Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > PM Specs (Thinksecret)

PM Specs (Thinksecret) (Page 2)
Thread Tools
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 10:53 AM
 
The only way this will be OK is if the price drops significantly$300- $500 per system.
If I could get a dual 2.0Ghz system for $1500-1700… it makes things very interesting.

But for the high end, I’ll agree that it’s not much of an update

It looks like a stop gat tactic while IBM gets their stuff in order.

I’m a little more amazed that after MORE than a year, the eMac will receive a 220Mhz bump. I thought it would be looking at the 1.6Ghz G5 by now.
     
surferboy
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 11:00 AM
 
I have nothing at all insightful or useful to add. Just wanted to share my thoughts. Right now, I am using a 15" original flat panel iMac and a first generation 17" Powerbook. The powerbook definately gets the job done, but the iMac makes you feel like you are running a race in water. Wife and kids love it. I do not use it for professional purposes, but like most males, I am a technofile. I do use photoshop and keynote and sometimes multiple other apps simultaneously to put together lectures. I also do quite a bit of home video- with young kids at home, grandparents absolutely love periodic videos sent as birthday presents, etc. So, I feel slightly justified in lusting after an upgrade to a PM. I have been waiting patiently for the next lineup to come out- reading all the great analysis and thoughts here. Ultimately all of you here will help me make a decision on what to buy when the time comes.

But, what I am reading here is very disappointing. Not that I need the horsepower in a quad- it sure would be nice to know that what I am buying will not be blown out of the water by some newer technology several months later. If the quads are around the corner (as in a months to a year), and Apple puts out an interim update at NAB or in June, then the jump from now to NAB will be very small compared to the jump from NAB to whenever the quads come out.

Some have suggested that Apple is now trying to deliver high quality machines at more competitive prices than they have in the past. To compete with the PC makers and deliver to the masses, this may be necessary. Looks like they have done this with the iPod. By keeping their costs down, cutting a little on profit margin, and including less frills (docks, etc.), they have been able to bring down their prices a little on the iPods. Perhaps they are using a similar strategy with the PM: introduce a moderate improvement at a cheaper price to pull more PC users into the fray. A change in strategy that is working with the iPod.

As I said, this post offers absolutely no new insight to the forum- just sums up my thoughts. I will be disappointed if I have been holding out for a technology that has the potential to be totally leapfrogged in the near future. I guess I should be happy if NAB rolls around, and I learn that I can buy a contemporary machine for cheaper than current PM prices. I was just hoping for a some bomb to drop: quad processor PM with bluRay DVD burners, etc.

Sorry for rambling. Thanks for listening.
     
BZ
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh
The only way this will be OK is if the price drops significantly$300- $500 per system.
If I could get a dual 2.0Ghz system for $1500-1700… it makes things very interesting.

But for the high end, I’ll agree that it’s not much of an update

It looks like a stop gat tactic while IBM gets their stuff in order.

I’m a little more amazed that after MORE than a year, the eMac will receive a 220Mhz bump. I thought it would be looking at the 1.6Ghz G5 by now.
The AI threads have the prices dropping a ton, so the top model would be about $2,500. At that point, a Dual 2.7 for $2,500 seems about right and might get a look from me.

BZ
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by BZ
No contest. My e-pecker (I like to call it my iPecker) is bigger.
If by "bigger" you mean "longer", then this war is over, I am afraid. "Thicker" is the new war. Time for some... silicon injections to the... iPecker. Just to thicken it a little . That's what Intel and AMD started doing in the operating room. By all evidence, Apple is still in the waiting room.
     
paulc
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New York, NY US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 12:29 PM
 
There had been some speculation the top end model would sport a XT850... which I think is a PCIe card. So WILL this bump go PCIe or not?

And what about the water cooling? This also has been talk about the 970GX, rumored to be a jcyh cooler running chip... so if they aren't dual core, will they ditch the water cooling because they are running a cooler running 970GX?

As IBM has not announced either the GX or the MP, it seems safe to assume these are same old/same old. Which would seem to mean that there are good price drops.

