OK OK, I know that this is COMPLETELY off topic here, but it seems to be a popular thread and I wanted it to reach a broad audience. I know that Bigc, Amorph, Programmer and others are monitoring this thread. I doubt that it will warrant a completely new thread. Besides, I'm not sure if any information can be extracted from it. Personally, I found it to be pretty uninformative, Perhaps someone here can dissect it for some useful information. Anyway, here it is:
OK OK, I know that this is COMPLETELY off topic here, but it seems to be a popular thread and I wanted it to reach a broad audience. I know that Bigc, Amorph, Programmer and others are monitoring this thread. I doubt that it will warrant a completely new thread. Besides, I'm not sure if any information can be extracted from it. Personally, I found it to be pretty uninformative, Perhaps someone here can dissect it for some useful information. Anyway, here it is:
I'm guessing that it's the first "official" review of a dual Opteron system from BOXX (or am I mistaken?)
--
Ed
Quote:
Conclusion Let me make one thing perfectly clear: BOXX Technologies is an excellent company that merits the attention of anyone who is interested in purchasing servers or workstations.
Anyone who starts a "Conclusion" using this statement has pretty much destroyed their credibility. Magazines take this "Tepid Review" approach and they have no idea why their sales are down. All I can glean from this review is Fast expensive computer that "some" people will love. Not exactly going gaga here.
Where did this myth come from? Apple has announced no such thing. Apple hasn't made any performance announcements other than the now famous benchmarks.
This have been dealt here one AI, a couple of months ago. Unfortunately my memory is not big enough to remind with accuracy and precision, who said this precisely.
Anyone who starts a "Conclusion" using this statement has pretty much destroyed their credibility. Magazines take this "Tepid Review" approach and they have no idea why their sales are down. All I can glean from this review is Fast expensive computer that "some" people will love. Not exactly going gaga here.
My personal own conclusion is : BOXX boxes are ugly.
It came out in the quarter ending last January that the average selling price of the MDD PowerMacs was exactly $100 over the entry price for the line.
The Dual 867 at $1600 was the model, and the 'ASP' was $1800. Far, far, below their top-of-line model's prices (somewhere around $3600).
But that was a _great_ deal. I think even Matsu liked it at the time.
The re-jiggering of the middle/low end probably shifted things up-line some. Everyone who was waiting _last_ year for a great computer in August seems to have jumped on the Dual867, which makes a lot of sense: It had a great bang/buck if you needed the slots, and everyone pretty much recognized that the G5 wasn't happening in 2002 once the MDD machines were out -> buy dual 867s, pray for next year.
Now it is next year, and the new machines _will_ be that much better. The 3-6mo re-jigger for this set of machines depends on what Apple's contract with IBM is.
The Dual 867 at $1600 was the model, and the 'ASP' was $1800. Far, far, below their top-of-line model's prices (somewhere around $3600).
OK, fine, so it was $200. My point stands, at least.
Quote:
The re-jiggering of the middle/low end probably shifted things up-line some.
Or it shifted things laterally. How many people bought iMacs or eMacs or even iBooks just to tide themselves over? If you're looking at getting a single processor 1GHz machine from Apple, you have a fair number of options. If you're buying it as a stopgap before an anticipated major upgrade, might as well get an eMac and pocket the difference.
Quote:
Now it is next year, and the new machines _will_ be that much better. The 3-6mo re-jigger for this set of machines depends on what Apple's contract with IBM is.
Given that IBM isn't selling as many CPUs as they'd like to right now, I'm sure they'd be happy to tweak the contract to sell Apple more 1.8GHz 970s. I doubt yields are an issue at that frequency, and if it keeps the wildly popular 2GHz machine from getting too horribly backordered, great.
No, Apple is using the 1:2 right now. It is an "effective" 1:2 taking advantage of double-pumping and in line with the current industry practice of citing data throughput vice bus speed.
Would please come here to to me? Thank you - you have been in the radius of Steve's RDF
Effective this effective that - it doesn't matter what they call it.
It is a 500MHz bus running with a 1:4 ratio! Double-pumping gives you doubled bandwidth and not doubled speed. With the max bus speed Apple is using right now the 970 could only reach 3GHz.
Take a look at arstechnica they can explain it much better than me.
A DP1.8 would sit pretty darned close to the a DP2.0.
