More PPC 970/750 Rumors (Possible Information)

[maraczc]

MacBuyersGuide reports that IBM will start full production of the PPC 970 64-bit proccessors in July. They say that IBM has confirmed this. If this is true then that means it may take quite a while longer than expected for us to see any Macs using the PPC 970 or new 750.

It also talked about the relative speeds of the new proccessors. The PPC 970 will go up to 1.8 GHZ. This model should draw around 40 W. A 1 GHZ PPC 970 should draw around 15-20 W. Appartantly, the PPC 970 does not even compete with the new AMD and Intel 64-bit proccessors. And that the new Pentiums which are due to be used in PC computers this summer will be much faster per mhz/ghz than the PPC 970. Although compared to the current Pentium 4s:

1 GHZ PPC new 750=1.6 GHZ Pentium 4
1 GHZ PPC 970=2 GHZ Pentium 4

All in all MacBuyersGuide is trying to say that the new IBM proccessors will be a dissapointment, and arrive far too late for Apple to get any spotlight out of them. If the information is accurate, I happen to agree.

[e-coli]

Man, Apple's stock price is going to drop like a stone.

This is getting rediculous.

Boooo... :( :mad:

[QCassidy352]

whoa, if that's all true, that is SO bad. But this is the first I've heard of these new Intel/ AMD 64 bit processors.

You say they are coming this summer? And will not only have higher clockspeeds, but also be faster *per* Ghz??

If this is true... then we were all fools to get our hopes up, and apple will never catch the PC world. I hope every word you say is wrong. ;) :(

[QCassidy352]

but you know, as I think about this more, I'm not sure how much I believe it. Since when is IBM a second-class chip manufacturer?? Forget about how it relates to macs for a second... I just can't belive that IBM would be getting its butt kicked so hard by its competitors.

[maraczc]

Apple certianly needs to shift up to the latest technology. And that is not only limited to proccessors.

All computers right now are using at least DDR SDRam. The very idea that you have to buy a proffesional line Apple computer or the high-end $2799 CND iMac just to get the same Ram technology used by discount $300 PCs is absurd. Same with the USB ports. All PCs now use USB 2.0, it's a very useful thing to have. Being stuck with USB 1.1 is horrible when you look beside you in a classroom and someone with a low-end year old PC laptop can transfer information faster than your brand new proffesional Powerbook. Nowhere else in the industry will you find a $5000+ CND computer still stuck with USB 1.1, actually nowehere else in the industry will you find a computer that cost $1000+ still stuck with it. Not only that, Apple has disabled bluetooth keyboard and mice (would be a nice idea), probably until they make bluetooth enabled input devices, too bad they aren't making them!

And the warranties? ****. Not only does Apple garuantee the case (defects with this are a source of major anguish), and give you limited 90 day technical support, but the cost to upgrade is so high.

Apple should shift up to RD Ram in the Powermacs and DDR SDRam in everythign else. And add USB 2.0 finnally, better even a year late than never. Better video cards in the laptops would also give more reason to own a Mac. You can get a PC notebook with 64 MB graphics cards under $2000 CND. You need to go into the mid-level proffesional line before it even becomes an option with Apple. And give better warrantees, or at least make them customizeable.

True, the OS is wonderful. But I think that we pay for this enough by the higher costs, lower speeds, and the fact that we have to pay $200 CND every time an update comes out. Crappy technology and bad warranties do not need to be added to this list.

[MorganX]

I don't doubt the PPC will not seriously challenge the Pentiums. Not current 800MHz FSBs w/HT and Dual channel DDR and definitely not prescott in 2ndQ, 1MB L2 Cache (there will be a desktop 2.4Ghz version)

But honestly, Apple doesn't need to beat them, they just need to become respectable performance-wise. If they can get into the upper third of desktop PC performance that's all they need as long as they have aggressive pricing.

And of course, this means the consumer machines. Meaning high end iMac. If Apple won't deliver a high end consumer machine at agressive pricing, I don't think the 970 will do much more than satisfy existing PowerMac customers and even they will be tempted to pass and go with a sub edit: $1000 HT, 800MHz FSB PIV. Apple's growth will be nil. IMO anyway.