Assuming that's true, I seriously doubt that it's going to mean any pickup at all in sales. And from the last report, we see PowerMac sales tanking. These are the machines for the serious enthusiats and the people who really need the power. This segment has never been particularly price sensitive, so at best it seems that a few (moi) who have been sitting on the "should I upgrade my G4 hardware now" fence MAY be tempted IF the pricing is very, very agressive.
     
gudin
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 01:10 PM
 
I have to say, I also think it's rather bizarre that people are getting so worked up about this.

1. It's a rumor.
2. Even if it's true, if you notice, Intel and AMD chips haven't improved that much either. (Pentiums have gone up less than 10% in clock speed as well, and Opteron chips are still slower in clock speed than the rumored G-5s).

Sheesh. While those of us looking to buy new machines would prefer those new machines to be shockingly better than the current ones, those of us that buy them now would be rather annoyed if new ones came out 2 weeks later that were 30% better or some such.

This is so far from the doomsday situation so many suggest, it's almost laughable.
     
JudgeDredd
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 01:38 PM
 
I hope this particular rumour is untrue, gudin. I'm not going to blame Apple for the clock speed issue (they have to take what IBM gives them), what we can blame them for is the GPU situation. Why on earth do Apple continually try to dump out of date, underpowered cards onto their 'Pro' customers?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a 6800 ultra to be built-in to any of the PMs. What I am expecting is parity with the PC world in the power of the GPUs that they ship, again, to 'Pro' customers. These cards were mid-range (at best) LAST year.

It's so embarrassing sometimes, no wonder developers won't bring more games/high end creative apps' over to the platform. Those cards are a bad, cheap joke...(sigh)
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 02:18 PM
 
JudgeDredd,

1) Welcome to MacNN.

2) Most pro customers don't need even mid-end GPUs. I think the vast majority of Apple's "pro" customers (eg. Pre-press, Photographers, etc.) are well served by even a 9600 non-pro. The people who need the horsepower for stuff like Motion, etc. should be getting high end GPUs anyway.

This may change as Core Image endowed apps appear in other markets, but it's not a big deal to spend an extra $50 at order time to BTO a little bit better of a card. It doesn't really make sense to force everyone to pay for a mid-end card.
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 02:31 PM
 
going on 2 years for the promised 3ghz G5... I'll wait.
     
lyall
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 02:31 PM
 
Around Jan 15th, Apple swallowed a large consignment of AGP and PCI-e ATI x800Xt's. With the AGP lot, there'll be one more update to the now confirmed dual 2.0/2.3/2.7 line in May, offering the 256mb x800xt as a BTO/CTO option. The 9650xt simply doubles the onboard ram of the 9600, without adding to the existing 4 pipelines and basic sdram DDR. (x800xt features 16, with far more aggressive GDDR3).

The interesting part of the whole thing was to allow IBM to test the 970MP (not GX) chipset and CPU compatibility with PCI-e line of ati cards, and more so than with the nvidia gpu, as the form factor of the ati is so much smaller. It can take 6 months or more, just doing that- even for a colossus like IBM. This is also because the 4way, quad core chipset employs a different and more complex core logic than the current dual cpu 970Gx board.

IBM's doesn't do things by halves (tho' they do them very well indeed) and this means that we may actually be lucky, if the rumored Antares 970MP shows up, even in June. Notice that Job's push for 2005 says HD and.264 loud and clear. Not the year of the Powermac. This is primarily because of Apple's continuing push to be a media -tech giant, not so much a pc maker. (powermacs pull in less than 10% of Apple's annual profit).

The problem lies with us powermac lovers (10% of the overall mac community- if the most vocal). We expect too much, and then when Apple faults, we rant and rave. So, to cool our heated pulse rates, here's my prediction for the year:
Major HD announcements WWDC. Major software and connectivity upgrades. Let the powermac part of the equation lie low, and slip by, hopefully unnoticed except by powermac diehards like us. To assuage us, a final revision of 970GX powermac line to 2.8 Ghz, and then...
In late August, more likely mid September, an announcement of the 3.0Ghz dual and quad core 970MP... very possibly sporting a G6 moniker.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 02:43 PM
 
lyall,

1) Welcome to MacNN.

