what the 970 will mean for the iMac
Ok, I'm going on the assumption that there will be 970 powermacs this summer/fall.
Given that assumption I would expect this for the iMac (I'm only doing top of the line).
1.42 Ghz G4 on 167Mhz bus
1 meg L3
64 meg radeon 9000.
17 inch LCD
$1700
What do you think?
Remember, this is based on the 970 appearing this summer/fall. Please do not hijack the thread into a debate on whether or not the 970 will in fact appear.
Thanks
Given that assumption I would expect this for the iMac (I'm only doing top of the line).
1.42 Ghz G4 on 167Mhz bus
1 meg L3
64 meg radeon 9000.
17 inch LCD
$1700
What do you think?
Remember, this is based on the 970 appearing this summer/fall. Please do not hijack the thread into a debate on whether or not the 970 will in fact appear.
Thanks
Comments
<strong>Hm, can I qualify a response using the 970? Assuming the 970 appears at fast enough speeds (i.e 1.8 GHz), then it'd be possible that something of that nature may occur. If it's more in line with 1.6 GHz or so, then I'd say a 1.25 GHz G4 would probably make more sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I honestly don't think it would matter. I mean, all the pros who would be buying the 970's would realize how much faster it was than a G4. I just don't see any pro saying "I should go with the 1.42 Ghz iMac instead of the 1.2 Ghz 970."
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Flounder ]</p>
g
<strong>depending on the price...perhaps a 970 1.6 chip is cheaper than a G4 1.4 chip...in which case, can the iMac go to a low 970 chip (1.4 to 1.6) leaving the 1.8 to 2.5 for the powermacs (and maybe the pm are duals and the iMac is a single)
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah, I'd thought about that
I didn't want to seem TOO optimistic though
<strong>
I honestly don't think it would matter. I mean, all the pros who would be buying the 970's would realize how much faster it was than a G4. I just don't see any pro saying "I should go with the 1.42 Ghz iMac instead of the 1.2 Ghz 970."
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Flounder ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem will not be selling the 970 over the G4 to the pro's, but the real possability that Apple might, based on past upgrades, give a pittifully underpowered high end iMac (1.25 Ghz) instead of putting their most powerfull (1.42 or faster) G4.
but this is apple...so they will likely start with more G4 iMacs and single proc. 970 PMs
g
Then there's the marketing side. I'm sure folks at Apple realize a large barrier to market share growth is the lack of performance (or perception thereof) in their consumer line compared to wintel boxes. Sure, the PowerMac duals are blazingly fast (yes, they really are), but Apple's value price line pales in speed comparisons to x86 based alternatives. These boxes are the bait on the hook for first time buyers and potential switchers, and Apple wants to make them as appealing as possible. Performance is a big part of the appeal of a new system, just look at Apple's drive to replace the sluggish IE with Safari, if Apple can pull it off cheaply enough I think we'll see PPC970s in Apple's next rev iMacs.
*keeping all fingers and toes crossed*
I think we see a 1.25Ghz iMac and maybe a decent helping of Cache.
Same bus. Same MB
When Apple have have balance in production and demand of 970 towers and servers i really see no reason to not put them in the iMacs.
What does this mean? Bad news and more bad news, I'm afraid. According to Motorola the MPC7447 production starts in Q4 2003, and I would think that would mean a fall/winter update. If Apple wants to perform a summer update (an I would think they would) we're left with the MPC7445 which we haven't seen scale above 1GHz, and which will be inserted into a machine with a lot less cooling power than the PowerMac towers. I'm totally guessing here, but I would think this means incremental increases in processor speed at best.
Which brings me back to my first point. It's looking like the PPC970 will be available before the MPC7447, the PPC970 doesn't support L3 cache which keeps cost down, and IBM has documented its performance and heat dissapation at the *smirk* slower speed of 1.2GHz which would suit the iMac well. Depending on the per chip cost of the PPC970 I would think it's a shoe in to be included in the iMac line simultaneously or soon after its release in the PowerMacs.
sad as it is, Apple has to put the highest MHz processor it can into iMacs to get them moving. The company has this marketing strategy that, by putting the faster processors into only the pro models, continuously encourages Consumers to hold off buying because something faster is obviously in the pipeline.
The differentiation between the Pro and Consumer lines needs to be 1) dual procs instead of single procs, 2) expandability, 3) other PRO features. MHz holdback only retards sales of Consumer models. Instead of fearing that Pros will buy iMacs if they had fast processors in them, the marketing folks should be more concerned about all of the Consumers who AREN'T buying iMacs because they know there is a faster processor availble.
I'm amazed that Apple can't see this or refuses to make this decision. They are seriously holding back Consumer sales.
I'm in the market for a new iMac, although I'm not desperate, and I just can't bring myself to buy one when I know that a 42% faster processor is already out on the market!!!