I think the best way to rejigg the line would move a 1.8 into the bottom line and dual 1.6s into the middle tier, just to keep a more even spread of performance and price.
Ideally, there should be an ALL DUAL pro line and two SP G5 models at the current PMG4 prices.
Ideally, there should be an ALL DUAL pro line and two SP G5 models at the current PMG4 prices.
There goes Matsu pulling on my heart strings again!
That's the way I'd do it if I were Apple iCEO!
iLemon, the Fantasy iCEO of Apple. Heh. That could be a good software game, no? 'Guide Apple to a commanding share of the computer market...' It would have to have a save game option...
Played by iLemon, iAnalysts (who would always lose at the game...), iMicrosoft and iAppleinsiders of course!
A DP1.8 would sit pretty darned close to the a DP2.0.
The single 1.8 already sits pretty darn close to the dual 2GHz, pricewise, and it looks pretty silly there.
At least a dual 1.8 would look less like a placeholder.
Quote:
I think the best way to rejigg the line would move a 1.8 into the bottom line and dual 1.6s into the middle tier, just to keep a more even spread of performance and price.
Never gonna happen. Apple is not going to put themselves in the position of explaining how this machine is clocked lower, but it's actually faster... the MHz Myth is no help here, because clock speed absolutely does matter when comparing two otherwise identical processors. (Although there's a different myth there, because performance does not scale linearly with clock speed).
Quote:
Ideally, there should be an ALL DUAL pro line and two SP G5 models at the current PMG4 prices.
I'm right with you there. A dual 1.6 at $1999 would rock on toast.
The problem is that you'd probably end up with a lower end machine that has a higher clock speed than a higher end machine, even though it has only one CPU, and Apple has been pretty assiduous about avoiding that since the confusion over the dual 533 / single 733 PowerMac.
A single 1.8GHz system uses essentially the same motherboard as the dual 2GHz. A decision to include a second 1.8GHz CPU could be made late in the manufacturing processs with little or no modification to the motherboard.
At Siggraph, I was given the impression that a second 1.8GHz was a matter of plugging it into the existing vacant CPU slot of the motherboard.
I'm often wrong, perhaps someone else could speculate on this.
Effective this effective that - it doesn't matter what they call it.
It is a 500MHz bus running with a 1:4 ratio! Double-pumping gives you doubled bandwidth and not doubled speed.
It does matter.
Because the IBM rep's quoted ratios are based on the 'effective' FSB rate also. IBM claimed 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:6. IBM & Apple both claim they're using the 1:2 version.
So you can call the speed of the bus 500 MHz and a 1:4 ratio if you like. That just means that if you wanted to figure out the CPU-to-controller ratios it would be 1:4, 1:6, 1:8, and 1:12.
Here Hannibal does say 1:4 and discusses the implementation of the FSB. He also mentions that it is advertised as a '900 MHz bus' (1Ghz on the 2.0 GHz 970s).
But here he uses the other definition. "I had a nice chat with Pete Sandon and two other IBM guys, and I'm about to sit down to turn the interview into an article. But I figured I'd pop in here and let you guys know how it turned out:...Regarding the bus multiplier, the processor design itself supports several ratios. Apple anounced a 2:1 ratio, but the proc supports at least 3:1, 4:1, and 6:1 ratios."
6x1GHz = lots We'll probably be using a different chip process by then.
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.
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.
I'm pretty close to seeing this the same as you do, Amorph, but I think that a DP1.8 would be just too close to the DP2.0 to warrant the extra $500 on a DP2Ghz. Which is why I think a DP1.6 might make a better middle tier.
A 1.8 low-end doesn't have to sit on the same Mobo as the current 1.8 mid, it could sit on a low end mobo (like the current 1.6)
The key to making this easy as pie lies in unlocking the bus multipliers so Apple can mix and match chips and buses as cost and config demands.
Right now the 1.6 has the weakest Mobo, 4GB, slower RAM and PCI buses while the 1.8 has, as mentioned, essentially an SP version of the DP mobo, with more and faster RAM, AND faster PCI buses, but only single CPU.
I'm not so sure that buyers in the 2-3K range are of the sort that don't understand what the fastest machine is. I think they could deal with a slightly faster SINGLE in the low end, vs a slightly slower DUALS in the mid. The top end would naturally be made up of the FASTEST chips in DUAL config.
