The growth trend is towards laptops, so these figures are a simple consequence of market changes that Apple itself anticipated a long time ago...the decline of the desktop has been expected for ages in the consumer IT industry. Besides, you seem to disregard the financial crisis that still affects consumption in the US and most European markets...they are not gonna return to 2007 or 2008 levels anytime soon.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NVIDIA Exiting Chipset Business Pending Resolution of Licensing Dispute With Intel
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The growth trend is towards laptops, so these figures are a simple consequence of market changes that Apple itself anticipated a long time ago...the decline of the desktop has been expected for ages in the consumer IT industry. Besides, you seem to disregard the financial crisis that still affects consumption in the US and most European markets...they are not gonna return to 2007 or 2008 levels anytime soon.
There are many different variables in the long ownership cycles. Stagnant hardware is one of them.
Only if it's a necessary purchase. Anyone around here that sees Page 1 or looks at the Buyer's Guide isn't buying anything.
Goodbye forever to integrated GPUs?
This may be great news... Hopefully, this may encourage Apple to use a dedicated GPU (instead of an intgrated GPU) in all future MacBooks. That would be far better than the current integrated NVIDIA 9400M. Will Apple go the cheapo route on future MacBooks by offering a GPU with less performance than the 9400M? Maybe, but the only way to get better performance than the integrated 9400M is to use a dedicated GPU. What do you guys think?
This may be great news... Hopefully, this may encourage Apple to use a dedicated GPU (instead of an intgrated GPU) in all future MacBooks. That would be far better than the current integrated NVIDIA 9400M. Will Apple go the cheapo route on future MacBooks by offering a GPU with less performance than the 9400M? Maybe, but the only way to get better performance than the integrated 9400M is to use a dedicated GPU. What do you guys think?
Thanks for the link, I'll read up. I'm not always on the forums so it seems like an interesting read. When all this legal stuff came up months ago, I didn't see it turning out really well for Nvidia and I think it's stupid, but Intel of course has it's reasons.
I hate to say it, but considering Apple hasn't really cared about GPU performance as much as it's cared about CPU performance... I think they will have to switch back to Intel Integrated Graphics.
I don't think that just because they open-sourced OpenCL that it's all different. They obviously value their relationship with Intel more (Light Peak is an example) and will probably include discrete graphics cards in their computers. My concern is the 13" MacBook Pro, 20" iMac and Mac Mini. I don't own either of those products, but I don't see them including discrete graphics cards in those machines.
True, but this is happening across the Windows PC industry, as well. It is not unique to the Macintosh.
Also, much of the growth in the Windows PC industry is in Netbook computers which have a low retail price and therefore offer their manufacturers low margins. So not only are they shipping less product overall, but what product they are shipping is earning less revenue per unit.
And it is not just the Windows PC manufacturers who are being affected. Intel makes less on an Atom CPU then they do a Core 2 or Core i series CPU, but they are also facing competition in the Netbook market from Via and AMD that they are not seeing in the other segments. Microsoft is also having to offer Windows XP for next to nothing to keep Linux off those netbooks and will have to do the same with Windows 7 because a $300 computer with a $300 OS won't fly.
Apple may be shipping 25% of the machines HP and Dell are per quarter, but every one they are shipping has an Intel Core 2 CPU in it which must be of some comfort to Intel.
Again, I'm not arguing that everything is rosy for Apple or that Apple should tell everyone (myself included) who want Macs with the latest CPU and GPU series of technologies in them to "shove off" because our wishes are irrelevant. I'm just saying that I don't believe Apple is the only company "in danger" at the moment and that if they only offered us the latest and greatest of everything (and at a price less than we're paying now for the old stuff), things would be magically better and rainbows would sprout all over Cupertino.
I don't know why people are holding on to this idea. I gave up a long time ago and have seen it throughout the forums. I can't see any possible way that the next iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook or Mac Mini will have a quad-core processor. It's just not going to happen. I thought it would in the past, but it's not.
