Intel Based Mac Mini Computers in Production, Claims Report

[zippyjuan]

Intel Based Mac Mini Computers in Production, Claims Report.
New Mac Mini Computers to be Released Soon

Category: Other

by Anton Shilov

[ 02/27/2006 | 12:27 PM ]


Apple may release its third series of Intel-based personal computers (PCs) shortly, according to media reports. The Mac mini featuring Intel processors may be announced as early as this week, whereas iBook computers with Intel chips inside would follow later.

AppleInsider web-site reported that at a special even for the press to be held this week Apple Computer would formally release its first Mac mini small form-factor computers featuring Intel Corp.’s processors. The first iBook computers with Intel processors will be released at a later date, according to the report. Apple has reportedly released the Intel Mac mini design to its manufacturing partners in the Far East, which are currently ramping production of the compact computers in an effort to build an initial inventory stockpile.

The new Mac mini computers with Intel processors will acquire not only new central processing units (CPUs), but also built-in iPod dock, Front Row 2.0 software and Apple’s digital video recorder (DVR) application, which was at first described as “TiVo killer” in previous reports. Other hardware specifics are unknown, such as whether the Mac mini will provide video recording out of the box or whether an add-on will be offered for those looking to employ the Mac mini not as a second computer, but as their living room command center.

Apple’s current Front Row 1 software suite uses the Apple Remote to let users enjoy the content they have on their Macintosh, including songs from their iTunes music library, slideshows of their photo albums in iPhoto, videos including Podcasts, iMovies and DVDs, and popular movie trailers streamed from Apple’s web-site.

It is unclear whether Apple’s Mac mini which is set to get Intel processor and to be unveiled shortly will sustain exactly the same form-factor, as Apple may want to get rid of the 2.5” hard disk drive (HDD) in favour of 3.5” HDD in order to increase capacity and shrink costs.

Apple announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors by mid-2006, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. The computer maker did not comment on the news-story.

Apple Computer did not comment on the news-story.



http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20060227122557.html

[shocky123]

Umm, I dont think the Mini has adequate cooling for an Intel chip...

Unless they plan on putting in those pentium-M chips.

~Kyle

[zippyjuan]

Shuttle will use the Centrino.


Shuttle Preps High-Performance Mac Mini Rival.
Shuttle Readies Ultra Small Media PC with Dual Core

Category: Mobile

by Anton Shilov

[ 02/26/2006 | 10:36 PM ]


Shuttle Computer, a maker of small form-factor (SFF) systems, unveiled more details concerning its compact media center computer. The newcomer is expected to offer relatively high performance and broad multimedia feature-set, but is expected to come in form-factor similar to well-known Apple Mac mini computer.

“The XPC X100 is designed to save your desk space with performance specifications ideal for multimedia applications such as video editing, gaming, or just watching DVDs,” a statement by the company reads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2006-02/shuttle_xpc100_1.jpg

Shuttle’s X100 is based on the latest Centrino Duo mobile platform for Intel Corp., a set of chips designed for mobile computers. The default configuration of the XPC X100 features Intel 945PM chipset, 1.83GHz dual-core Intel Core Duo T2400 processor, ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 graphics card, 512MB of dual-channel DDR2 memory, 250GB hard disk drive (HDD), DVD multi-format drive as well as necessary set of I/O capabilities such as 1Gb network adapter, wireless network adapter, card reader, USB 2.0 and Firewire ports.

Shuttle calls the XPC X100 as the ultra small form-factor: the new box is just 21cm x 29.86cm x 5.35 cm (depth, width, height). Nevertheless, Shuttle X100 is still larger compared to Mac mini, which has dimensions of 16.51cm x 16.51cm x 5.08cm respectively.



More details regarding availability and pricing of the product will be revealed at CeBIT show in Hannover, Germany, in mid-March, 2006.

[zero2dash]

$5 says they cost the same as the PPC Minis (which ruins the reason that they should've went with Intel in the first place...cheaper costs to the buying public).

Tsk tsk Apple...:disa:
Lower your prices some and you might get a larger piece of the "market share" pie.

Then again you don't really give a crap 'cause you're selling iPods like hotcakes. Still. :heh:

[Devhux]

Umm, I dont think the Mini has adequate cooling for an Intel chip...

Unless they plan on putting in those pentium-M chips.

~Kyle

That's the Intel chips Apple is using in their machines (even the iMac) -- it's the Core Duo CPU.

[eSDee]

$5 says they cost the same as the PPC Minis (which ruins the reason that they should've went with Intel in the first place...cheaper costs to the buying public).

Tsk tsk Apple...:disa:
Lower your prices some and you might get a larger piece of the "market share" pie.