To me it seems that the motherboard of the mid tier machine is the real draw (over the low end) as it offers pros some really fast I/O and HUGE RAM capacity. I think that if you want a DUAL in the middle tier, and it's 1.8 vs 2.0 (in the top end) that would probably cause a lot of downgrades among dual 2Ghz buyers. If I were looking for a DP2Ghz and I could get a DP1.8 with the same Mobo, I'd save myself the 500USD and buy RAM instead (NOT from Apple) I mean, it's just a measly 200Mhz (400 total.) using dual 1.6's might aleviate the down grade reaction because the 500 dollar difference would span a more palpable 400Mhz (800 total) between the mid and top end.
However, all this is really academic since the situation will change drastically as speeds improve. With even more CPU spread, it should be possible to take the configs to ALL DUAL ALL THE TIME status. I see DP1.6, DP2 and DP2.5 all within the realm of possibility in the next 12 months, if Apple's confident claims can be trusted.
For 1999, I could be up sold to a DP machine I don't really need, but for 1999 I'm not touching a single, for singles I won't go over 1500 fully loaded, read superdrive and upper-mid Gfx card.
I don't know why, but I really think that something cube like is coming back. Mebbe not a cube, but something with user accesible drives, AGP slot, and the same CPU daughtercards of the PMG5. A "PM lite" SP version to sit underneath an eventual all dual PMG5 line, something for the space occupied by thecurrent PM G4.
I think a good lineup would look like this:
CUBOID redux SP1.6 from 1299-1599
PMG5 SP1.8 1999
PMG5 DP1.6 2499
PMG5 DP2ghz 2999
and a GRRREATTT lineup would feature the CUBOID redux at the bottom with ALL DUALS (at the same price points as above) on top, and a more idiot friendly Ghz hiearchy of course.
If Apple is having trouble filling orders for 2.0 Ghz machines, the most "graceful" thing they could do would be to throw another processor into the 1.8 Ghz machine. (yeah, as if it were that easy... ) This would make a kinda unattractive machine into a *very* attractive machine, possibly causing people to switch from the hard-to-get 2.0Ghz model and giving everyone planning to get a single 1.8 a nice surprise.
This would seriously erode the profit margins of the 1.8 Ghz model, however, right now I think Apple needs to ship lots of machines *more* than it needs profit. This way, they would avoid creating the appearance of a company who announces much and ships little.
If Apple is having trouble filling orders for 2.0 Ghz machines, the most "graceful" thing they could do would be to throw another processor into the 1.8 Ghz machine. (yeah, as if it were that easy... ) This would make a kinda unattractive machine into a *very* attractive machine, possibly causing people to switch from the hard-to-get 2.0Ghz model and giving everyone planning to get a single 1.8 a nice surprise.
That's exactly why a 1.6 DP would be better suited. A 1.8DP would be too close to the DP 2.0, so close that a huge heap would switch to it, from all models. They'd get at least double the orders, very possibly more, which'd make it the new DP2.0 (too many orders-> annoying delays), only with smaller margins and less cash to earn for Apple.
A 1.6Ghz DP in place of the 1.8 would be a more noticeable step down from the 2.0, and would not be so close to it that it'd cannibalize it's sales, generate delays because of huge loads of orders, and it would make the lower end SP 1.8 more attractive than the opposite - value. I'm not saying that a DP 1.6 would totally avoid delays, backorders, and all the negative stuff caused by the inability to ship enough CPU's, but balance it more than any of the other suggested lineups would.
I don't really know if I buy the argument that it would be bad for Apple to have to explain people that the lower-clocked DP model actually is faster than the SP 1.8. Every rational thinking person should understand that even though 2*1.6 is not 3.2, it's more than 1.8. I think it's pretty clearly stated that the models feature two processors instead of one, whenever that is the case.
A single 1.8GHz system uses essentially the same motherboard as the dual 2GHz. A decision to include a second 1.8GHz CPU could be made late in the manufacturing processs with little or no modification to the motherboard.
At Siggraph, I was given the impression that a second 1.8GHz was a matter of plugging it into the existing vacant CPU slot of the motherboard.
I'm often wrong, perhaps someone else could speculate on this.
