Xserve G5 Updates?

[MacRumors]

MacBidouille posts (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-06-30#6015) some unconfirmed (new source) rumors regarding Xserve updates.

They claim the Xserve will be upgraded to the G5 around September, and maintain that the PowerBook G5's will not be available before 2004 due to heat issues. Further notes claim that the Power5 is due in December, with PPC 980 chips arriving in 2004.

MacRumors readers have speculated about an Xserve update after the introduction of the new PowerMac G5's... and it does appear that Apple is offering Developers deep discounts on current Xserve and Xserve RAID units through July 31, 2003 -- causing some to speculate that they are attempting to clear out these items. No other evidence is yet available on these updates.

[Squire]

I wonder how fast one of those babies would transfer a DVD? Any idea on prices?

Squire

[KEL9000]

let the G6 rumors begin. Should I get a G5 or wait for the G6? When is the G6 going to be in powerbooks? Will it be dual core? Being 64 bit won't give it any performance gain. There is no comfirmation i am betting the G6 won't be released this year (2004)

what else are people going to say?

[Romanesq]

Yes, I am definitely waiting for a G6 Powerbook. I will not settle for less. I must have it as it shoots fire out of its arse.

Yes, I am definitely waiting. For Godot too.

[Mr. Anderson]

The article on the 980 indicated mono-core, but topping out at 4.5 to 5 GHz you almost don't need dual cores. Those things will be fantastic!

I really do wonder when we'll see them in Macs, though. Could the G5 have a short lifespan in the PowerMacs ( < year) and then go on to the iMacs and PowerBooks when the 980 comes out late next year?

This is so different than using Motorola chips - waiting years to get small improvements.....

D :D

[stefman]

I will die if I have to wait till 2004 for a G5 PB.

[MorganX]

If you watched the WWDC video Apple said the G5 wouldn't be in the PB any time soon due to cooling reqirements.

Because of that I doubt it goes in an XServe any time soon. Even the low voltage Itanium is going in a 2U chassis.

That would be some feat though if they could go from 9 fans in a tower to 1U or 2U in a month or two.

[eric67]

Dear all,
to avoid mistake due to double translation you can now find the english version of macbidouille.com on the following site :

http://us.macbidouille.com

Regards

[adamfilip]

oh yeah i cant wait.. a Quad g6 in my new 20" OLED powerbook
with a new hydrogen fuel cell!, 12 gigs of nanotube static memory. a 500gb 1" 20,000 rpm SATA hard drive with 32mb buffer

hope its no more then 1/2" thick. and weighs no more then 2 lbs.
cause then i wont be able to carry it to the park and surf the web!

:)

[chilly]

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacBidouille posts (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-06-30#6015) some unconfirmed (new source) rumors ...

and maintain that the PowerBook G5's will not be available before 2004 due to heat issues.

The original French actually says that most of the heat problems have been solved already, but the main problem is the controller chip on the motherboard.

[anonymous161]

I think that sometime next year or in '05 Apple will switch to the 980 rather quietly. By that I mean not change the name from g5 to g6 but keep g5, especially since the 980 is still single core I believe, and just say it "super new and improved". Call is the g5.5 or something. Then with the '990' or the '1010' or whatever IBM comes up with that is multi-core, then change the name to G6. I don't know, I am not in marketing, but it just seems kind of a waste to change the names of chips so fast, it makes people think the old chip was no good.

[MetallicPenguin]

Wait...at the keynote, did Steve say they were going to get to 3GHz by the end of the year or within a year?

[akushlan]

SUPPOSEDLY he had his mike off, and mentioned to someone that they would have 3GHz by the end of the year, and the screen actually said that within a year they would be at 3GHz+

[zedwards]

That wacky french site pulling rumors out of its arse.

I have heard from undocumented and unconfirmed sources that they will upgrade ipods BEFORE 2005, they will dicontinue G3, although the actual date has not yet been confirmed. This may be a long shot, but they will also lower the price of all LCD monitors by at least $200. Finally, the next revision to the PowerMac line WILL be the G6 before the year 2010, despite rumors of it being a G5b. So keep these predictions in mind before making any buying decisions.

Although these predictions will come true, remember that there are 9 fans in the G5, so dont get your undies in a bunch for the new PB to have the 970.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by MorganX
If you watched the WWDC video Apple said the G5 wouldn't be in the PB any time soon due to cooling reqirements.

Because of that I doubt it goes in an XServe any time soon. Even the low voltage Itanium is going in a 2U chassis. The 970 was designed for IBMs blade servers, which are higher density than the Xserve. Its heat output is not much greater than that of the G4 that its replacing. Also, in a rack environment, you're not concerned about minimizing noise or power comsumption like you are in a more conventional one (although low-power / low-heat is nice, its not worth sacrificing performance for unless you've gotten crazy with the numbers, which the 970 shouldn't).

-Richard

[macounaima]

There is slight misunderstanding in, the translation regarding the powerbooks G5 update.
I'm french so I should know.
Anyhow the mcbidouille article says that the heat issues have been resolved, (apple has a pretty good experience regarding heat/powerbook with the G4) the problem they have with the powerbook is regarding the chipset.
Frankly I don't know what it means but it's what it says.

[Fender2112]

What are the major differences between the 970 and 980? Is it basicly the same chip just a .09 vs .13 process with some speed bumps?

This may help me decide which machine I get later in the year.

[asim]

Originally posted by MorganX

...
That would be some feat though if they could go from 9 fans in a tower to 1U or 2U in a month or two.

it is my understanding that the g5 tower has so many fans so that they can be individually regulated based upon regional heat requirements. this allows them to run slow (or be turned off) when not needed, with the practical upshot of being very quiet

the x-serve would not need to be as acoustically efficient as a desktop (or deskbottom, really... does anyone keep these up top anymore?) and might be able to get by with two or three fans going full time

afc

[praetorian_x]

Originally posted by macounaima
There is slight misunderstanding in, the translation regarding the powerbooks G5 update.
I'm french so I should know.
Anyhow the mcbidouille article says that the heat issues have been resolved, (apple has a pretty good experience regarding heat/powerbook with the G4) the problem they have with the powerbook is regarding the chipset.
Frankly I don't know what it means but it's what it says.

*Finally*, an explaination that makes sense. I'm so, so, so very tired of all the 970s-run-too-hot-for-powerbooks comments. We *know* that the current 1ghz g4's in powerbooks are pumping out 20+ watts and that the (as yet unseen) 1.3 ghz 970 was supposed to be 18 watts. I've been screaming, in another thread, that the lack of a 970 pb is *not* heat related, and must be something else. Chipset delays make more sense, and would put the release closer rather than further away.

Cheers,
prat

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by MetallicPenguin
Wait...at the keynote, did Steve say they were going to get to 3GHz by the end of the year or within a year?

He said "Within a Year"

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by Fender2112
What are the major differences between the 970 and 980? Is it basicly the same chip just a .09 vs .13 process with some speed bumps?

This may help me decide which machine I get later in the year.

Not much is known on the 980 but you might see

1. Simultaneous Multithreading. Splitting the chips into two logical CPUs ala Intels Hyperthreading..but better.

2. Better Cache. Probably 4-Way Set associative. Better than the 970s Direct Mapped cache

3. Possibly a built in Memory controller. No need for a FSB with built in MC

We'll know more once IBM announces the POWER5. Don't expect the 980 anytime soon. 2005 would be the very earliest you would see it. Most likely 2H 2005 at the earliest.

[Pete_Hoover]

Makes sense to update the xserves before the powerbooks. The heat issue thing with them sucks, though. Hope they can get them solved my next August.

[scan300]

It makes sense to the design industry that G5 Xserves are part of the picture in the August to October period. Together with the release of Quark 6 and G5 PCs, a pent-up design industry will have an appetite to upgrade.

