The Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest 3Ghz) just dominated Sun's T1 8-core proc and Opteron system.
Should there be any doubt that Apple's high end Mac Pro should be a SMP Xeon 5160?
You wont get any arguments out of me. I've already started selling my comic book collection, some guitars, and anything else I can do away with so I can get the highest performance model available from day one. Apple better have SLI cause I'm going dual Quadro baby!
Who makes the motherboards and stamps intel on them then? Either way, the motherboard redesign was referring to the socket... what does the socket have to do with the case?
Intel's own motherboards are designed by Intel and produced by Foxconn. God knows who makes Apple's motherboards but I assume it's the companies which are the ODM's for Apple's computers.
PPC is not in bad shape when it comes to G5 vs. Netburst/Pentium. Pentium is dead, Core 2 is coming, and PPC vs. Core 2 won't look so good.
I agree if by that you mean the G5 from last year vs Core 2 coming soon but that's not to say there wouldn't have been changes to PPC in the last year too.
The G5 has it's faults but then so does Core 2.
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
Meanwhile, G4 vs. Core 1 (or even Pentium M which is related) ALREADY is in bad shape. Which is why Macs don't have G4s anymore.
No, that's not really true either. The problem with the perception of the G4 is it stopped with the 7447A. Apple never used the 7448 or the 8641D. The 8641D in particular is pretty good (dual core, lower power than Core, built in dual memory controllers, 667Mhz bus, PCI-E, Gig Ethernet on the CPU..) but it shipped too late. If it shipped a year ago I think we'd not be going through the switch.
I think the switch is more a matter of timing than anything. Apple needed laptop chips desperately and PowerPC chips just weren't ready. I think it's a real pity as there's some real work going on around PPC just now in IBM and PA Semi. Maybe Apple will get back to PPC someday.
I also think there's a software plan here that's not apparent yet.
I don't think anything would have made G5/G4 development proceed as quickly as Intel's: neither IBM nor Freescale want to be in the personal computer processor business, and neither of them finds it profitable to do so just for Apple. So that's pretty much that--years of experience showed us that PPC had promise, but Apple could NOT make IBM/Freescale turn that promise into reality. Not consistently and on time and without shortages.
Reality means on time, not a year late, and it means shipping in QUANTITY, which is a huge question mark with those newer G4s.
So a nice new G4 a year too late or in small volumes isn't good enough. And if it was, then what comes after that? Another promise that is likely to be a missed target.
Meanwhile Intel has abandoned the Netburst mistake and has an excellent new direction. The choice was easy, as long as Apple could get their OS on x86. Which, thankfully, is a safety net they had ready.
PowerPC lives on, and I'm glad of that--but the new developments are in chips for game consoles, phones, servers... everything but computers. And those specialized chips just can't take the place of a personal computer processor in a desktop or (especially) laptop. Cell, for instance, is really cool but is not useful to take the place of a computer CPU.
I agree if by that you mean the G5 from last year vs Core 2 coming soon but that's not to say there wouldn't have been changes to PPC in the last year too.
But that's not to say there *would* have been changes. What the G5 could or could not have been is pure speculation...
...on the other hand, Intel *is* delivering in a tangible manner. And if you're gonna make me believe that IBM or Motorola/Freescale would suddenly have gotten off their duffs to actually deliver decent processors improvements, you're going to have to try much harder.
Ever since the switch, we've been bombarded with Intel chip news. They have been following their roadmap pretty well...too well even that chips are being released earlier then even Intel expected. How the fuck can you ask for more? Heck, I'm even sick and tired of hearing about Woodcrests beating all other chips by a factor of almost 2...and Merom being speedy and consuming 35 watts... (ok, I'm not really sick of hearing it, but it's a massive change to how everything was just a year ago.)
I'll tell you one thing... had Steve decided to stick with IBM another year, we'd have no news on chip dev, and we'd sure as hell not have some ass-spankin' laptops right now (despite some minor heat issues).
