersupply outside of the dome to free up room and allow for a beefier unit. But there are costs to consider too. G4 is the future for at least another 12 months, I'd say 18 before you think of it. PBG5's will come before iMacs at any rate.
As for the cube. It's funny to me that the same people who insist that a G5 should be crammed into an iMac reject the notion of such a cube.
I say cube only to target the appropriate point in the line (between the iMac and pMac) it doesn't have to be a cube and it doesn't have to be fanless. Just make it small and quiet (there are quiet fans you know) and price it right between a drastically price reduced iMac and the pMac, overlapping a litle more with the iMac than with the pMac. Consumers can then either choose to get a display and AIO ease, or power and expansion (and supply their own display).
You know, it's a pretty safe bet that sub 1.4 G5's don't even exist.
I wouldn't take that bet. It's all a matter of a little process and circuit tuning.
Quote:
It isn't going near an iMac untill it shrinks. Does the iMac use MPC or XPC 7455?, because the MPC variety is CHEAP (under 100usd), certainly cheaper than any G5 would be, and that's amplified by the dirt cheap architecture.
It all likelihood, it uses the MPC variants, since the low-k dielectric versions seen in the 1.25+ GHz G4 machines probably cost $300+. I've never found out though is what the actual cost of a 1 GHz MPC7455 is. How do you know they are under $100?
Quote:
It's time for Apple to just drop the iMac prices to eMac levels, commoditize the eMac or get rid of it and throw in a cube redux (with G5) in between iMac and pMac. iMac keeps the G4 (which may surprise people by the time .09u G5's are ready.
AirSluf beat me to it, but it's not going to be possible to drop the iMac below $1000. The 17" LCD screen costs somewhere around $300 alone. And I have to wonder about the costs of the iMac arm as well.
And I made this point already. 1 to 1.4 GHz PPC 970 chips may very be cheaper than 1. to 1.4 GHz 7457 chips to produce. I can easily see this situation arising, and if that happens, Apple would be stupid to stick with the 7457.
Quote:
I suspect that the AIO buyer is more interested in price and features than in outright performance. A 15" LCD basically costs nothing now, I can find them for under 300 Canadian at retail, about 200USD. It's basically to the point where any cost savings for a 17" CRT are eaten up by the shipping costs (increased weight/bulk of the CRT unit.)
Apple can probably produce a 15" iMac for $1000, but they won't be getting much profit margin off them. Just do the math and we'll see what is possible. I did it for an eMac and got $700 assuming the 1 GHz 7457 is $80. However, if one notes, Motorola's press release says 1 GHz 7457 cpus cost $180.
Quote:
To that end, what the iMac line should like in US dollars:
899, Combo drive 15" iMac.
1099, Combo drive 17" iMac.
1399, Superdrive 17" iMac.
Perhaps. I would think $100 more would be a more realistic cost.
Quote:
All of them G4's, 7447/57, .13u (1.33-1.8Ghz by mid '04), 512KB L2, psuedo DDR, yadda yadda... Would you cry about G4's at those prices? I don't think so.
I bet 1.33 to 1.8 GHz 7457 CPUs will cost $300+ dollars. I wish it wouldn't, but Motorola can't get their low-k dielectric process to work on 130 nm, and they'll charge quite a bit for 1.3+ GHz parts. Ie, Moto needs low-k to push the 7457 above 1.5 GHz or so, and it'll be expensive and hot just like the current 7455B CPUs are.
Quote:
What's more that opens room for a cube redux at 1499-1599ish. Think "PM G5 lite." Same single CPU and I/O, but 500 USD cheaper and less expansion (AGP, 4 RAM slots, and CPU daughtercard only), no extra drive bays, but they can be changed out with standard drives.)
Hey, we all want G5 minis.
What's been bugging me lately, I've thought about it for awhile, is the it would be insane for Motorola to sell high MHz 7457 cpus, above 1.3 GHz, for less than $300. Following that thought, it means the 7457 can't be used for low end low cost machines. So Apple doesn't have anything truly cost effective to fill the low end.
If IBM was fast enough, they can modify the 970 floor plan so the chip is under 90 sq mm die area, add a 1 MB L2 970 to the lineup, and add voltage/frequency cycling, all on 130 nm, then Apple would have lots of cost/performance options to play with. But probably not.
Comments
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
This thread is a complete waste of time. Lock please.
