PDA

View Full Version : Future of PowerMacG5




MacRumors
Jul 3, 2003, 04:23 PM
MacBidouille (http://us.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-07-03#111) reports on some rumors of upcoming technologies coming in the PowerMac G5 line.

According to the site, PCI-X is only the beginning, and to expect technologies such as PCI-X 2.0, a 1.7GHz Bus "in the beginning of 2004", 3GIO/PCI-Express in 2004/2005. Macbidouille also claims that plans for 2GHz and 2.5GHz speeds are for the end of the year.

Few details of these rumors are given -- for example, the actual PowerMac G5's bus runs at 1/2 of the 970's Processor Speed. A 1.7GHz bus would imply a 3.4GHz 970 Processor - based on current PPC970 designs. But this is NOT what's implied in the article.



MetallicPenguin
Jul 3, 2003, 04:28 PM
Wow 3.4 GHz would be awesome!

MacManDan
Jul 3, 2003, 04:28 PM
Upgrading the bus and keeping up with current technologies would only be a wise thing on Apple's part. I'm sure they don't want the same thing to happen with the G5 as the G4 .. they got behind and really didn't really seem to be able to keep up.

arn
Jul 3, 2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by MetallicPenguin
Wow 3.4 GHz would be awesome!

I don't think that's what they are saying.

The article just doesn't make much sense.

arn

crenz
Jul 3, 2003, 04:37 PM
Weird. Why do they separate bus development from processor development? It is quite unlikely that IBM will change the bus speed = 0.5 x processor speed rule for the PPC 970. Assuming 1.7 GHz for the bus (= 3.4 GHz for the processor!) for as early as the beginning of next year, yet talking about IBM needing to move to .9 microns first to get over 3 GHz seems contradictive to me. Let IBM get .9 microns CPUs as prototypes first... I'm sure Apple will be fast to adopt them when they're ready.

Oh yes, and SJ mentioned 3 GHz "in 12 months"... that seems realistic. Even 3.5 GHz might be realistic in 14-16 months' time, but not in six months. And I just don't see any way to ramp up bus speed w/o ramping up CPU speed as well.

macrumors12345
Jul 3, 2003, 04:47 PM
While some will disagree, I think that MacBd's credibility was badly hurt when the true G5's were announced. Their specifications were wrong (1.6, 1.8, Dual 2.0 vs. 1.4, Dual 1.6, Dual 1.8), their benchmarks were false, the claim of immediate availability was wrong, and so on. Pretty much the only thing they got right was that PPC 970 Macs did exist (which is a no brainer - most people on this forum could guess that w/o any inside info), and that they would appear at WWDC (slightly more impressive, but still a pretty easy guess given that it was Apple's only major event between MWSF 2003 and MWSF 2004).

So I would take anything that they say with a large grain of salt. Nevertheless, even if their particular info is not correct, I think that based on the Apple/IBM comments in the WWDC Keynote and the Power5 roadmap, it is pretty clear that the PPC 970 family has a pretty bright future in front of it.

nuckinfutz
Jul 3, 2003, 05:01 PM
The 970 quickly moving to .90nm. The current race now is who gets there first. Intel will probably edge IBM by a few months. I belive Prescott is due late 2003-early 2004. I think we see 90nm 970s shortly after that.

Apple needs to make the entire Powermac Line Dual Processor as quickly as possible. The current 970s at 130nm are fine but fabbing 300mm Wafers at 90nm increases yields and lowers CPU dissipation. I couod see something like

PM 1.8 at $1899
PM 2.2 Dual at $2399
PM 2.6 Dual at $2999

within 6 months.

Once Apple gets the whole PM lineup as Dual Procs. They can migrate the G5 single into an iMac. And use 130nm G4s for the eMac and iBook.

nickmcghie
Jul 3, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Apple needs to make the entire Powermac Line Dual Processor as quickly as possible.

word brother! :D

arn
Jul 3, 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by macrumors12345
While some will disagree, I think that MacBd's credibility was badly hurt when the true G5's were announced.

I think the biggest thing is you don't know what to believe from them.

arn

Panther 970
Jul 3, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Apple needs to make the entire Powermac Line Dual Processor as quickly as possible.

No way! That would make future PowerMacs too expensive and make Apple look like they're trying too hard to stay ahead.