I'm not saying the switch to Intel wasn't a good idea. Far from it, Intel are delivering well enough and I think the Core Duo iMac is the best thing Apple have ever produced. The problem I have is with the bleak picture that gets painted about PowerPC when it really wasn't the case (bar laptops) and isn't now. Occasionally the PowerPC gave the Mac a lead and you must now realise that'll never be the case again. It's all about the software now.
Plus everyone likes to apportion blame and usually it's not Apple that's the bad guy. That's not what I've heard from IBM engineers.
I just find it hilariously funny that we've gone from dissing the Intel gang but as soon as we've moved gangs it's now fashionable to bash our old once cutting edge friends.
But that's not to say there *would* have been changes. What the G5 could or could not have been is pure speculation...
...on the other hand, Intel *is* delivering in a tangible manner. And if you're gonna make me believe that IBM or Motorola/Freescale would suddenly have gotten off their duffs to actually deliver decent processors improvements, you're going to have to try much harder.
Ever since the switch, we've been bombarded with Intel chip news. They have been following their roadmap pretty well...too well even that chips are being released earlier then even Intel expected. How the fuck can you ask for more? Heck, I'm even sick and tired of hearing about Woodcrests beating all other chips by a factor of almost 2...and Merom being speedy and consuming 35 watts... (ok, I'm not really sick of hearing it, but it's a massive change to how everything was just a year ago.)
I'll tell you one thing... had Steve decided to stick with IBM another year, we'd have no news on chip dev, and we'd sure as hell not have some ass-spankin' laptops right now (despite some minor heat issues).
Fully agree. I can't understand this yearning for ppc chips. Intel is keeping their end of the bargan so far. They are ahead of schedule in bringing chips to market. What else do they have to do to get a little respect around here? And if Intel begins to falter, AMD is only a phone call away.
I'm not saying the switch to Intel wasn't a good idea. Far from it, Intel are delivering well enough and I think the Core Duo iMac is the best thing Apple have ever produced. The problem I have is with the bleak picture that gets painted about PowerPC when it really wasn't the case (bar laptops) and isn't now. Occasionally the PowerPC gave the Mac a lead and you must now realise that'll never be the case again. It's all about the software now.
Plus everyone likes to apportion blame and usually it's not Apple that's the bad guy. That's not what I've heard from IBM engineers.
I just find it hilariously funny that we've gone from dissing the Intel gang but as soon as we've moved gangs it's now fashionable to bash our old once cutting edge friends.
Actually, there are lots of people that were bashing "our cutting edge friends" when Intel wasn't in the picture at all. I repeatedly bashed Motorola during the G4 days. I repeatedly bashed IBM during the G5 days. This isn't some magical and recent phenomenon. People were unhappy with Motorola/Freescale and IBM before any of the switches (be it to G5s or be it to Core Duo.)
And you're not going to hear the unbiased story from an IBM engineer...just like you won't hear it from Apple employees.
But, in my wise and humble opinion, I've seen Apple work its ass off offering cutesy designs to make up for the sorry fact that they to use some mediocre to average chips by Freescale and IBM (respectively). If they packed computers with value-added gizmos such as Bluetooth and Airport and made nice enclosures, it was to make customers not concentrate on the processors.
The fault may have lied in part on Apple...but I'm pretty sure the majority of the fault lied on the suppliers dicking around.
I just find it hilariously funny that we've gone from dissing the Intel gang but as soon as we've moved gangs it's now fashionable to bash our old once cutting edge friends.
In the pre-Intel days, I heard a lot of bashing of Netburst/Pentium, but no bashing of Core or Core 2 (which obviously didn't exist back then).
I'm still willing to bash Netburst. And I'm in good company: Apple and Intel have both rejected Netburst.
So I don't see any "fashion change" of Apple changing their minds about Netburst, nor Mac users. I see only one party changing their minds about Netburst: Intel. I'm glad they did.