The whole package will make server-based collaborative design workflows reaaly scream.

Now's the time to polish up your applescript.

[Pete_Hoover]

Originally posted by macounaima
There is slight misunderstanding in, the translation regarding the powerbooks G5 update.
I'm french so I should know.
Anyhow the mcbidouille article says that the heat issues have been resolved, (apple has a pretty good experience regarding heat/powerbook with the G4) the problem they have with the powerbook is regarding the chipset.
Frankly I don't know what it means but it's what it says.

Thanks for the clarification, and by the way, welcome to MacRumors.

[frozenstar]

EDIT: Decided the post was in bad taste.

[P-Worm]

Well, G5 Xserves are deffinately the next step. I expectd the G5 to hit the Xserve about when these guys are saying they will, so I believe it.

P-Worm

[scan300]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

We'll know more once IBM announces the POWER5. Don't expect the 980 anytime soon. 2005 would be the very earliest you would see it. Most likely 2H 2005 at the earliest.

In the video 'Introduction to the G5', John Kelly, SVP of Technology Group states that the prototypes of the next generation PPC has already been built.

Now I would think he means the POWER5 and/or the 980. How long it will take them to get to fab from prototype is a guess, but I think that their new fabricating facility will be a big factor in how quick they can bring the new chips to market.

For Jobs to forcast 3Ghz in a year, (when the official line from Apple is always mum about future products) is significant. Jobs wants the world to be confident that Apple is aggressive and a stayer in the PC market.

[Frobozz]

Well, Apple has said that within one year it will hit 3.0 Ghz. That puts it at next June. MacBidouille, and probably the public info on the 970 if I weren't too lazy to look it up, would peg the 970 at maxing out around 2.5 to 2.8 GHz.

The 980 will be available in 2004. Assuming the 3.0 GHz by next June statement by Jobs is true, this will be a 980 chip.

Interesting.

So... is the 980 going to be a "G5" or a "G6"? I don't know about you guys but I don't know if Apple will release another Mobo architecture to compliment the 980. If they don't, I wouldn't plan on a G6 moniker. The current mobo & basic case design havr been in use, with modification here and there, since the B&W G3's in 97. That's approx. 4.5 years.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by akushlan
SUPPOSEDLY he had his mike off, and mentioned to someone that they would have 3GHz by the end of the year, and the screen actually said that within a year they would be at 3GHz+

SUPPOSEDLY he also said something about a PDA/phone/tablet/TiVo thingy and a takeover bid of Sony. Strictly off the mike, of course.

[Tue12]

About 3Ghz....

Jobs' exact words were, "within 12 months", they'll be at 3Ghz.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by rjstanford
The 970 was designed for IBMs blade servers, which are higher density than the Xserve. Its heat output is not much greater than that of the G4 that its replacing. Also, in a rack environment, you're not concerned about minimizing noise or power comsumption like you are in a more conventional one (although low-power / low-heat is nice, its not worth sacrificing performance for unless you've gotten crazy with the numbers, which the 970 shouldn't).

-Richard

Not worried about power or noise, though the quieter the better. I'd worry about system failure or glitches. Given the fans and the size of the heat sinks, I'd be surprised if they can get it in a 1U server. They may be able to, but I'll need to see it to beleive it. Right now the G5 case appears to be one big vent.

[Ja Di ksw]

This comes from MacBidouille? Now, while I'm not saying whether I think its right or wrong, I DEFINITELY remember, during all the 970 rumors, MacBidouille posted in here that, whether or not they turned out to be right about the 970, they would not post any more rumors. Why do rumor sites keep doing this? Macwhispers seems to have it down to an art form they do it so much (though they usually say its because they were wrong about one rumor or another). Anyway, just pointing something out.

[altivec 2003]

Originally posted by P-Worm
Well, G5 Xserves are deffinately the next step. I expectd the G5 to hit the Xserve about when these guys are saying they will, so I believe it.

P-Worm

I belive it too, but for a different reason. My dad was telling me that he was going to try to get a free g5 xserve from apple to test it for his science. It really appeals to him becuase of the now double precesion vector abilities. He told me that he had talked to somebody (david addelson, who appeared on the apple website for mapping the cow genome. Dr. Adelson worked with apple closely on setting up xserves) who mentioned the xserve g5 coming out atleast by the end of this year. September might be a little early but I don't know. I do, however, believe that Dr. Adelson is a good, reliable source who wouldn't just make something up like that. It would be really good if my dad were to get a free xserve g5 and like it cause he is the head of Texas A&M's supercomputer committee and can try to get the university to by a lot of them. That would be good for apple too......

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by scan300
For Jobs to forcast 3Ghz in a year, (when the official line from Apple is always mum about future products) is significant.

Apple and IBM actually did not forecast. If you listen to the keynote, you will see that they "committed" to delivering a 3 Ghz part in the next 12 months. No admittedly I would take anything that any company says with a large grain of salt, but given that Apple never says *anything* about future hardware, let alone committing to a roadmap, I would say that this is a very significant announcement. I would be quite surprised if they did not follow through and deliver on this one.

Incidentally, in that kind of time frame I doubt that the 3 Ghz part would be a Power 5 derived "PPC 980". After all, the real Power 5 will have only been shipping for a few months at that point! More likely a 90 nm PPC 970 part, but even that should be more than a match for Intel's "Prescott" ("Pentium 5?") or AMD's Lateron (Athlon 64). Remember, when they switch to 90 nm, not only will they crank up the clock and reduce heat, but they will also almost surely double the L2 cache to 1 MB (or possibly even more), much like Prescott and Lateron.

[altivec 2003]

Originally posted by MorganX
Not worried about power or noise, though the quieter the better. I'd worry about system failure or glitches. Given the fans and the size of the heat sinks, I'd be surprised if they can get it in a 1U server. They may be able to, but I'll need to see it to beleive it. Right now the G5 case appears to be one big vent.

The noise on the xserve is probably not a problem at all because i think that most organizations that would buy one would put it in a dedicated machine room where noise really doesn't matter. Its not like the g5 which goes into the same room as the person operating it and can drive that person mad :rolleyes:. I think that my g4 533 is even very loud :(. I hope the g5s are quieter than that. Apple did compare them to the newest g4s but I am not sure how my computer compares to the dual 1.42 in terms of noise.

[eric67]

Originally posted by Pete_Hoover
Thanks for the clarification, and by the way, welcome to MacRumors.

Thank you for welcoming newbie, actually I have the feeling that some of the macrumors.com forum users do not really like european or more specifically french mac-related web sites or users??
by the way I should really mentionne it again there is a english version of the macbidouille.com news : http://us.macbidouille.com
this will avoid to fire to french web sites due to missundertanding or mistake during french->translation usually performed with some automatic translation engine...

[Frobozz]

Some more evidence for my "3.0 GHz G5 next June" hypothesis....

We'll probably need something along the lines of a 3.0-3.5 Ghz 980 to double the speed of 2.0 970. Apple would want to double the speed of their machines every 18 months to stay abreast with Moore's law, but we all know the heat will be on to improve their machines eeven faster than Intel/AMD can.

We're now going to face the reality that, given identical architectures, to double the speed of a 2.0 Ghz 970 you'd need a 4.0 Ghz 970 or equivalent. So, in a sense, IBM has to be able to ramp up the clock speed fast. A 200 or 300 Mhz jump is mere child's play now. Mmmmmm. I've been waiting to say those words for a long time now.

If Apple says it's hitting 3.0 GHz by next June (one year from now), and that part can only be a 980 (evidence supports this), then we will DOUBLE the speed of the current dual processor systems next June.