Agreed
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
This thread is a complete waste of time. Lock please.
No way...I want to see him argue about basic math again
Keep those fingers crossed, kids.
Furthermore, no one ca tell me why it's a bad idea to get more money flowing to IBM AND get G5's in whatever products can support them, only that in their inestimible wisdom, it's not happening any time soon. Again, no evidence, only the orthodoxy of AIFH says this to be the case.....
Finally, I never claimed to have any evidence, only an idea to get IBM more money so they would see the profitability of Fishkill, 970's and so forth. I never claimed I was smarter than Our Lord Steve, either. My claim is this:
a G5 iMac is good for IBM, good for Apple and good for users. Feel free to disagree with that as much as you like.
simply put no one here can tell us that the problems at Fishkill AREN'T 970 related
If you actually read the article that generated this useless thread, the issue IS NOT fab related, but not enough bookings for the fab, i.e. it is operating below capacity and therefore not profitable at this moment. The 970 has been produced (in test runs) in much older fabs than EFishkill. Producing the chip is not an issue.
You really think Apple is IBMs only revenue stream for the 970.
In a quest for a bigger piece of the entry-level server market, IBM Corp. has drawn up a three-year plan for producing and marketing systems that pair Linux and IBM's own 64-bit PowerPC family of processors, sources report.
<!--SNIP-->
IBM is poised to introduce two tiers of products: a low-end blade server and an "ultra -low-end" (ULE) rack/deskside model. The initial blade server will be based on the Power PC 970 processor (known internally as the GPUL), which made its debut this month in Apple Computer Inc.'s Power Mac G5 line.
Originally posted by I, Fred
. . . Furthermore, no one ca tell me why it's a bad idea to get more money flowing to IBM AND get G5's in whatever products can support them, only that in their inestimible wisdom, it's not happening any time soon.
Hey, I think it is a good idea and, if I'm not mistaken, so do many others here. However, it takes time to redesign motherboards and Apple does not have an unlimited numbers of engineers. It will happen, but not overnight.
and just so that we're all clear that apple can use the 970 on a scaled down motherboard:
Peter Sandon: The processor design itself supports several ratios. The one that Apple announced was a 2:1 ratio. And the processor supports at least 3, 4 and 6 as other ratios.
like i said, it's a question of when, not if.
na
Originally posted by nagha
the iMac will come with a G5... it's a question of when, not if. . .
I agree. If I'm not mistaken, the iMac is special to Steve Jobs and he wants it to succeed. Rather than make it cheaper, I think Apple will go for making the iMac an up scale home computer and put a G5 into it. I also agree that it may run with a little slower bus, but that is not what makes the biggest difference in power dissipation. Rather, it is lower voltage and clock rate.
For example, from early IBM comments, a 1.8 GHz 970 is rated running at normal operating voltage. That same 970 is rated at 1.2 GHz running at minimum operation voltage. The power dissipation is more than cut in half, from 42 Watts to 19 Watts.
The other thing for getting lower power is to wait for the 90 nanometer 970 chip, which will be lower power to begin with. Drop the operating voltage and clock rate, and it goes down even more.
So what if Motorola suddenly shurn out 1.3 GHz low power 7457. The iMac would then get at best a 1.3 GHz CPU, L3 cache and 200 MHz bus, while better than 1.0 GHz no L3 and 133 MHz it is still trailing behind all windows boxes
1.3 gig for the iMac2 is simply not enough against the PCs it's competing with.
In PC world there are PCs for less than the entry iMac2 that have 2.6 gig processors, twice the ram, massive hard drive AND DVD RW drives!
Moreover, the 3.2 gig Intel chip is out, it's in PC towers that already cost less than the non-available G5 but more importantly for Apple's consumer machine, LESS than the top end iMac and NEAR the price of the 'entry' (pathetic) level iMac2.
The iMac2 looks caught in quicksand by comparison.
The whole line needs a damn shake. 17 inch on two models. 19 inch on the high end and 15 inches on a verrrrrry cheap entry model. That 'hemisphere' needs a redesign IF it's holding back 970 style power.
A lower power 970 motherboard with lower clocked 970s? I can see that. I read too that the motherboard ratios can be varied.
The iMac2 would benefit from a 1.4 G5 (well, can you guys tell me where the low power 1.2 970 and/or 1.4 970 went?) on a lower power motherboard. They've had ages to anticpate the G5. They could put the powerbrick outside. I'd find that acceptable. Behind the table on the floor...along with the rest of the cables from your printer and scanner.