As for bashing Freescale and IBM, I think all Mac users appreciate that PPC had potential, and that for a while that potential was actually realized. But Mac users badmouthing IBM and Freescale is nothing new at all. It began with the delay of the first iMac G5s and with the Pentium M vs. G4 comparisons. (Pentium M is not Netburst--it's a predecessor of Core and was the one execllent chip Intel had for a while there.)
1. TomsHardware and AnandTech have demonstrated 20% or so increase in performance in their benchmarks with Conroe over AthlonX2.
2. I agree iMac goes Conroe, Mac Pro goes pure Woodcrest (dual and quad models). Redesigns to accomodate Mac Pro Conroe is too messy this year. That means NO mid-range tower from Apple. NO MID RANGE HEADLESS CONROE TOWER IMO. Too messy, too much for Apple to handle this year.
3. I agree MacBookPro goes Merom, sticks with ATI mobility graphics. MacBook remains faster Yonah, maybe better integrated graphics. MacBook maybe goes Merom towards end of the year.
4. MacBook Pro and MacBook HAVE HEAT ISSUES. Some of you seem to be thrilled about the Intel transition. I am too, but there is no denying that the heat issues with the brand new laptops are really not something Steve wanted with the whole performance-per-watt faster, cooler, better deal. THESE HEAT ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED and I'm sure that Apple is working on it.
5. There will be no Jonathan Ives redesign until 2007 IMO. Apple is too hard at work with the internals and dealing with the fast rate of Intel chips that major physical appearance stuff will have to wait until 2007.
6. Netburst is not dead for PC-land. Intel is pushing out Pentium 4s, Pentium Ds, and Pentium Extremes at low, low prices. Conroe availability is expected at 30% or less in the overall chip availability from Intel.
Intel Pentium D 820 (2.80GHz/1Mx2) \t$133
Intel Pentium D 805 (2.66GHz/1Mx2) \t$93
For about a hundred plus you can get a dualcore machine, be it Netburst. But Netburst WILL still be around this year. A pity for the PC users but with the low prices they become very competitive with Athlons.
That would be nice. In an Apple store you could go to the genius bar and ask an asian cock how to handle Apple's new wokstation or about a new recipe...
The fault may have lied in part on Apple...but I'm pretty sure the majority of the fault lied on the suppliers dicking around. [/B]
Ever since the original iMac, Apple has focused on high margins and slow growth for the Mac market.
But, PowerPC chips were so cheap, IBM/Moto saw almost none of the huge profits Apple was taking home. And to make matters worse, Apple played the ultra-segementation game meaning most of their volume was extremely low-profit low-end chips (think how long the G3 hung around).
If Apple had grown their marketshare to 5% and put higher-end chips in their consumer systems, you can bet that those suppliers would have stop dicking around and got Apple some better chips. As it was they were simply a lousy customer.
With Intel, Apple wanted started with a bang -- using only the highest-end, best performing laptop chips. This is a total reversal from their PPC product planning, and frankly I wouldn't expect it to last.
By next year, count on Apple's consumer systems lagging behind with Intel's cheaper, slower chips. Sure there will be a couple speed-queen models in the line, but for the most part Apple doesn't need to use Mhz to make large margins, preferring instead to rely on model segmentation and form-factors.
5. There will be no Jonathan Ives redesign until 2007 IMO. Apple is too hard at work with the internals and dealing with the fast rate of Intel chips that major physical appearance stuff will have to wait until 2007.
That's probably a business decision, not a resource decision. The circuit design boys being busy doesn't necessarily mean that the fluffy-shirt type design boys are off designing circuits to fill the need manpower.
Quote:
6. Netburst is not dead for PC-land. Intel is pushing out Pentium 4s, Pentium Ds, and Pentium Extremes at low, low prices. Conroe availability is expected at 30% or less in the overall chip availability from Intel.