I think a better idea is to make all PowerMacs DP capable, but sell them standard with a single processor so that users can add another processor later if they want to.

hvfsl
Jul 3, 2003, 06:21 PM
This is all good, but I want PCI-extreme (not the PCI-X in the PM G5). Also Apple needs to do something about the price. Apple needs to be ready for the release of Windows 2005 with paladin so that people will be have another platform to switch to when they find out the restrictions of that version of windows.

So Apple needs a cheap fast Mac in a cheap white plastic box. China is the new market and Apple won't make a dent with the current prices. China wants sub $400 machines that can be plugged into a TV.

fred
Jul 3, 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by arn
I don't think that's what they are saying.

The article just doesn't make much sense.

arn

It doesn't make much sense because the only thing MacBidou is good at is blowing smoke out of their collective asses.... MacBS is more like it...the less credence is given these jokers the better

Dozens of strategically placed , computer controlled fans wouldn't suffice to clear the smoke they regularly emit from their posteriors :D

Chef Ramen
Jul 3, 2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
This is all good, but I want PCI-extreme (not the PCI-X in the PM G5). Also Apple needs to do something about the price. Apple needs to be ready for the release of Windows 2005 with paladin so that people will be have another platform to switch to when they find out the restrictions of that version of windows.

So Apple needs a cheap fast Mac in a cheap white plastic box. China is the new market and Apple won't make a dent with the current prices. China wants sub $400 machines that can be plugged into a TV.


thats a wonderful idea...im sure there are many people there that would buy them. then again, many millions that could care less.

MrMacMan
Jul 3, 2003, 07:53 PM
Hm... a newer and better 970 is always good news! :)

MacFan25
Jul 3, 2003, 07:57 PM
wow...2.5ghz. :eek: this is great. I think we could see a G5 iMac by the end of the year, or early next year.

WM.
Jul 3, 2003, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
This is all good, but I want PCI-extreme (not the PCI-X in the PM G5).

[blah blah blah]

WTF is PCI-extreme? Did you mean PCI Express, which would be a horrible idea because it's not at all backward compatible and (AFAICT) is basically an alternative to HyperTransport, which is perfectly fine as it is? And what's wrong with PCI-X, anyway?

I do hope that Apple soon brings all three slots to 133 MHz across the line.

Cheers
WM

tazo
Jul 3, 2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The 970 quickly moving to .90nm. The current race now is who gets there first. Intel will probably edge IBM by a few months. I belive Prescott is due late 2003-early 2004. I think we see 90nm 970s shortly after that.

Apple needs to make the entire Powermac Line Dual Processor as quickly as possible. The current 970s at 130nm are fine but fabbing 300mm Wafers at 90nm increases yields and lowers CPU dissipation. I couod see something like

PM 1.8 at $1899
PM 2.2 Dual at $2399
PM 2.6 Dual at $2999

within 6 months.

Once Apple gets the whole PM lineup as Dual Procs. They can migrate the G5 single into an iMac. And use 130nm G4s for the eMac and iBook.

I like your style bud :)

nuckinfutz
Jul 3, 2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Panther 970
No way! That would make future PowerMacs too expensive and make Apple look like they're trying too hard to stay ahead.

I think a better idea is to make all PowerMacs DP capable, but sell them standard with a single processor so that users can add another processor later if they want to.

Explain your logic here Panther. I'll start with mine.

1. The East Fishkill IBM fab is set to support both 130nm and 90nm production. Intel AMD and IBM are all racing to get to 90nm. I believer IBM will be there end of this year.

2. 300mm Wafers. Motorola has been getting poor yields on 200mm Wafers. IBM is able to minimize processor costs by using the larger Wafers and having a better Yield. This equal lower CPU cost

3. Apple might be able to barter a better CPU deal the more they purchase. So moving other computers to the 970 platform can further lessen costs.

4. It's most likely not the CPU that is expensive. I'd venture to say that it's the Motherboard that is costing Apple a pretty penny as Dual Opteron boards with specs like Apple tend to cost $500 and up (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/20030424175652.html)

So there you have it. The 970 at 90nm will have higher yields and dissipate lower heat. This makes them cheaper. Expect to see at least two Dual Configs with the next refresh. I know I'm not wrong on this because Duals are the Future and Powermacs need that other processor to be competitive with PCs. While the Single Proc systems are nice..they're not going to beat PCs.


