Poll: If a PPC970 PowerMac topped out at 1.8GHz this Summer... [Archive]

josepht

Mar 11, 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by weev
Whatever the speed, I know I won't be able to afford one, but on the upside it'll make the current G4's lot cheaper.

I'm in the camp that prefers the tried and seasoned models/chips to the first new config. ones, and I really don't know if I can wait another second, I think I may just have to buy second hand to tied me over...

How much would the entry-level PowerMac 970 cost? If it's over $2k, I won't be able to afford one. I doubt, however, the entry-level will be that much.

Mr. Anderson

Mar 11, 2003, 08:49 AM

It would be fine, but even though I'm in the market for a new machine, I'd hope it be a dual. Otherwise I'll probably be waiting...

D

wdlove

Mar 11, 2003, 10:28 AM

I would be estatic, this would be the machine that the rumor mill is based. Summer/Fall would be great timing for me, will try to hold down my enthusiasm.

gopher

Mar 11, 2003, 10:31 AM

I'd be satisfied, but not ecstatic. Apple really needs to push IBM to go all out and produce the 2.5 Ghz model right away. This despite the fact the myth is just a myth. Macs have a better MTOPs rating than all PCs.
http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

Even so, marketing requires something closer to the PC top end for those who don't know why the myth is just a myth.

Hemingray

Mar 11, 2003, 11:09 AM

Whoever voted "I'd be disappointed", I've got one thing to say to you... you guys will NEVER be satisfied, so why are you hanging around here? :rolleyes: Seriously, a jump of 400MHz plus new architecture and you'd be disappointed? Ugh.

Just my ever-so-humble opinion of course. :)

pilotgi

Mar 11, 2003, 11:15 AM

I voted satisfied because at 1.8 Ghz the PPC 970 will provide at least twice the performance of the current G4. Probably more.

Then again, "satisfied" doesn't exactly describe how I would feel if they're officially announced by Apple this summer.

I think the official announcement will be damn exciting, regardless of the clock speed.

rt_brained

Mar 11, 2003, 12:44 PM

Of course we'd all be happy. Perhaps we should be posing more realistic questions right now:

If a PPC970 PowerMac topped out at 1.8GHz this Summer, would we still be waiting on the 17" Powerbook?

Flickta

Mar 11, 2003, 01:23 PM

if it is dual - ecstatic. if single - satisfied.

Well, ecstatic, anyway :)

frogstomp

Mar 11, 2003, 01:53 PM

If it's in an Apple, you know it's good. However, it would take a huge leap forward to make me ecstatic.

Bottom line, if the new package (the whole is greater than it's parts) surpasses my expectations, I'll be ectatic. Otherwise, progress is good and brings satisfaction...

Cheers!

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 11, 2003, 02:16 PM

I would be ecstatic, anything other then motorolas stagnating g4 would be a blessing. look at the specs on this chip and it is clear it is awsome. I think a few mac diehards have been brainwashed that they need 2 cpus. (90% of the stuff out there still dont know what to do with that dead weight 2nd cpu. And no matter how hard you try 2 g4s dont add up to 1 p4 3 ghz. G4s suck and i wont buy another g4 machine. So if apple wants another sale they better release a 970! 900 bus! Terrabytes of Ram! double the instructions in!Knows what DDR Ram is for! and this goes on and on.Meanwhile motorola is trying to figure out if they can get a 200 bus on the g4 by 4qtr this year. Give me a break! G4 is a has been!

Bear

Mar 11, 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by gopher
I'd be satisfied, but not ecstatic. Apple really needs to push IBM to go all out and produce the 2.5 Ghz model right away. ...
You can not just push someone to produce chips that aren't ready.
Motorola didn't care about Apple's needs and therefore lagged. IBM care's mostly about its own needs, and will push ahead as fast as it can for that reason and Apple will get to go along for the ride.

You may see Motorola forage ahead to try and not lose all of Apple's business now that there is competition (IBM) to deal with.