[mian]

This story was published March 12th and updated May 5th.

http://thetechnozone.com/macbuyersguide/editorials/Editorial-PPC970.htm

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by maraczc
Apple certianly needs to shift up to the latest technology. And that is not only limited to proccessors.

All computers right now are using at least DDR SDRam. The very idea that you have to buy a proffesional line Apple computer or the high-end $2799 CND iMac just to get the same Ram technology used by discount $300 PCs is absurd. Same with the USB ports. All PCs now use USB 2.0, it's a very useful thing to have. Being stuck with USB 1.1 is horrible when you look beside you in a classroom and someone with a low-end year old PC laptop can transfer information faster than your brand new proffesional Powerbook. Nowhere else in the industry will you find a $5000+ CND computer still stuck with USB 1.1, actually nowehere else in the industry will you find a computer that cost $1000+ still stuck with it. Not only that, Apple has disabled bluetooth keyboard and mice (would be a nice idea), probably until they make bluetooth enabled input devices, too bad they aren't making them!

And the warranties? ****. Not only does Apple garuantee the case (defects with this are a source of major anguish), and give you limited 90 day technical support, but the cost to upgrade is so high.

Apple should shift up to RD Ram in the Powermacs and DDR SDRam in everythign else. And add USB 2.0 finnally, better even a year late than never. Better video cards in the laptops would also give more reason to own a Mac. You can get a PC notebook with 64 MB graphics cards under $2000 CND. You need to go into the mid-level proffesional line before it even becomes an option with Apple. And give better warrantees, or at least make them customizeable.

True, the OS is wonderful. But I think that we pay for this enough by the higher costs, lower speeds, and the fact that we have to pay $200 CND every time an update comes out. Crappy technology and bad warranties do not need to be added to this list.

why did you turn this thread in to a rant about all the things apple is doing wrong? I thought it was about how the PPC 970 would fare...

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by maraczc
Apple certianly needs to shift up to the latest technology. And that is not only limited to proccessors.

All computers right now are using at least DDR SDRam. The very idea that you have to buy a proffesional line Apple computer or the high-end $2799 CND iMac just to get the same Ram technology used by discount $300 PCs is absurd. Same with the USB ports. All PCs now use USB 2.0, it's a very useful thing to have. Being stuck with USB 1.1 is horrible when you look beside you in a classroom and someone with a low-end year old PC laptop can transfer information faster than your brand new proffesional Powerbook. Nowhere else in the industry will you find a $5000+ CND computer still stuck with USB 1.1, actually nowehere else in the industry will you find a computer that cost $1000+ still stuck with it. Not only that, Apple has disabled bluetooth keyboard and mice (would be a nice idea), probably until they make bluetooth enabled input devices, too bad they aren't making them!

And the warranties? ****. Not only does Apple garuantee the case (defects with this are a source of major anguish), and give you limited 90 day technical support, but the cost to upgrade is so high.

Apple should shift up to RD Ram in the Powermacs and DDR SDRam in everythign else. And add USB 2.0 finnally, better even a year late than never. Better video cards in the laptops would also give more reason to own a Mac. You can get a PC notebook with 64 MB graphics cards under $2000 CND. You need to go into the mid-level proffesional line before it even becomes an option with Apple. And give better warrantees, or at least make them customizeable.

True, the OS is wonderful. But I think that we pay for this enough by the higher costs, lower speeds, and the fact that we have to pay $200 CND every time an update comes out. Crappy technology and bad warranties do not need to be added to this list.

Firstly, Apple is not at fault for slow FSB speed and lack of DDR support. They must work with what Motorola gives them.

Second, not all PCs have USB 2.0. In fact, most don't yet. It is something that is being installed in new PCs only recently, and not in all of them. It's not as widespread as you think it is. All new Apples have Firewire while not all PCs do - so Apple has really had this covered for a while.

RD RAM? Not sure Rambus would go with that (they had a deal with Intel in the past). Besides, RDRAM is really a failed experiment and is still expensive. DDR is the way to go. There is evidence to suggest Apple will employ Hypertransport, allowing FSB speeds to increase greatly.

As far as PPC970 or Gobi 750s vs. Pentiums, they'll hold their own. As always, they will be able to do some things better while Pentiums will win in other areas - but the IBM chips will be very competitive.