That's a statement even I wouldn't expect to say. But hear me out. If the 980 is, say, 35% more efficient per clock cycle than the 970, then a 4.05 Ghz 970 ~ 3.0 Ghz 980. As we all know, 2 x 2 = 4. :-)

Obviously this is all just for fun, but it is interesting.

Quite frankly, I'd buy a new G5 with a Radeon 9800 pro right now if I had some extra cash. I'm not going to wait for anything in particular now that the G5 is out. However, I am in the market for a laptop and I will have to buy sometime in the next 6 months. Fingers are crossed for a 1.4 Ghz G5 PowerBook by January!

[michaelrjohnson]

eric67, welcome!

now, i'm glad that people have gotten over the hype of the G5 and realized that the G5 is awesome, and an integral part of Apple's future, but the real exciting part is the partnership between Apple and IBM.

As Mr. Anderson stated, this is SUCH a HUGE change from waiting a few years for minor upgrades from Motorola and already there is serious (valid) discussion of the G5's successor!!!! the machines' haven't even shipped!!!!!! Does anybody realize the potential??? Apple and IBM won't end this partnership anytime soon and that gives us, Mac users, the unbelieveable edge of now having Industry-leading equipment, superior OS, ALL AT THE SAME TIME FOR YEARS TO COME!!!

AAAAAGH!!!
{whew}
I'm okay...
{sigh}
Can't wait till MWSF! Can you?

[altivec 2003]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Some more evidence for my "3.0 GHz G5 next June" hypothesis....

We'll probably need something along the lines of a 3.0-3.5 Ghz 980 to double the speed of 2.0 970. Apple would want to double the speed of their machines every 18 months to stay abreast with Moore's law, but we all know the heat will be on to improve their machines eeven faster than Intel/AMD can.

We're now going to face the reality that, given identical architectures, to double the speed of a 2.0 Ghz 970 you'd need a 4.0 Ghz 970 or equivalent. So, in a sense, IBM has to be able to ramp up the clock speed fast. A 200 or 300 Mhz jump is mere child's play now. Mmmmmm. I've been waiting to say those words for a long time now.

If Apple says it's hitting 3.0 GHz by next June (one year from now), and that part can only be a 980 (evidence supports this), then we will DOUBLE the speed of the current dual processor systems next June.

That's a statement even I wouldn't expect to say. But hear me out. If the 980 is, say, 35% more efficient per clock cycle than the 970, then a 4.05 Ghz 970 ~ 3.0 Ghz 980. As we all know, 2 x 2 = 4. :-)

Obviously this is all just for fun, but it is interesting.

Quite frankly, I'd buy a new G5 with a Radeon 9800 pro right now if I had some extra cash. I'm not going to wait for anything in particular now that the G5 is out. However, I am in the market for a laptop and I will have to buy sometime in the next 6 months. Fingers are crossed for a 1.4 Ghz G5 PowerBook by January!

I see what you are saying, but I think that it might be a little optimistic to think that apple is going to double their processor speed every year. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3.0 ghz were a 970, and I would be surprised if apple switched to a new chip so quickly (ok... the 980 is similar, but I don't think that apple has ever gotten a new chip in such little time. Of course we all hope that ibm will be a million times better than motorolla....). I think you have a better chance of getting a g5 powerbook in January, but then again, apple said that you wouldn't. Well, all I can say is good luck.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by stefman
I will die if I have to wait till 2004 for a G5 PB.

I hope you will not die, because they aren't coming till 2004.

2004 - 980 sounds good.

[scan300]

Originally posted by MorganX
Not worried about power or noise, though the quieter the better. I'd worry about system failure or glitches. Given the fans and the size of the heat sinks, I'd be surprised if they can get it in a 1U server. They may be able to, but I'll need to see it to beleive it. Right now the G5 case appears to be one big vent.

There is room for some design rethink inside the Xserve. Remember it has a PCI slot with room around it so that it can have a graphics card installed and be used as a workstation.

The new desktop G5 makes that idea redundant, so they could make use of that PCI real estate for a different config, and accommodate some nifty heat dissipation design.

[Veldek]

As I read on heise.de yesterday, the Power5 should be out in the first half of 2004. So December seems a bit too early and we won't see the 980 before the second half of 2004 if I believe in the article. I don't expect them to arrive before beginning of 2005 to be honest. And it is extremely improbable that Apple will bring out the G6 (or whatever it will be called) in less than a year after the G5 in my eyes.

Here's the link (in German):
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/as-30.06.03-000/

[ouketii]

perhaps xserve will be spun off to using different chips than te desktops.... like ibm's server chips. then again, xserve tech feuled the g4 powermac

[altivec 2003]

Originally posted by ouketii
perhaps xserve will be spun off to using different chips than te desktops.... like ibm's server chips. then again, xserve tech feuled the g4 powermac

i was thinking that too. At first I thought that it would be a great idea for apple to use the power 4 or power 5 chips in the xserves, but now I don't really think so. I think that most people who would want an xserve (or atleast a good portion) would want the high clock speeds of the g5 for their work. Yes, the power 4 and power 5 are more stable, but I really don't think that the xserves are only used for servers. They also make good clusters and alternatives for supercomputers.

[cooper13]

Originally posted by frozenstar
Let's sum up what you said....

- Upgraded iPods within the next 18 months.
- Eventual discontinuation of the G3.
- Possible price reduction on monitors.
- Successor to the G5 within the next six years.

Okay, now it's my turn...

- The Earth will continue to revolve around the sun.
- It will snow in New York next winter.
- Intel will still be manufacturing chips in five years.
- Upgraded PowerBook before 2020.


Get the point?

I think that was his/her point! It's called being facetious.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by eric67
Thank you for welcoming newbie, actually I have the feeling that some of the macrumors.com forum users do not really like european or more specifically french mac-related web sites or users??
Please don't read too much into the insults that some people on this message board use. Those people are too quick to believe the anti-French propaganda put out by our current government.

The majority of people on this message board, and in the US have nothing against France and love our European neighbors.

I also wanted to say that Macbidouille is a very accurate source of Mac information and we appreciate the work you do. Thanks again for your efforts.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
This comes from MacBidouille? Now, while I'm not saying whether I think its right or wrong, I DEFINITELY remember, during all the 970 rumors, MacBidouille posted in here that, whether or not they turned out to be right about the 970, they would not post any more rumors. Why do rumor sites keep doing this? Macwhispers seems to have it down to an art form they do it so much (though they usually say its because they were wrong about one rumor or another). Anyway, just pointing something out.
Please don't compare MacBidouille and MacWhispers. MacBidouille has been very accurate and consistent with it's 970 rumors. The only thing they were wrong about was the immediate availability of PowerMac G5s. Their benchmarks were spot on, and nobody even believed them at the time because there are so many ignorant people on these forums that think anything from a French site should be taken as if it came from the Iraqi minister of information.

After the truth of their 970 rumors has been seen first hand, why would you now doubt their sources?

[painandgreed]

It only makes sence that the G5 would end up in their server line ASAP. It's a much better chip and database servers are one of the things that will greatly benefit from a 64 bit OS. Hopefully the same for web, video editing, and rendering.

980? I suspect we'll see at least one speed bumb in the next 6 months just because IBM will want to get their money. 980's will most likely also be called G5 and the only difference the average user will notice will be proc speed listed on the box. Probably having 970's in the low end and 980's in the high end as per speed avialable. I would hope for at least 20% speed bumps every four months just to keep up sales and competition with Intel. That will all depend on IBM, but hopefully they'll do better than Motorola

[arn]

Originally posted by illumin8
Their benchmarks were spot on

I don't think their benchmarks are yet confirmed.

arn

[arn]

Originally posted by eric67
Thank you for welcoming newbie, actually I have the feeling that some of the macrumors.com forum users do not really like european or more specifically french mac-related web sites or users??
by the way I should really mentionne it again there is a english version of the macbidouille.com news : http://us.macbidouille.com
this will avoid to fire to french web sites due to missundertanding or mistake during french->translation usually performed with some automatic translation engine...

thanks for the tip (the us version) -- and, yes, the vast majority of the people on this site are not anti-european. There are a significant number of europeans who visit this site.