Going back to chiop fabrication. The whole process takes a lot of time. Skip a step or don't do the design checking very well and you run into bad chips. Where would that leave Apple?

I know people want faster systems now, however, I don't think they want them before they are ready.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 11, 2003, 02:46 PM

apple doesnt need a 2.5 right now all it needs is something that will blow the doors off a 1.42 dual g4, well a single 970 at 1.6 will do that so why you need a 2.5? This way they can continue to scale up. And protypes of the 970 are running at this moment, Ibm didnt invest all that money in a new plant just to produce chips that dont work. This September i will be looking at a 970 based mac sitting on the shelf in some store. mark my words.

Rincewind42

Mar 11, 2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I think a few mac diehards have been brainwashed that they need 2 cpus. (90% of the stuff out there still dont know what to do with that dead weight 2nd cpu. And no matter how hard you try 2 g4s dont add up to 1 p4 3 ghz.

1. MacOS X knows what to do with that second CPU - run another program! If one of your programs isn't using that second CPU (and that is unlikely due to the architecture of MacOS X) then the OS will find something for it to do. Unless you are doing nothing but staring at the machine, that 2nd processor isn't dead weight.

2. Maybe a dualie isn't as fast as a 3Ghz P4 at running any one program, but when your running half a dozen they smoke the Intel camp. I'd like to see someone do a benchmark running any two professional apps at the same time on a 3Ghz P4 vs a Dual 1.42 Ghz G4 and see who comes out on top. That is, assuming that they can even switch between programs once one of them starts...

So if apple wants another sale they better release a 970! 900 bus! Terrabytes of Ram! double the instructions in!Knows what DDR Ram is for! and this goes on and on.

Anyone that has terrabytes of RAM in the next couple of years on their home computer has spent an incredible amount of wasted money =). And anyway, the 970 can only physically address 64GB of ram (36-bit addresses), which, by the way, is the same as the PPC 970. The primary difference is how much ram can be addressed by a single program, where the 970 can fully address 2^64 bytes of RAM (vs 4GB on the G4).

As for your statement about double the number of instructions in, I really don't know what you mean =). Yes, the system bus is faster, so instructions can be fetched from memory faster, but this has less to do with the CPU and more with it's bus interface.

I am looking forward to owning a 970 mac in the future, but I want a dual machine, not because we have duals now, but because a dual 970 will absolutely DESTROY anything that Intel has to offer.

eyeluvmyimac

Mar 11, 2003, 03:44 PM

i was kinfa confused, the poll says "topped out" -- does that mean if we saw a 970 that could only get to that speed, or if thats the first one introduced.

if that was the absolute "topped out" speed of the 970, i'd be worried but still pleased.

if thats just whatever came ou first id be ecstatic -- as long as prices didnt raise.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 11, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
1. MacOS X knows what to do with that second CPU - run another program! If one of your programs isn't using that second CPU (and that is unlikely due to the architecture of MacOS X) then the OS will find something for it to do. Unless you are doing nothing but staring at the machine, that 2nd processor isn't dead weight.

2. Maybe a dualie isn't as fast as a 3Ghz P4 at running any one program, but when your running half a dozen they smoke the Intel camp. I'd like to see someone do a benchmark running any two professional apps at the same time on a 3Ghz P4 vs a Dual 1.42 Ghz G4 and see who comes out on top. That is, assuming that they can even switch between programs once one of them starts...

Anyone that has terrabytes of RAM in the next couple of years on their home computer has spent an incredible amount of wasted money =). And anyway, the 970 can only physically address 64GB of ram (36-bit addresses), which, by the way, is the same as the PPC 970. The primary difference is how much ram can be addressed by a single program, where the 970 can fully address 2^64 bytes of RAM (vs 4GB on the G4).

As for your statement about double the number of instructions in, I really don't know what you mean =). Yes, the system bus is faster, so instructions can be fetched from memory faster, but this has less to do with the CPU and more with it's bus interface.

