Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

IBM's 90nm PowerPC 970FX

Originally posted by billyboy
Here in the closer present, Apple sold fewer PowerMac G5s than last quarter .... Whilst Im not saying a G5 Powerbook wont be on the horizon, the PowerMac is the main concern and must surely be the likely recipient of the latest greatest chips.
Click to expand...

As you as you realize that it was inevitable that Apple would sell fewer PowerMac G5s last quarter than the previous one - no one in the know buys before a MacWorld, and with 60K+ viewers tuning in, you can bet that all of them waiting to see if a new PowerMac would be released would make a dent in sales. At least here we notice that that really means that they are destined for the new upgrade, whereas analysts seem to keep their head up their butts and not realize that it isn't actually a major issue :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New PowerMacs, sure; iMacs, maybe; PowerBooks, no way.

Originally posted by BenRoethig
That and Apple lives in the high end of the computer market. They do not have a consumer tower.
Click to expand...

And given that most consumers do nothing but attempt to hide those towers under a desk, never actually USING the space that they give you, this shouldn't be regarded as a surprise.

If I were in the consumer market, I'd certainly choose a machine with the iMac form factor over a tower any day - it takes up less space and keeps all the functionality in a place where I can access it easily. A tower is either hidden under, or taking up even more space on my desk without providing any real benefit.
 
Originally posted by stingerman
He's a troll or just completely out of his league.
Click to expand...

Where exactly is the trolling?
They guy comes in here and says 'I've looked at Opteron and 970 (in G5) and the Opteron is better for my work.. yet the G5 is better at multimedia'

Does any one here argue with the fact that the Opteron's on die memory controller has less latency than systems that still use a Northbridge? The guys code lives and dies on memory access. Opteron has an advantage. That's not a trol, it's life.

The 970 has a higher theoretical IPC, it has lots of bandwidth, but it isn't the fastest processor for every task under the sun. Opteron/Athlon64 is an excellent cpu. My next machine will be a G5 (not an upgrade to my Athlon) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want an Athlon64 also. :)

As for Big Mac... It's a cluster. It is a relatively loosely coupled machine (even though infiniband is pretty damn fast). It's going to run the code that people bench clusters with very fast... code that runs parallel well... calculations that can be broken into discrete 'chunks'. From what Tortoise is saying, The G5 would indeed work fabulous for calculations where you are more concerned about parallelism than the ability of every CPU to access memory as fast as possible. If you are that memory bound, you will probably have issues with achieving enough parallelism anyway.

Tortoise, I'm curious.. are you benching the individual systems? Like a dual Opteron vs. a dual G5.. where you are dealing with a shared memory pool for the processors? Or do you see a significant advantage in clusters where each node only has a memory advantage to their local memory pools?

just curious.
Ffakr.
 
Originally posted by ffakr
Where exactly is the trolling?
They guy comes in here and says 'I've looked at Opteron and 970 (in G5) and the Opteron is better for my work.. yet the G5 is better at multimedia'

Does any one here argue with the fact that the Opteron's on die memory controller has less latency than systems that still use a Northbridge? The guys code lives and dies on memory access. Opteron has an advantage. That's not a trol, it's life.

The 970 has a higher theoretical IPC, it has lots of bandwidth, but it isn't the fastest processor for every task under the sun. Opteron/Athlon64 is an excellent cpu. My next machine will be a G5 (not an upgrade to my Athlon) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want an Athlon64 also. :)

As for Big Mac... It's a cluster. It is a relatively loosely coupled machine (even though infiniband is pretty damn fast). It's going to run the code that people bench clusters with very fast... code that runs parallel well... calculations that can be broken into discrete 'chunks'. From what Tortoise is saying, The G5 would indeed work fabulous for calculations where you are more concerned about parallelism than the ability of every CPU to access memory as fast as possible. If you are that memory bound, you will probably have issues with achieving enough parallelism anyway.

Tortoise, I'm curious.. are you benching the individual systems? Like a dual Opteron vs. a dual G5.. where you are dealing with a shared memory pool for the processors? Or do you see a significant advantage in clusters where each node only has a memory advantage to their local memory pools?

just curious.
Ffakr.
Click to expand...

You need to read the whole discussion Ffakr. Everyone understands latency here and the issues involved with performance. But, he is trolling, making more of an issue over it than it deserves and ignoring mitigating factors.
 
Re: Marketing 101

Originally posted by splashman
Speaking of heads up the anal orifice, would you like to enlighten the rest of us as to how Apple's tiered product line differs from any other company in existence? Dell doesn't sell just one product -- they offer a choice, depending on the buyer's budget and needs. This is basic marketing, kiddies: your product line should segregate the market into those who want to pay more, and those who want to pay less.