Clarksfield which is the only possible solution is a quad-core processor. They have much lower clock-speeds (1.6 - 2.0 Ghz) and the TDP is just toooo high. It just consumes too much power. Arrandale is a much more possible solution and it features hyperthreading. I believe that's why Apple did Grand Central Dispatch and did so much talk about threads. Keep the same clock speeds and talk more about how many threads the operating system can handle.
We won't see a quad-core iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook or Mac Mini soon.
wow. fascinating news. It's really interesting to see that with AMD buying ATi, and Intel developing their own graphics, nVidia is really pushed aside. nVidia should buy Via and start making its own CPUs...
[snip]
You're correct there. Dell announced it was closing a plant today.
Again, I'm not arguing that everything is rosy for Apple or that Apple should tell everyone (myself included) who want Macs with the latest CPU and GOU series of technologies in them to "shove off" because our wishes are irrelevant. I'm just saying that I don't believe Apple is the only company "in danger" at the moment and that if they only offered us the latest and greatest of everything (and at a price less than we're paying now for the old stuff), things would be magically better and rainbows would sprout all over Cupertino.
You're correct there. Dell announced it was closing a plant today.
True, but this is happening across the Windows PC industry, as well. It is not unique to the Macintosh.
Also, much of the growth in the Windows PC industry is in Netbook computers which have a low retail price and therefore offer their manufacturers low margins. So not only are they shipping less product overall, but what product they are shipping is earning less revenue per unit.
And it is not just the Windows PC manufacturers who are being affected. Intel makes less on an Atom CPU then they do a Core 2 or Core i series CPU, but they are also facing competition in the Netbook market from Via and AMD that they are not seeing in the other segments. Microsoft is also having to offer Windows XP for next to nothing to keep Linux off those netbooks and will have to do the same with Windows 7 because a $300 computer with a $300 OS won't fly.
Apple may be shipping 25% of the machines HP and Dell are per quarter, but every one they are shipping has an Intel Core 2 CPU in it which must be of some comfort to Intel.
Again, I'm not arguing that everything is rosy for Apple or that Apple should tell everyone (myself included) who want Macs with the latest CPU and GPU series of technologies in them to "shove off" because our wishes are irrelevant. I'm just saying that I don't believe Apple is the only company "in danger" at the moment and that if they only offered us the latest and greatest of everything (and at a price less than we're paying now for the old stuff), things would be magically better and rainbows would sprout all over Cupertino.
Yes, but that was because the PowerPC Alliance did not offer an IGP option.
They can, thats what I said basically - every "pro" model gets a discrete graphics chip. The iMacs would proabably get one too due to the high prices (or possibly Apple bifurcates the iMac line into iMac/iMac Pro where the iMacs are cheap ($999-1299) and the iMac Pros are more expensive ($1499-2299).
The key is that before, Intel used to charge $220 or $330 for the CPU, another $45 for the MCH and IGP (GMCH), and $7-10 for the IO hub. Now Intel sells what is essentially the CPU, MCH and IGP for $220 or $330. So Apple could possibly take that $45 it would have otherwise spent on the GMCH and put it towards a discrete graphics chip and RAM for a MacBook Pro or iMac. What can they get for $45? Probably the lowest end mobile GPU (which is still 3x better than the Arrandale GPU) and 256MB of RAM for the GPU.
Now the key for the lower end laptops (MacBook, cheapest iMac, Mac Mini) is that Apple can take that $45 and pocket it or lower the price. Given Apple's 30-50% margin on hardware, this could translate to $60-80 price discount on the MacBook and iMac. So we could see the iMac at $999 and the MacBook at $899 when this technology is ready.
Remember the Arrandale chips aren't supposed to come out until January at least - there have been rumors of a moved up 4Q09 launch but I don't buy it quite yet since I don't think they'll be in volume for the holiday season.
That's true, I remember those days. However, Apple has been in the mood to mass-produce everything (obviously because buying in bulk leads to cheaper costs). Hence, the reason you have iMac's based on laptop chipsets akin to the MacBook Pro.
I think for the sake of simplicity, Apple would rather keep all those lines the same and forgo putting integrated graphics in the Mac Mini but not in MacBook. Especially if the rumors are true about Apple wanting to make their products even thinner.
