Upcoming Intel Details Leak [Archive]

MacRumors

Jul 9, 2003, 07:34 PM

News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-1024237.html?tag=fd_top) reports on rumors of Intel's upcoming processors, due this year:

Prescott, which will come out in the fourth quarter, will contain a number of enhancements over the current Pentium 4, including new instructions for multimedia processing and a 1MB cache, a pool of memory on the chip for fast data access. Current Pentium 4s have a 512KB cache.,

Prescott is to start at 3.4GHz and expected to cost $637 in volume quantities. New Celeron and Pentium M (laptop) processors are also expected later this year. The Pentium M will feature a 90-nm manufacturing process.

Comparisons with IBM's G5 (PPC 970) processor will undoubtedly be made.

Grimace

Jul 9, 2003, 07:34 PM

the Mhz/Ghz myth lives on...

DHagan4755

Jul 9, 2003, 07:42 PM

At the rate Intel is going with their processors, we may be very close speedwise by the time next year rolls around!:cool:

nuckinfutz

Jul 9, 2003, 07:43 PM

Prescott is going to be a fast competitor. IBM and AMD will have to maintain aggresive roadmaps to fend off Chipzilla.

Look at the Oct price decreases. The largest cut is the P4 3Ghz. That means big price reductions for IHV like Dell etc.

Intel is first to 90nm but we should have 90nm 970s early next year. Hopefully IBM will add 1BM of Cache as well to the 970.

Prepare for more benchmark battles. Their coming.

Flowbee

Jul 9, 2003, 07:43 PM

Let the benchmark wars begin! (err, continue)

Kanada

Jul 9, 2003, 07:48 PM

Can I fry an egg onit?

AppleMatt

Jul 9, 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by DHagan4755
At the rate Intel is going with their processors, we may be very close speedwise by the time next year rolls around!:cool:

That's what I was going to say, is it just me or are Intel/AMD slowing down again?

Maybe the GHz gulf will start to close soon.

AppleMatt

ColdZero

Jul 9, 2003, 07:56 PM

Can I fry an egg onit?

Why wait for the new P4, the G5 is hot enough to do that.

nuckinfutz

Jul 9, 2003, 08:01 PM

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1304

Ummmm Opteron is not all that impressive.

Can't wait for Prescott prelim benchmarkes.

The G5 will stay close. We won't have to suffer the embarrasment of the last two years.

I'm just hoping Apple gets their consumer line in order. No more slow G4!!!

Kermit

Jul 9, 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

I'm just hoping Apple gets their consumer line in order. Now more slow G4!!!

Amen to that brother!

krafix

Jul 9, 2003, 08:32 PM

Celeron? Let me laugh.

ffakr

Jul 9, 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by ColdZero
Why wait for the new P4, the G5 is hot enough to do that.
Huh?
the G5 maxes out at around 45 watts while the P4 currently puts out 65 watts and the Itanium is over 120 watts.

try again.

nickmcghie

Jul 9, 2003, 08:35 PM

I just read this article (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997) over at osnews.com (http://www.osnews.com) comparing the x86 and PowerPC architectures. It was a very enlightening read and explained how Intel is really running themselves into the wall with their continuing development of the P4.

On particularly interesting note was about heat. x86 CPUs already get hot and require considerable cooling, but this is getting worse and eventually it will hit a wall. A report by the publishers of Microprocessor Report indicated that Intel is expected to start hitting the heat wall in 2004. The article goes on to predict that the x86 will soon lose it's price advantage because the cooling systems required to keep these beasts from literally melting cost several times what the CPUs themselves cost.

Long live RISC!! :D

macnews

Jul 9, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
[url]The G5 will stay close. We won't have to suffer the embarrasment of the last two years.

I'm just hoping Apple gets their consumer line in order. Now more slow G4!!!

Let's hope! If they are at 3.4Ghz by Dec/Jan the G5 should be at 3Ghz in June/July.

Then there is that 1MB of cache and what role does bus speed play in that? I thought there was an article on IBM's site about why the 970 didn't need any level 3 cache was due to the bus speed. If the 970 operates at half the clock speed, a 3Ghz chip would have cache accessing at 1.5Ghz. Then there is always the 980.....

BTW, I know bus speed and cache memory are not the same but the IBM and some others have tied the two together in regards to overall performance.

Waluigi

Jul 9, 2003, 09:00 PM

With Apple, and AMD releasing new processors generations, does anyone think they will call prescott the Pentium 5? Any thoughts?

--Waluigi

Hawthorne

Jul 9, 2003, 09:01 PM

Whichever one runs OS X will be the one that wins.

Next question. :D

Waluigi

Jul 9, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Hawthorne
Whichever one runs OS X will be the one that wins.

Hahahaha! I couldn't have put it better. No matter how fast intel makes their processors, they still will run windows, which completely cripples their ability to be useful.

--Waluigi

MorganX

Jul 9, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by macnews
Let's hope! If they are at 3.4Ghz by Dec/Jan the G5 should be at 3Ghz in June/July.

Then there is that 1MB of cache and what role does bus speed play in that? I thought there was an article on IBM's site about why the 970 didn't need any level 3 cache was due to the bus speed. If the 970 operates at half the clock speed, a 3Ghz chip would have cache accessing at 1.5Ghz. Then there is always the 980.....

BTW, I know bus speed and cache memory are not the same but the IBM and some others have tied the two together in regards to overall performance.

The cache in the P4's is L2 cache on the same silicon as the cpu core.

bertagert

Jul 9, 2003, 09:07 PM

For those that think the intel chips are going to hit a wall...don't count on it. The P4 will continue to go faster nad faster for some time. If the wall was in site, a new processor would come from intel. Being the super huge company they are, they have research for 10 and maybe more years then that, for new chips and designs already underway. Its kind of like people around here saying, "Oh, Apple can't put a G5 in a laptop yet, its way to early". Well, Apple has a G5 in a laptop right now. These products don't just appear over night. Wasn't it Steve Jobs giving a speach at the Dev Conference that said, "Apple and IBM have been working on this chip for three years"? Meaning, Apple, Intel and all the others are 4-5 years ahead of whats out today. The moral of this story is, Intel has their butt covered for many moons ahead.

As for the speed race - Intel can kick their processors out at any speed above the competition at any time. The reason they slowed down is because they have no competition. AMD isn't putting anything out close to the top P4. So why would Intel sell faster and faster chips if they didn't have too?

The reason Steve Jobs said "we'll be up to 3.0 Ghz by the end of the year" is because he needed too. If he didn't, and Intel pumps out a 3.6 Ghz in january, people would wonder if Apple is still having problems with getting a competing chip out to market. Since you know whats going to happen, you'll stay with Apple cause they are competing.

Thats all.

rjwill246

Jul 9, 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by DHagan4755
At the rate Intel is going with their processors, we may be very close speedwise by the time next year rolls around!:cool:

You aren't thinking that a 3.4 Gig Pentium 4 is faster than say, a 2.5 Gig G5 are you? You wouldn't be right.
And to the other correspondent: yes it is possible to fry eggs on maxed out P4s... stunning, over easy! and you can have the chips with it too, though fish is better.

Computer_Phreak

Jul 9, 2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by bertagert
For those that think the intel chips are going to hit a wall...don't count on it. The P4 will continue to go faster nad faster for some time. If the wall was in site, a new processor would come from intel. Being the super huge company they are, they have research for 10 and maybe more years then that, for new chips and designs already underway. Its kind of like people around here saying, "Oh, Apple can't put a G5 in a laptop yet, its way to early". Well, Apple has a G5 in a laptop right now. These products don't just appear over night. Wasn't it Steve Jobs giving a speach at the Dev Conference that said, "Apple and IBM have been working on this chip for three years"? Meaning, Apple, Intel and all the others are 4-5 years ahead of whats out today. The moral of this story is, Intel has their butt covered for many moons ahead.

As for the speed race - Intel can kick their processors out at any speed above the competition at any time. The reason they slowed down is because they have no competition. AMD isn't putting anything out close to the top P4. So why would Intel sell faster and faster chips if they didn't have too?

The reason Steve Jobs said "we'll be up to 3.0 Ghz by the end of the year" is because he needed too. If he didn't, and Intel pumps out a 3.6 Ghz in january, people would wonder if Apple is still having problems with getting a competing chip out to market. Since you know whats going to happen, you'll stay with Apple cause they are competing.

Thats all.

Thats very true, and many people have yet to realize it.

However, I believe Steve said within a year, not by the end of the year.

nuckinfutz

Jul 9, 2003, 09:34 PM

This battle is coming down to just the Major players.

IBM Intel and AMD on the CPU front

ATI Nvidia and trailing Matrox for GPU(consumer).

Intel and IBM won't be hitting too many walls anytime soon. 90nm gives both extra room to increase Mhz and reduce voltage of their chips.

After 90nm looks like we're going to see 65nm. Imagine the clock speeds then. Ondie cache may reach 2MB for a consumer desktop. Dual Cores will be readily available along with Mulithreading.

Presently right now it looks like our storage will be far outstripped by system speed.

IBM's Roadmap looks pretty good. 3Ghz by next summer sounds definitely reachable and not too long after that we could see the POWER5 Derivative.

The real battle is going to be the OS. The hardware will be similiar so it's going to boil down to what the OS can do with the speed.

OSX has to fly and link together services and apps in ways that should make us drool with giddyness.

I'd love to see a Component Software structure like Opendoc return. Small apps that link and act like one. Services in OSX is a step in the right direction.

Dahl

Jul 9, 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The real battle is going to be the OS. The hardware will be similiar so it's going to boil down to what the OS can do with the speed.

Amen to that!

scem0

Jul 9, 2003, 09:49 PM

It is true that the true battle will be over software, but the more glorified battle (if less important) will be the speed battle.

It is also a stupid battle. :rolleyes:

They are both plenty fast.

If apple needs to work on one thing it would be price. It is pretty hard to justify spending $3,000+ on any computer (for most people).

scem0

copperpipe

Jul 9, 2003, 09:52 PM

The reason Steve Jobs said "we'll be up to 3.0 Ghz by the end of the year" is because he needed too. If he didn't, and Intel pumps out a 3.6 Ghz in january, people would wonder if Apple is still having problems with getting a competing chip out to market. Since you know whats going to happen, you'll stay with Apple cause they are competing.

wow, that was very well said, bertagert.

as an aside:
It's my opinion that what someone said earlier is true as well. They said "whichever one is running OS X will win", and I agree with that. Especially as time goes by, speed becomes less and less relevant to the better choices, and it's in this area where I completely 100% wholeheartedly beleive in Apple computers.