2) I'll point out that the current G5 is the 970FX not the GX.

3) I'm guessing the HD software will be released this week at NAB, not at WWDC.
     
Groovy
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by lyall
(powermacs pull in less than 10% of Apple's annual profit).
but you are forgetting one important thing. If the powermac line DID hit
3GHz 1 year after Steve Jobs said it was supposed to do and now was
hitting 3.5GHZ or multi core 3 GHz for a quad box etc... so that the
price/performance ratio was MUCH MUCH better then Powermac
sales would make up 25% of Apple's annual profit if not more.
Everyone would be buying them and we would have had a TON of PC
switchers coming over.

it is only 10% because you do not get much and have to spend a lot for it
(like only 2 drives when my smaller PC case holds 6 not to mention
costs half what my Dual G5 did and runs just as fast. Granted XP
blows and why i still prefer macs and I'm willing to pay more for
the hardware )
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 04:52 PM
 
That's It, I'm Going Back To My Bebox!!!
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Groovy
but you are forgetting one important thing. If the powermac line DID hit
3GHz 1 year after Steve Jobs said it was supposed to do and now was
hitting 3.5GHZ or multi core 3 GHz for a quad box etc... so that the
price/performance ratio was MUCH MUCH better then Powermac
sales would make up 25% of Apple's annual profit if not more.
Everyone would be buying them and we would have had a TON of PC
switchers coming over.

it is only 10% because you do not get much and have to spend a lot for it
(like only 2 drives when my smaller PC case holds 6 not to mention
costs half what my Dual G5 did and runs just as fast. Granted XP
blows and why i still prefer macs and I'm willing to pay more for
the hardware )
Where do you get your hypothetical sales figures from? Where do you get your benchmarks from? And why do you care about internal hard drive bays? Your post is bunk, sir.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
polendo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Monterrey, Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by aafuss
I've haven't heard of a Radeon 9650 (could be a typo at TS), but the specs seems OK to me.
Exactly my thought.. nevertheless.. there does exist the Radeon 9550 in the PC world (I have one). So possibly, there is a typo OR a new card.

regards
     
mlowe969
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 08:40 PM
 
*cough*-setup-*cough*

What would be the best way to destroy ThinkSecret? Offer bad information about an update that causes this exact type of thread to be written. Steve apologized for the 2.5 last summer. I can't imagine him doing that again this summer.
     
sirlexelot
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Valley Village, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 08:42 PM
 
To the person who questioned the need for more than two internal drive bays, I say to you, are you kidding? Easily the most embarassing aspect of the "mighty" G5 is its piddily 2 drive bays. I do post production sound, and it's really important to me to have a minimum of 3 drives: one for OS, one for audio samples, FX, and loops, and one for project files.

This improves performance, provides better data protection (because the failure of any one drive won't kill ALL my stuff), helps me keep my workflow clean, and also makes backups easier to manage and keep track of (simply put a matching-capacity hard drive in a firewire case and carbon-copy-clone my project disk once a week or so; keep one-time backups of the other disks on hand, and re-do them when data changes).

In any case, I've been waiting for quite some time for Apple to release a new G5, and if these rumored specs are true, it's just sad. The very very least they could do is give us PCIe, a few more drive bays, and external serial ATA connectors. But at this point I kinda doubt we'll see any of that. Sad.

So I'm with the others who are hoping for at least a massive price reduction. They definitely need to knock a cool $500 off the high-end price. If so, I'll probably get one. If not, I guess I'll have to keep using my dual 867mhz G4....
SirLexelot
10gig iPod, iPod Shuffle
Dual G4 867mhz Tower
     
badtz
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 08:51 PM
 
assuming that a quad-processor [two dual-core processors] are capable within a year from apple ..... would OS X know how to take advantage of that?
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by 3.1416
And if IBM continues to fail to deliver, it will be time to dust off the plans for migration to x86. .