And there is loads of spare capacity for the Fishkill plant.
(Enough for Apple to add a headless desktop Mac to the consumer mix, and a G5 mini-tower. It's not that IBM can't deliver but that it doesn't have enough custom...it seems!)
Personally, I think Apple and IBM can't wait for the 970 to go 0.09. It means that Apple can use it in everything. IBM gets loads more revenue and more of Fishkill gets booked up to do its job. Clearly, the plant isn't being stretched by the current clients. Apple can begin stretching that capacity with a 970 in everything from a 1.4 gig eMac to a 1.2-1.8 gig Powerbook range to a 3 gig Dual POWERMac come this time next year. You can cite competition...I'll say that Apple would be better served suing Moto' for a billion and using that dosh on R$D at IBM, advertising, sweetning the deals at major business and edu' establishments, expanding the Apple stores to go international, bribing reporters to say nice things about the Mac...and bringing Autocad development to the Mac.
This is a good thing for Apple. With 0.09 Apple can drop Moto' in 04. Exactly when, I'm not sure. By June 04?
The G4 is struggling to break the 1.4 gig barrier. The bus is ancient. 1.3 gig will 'do' for now for the Powerbook in say...September. But if Moto' had faster chips, Apple would use them. They can't because Moto' are taking ages to make them. It's obvious why we have millions of Powerbook threads.
It's only a good thing to keep two suppliers when they're both relevant and competing. Moto' are two years behind the curve with their cpus.
That may change in 2004. I doubt it.
The good news is that Fishkill has the capacity for Apple to grow. Silver lining and all that.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
The iMac2 would benefit from a 1.4 G5 (well, can you guys tell me where the low power 1.2 970 and/or 1.4 970 went?) on a lower power motherboard.
Nobody are mentioning the lower-clocked versions of the G5, because every piece of info about them will not be revealed until Apple finally announces the elusive PowerBook G5, and the iMac G5
It's time for Apple to just drop the iMac prices to eMac levels, commoditize the eMac or get rid of it and throw in a cube redux (with G5) in between iMac and pMac. iMac keeps the G4 (which may surprise people by the time .09u G5's are ready.
I suspect that the AIO buyer is more interested in price and features than in outright performance. A 15" LCD basically costs nothing now, I can find them for under 300 Canadian at retail, about 200USD. It's basically to the point where any cost savings for a 17" CRT are eaten up by the shipping costs (increased weight/bulk of the CRT unit.)
iMacs are not underperforming so much as they are insanely overpriced.
For the arm and design I'll spot them a 100 premium over eMac levels at the low end.
To that end, what the iMac line should like in US dollars:
899, Combo drive 15" iMac.
1099, Combo drive 17" iMac.
1399, Superdrive 17" iMac.
eMacs? <799 or bust w/ combo, 699 to edu. (and for gawd sakes change that screen to a more tolerable trinitron!)
All of them G4's, 7447/57, .13u (1.33-1.8Ghz by mid '04), 512KB L2, psuedo DDR, yadda yadda... Would you cry about G4's at those prices? I don't think so.
What's more that opens room for a cube redux at 1499-1599ish. Think "PM G5 lite." Same single CPU and I/O, but 500 USD cheaper and less expansion (AGP, 4 RAM slots, and CPU daughtercard only), no extra drive bays, but they can be changed out with standard drives.)
Originally posted by Matsu
You know, it's a pretty safe bet that sub 1.4 G5's don't even exist. We already know that the G5 is hotter and more expensive than originally thought. It isn't going near an iMac untill it shrinks. Does the iMac use MPC or XPC 7455?, because the MPC variety is CHEAP (under 100usd), certainly cheaper than any G5 would be, and that's amplified by the dirt cheap architecture.
It's time for Apple to just drop the iMac prices to eMac levels, commoditize the eMac or get rid of it and throw in a cube redux (with G5) in between iMac and pMac. iMac keeps the G4 (which may surprise people by the time .09u G5's are ready.
I suspect that the AIO buyer is more interested in price and features than in outright performance. A 15" LCD basically costs nothing now, I can find them for under 300 Canadian at retail, about 200USD. It's basically to the point where any cost savings for a 17" CRT are eaten up by the shipping costs (increased weight/bulk of the CRT unit.)
iMacs are not underperforming so much as they are insanely overpriced.