I also have to debate the information in that article based on some IBM Internal info. Internal testing shows the 750s and 970s match up quite well against Pentiums. Both will also be constantly revised and updated by IBM - expect hyperthreading, possibly on both, by late next year. The Power5 derivatives may also be dual core and hyperthreaded, and they could arrive as early as Nov/Dec of next year. When the 750s are fabbed at .10 they will reach speeds of over 2 GHZ while running on a faster bus - and remaining efficient powerwise. They're not going to blow Pentiums out of the water (at least not until Power5), but they'll hold their own, be cheaper, and be a viable alternative.

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
why did you turn this thread in to a rant about all the things apple is doing wrong? I thought it was about how the PPC 970 would fare...

He's right on all his points though... except USB 2.0 is now over 2 years old :)

http://www.powerbookcentral.com/newspro/talk/988258586,59591,.shtml

This is back over 2 years ago that a USB 2.0 PCMCIA came out for the powerbook... there is no reason not to update the hardware for it in 2 years... most PC laptops and desktops have been coming with them for awhile too... almost impossible to buy one without it now. Its really nice how Apple just says "USB" on their powerbook page... and neglects that its USB 1.1.

[windwaves]

QCassidy352:

THINK HARDER


it ain't that difficult.

[windwaves]

Mr. MacPhisto:

I totally disagree with your first statement, in fact it is plain wrong: the macs are made by Apple, period. It is such a pointless statement, I can't believe it. It is exclusively Apple's problem, not Motorola's, at least to the extent that the consumer is concerned.
Apple screwed up big time with Motorola, by relying on a single supplier and especially but not responding quick enough to problems which are now years old: that is, way uncompetitive raw processor speed, i.e. archaic processors. Had Apple worked on getting the right processors from the right supplier instead of trying to convince consumers of the "megahertz myth" we would all be much better of. Again, especially considering that the inability of the MOT powerpc to compete was well known years ago.

[maraczc]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Second, not all PCs have USB 2.0. In fact, most don't yet. It is something that is being installed in new PCs only recently, and not in all of them. It's not as widespread as you think it is. All new Apples have Firewire while not all PCs do - so Apple has really had this covered for a while.

All new PCs ship with USB 2.0, all of the ones I have seen that is. All Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, Compaq, HP, IBM, Alienware, and Dell (maybe not the Latitude, but probably that too) desktops and notebooks ship with USB 2.0 installed. As for firewire, I'd say that USB 2.0 is alot more convenient. USB 2.0 is faster and works on more periphrals. As well you spend more money getting firewire periphrals over USB ones. I'd prefer to have USB 2.0 ports instead of my firewire port, and I'm sure that many others feel the same way.

[cb911]

maraczc, i hope your information is wrong! (in a good way, hoping for the best possible outcome for Apple). :)

Apple will most likely demo a 970 @ WWDC, they can't afford to wait any longer then that. and then if there aren't 970's here a month or two after that, then it might be too late. we keep hearing that alot of companies are holding off purchasing a new batch of PC's, waiting to see what Apple will bring. but if Apple waits too long, then AMD or Intel will definitely cash in on the oppurtunity.

[job]

Originally posted by maraczc
I'd prefer to have USB 2.0 ports instead of my firewire port

Err....why?

[job]

Originally posted by maraczc
Apple should shift up to RD Ram in the Powermacs

You do realize that this would probably drive up costs even further, right?

It's a vicious cycle. Newer better tech results in higher prices, thus people are less likely to purchase them until they drop in price, which in turn usually occurs when something better is available. ;)

[maraczc]

Originally posted by job
You do realize that this would probably drive up costs even further, right?

It's a vicious cycle. Newer better tech results in higher prices, thus people are less likely to purchase them until they drop in price, which in turn usually occurs when something better is available. ;)

I meant for free. Not as an option but standard. I payed $1500 for a machine with Ram (SDRam) that hasn't seen the inside of a $1500 computer in over a year (years?), and I find that sad.

[Catt]

Am I right in thinking that the FSB of current G4's is only 200mhz?
I would like to see an experimental Mac running Mac OS 10.2 on a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz, or even on an Athlon XP 3200+; I would like to see how performance would compare to the same processors running Windows XP - although I am fully aware that this ain't going to happen but I would be interested to see it regardless.