I am looking forward to owning a 970 mac in the future, but I want a dual machine, not because we have duals now, but because a dual 970 will absolutely DESTROY anything that Intel has to offer. Still benchmark a dual g4 against a single p4 and the mac looses! that is a fact my friend. another fact pop in a game and that 2nd cpu is dead weight in almost all top games. that is a fact. look at the new macs and they can only use 2 gigs of ram max that is a fact where the 970 will be able to use as many slotts as they want to put in the machine. A single 970 will still be able to do everything that a duallies can ( run multiple things only faster. The duals where a gimmick to try to make up for motorolas stagnating g4. sure osx knows how to use both cpus but again it had too to make up for motorola. the 970 wont need it for now, i dont think you will see a dual 970 machine. it wont be needed. all that will be needed are faster 970's like 2.0 2.2 2.4 etc etc.

hacurio1

Mar 11, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Still benchmark a dual g4 against a single p4 and the mac looses! that is a fact my friend. another fact pop in a game and that 2nd cpu is dead weight in almost all top games. that is a fact. look at the new macs and they can only use 2 gigs of ram max that is a fact where the 970 will be able to use as many slotts as they want to put in the machine. A single 970 will still be able to do everything that a duallies can ( run multiple things only faster. The duals where a gimmick to try to make up for motorolas stagnating g4. sure osx knows how to use both cpus but again it had too to make up for motorola. the 970 wont need it for now, i dont think you will see a dual 970 machine. it wont be needed. all that will be needed are faster 970's like 2.0 2.2 2.4 etc etc.

While I agree with you to some extent, I must contradict your statement about needs and uses of a Dual Proc. Having Dual CPU machines is a bless, even though as you said, “games won’t run any faster.” Power Macs are targeted to a High-end market (which Apple is losing to for the low performance of the G4) that needs and demands the most performance possible. Today the advantage of having duals is not fully exploded by the G4 systems due to the bottleneck Bus. 167 MHz is not a wide enough Bus to feed 2 Processors. On the other hand, the 970 will have a monstrous Bus that will feed the 2 processor at impressive rates. Dual machines are always better, especially for intensive tasks. To give some examples, 3d renders, After effects renders, Final cut renders, media cleaner conversions, to name a few, will always eat up as much recourses as you can give them. Even today, Dual g4’s show, to some extent, the advantages of 2 CPU’s. For instance, the system will feel snappy even if the computer is working on the background.
I can't wait to see Dual 970's at 1.8 or 2 Ghz.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 11, 2003, 05:25 PM

very few programs know how to use that 2nd cpu to its full extent. otherworld computing has some very good benchmarks on single/dual and upgrades for powermacs. Looking at these bechmarks/frame rates it is very clear that most programs dont benefit from that 2nd cpu. So what i am trying to say is that faster and faster single cpus are better then using 2 slower ones. Motorola was not giving apple any faster cpus, they were stuck. so apple did the best they could with this hand. The 970 will move the platform forward and so dual cpu's will not be needed. if a single 970 smokes a duallie g4 you wont need a duallies 970. Sure a super high end graphics professional will want that power and maybe apple will have one but if a single can do so much why bother? They could have a duallie 970 at the high end but i dont think they will need it. all they will have to to do is clock it faster and say here you go.

MacFan25

Mar 11, 2003, 05:39 PM

I would be satisfied. I won't be in the market for a new computer for a while, but it would be nice for the people who are in the market for a computer when it is released.

surfnsell

Mar 11, 2003, 05:58 PM

As fast as a high end machine of last year from the PC end and I will be happy. I'm a purchaser who has been waiting for the G5 (which won't be happening anytime soon if ever) and OS XI. My current machine is growing old faster by the minute and I have been waiting to upgrade. Problem is, OS X is being run on disappointing hardware. It will be interesting to see what is the