This is all good, but I want PCI-extreme (not the PCI-X in the PM G5). Also Apple needs to do something about the price. Apple needs to be ready for the release of Windows 2005 with paladin so that people will be have another platform to switch to when they find out the restrictions of that version of windows.

You mean PCI Express. Apple may decide to move to PCI-X 2.0 Don't expect miracles. PCI Express will start out at the same speed that PCI-X 266 will offer It supports 2-4Gbytes per second throughput (http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pcix_20/) .

Apple has a new problem surfacing. People are not going to pay over $1000 for a G4 based machine a year from now. Apple needs to put the G5 in all machines over $1299. Leave the 130nm G4 is anything below that.

Apple is creating more revenue streams with .mac and now iTMS. They key to that is shipping computers. Apple is making new inroads to IT. Xserve was a very good initial step and Panther Server is looking good featurewise. Apple will have plenty of High Margin product on the top end with Shake and Final Cut Pro stations. There is no need to withhold the G5 from consumers. The benefits of having the scaleable G5 are that it lets Apple more clearly delineate between Consumer and Pro. Single versus Dual Processors are the easiest way to do this.

macrumors12345
Jul 3, 2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Apple has a new problem surfacing. People are not going to pay over $1000 for a G4 based machine a year from now. Apple needs to put the G5 in all machines over $1299. Leave the 130nm G4 is anything below that.


I believe there is another thread addressing that problem over here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=31269.

crees!
Jul 3, 2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple needs to be ready for the release of Windows 2005 with paladin so that people will be have another platform to switch to when they find out the restrictions of that version of windows.

What type of restrictions are you talking about here? I'm interested.

chanoc
Jul 3, 2003, 11:57 PM
I will have enought saved by 2004 for a killer PowerMac!

MrMacMan
Jul 4, 2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by chanoc
I will have enought saved by 2004 for a killer PowerMac!
Lucky you. :o

Flynnstone
Jul 4, 2003, 02:06 AM
I would like to see IBM/Apple move the memory controller onto the processor like the Opteron. Throughput up, and latency down.

Brother Mugga
Jul 4, 2003, 04:10 AM
This is somewhat speculative, but...

It seems likely to me that Apple will move to the following line up around or just after Xmas (maybe MWSF?):

single 1.8
dual 2.0
dual 2.0+ (possibly around 2.4, still fabbed at 130nm?).

My reasoning is founded on the existence of the 1.6 and Jobs' chip roadmap.

The 1.6 is just a big old anomaly. I don't get it. It's like a leftover from the development cycle that - having developed a motherboard with (then) acceptable but not bleeding edge technology - they then decided to sell with a load of 1.6 chips they now had knocking around the place (having been pleasantly surprised by the 2.0 for their top end, if you see what I mean). Having a product with different memory/PCI etc. just doesn't make sense if you're trying to migrate to a new form-structure and achieve economies of scale in production and support. So perhaps the 1.6 (machine, not chip...I would have thought the rumoured 1.4 is the chip that died before it got out of East Fishkill) is, in fact, effectively a vestigial structure in the evolution of the G4 to the G5?

With regards to a 2.0+ around Xmas - well, this is a no-brainer if Jobs' roadmap is to be achieved. I would have also thought that something around 2.4 would be the top end of the 130nm process, after which heat/power issues become prohibitive. This would mean that the '3.0 within 12 months' relies upon migration to the 90nm process. That this is on the cards would appear evident from the G5 promotional video on Apple's website, in which Mr. IBM commented that they have already started development on 'the next generation of chips' (if memory serves, he might have actually said they've already begun sampling, but I'm not sure about that).

Anyway, just a thought.

Of course if I'm right, waiting till around Xmas (ish) to get a G5 means you not only miss out on any 'teething' troubles with the new machines (I'm intrigued as to how the 'dust' issue will work out) but also cash in on the 2.0 dropping to 'mid-range' prices etc.

Which means waiting to switch ISN'T so dumb, Mr. Moltz (you cheeky monkey), and is *in fact* a sign of great fortitude, patience, and, no doubt, rampant virility.

Probably.

Well okay, maybe not the virility part...


Brother Mugga

solvs
Jul 4, 2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by crees!
What type of restrictions are you talking about here? I'm interested.

