Apple Claims 91% of $1,000+ PC Market Revenue in June

[AidenShaw]

Just be wary of some of these personal YMMV-based claims. For example, one can gage the credibility of a poster who claims that their system burns no power because it is at idle for 20+ hours/day ... even though the timestamps on their many, many MacRumors posts clearly suggest a different reality.

What is your reason for ignoring the Dell power consumption calculator which shows that a Dell office PC uses $37/year in electricity - although you claim that it uses $250 more per year than an Imac?

(as for timestamps, if you'd read that person's posts you'd notice that he has several systems at home and at work - so it's not inconsistent that a particular system could be sleeping 20 hours a day....)

 

[Eidorian]

And they use the highest quality logicboards from ASUS and Foxconn...made to their own specs. Instead of the cheapest ones.

I'll just ignore the solid hardware on my ASUS motherboard then and all the logicboard issues that have happened to Apple over the years. The cases are nice but the interior is just like everyone else. We haven't had a desktop iMac in ages.

A fair way of gauging the average PC's power supply - which you obviously aren't interested in - would be to have a look at a few PCs that fit into the ~$600 price range most people buy at. If you did that, you'd find that 250W is a more reasonable assumption.

I'm going to chime in and say that 305W is reasonable nowadays.

 

[revbarabbas]

I'll just ignore the solid hardware on my ASUS motherboard then and all the logicboard issues that have happened to Apple over the years. The cases are nice but the interior is just like everyone else.

I actually experienced the logic board problems you mention on my 2003 iBook I was quite dismayed and actually looked into the problem...it was due to the heat profile of the motorola chips they were using at the time and the melting point of the solder on the logic board, so do I blame apple for making a crappy logic board design? No, I blame motorola for making a processor that could bake cookies. These problems are no longer an issue with the newer Intel Macbooks and Macbook Pros.

 

[AidenShaw]

I actually experienced the logic board problems you mention on my 2003 iBook I was quite dismayed and actually looked into the problem...it was due to the heat profile of the motorola chips they were using at the time and the melting point of the solder on the logic board, so do I blame apple for making a crappy logic board design? No, I blame motorola for making a processor that could bake cookies.

You blame Motorola for Apple's failure to design an adequate cooling system?

Wow.

 

[revbarabbas]

You blame Motorola for Apple's failure to design an adequate cooling system?

Wow.

Yes I do...those processors (the G3 and G4) are notorious for poor handling of voltage which is the only way to make them faster...and Apple was in a contract with them so they couldn't just use intel processors at the time.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes I do...those processors (the G3 and G4) are notorious for poor handling of voltage which is the only way to make them faster...and Apple was in a contract with them so they couldn't just use intel processors at the time.

But Apple could have used an adequate heat sink and fan - especially if it was a known issue.

You can get Core i7 and other desktop chips in laptops - it just needs proper thermal engineering.

 

[revbarabbas]

But Apple could have used an adequate heat sink and fan - especially if it was a known issue.

You can get Core i7 and other desktop chips in laptops - it just needs proper thermal engineering.

Except that a Core i7 runs cooler than a Core Duo...so use a better example next time.

But Apple could have used an adequate heat sink and fan - especially if it was a known issue.

You can get Core i7 and other desktop chips in laptops - it just needs proper thermal engineering.

oh and btw Apple fixed my computer for free because it was a known issue even without applecare...name one pc company that would have done that.

 

[AidenShaw]

Except that a Core i7 runs cooler than a Core Duo...so use a better example next time.

Really?

• Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2700 (2M Cache, 2.33 GHz, 667 MHz FSB) 31 Watts
• Intel® Core™ i7-975 Processor Extreme Edition (8M Cache, 3.33 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 130 Watts

Please explain how the Core Duo at 31 watt TDP is cooler than the Core i7 with 130 watt TDP.

oh and btw Apple fixed my computer for free because it was a known issue even without applecare...name one pc company that would have done that.

Apple, and IBM and LENOVO and HP and DELL....

Most companies have a policy of replacing out-of-warranty systems when they realize that they have screwed up the design of a particular system.

 

[drsmithy]

I'm going to chime in and say that 305W is reasonable nowadays.

After looking at some entry level consumer machines from Dell and HP, you appear to be right - 300W is becoming more common than 250W. I am more familiar with the business desktops - eg: Dell Vostro and Optiplex - that mostly fall in the 200-300W range.

My overall point, however, remains.

 

[revbarabbas]

Really?

• Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2700 (2M Cache, 2.33 GHz, 667 MHz FSB) 31 Watts
• Intel® Core™ i7-975 Processor Extreme Edition (8M Cache, 3.33 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 130 Watts

Please explain how the Core Duo at 31 watt TDP is cooler than the Core i7 with 130 watt TDP.