[maradong]

forget rd ram. it is no more top of the line.. ddr400 is much faster.
response is slightly better in rd. but the price of rd is nt realistic compared to ddr.

ppc970 @ 1ghz as fast as a p4 @ ghz ? what are you talking about ? that is ligning fast. if it can go up to 1.8 ghz that woul be like a p4 @ 3800 mhz. meaning a dual 1.8 970 chip wil outperform every x86 system on this world.. that is fast enough for me.

for the usb2 point. right, apple sould really introduce usb 2 everywhere in their computers. while firewire is still much better. ( IMHO )

[Zeke]

I just figured I'd throw in my 2 cents for the people who are bashing Apple. Everyone seems to want USB 2.0, faster RAM, faster FSB, faster blah blah blah. What all of these things would require would be a redesigned motherboard. Doesn't it seem likely that Apple considered this and said, "You know what...it's not going to make any difference in the overall speed since our main bottleneck is processor speed. So why waste the money designing another motherboard when we're working on the 970 MB." This makes much more sense than assuming that Apple just doesn't feel like making their computers faster. I think with the 970 we'll see all of the options people want simply because the motherboard has been redesigned. It would be stupid to redesign for the G4 if the 970 is coming soon paying R&D costs and retooling the plant only to scrap it soon after. There aren't enough PowerMacs purchased right now for them to make their investment back in years let alone months. I personally see them not including stuff like this as suggestive that something big is in the works.

[ozubahn]

Originally posted by maraczc
I payed $1500 for a machine with Ram (SDRam) that hasn't seen the inside of a $1500 computer in over a year (years?), and I find that sad.

I don't understand you, maraczc. This is at least the second thread you have used to complain about how outdated, overpriced, and generally worthless your new iBook is. Why did you buy the thing anyway? You are obviously the perfect candidate for a new PC laptop, so why didn't you get one of those instead? Is it just that you didn't bother to do any research first?

[the future]

The speed envy so many people seem to have is really quite funny. C'mon, people, 99,9% of you can do EVERYTHING you want to do on current G4s and the 970s WILL be a lot faster - what more could you ask?

[Catt]

Originally posted by the future
The speed envy so many people seem to have is really quite funny. C'mon, people, 99,9% of you can do EVERYTHING you want to do on current G4s and the 970s WILL be a lot faster - what more could you ask?

I think its a desire to have their machines recognised by the wintel world as being a viable computing platform, and pure speed is one way to gain silicon respect.
The only three things (that a high end consumer/prosumer might use a computer for) that require speed and raw processing power above current levels (or those of the theoretical future) are video editing, CAD pakages and the like and hi intensity 3D games. All these have the potential to require greater and greater levels of power, especially 3D games. But yeah esentially the average consumer doesn't need anything above a 1Ghz P3/P4 - they might want something faster to make stuff like photo editing a little quicker but essentially there is nothing the computer couldn't actually run

[will]

Originally posted by the future
The speed envy so many people seem to have is really quite funny. C'mon, people, 99,9% of you can do EVERYTHING you want to do on current G4s and the 970s WILL be a lot faster - what more could you ask?

Hmmm, many applications that Apple users use every day slurp CPU. I bet that even with a duel 1.4G G4 there are times when you want Photoshop to be faster. What about Maya, the latest 3D games, video editing? There is clearly still a need for greater speed, especially in many of the areas Apple are strongest.

Apple needs faster processors and better bus speeds. They then need to offer a wider range of professional machines, ranging from low priced models, to highend workstations with professional graphics cards.

[Catt]

I think one problem apple has is the apparent lack of enthusiasm in the big two graphic chip designers ATI and Nvidia. If Apple could get its games status raised and sell iMacs on the back of gaming ability then they would see their sales rise amoungst families with vocal children; most families would alter what they want to buy on what their children want, if only slightly. I don't know but I think its an idea.

[tjwett]

Originally posted by Catt
...Am I right in thinking that the FSB of current G4's is only 200mhz?...

Actually it's only 167, but thanks for rubbing it in :-(

[will]

Graphics cards for PC and Mac are pretty similar, the important thing is graphics drivers. Perhaps Apple could help out more (finacially or with actual development).