Do a search for palladium and/or DRM and you'll see. It's Intel and M$' answer to security. :rolleyes: Scary thing, even if you aren't a pirate and just value your privacy. Here's an article on it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25852.html

Anyone remember Circuit City's Divx DVDs?

dongmin
Jul 4, 2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Brother Mugga
This is somewhat speculative, but...

It seems likely to me that Apple will move to the following line up around or just after Xmas (maybe MWSF?):

single 1.8
dual 2.0
dual 2.0+ (possibly around 2.4, still fabbed at 130nm?).

...

Of course if I'm right, waiting till around Xmas (ish) to get a G5 means you not only miss out on any 'teething' troubles with the new machines (I'm intrigued as to how the 'dust' issue will work out) but also cash in on the 2.0 dropping to 'mid-range' prices etc.


As far as the timing goes, I don't think Apple has done a major update right around Xmas. (For reference, the 15" PowerBooks were last updated in early November.) I think early Jan./Feb. 2004 is more likely, especially if these first G5s don't ship until early September.

So yeah, expect the G5 to hit 2.4 ghz by Feb. and to 3 ghz+ by next July/Aug, a year from now. The big question, to me, is whether they'll be able to squeeze 3 ghz out of the current .13-process 970s or will have to go to .09 process.

DharvaBinky
Jul 4, 2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Flynnstone
I would like to see IBM/Apple move the memory controller onto the processor like the Opteron. Throughput up, and latency down.

I disagree.

Sure, it would lower memory latencies, but it does, essentially, lock them into a single memory technology (DDR2-500 maybe) until IBM redesigns that controller to support something faster. If the 980 or 990 or whatever came with a memory controller, Apple would be "topped out" at that memory technology until the next iteration of chips. For apple, that seems like a bad deal since this is there general purpose CPU.

Notice that although the AMD Opteron uses this technique, the upcoming Athlon64 does not. It uses the traditional NorthBridge memory controller configuration found in PCs and Macs today.

What I think the 980 should contain, though, is a memory controller for L3 Cache. This would help alleviate the latencies (especially at these new high clockspeeds) associated with northbridge controlled memory. Wtih L3 cache and a nice flexible northbridge memory subsystem, Apple would be able to quickly introduce the next big thing:

!!!!MRAM!!!!

IBM is cooking up MRAM chips in their labs right now. I've read they have prototypes running and want to have a production line for 2005. Gee, doesn't this IBM/Apple partnership seem more and more fruitful every day?

:)

With MRAM and its non-volitile state (doesn't empty the ram when you shut the machine off), Macs would be able to boot almost instantly back to the last state you left off in. Even from being unplugged. Fun for a desktop, sure, but imagine the possibilities for home entertainment. Consumers can't/won't wait for their TV to take 5 minutes to boot, but if it was nearly instant.... hmmmmmm.... :)

Dharvabinky

noverflow
Jul 4, 2003, 10:57 AM
my tv takes 10sec to boot up.
well to warm up befor it turnes on the tube... then an other 5sec to get a picture.

Why are our tvs going to boot again?

Waluigi
Jul 4, 2003, 11:16 AM
IBM is cooking up MRAM chips in their labs right now.



Besides the fast boot up features of MRAM, what exactly is it? Is it really fast in performance, or just really fast to boot up?

--Waluigi

noverflow
Jul 4, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Besides the fast boot up features of MRAM, what exactly is it? Is it really fast in performance, or just really fast to boot up?

--Waluigi

its not fast to boot, it can just hold info in its banks with no power. this ability makes a "save state" ability possible for a theoretical zero boot time. so while it is not the ram that would be booting, it makes it possible

Chryx
Jul 4, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by DharvaBinky
Notice that although the AMD Opteron uses this technique, the upcoming Athlon64 does not. It uses the traditional NorthBridge memory controller configuration found in PCs and Macs today.


Bzzt, the Athlon64 has an ondie 64bit PC3200 memory controller (compared to the Opterons ondie 128bit PC2700 ECC/Registered memory controller)

wizard
Jul 4, 2003, 12:04 PM
Here is my take on macbidouille. It goes without question that we will have to see a rather large jump in machine performance around the end of the year. Since SJ has publicly stated 3 GHz with in a year, the rational thing would be to get half way there by the start of 2004, which would mean a speed bump to atleast 2.5 GHz.