I assume most of us had the same idea shawk had concerning the vacany of the second processor on the 1.8. The assumption is that there's an empty socket there, and shawk says he heard there is. Can anyone give us a stronger signal in this regard? Are there any pictures of the 1.8's internals? If the 1.8 indeed has that second socket, it would make it more attractive. Otherwise I'm going for the 1.6.
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.
Comments
BOXX AMD Opteron box reviewed
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10853
I'm guessing that it's the first "official" review of a dual Opteron system from BOXX (or am I mistaken?)
--
Ed
Originally posted by Ed M.
OK OK, I know that this is COMPLETELY off topic here, but it seems to be a popular thread and I wanted it to reach a broad audience. I know that Bigc, Amorph, Programmer and others are monitoring this thread. I doubt that it will warrant a completely new thread. Besides, I'm not sure if any information can be extracted from it. Personally, I found it to be pretty uninformative, Perhaps someone here can dissect it for some useful information. Anyway, here it is:
BOXX AMD Opteron box reviewed
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10853
I'm guessing that it's the first "official" review of a dual Opteron system from BOXX (or am I mistaken?)
--
Ed
Conclusion Let me make one thing perfectly clear: BOXX Technologies is an excellent company that merits the attention of anyone who is interested in purchasing servers or workstations.
Anyone who starts a "Conclusion" using this statement has pretty much destroyed their credibility. Magazines take this "Tepid Review" approach and they have no idea why their sales are down. All I can glean from this review is Fast expensive computer that "some" people will love. Not exactly going gaga here.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Where did this myth come from? Apple has announced no such thing. Apple hasn't made any performance announcements other than the now famous benchmarks.
This have been dealt here one AI, a couple of months ago. Unfortunately my memory is not big enough to remind with accuracy and precision, who said this precisely.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Anyone who starts a "Conclusion" using this statement has pretty much destroyed their credibility. Magazines take this "Tepid Review" approach and they have no idea why their sales are down. All I can glean from this review is Fast expensive computer that "some" people will love. Not exactly going gaga here.
My personal own conclusion is : BOXX boxes are ugly.
Originally posted by Amorph
It came out in the quarter ending last January that the average selling price of the MDD PowerMacs was exactly $100 over the entry price for the line.
The Dual 867 at $1600 was the model, and the 'ASP' was $1800. Far, far, below their top-of-line model's prices (somewhere around $3600).
But that was a _great_ deal. I think even Matsu liked it at the time.
The re-jiggering of the middle/low end probably shifted things up-line some. Everyone who was waiting _last_ year for a great computer in August seems to have jumped on the Dual867, which makes a lot of sense: It had a great bang/buck if you needed the slots, and everyone pretty much recognized that the G5 wasn't happening in 2002 once the MDD machines were out -> buy dual 867s, pray for next year.
Now it is next year, and the new machines _will_ be that much better. The 3-6mo re-jigger for this set of machines depends on what Apple's contract with IBM is.
Originally posted by Nevyn
The Dual 867 at $1600 was the model, and the 'ASP' was $1800. Far, far, below their top-of-line model's prices (somewhere around $3600).
OK, fine, so it was $200. My point stands, at least.
The re-jiggering of the middle/low end probably shifted things up-line some.
Or it shifted things laterally. How many people bought iMacs or eMacs or even iBooks just to tide themselves over? If you're looking at getting a single processor 1GHz machine from Apple, you have a fair number of options. If you're buying it as a stopgap before an anticipated major upgrade, might as well get an eMac and pocket the difference.
Now it is next year, and the new machines _will_ be that much better. The 3-6mo re-jigger for this set of machines depends on what Apple's contract with IBM is.
Given that IBM isn't selling as many CPUs as they'd like to right now, I'm sure they'd be happy to tweak the contract to sell Apple more 1.8GHz 970s. I doubt yields are an issue at that frequency, and if it keeps the wildly popular 2GHz machine from getting too horribly backordered, great.
Originally posted by AirSluf
No, Apple is using the 1:2 right now. It is an "effective" 1:2 taking advantage of double-pumping and in line with the current industry practice of citing data throughput vice bus speed.
Would please come here to to me? Thank you - you have been in the radius of Steve's RDF
Effective this effective that - it doesn't matter what they call it.
It is a 500MHz bus running with a 1:4 ratio! Double-pumping gives you doubled bandwidth and not doubled speed. With the max bus speed Apple is using right now the 970 could only reach 3GHz.