For the arm and design I'll spot them a 100 premium over eMac levels at the low end.
To that end, what the iMac line should like in US dollars:
899, Combo drive 15" iMac.
1099, Combo drive 17" iMac.
1399, Superdrive 17" iMac.
eMacs? <799 or bust w/ combo, 699 to edu. (and for gawd sakes change that screen to a more tolerable trinitron!)
All of them G4's, 7447/57, .13u (1.33-1.8Ghz by mid '04), 512KB L2, psuedo DDR, yadda yadda... Would you cry about G4's at those prices? I don't think so.
What's more that opens room for a cube redux at 1499-1599ish. Think "PM G5 lite." Same single CPU and I/O, but 500 USD cheaper and less expansion (AGP, 4 RAM slots, and CPU daughtercard only), no extra drive bays, but they can be changed out with standard drives.)
The cube ran with no fans which is one thing I hear a lot of people saying that they loved about it. With a G5 this would be out of the question I think.
Your point about the commodity eMac are bullseye especially when you consider it is merely an 'iMac' afterall, the original 'commodity' computer...from Apple...would you believe
As such, I'm very disappointed Apple haven't been able to drive the 'iMac' down in price as they should have. They've had since what, '99?
That eMac screen is pretty average looking to me. Yeesh, there are sound 19 inch trinitrons for very cheap prices. I know, I got one for my Athlon (spit) pc and it's razor sharp. The eMac screen looks sleepy and blurry eyed by comparison.
I'd love to see 'your' G5 Cube. In the latest Personal Computer World mag...I've seen a shuttle reviewed. It's got some pretty nifty 'condensatiion/pipe' cooling. It's got a hot, high-end Athlon 2 gig plus cpu in there and an Ati Radeon 9700 in there with other stuff! Looks very compact but, BUT(!) pc ugly! It's shaped like a cuboid. Looks 'Cube' square from the front...but it's longer or 'deeper' if you will. It blew away alot of the 'mini' towers and desktops in the review and came out top in performance!!!
Now, if said company can stick an egg fryer Athlon in such a tight space then there's nothing stopping Apple from pushing the iMac2 price down and 'mini' towering the Cube. There must be demand. These 'shuttle's are going like hotcakes. Seems like everybody in pc land is making them. Yeesh, Apple were ahead of the game with the Cube and behind in so many ways. Mostly price and lame G4 processor.
iMac2 does need a price reduct. I don't know what's with it. Even Fred Anderson sounded somewhat apologetic about it in the conference call! Well, duh! Drop the price. Yeesh, for a couple of hundred about the entry iMac you can get a 3.2 gig Pentium 4 which will blow it out the water! With DRW and bigger screen, bigger ram and hard drive. To me, the top end should be £999 inc VAT with another model underneath. This leaves room for the 'mini' tower range under the G5...which is currently occupied by the G4 towers. A dirt cheap eMac, couple of models £595 and under. A scaleable headless Mac, configurable with a G4/G5 could run the gamut of this price range.
If Looprumors is right about a Sept' iMac bump then I'm hoping price is slashed. I wonder if it's going to get the same lame 1.3 gig G4 that the Powerbook might?
Something for everybody and a desktop range flexible enough for the 95% Apple is after.
Lemon Bon Bon
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Apple doesn't really need the higher bus ratios (3:1 et al) for <1.4 GHz PPC 970 machines since the processor bus-to-memory bus is asynchronous. A 1.2 GHz PPC 970 would have a 600 MHz bus, and in this instance, Apple can use either single channel PC2700/PC3200 or dual channel PC2100 DDR SDRAM and be fine for all machines running from 1 GHz to 1.4 GHz.
Look at the case, yes the size is for SILENT cooling, but it's big, it's got a lot of fans, and it doesn't have a ton of room. Is it cool? Yes, compared to desktop X86, is it cooler than 7447/57? No, and the Mobo heat/cost numbers probably stack up not so well at all against plain old 7445/55.
IBM mentioned 1.2Ghz, but with a debut at 1.6 and looking to 3Ghz in 12 months, it's a safe bet that 1.2 is just a guestimation for the purposes of Microprocessor forum presentations and not a real product. And since you can't see one, it's a much safer guess that dropping the speed to 1.2 doesn't get a chip as cool as IBM originally extrapolated from non-shipping samples.