The anti-whoever users will be banned as they appear. :)

arn

[Ja Di ksw]

Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't comparing the sources, or reliability, or anything like that, of MacBidouille to MacWhispers. As I said, I'm not saying whether or not I believe this rumor is right or wrong, and I certainly never said ANYTHING about people being French or Iraqi or American or Russian or anything of that sort. All I said was, THEY (MacBidouille) said they were no longer going to do any rumors after WWDC, even if they were right. Then, after saying they were no longer going to post rumors, here they are doing it again. That is what I was comparing to MacWhispers, not anything else. Sorry for the confusion.

(Yes, I believe in being polite, and no, that's not an invitation to try to walk all over me or insult me, as others have done in here, though not in this thread. Just because I'm polite does not me I will back down from someone who can be 'louder'. Though, that being said, I'm not a stubborn fool who will keep arguing even when its shown I'm wrong)

edit: I guess this would be as good enough time as any to ask, how do you quote someone else with the bars and bold font? Thanks

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
All I said was, THEY (MacBidouille) said they were no longer going to do any rumors after WWDC, even if they were right.
I remember reading that comment as well, and I think there was something lost in the translation. The impression that I got from that comment that came out before WWDC was "if we are wrong we will withdraw from the Mac rumors community." I think they were very confident that they were right, and at the time were receiving a lot of flack for publishing benchmarks that seemed so much higher than even PC benchmarks.

I think time will prove that even though their benchmark numbers might have been a little off, the variances would seem normal considering they were run on pre-production hardware and a beta version of OS X 10.2.7.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by arn
I don't think their benchmarks are yet confirmed.
You are correct, I guess nothing is really confirmed until the G5s have shipped and have been benchmarked by the major sites, but what I meant was their benchmarks seem to jive with the benchmarks that Apple has released at WWDC. Any variances could probably be explained by using beta versions of OS X 10.2.7 on pre-production hardware.

[fpnc]

About the MacBidouille G5 benchmarks:

Originally posted by illumin8
Their benchmarks were spot on...

I think that is unproven. In fact, I feel certain that those benchmarks were completely fabricated (i.e. fake). I'm not suggesting that MacBidouille tried to mislead us, just that they may have put too much faith in their source.

[Veldek]

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
edit: I guess this would be as good enough time as any to ask, how do you quote someone else with the bars and bold font? Thanks

Look at the little "quote" button at the bottom right of each post.

[ddtlm]

Frobozz:

Well, Apple has said that within one year it will hit 3.0 Ghz. That puts it at next June. MacBidouille, and probably the public info on the 970 if I weren't too lazy to look it up, would peg the 970 at maxing out around 2.5 to 2.8 GHz. The 980 will be available in 2004. Assuming the 3.0 GHz by next June statement by Jobs is true, this will be a 980 chip.
I'm pretty torn between the two sides of the 970 vs 980 arguement:

View A: If we assume that the 980 is based on the Power5 it is not hard to believe that IBM will have designed it in paralell. IBM could very concievably be ready to ship 90nm PPC980's at the end of summer 2004.

View B: It would be very unusual (and expensive) for IBM to replace a processor design after only a year on the market because it would have a reduced money-making period to pay back R&D. While they could keep the 970 around in 90nm tech for lower-end Macs, I wonder if there is enough market to profitably support 980's and 970's at once. IBM might gain more from simply producing only one line of chips but with multiple L2 cache sizes to target different markets.

[ryan]

Please somebody point to an article where IBM has even mentioned '980.'

I can't believe how people are getting into the same mind set they had when Motorola was rumored to be working on the G5, and look what happened, nothing! I'm sure we'll see faster/better processors from IBM down the line but any speculation as to when, speed, or even the model number is a waste of time.

[ddtlm]

ryan:

Unlike the Moto G5 rumorfest, Apple has publicly announced that the sucessor to the current IBM G5 is well on the way.

[AidenShaw]

Think bigger!

Most of these posts are about squeezing a 970 into a 1U Xserve chassis - what a limiting idea.

In the server world, 1U systems are the low end - what you get when you need to do many small problems.... You don't buy 1U for big problems. In the Intel world, Xeons and Itaniums do the heavy lifting, and the 1U systems are just now making the transition from Pentium III to Pentium 4 (Xeon).

I will bet that the G5 will show up in a much more "enterprise" system in a 3U or even 4U chassis. I'd expect it to have:

o support for 32GiB of RAM or more (maybe not initially, but with future denser DIMMs)

o 4 to 6 hot-swap PCI-X slots

o 6 or more internal disks, probably with embedded hardware RAID with battery backup

o redundant hot-swap power supplies, redundant hot-swap fans

o ECC memory, redundant (RAID) and hot swap DIMMs

o multiple GigE NICs on the mobo

o ILO (integrated lights out) capabilities

--------

Look at HP, IBM and Dell servers in the 3U/4U class - you'll see all this and more. Apple needs a system like this to be taken seriously.

Apple could keep the existing G4 1U Xserve as is, and add the 3U G5 as the high end server.

Bookmark this post - I'll bet that by a year from now this system will be in Apple's lineup. (1)

-as


(1) Disclaimer - I won't bet on ECC, Apple seems to be spectacularly stupid about not dealing with the issue of transient memory errors.

[ddtlm]

AidenShaw:

Thats a very narrow view of the rackmount computer market. 3U and 1U machines tend to be aimed at totally different customers. The 3U customer wants all that reliability stuff (for a server), the 1U customer often wants as much processing power per volume as possible (for a cluster).

the 1U systems are just now making the transition from Pentium III to Pentium 4 (Xeon)
Dual CPU Athlons and Xeons are not a new thing at all.

[daveL]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Think bigger!

Most of these posts are about squeezing a 970 into a 1U Xserve chassis - what a limiting idea.

In the server world, 1U systems are the low end - what you get when you need to do many small problems.... You don't buy 1U for big problems. In the Intel world, Xeons and Itaniums do the heavy lifting, and the 1U systems are just now making the transition from Pentium III to Pentium 4 (Xeon).

I will bet that the G5 will show up in a much more "enterprise" system in a 3U or even 4U chassis. I'd expect it to have:

o support for 32GiB of RAM or more (maybe not initially, but with future denser DIMMs)

o 4 to 6 hot-swap PCI-X slots

o 6 or more internal disks, probably with embedded hardware RAID with battery backup

o redundant hot-swap power supplies, redundant hot-swap fans

o ECC memory, redundant (RAID) and hot swap DIMMs

o multiple GigE NICs on the mobo

o ILO (integrated lights out) capabilities

--------

Look at HP, IBM and Dell servers in the 3U/4U class - you'll see all this and more. Apple needs a system like this to be taken seriously.

Apple could keep the existing G4 1U Xserve as is, and add the 3U G5 as the high end server.

Bookmark this post - I'll bet that by a year from now this system will be in Apple's lineup. (1)

-as


(1) Disclaimer - I won't bet on ECC, Apple seems to be spectacularly stupid about not dealing with the issue of transient memory errors.
Well ... I have to disagree. This post also addresses another post about Xserver and Sun. Apple is NOT attempting to compete with the mainline *nix server vendors. Why not just take a handful of asparins and slit your wrists? If you're in touch with the industry at all, you know that none of the enterprise *nix vendors are doing very well, not because of MS or itanium (which sucks so much power it's unreal), but because IT capital spending has dried up. Now you want me to believe the Apple is actively seeking out this market? I don't think so.