So here's the deal: If you want the best, and can pay for it, get a G5. If you don't, or can't, get an iMac or eMac. If you can't afford either of those, buy a Dell, or build your own. Apple (and SJ) have stated over and over and over that they're not trying to sell commoditized boxes. They simply aren't interested. So get over it.

Look, you can disagree with Apple's strategy all you want, but to accuse them of "playing games" or being idiots is nothing more than a childish cheap shot.
Click to expand...

I can afford any Mac I want. What I want is a G5 iMac. The PM is too big a beast and I'm not thrilled with the look.

Apple's always seems to bastardize models to protect others in the lineup. Bad move because it hurts sales. The consensus is that the iMac shouldn't have a G5 because the "pro" line has it. Bull****. There is plenty of differentiation between the PM and iMac if they had the same chip. Dual processors, RAM expandability, video, Firewire 800, expansion slots to name a few.

There is nothing wrong with a tiered market approach. My problem is with holding products back to protect others. Let's not forget the original iMac, same chip as the "pro" line and it saved Apple. A G5 iMac could sell just as well.

Insanely great products as long as it doesn't disturb our inane product segmentation mentality.
 
Re: Re: more detailed info here

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Well, they appear to be quoting macosrumors so the likely hood of this being correct as written is almost slim-to-none :p . But we won't really know until it happens or doesn't.
Click to expand...
they are quoting Macrumors.com, but they are adding interesteing details, that macrumors.com apparently did not have...
now I agree with you, if it turns out to be truee, then they will gain large credits..
by the way, on the time schedule, they were reporting PPC970 update before macrumors.com..
 
G5's in iMacs

Originally posted by rdowns
I can afford any Mac I want. What I want is a G5 iMac. The PM is too big a beast and I'm not thrilled with the look.

Apple's always seems to bastardize models to protect others in the lineup. Bad move because it hurts sales. The consensus is that the iMac shouldn't have a G5 because the "pro" line has it. Bull****. There is plenty of differentiation between the PM and iMac if they had the same chip. Dual processors, RAM expandability, video, Firewire 800, expansion slots to name a few.

There is nothing wrong with a tiered market approach. My problem is with holding products back to protect others. Let's not forget the original iMac, same chip as the "pro" line and it saved Apple. A G5 iMac could sell just as well.

Insanely great products as long as it doesn't disturb our inane product segmentation mentality.
Click to expand...

See? You managed to express yourself without name-calling. Thanks for clarifying -- I must have misunderstood.

FWIW, I mostly agree with you, but unlike you, I'm assuming Apple would love to get G5s into the iMacs ASAP (instead of assuming Apple is deliberately trying to ruin your day). I wonder if there are issues we aren't privy to. Such as, perhaps the supply of G5 chips is still too limited. Dunno. Here's hoping they make the switch soon. Maybe when the PM's are speed-bumped?
 
Re: Re: Marketing 101

Originally posted by rdowns


There is nothing wrong with a tiered market approach. My problem is with holding products back to protect others. Let's not forget the original iMac, same chip as the "pro" line and it saved Apple. A G5 iMac could sell just as well.

Insanely great products as long as it doesn't disturb our inane product segmentation mentality.
Click to expand...

while i agree with you somewhat, i do not think it is all by choice.

did you ever think that apple has a limited number of engineers, and con no take on several complete motherboard/case/etc redesigns at the same time?
 
Re: Re: Re: Marketing 101

Originally posted by idkew
while i agree with you somewhat, i do not think it is all by choice.

did you ever think that apple has a limited number of engineers, and con no take on several complete motherboard/case/etc redesigns at the same time?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that they have a larger R&D budget than even DELL. You would think that most of that money was being spent on the product that generates the majority of their revenue. Steve did say that the future of the Mac was the G5 at the latest MacWorld. I take that at face value that the entire line will go G5. The iMac line needs the most help right now as they are outside the consumer sweet-spot according to Fred Andersons own comments. He defined that sweet-spot at 999. So I suspect that Apple will release a low-end, hopefully 17" (probably 15") iMac with 1.4GHz G5 at 999 to a 20" with 1.8GHz at 1,999.

The 970FX makes it very possible for Apple to put a G5 in an iMac and iBook. Especially considering the high-end iBook is at 1GHz an upgrade to 1.4GHz G5 would be sweet.
 
R&D

Originally posted by stingerman
Keep in mind that they have a larger R&D budget than even DELL. You would think that most of that money was being spent on the product that generates the majority of their revenue.
Click to expand...

That may or may not be true -- neither you nor I have any idea how much of that R&D budget is going toward projects and concepts that will never see the light of day.

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to your argument, given that almost 50% of Apple's revenue comes from the portables (PBs and iBooks) -- much more than any other segment.
 