Take a look at arstechnica they can explain it much better than me.
Did I say only reach 3GHz
I think the best way to rejigg the line would move a 1.8 into the bottom line and dual 1.6s into the middle tier, just to keep a more even spread of performance and price.
Ideally, there should be an ALL DUAL pro line and two SP G5 models at the current PMG4 prices.
Ideally, there should be an ALL DUAL pro line and two SP G5 models at the current PMG4 prices.
There goes Matsu pulling on my heart strings again!
That's the way I'd do it if I were Apple iCEO!
iLemon, the Fantasy iCEO of Apple. Heh. That could be a good software game, no? 'Guide Apple to a commanding share of the computer market...' It would have to have a save game option...
Played by iLemon, iAnalysts (who would always lose at the game...), iMicrosoft and iAppleinsiders of course!
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Matsu
A DP1.8 would sit pretty darned close to the a DP2.0.
The single 1.8 already sits pretty darn close to the dual 2GHz, pricewise, and it looks pretty silly there.
At least a dual 1.8 would look less like a placeholder.
I think the best way to rejigg the line would move a 1.8 into the bottom line and dual 1.6s into the middle tier, just to keep a more even spread of performance and price.
Never gonna happen. Apple is not going to put themselves in the position of explaining how this machine is clocked lower, but it's actually faster... the MHz Myth is no help here, because clock speed absolutely does matter when comparing two otherwise identical processors. (Although there's a different myth there, because performance does not scale linearly with clock speed).
Ideally, there should be an ALL DUAL pro line and two SP G5 models at the current PMG4 prices.
I'm right with you there. A dual 1.6 at $1999 would rock on toast.
The problem is that you'd probably end up with a lower end machine that has a higher clock speed than a higher end machine, even though it has only one CPU, and Apple has been pretty assiduous about avoiding that since the confusion over the dual 533 / single 733 PowerMac.
At Siggraph, I was given the impression that a second 1.8GHz was a matter of plugging it into the existing vacant CPU slot of the motherboard.
I'm often wrong, perhaps someone else could speculate on this.
Originally posted by smalM
Effective this effective that - it doesn't matter what they call it.
It is a 500MHz bus running with a 1:4 ratio! Double-pumping gives you doubled bandwidth and not doubled speed.
It does matter.
Because the IBM rep's quoted ratios are based on the 'effective' FSB rate also. IBM claimed 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:6. IBM & Apple both claim they're using the 1:2 version.
So you can call the speed of the bus 500 MHz and a 1:4 ratio if you like. That just means that if you wanted to figure out the CPU-to-controller ratios it would be 1:4, 1:6, 1:8, and 1:12.
Here Hannibal does say 1:4 and discusses the implementation of the FSB. He also mentions that it is advertised as a '900 MHz bus' (1Ghz on the 2.0 GHz 970s).
But here he uses the other definition. "I had a nice chat with Pete Sandon and two other IBM guys, and I'm about to sit down to turn the interview into an article. But I figured I'd pop in here and let you guys know how it turned out:...Regarding the bus multiplier, the processor design itself supports several ratios. Apple anounced a 2:1 ratio, but the proc supports at least 3:1, 4:1, and 6:1 ratios."
6x1GHz = lots
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.
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.
A 1.8 low-end doesn't have to sit on the same Mobo as the current 1.8 mid, it could sit on a low end mobo (like the current 1.6)
The key to making this easy as pie lies in unlocking the bus multipliers so Apple can mix and match chips and buses as cost and config demands.
Right now the 1.6 has the weakest Mobo, 4GB, slower RAM and PCI buses while the 1.8 has, as mentioned, essentially an SP version of the DP mobo, with more and faster RAM, AND faster PCI buses, but only single CPU.
I'm not so sure that buyers in the 2-3K range are of the sort that don't understand what the fastest machine is. I think they could deal with a slightly faster SINGLE in the low end, vs a slightly slower DUALS in the mid. The top end would naturally be made up of the FASTEST chips in DUAL config.