In my opinion Apple didn't switch to Intel to make things cheaper for the public, especially not the Mac Mini's. The Mac Mini's were already affordable. The reason they went to Intel is because they can't fit a G5 chip into the powerbook, and therefore hit a ceiling with speed/chip size. Switching architectures allows them to still offer faster speeds and therefore moving more products, at the same time dissolving the apples and oranges comparison between PowerPC and Intel chips. The new Mac Mini's will almost certainly be at the same price level as when previous version Mac Mini's were introduced. This allows them to continue using the same business model as before, after jumping to the new hardware architecture.

[AlpineJay]

In my opinion Apple didn't switch to Intel to make things cheaper for the public, especially not the Mac Mini's. The Mac Mini's were already affordable. The reason they went to Intel is because they can't fit a G5 chip into the powerbook, and therefore hit a ceiling with speed/chip size. Switching architectures allows them to still offer faster speeds and therefore moving more products, at the same time dissolving the apples and oranges comparison between PowerPC and Intel chips. The new Mac Mini's will almost certainly be at the same price level as when previous version Mac Mini's were introduced. This allows them to continue using the same business model as before, after jumping to the new hardware architecture.

Absolutely. G5's architecture wasn't mobile-conducive and as the consumer computer market shifts rapidly towards portables, Apple needed a new partner to upgrade their machines with (I know that's arguable, but I consider the Intel switch very much an upgrade at least in the short term) or risk falling too far behind in the performance category. Also, the rumor was that IBM's G5/G4 chip supply was inconsistent at best, so there was some growing frustration in that department too.

I too suspect Intel-embedded Minis will be around the same price point as the previous G4-driven Minis. Not sure if they'll use Core Solo or Core Duo, or maybe even both, to give it different pricing tiers.

[zero2dash]

In my opinion Apple didn't switch to Intel to make things cheaper for the public, especially not the Mac Mini's. The Mac Mini's were already affordable. The reason they went to Intel is because they can't fit a G5 chip into the powerbook, and therefore hit a ceiling with speed/chip size. Switching architectures allows them to still offer faster speeds and therefore moving more products, at the same time dissolving the apples and oranges comparison between PowerPC and Intel chips. The new Mac Mini's will almost certainly be at the same price level as when previous version Mac Mini's were introduced. This allows them to continue using the same business model as before, after jumping to the new hardware architecture.

I know I know :P
IBM couldn't give Apple a G5 PowerBook and Apple got sick of the excuses.
It's just...you'd think that by going Intel (which is more mainstream/mass-market than the PPC) they'd save on costs and pass those savings down to the consumers.

But that's in a perfect world and...this...isn't a perfect world. :D

[ribitch]

i am very disappointed by the new apple hardware. The mac mini should have retained its old price point. Remove the wireless and bluetooth if necessary.

I know the intel core CPU's are costly, but still, a 20% price increase is crap.


Don't even get me started on "Home Stereo. Reinvented."

Wheres the radio? What about integrated airport express? Its overpriced an incomplete for the home market. I do see a place for it in offices, such as in a home office on a bookshelf, or a kitchen, lawyers office, etc, but I am very disappointed.

[LegendKiller]

i am very disappointed by the new apple hardware. The mac mini should have retained its old price point. Remove the wireless and bluetooth if necessary.

I know the intel core CPU's are costly, but still, a 20% price increase is crap.


Don't even get me started on "Home Stereo. Reinvented."

Wheres the radio? What about integrated airport express? Its overpriced an incomplete for the home market. I do see a place for it in offices, such as in a home office on a bookshelf, or a kitchen, lawyers office, etc, but I am very disappointed.


Today's Woot (woot.com) rips on the Ipod stereo thingie for that reason. Overall it's lacking in anything and it's just a glorified dock that is overpriced and underfeatured.

I don't think the new mac mini's are that bad, the price point kinda hurts, but they look interesting. I have tossed around the idea of buying one of those vs getting a Shuttle SFF. My wife is getting mad that we don't have a working computer 100% of the time, especially when my main is in pieces when reviewing.

[Cubsfan]

Today's Woot (woot.com) rips on the Ipod stereo thingie for that reason. Overall it's lacking in anything and it's just a glorified dock that is overpriced and underfeatured.
Don't forget the fact that it's pretty ugly too. That's important.

[ribitch]

Today's Woot (woot.com) rips on the Ipod stereo thingie for that reason. Overall it's lacking in anything and it's just a glorified dock that is overpriced and underfeatured.

I don't think the new mac mini's are that bad, the price point kinda hurts, but they look interesting. I have tossed around the idea of buying one of those vs getting a Shuttle SFF. My wife is getting mad that we don't have a working computer 100% of the time, especially when my main is in pieces when reviewing.

I am not impressed with todays woot. The Burr Browns are nice, but the frequency response only drops down to 80Hz. They also require a proprietary connection between the ipod and the stereo

I have a 1st gen mini acting as a mail/file/web/dns/dhcp server. It does its job well, I am just pissed at the pricing. I know 2.5" SATA drives cost more, but the GPU sucks.