Price will be for the new machine
The Price vs Performance for gaming
for CPU intensive Apps
What the Wintell end has at the time
What Microsoft does to thier OS in that time
How close Steve Jobs ego approaches critical mass

I want a new Mac, but it has to justfiable don't you think?

edenwaith

Mar 11, 2003, 06:29 PM

It would be nice if the Macs can make it to at least 1.8 GHz, but if we see a 2.0 GHz (or best yet, a 2.5GHz), that would be absolutely sweet. I think if Apple can cross the 2.0 GHz barrier soon, then they may very well be back into the speed game. From what I've read, even AMD is being somewhat downplayed by Intel, since the AMD chips are closer to 2.2 GHz, but AMD chips also have a shorter cycle (13 steps, I think...), verses Intel's 20 steps, which forces the Intel processors to have to move faster to complete all of those steps. And the G4's have an even shorter cycle (7, I think). So if new processors for the Macs can get up to 2GHz or faster, then even a single processor might be more comparable to an AMD or Intel chip. But also, that is if the 970 does come to Apple. It seems like that there has been tons of speculation, but I haven't seen any hard core facts or reports that IBM is going to make the 970s for Macs.

But the point where I can be happy is if I can load pretty much any PC game I have under Virtual PC, and it runs great. My old DOS games run fine, but if I had a little more power and I could run something like Planescape or The Longest Journey or Gabriel Knight 3, that would be about perfect. Then I'd definitely never need to use a PC!

scem0

Mar 11, 2003, 09:32 PM

That is about what I am expecting, so if it doesnt beat that it's all
good. But I wouldn't mind if it was faster ;).

mccoma

Mar 12, 2003, 12:40 AM

If all you do is run one program, maybe you won't notice a difference (games, I suppose). Even at that, OS X is still using the second processor (for itself if nothing else).

Looking at my desktop right now, I see 5 applications running. One is definetly doing calculations as I type. If I had a dual, and the programmer wasn't at all concerned about threads, multiprocessing, or that other "fancy pansy" stuff, I would still see a huge jump versus my poor single processor iMac (G4). The duals I have played with do have a big jump even if they are lower MHz.

Even if I was the uncarring programmer, some of the standard objects are optimized by Apple to use mutliple processors. OS X sure does know how to use duals.

I want Apple to continue to say (at least in the PowerMac line), that a single processor is not good enough. Going on that theme, when the 970s make it into the Apple lineup, I hope Apple offers the "Power Users Dream Special" with 4 processors and 8 gigs of memory. Sure, it will probably cost $10k, but who cares. People who need it will buy it (digital video / graphics). Plus, exceeding 4 gigs will really make the P4 look ancient (32-bits is so 90's).

Also, if Apple keeps saying dual (or more) is the "Apple Way", programmers (like myself) will make sure to get our act together.

PS:
I have always loved the way people point to benchmarks to show dual processors really aren't that effective. Unless the benchmark starts acting like multiple applications, I have my doubts about the validity of the benchmark in this situation.

Wry Cooter

Mar 12, 2003, 08:10 AM

I will be disappointed if there is NOT a 970 this summer, so even if it is 1.8 ghz it will be fine. I will buy the next speed bump as usually there is ALWAYS some minor change to the motherboard after the first model with a new CPU, although this time I expect Apple has a head start with the Xserve board.

I expect dual processors as well, three models of tower, and the same pricing points, with the mid tier in the mid 2k range, although less expensive to show more parity towards the Wintel market WOULD be nice.

Then I would hope for some minor speed bump early 2004, or hardware bug fix.

RichardEM

Mar 12, 2003, 09:44 AM

I entered my vote as satisfied because it will get apple to new

What would get me ecstatic?