The only "migration to x86" plans that exist are in the diseased minds of a handful of ignorant Internet dorks.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
CatOne
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2005, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Groovy
but you are forgetting one important thing. If the powermac line DID hit
3GHz 1 year after Steve Jobs said it was supposed to do and now was
hitting 3.5GHZ or multi core 3 GHz for a quad box etc... so that the
price/performance ratio was MUCH MUCH better then Powermac
sales would make up 25% of Apple's annual profit if not more.
Everyone would be buying them and we would have had a TON of PC
switchers coming over.

it is only 10% because you do not get much and have to spend a lot for it
(like only 2 drives when my smaller PC case holds 6 not to mention
costs half what my Dual G5 did and runs just as fast. Granted XP
blows and why i still prefer macs and I'm willing to pay more for
the hardware )
Come on. You are pulling those numbers out of a stinky, brown place. Fast computers are nice. Don't get me wrong. But the reason people aren't switching in droves is (and will likely always be) due to software (i.e. Windows, and all the apps they use that are tied to it), not due to raw hardware speed. Sure, if a Mac were 15x faster than a PC, you would capture 99% of the Photoshop users, but then Apple already has like half of them anyway, which is 10x what the marketshare is for users of other applications.

And home users... most of them don't need PowerMacs... the form factor/price of the iMac or Mini is more attractive. They don't need something 10x faster for surfing the Internet, and wouldn't pay even 1.3x the price to get it.
     
Minch_Yoda
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 01:11 AM
 
here's my guess on the whole powermac thing right now they have four models thinksecret has announced three i think they wont announce a new line with three but jobs will surprise everyone with a 3.0 at wwdc
and another thing that helps me believe this is cause the single powermac they have was added in-between line ups so why not do it again
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Minch_Yoda
here's my guess on the whole powermac thing right now they have four models thinksecret has announced three i think they wont announce a new line with three but jobs will surprise everyone with a 3.0 at wwdc
and another thing that helps me believe this is cause the single powermac they have was added in-between line ups so why not do it again
Feel free to use a period (.) at the end of each sentence.
     
JB72
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: L.A., CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 01:30 AM
 
I would finally buy a G5 now if one of these things happened:

1) Dual core dualies.
2) A third internal SATA drive (for a RAID of drives 2 & 3.)
3) PCI-E. Why? Vastly increased reverse Core bandwidth for both Motion and (hopefully) FCP 5.0.
4) More Firewire channels (not just ports--which are largely pointless for video "pros.")
5) Built-in fiber optics for connection to big storage.

If none of those happen, I'll happily sit on my dollas. Another 200 Mhz doesn't thrill me at all.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by sirlexelot
To the person who questioned the need for more than two internal drive bays, I say to you, are you kidding? Easily the most embarassing aspect of the "mighty" G5 is its piddily 2 drive bays. I do post production sound, and it's really important to me to have a minimum of 3 drives: one for OS, one for audio samples, FX, and loops, and one for project files.
eSATA? FireWire 800? Those don't work for you? There are options that exists, it's not like you can't have three drives with a G5.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
booboo
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 04:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
eSATA? FireWire 800? Those don't work for you? There are options that exists, it's not like you can't have three drives with a G5.
Well, us that want more than 2 internal drives might be using our FireWire for high-bandwidth audio and/or video. That is precisely the point, and why we didn't buy iMac's . . .
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by booboo
Well, us that want more than 2 internal drives might be using our FireWire for high-bandwidth audio and/or video. That is precisely the point, and why we didn't buy iMac's . . .
Sonnet's 8-port eSATA PCI-X card

Performance of 8 SATA disks running in RAID 0 config

That should satisfy your needs.
•
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Not really, since the G5 case doesn't have anywhere to put those drives.


Originally Posted by Kristoff
eSATA? FireWire 800? Those don't work for you? There are options that exists, it's not like you can't have three drives with a G5.
Yeah, they're an option, but it's always preferable to have a stock expansion bay, not have to resort to some 3rd party external solution or, even worse, some 3rd party internal solution.