Originally posted by Rincewind42
As you as you realize that it was inevitable that Apple would sell fewer PowerMac G5s last quarter than the previous one - no one in the know buys before a MacWorld, and with 60K+ viewers tuning in, you can bet that all of them waiting to see if a new PowerMac would be released would make a dent in sales. At least here we notice that that really means that they are destined for the new upgrade, whereas analysts seem to keep their head up their butts and not realize that it isn't actually a major issue :D
Click to expand...

Apple's Mac sales are affected by the seasons. The fact is that Year over Year, Macs sold more, not less (In fact, PowerMac unit sales were up 30%!, compared with 156K units last year.) That is a major win. These were actual sales and not just filling the retail channel, Apple clearly stated that they were reducing G5 inventory in the channel which accounted for another 20K or so sales that could have happened otherwise. Apple mainly does this before they release a new revision. Which means that they took the inventory hit in the First Fiscal quarter, leaving the second quarter stronger for the new 970FX release. This was smart as the 1st QTR was stronger than they anticipated and it gave them room to do a few things. 1. Reduce their inventory, which always costs them. 2. Create a Warranty contingency cushion against future Warranty claims (this amounts to a nice slush fund since Apple already took the Warranty hit on the White Spot PB 15" problem.) 3. Prepare for a new lineup of Mac and iPod releases, taking part of the costs in the 1st QTR.

So when you look at it from this perspective, Apple's 1st quarter sales results for the Mac was actually very strong considering the season and the preparation for a new set of Mac releases. These kids know what they are doing, they've been at it a long time and bear all the scars of experience.
 
Re: R&D

Originally posted by splashman

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to your argument, given that almost 50% of Apple's revenue comes from the portables (PBs and iBooks) -- much more than any other segment.
Click to expand...

Not "much more", to be specific the desktops (PM, iMac, eMac) still make slightly more. But, really we can safely say that its is now about 50/50. The only segment that has decreased in unit and revenue sales year over year is the iMac/eMac, which I'll refer to both as iMac (Apple categorizes eMac sales as part of iMac in their filings.) That makes it safe to say that Apple is most concerned about their iMac right now. The CFO stated that for its price category (1299 and up) iMacs are selling strong against the competition. But, the majority of consumers are buying 999 PC's. (I am guessing that consumers generally no longer are interested in CRT all-in-ones such as the eMac.) Apple needs to ignite the iMac sales.

Of course the argument is well made that iMac users are simply buying iBooks and Powerbooks. So for an iMac to be relevant for the consumer, it would have to provide some value that the iBook does not. Besides a G5 processor, I expect Apple will release a new consumer line that will depart greatly from current consumer PC's including the current iMac. I also suspect that it will not have "Mac" in its name.
 
Re: Re: R&D

Originally posted by stingerman
SNIP

Of course the argument is well made that iMac users are simply buying iBooks and Powerbooks. So for an iMac to be relevant for the consumer, it would have to provide some value that the iBook does not. Besides a G5 processor, I expect Apple will release a new consumer line that will depart greatly from current consumer PC's including the current iMac. I also suspect that it will not have "Mac" in its name.
Click to expand...

Well they did ignite the computing world 20 years ago with a really cheap and easy to use computer, so since their sales of iMac suck (we presume) then dropping its price or bringing out something new that has a TFT screen and hits the sweet money spot would seem a good idea. I really hope the iMac "makeover" isn't killed by a new super cheap but pretty poor-verage speced machine...

Where is my metal G5 iMac...:D
 
Re: Re: Re: R&D

Originally posted by aswitcher
Well they did ignite the computing world 20 years ago with a really cheap and easy to use computer, so since their sales of iMac suck (we presume) then dropping its price or bringing out something new that has a TFT screen and hits the sweet money spot would seem a good idea. I really hope the iMac "makeover" isn't killed by a new super cheap but pretty poor-verage speced machine...
Click to expand...
While Apple did ignite the computer market with an easy to use machine, unfortunately the original Mac 128 KB was not that cheap or "over" spec'ed. Mine cost $2499 back then (if my memory holds) and the 128 KB memory, along with one 400 KB floppy, was a severe handicap. Sure, it was a cool and great computer, but Apple skimped on the memory to hit their price point, and it was pretty unusable until the 512KB version came out (thank goodness for those Fat Mac solder upgrades!).

Apple caught a lot of flack with this first realease from the computer press people, but it was a correct criticism. When using MacWrite, you maxed out memory at 5 pages. So to write a 10 page paper you had to have it split in two files, juggling the link (with cut and paste) between the two so it looked coherent.

This has always been one criticism of Apple - while sometimes it seems they don't want to cut corners on things like buses, etc, they turn around and screw the user on "extras" like keyboards. How many years did Apple squeeze an $100 out of us for that extra? And Apple has always skimped on RAM, esp on their high end machines.