One solution for the iMac might involve moving the powersupply outside of the dome to free up room and allow for a beefier unit. But there are costs to consider too. G4 is the future for at least another 12 months, I'd say 18 before you think of it. PBG5's will come before iMacs at any rate.
As for the cube. It's funny to me that the same people who insist that a G5 should be crammed into an iMac reject the notion of such a cube.
I say cube only to target the appropriate point in the line (between the iMac and pMac) it doesn't have to be a cube and it doesn't have to be fanless. Just make it small and quiet (there are quiet fans you know) and price it right between a drastically price reduced iMac and the pMac, overlapping a litle more with the iMac than with the pMac. Consumers can then either choose to get a display and AIO ease, or power and expansion (and supply their own display).
Originally posted by Matsu
You know, it's a pretty safe bet that sub 1.4 G5's don't even exist.
I wouldn't take that bet. It's all a matter of a little process and circuit tuning.
It isn't going near an iMac untill it shrinks. Does the iMac use MPC or XPC 7455?, because the MPC variety is CHEAP (under 100usd), certainly cheaper than any G5 would be, and that's amplified by the dirt cheap architecture.
It all likelihood, it uses the MPC variants, since the low-k dielectric versions seen in the 1.25+ GHz G4 machines probably cost $300+. I've never found out though is what the actual cost of a 1 GHz MPC7455 is. How do you know they are under $100?
It's time for Apple to just drop the iMac prices to eMac levels, commoditize the eMac or get rid of it and throw in a cube redux (with G5) in between iMac and pMac. iMac keeps the G4 (which may surprise people by the time .09u G5's are ready.
AirSluf beat me to it, but it's not going to be possible to drop the iMac below $1000. The 17" LCD screen costs somewhere around $300 alone. And I have to wonder about the costs of the iMac arm as well.
And I made this point already. 1 to 1.4 GHz PPC 970 chips may very be cheaper than 1. to 1.4 GHz 7457 chips to produce. I can easily see this situation arising, and if that happens, Apple would be stupid to stick with the 7457.
I suspect that the AIO buyer is more interested in price and features than in outright performance. A 15" LCD basically costs nothing now, I can find them for under 300 Canadian at retail, about 200USD. It's basically to the point where any cost savings for a 17" CRT are eaten up by the shipping costs (increased weight/bulk of the CRT unit.)
Apple can probably produce a 15" iMac for $1000, but they won't be getting much profit margin off them. Just do the math and we'll see what is possible. I did it for an eMac and got $700 assuming the 1 GHz 7457 is $80. However, if one notes, Motorola's press release says 1 GHz 7457 cpus cost $180.
To that end, what the iMac line should like in US dollars:
899, Combo drive 15" iMac.
1099, Combo drive 17" iMac.
1399, Superdrive 17" iMac.
Perhaps. I would think $100 more would be a more realistic cost.
All of them G4's, 7447/57, .13u (1.33-1.8Ghz by mid '04), 512KB L2, psuedo DDR, yadda yadda... Would you cry about G4's at those prices? I don't think so.
I bet 1.33 to 1.8 GHz 7457 CPUs will cost $300+ dollars. I wish it wouldn't, but Motorola can't get their low-k dielectric process to work on 130 nm, and they'll charge quite a bit for 1.3+ GHz parts. Ie, Moto needs low-k to push the 7457 above 1.5 GHz or so, and it'll be expensive and hot just like the current 7455B CPUs are.
What's more that opens room for a cube redux at 1499-1599ish. Think "PM G5 lite." Same single CPU and I/O, but 500 USD cheaper and less expansion (AGP, 4 RAM slots, and CPU daughtercard only), no extra drive bays, but they can be changed out with standard drives.)
Hey, we all want G5 minis.
What's been bugging me lately, I've thought about it for awhile, is the it would be insane for Motorola to sell high MHz 7457 cpus, above 1.3 GHz, for less than $300. Following that thought, it means the 7457 can't be used for low end low cost machines. So Apple doesn't have anything truly cost effective to fill the low end.
If IBM was fast enough, they can modify the 970 floor plan so the chip is under 90 sq mm die area, add a 1 MB L2 970 to the lineup, and add voltage/frequency cycling, all on 130 nm, then Apple would have lots of cost/performance options to play with. But probably not.