Analog Kid

Jul 9, 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Waluigi
No matter how fast intel makes their processors, they still will run windows, which completely cripples their ability to be useful.

Yeah, everytime Intel increases their clock rate, the only think I can think is: "Well, they've just reduced their MTBF"...

Intel must have been so happy when Linux started getting traction and people saw that the CPU itself could actually run for a week straight...

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2003, 10:00 PM

Oh boy! I can buy myself one of these babies to stay warm this winter...*

Man! If Intel wants to make good processors, it shouldn't keep pumping up the instruction sets and frequency. Maybe it ought to invest some money in a better tech, like RISC?

I'd like to see them go up to 4 GHz. PCs bursting to flames would be humorous.

*edited because author can't keep seasons straight

themadchemist

Jul 9, 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by nickmcghie
I just read this article (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997) over at osnews.com (http://www.osnews.com) comparing the x86 and PowerPC architectures. It was a very enlightening read and explained how Intel is really running themselves into the wall with their continuing development of the P4.

On particularly interesting note was about heat. x86 CPUs already get hot and require considerable cooling, but this is getting worse and eventually it will hit a wall. A report by the publishers of Microprocessor Report indicated that Intel is expected to start hitting the heat wall in 2004. The article goes on to predict that the x86 will soon lose it's price advantage because the cooling systems required to keep these beasts from literally melting cost several times what the CPUs themselves cost.

Long live RISC!! :D

I agree on all counts. That was a gem of an article for the reasons you noted above. Also, it was a perfect response to that article we heard about a few days ago. I can't remember the site, but the guy bashed Apple's benchmarks for using an "unheard of" compiler--GCC.

Whereas I am sure Apple wasn't daddy's perfect angel, so to speak, it did show that other companies do a lot worse. If the author of the osnews article is knowledgeable, as he seems to be (he uses technical explanations instead of rhetoric), then benchmarks from other companies are far more flawed. Whereas GCC wasn't optimized for either Intel or IBM processors, the compilers Dell used (ICC was it?) took specific advantage of Intel's features.

Abstract

Jul 9, 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Waluigi
With Apple, and AMD releasing new processors generations, does anyone think they will call prescott the Pentium 5? Any thoughts?

--Waluigi

Because they're not very smart. ;) They should at least call it the P 4.1 or something stupid. Or better yet, call it the P4 Extreme!!! Or P4 Xtreme!!! Or even better: call it the P4 Xtreme Avalanche, like my deodorant. Yes, there's nothing like the scent of an Xtreme Avalanche to make you smell........fresh(?), because as we all know, avalanches, especially the "Xtreme" ones, always smell fantastic!! :D

"I am so smart. I am so smart. S..M...E...R...T"

And Bertagert is right. I was.....um.....going to say the exact same thing. ;)

wondermite

Jul 9, 2003, 10:43 PM

Since when did this become www.intelrumors.com???

MacKid

Jul 9, 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1304

Ummmm Opteron is not all that impressive.

Can't wait for Prescott prelim benchmarkes.

The G5 will stay close. We won't have to suffer the embarrasment of the last two years.

I'm just hoping Apple gets their consumer line in order. No more slow G4!!!

. . .G4's really aren't that slow and you know it;) .:p

acj

Jul 9, 2003, 10:57 PM

Sheesh people, this has been out for rather long.

See, PC people have a "roadmap". They don't have to blindly speculate about when the best time to buy a computer is. With Apple, sometimes products drop nearly 50% in price in one day.

websterphreaky

Jul 9, 2003, 11:08 PM

Apple will never catch up in GHz, worse yet, they are in their new arrogant attitude driving away the major software developers that once stuck by the platform when the '90s dark days nearly claimed the platform.

There is NO chance there will be any G5 faster than 2GHz by year end and Jobs knows it. The Media certainly knows and is chiding Apple already. Now the press is making hey with the MS and Adobe Mac defections.

Their additionally RUDE behavior in statements, such as with the announcement of no Mac Premier "With the announcement of the new Power Mac G5 and the innovations in Final Cut Pro 4, there has never been a better time for Premiere customers to make the switch.", only show the companies (and I'm assuming Steve Jobs) insulant juvenile behavior.

At less than 2.6% market share, and no sign of a turn around, Apple needs to stop being a (software/OS) monopolistic smart ass. Otherwise, we'll all be using Windoze PC's whether we like it or not. :mad:

Squire

Jul 9, 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Waluigi
With Apple, and AMD releasing new processors generations, does anyone think they will call prescott the Pentium 5? Any thoughts?

--Waluigi

They aren't really going to call it "the Prescott" are they?

"G5" (with its 9 fans) sounds cooler. ;)

Squire

Waluigi

Jul 9, 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Squire
They aren't really going to call it "the Prescott" are they?

"G5" (with its 9 fans) sounds cooler. ;)

Squire

I was trying to ask this: Is the new intel chip code named 'prescott' going to be the last pentium 4, or is intel going to go ahead with the name change, and make it the first pentium 5?

Fender2112

Jul 9, 2003, 11:25 PM

Macurious

Jul 9, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Waluigi
Hahahaha! I couldn't have put it better. No matter how fast intel makes their processors, they still will run windows, which completely cripples their ability to be useful.

--Waluigi

Well, that's not entirely true. It is still very much up to the user. There is Linux and FreeBSD. You can install Darwin on your Intel-based PC and get the guts of OS X right on your 3.6 GHz P5. :) That would make for some interesting benchmarks.

Analog Kid

Jul 9, 2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by scem0
If apple needs to work on one thing it would be price. It is pretty hard to justify spending $3,000+ on any computer (for most people).

I think the iMac line is meant for people without $3k + a display.

I'm glad the WWDC keynote compared the G5 to a Dell box that could be priced. Don't forget the benchmarks are against a Dual Xeon, which ain't "cheap Intel hardware" like we're used to comparing against...

shawnjackson

Jul 9, 2003, 11:52 PM

no you silly guys... they arent going to call it the pentium 5... its codename will be prescott (just like northwood, etc.)

it will be known as the "D" Revision of the Pentium 4

A - 400Mhz Bus
B - 533Mhz Bus
C - 800Mhz Bus
D - not sure on spec but I know its double the cache of the c and is 90nm

oh and anyone who keeps saying that intel chips run hot should actually use one. I have two dp 1.42, an athlon xp 2100+ and a 1700+ and a 3.0 p4 c...

the g4 and the athlon are probably tied for "hotness" at around 55 deg C at max load (using a thermaltake heat probe at cpu core.

the p4 runs load at about 38 with a nice quiet zalman fan. thats why its my home theater system.

Phinius

Jul 9, 2003, 11:58 PM

The Pentium M-Celeron will be at 1.3 GHz in January and it will have a 400 MHz bus, along with 512 KB of L2 cache. IBM's 750GX wil be produced in December and it will top out at 1.1 GHz, with a 200 MHz bus and 1 MB of L2 cache. It seems the 750 GX would stack up very well against the Pentium M-Celeron in the first quarter of 2004. In the second quarter of 2004, the Celeron performance will start to pull away from the 750GX, but IBM should have the next version of the 750 processor ready a few after that. So, it looks like the 750XX processors could be Apple's answer to the low cost Celeron chips for notebooks.

mgargan1

Jul 10, 2003, 12:02 AM

mgargan1

Jul 10, 2003, 12:05 AM

oh, and they're not going to name it pentium 5, cause pentium already means 5. And it would be a little redundant calling a processor 5 5. The pentium name came about when the courts would not allow intel to copyright the numbers 386...486... etc. So they have to do some thinking. I believe they'll keep with the pentium 4 moniker; however, it wouldn't be a smart idea, cause the name's been out for almost 3 years.

fpnc

Jul 10, 2003, 12:07 AM

The question isn't whether Apple can "win" with the G5 and OS X, the real issue is will Apple become a respectable second to WINTEL. The G5 is a nice processor and OS X is arguably the best OS, but even Steve Jobs has admitted that the "OS wars are over and Microsoft has won" (that's a near direct quote from Mr. Jobs, made a few years ago).

As far as the 3.0GHz G5, I believe that the statement was that they (Apple and IBM) had made a commitment to be at 3GHz in another 12 months. Whether that 12 months started at WWDC or when the first G5 actually ships is probably uncertain. Thus, it may not be until next September that we actually have a 3GHz PowerMac G5.

The truth, as I see it, is that a __single__ 2.0GHz G5 is roughly comparable to a 3.0GHz Pentium IV. The single Pentium will have advantages in integer operations, but in floating point and SIMD operations the G5 will be fairly close. Thus, I don't think there is any question that for many tasks (but certainly not all) a dual G5 will outperform any available Pentium IV system. However, Apple needs to ship the G5s in quantity before the end of September. If they miss their end of August or early September target dates and/or if there are serious problems with the new G5 PowerMacs then things could look pretty bad for the remainder of the year.

Also, remember that this is the year of the notebook computer (Mr. Jobs said it and it's true -- PC notebook sales during last quarter have surpassed desktops). Thus, there is a further problem ahead for Apple since the Pentium M and Intel's Centrino products have pretty much closed the quality-of-experience gap that once existed between PowerBooks and PC notebook computers. It could even be argued that the Pentium M has taken the lead from Apple. So, now that the G5 has more-or-less leveled the playing field on the desktop Apple needs to be working very, very hard to bring better performance to their entire line of notebook computers. If they aren't able to do that soon, then I believe that Apple might begin to see some very serious erosion in notebook market share. It may be too late and unreasonable to expect an improved G4 from Motorola (for notebooks), so it may be a long and "slow" ride until PowerBooks based upon the G5 bring something new to Apple's notebook line. Long because I really don't expect to see G5-based PowerBooks until January 2004 (earliest?).

So, is Apple's "glass" half empty or half full? Right now I think it's pretty uncertain. It's going to be an interesting race, but there is no question that Apple will need to be working double-time in order to keep up with WINTEL.

ddtlm

Jul 10, 2003, 12:16 AM

mgargan1:

Pentium does not mean five, its a made up word that suggests "five" as well as a metal. (And other stuff, I'm sure.)

shawnjackson:

The chip starts at a 800mhz FSB but will go higher, I expect within 6 months of launch. I don't think they'll be scaling as fast as the G5's FSB does, but they should stay pretty compeditive.