A typical IT server isn't concerned about FP or vector units. I think Apple's server strategy, using the G5 (NOT the Power4), is directed specificly at rendering and serving media, period. This is their sweet spot, this is what they know, and this is what, as a vertical market, has some margin in it. In short, Apple does not and will not compete with Sun/HP/IBM IT server platforms. They're too smart to do that.

To all those that think you can't build a 1U chasis with 1 -2 G5's - go do your homework. The G5 is a lot lower power than most CPUs out there *for the amount of real work they do*, particularly in the vertical space mentioned above (media). IBM plans to use this processor in blade configs, which have a *much* higher heat density then a 1-2 CPU 1U racked server.

BTW, Itanium doesn't do *any* "heavy lifting", yet. It consumes large amounts of power, cannot be packaged in dense enclosures, and has a *brand new*TM instruction set with very few applications.
What appications do exist are do, in large part, because HP and Intel have hung their hat on this CPU - and they are hurting badly because of the limited market acceptance, to date.

Hum, 1U is limiting ( I guess I'm taking the issues in reverse order, from the post). Interesting, given that, eventually, everything out there will be 1U. Look at what you can do in a laptop platform now, compared to 5 years ago. Remember the 8" floppy (don't take it personally). We're working toward higher densities - get it?

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by daveL
Well ... I have to disagree.
Thank you! Aiden has been very slow this week coming out to bash Apple since he messd up so badly about the G5s! Remember, Aiden said that there was no indication that Apple would opt for the 970s...or that IBM was working with them. And he had that from a highly respected sales rep of his who works for IBM. So much for inside info! BTW, Aiden, I wouldn't buy too much from this rep if I were you... he just might have a bridge..... well, you know.
So, Aiden, give it a bloody bone. For all the bashing, Apple is a stunning company that makes products in the Testarossa class, and yes, they do mess up once in a while, but those G5s will be shown (again) to be perfectly capable of equalling the furnace-like P4s...
And in the end, it is the OSX experience that really matters. It IS the crown jewel in a treasure trove of riches.
MS and Intel give us zircons... and even then, they are flawed.

[eric67]

Well for info here is the most recent news concerning the IBM Power5, directly from IBM :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31467.html

of course this is clear that we will not see PPC980 or PPC970rev in the PowerMac at the sasme date (early 2004), one can easily imagine that PPC980 or PPC970rev call it as you want, let say PPC970 follow ip, will probably be developped let say in parallele to the Power5. I remember clearly have read on the web, but I can not find the link, that it is actually the fact that the follow up of PPC970 is indeed already being in development... which is in a way normal, knowing the time you need to do so... so I think it give us at least 1 year to speculate.

[eric67]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Think bigger!

Most of these posts are about squeezing a 970 into a 1U Xserve chassis - what a limiting idea.

In the server world, 1U systems are the low end - what you get when you need to do many small problems.... You don't buy 1U for big problems. In the Intel world, Xeons and Itaniums do the heavy lifting, and the 1U systems are just now making the transition from Pentium III to Pentium 4 (Xeon).



it could be named Xstation Enterprise server as I has already been speculated , so anyway the next place for the G5 is definetely the Xserve, way before the PowerBook.

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by ddtlm
I'm pretty torn between the two sides of the 970 vs 980 arguement:

View A: If we assume that the 980 is based on the Power5 it is not hard to believe that IBM will have designed it in paralell. IBM could very concievably be ready to ship 90nm PPC980's at the end of summer 2004.

View B: It would be very unusual (and expensive) for IBM to replace a processor design after only a year on the market because it would have a reduced money-making period to pay back R&D. While they could keep the 970 around in 90nm tech for lower-end Macs, I wonder if there is enough market to profitably support 980's and 970's at once. IBM might gain more from simply producing only one line of chips but with multiple L2 cache sizes to target different markets.

It's surprising to me how many people I see doubting how quickly IBM and Apple could bring the 980 to market given how WAY ahead of schedule they were with the 970. I think ddtlm is right in that it isn't hard to believe they've been working on the 980 in paralell with the Power5, I would say it is a sure thing they have been and we will see 980 Pro Macs far sooner than even they are hinting at. Maybe it's just that we Mac users are so used to Motorola-induced dissapointment with our processor evolution. However I think we are all going to have to 'Think Different' (pardon the pun) about how quickly Apple ramps up it's processor family, now that we have IBM on our side. IBM is in this game to win, folks. This ain't your daddy's Mac.

I don't think it would be a bad thing to move the 970 to a consumer line of Macs and put the 980 in Pro Macs. By offering a consumer 64bit machine, people will still get the benefits of 64bit computing without having to pay pro prices.

But putting aside all of the 980/G6/G1,000,000 speculation...the G5 is here and is an awesome machine. It is the sign many in the creative industry have been waiting for, coupled with the Quirk release, to move to OSX AND new hardware. I think we will see a rather huge ramp up in Apple sales as a flood of loyal Mac users who have been in a holding pattern make the transition. It only spells great things for Apple which in turn spells great things for IBM which in turn will continue to develop better and faster chip technology for the Mac.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by rjwill246
Aiden has been very slow this week coming out to bash Apple since he messd up so badly about the G5s!

Actually, Aiden's been on a business trip...

And, by the way, how is it that suggesting that a 3U server would be good is considered to be "Apple-bashing"?



Remember, Aiden said that there was no indication that Apple would opt for the 970s...or that IBM was working with them. And he had that from a highly respected sales rep of his who works for IBM.

Ummm - please show me any official announcement (before the keynote) that Apple would be using the IBM chip. Anything. Lots of rumours, and hints, and speculation - but no announcements. I even said that it was probable that Apple would use the chip - but there were no announcements.

My IBM rep said nothing about Apple, I didn't even ask. I certainly didn't say anything here about my IBM salesman saying anything about Apple.

What I *did* say was that my IBM rep was telling me that it would be late cyQ3 or to be safe cyQ4 before the 970-powered IBM blades would be available.

And guess what, Apple is saying that they'll start shipping the G5 in September - that's late Q3 on my calendar. Any delays, and it'll be even closer to the Q4 that my IBM salesman said was the safe bet.

In other words, I think that my statements were closer to the mark than the rumours that hundreds of thousands of PPC970 chips had already been shipped to Asian factories....


And about that 3U system....

If you look at any big server farm, most of the time you'll find lots of 1U servers being fed by a larger system. This bigger system would be a file server or network controller for the rest.

The system doesn't need more power (although quads and octos often appear in this space) as much as it needs more slots (more Fibre Channel and Gigabit Ethernet cards) and memory than you find in a 1U.

One is also a bit more concerned with reliability of the bigger server, since when it goes down everything is down. That's why these systems usually have redundant power standard, have at least ECC or some kind of redundant memory (RAID for RAM), and hot-swap PCI cards, hot-swap RAM, hot-swap fans, hot-swap power supplies and the like.

I'm not saying replace the 1U with a 3U, and I'm not saying that G5 in a 1U can't or shouldn't be done.

The problem is that if someone needs a big file server for an Xserve cluster, they are forced to get an x86 Linux box or other UNIX system. When that happens, it leads to the question "why not all Linux, rather than support 2 operating systems?".

If you want Apple to do better in the server space, you don't want people asking that question.

[ddtlm]

Rustus Maximus:

It's surprising to me how many people I see doubting how quickly IBM and Apple could bring the 980 to market given how WAY ahead of schedule they were with the 970.
Heh, they aren't way ahead of schedule with the G5. Doubters such as me have been predicting timeframes around September for some time, even when all the "immediate shipping" hysteria was sweeping the land. Unless Apple ships significantly earlier than they are currently claiming they will, the G5 shipping date will not be a victory for the optimists. (A long time ago I would have predicted a shipping date 3-4 months later, but few people have argued that recently.)