While PCI-X may only be a begining I can't see the current bus slots going away in a year or twos time. I woudn't accept it and neither would the market place in my opinion. What we could very well see is PCI-Expreess replacing the AGP ports or otherwise acting as a supplemental I/O port. Apple and its customers need PCI-X slots for their unerversal acceptance, PCI-Express will take awhile to gain that sort of market approval.


It is obvious that much effort was put into Apples 970 implementation to grow systems with much higher clock rate. I would not be surprised at all to hear that 3.4 GHz processors make it to market in a years time. Frankly Apple and IBM have no choice whatsoever if they want to remian alternative CPU venodors. The supposed speed leadership that Apple has with these machine will only last a couple of months. AMD and Intel have been competeing for years on speed, a little startup like Apple and IBM will only feed that competition it will not slow it down by any means. This is especially the case when they see all of the free marketing help Apple gets with its claims.

Dave

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacBidouille (http://us.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-07-03#111) reports on some rumors of upcoming technologies coming in the PowerMac G5 line.

According to the site, PCI-X is only the beginning, and to expect technologies such as PCI-X 2.0, a 1.7GHz Bus "in the beginning of 2004", 3GIO/PCI-Express in 2004/2005. Macbidouille also claims that plans for 2GHz and 2.5GHz speeds are for the end of the year.

Few details of these rumors are given -- for example, the actual PowerMac G5's bus runs at 1/2 of the 970's Processor Speed. A 1.7GHz bus would imply a 3.4GHz 970 Processor - based on current PPC970 designs. But this is NOT what's implied in the article.

wizard
Jul 4, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Brother Mugga
This is somewhat speculative, but...

It seems likely to me that Apple will move to the following line up around or just after Xmas (maybe MWSF?):

single 1.8
dual 2.0
dual 2.0+ (possibly around 2.4, still fabbed at 130nm?).

I believe this is right on the money though I think 2.5 GHz or higher would be a better number for the high end machine. The reason being is that there are indications that this level has alread been reached and its just a matter of getting acceptable yields. Also considering Apples OS and the excellent SMP results they get it would be advantageous to have two duals in the line up, the middle of the road unit might be clock slightly slower though to keep the price down.



My reasoning is founded on the existence of the 1.6 and Jobs' chip roadmap.

The 1.6 is just a big old anomaly. I don't get it. It's like a leftover from the development cycle that - having developed a motherboard with (then) acceptable but not bleeding edge technology - they then decided to sell with a load of 1.6 chips they now had knocking around the place (having been pleasantly surprised by the 2.0 for their top end, if you see what I mean). Having a product with different memory/PCI etc. just doesn't make sense if you're trying to migrate to a new form-structure and achieve economies of scale in production and support. So perhaps the 1.6 (machine, not chip...I would have thought the rumoured 1.4 is the chip that died before it got out of East Fishkill) is, in fact, effectively a vestigial structure in the evolution of the G4 to the G5?

The 1.6 unit has its place in the market, that would be people that need a compatable PCI bus. This should not be underestimated, but I believe that Apple will find that market to be to small.


With regards to a 2.0+ around Xmas - well, this is a no-brainer if Jobs' roadmap is to be achieved. I would have also thought that something around 2.4 would be the top end of the 130nm process, after which heat/power issues become prohibitive. This would mean that the '3.0 within 12 months' relies upon migration to the 90nm process. That this is on the cards would appear evident from the G5 promotional video on Apple's website, in which Mr. IBM commented that they have already started development on 'the next generation of chips' (if memory serves, he might have actually said they've already begun sampling, but I'm not sure about that).

Anyway, just a thought.

Of course if I'm right, waiting till around Xmas (ish) to get a G5 means you not only miss out on any 'teething' troubles with the new machines (I'm intrigued as to how the 'dust' issue will work out) but also cash in on the 2.0 dropping to 'mid-range' prices etc.

Which means waiting to switch ISN'T so dumb, Mr. Moltz (you cheeky monkey), and is *in fact* a sign of great fortitude, patience, and, no doubt, rampant virility.

Probably.

Well okay, maybe not the virility part...


Brother Mugga

I'm still of the opinion that the case is a bigger issue than the percieved short comings of the G5. They will need a rev that quickly addresses expandability with in the case. Either that or they need a true workstation Mac housing.

Dave

jettredmont
Jul 4, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Few details of these rumors are given -- for example, the actual PowerMac G5's bus runs at 1/2 of the 970's Processor Speed. A 1.7GHz bus would imply a 3.4GHz 970 Processor - based on current PPC970 designs. But this is NOT what's implied in the article.