I've always thought it was strange the G5 case didn't have 3 bays. It could be useful for:

1) Convenient storage expansion
2) Primary boot disk, with 2-drive RAID 0 scratch
3) Flexible video scratch
4) RAID 5

IMO, for a pro machine 3 hard drive bays is necessary, even if most wouldn't use it. 4 drives is diminishing returns though. I think a second optical bay and a 4th hard drive bay are much less important than a 3rd hard drive bay.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Not really, since the G5 case doesn't have anywhere to put those drives.
Duh. It's a card with external eSATA ports, so you would use it with external drives. Makes much more sense than internal arrays for pros anyway. And if somebody really needs more than two internal drives, there are plenty of third-party solutions. It's really no biggy.

If I had the choice, I'd have Apple/IBM rather work on the Power Mac's board than on trying to squeeze more internal HD bays in there. Antares anyone?
•
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Duh. It's a card with external eSATA ports, so you would use it with external drives. Makes much more sense than internal arrays for pros anyway. And if somebody really needs more than two internal drives, there are plenty of third-party solutions. It's really no biggy.
It's the biggest complaint I hear about the G5 Power Mac actually. The 3rd party internal solutions are even worse than the external solutions, especially if you want to add just one drive. Ever price one out lately?


If I had the choice, I'd have Apple/IBM rather work on the Power Mac's board than on trying to squeeze more internal HD bays in there. Antares anyone?
I'm sure they can do more than one thing at a time.
     
polendo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Monterrey, Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 12:10 PM
 
Or maybe... just maybe Apple leaked the wrong info. on purpose to identify the person(s) behind their leak of info. But, like always, I guess we have to wait and see.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by polendo
Or maybe... just maybe Apple leaked the wrong info. on purpose to identify the person(s) behind their leak of info. But, like always, I guess we have to wait and see.
that could get apple sued by someone. i am now siding with the "think secrect" is giving out bad info in purpose and some effort to appease apple. of course since we can not get into nick's brain, we will never know.
     
askunk
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 01:36 PM
 
What about innovation on the motherboard?

Hypertransport? PCI-Express? Do we really have to wait another upgrade to have those?

I can't believe they would use actual G5 bus bottleneck with the new so powerful processors.

@
     
zed57
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 03:32 PM
 
Biggest deal to me is the AGP graphics slot, I can't fathom investing in a machine with a dead-end graphic card slot. Gigahertz I care less about, gimmee future upgradeability.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by zed57
Biggest deal to me is the AGP graphics slot, I can't fathom investing in a machine with a dead-end graphic card slot. Gigahertz I care less about, gimmee future upgradeability.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by zed57
Biggest deal to me is the AGP graphics slot, I can't fathom investing in a machine with a dead-end graphic card slot. Gigahertz I care less about, gimmee future upgradeability.
Is there any application/setting where the 8x AGP bus is close to being saturated anyway at present? I think the AGP spec still has some life in it. My guess is that you'd run in to CPU bottlenecks before maxing out the 8x AGP bus anyway.

     
polendo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Monterrey, Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 06:15 PM
 
In reality, the AGP port is more than enough (8x) for the power of today's graphic cards. The only advantage that PCIe port would have is if you use it in SLI mode. I wouldn't mind having the option; that would be more than welcome.. but as in today AGP vs. PCIe is the same deal performance wise (1 card).

regards
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
that could get apple sued by someone.
I don't think you could successfully sue Apple for that.

"It's not our fault you took the word of some rumor site as gospel, even if we did feed them bad information. It's still a RUMOR site, not a 'this is all factual information' site, that's OUR job. You shouldn't believe anything unless it comes straight from us, not indirectly from us by way of a third party."
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 06:52 PM
 
The TS article mentions three machines. There are currently four. At what price points will the new machines be sold? I'd like to get the $1500 PM. I'd much prefer the new ones, but am I risking a change in the price points to eliminate the low end (instead of the high end)?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
that could get apple sued by someone. i am now siding with the "think secrect" is giving out bad info in purpose and some effort to appease apple. of course since we can not get into nick's brain, we will never know.
I know of no tort related to strategic disinformation. It is, instead, an established tactic practiced by companies against rivals who are fishing for secrets.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 07:17 PM
 
I suspect that the info is "almost" correct - that Apple is testing different configs and that TS got info on one that is never going to make it. The main reason I think this is the Radeon 9600/128 in the eMac. Now, I could see the iMac getting that kind of chip (though I'm betting on a 6200 myself) but not the eMac, not for the price point they're after.