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Heh, they aren't way ahead of schedule with the G5. Doubters such as me have been predicting timeframes around September for some time, even when all the "immediate shipping" hysteria was sweeping the land. Unless Apple ships significantly earlier than they are currently claiming they will, the G5 shipping date will not be a victory for the optimists. (A long time ago I would have predicted a shipping date 3-4 months later, but few people have argued that recently.)

Sorry, my comment wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed more at the crowd I was hearing who were predicting January or later 2004 as the G5 release. Maybe I am overly optimistic but an August release date seems okay to me given what the G5 seems capable of. And I know we won't know it's true performance level until some production units are put through their 'real world' tests. But given the present state of the Mac processor family...the G5 is a tremendous leap, and if they hold true to Steve's 3Ghz in 12 months or less soundbite, then it's going to be a bright future for Apple. Sooo, yeah...I AM optimistic ;)

[ddtlm]

Rustus Maximus:

Heh, optimists, I'll crush you! :D But seriously, if Apple increases clock speed (or performance) by 50% every year they may still be behind the curve. If AMD and Intel go at it again like the "good ol days", 50% in 12 months won't look so good.

[ddtlm]

Just for curiousity's sake, I went to look how fast AMD scaled clock speeds when they introduced the Athlon in August 1999. In 7 months they went from 600mhz to 1000mhz... 66% jump in 7 months.

[Rustus Maximus]

Right. But aren't they and Intel nearing the end of what they can do with the x86 technology? They will have to move to Itanium, etc. and they aren't as far along in the 64-bit game as IBM or Apple, are they?

Plus they have their own marketing to contend with. They have spent the last few years telling everyone that MHz or GHz speed is what matters...however that scale is all changed with the move to 64bit. Sure they may have a 5GHz Pentium 4 next year...but it will be 32bit. As the developers for Apple gear up to take advantage of their 'ready-now' 64bit processor, the G5 will be a screamer, with 64bit, OSX Panther software and applications and the internal architecture to take full advantage of the latest technology (s-ata, huge memory addressing capabilities, etc.).

Ever the optimist :D

Rustus

[ddtlm]

Rustus Maximus:

But aren't they and Intel nearing the end of what they can do with the x86 technology?
Yeah, just like Apple is always going to die "soon".

They have spent the last few years telling everyone that MHz or GHz speed is what matters...however that scale is all changed with the move to 64bit.
The 32/64 argument is pretty much hype and marketing for most people at this point, and I don't forsee it making all that big of a difference (in sales) just yet. Still, Intel would be all over 64-bit on the desktop if they weren't trying to avoid harming their Itanium. 64 bits are good, just maybe not important compared to other things Intel may be able to offer.

[frozenstar]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Still, Intel would be all over 64-bit on the desktop if they weren't trying to avoid harming their Itanium. 64 bits are good, just maybe not important compared to other things Intel may be able to offer.

Intel doesn't have a 64-bit chip that can run 32-bit code natively. That alone precludes them from entering the 64-bit desktop market.

[ddtlm]

frozenstar:

Intel could have and still can make a chip like that at any time, no sweat, in fact there was quite an internal debate about wether to make x86 64 bit or to do the Itanium. That debate didn't happen yesterday either, it was years ago. The only reason an Intel chip wasn't the first 64-bit "desktop" processor was because it contradicts their master (Itanium) plan.

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by ddtl
The 32/64 argument is pretty much hype and marketing for most people at this point, and I don't forsee it making all that big of a difference (in sales) just yet. Still, Intel would be all over 64-bit on the desktop if they weren't trying to avoid harming their Itanium. 64 bits are good, just maybe not important compared to other things Intel may be able to offer.

I didn't say Intel was going to die (brief imaginary trip into a brighter, happier world...) I said they are reaching the limits of the x86 architecture and will need to move on if they want to compete in the 64bit market. The developers will react to demand combined with the ability of the technology...if 64bit is feasible (and it is now) then they will move that way because we will want to move that way.


Originally posted by ddtlm
Intel could have and still can make a chip like that at any time, no sweat, in fact there was quite an internal debate about wether to make x86 64 bit or to do the Itanium. That debate didn't happen yesterday either, it was years ago. The only reason an Intel chip wasn't the first 64-bit "desktop" processor was because it contradicts their master (Itanium) plan.

Their master plan...

('Does anyone else hear the Imperial March from Star Wars playing?')

The reason they haven't and won't go to 64bits yet is eactly what frozenstar said, The Microsoft Megasaurus that is holding them back at 32bits. That coupled with all of the Orwellian aspects of the Itanium and Longhorn (Paladium) will spell trouble for the Wintel beast.

[frozenstar]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Intel could have and still can make a chip like that at any time, no sweat, in fact there was quite an internal debate about wether to make x86 64 bit or to do the Itanium. That debate didn't happen yesterday either, it was years ago. The only reason an Intel chip wasn't the first 64-bit "desktop" processor was because it contradicts their master (Itanium) plan.

No, the only reason an Intel chip wasn't the first 64-bit "desktop" processor is because they made a grave mistake in designing a chip that can not do 32-bit code natively.

Notice how they are only now scrambling to develop an IA32 emulator for the Itanium? Is that part of their "master plan" as well?

[ddtlm]

frozenstar:

Intel seems to have made multiple mistakes with the Itanium, but that has nothing to do with their ability to field a 64-bit desktop chip (which would presumably be x86-64 or similar). But on the IA-64 front, they are actually going to offer a lower voltage Itanium this year, which should cost under $1000 per chip. Har har!

Rustus Maximus:

Heh, you're a funny writer. ;) Anyway Intel and M$ are cojoined at the pocketbook, so I bet if Intel made an x86-64 chip then they'd have Windows for it within a reasonable amount of time. AMD at 64 bits, meh, M$ can only be bothered to respond eventually. Its not like Windows hasn't seen 64 bits before. They've ran NT and 2000 on Alphas, and newer versions on Itaniums.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Dual CPU Athlons and Xeons are not a new thing at all.

No, but the big three (IBM/HPaq/Dell) are fairly new to having 1U configs with Xeons. They were shipping Pentium III 1U servers until a few months ago - long after Xeons were available in 2U and larger servers.

In fact, Dell are still using Pentium III for their mid-line 1U servers.

[panphage]

Not meaning to hijack the thread back to the possibility of G5s in Xserves...anyone look at the Sneak Preview of Panther Server?


And I quote:
"Panther Server enables users to leverage the advanced capabilities of the new G5-based architecture , such as native double-precision (64-bit) arithmetic and support for more than 4GB of physical memory. " (Emphasis mine)

Of course they have to say that, it's true. But...such a statement is highly suggestive. That said, to me it is only a matter of how soon they put G5s in Xserves, not if. The new architecture seems much more attractive as a server architecture. SATA (hopefully w/hardware RAID?), 64-bit memory addressing, all that throughput. Here's to one kickass server.

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Heh, you're a funny writer. ;) Anyway Intel and M$ are cojoined at the pocketbook, so I bet if Intel made an x86-64 chip then they'd have Windows for it within a reasonable amount of time. AMD at 64 bits, meh, M$ can only be bothered to respond eventually. Its not like Windows hasn't seen 64 bits before. They've ran NT and 2000 on Alphas, and newer versions on Itaniums.

Thanks, and I suppose you are right, M$ will move eventually...no, they will, honest...just look at the mascot they've chosen for their next-generation OS. I mean, nothing moves fast like a cow...we all saw the keynote right? That thing was movin'!