Also getting some big game titles released on Mac at same time as PC would be good. Even better is when PC and Mac version come in same box, that make availabilitiy much higher, and prices lower.

[Catt]

Originally posted by will
Graphics cards for PC and Mac are pretty similar, the important thing is graphics drivers. Perhaps Apple could help out more (finacially or with actual development).

Also getting some big game titles released on Mac at same time as PC would be good. Even better is when PC and Mac version come in same box, that make availabilitiy much higher, and prices lower.

exactly, I was most pleased to see Warcraft 3 come with both versions on the same CD - I can run it on my Laptop PC and also on my mum's iMac.
I think this is the main issue regarding games and its linked to availibility. Finding mac-only games in my local shops is really hard and they are mixed up under the 'PC Games' section. There is only one shop I know that has Mac games in a seperate section to PC Games; and thats a department store so its selection isn't that great and each Mac game is about £5 more than the PC version.
I think Blizarrd should be congratulated for shipping both version in one box

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by maraczc
And that the new Pentiums which are due to be used in PC computers this summer will be much faster per mhz/ghz than the PPC 970. Although compared to the current Pentium 4s:

1 GHZ PPC new 750=1.6 GHZ Pentium 4
1 GHZ PPC 970=2 GHZ Pentium 4


What are you talking about? So the top of the line PPC970 will run at 1.8GHz and will equal a 3.6GHz Pentium 4.

As far as I know the fastest Pentium 4 is running at 3.06GHz, means 600MHz less.

Fast enough for me my friend...

groovebuster

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by maraczc
USB 2.0 is faster and works on more periphrals.

I have yet to see a single benchmark that had USB 2 faster than FireWire; in some tests (notably copying lots of small files to an external HD a la iPod) FireWire was up to 70% faster; and this was with FireWire 400, not even the current hardware.

Mike.

[Catt]

Originally posted by whooley
I have yet to see a single benchmark that had USB 2 faster than FireWire; in some tests (notably copying lots of small files to an external HD a la iPod) FireWire was up to 70% faster; and this was with FireWire 400, not even the current hardware.

Mike.

I can't remember any specific examples but I have read reviews where USB2 external CD-RWs have been faster than Firewire400 drives.

The main benefit of Firewire, as far as I can see, is that it has a greater capacity to power devices than USB 1.1 or USB 2.

[ericthemacpope]

alright, you are bickering about firewire 400 , which has been out for a loong time. and, actually, there is a lot of peripherals that have firewire, you just don't notice the port. I have a digital camcorder about 2-3 years old, and it isn't top of the line, but when i got my imac and started video editing, sure enough, it had a firewire port, but no usb 2 port. but anyway, firewire 800 has been released not too long ago, which means its only a matter of time before manufacturers (sp?) start adding firewire800 ports to all their peripherals, which means that usb 2 will be too slow for most people. That is unless you are doing something small, in which speed wouldn't make much of a difference. But that's not the point. USB 2 isn't greater than firewire 400, and firewire 400 is already outdated. All you have to do is wait.

[job]

Originally posted by maraczc
I meant for free. Not as an option but standard. I payed $1500 for a machine with Ram (SDRam) that hasn't seen the inside of a $1500 computer in over a year (years?), and I find that sad.

Right, but in order for Apple to implement a new RAM tech, they would have to re-design or at least modify their existing motherboards. This would drive up production costs and thus increase the price of the actual product. In other words, even if it comes standard on new towers, there might still be a slight price increase.

[maraczc]

Originally posted by maradong
ppc970 @ 1ghz as fast as a p4 @ ghz ? what are you talking about ? that is ligning fast. if it can go up to 1.8 ghz that woul be like a p4 @ 3800 mhz. meaning a dual 1.8 970 chip wil outperform every x86 system on this world.. that is fast enough for me.

Not really. A PPC 970 1.8 GHZ is not going to be 80% faster than a PPC 970 1 GHZ. Maybe 40-50% at most. And a duel proccessor does not double the speed either. You're looking at about the equivalant of the current Intel Pentium 4 3.6 GHZ at most, in special tasks only.

[maraczc]

Originally posted by ozubahn
I don't understand you, maraczc. This is at least the second thread you have used to complain about how outdated, overpriced, and generally worthless your new iBook is. Why did you buy the thing anyway? You are obviously the perfect candidate for a new PC laptop, so why didn't you get one of those instead? Is it just that you didn't bother to do any research first?