Intel Pentium D 820 (2.80GHz/1Mx2) \t$133
Intel Pentium D 805 (2.66GHz/1Mx2) \t$93
For about a hundred plus you can get a dualcore machine, be it Netburst. But Netburst WILL still be around this year. A pity for the PC users but with the low prices they become very competitive with Athlons.
Later in the game, Netburst did get a little power inefficient but they do the job and are reliable. It did hold its edge for half its life, and in media handling for a while longer. They got a little carried away with Prescott, Nacona and later, I never had those, but the Northwood and Prestonia has served me without issue.
If Apple had grown their marketshare to 5% and put higher-end chips in their consumer systems, you can bet that those suppliers would have stop dicking around and got Apple some better chips. As it was they were simply a lousy customer.
You forget all the things IBM and Freescale promised or anticipated that never happened. IBM didn't say "3 Ghz in a year IF you put high-end chips in your low-end systems." They said "3 Ghz in a year."
And what higher-end chips were you thinking would go in the iMac (which was G5) and the iBook (which was G4)? I can only assume you are criticizing the Mac Mini for not having a G5--but that was both a cost and space issue, and even if it had used a G5, I don't see how that would magically have made IBM and Freescale "stop dicking around."
Apple wasn't a "lousy customer," their needs simply didn't match what IBM and Freescale want to do, which is embedded, server, and console chips, not computer chips. Apple was the wrong customer for them, and the right customer for Intel who actually WANTS to make computer chips.
Fully agree. I can't understand this yearning for ppc chips. Intel is keeping their end of the bargan so far. They are ahead of schedule in bringing chips to market. What else do they have to do to get a little respect around here? And if Intel begins to falter, AMD is only a phone call away.
It's quite simple. The PPC was and in some respects still is a better design and if you tie your ship up with Intel in particular (AMD less so) there's no way the Mac is ever going to be faster or more architecturally interesting than a PC. It's lost one of it's differentiating factors.
It's all about software now. The hardware wars are over. PowerPC lost on the desktop.
Comments
Originally posted by backtomac
Whenever Apple release anything short of awesome, there will be some bitchin!
I know, I'm one of them!
Woodcrest here we come!
Originally posted by hmurchison
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&p=1
The Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest 3Ghz) just dominated Sun's T1 8-core proc and Opteron system.
Should there be any doubt that Apple's high end Mac Pro should be a SMP Xeon 5160?
You wont get any arguments out of me. I've already started selling my comic book collection, some guitars, and anything else I can do away with so I can get the highest performance model available from day one. Apple better have SLI cause I'm going dual Quadro baby!
Originally posted by MacRonin
Wokstations??!?
What, Apple turning into a kitchen appliance vendor??!?
;^p
That would be nice.
In an Apple store you could go to the genius bar and ask an asian cock how to handle Apple's new wokstation or about a new recipe...
Originally posted by smalM
That would be nice.
Should have said " That would be rice" .
WOOOOOo! WOODCREST MACS! I WANT ONE!
Originally posted by emig647
Who makes the motherboards and stamps intel on them then? Either way, the motherboard redesign was referring to the socket... what does the socket have to do with the case?
Intel's own motherboards are designed by Intel and produced by Foxconn. God knows who makes Apple's motherboards but I assume it's the companies which are the ODM's for Apple's computers.
Originally posted by nagromme
PPC is not in bad shape when it comes to G5 vs. Netburst/Pentium. Pentium is dead, Core 2 is coming, and PPC vs. Core 2 won't look so good.
I agree if by that you mean the G5 from last year vs Core 2 coming soon but that's not to say there wouldn't have been changes to PPC in the last year too.
The G5 has it's faults but then so does Core 2.
Originally posted by nagromme
Meanwhile, G4 vs. Core 1 (or even Pentium M which is related) ALREADY is in bad shape. Which is why Macs don't have G4s anymore.
No, that's not really true either. The problem with the perception of the G4 is it stopped with the 7447A. Apple never used the 7448 or the 8641D. The 8641D in particular is pretty good (dual core, lower power than Core, built in dual memory controllers, 667Mhz bus, PCI-E, Gig Ethernet on the CPU..) but it shipped too late. If it shipped a year ago I think we'd not be going through the switch.