But for the moment, we have an edge and hopefully Apple won't squander it. And panphage is right, how do we spiral off on these tangents :D .

Maybe they are waiting to put a faster 970 in the next Xserve...2.5 GHz? Or perhaps they're waiting for the move to the .09 process (which will help with the cooling issues). They'll intro new Xserves and Powerbooks as well as new PowerMac models maybe in a January, 2004 20th anniversary special event or something, in honor of the 1984 intro of the Mac.

[ryan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
ryan:

Unlike the Moto G5 rumorfest, Apple has publicly announced that the sucessor to the current IBM G5 is well on the way.
When? Where? Lets see a link.

[Rustus Maximus]

Well, I don't have a link to give you other than the usual rumor sites...but I did hear it mentioned in the keynote video which introed the G5. The IBM prez himself said they (IBM) was already well into development on the next generation processor.

Rustus

[ryan]

Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
Well, I don't have a link to give you other than the usual rumor sites...but I did hear it mentioned in the keynote video which introed the G5. The IBM prez himself said they (IBM) was already well into development on the next generation processor.

Rustus
Yes, but there was no specific mention of the G6/980 or a time frame.

I have no doubt we'll see next generation processors from IBM at some point but to be talking time frames or model numbers when G5/970 based systems aren't even shipping yet just doesn't make any sense.

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by ryan
Yes, but there was no specific mention of the G6/980 or a time frame.

I have no doubt we'll see next generation processors from IBM at some point but to be talking time frames or model numbers when G5/970 based systems aren't even shipping yet just doesn't make any sense.

He said next generation processor...I don't know what it will be called, if the name is changed at all, who knows? This thread started about speculation about when the G5 would show up in the Xserve. I guess it got sidetracked into a discussion on the IBM roadmap for their processors.

Besides this is a RUMORS site, it's ALL speculation (most of it ;)) I hope you don't come here hoping for infallible truth. If we are lucky they get a few right.

[Aditya]

Originally posted by adamfilip
oh yeah i cant wait.. a Quad g6 in my new 20" OLED powerbook
with a new hydrogen fuel cell!, 12 gigs of nanotube static memory. a 500gb 1" 20,000 rpm SATA hard drive with 32mb buffer

hope its no more then 1/2" thick. and weighs no more then 2 lbs.
cause then i wont be able to carry it to the park and surf the web!

:)

If "carry it to the park and surf the web" is all You want to do - even the PB-G3 does that well. You don't need a Porsche to go to the local 7-11...

[Rustus Maximus]

You've obviously never driven a Porsche to the 7-11. :D

[Aditya]

Originally posted by altivec 2003
I see what you are saying, but I think... ...Of course we all hope that ibm will be a million times better than motorolla...

You guys are all ditching MOTO with a big sigh, but You all forgetting a small detail. I'm a digital media professional and Mac's are designed for "us". The main advantage (and the "double" performance edge over Wintels) was the huge cache of the MOTO! I'm very dissappointed with the 512k on the G5 - I would have expected at least 2MB, if not more - then You'll see Bill sweating his head off!!! Before I have swithched I have used "old original Intel P-II Xenon with 2Mb cache and the performance boost against the same proc with only basic cache with 3D and VFX apps was enormous!!! Then I tried G3... ...and have never looked back!!!

Salut!

[Aditya]

Originally posted by cooper13
I think that was his/her point! It's called being facetious.


Now that is a good one!!!

Good on You mate!

Cheers

Aditya

[Aditya]

Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
You've obviously never driven a Porsche to the 7-11. :D

I'm sure niether have You... If I could afford a Porsche I would not be "getting crap from 7-11"...

PS: You have obviously not get my point and Your answer says a lot about Your IQ and life principles...

Welcome to the real world...

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Aditya
I'm sure niether have You... If I could afford a Porsche I would not be "getting crap from 7-11"...

Fine. Others might.

Originally posted by Aditya
PS: You have obviously not get my point and Your answer says a lot about Your IQ and life principles...

No it doesn't. You don't know enough about anybody here to make that kind of statement. Please get off your high horse.

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by Aditya
I'm sure niether have You... If I could afford a Porsche I would not be "getting crap from 7-11"...

PS: You have obviously not get my point and Your answer says a lot about Your IQ and life principles...

Welcome to the real world...

I understood your point perfectly, a Quad G6 would be overkill for websurfing...unless of course you wanted to run, saaayyyy, a THOUSAND quicktime movies simultaneously.

You see...here in the real world...what I said about the Porsche is what we like to call..."a joke". And why do you say 'getting crap from the 7-11' with such venom, as though it's beneath you? Sounds like you have the problem with life principles...namely a superiority complex.

And speaking of life...go get one

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Aditya
You guys are all ditching MOTO with a big sigh, but You all forgetting a small detail. I'm a digital media professional and Mac's are designed for "us". The main advantage (and the "double" performance edge over Wintels) was the huge cache of the MOTO! I'm very dissappointed with the 512k on the G5 - I would have expected at least 2MB, if not more - then You'll see Bill sweating his head off!!! Before I have swithched I have used "old original Intel P-II Xenon with 2Mb cache and the performance boost against the same proc with only basic cache with 3D and VFX apps was enormous!!! Then I tried G3... ...and have never looked back!!!

My understanding is that the L3 cache in G4 systems provides a throughput of only 4 Gb/sec. It is for certain that the L3 cache does *not* operate at the CPU speed. The main memory in the G5 (1.8 and 2.0) gives 6.4 Gb/sec throughput; so even in your applications you should see a unilateral speed increase over G4's.

It is possible that an L3 cache might help the G5, especially the duals; however, performance should still be higher than the G4's despite the lack of cache.

[Aditya]

Originally posted by soggywulf
No it doesn't. You don't know enough about anybody here to make that kind of statement. Please get off your high horse.

I don't have a Porsche and neither i have a horse... Anyway my point was that You are all asking for an insane unrealistic, or should I say UNJUSTIFIED specs. My question is - what do You need it for?!?!? My good old PB-G3 500MHz does most of my work just fine - and mind You I'm VFX Supervisor & CTO for major feature productions world-wide. So - come on and tell me what do You need the specs for?!? Justify Yourself...

Cheers

Aditya

[Aditya]

Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
I understood your point perfectly, a Quad G6 would be overkill for websurfing...unless of course you wanted to run, saaayyyy, a THOUSAND quicktime movies simultaneously.

Could You please tell me the "real world" use for "to run, saaayyyy, a THOUSAND quicktime movies simultaneously" unless You running a Video-server and in that case use an X-serve not the PB... Huh?

You see...[B]here in the real world...what I said about the Porsche is what we like to call..."a joke". And why do you say 'getting crap from the 7-11' with such venom, as though it's beneath you? Sounds like you have the problem with life principles...namely a superiority complex.

If I had a superiority complex I would have the Porsche and not even bother to interact over here... I didn't say the 7-11 stuff with "a venom" - and I appologize if it sounded like it - english is not my native language...

As I have posted above - the real point i was making is that if You have a requirement for high specs - do justify it!!!

For example:

I would like to see a "XHD Cinema Display" with more then 1920px horizontally so You could see the HD footage (1920x1080) at 1:1 and still have a space for the app interface / menus. The space below is generally used for timeline...

See Ya!

Aditya

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Aditya
You are all asking for an insane unrealistic, or should I say UNJUSTIFIED specs. My question is - what do You need it for?!?!? My good old PB-G3 500MHz does most of my work just fine

Not that I have to justify anything to you, but ok:

I need a computer that can listen to my speech arbitrarily, analyze it instantly to comprehend the question I'm asking or request I'm making, and reply with an intelligent answer or summary after searching through a wide variety information available on the globe-wide network.