Phinius

Jul 10, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by shawnjackson
no you silly guys... they arent going to call it the pentium 5... its codename will be prescott (just like northwood, etc.)

it will be known as the "D" Revision of the Pentium 4

A - 400Mhz Bus
B - 533Mhz Bus
C - 800Mhz Bus
D - not sure on spec but I know its double the cache of the c and is 90nm

It should have a 800MHz bus since it's much more difficult to change the bus speed on a Pentium processor than it is for the 970 (G5).

oh and anyone who keeps saying that intel chips run hot should actually use one.

Maybe the correct way of putting it should be burns up to twice as much watts as a G5 and higher still than a G4.

the g4 and the athlon are probably tied for "hotness" at around 55 deg C at max load (using a thermaltake heat probe at cpu core.

That's pretty good since the Athlon burn up to 75% more watts than a G4. Motorola lists the average power use of a topend G4 processor at about 35 watts. A topend Athlon processor averages 62 watts.

This month the G4 is expected to move over to the same process size that the Athlon is made on and the topend frequencies of the two chip designs should be more closely matched, yet the Athlon should still have at least 75% higher average power use than the G4.

the p4 runs load at about 38 with a nice quiet zalman fan. thats why its my home theater system.

It's good to know that it has a great cooling system, it really needs it. Did you notice that the G5 also has a very quiet cooling system?

Abstract

Jul 10, 2003, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by websterphreaky
Apple will never catch up in GHz, worse yet, they are in their new arrogant attitude driving away the major software developers that once stuck by the platform when the '90s dark days nearly claimed the platform.

...Their additionally RUDE behavior in statements, such as with the announcement of no Mac Premier "With the announcement of the new Power Mac G5 and the innovations in Final Cut Pro 4, there has never been a better time for Premiere customers to make the switch.", only show the companies (and I'm assuming Steve Jobs) insulant juvenile behavior.

At less than 2.6% market share, and no sign of a turn around, Apple needs to stop being a (software/OS) monopolistic smart ass....

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. :) Apple better treat other companies nicer. They're sounding a bit arrogant. I have thought this for a while now.

Also, remember that this is the year of the notebook computer (Mr. Jobs said it and it's true -- PC notebook sales during last quarter have surpassed desktops).......It could even be argued that the Pentium M has taken the lead from Apple. So, now that the G5 has more-or-less leveled the playing field on the desktop Apple needs to be working very, very hard to bring better performance to their entire line of notebook computers. If they aren't able to do that soon, then I believe that Apple might begin to see some very serious erosion in notebook market share......because I really don't expect to see G5-based PowerBooks until January 2004 (earliest?).

I agree with this as well. I have always said that while Apple seemed to have the lead in notebooks, the Centrino probably took that lead away --- and it has. The only thing I like about Apple notebooks is the iBook. It beats every notebook in it's price range, in my opinion, or it is at least competitive. But I have seen some Centrino notebooks that have simply outclassed the Powerbook line completely, and all at a price below the 15" PB.

The only thing I disagree with is that Apple will be without a G5 in their PB line until January at the earliest. Sorry, but they could just fit a 1.2GHz G5 in there and appease the masses. Nobody is asking Apple to stick in a dual proc 2.0GHz, just a 1.2GHz G5 that can compete with the Centrino. At this point, I'd settle for that, or even a 1 GHz G5. Whatever. Just get your "new" chip in your products and move them. Having them in a notebook also helps promote the G5. People who aren't looking for a desktop (like myself) don't really care if a G5 can be had in a desktop. I'm only interested in the laptops, and if notebook sales are beating out desktop sales, it is probably more important for Apple to get their notebook line up to par, than it is for them to compete with Intel machines only on Apple's tip-top-end desktops. People want notebooks.

Mosco

Jul 10, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by websterphreaky

Jobs is already learnig to lie in public statements, apparently from the supreme liar, Al Gore. There is NO chance there will be any G5 faster than 2GHz by year end and Jobs knows it. The Media certainly knows and is chiding Apple already. Now the press is making hey with the MS and A

WTF, Jobs never said there would be any faster G5s by year end. He said within a Year, so by June/July we should see 3Ghz(it was the IBM guys i think that actually said it).

acj

Jul 10, 2003, 12:35 AM

Again I'll say it, this isn't a rumor. This info has been out a while.

Prescott is essentially an upgraded Pentium 4. The Pentium 4 has had a couple other efficiency upgrades in its past (HT, others), but none as significant as this.

This is kind of the opposite of the G4, which is slower per MHz now than when it first came out with its shorter pipeline.

Suposedly Prescott will be faster clock-per-clock in all circumstances, than the current P4. On average maybe 20-30%. This is due to th larger cache and better Hyperthreading.

It also may get the highest yield (talking manufacturing % failure per wafer) of any CPU to date, and is also expected to clock scale quite high past its introductory 3.4 GHz. This part could be considered rumor. We'll have to wait and see.

The BIG rumor is that prescott might be 64-bit capable, but the feature is currently disabled. Sound absurd? Not really. All P4's had Hyperthreading circutry but it wasn't enabled until the 3.06 came out, and now the C-model 2.4's and up. In fact, some (all?) Pentium 3's had hyperthreading circuitry!

Mosco

Jul 10, 2003, 12:36 AM

Oh and about the FSB on the new Pentiums, I would think they would have to release a new chipset if they wanted to come out with a FSB higher than 800Mhz. I doubt we will see a new chipset since they their current chipsets are only a couple months old.

acj

Jul 10, 2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Phinius

It's good to know that it has a great cooling system, it really needs it. Did you notice that the G5 also has a very quiet cooling system? [/B]

The Pentium 4 doesn't need ANY cooling system to survive. But yes, it does need a good one to run at full speed. Most common solutions (Dell...) are extremely quiet.

And currently available top end consumer Macs use more power than currently available top end consumer PC's.

Two G4's generate more heat than one P4. Unfair comparison? Well the performance is comparable.

Phinius

Jul 10, 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Abstract

The only thing I disagree with is that Apple will be without a G5 in their PB line until January at the earliest. Sorry, but they could just fit a 1.2GHz G5 in there and appease the masses.

If Apple fit a 1.2 GHz G5 in the PB line, then there would not be another update for about eight months. There simply is no more speed to give for the G5 in a notebook computer at the process size that it is at now.

It looks like Apple will wait until a few months before the next process shrink for the G5 to introduce the G5 into PowerBooks.

Nobody is asking Apple to stick in a dual proc 2.0GHz, just a 1.2GHz G5 that can compete with the Centrino.

PowerBooks with a G4 running at 1.5-1.6 GHz should be quite competitive to the Centrino line. Look for Apple to introduce PowerBooks this month that are a major step up in speed with the smaller process size G4s.

I'd also expect Apple to put as much as a 1.8 GHz G4 in the iMac line starting this month also, although 1.8 GHz maybe a bit optimistic at this point in time. At least the 1.42 GHz of the Power Macs though.

acj

Jul 10, 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Macrumors

Prescott is to start at 3.4GHz and expected to cost $637 in volume quantities. New Celeron and Pentium M (laptop) processors are also expected later this year. The Pentium M will feature a 90-nm manufacturing process.

Just for those who missed it. The Pentium M will be made on the 90nm process. The first Prescotts will be on 130nm. This gives lots of room for improvement with the move to 90nm.

Abstract

Jul 10, 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Phinius
If Apple fit a 1.2 GHz G5 in the PB line, then there would not be another update for about eight months. There simply is no more speed to give for the G5 in a notebook computer at the process size that it is at now.

It looks like Apple will wait until a few months before the next process shrink for the G5 to introduce the G5 into PowerBooks.

Yes, updates would still be possible. If they were to introduce a 1.2GHz G5 into the PB, it would tie over Apple users for a while, say 6-8 months. In the meanwhile, IBM will introduce a 970 using the 90nm process. It will be introduced within the year. Apple can then update the PB's with a G5 using at the 90nm process in 6-8 months.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Steve say that chips produced at 90nm will be available within the year, and that the 970 will scale to 3.0GHz in 12 months at the 90nm process? I thought the 90nm process was going to be introduced in the 970's within the year (when the 970's were at 2.5-2.6GHz) and carried over to the 980's in 1 year or 1 year and 6 months from now when they're introduced. I only said to introduce the 1.2GHz G5's into the PB's under this assumption. At 90nm, fitting a 1.8GHz G5 into a notebook shouldn't be much of a problem, I'd reckon. Let it happen in 6-8 months.

Of course, I could be completely wrong and talking out of my ass. :confused:

SiliconAddict

Jul 10, 2003, 12:59 AM

Apple and IBM are going to have to seriously stay on their toes to maintain that lead they have over AMD and Intel. One thing worries me. Most of the info on Intel's chips are on the desktop side where Apple already has a strong advantage. Everything I’ve read says that Intel’s mobile Pentium M chip is going to 90nm with a 2MB cache and a 400Mhz system bus in their laptop line this fall. As I had commented in a previous thread I have yet to see ANY benchmarks of a 17” PB going head to head with a Pentium M. Even if the Mhz myth is true the fine tuning Intel is doing (Cache, system bus, etc.) could widen the gape in performance unless Apple\IBM\ Motorola pulls off a Houdini. The laptop line needs to be shored up. Its really that simple.

Honestly guys. Intel doesn’t even really care about the G5. As cool as the title “fastest computer” is it doesn’t realty affect their sales all that much. Its the whole damn WINTEL thing. If a G5 could be put into a PC architecture then you would have them worried. Its AMD and to a lesser extent Transmeta who they are focusing on. These pot shots AMD and Intel continually throw at each other to be the “speed champ” has, until recently, left Apple\IBM\ Motorola eating vapors. I will be highly surprised if by fall of 2004 Apple and IBM still holds the speed crown.
Don’t get me wrong guys. I’m rooting for Apple and IBM. I’d be more then happy to eat crow fall of next year. I’m just saying they have a tough fight ahead.

Phinius

Jul 10, 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by acj

And currently available top end consumer Macs use more power than currently available top end consumer PC's.

I sincerely doubt that.