If Apple were able to use the full capability of the chip to access memory and other busses at the full capability of the chip, If they increased the RAM that the motherboard could 8 memory slots capable of handling 256,512,1Gb modules. Have the ability to have 3 user accessible devices, so that a tape drive could be put into the tower to use for backup?
They also need to split the line, the first attempt at this didn’t work because of pricing (the cube), so that those that don’t need multiple processors but want more capability than the iMac gives, such as needing a larger screen, get that a lower price. The upper line would have the capability to have up to 4 CPU’s and 7 PCI 64/66 slots including the AGP slot.
FireWire 800 on the mother board along with USB 2.0 and an internal FireWire 800 slot so that internal devices could be FireWire.

What caused the Cube to fail?
I believe that the cube though great in external design was did not take into account what would differentiate it fro both the products above & below. Partially because the above products didn’t have some things that I suggested above so Apple was not able to give the cube enough differentiation without cannibalizing Tower sales.
The replacement for the cube should have what ever is the latest CPU that apple is using but only one. 3-4 memory slots, easily removable video board that is the same as that used in the towers so that it’s cost will be the same. Have a PCI slot, not in the cube, so that the buyer will not feel that if he needs to add something to the machine, such as a SCSI Raid, they can.

surfnsell

Mar 12, 2003, 10:32 AM

Anything with a Superdrive is possibly a computer that is going to do some intesive Shtuff.

Therefore, anything with a Superdrive should ship with the chip. Yes that includes The Imac, and the Emac, with the exception to the portable lines due to power consumption.

Is this request/hope too much?

My machine is old, The iMac 2 is sexy and in the 17" Superdrive model what I am looking for. This machine has what I need. The Powermac users still get what they need, mainly expanability. Remember when Steve took over he streamlined the product line. Let us hope they do not stray to far.

Is there anyone else who would like the 970 released in an iMac?

Centris 650

Mar 12, 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by surfnsell
Is there anyone else who would like the 970 released in an iMac?

I'll raise my hand on that. I think it would be nice to see the iMac be ONE of the first macs to debute with the 970. However, I'm not holding my breath. I think they'll focus on the powermac first just to boost their sales. Remember it took some time for the iMacs to go to G4. I expect the same again. But who knows? But I tell you I'd buy it that's for sure.

wdlove

Mar 12, 2003, 04:41 PM

I agree that the 970 will debut on the Power Mac 1st. Hope that those who want it on the iMac won't have to wait long.;)

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 12, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by RichardEM
I entered my vote as satisfied because it will get apple to new

What would get me ecstatic?

If Apple were able to use the full capability of the chip to access memory and other busses at the full capability of the chip, If they increased the RAM that the motherboard could 8 memory slots capable of handling 256,512,1Gb modules. Have the ability to have 3 user accessible devices, so that a tape drive could be put into the tower to use for backup?
They also need to split the line, the first attempt at this didn’t work because of pricing (the cube), so that those that don’t need multiple processors but want more capability than the iMac gives, such as needing a larger screen, get that a lower price. The upper line would have the capability to have up to 4 CPU’s and 7 PCI 64/66 slots including the AGP slot.
FireWire 800 on the mother board along with USB 2.0 and an internal FireWire 800 slot so that internal devices could be FireWire.

What caused the Cube to fail?
I believe that the cube though great in external design was did not take into account what would differentiate it fro both the products above & below. Partially because the above products didn’t have some things that I suggested above so Apple was not able to give the cube enough differentiation without cannibalizing Tower sales.
The replacement for the cube should have what ever is the latest CPU that apple is using but only one. 3-4 memory slots, easily removable video board that is the same as that used in the towers so that it’s cost will be the same. Have a PCI slot, not in the cube, so that the buyer will not feel that if he needs to add something to the machine, such as a SCSI Raid, they can. Love your cube comments, that was a neat computer. its price and the fact it competed with powermacs and imacs and lost to both is what hurt it. a 970 based cube with what you stated would be great, pci slot, common video card. I dont think we will see one, but a 970 cube or imac would be great for me. As far as your comments on a multiple 970 machine. I just dont expect it. Too hot for now, maybe in the future on smaller process but i dont think they will have a dual, but then again maybe 2 slower cpu's. I wish it was time for steve to be talking again.