NOOOOOO!!!!!
That can't happen again. Everyone knows that after the 9400M Apple cant go back to a GMA.
Even the GMA 4500M HD is several times slower then the 9400M.
There going to have to go back to a entire line with a dedicated card in them all.
They could put like a Radeon 4350 in the Macbook, Mac mini, and lower end iMac.
Atom owns the netbook front. As much as I do love to see competition from AMD and VIA their "netbook" or ultra-light portable offerings don't compare to Atom, ULV, or CULV.
It might be a good idea for you to catch up on OEM prices and Windows 7 on a netbook.
Penryn and its derivations have the smallest die size and can be paired up via MCM. It is the product that gets the greatest returns if you can sell it. Intel has killed off its own desktop segment for Penryn and AMD owns the lower end. Intel makes a killing on the mobile front.
No one seems to remember that and the blurb about its dedicated GPU on the product page.
I keep mentioning this in nearly every thread that involves Nehalem/Westmere but you shouldn't look at the base clock speeds when Turbo Boost is in action.
The product streamlining makes sense if you completely ignore the marketing based on form factor and vendor kickbacks on prices.
Is it likely that Nvidia is out?
According to this article Nvidia might be on the bad path. Can we expect Apple to go ATI or do you think the Nvidia will pick itself up and that the info will remain just another rumour?
What do you guys think?
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10...x275-gtx260-abandons-mid-and-high-end-market/
According to this article Nvidia might be on the bad path. Can we expect Apple to go ATI or do you think the Nvidia will pick itself up and that the info will remain just another rumour?
What do you guys think?
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10...x275-gtx260-abandons-mid-and-high-end-market/
I'd expect SemiAccurate elsewhere but not here. Then again Charles borderline trolling and sensationalism gets the hits and he's been getting more accurate lately.
No relation to the chipsets besides the nVidia name.
Why are so many people commenting on this acting as if Nvidia's out of the picture completely?
They haven't gone bankrupt, people. It's one tiny dispute involving current and future Intel chipsets which may or may be settled.
They haven't gone bankrupt, people. It's one tiny dispute involving current and future Intel chipsets which may or may be settled.
Wouldn't that make the laptops etc. thicker?
I don't think Apple would do that!What does this mean for Open CL now? Isn't support for Open CL skewed heavily towards Nvidia chips? Man this SUCKS!
I thought Nvidia was doing really well against the competition. YOU SUCK INTEL! Somebody does it way better than you and you just throw a legal fit! Try innovating and offering something better, it's called COMPETITION! ******s!
They've been trying to resolve that disputing over DMI/QPI licensing for months now. SLI support is now just a fee and a toggle in the BIOS code now on X58 and P55 boards instead of using the nForce bridge/chipset. It has been going around for a few days that nVidia is just giving up on chipsets for now. What negotiations are left if they're giving up?
They're nearly struggling to get 40 nm parts out and now they're pushing the GT300 (Fermi) as a supercomputer video card. What about us down here buying $100 cards? Care to pay for a G92, again in 2010?
+1 I gave up following graphics card progress a few years ago. Its way to complicated for someone with only passing knowledge to follow. They really need to sort out the naming of these cards. Its often not easy to tell from the name and number how well it will stack up against other cards.
It's hard for me to believe that Apple would use Larrabee. How does it go to its user base and offer a product with a worse graphic card than the previous generation? It's not out of the realm of possibility but improbable.
Since more and more cards are being made by ATI with OpenCL support I will assume that Apple will move to a dedicated solution. They may take a small hit in profit but they'd be better off in the long run. They would get creamed by everyone if they chose Larrabee on "Pro" models.
Since more and more cards are being made by ATI with OpenCL support I will assume that Apple will move to a dedicated solution. They may take a small hit in profit but they'd be better off in the long run. They would get creamed by everyone if they chose Larrabee on "Pro" models.
I agree. According to the previews seen at IDF, Larrabee is nowhere near ready. It would consume too much power, but it's an interesting possibility if the technology grows into something in the future. I think it'll be a flop but we'll see.