I think the switch is more a matter of timing than anything. Apple needed laptop chips desperately and PowerPC chips just weren't ready. I think it's a real pity as there's some real work going on around PPC just now in IBM and PA Semi. Maybe Apple will get back to PPC someday.
I also think there's a software plan here that's not apparent yet.
Reality means on time, not a year late, and it means shipping in QUANTITY, which is a huge question mark with those newer G4s.
So a nice new G4 a year too late or in small volumes isn't good enough. And if it was, then what comes after that? Another promise that is likely to be a missed target.
Meanwhile Intel has abandoned the Netburst mistake and has an excellent new direction. The choice was easy, as long as Apple could get their OS on x86. Which, thankfully, is a safety net they had ready.
PowerPC lives on, and I'm glad of that--but the new developments are in chips for game consoles, phones, servers... everything but computers. And those specialized chips just can't take the place of a personal computer processor in a desktop or (especially) laptop. Cell, for instance, is really cool but is not useful to take the place of a computer CPU.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I agree if by that you mean the G5 from last year vs Core 2 coming soon but that's not to say there wouldn't have been changes to PPC in the last year too.
But that's not to say there *would* have been changes. What the G5 could or could not have been is pure speculation...
...on the other hand, Intel *is* delivering in a tangible manner. And if you're gonna make me believe that IBM or Motorola/Freescale would suddenly have gotten off their duffs to actually deliver decent processors improvements, you're going to have to try much harder.
Ever since the switch, we've been bombarded with Intel chip news. They have been following their roadmap pretty well...too well even that chips are being released earlier then even Intel expected. How the fuck can you ask for more? Heck, I'm even sick and tired of hearing about Woodcrests beating all other chips by a factor of almost 2...and Merom being speedy and consuming 35 watts... (ok, I'm not really sick of hearing it, but it's a massive change to how everything was just a year ago.)
I'll tell you one thing... had Steve decided to stick with IBM another year, we'd have no news on chip dev, and we'd sure as hell not have some ass-spankin' laptops right now (despite some minor heat issues).
Plus everyone likes to apportion blame and usually it's not Apple that's the bad guy. That's not what I've heard from IBM engineers.
I just find it hilariously funny that we've gone from dissing the Intel gang but as soon as we've moved gangs it's now fashionable to bash our old once cutting edge friends.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
But that's not to say there *would* have been changes. What the G5 could or could not have been is pure speculation...
...on the other hand, Intel *is* delivering in a tangible manner. And if you're gonna make me believe that IBM or Motorola/Freescale would suddenly have gotten off their duffs to actually deliver decent processors improvements, you're going to have to try much harder.
Ever since the switch, we've been bombarded with Intel chip news. They have been following their roadmap pretty well...too well even that chips are being released earlier then even Intel expected. How the fuck can you ask for more? Heck, I'm even sick and tired of hearing about Woodcrests beating all other chips by a factor of almost 2...and Merom being speedy and consuming 35 watts... (ok, I'm not really sick of hearing it, but it's a massive change to how everything was just a year ago.)
I'll tell you one thing... had Steve decided to stick with IBM another year, we'd have no news on chip dev, and we'd sure as hell not have some ass-spankin' laptops right now (despite some minor heat issues).
Fully agree. I can't understand this yearning for ppc chips. Intel is keeping their end of the bargan so far. They are ahead of schedule in bringing chips to market. What else do they have to do to get a little respect around here? And if Intel begins to falter, AMD is only a phone call away.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I'm not saying the switch to Intel wasn't a good idea. Far from it, Intel are delivering well enough and I think the Core Duo iMac is the best thing Apple have ever produced. The problem I have is with the bleak picture that gets painted about PowerPC when it really wasn't the case (bar laptops) and isn't now. Occasionally the PowerPC gave the Mac a lead and you must now realise that'll never be the case again. It's all about the software now.