Since when does this forum have rules against complaining or saying that Apple is not perfect?

[ericthemacpope]

Originally posted by maraczc
Since when does this forum have rules against complaining or saying that Apple is not perfect?
it doesn't. it's called common courtesy, not letting everyone know about every single problem you have ever had

[maraczc]

Originally posted by ericthemacpope
it doesn't. it's called common courtesy, not letting everyone know about every single problem you have ever had

I have never heard of this unspoken rule of not critisizing anything. Must be specifically Mac boards.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by maraczc
I have never heard of this unspoken rule of not critisizing anything. Must be specifically Mac boards.
Nope. Just people that whine to much ;)

[beatle888]

:eek: :p

[mattmack]

Originally posted by maraczc
All new PCs ship with USB 2.0, all of the ones I have seen that is. All Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, Compaq, HP, IBM, Alienware, and Dell (maybe not the Latitude, but probably that too) desktops and notebooks ship with USB 2.0 installed. As for firewire, I'd say that USB 2.0 is alot more convenient. USB 2.0 is faster and works on more periphrals. As well you spend more money getting firewire periphrals over USB ones. I'd prefer to have USB 2.0 ports instead of my firewire port, and I'm sure that many others feel the same way.
I wouldn't be sure of that. I use USB for mice, keyboards, printers, Joysticks and other low usage devices. If I am moving any signifagant amount of info (hard drive, DV camera, or scanner or cd-rw) they are plugged into my firewire bus. Its faster

[mattmack]

Originally posted by job
You do realize that this would probably drive up costs even further, right?

It's a vicious cycle. Newer better tech results in higher prices, thus people are less likely to purchase them until they drop in price, which in turn usually occurs when something better is available. ;)
I wouldn't say rambus is newer or signifagantly better than DDR. The cost is not worth the benefits you possibly could see

[Flynnstone]

Originally posted by maraczc
A PPC 970 1.8 GHZ is not going to be 80% faster than a PPC 970 1 GHZ. Maybe 40-50% at most

Actually a 1.8 GHz 970 will at most be 80% faster than a 1 GHz :D

I think RDRAM is effectively dead. Intel is favouring dual channel DDR-SDRAM over RDRAM now.

[Wyrm]

The only published scores that I know of for the 970 are SPEC-CPU2000 results:

Processor Clock int2k fp2k
IBM PowerPC 970 1.8GHz 937 1,051

Pentium4 2.7GHz 984 928
Athlon XP 2800+ 2.25GHz 933 843

So it will be in the same ballpark as a 2.7Ghz P4 at 1.8Ghz.
Where it will really shine is in Altivec enabled apps, but it should be a great all around general purpose cpu.

I'm sure we'll see Steve using a PPC970 render some Photoshop movie poster faster than a Xeon could do it. I mean, even the G4 could do this.

Maybe we should start calling it by it's name: PowerPC GigaProcessor. :D
(I'll leave out the "ultra-lite" part, sounds pretty wimpy)

-Wyrm

[beatle888]

this is a seriously iffy time for apple. im at the point now where im just numb to the whole thing. and that doesnt say much for apple since im one of their biggest fans.

[zer0army]

Originally posted by maraczc
I'd say that USB 2.0 is alot more convenient.

Oh yea its great having to plug in an extra power source since USB 2 can't power devices anywhere near as well as Firewire. Like the new ipod usb2 cable for example.

really convenient USB 2
:rolleyes:

[markomarko]

Originally posted by maraczc
All new PCs ship with USB 2.0, all of the ones I have seen that is. All Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, Compaq, HP, IBM, Alienware, and Dell (maybe not the Latitude, but probably that too) desktops and notebooks ship with USB 2.0 installed. As for firewire, I'd say that USB 2.0 is alot more convenient. USB 2.0 is faster and works on more periphrals. As well you spend more money getting firewire periphrals over USB ones. I'd prefer to have USB 2.0 ports instead of my firewire port, and I'm sure that many others feel the same way.

Look at some benchmarks. It's slower. It's not used for DV for a reason. That's a fact Jack.