To me it seems that the motherboard of the mid tier machine is the real draw (over the low end) as it offers pros some really fast I/O and HUGE RAM capacity. I think that if you want a DUAL in the middle tier, and it's 1.8 vs 2.0 (in the top end) that would probably cause a lot of downgrades among dual 2Ghz buyers. If I were looking for a DP2Ghz and I could get a DP1.8 with the same Mobo, I'd save myself the 500USD and buy RAM instead (NOT from Apple) I mean, it's just a measly 200Mhz (400 total.) using dual 1.6's might aleviate the down grade reaction because the 500 dollar difference would span a more palpable 400Mhz (800 total) between the mid and top end.
However, all this is really academic since the situation will change drastically as speeds improve. With even more CPU spread, it should be possible to take the configs to ALL DUAL ALL THE TIME status. I see DP1.6, DP2 and DP2.5 all within the realm of possibility in the next 12 months, if Apple's confident claims can be trusted.
For 1999, I could be up sold to a DP machine I don't really need, but for 1999 I'm not touching a single, for singles I won't go over 1500 fully loaded, read superdrive and upper-mid Gfx card.
I don't know why, but I really think that something cube like is coming back. Mebbe not a cube, but something with user accesible drives, AGP slot, and the same CPU daughtercards of the PMG5. A "PM lite" SP version to sit underneath an eventual all dual PMG5 line, something for the space occupied by thecurrent PM G4.
I think a good lineup would look like this:
CUBOID redux SP1.6 from 1299-1599
PMG5 SP1.8 1999
PMG5 DP1.6 2499
PMG5 DP2ghz 2999
and a GRRREATTT lineup would feature the CUBOID redux at the bottom with ALL DUALS (at the same price points as above) on top, and a more idiot friendly Ghz hiearchy of course.
This would seriously erode the profit margins of the 1.8 Ghz model, however, right now I think Apple needs to ship lots of machines *more* than it needs profit. This way, they would avoid creating the appearance of a company who announces much and ships little.
Yeah, so my logic might be a little faulty at 2AM
Originally posted by dfryer
If Apple is having trouble filling orders for 2.0 Ghz machines, the most "graceful" thing they could do would be to throw another processor into the 1.8 Ghz machine. (yeah, as if it were that easy... ) This would make a kinda unattractive machine into a *very* attractive machine, possibly causing people to switch from the hard-to-get 2.0Ghz model and giving everyone planning to get a single 1.8 a nice surprise.
That's exactly why a 1.6 DP would be better suited. A 1.8DP would be too close to the DP 2.0, so close that a huge heap would switch to it, from all models. They'd get at least double the orders, very possibly more, which'd make it the new DP2.0 (too many orders-> annoying delays), only with smaller margins and less cash to earn for Apple.
A 1.6Ghz DP in place of the 1.8 would be a more noticeable step down from the 2.0, and would not be so close to it that it'd cannibalize it's sales, generate delays because of huge loads of orders, and it would make the lower end SP 1.8 more attractive than the opposite - value. I'm not saying that a DP 1.6 would totally avoid delays, backorders, and all the negative stuff caused by the inability to ship enough CPU's, but balance it more than any of the other suggested lineups would.
I don't really know if I buy the argument that it would be bad for Apple to have to explain people that the lower-clocked DP model actually is faster than the SP 1.8. Every rational thinking person should understand that even though 2*1.6 is not 3.2, it's more than 1.8. I think it's pretty clearly stated that the models feature two processors instead of one, whenever that is the case.
Originally posted by shawk
A single 1.8GHz system uses essentially the same motherboard as the dual 2GHz. A decision to include a second 1.8GHz CPU could be made late in the manufacturing processs with little or no modification to the motherboard.
At Siggraph, I was given the impression that a second 1.8GHz was a matter of plugging it into the existing vacant CPU slot of the motherboard.
I'm often wrong, perhaps someone else could speculate on this.
I assume most of us had the same idea shawk had concerning the vacany of the second processor on the 1.8. The assumption is that there's an empty socket there, and shawk says he heard there is. Can anyone give us a stronger signal in this regard? Are there any pictures of the 1.8's internals? If the 1.8 indeed has that second socket, it would make it more attractive. Otherwise I'm going for the 1.6.
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.
Originally posted by Matsu
I think a good lineup would look like this:
CUBOID redux SP1.6 from 1299-1599
PMG5 SP1.8 1999
PMG5 DP1.6 2499
PMG5 DP2ghz 2999
A dual 1.6 gig should look slower than a single 1.8 gig on benchmarks that aren't optimized for multiple processors.