Plus everyone likes to apportion blame and usually it's not Apple that's the bad guy. That's not what I've heard from IBM engineers.
I just find it hilariously funny that we've gone from dissing the Intel gang but as soon as we've moved gangs it's now fashionable to bash our old once cutting edge friends.
Actually, there are lots of people that were bashing "our cutting edge friends" when Intel wasn't in the picture at all. I repeatedly bashed Motorola during the G4 days. I repeatedly bashed IBM during the G5 days. This isn't some magical and recent phenomenon. People were unhappy with Motorola/Freescale and IBM before any of the switches (be it to G5s or be it to Core Duo.)
And you're not going to hear the unbiased story from an IBM engineer...just like you won't hear it from Apple employees.
But, in my wise and humble opinion, I've seen Apple work its ass off offering cutesy designs to make up for the sorry fact that they to use some mediocre to average chips by Freescale and IBM (respectively). If they packed computers with value-added gizmos such as Bluetooth and Airport and made nice enclosures, it was to make customers not concentrate on the processors.
The fault may have lied in part on Apple...but I'm pretty sure the majority of the fault lied on the suppliers dicking around.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I just find it hilariously funny that we've gone from dissing the Intel gang but as soon as we've moved gangs it's now fashionable to bash our old once cutting edge friends.
In the pre-Intel days, I heard a lot of bashing of Netburst/Pentium, but no bashing of Core or Core 2 (which obviously didn't exist back then).
I'm still willing to bash Netburst. And I'm in good company: Apple and Intel have both rejected Netburst.
So I don't see any "fashion change" of Apple changing their minds about Netburst, nor Mac users. I see only one party changing their minds about Netburst: Intel. I'm glad they did.
As for bashing Freescale and IBM, I think all Mac users appreciate that PPC had potential, and that for a while that potential was actually realized. But Mac users badmouthing IBM and Freescale is nothing new at all. It began with the delay of the first iMac G5s and with the Pentium M vs. G4 comparisons. (Pentium M is not Netburst--it's a predecessor of Core and was the one execllent chip Intel had for a while there.)
1. TomsHardware and AnandTech have demonstrated 20% or so increase in performance in their benchmarks with Conroe over AthlonX2.
2. I agree iMac goes Conroe, Mac Pro goes pure Woodcrest (dual and quad models). Redesigns to accomodate Mac Pro Conroe is too messy this year. That means NO mid-range tower from Apple. NO MID RANGE HEADLESS CONROE TOWER IMO. Too messy, too much for Apple to handle this year.
3. I agree MacBookPro goes Merom, sticks with ATI mobility graphics. MacBook remains faster Yonah, maybe better integrated graphics. MacBook maybe goes Merom towards end of the year.
4. MacBook Pro and MacBook HAVE HEAT ISSUES. Some of you seem to be thrilled about the Intel transition. I am too, but there is no denying that the heat issues with the brand new laptops are really not something Steve wanted with the whole performance-per-watt faster, cooler, better deal. THESE HEAT ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED and I'm sure that Apple is working on it.
5. There will be no Jonathan Ives redesign until 2007 IMO. Apple is too hard at work with the internals and dealing with the fast rate of Intel chips that major physical appearance stuff will have to wait until 2007.
6. Netburst is not dead for PC-land. Intel is pushing out Pentium 4s, Pentium Ds, and Pentium Extremes at low, low prices. Conroe availability is expected at 30% or less in the overall chip availability from Intel.
Intel Pentium D 820 (2.80GHz/1Mx2) \t$133
Intel Pentium D 805 (2.66GHz/1Mx2) \t$93
For about a hundred plus you can get a dualcore machine, be it Netburst. But Netburst WILL still be around this year. A pity for the PC users but with the low prices they become very competitive with Athlons.
Just some thoughts and predictions......
.......................................