BTW, you might want to stop being so bombastic. We are all here for fun, after all.

[Rower_CPU]

Settle down folks. If this thread sees anymore flames it's getting shut down and the offenders get their first and only warning.

[panphage]

I can't believe I just read this. Xserve, people, Xserve! read the thread subject. We are here to cream our pants over a G5 Xserve. Or at the very least compare IBM to Intel architectures and project into the future...

[Rustus Maximus]

<Rustus puts flamethrower away>

My apologies, Rower!

(stay on topic, stay on topic, stay on topic)

:cool:

[MacKid]

Originally posted by MetallicPenguin
Wait...at the keynote, did Steve say they were going to get to 3GHz by the end of the year or within a year?

Within, dear boy, within.

Il n'y a pas un cuillère.

[themadchemist]

I feel confident we are going to get an Xserve G5. That is, unless Apple just wants to get rid of the whole Xserve line entirely.

Who would buy an Xserve when its computing power is so much less than the Pro line Power Macs?

Or maybe that's why Apple crippled the expandability of the G5's. That way, anybody who needed any sort of legitimate expansion would have to go with the lower-power Xserve with more expansion options.

Hehehe, we can make a diverse product line by coupling new features with crippling ones!:D

[wizard]

Hey now, Linux uses a Penguin for a mascot and things are moving pretty fast on that front.



Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
Thanks, and I suppose you are right, M$ will move eventually...no, they will, honest...just look at the mascot they've chosen for their next-generation OS. I mean, nothing moves fast like a cow...we all saw the keynote right? That thing was movin'!

But for the moment, we have an edge and hopefully Apple won't squander it. And panphage is right, how do we spiral off on these tangents :D .

Maybe they are waiting to put a faster 970 in the next Xserve...2.5 GHz? Or perhaps they're waiting for the move to the .09 process (which will help with the cooling issues). They'll intro new Xserves and Powerbooks as well as new PowerMac models maybe in a January, 2004 20th anniversary special event or something, in honor of the 1984 intro of the Mac.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by Aditya
Could You please tell me the "real world" use for "to run, saaayyyy, a THOUSAND quicktime movies simultaneously" unless You running a Video-server and in that case use an X-serve not the PB... Huh?



If I had a superiority complex I would have the Porsche and not even bother to interact over here... I didn't say the 7-11 stuff with "a venom" - and I appologize if it sounded like it - english is not my native language...

As I have posted above - the real point i was making is that if You have a requirement for high specs - do justify it!!!

For example:

I would like to see a "XHD Cinema Display" with more then 1920px horizontally so You could see the HD footage (1920x1080) at 1:1 and still have a space for the app interface / menus. The space below is generally used for timeline...

See Ya!

Aditya

MY real question is this: Aditya mentioned a 7-11. He's from India. Are there now 7-11's in India, and enough of them to make it natural to use them as a cultural symbol, or is it just that Aditya has had frequent exposure to the United States? If there are a lot of 7-11's, that's great. Man, I'm glad to see that my motherland has progressed so far. :D

But it makes sense right? As many of us Indians as there are running those 7-11's, someone had to have had the idea to spread them back home. Hmph! There's globalization for you. ;)

[Aditya]

Originally posted by themadchemist
MY real question is this: Aditya mentioned a 7-11. He's from India. Are there now 7-11's in India, and enough of them to make it natural to use them as a cultural symbol, or is it just that Aditya has had frequent exposure to the United States? If there are a lot of 7-11's, that's great. Man, I'm glad to see that my motherland has progressed so far. :D

But it makes sense right? As many of us Indians as there are running those 7-11's, someone had to have had the idea to spread them back home. Hmph! There's globalization for you. ;)

:) I hate to dissappoint You, but I'm not Indian - I was born in Ex-Czechoslovakia (Slovak Republic) and so far have lived/worked in over 50 countries. I have lived in OZ (Australia) for 4 years before coming to India - that's where I got exposed to 7-11. There are no 7-11s in India, not yet anyway. My Hindi name Aditya was given to me by my Indian fiance's family...

One more time I appologize for fireing up, but as I've mentioned before I've been in the DCC (Digital Content Creation) Industry for while now and I've been hearing constantly unjustified requests / demands for insane specs. People should realy focus on practical & realistic issues...

Cheers

Aditya ;)

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Aditya
People should realy focus on practical & realistic issues...

Not everyone has to do that. In some cases that applies, in others it does not. Not everything boils down to a business decision. Without the dreamers, where is advancement?

[frozenstar]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Not everyone has to do that. In some cases that applies, in others it does not. Not everything boils down to a business decision. Without the dreamers, where is advancement?

It's one thing to dream about cheap teleportation in the future, but it's something completely different to expect it next month.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by Aditya
:) I hate to dissappoint You, but I'm not Indian - I was born in Ex-Czechoslovakia (Slovak Republic) and so far have lived/worked in over 50 countries. I have lived in OZ (Australia) for 4 years before coming to India - that's where I got exposed to 7-11. There are no 7-11s in India, not yet anyway. My Hindi name Aditya was given to me by my Indian fiance's family...

One more time I appologize for fireing up, but as I've mentioned before I've been in the DCC (Digital Content Creation) Industry for while now and I've been hearing constantly unjustified requests / demands for insane specs. People should realy focus on practical & realistic issues...

Cheers

Aditya ;)

Certainly, your point is well taken. But I have long contended that the desire for great specs for one's computer has much less to do with the actual need for those specs as it does with the bragging rights that are tied to the ownership of the best computer.

Ah, and bragging about one's computer is oh so sweet (and nerdy).:D

As far as no 7-11's in India, that's too bad to hear. But that they are in AUS is certainly interesting. One never really thinks about 7-11's as part of a multinational.

And you've done a lot of moving around, huh? 50 countries, that's truly incredible. Though this has nothing to do with Xserves at all, hats of to you...You must really have a very keen perspective on the world.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by frozenstar
It's one thing to dream about cheap teleportation in the future, but it's something completely different to expect it next month.

Of course. But the point is, not every computer purchase or spec upgrade has to be justified from a business perspective. There is such a thing as fun too. For example, that's why we're all here, right? :)

[Alte22a]

Talking about business sense, a friend of mine who owns an internet company bought 5 new dells for his office. In his office he only has one mac. That mac is his the others use PCs. He wished he could afford Macs for everyone, but it just didnt make business sense to make the purchase. Now back on the topic on Xserves. I want a big apowerful one cause I hate it when the poor little thing sounds like its about to die. Is that justifiable for a business purchase? :D

[Aditya]

Originally posted by themadchemist
And you've done a lot of moving around, huh? 50 countries, that's truly incredible. Though this has nothing to do with Xserves at all, hats of to you...You must really have a very keen perspective on the world.

Thanks buddy ;), I guess that was the reason I got fired up, besides the fact that I have mostly worked on projects with very limmited resources and one learn to be practical and realistic about his demands, not to mention the justification for the demands...

One point I would like to make is that guys as Apple DO VISIT THIS SITE as many rumors are a good indication of our wishfull thinking and as such could be a good inspiration for designing new features. Saying that - image You were the guy in charge of this and You read the "cheap levitation device dream type" request/rumor :o You would immediately switch to another thread, wouldn't You? So - let's dream, but with some sence of reality...

Coming back to X-serve:

My issue with X-serve (and the new PMG5 for that matter) is the small number of PCI slots. There is a market segment (like myself) that would like to see a rack-mounted graphic workstation. You could do it with X-serve, but once You put in graphics, You are left with only 2 PCI slots, which normally is not enough (FC, A/V, Audio, SCSI,...). I would like to see a let say 2U box with 4-5 X-PCI slots...

Or an rack-mounted PowerMac :D

Cheers

Aditya