So while I'd love to see a $999 17" iMac like some are dreaming about, I doubt it will happen. I'd settle for a major speed upgrade and consider us lucky with that. (Prove me wrong, Apple ...)
 
What I like on Intel and AMD is that they have a roadmap and no one needs to speculate so much. I bought an iBook G3 2 months before they came up with the G4 iBook and I hate this. And I read all the rumorsites and everyone was telling me there will be no G4 in the iBooks.

Did anyone ever tried simply to ask Apple when or if there will be a G5 Book in the near future?
 
Originally posted by duwurst
Did anyone ever tried simply to ask Apple when or if there will be a G5 Book in the near future?
Click to expand...

you make me laugh. :) :D

if only it were that easy. unfortunately, this would never happen. if apple said that in 2 weeks, there would be a new g5 book, then no one would buy a book for those 2 weeks, then apple has overstocks they can't sell........
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: R&D

Having been in a position of MacPlus ownership I have to say one thing, even now Apple grossly short changes its customers with machines that don't have enough RAM. You would think with the advent of OS/X and the need to attrack new customerS Apple would have taken a closer look at this. Further I do not believe it is an issue of hitting a price point, more of an issue of maximizing profits.

The iBook is probaly the worst example in the current line up. It so reminds me of the MacPlus that I just find the whole thing rather repulsive.

Thanks
Dave


Originally posted by CalfCanuck
While Apple did ignite the computer market with an easy to use machine, unfortunately the original Mac 128 KB was not that cheap or "over" spec'ed. Mine cost $2499 back then (if my memory holds) and the 128 KB memory, along with one 400 KB floppy, was a severe handicap. Sure, it was a cool and great computer, but Apple skimped on the memory to hit their price point, and it was pretty unusable until the 512KB version came out (thank goodness for those Fat Mac solder upgrades!).
Click to expand...
 
Base RAM

Originally posted by wizard
Having been in a position of MacPlus ownership I have to say one thing, even now Apple grossly short changes its customers with machines that don't have enough RAM. You would think with the advent of OS/X and the need to attrack new customerS Apple would have taken a closer look at this. Further I do not believe it is an issue of hitting a price point, more of an issue of maximizing profits.
Click to expand...

In general, I agree with you, but then, I'm a power user and a geek.

Would you agree that for those who use their computer for browsing, e-mail and word processing, the base RAM in the iMac is sufficient? If so, doesn't it make sense that Apple not load it up with RAM (and up the price) for those who don't need it?

The PMs are another matter. Anybody who buys a G5 for pedestrian usage has more money than brains, so I see no reason not to give the PMs more base RAM.
 
Re: Base RAM

Originally posted by splashman
The PMs are another matter. Anybody who buys a G5 for pedestrian usage has more money than brains, so I see no reason not to give the PMs more base RAM.
Click to expand...

I, personally, believe that the pro machines should have an option for no RAM. Most pros add more RAM from 3rd parties, and sell the standard apple ram. Besides, apple uses high latency ram, which makes little sense. I got two 512mb 2-2-2 sticks, to replace the 256mb 3-3-2 (or something) stick that apple included with my machine.

But, that would erode the profits that apple makes, so this will never happen. Plus it opens up other problems, since the machine can not boot when you receive it.
 
No-RAM option

Originally posted by idkew
I, personally, believe that the pro machines should have an option for no RAM. Most pros add more RAM from 3rd parties, and sell the standard apple ram. Besides, apple uses high latency ram, which makes little sense. I got two 512mb 2-2-2 sticks, to replace the 256mb 3-3-2 (or something) stick that apple included with my machine.

But, that would erode the profits that apple makes, so this will never happen. Plus it opens up other problems, since the machine can not boot when you receive it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on both counts: (1) Apple should have a no-RAM option, and (2) it will never happen. :)
 
Re: G5's in iMacs

Originally posted by splashman
See? You managed to express yourself without name-calling. Thanks for clarifying -- I must have misunderstood.

FWIW, I mostly agree with you, but unlike you, I'm assuming Apple would love to get G5s into the iMacs ASAP (instead of assuming Apple is deliberately trying to ruin your day). I wonder if there are issues we aren't privy to. Such as, perhaps the supply of G5 chips is still too limited. Dunno. Here's hoping they make the switch soon. Maybe when the PM's are speed-bumped?
Click to expand...

Thank you, but "head up their asses" marketing is still what I call it. As an Apple user since 1986 and a reseller from 1986-1996, I've watched Apple do this time and again.

Back in the day, Apple clued their resellers in on upcoming models and even shared why this feature wouldn't go into this machine because we need to protect the other machine.

IMO, they are the biggest reason for their sagging market share. With the iPod, I can only hope they are not going to repeat their past errors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back