That would be nice. In an Apple store you could go to the genius bar and ask an asian cock how to handle Apple's new wokstation or about a new recipe...
Umm, typo...
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The fault may have lied in part on Apple...but I'm pretty sure the majority of the fault lied on the suppliers dicking around. [/B]
Ever since the original iMac, Apple has focused on high margins and slow growth for the Mac market.
But, PowerPC chips were so cheap, IBM/Moto saw almost none of the huge profits Apple was taking home. And to make matters worse, Apple played the ultra-segementation game meaning most of their volume was extremely low-profit low-end chips (think how long the G3 hung around).
If Apple had grown their marketshare to 5% and put higher-end chips in their consumer systems, you can bet that those suppliers would have stop dicking around and got Apple some better chips. As it was they were simply a lousy customer.
With Intel, Apple wanted started with a bang -- using only the highest-end, best performing laptop chips. This is a total reversal from their PPC product planning, and frankly I wouldn't expect it to last.
By next year, count on Apple's consumer systems lagging behind with Intel's cheaper, slower chips. Sure there will be a couple speed-queen models in the line, but for the most part Apple doesn't need to use Mhz to make large margins, preferring instead to rely on model segmentation and form-factors.
Originally posted by sunilraman
5. There will be no Jonathan Ives redesign until 2007 IMO. Apple is too hard at work with the internals and dealing with the fast rate of Intel chips that major physical appearance stuff will have to wait until 2007.
That's probably a business decision, not a resource decision. The circuit design boys being busy doesn't necessarily mean that the fluffy-shirt type design boys are off designing circuits to fill the need manpower.
Quote:
6. Netburst is not dead for PC-land. Intel is pushing out Pentium 4s, Pentium Ds, and Pentium Extremes at low, low prices. Conroe availability is expected at 30% or less in the overall chip availability from Intel.
Intel Pentium D 820 (2.80GHz/1Mx2) \t$133
Intel Pentium D 805 (2.66GHz/1Mx2) \t$93
For about a hundred plus you can get a dualcore machine, be it Netburst. But Netburst WILL still be around this year. A pity for the PC users but with the low prices they become very competitive with Athlons.
Later in the game, Netburst did get a little power inefficient but they do the job and are reliable. It did hold its edge for half its life, and in media handling for a while longer. They got a little carried away with Prescott, Nacona and later, I never had those, but the Northwood and Prestonia has served me without issue.
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
If Apple had grown their marketshare to 5% and put higher-end chips in their consumer systems, you can bet that those suppliers would have stop dicking around and got Apple some better chips. As it was they were simply a lousy customer.
You forget all the things IBM and Freescale promised or anticipated that never happened. IBM didn't say "3 Ghz in a year IF you put high-end chips in your low-end systems." They said "3 Ghz in a year."
And what higher-end chips were you thinking would go in the iMac (which was G5) and the iBook (which was G4)? I can only assume you are criticizing the Mac Mini for not having a G5--but that was both a cost and space issue, and even if it had used a G5, I don't see how that would magically have made IBM and Freescale "stop dicking around."
Apple wasn't a "lousy customer," their needs simply didn't match what IBM and Freescale want to do, which is embedded, server, and console chips, not computer chips. Apple was the wrong customer for them, and the right customer for Intel who actually WANTS to make computer chips.
Not issues - features.
The heat is actually what makes the MacBook a WOKstation (as previously mentioned in this thread).
Originally posted by backtomac
Fully agree. I can't understand this yearning for ppc chips. Intel is keeping their end of the bargan so far. They are ahead of schedule in bringing chips to market. What else do they have to do to get a little respect around here? And if Intel begins to falter, AMD is only a phone call away.
It's quite simple. The PPC was and in some respects still is a better design and if you tie your ship up with Intel in particular (AMD less so) there's no way the Mac is ever going to be faster or more architecturally interesting than a PC. It's lost one of it's differentiating factors.
It's all about software now. The hardware wars are over. PowerPC lost on the desktop.