What's wrong with the P-mac specs? Hard, but I'd have to say dualcore is the most likely - at least in one of the models. You know, we might have them in the wrong order, with the correct order being dual 2.0 - dual 2.7 - quad 2.3 or something. Apple has done that before.

Note that if Apple is indeed testing configs this way, they can trace the rumors back to particular test subjects, potentially finding the sources of the leaks.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
I know of no tort related to strategic disinformation. It is, instead, an established tactic practiced by companies against rivals who are fishing for secrets.
hmmm... even if a public officer ordered someone lower down in apple to send fake info to TS and a user bought based on this information? Not saying it would be a lawsuit a person could win. Just embarrasing is all.

I'll take your word on it though....
     
RonnieoftheRose
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 07:36 PM
 
If those are the specs I doubt many Power Macs will be sold in the next quarter. I mean, over six months wait for an extra 200Mhz and a graphics card almost in line with what the PowerBook had two and a half years ago. If you've got shares you better dump them if you haven't already.
     
JB72
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: L.A., CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by polendo
In reality, the AGP port is more than enough (8x) for the power of today's graphic cards. The only advantage that PCIe port would have is if you use it in SLI mode. I wouldn't mind having the option; that would be more than welcome.. but as in today AGP vs. PCIe is the same deal performance wise (1 card).

regards
Not true for Core Graphics and Video, which use all the bilateral bandwidth they can get their hands on. AGP bandwidth mostly runs one way. Fine for games, not for the future of the OS, especially for demanding video/3D apps.
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
hmmm... even if a public officer ordered someone lower down in apple to send fake info to TS and a user bought based on this information? Not saying it would be a lawsuit a person could win. Just embarrasing is all.

I'll take your word on it though....
It's still the user's fault. Not Apple's.
     
polendo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Monterrey, Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2005, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by JB72
Not true for Core Graphics and Video, which use all the bilateral bandwidth they can get their hands on. AGP bandwidth mostly runs one way. Fine for games, not for the future of the OS, especially for demanding video/3D apps.

So I assume you know already the requirements of Core Video?

If Core Video needs 100% bandwith of an 8x AGP port, then something is awfully wrong with Apple programmers. Anyway, I still stand by what I say. PCIe is useful if they have an SLI configuration.
     
zed57
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 12:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cadaver
Is there any application/setting where the 8x AGP bus is close to being saturated anyway at present? I think the AGP spec still has some life in it. My guess is that you'd run in to CPU bottlenecks before maxing out the 8x AGP bus anyway.
I think you are correct that AGP 8x is sufficient theses days, but with the PC world all but migrated over to pci express on new machines, I would feel better being in sync with that. I think ATI etc, would be more inclined to offer Mac versions of their cards when it was just a simple BIOS version as opposed to an aging interface.

Short version, PCI express has longer legs than AGP, and that would make me feel better about my purchase.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 03:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose
...and a graphics card almost in line with what the PowerBook had two and a half years ago. If you've got shares you better dump them if you haven't already.
Yeah, Apple will be bankrupt within two days of the release of these Power Macs. Let's all run around in panic and then we'll jump out of a window. We're all doomed!!!



First of all, two and a half years ago the PowerBooks had
• GeForce4 420 Go, 32 MB VRAM, 4x AGP
• Mobility Radeon 9000, 32/64MB VRAM, 4xAGP
• GeForce4 440 Go, 64 MB VRAM, 4x AGP

Secondly, the 9600 has almost nothing in common with the 9000 Mobility (or the 9600 Mobility actually). Or did you just want to rant away and hope we'd all just forget the facts and rant with you?
•
     
RonnieoftheRose
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 04:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Yeah, Apple will be bankrupt within two days of the release of these Power Macs. Let's all run around in panic and then we'll jump out of a window. We're all doomed!!!