You're comparing two completely different chips...a relatively slow Intel Core Duo and the top of the line Core i7...the proof is in the pudding bucko!

Really?

• Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2700 (2M Cache, 2.33 GHz, 667 MHz FSB) 31 Watts
• Intel® Core™ i7-975 Processor Extreme Edition (8M Cache, 3.33 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 130 Watts

Please explain how the Core Duo at 31 watt TDP is cooler than the Core i7 with 130 watt TDP.

Also Watts is not a measure of heat.

 

[AidenShaw]

You're comparing two completely different chips...a relatively slow Intel Core Duo and the top of the line Core i7...the proof is in the pudding bucko!

But you said:

Except that a Core i7 runs cooler than a Core Duo...so use a better example next time.

Are you admitting that you are wrong with that claim?

And even though they are different chips, you find both of them in laptops. Obviously, not with the same cooling systems, though.

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/avadirect-clevo-d900f-core/4505-3121_7-33682128.html

Also Watts is not a measure of heat.

The Core i7 has more watts per mm² for both its package and its die.

 

[revbarabbas]

Are you admitting that you are wrong with that claim?

And even though they are different chips, you find both of them in laptops. Obviously, not with the same cooling systems, though.

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/avadirect-clevo-d900f-core/4505-3121_7-33682128.html




The Core i7 has more watts per mm² for both its package and its die.

And if you had two core duos running at 3.33 ghz to make them comparable to the i7 you mentioned the two chips would be running hotter than an i7 single chip. Voltage is a bigger factor in heat than watts.

 

[AidenShaw]

And if you had two core duos running at 3.33 ghz to make them comparable to the i7 you mentioned the two chips would be running hotter than an i7 single chip. Voltage is a bigger factor in heat than watts.

Bucko, what does that have to do with anything? And especially, what does it have to do with:

• your blaming Motorola for Apple's bad thermal engineering
• your claim that a 31 watt Core Duo is hotter than a 130 watt Cori i7

Voltage has no relationship with heat (temperature). Voltage may affect watts, which will affect temperature.

A device with 10,000 volts can be cool, but a 10,000 watt device is not going to be cool.

Except that a Core i7 runs cooler than a Core Duo...so use a better example next time.

Focus on this topic - what did you mean, since it seems to fly in the face of the facts about those two chips.

 

[revbarabbas]

Bucko, what does that have to do with anything? And especially, what does it have to do with:

• your blaming Motorola for Apple's bad thermal engineering
• your claim that a 31 watt Core Duo is hotter than a 130 watt Cori i7

Voltage has no relationship with heat (temperature). Voltage may affect watts, which will affect temperature.

A device with 10,000 volts can be cool, but a 10,000 watt device is not going to be cool.

Then why is a core i7 2.66 ghz cooler than a core i7 3.33 ghz when they both run at 130 watts? Duh the voltage used to make the 3.33 run at that clock speed.

Then why is a core i7 2.66 ghz cooler than a core i7 3.33 ghz when they both run at 130 watts? Duh the voltage used to make the 3.33 run at that clock speed.

Additional: 130 watts is the maximum for the chip...not the operating wattage of any particular i7 chip.

 

[AidenShaw]

Then why is a core i7 2.66 ghz cooler than a core i7 3.33 ghz when they both run at 130 watts? Duh the voltage used to make the 3.33 run at that clock speed.

I give up....

 

[revbarabbas]

I give up....

Good...you were starting to sound like an idiot. I could have also pulled out that the manufacturing process of the i7 chips make them inherently cooler by design over comparable power to the core duo.

I give up....

Actually I think we were just on two different wavelengths here...what I was trying to say is that a Core Duo would run hotter if it were pushed to the speed of a Core i7, this is just common sense...but you can't make a Core Duo go that fast and even when you cheat and use two Core Duos running at the same clock speed of the Core i7 that you mention they would still be running hotter than the single i7 chip...make sense still? That was what I was trying to say...but running two Core Duos in parallel at 3.33 ghz is prohibitive and even then they still really couldn't match the speed of the Core i7...see where I'm going here? You'd have to push the Core Duos to over 4.0 ghz to make them really as fast as the single i7 and even then there would be bottlenecks from the design such as the speed of the FSB.

 

[Eidorian]

Then why is a core i7 2.66 ghz cooler than a core i7 3.33 ghz when they both run at 130 watts? Duh the voltage used to make the 3.33 run at that clock speed.

TDP isn't a fixed value of heat generation. It's just a suggested cooling number for OEMs. It's so they can order cooling solutions in the thousands for a set rating.