Two G4's generate more heat than one P4. Unfair comparison? Well the performance is comparable.

I would put the power use of two topend G4s at about the same as a topend Pentium 4 and no the Pentium 4 will not be twice as fast as a G4 starting this month. In fact a Pentium 4 won't even have close to twice the performance of a G4 starting this month.

The G4 is highly underrated as a processor. A comparison of a topend Pentium 4 to a dual-processor G4 PowerMac does not have two G4 processors running full throttle. The additional processor never gives the PowerMac more than a 50% boost in speed over a single G4 running at the same frequency. Comparing a single 1.42 GHz G4 to a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 processor will not result in the Pentium 4 doubling the performance of the G4.

Phinius

Jul 10, 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Abstract
Yes, updates would still be possible. If they were to introduce a 1.2GHz G5 into the PB, it would tie over Apple users for a while, say 6-8 months.

Apple's Jon Rubenstein has already stated that the G5 will not go into the PowerBooks for quite some time. That's probably due to the new G4 having superior power use/performance compared to the G5 on the .13-micron process. When the G5 moves to the smaller .090-micron process it will be a whole different story when comparing a G5 to a G4 for power use/performance in a notebook computer. Right now though the G4 should outclass the G5 for power use/performance in a notebook computer.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Steve say that chips produced at 90nm will be available within the year, and that the 970 will scale to 3.0GHz in 12 months at the 90nm process?

Steve said nothing about future process shrinks for the G5. He simply stated that the G5 will be at 3 GHz within a year.

I sincerely doubt that IBM will move the current 970 processor to the smaller .090-micron size. I'd expect the 980, which should be based on the upcoming POWER5, to be the next G5 on the smaller process size. I certainly could be wrong, but if the 970 is moved to the smaller process first, then the 980 will trail the introduction of the POWER5 by quite a few months. Afterall, why introduce the 980 a few months after the 970 was moved to a smaller process size? It wouldn't be very economical to do that.

Sol

Jul 10, 2003, 01:18 AM

For all the hype about the new Pentium, it fails to impress the way the G5 PowerMacs do.

I heard that Intel is minimizing the over-clocking of its CPUs and that would certainly be in contrast to the PowerMac's design which seems almost tailor made for over-clocking; louder, like the last generation of G4 PowerMacs. Each G5 has its own fan and that could mean that the CPUs will be over-clocked when required. Apple already does this with the G4 PowerMacs which are rated higher than Motorola's fastest 1.2MHz G4s. When this new Pentium is released Apple could update its PowerMacs with "faster" processors.

More cache does not impress me as much as no cache and the G5 has none. New Pentium? Big deal. It seems to me that Intel has hit the x86 wall and the only thing that can help it is an even smaller fabrication process. 0.0 nanometers maybe?

acj

Jul 10, 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Phinius
I would put the power use of two topend G4s at about the same as a topend Pentium 4 and no the Pentium 4 will not be twice as fast as a G4 starting this month. In fact a Pentium 4 won't even have close to twice the performance of a G4 starting this month.

Your estimates of power may be closer to the truth, however what do you mean, "starting this month?"

Originally posted by Phinius
A comparison of a topend Pentium 4 to a dual-processor G4 PowerMac does not have two G4 processors running full throttle. The additional processor never gives the PowerMac more than a 50% boost in speed over a single G4 running at the same frequency.
Exactly. One fast CPU is better than two slow ones. Two fast CPU's are better than one fast CPU (Tada! G5 DP 2.0!)

Originally posted by Phinius
Comparing a single 1.42 GHz G4 to a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 processor will not result in the Pentium 4 doubling the performance of the G4.
Not exactly. The 3.2 P4 beats even the Dual G4 1.42 in many tests, including fair photoshop tests. Besides, why would you compare a non-existent system to a top of the line system?

VIREBEL661

Jul 10, 2003, 01:25 AM

I feel there's a place in the world for Intel AND PowerPC chips... I prefer PowerPC and RISC technology, as well as my favorite operating system:D, however, if I didn't have Mac OS, I would run Linux on a PowerPC, then, without that option, Linux on Intel hardware... Like most of us on these boards, I think it's pretty safe to say that windoze is the most loathesome part of the PC world... If Intel builds ever faster procs, then so be it (they're not RISC processors, so sort of a different technology, this came up a lot when Mac went PowerPC)... It doesn't change what my favorite hardware is, and actually will promote faster growth in processor speed from IBM, who, no matter what, isn't going away (neither's Apple, though some ignorant folks like to think otherwise, I mean, c'mon, they INVENTED the personal computer, and perfected the GUI to be ripped by M$, jeeeeeesh, even Bill Gates admits that)... I think the next couple of years are going to be exciting for we Mac users! Stay tuned....

Rower_CPU

Jul 10, 2003, 01:30 AM

No political discussion allowed in the news thread.

sinclairZX81

Jul 10, 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by websterphreaky
[BJobs is already learnig to lie in public statements, apparently from the supreme liar, Al Gore. [/B]

I'll start worrying the day Shrub says that Apple has Weapons of Mass Gigahertz up its sleeves... 'cause then you KNOW it'll turn out not to be true.

You spelled 'golden' incorrectly.

Docrjm

Jul 10, 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by mgargan1
oh, and they're not going to name it pentium 5, cause pentium already means 5. And it would be a little redundant calling a processor 5 5. The pentium name came about when the courts would not allow intel to copyright the numbers 386...486... etc. So they have to do some thinking. I believe they'll keep with the pentium 4 moniker; however, it wouldn't be a smart idea, cause the name's been out for almost 3 years.

No dafter than pentium 4, using your logic that is 5 4.

Don't matter what it is OS X still smokes xp.:D

Scottgfx

Jul 10, 2003, 02:10 AM

I was thinking back and did a google search to find this.

(From MacNN: July 18, 2002)
As the megahertz gap widens between Intel-based PCs and the latest PowerPC Macs, some analysts are urging Apple to reconsider its microprocessor strategy. When asked if Apple would seek an alternative to Motorola's PowerPC, namely chips from Intel, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the company first had to finish the transition to Mac OS X: "Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.

I think Jobs just showed us the options last month. ;) The words "we like to have options" have stuck in my head. In the meantime I had to deal with a lot of people asking me about John Devorak's (sp?) article on Apple moving to Intel processors. For some reason I felt pretty confident in Apple using the PPC970. I'm also still waiting for the next Amiga. :(

fpnc

Jul 10, 2003, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Phinius
PowerBooks with a G4 running at 1.5-1.6 GHz should be quite competitive to the Centrino line. Look for Apple to introduce PowerBooks this month that are a major step up in speed with the smaller process size G4s.

I'd also expect Apple to put as much as a 1.8 GHz G4 in the iMac line starting this month also, although 1.8 GHz maybe a bit optimistic at this point in time. At least the 1.42 GHz of the Power Macs though.

I also think it is possible that we'll see an improved and speed-bumped G4 in the PowerBook fairly soon. However, a jump to 1.5-1.6 GHz in a G4 PowerBook seems way too optimistic and a 1.8 GHz G4 in an iMac will probably never happen (at that level of performance it would probably make more sense to use a G5). I'd say that 1.2 to 1.4 GHz is all that we should expect in a new G4 PowerBook and/or iMac. In fact, that may be where the G4 and Apple finally go their separate ways (i.e. the end of the G4-based Macintosh).

AhmedFaisal

Jul 10, 2003, 02:43 AM

The current P4 has a thermal design power of solid 82 Watts and the maximum allowed temperature is 72°C. Boys, that's a server CPU for my taste. You need expensive watercooling or a supersonic fan to keep that beast cool. I doubt its going to get any better with the new core. The P4 is a failed design and Intel has already admitted it by designing the Pentium M which has a much better GHz/Processing Power ratio. I for one am laughing my ass off at all those "real GHz" morons with their noisy boxes and laptops with exhausted batteries after 30 minutes. There is at the moment only 2 decent chip design out in the x86 world, the Pentium M and the VIA C3, everything else (including AMD) is overprized cooking plate competition. :D
Cheers,

Ahmed

Analog Kid

Jul 10, 2003, 02:53 AM

eric67

Jul 10, 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by scem0
It is true that the true battle will be over software, but the more glorified battle (if less important) will be the speed battle.

It is also a stupid battle. :rolleyes:

They are both plenty fast.

If apple needs to work on one thing it would be price. It is pretty hard to justify spending $3,000+ on any computer (for most people).

scem0

This is true, and this probably the main reason why Apple share is still around 3-4%. The G5 will only push mac user to exchange their getting-old G4 to brand-new G5. But the real goal for Apple is to concentrate on normal consumer, who do not know so much about computer and just want a computer to use it (which now days means, internet, finance/budget, e-shopping, games- the main problem for Apple, Apple should push or invest money to help developers to release new games for both platform at the same time- education) and now on what are the main driving forces??? Price ad GHz myth!!!!!!!!!!
Price : well no need to explain, yes I know that a iMac is better equipped than a entry-level PC, but the latter is about 2 times cheaper.... those interested by a low end PC do not care not having FireWire,.....

GHz myth : yes I agree that this the main strength for Intel, increasing the frequency makes people thinking that it goes faster, well if you look at the Prescott P4, it will top at 3.4GHz, indeed if you increase frequency you will not see any gain for performance. Just look at the gain obtained between a P4 3.0 and 3.2 GHz, it is nothing!!!!!!!!!111
So then will come Tejas, well to be able to keep going with frequency, then Intel has planed 26 steps pipeline for Tejas , the follow up, Nehalem, will have 38 steps pipeline. in other world to keep with performance, Intel will have to increase frequency, and the only way to do it is to have the smallest process coupled to high frequency. .... but the real gain on performance will of course be lower than the GHz increase. Why do you think Intel introduce hyper threading??? because they know that they are getting close to the top frequency for the P4 Northwood!!!!!!! (3.4 GHz)
so they are looking to other way to increase performance, than GHz increase.....
NOW, all this discussion on GHz myth, pipelines, frequency/performance, the standard consumer does not give a ****, what is looking at is his wallet, and if his wallet says I can get a computer, PC-type, for less money that the iMac, and you can do more or less the same thing (not speaking video or imaging processing of course), then why getting a Mac???

Here is the point that Apple has to solve, and not only rely on their pro consumer, I know so many people who knows Mac, would love to get one, but can not afford one ......
I have been among then for a quite long time.