[LegendKiller]

I am not impressed with todays woot. The Burr Browns are nice, but the frequency response only drops down to 80Hz. They also require a proprietary connection between the ipod and the stereo

I have a 1st gen mini acting as a mail/file/web/dns/dhcp server. It does its job well, I am just pissed at the pricing. I know 2.5" SATA drives cost more, but the GPU sucks.


I wasn't impressed with the woot either, just funny that they rip on the new "I-Product"'s limited features.

Yeah, the gpu does suck, which is one thing keeping me from getting it. That and I already have everything a SFF needs.

[AlpineJay]

I know I know :P
IBM couldn't give Apple a G5 PowerBook and Apple got sick of the excuses.
It's just...you'd think that by going Intel (which is more mainstream/mass-market than the PPC) they'd save on costs and pass those savings down to the consumers.

But that's in a perfect world and...this...isn't a perfect world. :D

What makes you think Apple will save money buying Intel chips? I don't have the exact figure handy, but I believe Intel is costing Apple nearly double the cost it used to pay IBM for its G4/G5s.

[LegendKiller]

What makes you think Apple will save money buying Intel chips? I don't have the exact figure handy, but I believe Intel is costing Apple nearly double the cost it used to pay IBM for its G4/G5s.

I find it hard to believe that there is that much of a price difference. With the addition of some features, updating of architecture...etc and still maintaining only a 20% price increase. Seems kinda odd to me.

[zero2dash]

What makes you think Apple will save money buying Intel chips? I don't have the exact figure handy, but I believe Intel is costing Apple nearly double the cost it used to pay IBM for its G4/G5s.

Ok - I'm speculating heavily here, but -
considering that the PPC chips (AFAIK) only go in Apple computers, and on the other hand - Intel makes chips that go in (practically) every other computer brand as well as the "custom builders/do it yourself" crowd...so, assuming that Intel sells a lot more chips than IBM PPC, I'd speculate that since Intel is mass producing their chips (most likely) a lot more than IBM, you'd think that Intel chips (on a production level) cost less to manufacture.

Since (in most cases) PC manufacturers (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP etc) buy in bulk and (most likely) save some money - with the speculation above - I would think that Intel was cheaper.

Then again, I'm speculating. :)
I would be shocked if PPC chips were cheaper to manufacture...because then I'd wonder how come the PPC chipset isn't more mainstream (ie in more computers). :confused:

[ribitch]

Ok - I'm speculating heavily here, but -
considering that the PPC chips (AFAIK) only go in Apple computers, and on the other hand - Intel makes chips that go in (practically) every other computer brand as well as the "custom builders/do it yourself" crowd...so, assuming that Intel sells a lot more chips than IBM PPC, I'd speculate that since Intel is mass producing their chips (most likely) a lot more than IBM, you'd think that Intel chips (on a production level) cost less to manufacture.

Since (in most cases) PC manufacturers (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP etc) buy in bulk and (most likely) save some money - with the speculation above - I would think that Intel was cheaper.

Then again, I'm speculating. :)
I would be shocked if PPC chips were cheaper to manufacture...because then I'd wonder how come the PPC chipset isn't more mainstream (ie in more computers). :confused:

I tried looking for pricing info but wasntg able to find any. IBM powerPC cpus are used in more things than macs. IBM uses them in some of their servers, Yellowdog had some non apple systems at one point, there are tons of network devices that use them, and the gaming industry is moving to PowerPC based cpus. IBM CPUs were less costly than intel chips from what I remember.

Supposedly the xbox 360's cpu costs around $100 per cpu in quantities of 1000. That CPU, is a custom tricore CPU that is very similar to the 970 used in the G5.

[Cubsfan]

http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060119_311993.htm



The most expensive component in the iMac is the Intel Core Duo processor. Apple's paying about $265 apiece for the chip, iSuppli estimates.

Some analysts suggest that Apple might have been paying less than $100 for the IBM single-core PowerPC 970 chip that went into the final iMac G5, which would imply an increase in materials cost of more than $200 per unit.

[LegendKiller]

http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060119_311993.htm


I don't know about those numbers, they just seem a bit fishy for a low-temp and highly developed process. We aren't talking wasteful P4 based cores here. These are streamlines P3 based cores with some added stuff in there and improved processes. Perhaps yields are a bit lower since they are newer and more complex, but that will probably come down in price.

[Cubsfan]

I don't know about those numbers, they just seem a bit fishy for a low-temp and highly developed process. We aren't talking wasteful P4 based cores here. These are streamlines P3 based cores with some added stuff in there and improved processes. Perhaps yields are a bit lower since they are newer and more complex, but that will probably come down in price.
This is in orders of 1000. Not sure how much discount you get for > 1000, if any:

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm): $241

[LegendKiller]

This is in orders of 1000. Not sure how much discount you get for > 1000, if any:

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm): $241


That number (241) is already a 9.1% reduction in price and I am sure they get it much cheaper than that. Still, its a bit more expensive than the PPC.

[zero2dash]

http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060119_311993.htm

Wow :eek:
Thanks for the links...I stand corrected. :blite: