PDA

View Full Version : 64 bit Quad Power Mac-tel



byte_fx
07-15-2006, 10:14 AM
AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877)

If this is true - and it seems reasonable that it is as Apple tends to make killer top of line desktops - then just maybe Mac users will be able to run 64 bit UB Lightwave in the hopefully not too distant future.

How sweet that would be.

byte_fx

Chilton
07-15-2006, 11:29 AM
AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877)

If this is true - and it seems reasonable that it is as Apple tends to make killer top of line desktops - then just maybe Mac users will be able to run 64 bit UB Lightwave in the hopefully not too distant future.

How sweet that would be.

byte_fx

While us Mac users have had to put up with the whole, "Macs cost more" argument for years, the truth is that Mac users have always been willing to pay a premium for the high-end workstations. And I think Intel is very excited about this. Right now, they know that in the PC market they can't find a vendor crazy enough to carry anything more than what the other competitors offer. Apple, on the other hand, can come out with a 'good, better, best' offering, where 'best' is a 16 processor, 9 fan, diesel fuel powered machine, and you'll have graphic artists lining up for them.

So I expect their WWDC offering to be both slightly expensive, and crazy wicked fast.

byte_fx
07-15-2006, 08:06 PM
Pretty much feel the same.

At the moment the dual core Xeons run HOT. Even at 1.8 ghz. To be expected since they're two cores with larger on-chip memory capacity.

But Intel's working on it.

The nice thing is that Apple and Intel are working together on overall system design as regards integrating the cpu(s), memory bus, video bus, etc.

And both are aware that previous Apple offerings have, for the most part, set newer and higher standards.

It's my feeling that both Apple and Intel want to make even an entry level Mactel tower a showpiece for their collaborative efforts.

As to cost - almost certainly there will be a modest bit of 'new model' add-on to the final cost but that's to be expected. And probably won't be anywhere near the markup on component cost that companies like Dell charge.

Apple still wants to gain market share and knows that going too far out of line won't accpmplish that.

Swiching to PC style vid cards would lower unit cost while adding the appeal of more vid options for the end user.

Part of that might be offset by switching to SATA 2 hard drives accross the tower lineup but, again, that increases system usefulness.

And maybe finally adding more expansion slots.

Which might also - just possibly - spur development of an Apple based VT.

That would also seem to be a natural fit considering Apple's existing user base within the graphics community.

Drat - I hate having to wait with so many possibilities looming in Apple's future.

byte_fx

kfinla
07-16-2006, 08:48 AM
I'm definatly hoping for another significant speed bump. I'm expecting a lot. I'll be dissappointed if only the top of the line Mac-tel is faster then the PPC qaud and 3.0ghz. I'm hoping the pro mac line "base" model is a dual dual core. I wish clovertown was due before Jan. Maybe proc's will be upgradable.

I guess too many unknowns right now. I'll I can say is i'm expecting/hoping the new hardware makes ppl jump on the mac-intel bandwagon out of performance gains, not because there is no other options.

Hoping there is a lot of video card choice also.. perhaps no more "mac" versions nessesary from ati and nvidia. It makes me sad to never see GTX versions on the mac. Anyways, guess ill just have to shut up and wait.

Darth Mole
07-16-2006, 09:44 AM
As long as they're not too much faster than my Quad 2.5, that'll be okay :)

Captain Obvious
07-16-2006, 01:15 PM
While us Mac users have had to put up with the whole, "Macs cost more" argument for years, the truth is that Mac users have always been willing to pay a premium for the high-end workstations. And I think Intel is very excited about this. Right now, they know that in the PC market they can't find a vendor crazy enough to carry anything more than what the other competitors offer. Apple, on the other hand, can come out with a 'good, better, best' offering, where 'best' is a 16 processor, 9 fan, diesel fuel powered machine, and you'll have graphic artists lining up for them.

So I expect their WWDC offering to be both slightly expensive, and crazy wicked fast.
What about Boxx? ;)

Chilton
07-16-2006, 03:19 PM
What about Boxx? ;)

Well, there are actually a few high end PC retailers who have regular users willing to pay a bit more for a bit more oomph. I don't know of any who carry the same market share of Apple, but there are some big ones nonetheless. I'm personally hoping for a BOXX system at the office for myself, though after my last request (a room full of XServes), I'm not sure if they take me seriously anymore.

Consider this--BOXX sells both Intel and AMD based systems. Which means that next month, if AMD releases some heretofore unknown super-chip that blows Intel out of the water, and costs less than Intel's offering, you can bet it will get top billing on BOXX's website. Consequently, Intel will make fewer and fewer pennies from BOXX, until they're the faster chip again. In the same scenario, AMD creating a much faster, cheaper, chip, Apple users would still buy Macs, only that they'd be forced to buy an Intel based system with more processors, or a wider bus, or some other selling point.

With BOXX, as well as most PC vendors, market pressure will constantly create fluctuations for Intel. With Apple, Intel will continue to profit, even if AMD trounces them from time to time.

At least that's my theory.

-Chilton

byte_fx
07-17-2006, 12:35 PM
.... a room full of XServes ....

If only. :D

Had an early BOXX system. It was wicked fast for it's day.

Now I'm really looking forward to the Mac Pros.

And Leopard. Rumors are that Rosetta has some speed increases.

So maybe Mac coded LW on Intel cpus will be more viable while waiting for the UB version.

byte_fx

jwilli3
07-17-2006, 01:14 PM
then just maybe Mac users will be able to run 64 bit UB Lightwave in the hopefully not too distant future.


Isn't OS X still a hurdle to runing 64bit software or did they fix that?

Chilton
07-17-2006, 01:28 PM
Tiger is a 64-bit OS. There are other hurdles though. The UI is 32-bit, which means that in order for us to gain any real advantages from 64 bit addressing, we'll need to uncouple the UI from the engine.

A 64-bit Mac version is definitely a target, but Universal Binary is obviously a bigger one at this time.

Ambival
07-17-2006, 08:41 PM
64-bit UB OS X LW9... *drool*