AhmedFaisal

Jul 10, 2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by shawnjackson

oh and anyone who keeps saying that intel chips run hot should actually use one. I have two dp 1.42, an athlon xp 2100+ and a 1700+ and a 3.0 p4 c...

the g4 and the athlon are probably tied for "hotness" at around 55 deg C at max load (using a thermaltake heat probe at cpu core.

the p4 runs load at about 38 with a nice quiet zalman fan. thats why its my home theater system.

First thing I did on my dual 1.42 was switch the fans and especially the CPU cooling system to that of a 3rd Party, now its quiet like my baby son when he sleeps. At any rate, P4 is one lousy selection for that home entertainment system. Since Apple is still denying us a pizzabox headless model I look what I could find in the PC world and this is what I use: www.hush-technologies.com. Its a neatly designed machine with a VIA Epia M 10000 ITX board, a 120MB sound insulated seagate barracuda and a slimline combo drive. All passive cooled so no noisy fans involved and so small it fits perfectly to my stereo and looks absolutely cool too. Its plenty fast for DVD & DivX and AAC audio music files. Only thing I added extra was a M-Audio Audiophile since I prefer an audio card with CINCH output and the sound of the audiophile is simply pristine.
Cheers,

Ahmed

soggywulf

Jul 10, 2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Sol
It seems to me that Intel has hit the x86 wall...

Yeah right. We've been hoping for that since the 601. Hasn't happened yet. CISC and RISC are just a bit of microcode apart. Intel has plans, and they'll stay in the game or ahead of it.

Besides, why would anyone actually want Intel to hit a wall? If that happens, then IBM lays off the amphetamines and our Macs won't get faster and cheaper. That would kind of suck wouldn't it?

tazznb

Jul 10, 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by rjwill246
You aren't thinking that a 3.4 Gig Pentium 4 is faster than say, a 2.5 Gig G5 are you? You wouldn't be right.
And to the other correspondent: yes it is possible to fry eggs on maxed out P4s... stunning, over easy! and you can have the chips with it too, though fish is better.

Actually these new 3.2 p4's can go as high as 100W (cooks steaks well done).

I've heard that the P5 (Pentium 5) will be very fast (the next chips 3.4Ghz coming from the great whore Intel will indeed be P5's).

For your reading pleasure:
http://lowendpc.com/rumormill/2002/0709.html

soggywulf

Jul 10, 2003, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by scem0
It is also a stupid battle. :rolleyes:

They are both plenty fast.

No, they ain't.

ewinemiller

Jul 10, 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
As I had commented in a previous thread I have yet to see ANY benchmarks of a 17” PB going head to head with a Pentium M. Even if the Mhz myth is true the fine tuning Intel is doing (Cache, system bus, etc.) could widen the gape in performance unless Apple\IBM\ Motorola pulls off a Houdini. The laptop line needs to be shored up. Its really that simple.

Actually Barefeats has a small blurb of a pb 17 vs. a 1.3Ghz Centrino laptop. The end result is that the Centrino ran CineBench 100% faster, Photoshop 20% faster, quake at 640x480 103% faster. The PB gained the upperhand with quake at 1024x768 by 84% because of more video memory.

Here's the link, scroll down to 6/28/03

http://www.barefeats.com/#quick

ewinemiller

Jul 10, 2003, 07:28 AM

wizard

Jul 10, 2003, 07:43 AM

Hi Silicon Addict;

I'm somewhat in agreement with what you say here Apple will have a very hard time keeping up with Intel performance wise. In fact I'm not willing to say that they will or now have a performance lead with the G5. The G5's performance as deomonstrated by Apple is a mixed bag, many of the so called bake offs and benchmarks seemed to be picked to demonstrate band width, not CPU performance. Not every operation that the average user does on a computer is bandwidth limited.

I also agree that Apples laptop line is hurting big time. They need a substantial increase in in G4 performance on these machines, much of that requires a bandwidth increase that apprently Motorola will not release anytime soon. The current hardware implementation for the G5 though has an huge amount of bandwidth but that leads to heavy power disapation outside the main CPU, which is not good for battery hold up time. It will be interesting to see if Apple has implemented a differrent chip set for the G5 designed for low power usage in a laptop or IMac. The other problem is that the G5 would have to be implemented at a rather high clock rate in a laptop to really compete with a G4. The only advantage that a G5 running at 1.2 GHz in a laptope would be the addressing capabilities, in most other ways newer 1.4 GHz G4's would beat it.

Laptops demonstrate clearly that if Apple has compelling technology they can be very successful selling their hardware. The problem is they really need to stay ahead of the Intel/AMD crowd to maintain that advantage. The Centrino package is something to be concerned about.

While I don't believe in the MHz myth Apples hardware has lagged greatly in performance improvements over the last couple of years. It is important to realize that speed isn't always the ultimate judge of performance of a laptop, on the other hand it wouldn't hurt Apple to have one performance laptop in their lineup.

Dave

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Apple and IBM are going to have to seriously stay on their toes to maintain that lead they have over AMD and Intel. One thing worries me. Most of the info on Intel's chips are on the desktop side where Apple already has a strong advantage. Everything I’ve read says that Intel’s mobile Pentium M chip is going to 90nm with a 2MB cache and a 400Mhz system bus in their laptop line this fall. As I had commented in a previous thread I have yet to see ANY benchmarks of a 17” PB going head to head with a Pentium M. Even if the Mhz myth is true the fine tuning Intel is doing (Cache, system bus, etc.) could widen the gape in performance unless Apple\IBM\ Motorola pulls off a Houdini. The laptop line needs to be shored up. Its really that simple.

Honestly guys. Intel doesn’t even really care about the G5. As cool as the title “fastest computer” is it doesn’t realty affect their sales all that much. Its the whole damn WINTEL thing. If a G5 could be put into a PC architecture then you would have them worried. Its AMD and to a lesser extent Transmeta who they are focusing on. These pot shots AMD and Intel continually throw at each other to be the “speed champ” has, until recently, left Apple\IBM\ Motorola eating vapors. I will be highly surprised if by fall of 2004 Apple and IBM still holds the speed crown.
Don’t get me wrong guys. I’m rooting for Apple and IBM. I’d be more then happy to eat crow fall of next year. I’m just saying they have a tough fight ahead.

eric67

Jul 10, 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by ewinemiller

I am very curious how well the G5 and the new prescotts will do as I start to think about a new machine, but I'm not going to base my decision off any benchmark that isn't what I do. I've seen both platforms do very good at one thing and fall down on the next. I've even seen significant variation base on the particulars of different test files for the same application. I'll hopefully talk the first sucker, er, happy new owner of each to run a few files off the content CD for my particular package. With those times I can compare to what I get now and then make a decision.

well us.macbidouille.com reports a test which has been performed by the NASA regarding the G5 vs P4
actually the G5 with no optimized code did really well.
article : http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-07-04
direct link : http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/

wizard

Jul 10, 2003, 08:05 AM

I hate to break the news to you but all indications are that the latest chipsets from Intel, those support the 800MHz FSB are some of the best that Intel has come out with in a long time. Many are reporting very easy over clocking of the FSB. So it may not take a new chip set just an uprated device for themain stream market. Also realize that Intel quad pumps the bus so in realty the MHz values are actually lower that the Apple/IBM Bus.

While Apple/IBM have an interesting implementation of a FSB, it is by no means perfect. Also a fast FSB will not make up for all CPU short comeings.

Dave

Originally posted by Mosco
Oh and about the FSB on the new Pentiums, I would think they would have to release a new chipset if they wanted to come out with a FSB higher than 800Mhz. I doubt we will see a new chipset since they their current chipsets are only a couple months old.

thies

Jul 10, 2003, 08:13 AM

For me whatever runs a decent unix cheapest wins. G5s lose big times in that respect. 20% pricecut on G5s and I'd stop laughing.:D

wizard

Jul 10, 2003, 08:16 AM

I doubt very much that the G5 would have much to offer at 1.2 GHz over the improved G4. The power disapation of its support circuits would be a real killer.

That does not mean that Apple should not strive to get a G5 into a laptop ASAP. The problem is that the vast majority of the market would be better served by a power conserving G4 implementation. With laptops you have really to big user groups, power users and battery users. The people who really run on batteries need all the run time they can get. They won't get that from a G5 implemented as the PowerMac has been.

Thanks
Dave

Originally posted by Abstract
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. :) Apple better treat other companies nicer. They're sounding a bit arrogant. I have thought this for a while now.

I agree with this as well. I have always said that while Apple seemed to have the lead in notebooks, the Centrino probably took that lead away --- and it has. The only thing I like about Apple notebooks is the iBook. It beats every notebook in it's price range, in my opinion, or it is at least competitive. But I have seen some Centrino notebooks that have simply outclassed the Powerbook line completely, and all at a price below the 15" PB.

The only thing I disagree with is that Apple will be without a G5 in their PB line until January at the earliest. Sorry, but they could just fit a 1.2GHz G5 in there and appease the masses. Nobody is asking Apple to stick in a dual proc 2.0GHz, just a 1.2GHz G5 that can compete with the Centrino. At this point, I'd settle for that, or even a 1 GHz G5. Whatever. Just get your "new" chip in your products and move them. Having them in a notebook also helps promote the G5. People who aren't looking for a desktop (like myself) don't really care if a G5 can be had in a desktop. I'm only interested in the laptops, and if notebook sales are beating out desktop sales, it is probably more important for Apple to get their notebook line up to par, than it is for them to compete with Intel machines only on Apple's tip-top-end desktops. People want notebooks.

acj

Jul 10, 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by eric67

GHz myth : yes I agree that this the main strength for Intel, increasing the frequency makes people thinking that it goes faster, well if you look at the Prescott P4, it will top at 3.4GHz, indeed if you increase frequency you will not see any gain for performance. Just look at the gain obtained between a P4 3.0 and 3.2 GHz, it is nothing!!!!!!!!!111
So then will come Tejas, well to be able to keep going with frequency, then Intel has planed 26 steps pipeline for Tejas , the follow up, Nehalem, will have 38 steps pipeline. in other world to keep with performance, Intel will have to increase frequency, and the only way to do it is to have the smallest process coupled to high frequency. .... but the real gain on performance will of course be lower than the GHz increase. Why do you think Intel introduce hyper threading??? because they know that they are getting close to the top frequency for the P4 Northwood!!!!!!! (3.4 GHz)
so they are looking to other way to increase performance, than GHz increase.....