A 65W TDP E2160 is going to be cooler than an E6550. Why are you even comparing a Core Duo to a Core i7? Overclock your i7 920 to the higher speeds and compare it to the stock models at those speeds.

After looking at some entry level consumer machines from Dell and HP, you appear to be right - 300W is becoming more common than 250W. I am more familiar with the business desktops - eg: Dell Vostro and Optiplex - that mostly fall in the 200-300W range.

My overall point, however, remains.

It was only a minor clarification. You already had the right idea.

 

[AidenShaw]

Actually I think we were just on two different wavelengths here...

Two different universes, IMO.

The original question was about the logic board failures, and whether Apple was at fault (for not designing adequate cooling) or Motorola was at fault (for building a hot chip).

I brought up the Core i7 laptops as an example of how proper thermal design can handle very, very hot chips.

Then, things went weird - and I gave up.

 

[revbarabbas]

Why are you even comparing a Core Duo to a Core i7?

Just to make the point that the design of the i7 chip makes it inherently cooler than an older chip such as a Core Duo WHEN you compare speed over heat generated. So there is no way I can possibly be wrong, otherwise the Core i7 would be bursting into flames everytime you opened a browser window.

 

[Eidorian]

You're comparing two completely different chips...a relatively slow Intel Core Duo and the top of the line Core i7...the proof is in the pudding bucko!

Then why is a core i7 2.66 ghz cooler than a core i7 3.33 ghz when they both run at 130 watts? Duh the voltage used to make the 3.33 run at that clock speed.

This is where it gets shot down. The i7 920 and 975 have the same voltage ranges. I made a nice post about processor variations/binning here. I don't see a need to repeat myself there.

I can bring up the AMD Phenom II 42 TWKR fluke with its voltage handling over its 940/955 siblings.

Just to make the point that the design of the i7 chip makes it inherently cooler than an older chip such as a Core Duo WHEN you compare speed over heat generated. So there is no way I can possibly be wrong, otherwise the Core i7 would be bursting into flames everytime you opened a browser window.

How is 31W greater than 130W again? Drop them to the same clock speeds and have identical cooling. You won't be able to slip the Core i7 inside an inch thick laptop. Not to mention it's binned out as a desktop component.

 

[revbarabbas]

This is where it gets shot down. The i7 920 and 975 have the same voltage ranges. I made a nice post about processor variations/binning here. I don't see a need to repeat myself there.

I can bring up the AMD Phenom II 42 TWKR fluke with its voltage handling over its 940/955 siblings.

How is 31W greater than 130W?

Again...those are the ranges the chip can operate at not the voltage they are actually set at for their clock speed.

Which is why most overclockers buy the i7 920 and overclock it to save money on their rig.

And to acheive the raw processing power of a single Core i7 running at 3.33 ghz you would probably need on order of magnitude 4 CoreDuo chips running at the same clock speed...and heat is cumulative so even though no one Core Duo chip is running hotter than the single i7 chip the total heat generated is greater.

 

[revbarabbas]

Drop them to the same clock speeds and have identical cooling. You won't be able to slip the Core i7 inside an inch thick laptop. Not to mention it's binned out as a desktop component.

But this doesn't make them the same processing speed simply by dropping them to the same clock speed...what I was trying to say was that if they were at the same processing speed...either by speeding up the CoreDuo in some way or slowing down the i7 in some way the i7 would run cooler plain and simple....also he was the one who said that the Core i7 is used in laptops (which it is, albeit not often) not me.

 

[Eidorian]

But this doesn't make them the same processing speed simply by dropping them to the same clock speed...what I was trying to say was that if they were at the same processing speed...either by speeding up the CoreDuo in some way or slowing down the i7 in some way the i7 would run cooler plain and simple....

Bring the Core i7 down to 2.33 GHz like the Core Duo and the Core Duo is going to be cooler using the same heatsink/fan.

Computation power or instructions per cycle doesn't matter here.

also he was the one who said that the Core i7 is used in laptops (which it is, albeit not often) not me.

And it requires monster cooling in a 2 inch, 12 pound laptop to make a LGA 1366 portable.

 

[revbarabbas]

Computation power or instructions per cycle doesn't matter here.

Yes it does because that was what I was talking about.

 

[Eidorian]

Yes it does because that was what I was talking about.

You started off on overvolting the G4 to produce higher clockspeeds. Which only really applied on the Power Mac G4 variants and not the mobile ones. I'm looking at you 667/733 Power Mac G4 Digital Audio.

The PowerPC 750CX, CXe, and FX met with die/process shrinks and voltage drops with the improvement in the wafer processing.

Then you're talking about computational output per clock cycle? Do you see the confusion here?