I read this as "1.7GHz-capable", especially as it notes that the current bus is running at its max frequency right now (1GHz). I find this rumor to be highly believable, and certainly not self-contradictory.

The bus design should be made fairly independant of the processor. If 1/2 proc frequency continues to be the rule, then that means that Apple will either have to develop faster bus controllers (system controller chipsets) with each speed bump, or that Apple will design said controllers in fairly large bumps and throttle them down for the next couple speed bumps' worth of chips. The latter strategy is obviously preferable.

In other words, if this is correct, then the next speed bumps will have a redesigned SC, and we won't necessarily have to see another SC redesign until/unless the 970s surpass 3.4GHz.

DharvaBinky
Jul 4, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Besides the fast boot up features of MRAM, what exactly is it? Is it really fast in performance, or just really fast to boot up?

--Waluigi

A little about MRAM and its production (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/31117.html)

Also... regarding my mistake about the Athlon 64 memory controller...

You were right. :) (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64_6.html)

dharvabinky

Dros
Jul 4, 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by wizard
Here is my take on macbidouille. It goes without question that we will have to see a rather large jump in machine performance around the end of the year. Since SJ has publicly stated 3 GHz with in a year, the rational thing would be to get half way there by the start of 2004, which would mean a speed bump to atleast 2.5 GHz.

Dave

Since computer speed increases are perhaps based on a 'doubling' such as suggested by Moore's law, produces an exponential curve, not a line, the point in time half way (6 months) wouldn't produce a speed half way between. It would be less. Just being nitpicky :D.

On the plus side, it would mean two years out the projected speed would not be 4 GHz, but something more!

Of course, other factors are going to weigh more heavily than some theoretical exponential curve of speed, as Motorola was happy to demonstrate with the G4.

Santiago
Jul 5, 2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by WM.
I do hope that Apple soon brings all three slots to 133 MHz across the line.

That would require adding another PCI-X bus. The way the spec works is that you can have one 133 MHz slot or two 100 MHz slots. The PowerMac G5 has two busses, one of each type.

wizard
Jul 5, 2003, 08:54 PM
Ok; just who was talking about Moore's law?

What we are talking about is that Apple and IBM have stated that they will be at 3GHz in 12 months, December/January would put them close to 6 months, which would be a good time ot release a processor that is half way to 3GHz from where they are currently maxed out. Or in other words 2.5GHz, Moore's law does not come inot the equation. At this point it appear that going beyond 2GHz is a marketing question not a technicla one. Now they could pull a fast one on us and go directly to 3GHz come the end of the year.

By the way guys, 3GHz will probally be required by the end of the year if Apple expects the G5 to remain anywhere near competitive with the AMD/Intel world. As the bench marks start to roll in it will become more obvious that there are performance limitations with respect to the current G5 hardware, so Apple will be under a great deal of pressure to push forward.

Two years out the hope would be that Apple & IBM would have a processor that corrects the short comings of the G5. They are already working on it. don't be surprised if the operational frequency of G5's replacement is not dramtically faster on a per Hz basis.

Just trying to bring a little balance to the excitement.

Dave




Originally posted by Dros
Since computer speed increases are perhaps based on a 'doubling' such as suggested by Moore's law, produces an exponential curve, not a line, the point in time half way (6 months) wouldn't produce a speed half way between. It would be less. Just being nitpicky :D.

On the plus side, it would mean two years out the projected speed would not be 4 GHz, but something more!

Of course, other factors are going to weigh more heavily than some theoretical exponential curve of speed, as Motorola was happy to demonstrate with the G4.

Dros
Jul 5, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by wizard
Ok; just who was talking about Moore's law?

What we are talking about is that Apple and IBM have stated that they will be at 3GHz in 12 months, December/January would put them close to 6 months, which would be a good time ot release a processor that is half way to 3GHz from where they are currently maxed out. Or in other words 2.5GHz, Moore's law does not come inot the equation.
Dave

I was just pointing out that while it would be a good thing to release a 2.5 GHz processor, since speed increases get larger over time (hence Moore's law), you wouldn't necessarily expect a speed half way between 2 and 3 at the half way mark. Just a small point, and as I said, other factors will override it. But you are making predictions based on linear speed increases over time, and processors haven't tended to increase like that.

Dros