This just isn't true. And the new P4 core STARTS at 3.4 GHz, may top out at 4-5 GHz. And it is FASTER PER MHz than the old cores. In fact the newest available 3.2GHz is ALSO faster per MHz. Intel is indeed making more efficient CPU's, MHz-wise.

"MHz myth" is more of a marketing strategy than "MHz." Pipeline length, etc. means squat as does MHz.

nuckinfutz

Jul 10, 2003, 08:56 AM

The only advantage that a G5 running at 1.2 GHz in a laptope would be the addressing capabilities, in most other ways newer 1.4 GHz G4's would beat it.

That would be assuming that the G5 is equal to the G4 in handling instruction. 8 Queue 5 dispatch and Dual FPU still means and advantage over the similary clocked G4. I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

I hate to break the news to you but all indications are that the latest chipsets from Intel, those support the 800MHz FSB are some of the best that Intel has come out with in a long time.

That still doesn't help Intel compete at the $3000 level with a Dual Gigahertz FSB. The Canterwood(875) chipset is nice. But no more than the G5 Motherboard(which is much more complex).

I doubt very much that the G5 would have much to offer at 1.2 GHz over the improved G4. The power disapation of its support circuits would be a real killer.

Again...no empirical evidence other than the profound "I doubt". You have no technical info to back up your statements at all. The burden of proof is with you .

This just isn't true. And the new P4 core STARTS at 3.4 GHz, may top out at 4-5 GHz. And it is FASTER PER MHz than the old cores. In fact the newest available 3.2GHz is ALSO faster per MHz. Intel is indeed making more efficient CPU's, MHz-wise.

Enough talk. Show us where Prescott is faster per megahertz. The IPC of the Pentium 4 has always been low. All i'm hearing is a bunch of Intel blathering conjecture with no info to back it up.

Chobit

Jul 10, 2003, 09:33 AM

It is supposed to cost $637 in volume quantities. How does that compare to the G4/G5/current pentiums? I thought I remembered the G4s being cheaper than that, and the G5/970/GPULs are supposed to be cheaper than the G4s. Does anyone know the actual numbers?

eric67

Jul 10, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by acj
This just isn't true. And the new P4 core STARTS at 3.4 GHz, may top out at 4-5 GHz. And it is FASTER PER MHz than the old cores. In fact the newest available 3.2GHz is ALSO faster per MHz. Intel is indeed making more efficient CPU's, MHz-wise.

"MHz myth" is more of a marketing strategy than "MHz." Pipeline length, etc. means squat as does MHz.

Well let's make it clear.
The current P4 Northwood will top at 3.4GHz, this is clear and certain
the next P4 generation aka Prescott will top at the beginning at 3.4GHz, launching date Nov, 11th 2003; but indeed it is suppose to hit 4-5GHz at the max..... really at the max.....
Actually Intel will have to change the processor socket to be able to continue with increasing frequency future so called Socket T.
but this also mean complete different motherboard and chipset... whereas the last chipset for FSB800 is just hitting the market since few weeks.....
For sure mobo manufacturer do not have really time to optimize all components for each Intel P4 generation.....
Look, in 6 month new socket for the Prescott and the current top mobo for P4, ASUS P4P800 or P4C800 Deluxe will be completly "old".... well but let see at the real performance gain, not those CPU benchmarks.....
the Current top P4 Northwood, cost around $650 / processor for batch of 1000.....

Phinius

Jul 10, 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by acj
Your estimates of power may be closer to the truth, however what do you mean, "starting this month?"

Motorola should already have smaller process size G4s in production and Apple will more than likely very soon announce updates to the consumer desktop along with all the notebook computers.

Besides, why would you compare a non-existent system to a top of the line system?

Because there will be much faster G4s available for Apple's consumer line starting this month. The G5 is essentially freeing up the topend G4s for the consumer line and since Motorola is moving the G4 to a smaller process there will be much faster iMacs and notebook computers announced before the end of the month.

ColdZero

Jul 10, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by ffakr
Huh?
the G5 maxes out at around 45 watts while the P4 currently puts out 65 watts and the Itanium is over 120 watts.

try again.

I guess that specially designed cooling system with a whole bunch of fans is there for show. While I look over to my 3.06 P4 in a SB51G www.shuttle.com (http://www.shuttle.com) which has 2 fans in the entire system, including the processor and video card. Or that the entire enclosure has to have holes in it to move sufficient air so it doesn't overheat. P4s also are in laptops, and have been for a long time, the G5 won't be appearing in one anytime soon as stated by Apple, because of heat. Where do you find the 2.0ghz G5 specs? The highest thermal specs I have found are on the 1.8. That wattage is for the Itanium 1, what about the Itanium 2?

nuckinfutz

Jul 10, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by ColdZero
I guess that specially designed cooling system with a whole bunch of fans is there for show. While I look over to my 3.06 P4 in a SB51G www.shuttle.com (http://www.shuttle.com) which has 2 fans in the entire system, including the processor and video card. Or that the entire enclosure has to have holes in it to move sufficient air so it doesn't overheat. P4s also are in laptops, and have been for a long time, the G5 won't be appearing in one anytime soon as stated by Apple, because of heat. Where do you find the 2.0ghz G5 specs? The highest thermal specs I have found are on the 1.8. That wattage is for the Itanium 1, what about the Itanium 2?

LOL. Shuttle?? Please I've heard plenty of stories about the Shuttles overheating .

Do you really want me to find more? (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Shuttle++ATX+overheating&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3E237D6D.9010007%40yahoo.com&rnum=3)

Don't write checks your ass can't cash. I've never heard of a G4 system shutting down due to overheating and I doubt a G5 will.

AhmedFaisal

Jul 10, 2003, 10:31 AM

MacCoaster

Jul 10, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Waluigi
Hahahaha! I couldn't have put it better. No matter how fast intel makes their processors, they still will run windows, which completely cripples their ability to be useful.

--Waluigi
Well, Stevie's other company, Pixar, uses Intel processors and Linux. No Windows. Since when does anyone have to have Windows to run an Intel. :rolleyes: And they're being useful, rendering kick ass films for Disney.

Fredo Viola

Jul 10, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by VIREBEL661
I think the next couple of years are going to be exciting for we Mac users! Stay tuned....

Thank you!!! Let's keep the chins up and eyes focused on the gorgeous potential this new hardware offers.

That said, it's probably too late for Apple to be "nicer" to the 3rd party monsters, such as Adobe. And it probably doesn't matter anyway. With FCP, DVDSP, Logic, Shake, iPhoto, iMovie, etc... they can send chocolates and flowers by the barrel to the 3rd parties. They are still the enemy for stealing away the business with excellent affordable software. It IS scary to see Adobe pull support. And I'm pretty terrified it's going to work and Apple's prof market is going to shrink even more drastically than it already has.

The last two years HAVE been embarassing, and G4s ARE NOT, and HAVE NOT BEEN fast enough to compete in these lower-high-end multi-media markets. That's the truth. Folks that say otherwise just don't know.

nuckinfutz

Jul 10, 2003, 11:02 AM

Yes it's sad to see Adobe catch a blackeye. However Apple said it want the Mac to be a frontrunner for Digital Video and sadly...Premiere was not helping that situation.

The important think of note is that Apple is focused on Digital Video and the Emagic purchase was along the same veing.

Back on Topic. I don't dispute that Intel has nice chips coming up but it's foolish for Wintel fans to think Intel will maintain the same type of speed advantage they've had over the last 3 years.

This is a whole new ballgame. The G5 architecture is nice and it has legs. This will help the whole Mac lineup.

Java

Jul 10, 2003, 11:08 AM

Hodapp

Jul 10, 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Besides the fact, the shuttle's are way too damn loud even with the newer heatpipe cooling system.

I'm sorry but this is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted on these forums, and that is an accomplishment. Since the introduction of the shuttle SB52G2, my company (a large medical ASP), has almost entirely switched from expensive Dell servers to the extremely cost-effective and powerful shuttle platform. Compliment one with a RAID card and you've got yourself a rock solid server that performs on par with the offerings from the enterprise-level server manufacturers for under $1000 a piece. They only have one fan in the entire machine which is controlled by the motherboard and only spins at the lowest possible RPM to keep the internals of the shuttle within a safe operating temperatures. This fan, under even maximum load is still quieter than the drives spinning inside of the machine. It is BLAZINGLY obvious you've never even seen a Shuttle in person, much less used or heard one.

I really want a PowerBook, when the new 15 inch revisions are ready for ordering, there's nothing stopping me from buying one. This coming from a die-hard PC user/gamer. The problem I have is that I will be assimilated in to 'one of those Mac users.' This entire comments thread is CHOCK full of unbridled ignorance and one sided posts, and I will essentially be pledging my allegience to people who don't know anything about other processor platforms besides what biased Macintosh news sources have told them. I would go so far as to say 90% or greater of you have never used a P4 platform. ...Yet you all seem to be experts about how slow they are, how hot they run, etc.

Can I fry an egg onit?

Ummmm Opteron is not all that impressive.

Celeron? Let me laugh.

Whichever one runs OS X will be the one that wins.

No matter how fast intel makes their processors, they still will run windows, which completely cripples their ability to be useful.

AND THIS JUST FROM PAGE ONE! Seriously guys, I want to be a Macintosh user, I go in to the Apple store and think "THIS is what I need" when I look at Powerbooks, but the amazing amount of ignorance for anything that isn't a Macintosh that is spewed like TrueGreen on a dying front lawn is just too much to handle. You guys just need to realize that no matter how great the Apple platform is, and how much "faster" it is, with such a small market share it wouldn't matter if Apple released a computer that walked your dog and did your dishes while you used it... All this unfounded PC badmouthing just makes you look like little kids who are ready to fight at the Playground to defend the good name of their Super Nintendo because they didn't get a Sega Genesis for Christmas.

I know this post will be taken as a grain of salt, as the anti-PC snowball has already grown way too large in this train-wreck of a thread. It's just something most of you should really consider. Ah well... Such is life I suppose. :(

LinuxGigolo

Jul 10, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
I'm just hoping Apple gets their consumer line in order. Now more slow G4!!!