First of all, two and a half years ago the PowerBooks had
• GeForce4 420 Go, 32 MB VRAM, 4x AGP
• Mobility Radeon 9000, 32/64MB VRAM, 4xAGP
• GeForce4 440 Go, 64 MB VRAM, 4x AGP
:

You got me on that one. I confused the 9600 Mobility with the 9000 Mobility. But yes, these specs are **** and I doubt it will pick up sales of Power Macs in the next quarter. Part of the blame goes to rumour sites who predicted dualcores. Steve Jobs is to blame for making his famous 3Ghz prediction. IBM is to blame for not delivering. I think I can hear my neighbours screwing so I can't finish this...
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 08:32 AM
 
PCIe is replacing AGP for several reasons, not all of them related to bandwidth. The first reason is that "this is the way it was intended" - back when PCI was launched, it was supposed to be for graphics as well, with next technology step coming about 10 years later. That step was PCIe (though it wasn't called that until recently, of course). The reason AGP was ever created is really rather simple - Playstation. Game consoles in general have great main memory - graphics memory bandwidth, and Intel came up with AGP as a stop-gap solution. It eventually turned out that to get enough bandwidth, you needed a lot of onboard memory anyway - back in those days a lot of boards a 2 or 4 megs of memory, now we have at least 64 and usually at least 128. all of that is a reflection of the insufficient main memory - graphics memory bandwidth.

What I think we'll see more of in the future is what nVidia calls Turbocache (ATi has it as well, under a different name). With a limited onboard memory but with the ability to use main memory directly from the GPU, it is a cheap way to get decent graphics performance. Look for a 6200 with 32 MB onboard memory and Turbocache up to 128 MB in a future eMac and the 64/256 version in the iMac.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce6200_pci

In general, a straight PCIe board, with one 16x, one 8x and a couple of 1x and 2x slots should be cheaper to make than a full-featured PCI/AGP solution once the development costs have been taken care of - plus you get the ability to move your old graphics board to the 8x slot when you buy a new one for the 16x slot. There are a lot of good reasons to move to PCIe, but most are related to cost: you can get decent performance at a lower price. If you're looking for top-notch performance, PCI/AGP should be fine for some time yet
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by P
What I think we'll see more of in the future is what nVidia calls Turbocache (ATi has it as well, under a different name). With a limited onboard memory but with the ability to use main memory directly from the GPU, it is a cheap way to get decent graphics performance. Look for a 6200 with 32 MB onboard memory and Turbocache up to 128 MB in a future eMac and the 64/256 version in the iMac.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce6200_pci

In general, a straight PCIe board, with one 16x, one 8x and a couple of 1x and 2x slots should be cheaper to make than a full-featured PCI/AGP solution once the development costs have been taken care of - plus you get the ability to move your old graphics board to the 8x slot when you buy a new one for the 16x slot. There are a lot of good reasons to move to PCIe, but most are related to cost: you can get decent performance at a lower price. If you're looking for top-notch performance, PCI/AGP should be fine for some time yet
nVidia's TurboCache solutions are not very good performance-wise. Not much better than Intel Integrated Graphics with shared memory.

Dedicated video RAM - high-speed (aka expensive) dedicated GDDR3 @ 256-bits wide - will be far faster than main system memory for a while to come yet. Even DDR2 RAM has little to no performance gains over standard DDR RAM due to the higher latencies (which are part of the DDR2 spec).

Until system/main bus RAM uses something faster than what we've got now, a video card with dedicated high-speed specialized RAM will offer far more performance than sharing system RAM over a 16x PCI-express bus can.

And ATI & nVidia are still pumping out AGP-based chips of even their top-end GPUs. The AGP business is far larger still than the PCIe equivalent.

     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,