TS note on G5 1.8 for iMac

kenaustus · August 28, 2004 5:16PM

Seems that almost all of the 1.8 chips are going into 20" G5 iMacs, leaving a shortage for those that want the dual 1.8 PM. Good news for those of us who are going to but the 20" iMac on the 31st, but not so good for those that want a PM. (They might get it faster as a BTO from Apple - it is the resellers that are getting the short end of shipments.)

This indicates that availability will be fairly good for those that but an iMac very fast after the announcement. Apple has indicated (when they released their last quarter results) that gross margins would be down a bit when the iMac is released as they are going to air freight the new iMacs. Will probably try to flood the market right away with the new imacs to jolt interest and sales into high gear - then the back orders will start in a few weeks.

Three days and counting!

aurora · August 28, 2004 5:44PM

I think its sad that Apple seems to be updating its products once a year? it took over a year for the powermac and it took almost a year since they plopped on a 20" screen and said new model imac though it had the same stale G4 and fx5200. 1 year between upgrades when in the pc world its every few months. Apple ends up trying to market old slow stuff thats outdated. lets hope this 1 update every year stuff ends.

chu_bakka · August 28, 2004 8:44PM

What does everyone think about the G5 mock up at TS?

The screen doesn't look adjustable. It's sleek and a nice design... but I dunno.

twinbrook46636 · August 28, 2004 9:35PM

What mock-up?

gar · August 28, 2004 9:44PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chu_bakka

What does everyone think about the G5 mock up at TS?

link?

twinbrook46636 · August 28, 2004 10:13PM

I guess he was referring to a mock-up done by our own pscates in the AppleNova messageboards but it doesn't have anything to do with TS, nor is it supposed to be official. Just members posting their own ideas of what it might look like.

kenaustus · August 28, 2004 11:20PM

Apple's ability to deliver upgrades in a shorter period than one year will be totally dependent on IBM (and Freescale) to overcome the challenges on 90nm and 65nm fabtication - something, by the way that Intel is also facing, but they are behind IBM.

When the problems are solved there is an opportunity for raster releases and at that time Mac lovers will probably be screaming that a new top speed version is out before they even pay off the one they just bought.

The road map is still exciting - it just takes time and some very bright people to solve the fabrication problems.

kurt · August 29, 2004 6:35AM

This rumor does not make sense to me. If I am not mistaken, the current 1.8 PowerMac uses 130 nm chips. It is only the 2.5 that uses 90 nm. It would make sense that the new iMac is going to use 90 nm chips. IBM may have trouble making 90 nm chips but I thought they were doing well with the 130s. If the new iMac is using the smaller chips, then it would not affect production of the PowerMacs. If it is using the same 130 nm chips then IBM should be able to produce an adequate supply. With Apple having such a small market share, this should not be that difficult.

jwdawso · August 29, 2004 7:05AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kurt

This rumor does not make sense to me. If I am not mistaken, the current 1.8 PowerMac uses 130 nm chips. It is only the 2.5 that uses 90 nm. It would make sense that the new iMac is going to use 90 nm chips. IBM may have trouble making 90 nm chips but I thought they were doing well with the 130s. If the new iMac is using the smaller chips, then it would not affect production of the PowerMacs. If it is using the same 130 nm chips then IBM should be able to produce an adequate supply. With Apple having such a small market share, this should not be that difficult.

I've seen a post at Ars that confirms at least one new 2.0 is a 970fx.

kurt · August 29, 2004 7:37AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jwdawso

I've seen a post at Ars that confirms at least one new 2.0 is a 970fx.

I do not understand why Apple would do that. If you have an adequate supply of 970s and machines that work with them (PowerMacs) but not enough 970fxs, why would you put them in machines that don't need them? I realize in the long run the smaller process may be cheaper but if you can't make enought to satisfy demand, then it is a really stupid decision. Apple should put the 970s in the PowerMacs and keep the 970fxs for the iMacs.

chu_bakka · August 29, 2004 7:48AM

my bad... to many rumor sites... it was at MacOsRumors.com

but now I can't find it. it wasn't official...

it was just "a close to the real thing" design

kenaustus · August 29, 2004 8:54AM

It's my understanding that all G5 chips being delivered by IBM are 90nms and that IBM is not fabricating the 130nm chips. The 130nm chips were, as I recall, a temporary chip to let Apple deliver the G5 PM last year and the intent was always to shift to the 90nm.

The design - especially the engineering investment - in the G5 iMac would be for a 90nm chip as that design has to last for a few years. The other rumor going around was that the iMac and G5 PB would use the same MB allowing for a reduction in cost.

We'll see very soon, but my money is on the 970XF for the G5 iMac.

jwdawso · August 29, 2004 9:18AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kurt

I do not understand why Apple would do that. If you have an adequate supply of 970s and machines that work with them (PowerMacs) but not enough 970fxs, why would you put them in machines that don't need them? I realize in the long run the smaller process may be cheaper but if you can't make enought to satisfy demand, then it is a really stupid decision. Apple should put the 970s in the PowerMacs and keep the 970fxs for the iMacs.

I agree with you. However, supposedly the 970fx is cheaper since more can fit on a wafer, so maybe this is the reason. Also, since the 2Ghz PM has the same time delay as the 1.8Ghz, I'm hoping that the new iMac will have a 2Ghz model also.

commodus · August 29, 2004 10:00AM

In the case of the iMac G5, they probably need the 970FX chip, and it stands to reason that it would be costlier for Apple to ask IBM to split up production into two lines when they would just have to merge the lines shortly afterwards.

On the plus side, this suggests that Apple will for once be able to announce a computer which is actually available fairly quickly. They practically need to; if they want to get in on holiday sales and/or capitalize on the success of the iPod, they'll need to have something with enough of a constant supply that even backorders can expect to get their iMac within 2-3 weeks.

fallenfromthetree · August 29, 2004 11:11AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jwdawso

I agree with you. However, supposedly the 970fx is cheaper since more can fit on a wafer, so maybe this is the reason. Also, since the 2Ghz PM has the same time delay as the 1.8Ghz, I'm hoping that the new iMac will have a 2Ghz model also.

After reading through numerous forums about what processor is going where, I think you'll find that the 90 nm, 970fx is being used in the first release of the iMac G5 because it runs cooler.

You're not going to get an original 130nm 1.8 processor requiring 9 cooling fans in an iMac or a PowerBook.

The average user is going to be fine with a single 64 bit processor until

the "even newer" IBM970MP dual core processors are available.

Then we'll be talking about water cooled IBM970MP 64 bit,

Dual Core Quad Macs! :-) "the precious"

running the equivalent of 4

2.0-3Ghz processors in two chipsets.

Trying to stay current of what's coming up is not easy, but it looks like

there's going to be serious heavy competition in the 64 bit arena during 2005.

For this reason many Mac users considering an upgrade may be better off waiting till next season when dual core processors have made their debut.

TS note on G5 1.8 for iMac

Comments