When, suddenly, did the G4 become slow? It was good enough 2 months ago before the G5 was introduced. The pro users wanted a new chip to replace the one that they'd been using for 4 years, but the G4 was an excellent one for iMac, eMac, ... and maybe one day iBook (sheesh... 2 gens behind the 'new'.. and what happened to Stevey Boy's 'year of the notebook'?) So now suddenly since one of the 5 machines in Apple's lineup got a new chip, all of them need to? The G4 suddenly sucks? It's suddenly not good enough for consumer machines? I mean the MHz rating does suck... but... no consumer needs (right now) the G5's architecture (and cost). Just my 50 Cent.

cubist

Jul 10, 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by io_burn
The problem I have is that I will be assimilated in to 'one of those Mac users.' This entire comments thread is CHOCK full of unbridled ignorance and one sided posts, ... All this unfounded PC badmouthing just makes you look like little kids who are ready to fight at the Playground to defend the good name of their Super Nintendo because they didn't get a Sega Genesis for Christmas. ...

io_burn, you need to remember that Mac users get worse crap than this from ignorant PC users all the time. Ask your coworkers what they think of Macs. You're likely to hear things like "Macs are lame", "Macs are slow", "Macs can't use the Internet", "Macs don't have any software", and other blatantly stupid blanket statements, made by computer professionals who should know better.

The vast majority of PC users are sheep who know nothing about computers whatsoever. They just buy whatever everyone else buys.

This is a Mac board. Don't expect objectivity here. You wouldn't expect your kid to say nice things about schoolyard bullies, would you?

amd_rules_ok

Jul 10, 2003, 11:44 AM

I think that the worst part about pc's is that while they are great for getting work done, playing games, tweaking, etc., It's just so hard to find a case that matches my drapes.

I remember one time my stupid pc using friend was over and he tried to turn on my imac, thinking it was a lamp. I lol'd pretty hard. :cool:

nuckinfutz

Jul 10, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by LinuxGigolo
When, suddenly, did the G4 become slow? It was good enough 2 months ago before the G5 was introduced. The pro users wanted a new chip to replace the one that they'd been using for 4 years, but the G4 was an excellent one for iMac, eMac, ... and maybe one day iBook (sheesh... 2 gens behind the 'new'.. and what happened to Stevey Boy's 'year of the notebook'?) So now suddenly since one of the 5 machines in Apple's lineup got a new chip, all of them need to? The G4 suddenly sucks? It's suddenly not good enough for consumer machines? I mean the MHz rating does suck... but... no consumer needs (right now) the G5's architecture (and cost). Just my 50 Cent.

The G4 has been slow. If you want a date its when the REST of the industry move to 130nm while Moto stayed at 180(and is still there until Q4 of THIS year!).

Didn't the AE creaming of the Dual 1.42Ghz hit home with Mac users? When I say "slow" G4 I mean sub 1Ghz. I'm perfectly fine with a G4 at the 1.25Ghz level and above. I'm not going to put my head in the sand and truly believe a 700Mhz G4 eMac won't get pasted against a an $800 PC.

I love Apple but they're digging themselves out of wholes that they created years ago and they can ill afford mistakes and half assed consumer lineups.

Nemesis

Jul 10, 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by websterphreaky
Apple will never catch up in GHz, worse yet, they are in their new arrogant attitude driving away the major software developers that once stuck by the platform when the '90s dark days nearly claimed the platform.

There is NO chance there will be any G5 faster than 2GHz by year end and Jobs knows it. The Media certainly knows and is chiding Apple already. Now the press is making hey with the MS and Adobe Mac defections.

Their additionally RUDE behavior in statements, such as with the announcement of no Mac Premier "With the announcement of the new Power Mac G5 and the innovations in Final Cut Pro 4, there has never been a better time for Premiere customers to make the switch.", only show the companies (and I'm assuming Steve Jobs) insulant juvenile behavior.

At less than 2.6% market share, and no sign of a turn around, Apple needs to stop being a (software/OS) monopolistic smart ass. Otherwise, we'll all be using Windoze PC's whether we like it or not. :mad:

No mate, you're wrong. And you live in some kind of deep coma.
It is Adobe who trashed Premiere development and support to Mac platform, simply because they have inferior product and want to take monopoly on PC market in digital video. Premiere can't compare with FCP. Period.

Furthermore, it is good to be proud. You obviously have problems diferentiating pride from stupidity. Apple is pride of its platform, its incredible OS, its new remarkable new machines. Even if big shots like Adobe abaondons some of their product. It's not because Apple is inferior company, but rather opposite -- it's small, but extremely productive and vigorous.

If you have some problem with that, you can always jump into lake.

wizard

Jul 10, 2003, 11:59 AM

Well the argument is pretty easy to make once you realize that Floating Point isn't high on everybodies list of requirements. The G5 clock per clock does not perform all that much better than a G4. So running a G5 at 1.2 GHz when faster G4's are available does not make sense. This is especially the case if those G4's are low power. Now if Apple/IBM can deliver a low power 970 at 1.6 or 1.8 GHz that would be another story.

So you have extended addressing capabilities and floating point as the G5's advantages. Along with this you have all of its disadvantages. What I'm realy wondiering about now is if Apple can take advantage of the extended addressing capabilities of the G4 to allow us access to more memory? With the new version of OS/X handling process spaces of 4GB that would be very interesting.

Canterwood is a very interesting chip set, and form all appearance to date is one of Intels better efforts. Much of Apples advantages are with support of Hyper Transport. The interesting thing is the flexibility that the motherboard manufactures have on the Intel side, many capable mother boards exist or are coming on line for Canterwood.

Hey I still doubt it. Until more information is available (if it is ever available) on Apples chip set I have to say that power will be a problem. That doesn't mean that Apple could not implement a laptop with dramaticaly differrent 970 Support to deal with these concerns. The other key indicator is that I've yet to see an Opteron system in a note book.

The statement about Prescott must have been somebodies elses. I must admit though that some of the material I've seen on line comparing the G5 and Prescott has been garbage. Considering that, and other more reliable information, one will have to expect that Prescott will be a significant performer. Actually I think Intel has no choice other than to go with a dramatic increase in performance to deal with the AMD issue. All this being said really doesn't affect my perception of the G5 which is that it is a parity machine, and might not even be that once it is in users hands. But don't take that as a negative comment, I would not be surprised at all to see Apple drop a 500 MHz rev on us around the end of the year.

A lot of my opinion comes from the publicly available information that Apple has presented. There seemed to be an effort to limit expectations for an immediate 970 laptop release. Now many reasons for that effort could be floating around One Infinet Loop, but I suspect that the 970 laptops are a ways off. I could be grossly wrong here, but the G5 does represent a major engineering project, I'm sure Apple wants everything to go right with the G5 though.

Thanks
Dave

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
That would be assuming that the G5 is equal to the G4 in handling instruction. 8 Queue 5 dispatch and Dual FPU still means and advantage over the similary clocked G4. I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

That still doesn't help Intel compete at the $3000 level with a Dual Gigahertz FSB. The Canterwood(875) chipset is nice. But no more than the G5 Motherboard(which is much more complex).

Again...no empirical evidence other than the profound "I doubt". You have no technical info to back up your statements at all. The burden of proof is with you .

Enough talk. Show us where Prescott is faster per megahertz. The IPC of the Pentium 4 has always been low. All i'm hearing is a bunch of Intel blathering conjecture with no info to back it up.

Nemesis

Jul 10, 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by thies
For me whatever runs a decent unix cheapest wins. G5s lose big times in that respect. 20% pricecut on G5s and I'd stop laughing.:D

Linux is just fine sorta Unix and it runs nicely on 80486. That's cheap enough for you, mate.
So stop complaining for nothing.

Nemesis

Jul 10, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by wizard
Now many reasons for that effort could be floating around One Infinet Loop, but I suspect that the 970 laptops are a ways off. I could be grossly wrong here, but the G5 does represent a major engineering project, I'm sure Apple wants everything to go right with the G5 though.

Thanks
Dave

Uff, do people really believe that Apple would kill their laptop sale by announcing G5 in a Powerbook in 3-4 months? Who would in hell buy anything before that?
Jeeez, some people are unbeleivable. Just use your heads, mates. Think! Think!

wizard

Jul 10, 2003, 12:12 PM

It is really up to the consumer to decide what is fast enough. Even for home use there are somethings that would be best handled by extremely fast machines. Machines that honestly aren't on the market yet, nor will they be anytime soon.

Your statement about consumer machines smack of comunism. It makes about as much sense as the people who complain about pickup trucks and SUV's. Some of us can't fit into a Saturn literally and some of us need more that a G5 to get our work done.

So don't run around trying to fit a limited vision of reality on the rest of us. Faster PC's or Macs are needed by many of us at home and the reality is the professional applications are unbounded.

Dave

Originally posted by LinuxGigolo
When, suddenly, did the G4 become slow? It was good enough 2 months ago before the G5 was introduced. The pro users wanted a new chip to replace the one that they'd been using for 4 years, but the G4 was an excellent one for iMac, eMac, ... and maybe one day iBook (sheesh... 2 gens behind the 'new'.. and what happened to Stevey Boy's 'year of the notebook'?) So now suddenly since one of the 5 machines in Apple's lineup got a new chip, all of them need to? The G4 suddenly sucks? It's suddenly not good enough for consumer machines? I mean the MHz rating does suck... but... no consumer needs (right now) the G5's architecture (and cost). Just my 50 Cent.

Nemesis

Jul 10, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by wizard
I hate to break the news to you but all indications are that the latest chipsets from Intel, those support the 800MHz FSB are some of the best that Intel has come out with in a long time. Many are reporting very easy over clocking of the FSB. So it may not take a new chip set just an uprated device for themain stream market. Also realize that Intel quad pumps the bus so in realty the MHz values are actually lower that the Apple/IBM Bus.

While Apple/IBM have an interesting implementation of a FSB, it is by no means perfect. Also a fast FSB will not make up for all CPU short comeings.

Dave

Uf, uf! This FSB thing is interesting because it shows 2 nice things:

1) No more "monthly GHZ updates" from Intel's side. If they want their procs to run smoothly, they should make GHz leaps according to FSB speed: N x 800 MHz (or whatever the speed of FSB) = processor speed. Faster the FSB, larger the step. Voila!