This isn't about price, it's about creating a competitive product - and Apple's behaviour in specing iMacs indicates they are more concerned about competing with themselves than with the other 95% of computer sales out there.
WAKE UP APPLE!
[\\Major Rant Mode]
Here is what we know:
1 - Apple's machines have had a reputation for being "slow" in the PC world since the Motorola G4 fiasco left us stranded at 500 MHz for nearly a year while Intel/AMD broke the 1 GHz mark.
2 - Though Motorola has gotten us to 1.42 GHz now, most people feel that Apple is still "way behind" PCs in speed. We know that's not true (the megahertz myth), but the majority of the buying public does not.
3 - Based on benchmarks (which admitedly may or may not be completely accurate), all signs point to the PPC 970 at ANY speed being twice as fast as the G4 in integer performance, and nearly 3 times faster than a G4 in floating point.
4 - Original documents on the PPC 970 reported that the processor would debut at 1.2 GHz speeds. The latest report indicates speeds from 1.8 to 2.5 GHz. It's unknown if IBM will still release the 1.2 GHz chip. But if they did, that means the spread between a low end 1.2 and high end 2.5 is 1.3 GHz, or just over twice as fast.
5 - Apple's current top of the line machines are the 1 GHz iMac and the 1.42 GHz PowerMac. Ignoring the dual processor issue which the majority of programs don't take advantage of yet, that's only a 400 MHz spread between the two top of the line machines. Clearly, Apple has ways to distinguish between the pro and consumer lines, aside from the processor speed.
The only thing that remains unknown is cost. How much IBM charges Apple per chip will be the deciding factor on when we see the PPC 970 in the consumer line.
If the 1.2 GHz PPC 970 is roughly the same cost or less than the 1 GHz G4, then Apple would be foolish to not begin using it immediately across the board. For the same exact price as they charge now, Apple could sell 1.2 GHz PPC iMacs that are 2-3 times faster (depending on what you're doing) than the G4 iMacs they sell now. Same iMac features, same price, but TWICE as fast. Who wouldn't want one? And yet there's still plenty of gap between the 1.2 GHz and 2.5 GHz that no one needs to worry about the iMac stepping on the PowerMac toes for the pro buyers. They will still want the latest, greatest, and fastest at almost any cost.
But assuming Apple doesn't use the PPC 970 right away in the consumer machines, I do think it's very likely that the iMacs will be bumped right away to Motorola's highest speed chips. Once the PPC 970 is out and the pro machines speed has jumped so far, Apple would no longer have any reason to "cripple" the iMacs. If the G4 was only being used in laptops (for heat issues) and consumer desktops, there would be plenty of high speed chips to go around. Again, only cost per chip might make a slight impact on this decision.
The 970 sure incites people to spend hours of time speculating. Let's hope only 1/10th of all the things we all hope for come true for Apple during 2003.
-- Ensoniq
<strong>
sad as it is, Apple has to put the highest MHz processor it can into iMacs to get them moving. The company has this marketing strategy that, by putting the faster processors into only the pro models, continuously encourages Consumers to hold off buying because something faster is obviously in the pipeline.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When is it not obvious that something faster is in the pipeline?
[quote]<strong>I'm in the market for a new iMac, although I'm not desperate, and I just can't bring myself to buy one when I know that a 42% faster processor is already out on the market!!! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that the 1.42GHz clockspeed is probably pushing the 7455 to the very limits of its design tolerance, it would probably reduce an iMac to a pile of slag. You get higher speeds out of a given CPU by feeding it more power, and toward the limits of the CPU's design life you get diminishing returns. That's why the PowerMacs have those ungodly heatsinks and huge fans.
The only sensible reason to buy a computer is that it does what you need. Go use an iMac. If it does what you need, buy it. It's a given that something faster will come along, so don't worry about that.
I expect that the next speedbump will come if: The low-voltage 970 is cheap and plentiful enough to power them, or (more likely) when the 7457 arrives. The iMac tends to follow the PowerBooks, because they both operate under size and heat constraints.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree, iMacs will get faster pretty much in lock step with the PB's, but as always for cost, not heat reasons.
<strong>Yeah but, the whole iMac dome can be one huge heat-sink, you just need to run more heat pipinng from the CPU to to the dome and eek a few more CFM from the fan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the economical justification for doing this to put in a rare, hot CPU into a costly machine for six months is...
[quote]<strong>Otherwise, yeah, I agree, iMacs will get faster pretty much in lock step with the PB's, but as always for cost, not heat reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The two reasons are not mutually exclusive. Using the PB's technology gives their industrial design options that it would not otherwise have, besides keeping the component cost down.
Regardless of the Powermacs, you can bet that Apple will do one of two things with the iMac in a year's time:
A) Axe it. "Don't sell no more, we don't understand why?!!?"
Juice it up with a blistering 1.2 GHz G4.