[markomarko]

Where the speed is really needed is in big-data projects, like DV rendering/compositing. Too many people took Charlie White's benchmarks at DigitalVideoEditing.com (later reposted at Adobe's site in the "preferred platform" incident), which compared a 3.06 P4 to a powermac G4 dual 1.25, to heart and without suspicion. FYI, the 1.25 is no longer the fastet mac. Moreover, Dave Nagel of CreativeMac.com later pointed out a trick which would double the speed of After Effects renders on a mac using a tool included with the AE production bundle. What did the trick do? It used both processors. If Charlie were to run the AE benchmarks again, using this trick on the 3.06 P4 and the current dual G4, the P4 would get slaughtered. The truth is out there if anyone would bother to look.
So quit yer goddam whining already.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Seems to me like we've got a troll who's acting like a Mac user but is really an Intel sychophant.

Trust me, the new chips will be very competitive performance-wise. Remember this, the G4 doesn't put up bad numbers with its bottleneck. I'm sure the G4 could remain rather competitive if Moto had continued to put real effort into it and pushed the bus speed up to 800 MHZ and the clock rate to 1.8 GHZ. A dual-970 running at 1.8GHZ with a 900MHZ FSB will hold its own and beat the Xeon and the P4 in many benchmarks. There are some other improvements that can be made to the architecture, but I'm sure IBM will continuously improve the chips, unlike Moto.

[Kethoticus]

I think the reason competitive speeds are necessary on the Mac is perception, which in turn affects business.

If corporate offices or animation/post houses could be motivated to take a second look at Apple because of their speeds, then that would trickle down to consumer sales. That could explode the Mac market share.

A second issue raised here was whether or not the new 970s would be competitive with the latest 64-bit versions of the x86 offerings. I didn't read all the links provided, so maybe I'm off here. But, if a 1GHz 970 is equivalent to a 2GHz P4, what on earth is wrong with that? The rumored introductory speeds of this chip are supposed to top out at 1.8GHz. Let's assume with overhead and everything that this means it would be equivalent to a 3GHz P4. Say by then Intel has released a 4GHz P4. I think that being 3/4 of the way there to performance parity is an awful lot better than being nearly 2/5 of the way there now. I never expected the 970 to suddenly leapfrog us over the x86 world. Just getting that close would be a great start. Just as long as IBM doesn't rest on its laurels, Apple will be fine.

I do believe however that one drawback to all this is that nothing's been officially announced yet--with the exception of the 970's existence by IBM last fall. None of us knows for certain if these chips will make their way into Macs, nevermind when.

Truth be known, all we have is hearsay, folks. Let's wait to see what Apple announces--or fails to announce--this summer before we start getting all worked up. I already have a PC, and am reluctantly ready to "jump ship" if Apple continues its current hardware ineptness. But I am sticking with the platform until my great patience and love for the platform dry up. And I think that we have all had enough nonsensical rumors the past several years to know that what we hear now and what Apple actually announces are usually very much different.

Let's relax folks, and just see what happens. Then let's get angry or happy.

[68k_575]

If Apple wants to go anywhere with these 970's, they have to take a page from AMD's book and advertise the speeds being different than they really are. They could say that a 1.8 GHz 970 is the same as a 3.6 P4, and it would take off, because what PC users want (even Internet and email types) is lots of MHz, whether they need it or not.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Catt
I can't remember any specific examples but I have read reviews where USB2 external CD-RWs have been faster than Firewire400 drives.

The main benefit of Firewire, as far as I can see, is that it has a greater capacity to power devices than USB 1.1 or USB 2.

If you remember the link, I'd love to read it. All the benchmarks I've seen had FireWire devices either level or faster by a substantial margin.

Mike.

[Catt]

Originally posted by 68k_575
If Apple wants to go anywhere with these 970's, they have to take a page from AMD's book and advertise the speeds being different than they really are. They could say that a 1.8 GHz 970 is the same as a 3.6 P4, and it would take off, because what PC users want (even Internet and email types) is lots of MHz, whether they need it or not.

Yeah but you have to be carefull. Some of AMD's equivalents are just not true, for example their 3200+ processor is actually about as fast as a P4 at 2.8 Ghz not a P4 at 3.2Ghz.
If Apple wants to play this game it needs to make sure it gets it right.