2) Apple didn't announce everything, they have many aces in the pocket too. Like that with 3GHz G5 they announce 1.5 GHz FSB too ... ;-)

nuckinfutz

Jul 10, 2003, 12:16 PM

Dave K

Jul 10, 2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The only problem with this is that NO ONE has any definitive benchmarks to either prove or dissaprove your statements. The only thing I've seen is the NASA Benchmarks which show that Alitvec on the PPC 970 is superior primarily because of the increase in clock. I haven't seen anything that shows that Integer performance follows the same pattern.

Actually, the initial numbers from that NASA tests in the 100's are for non-Altivec scalar math and showed that when using that specific code optimized for the G4 a single 2 Ghz 970 comes out about 142% faster than a 1 Ghz G4.

Roughly linear performance gains for Altivec were expected because, in general, it's the same between the two machines and the 970's not introducing a new "Altvec Extreme" version.

The catch here being that the test was done using data that would fit rather comfortably inside a G4's 1MB L3 so it's bandwidth cap isn't a tested variable.

MasterX (OSiX)

Jul 10, 2003, 02:05 PM

Is it possible that you're overlooking something? A few things I believe.

Primarily, any large jump in clock accompanied by an INCREASE in per cycle efficiency is a great accomplishment. The fact that the g5 is only marginally faster per mhz should be impressive to you, not under-satisfactory.

Secondly, Apple has succeeded where AMD has failed. Hailing 64-bit as the end all for Intel. I never cared enough to check, but from what people have told me the Opteron has had it's ass kicked in places where it needed to shine to become a desktop competitor. While I'm sure that in the server world where there exists a market for highly per-system optomized code and software, competing in the desktop space is far more difficult.

Third, Apple hasn't yet finished a fully 64-bit version of MacOS X. Many computations in OSX are (thankfully) passed on to code created by Apple. This is how I believe Apple has managed to squeeze out so much performance, specifically through use of altivec acceleation in system frameworks, compiler, etc. In the future when we have a full 64-bit compiled AND OPTIMIZED version of Panther we can expect even more superior performance.

Fourth, you can argue Apple's tasks are biased. If you play WWDC again you will notice the P4 does well and dandy until it gets to scaling down this massive TIFF of a whale. If I remember right, 64-bit chips should do best in massive computations of that type. It's clear that given the task of optimizing Photoshop for the g5 in order of what is used most and where the best performance would come from, scaling would be high in that list. But like the infamous debates over Quake3 driver tweaks, technically (I believe) that optomizing for something like scaling in phohshop then that task being the difference in winer and loser in apple's P4 vs G5 showdown is a fair fight. Who's to say that that isn't what has been killing performace on large photoshop projects all this time?

I don't know if there is a way to write for 64-bit specifically, or if all the 64-bit tweaks are done in the compiler. But if there is a way to code with 64-bit in mind that will be another example of increased performance to look forward to in the future. In my opinion it's not a question of if this current g5 line up will beat the new P4, it will. But I'm afraid Apple will no longer win on SPEC tests unless some crazy stuff happens inside the new P4s. Still If you remember from the days of "slow g4s" Apple was forced to very heavily optimize their code, as did 3rd parties. Now since most of that optimization took the form of Altivec we can reap the benefits on the g5 immediately, due to it's highly advanced Altivec support.

Outstanding

Cubeboy

Jul 10, 2003, 02:38 PM

1) Prescott will almost certainly be the Pentium 5 as it's a major enhancement in nearly every respect to the Pentium 4 (I'll list all the enhancements later). We should also consider the span of time that's passed since the original Pentium 4, considering about two years have passed, it's time for a new Pentium.

2)How high a cpu scales depends on it's architecture and the chip makers manufacturing capabilities. In the case of the Pentium 4, a move from 180 nm process to 130 nm process resulted in about a 50% increase in clock rate. Moving from the current 130 nm process to Prescott's 90 nm process well result in another 50% increase in clock rate allowing Prescott to scale to nearly 5 GHz. Of course thats only assuming moving to a smaller process, Prescott will also be the first cpu to utilize Strained Silcon which should be able to allow for even higher scaling in clock rates. Exactly how much higher is currently unknown.

3) Prescott will be a modified Pentium 4 core, but thats not to say there won't be any significant gains in performance, the 1 mb L2 cache alone should be able to boost application performance at least 5-10% (moving from 256k to 512k on the Pentium 4 resulted in a 7-17% increase) and SPEC by at least 10%. The Larger Data Cache, which maintains the same latency as the previous Pentium 4 should be able to offer a even more significant boost than the L2. Almost every other aspect of the Pentium 4 has also been enhanced, the Larger Trace cache increases the number of uOps it can issue every clock cycle (about 33% higher IPC), twice the number of entries in it's BHT gives it much better branch prediction, it can handle more instructions in flight, it can hold twice as many entries in it's load and store buffers, latency on integer multiples is lowered, larger integer and floating point register files, improved hyperthreading, SSE3 and probably a few minor core revisions (ie additional write buffers and what not). It might also have 32/64 bit capabilities, and feature a faster FSB which might be why motherboard makers have begun to show off motherboards that support 1.2 GHz Quad Channel RDRAM modules.

Suggested Readings:
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_04_20_Looking_at_Intels_Prescott_part2.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10424

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10367

sososowhat

Jul 10, 2003, 02:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ddtlm
mgargan1:
Pentium does not mean five, its a made up word that suggests "five" as well as a metal. (And other stuff, I'm sure.)

I was surprised when they went to Pentium II after Pentium.

286->386->486->Pentium->Sexium would have made more sense.

rutabaga

Jul 10, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by nickmcghie
On particularly interesting note was about heat. x86 CPUs already get hot and require considerable cooling, but this is getting worse and eventually it will hit a wall. A report by the publishers of Microprocessor Report indicated that Intel is expected to start hitting the heat wall in 2004. The article goes on to predict that the x86 will soon lose it's price advantage because the cooling systems required to keep these beasts from literally melting cost several times what the CPUs themselves cost.

Long live RISC!! :D

this is just a dandy bit of intellect. apple just came out with a tower which contains the most advanced/sophisticated cooling system ever employed for a desktop system. by a wide margin. don't you think this price is being passed on to the macintosh consumers as well? meanwhile, current pc towers employ a heat sink and a couple of glue on fans. don't you think the manufacturers are passing those savings onto their customers?

let us not make the mistake of underestimated the BRILLIANCE of intel's engineers. they have steadfastly overcome every obstacle that various prognosticaters have predicted would derail the cisc architexture. they will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

SubXaero

Jul 10, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Cubeboy
1) Prescott will almost certainly be the Pentium 5 as it's a major enhancement in nearly every respect to the Pentium 4 (I'll list all the enhancements later). We should also consider the span of time that's passed since the original Pentium 4, considering about two years have passed, it's time for a new Pentium.

Suggested Readings:
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_04_20_Looking_at_Intels_Prescott_part2.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10424

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10367

the "tejas" revision will be the next P5

and for anyone whos interested here are intels roadmap:
Roadmap (http://www.pbase.com/image/18657503)

all i can say is, if things stay on course is IBM is gonna be very busy :)

LinuxGigolo

Jul 10, 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by wizard
It is really up to the consumer to decide what is fast enough. Even for home use there are somethings that would be best handled by extremely fast machines. Machines that honestly aren't on the market yet, nor will they be anytime soon.

Your statement about consumer machines smack of comunism. It makes about as much sense as the people who complain about pickup trucks and SUV's. Some of us can't fit into a Saturn literally and some of us need more that a G5 to get our work done.

So don't run around trying to fit a limited vision of reality on the rest of us. Faster PC's or Macs are needed by many of us at home and the reality is the professional applications are unbounded.

Dave

My point was actually less about the fact that macs are slow enough/fast enough and more about the fact that people complain the second something new comes out that it needs to be implmented across the line. This sort of reminds me of the whole iPod Software 2.0 complaint whereby people somehow suddenly stop liking their older iPods just because something newer came out. (I own an iPod that does not support software 2.0 and if I want it, I'll buy a new iPod... but just because a new one came out, mine didn't lose any of its functionality). Nothing is stopping home users who need the power of the G5 architecture from buying Power Mac G5s, just as nothing stops people who can't fit in Saturns or who want different/bigger cars from buying them. Thinking that Apple will put a G5 into an iBook/eMac anytime soon, though, just seems silly.

Cubeboy

Jul 10, 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by SubXaero
the "tejas" revision will be the next P5

and for anyone whos interested here are intels roadmap:
Roadmap (http://www.pbase.com/image/18657503)

all i can say is, if things stay on course is IBM is gonna be very busy :)

I doubt the author of that page knows whether or not Prescott will be the Pentium 5, especially considering Intel's official roadmap doesn't cover anything beyond a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4.

The most widely accepted "leaked" roadmaps (look up The Inquirer's or Extremetech's roadmap) point out to Prescott being the Pentium 5 and Tejas being the Pentium 6. Which considering the sheer number of modifications and duration of time passed from the Pentium 4, would be quite reasonable.

I don't really see how Tejas can be considered the Pentium 5 if Prescott isn't when their both are supposed to be modified Pentium 4 cores, we probably won't see a entirely new core until Nehalem.

soggywulf

Jul 10, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by LinuxGigolo
Thinking that Apple will put a G5 into an iBook/eMac anytime soon, though, just seems silly.

It's not silly at all, at least for the iMac and eMac. Unless we approach it from a sheltered Mac-only perspective.

If we want consumers to buy Macs, the consumer Macs have to stay relatively competitive with PCs at the same price points.

fpnc

Jul 10, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
...The only thing I've seen is the NASA Benchmarks which show that Alitvec on the PPC 970 is superior primarily because of the increase in clock. I haven't seen anything that shows that Integer performance follows the same pattern.

...and...

Originally posted by Dave K
Actually, the initial numbers from that NASA tests in the 100's are for non-Altivec scalar math and showed that when using that specific code optimized for the G4 a single 2 Ghz 970 comes out about 142% faster than a 1 Ghz G4.

Dave K, note that nuckinfutz was asking about integer performance. The scalar math in the NASA report is still floating point, not integer. This also highlights the one area where the G5 architecture is clearly superior to both the G4 and the Pentium. From that same NASA report you can see that MHz-to-MHz the G5 is about 23% faster than the G4 and over 32% faster than the Pentium 4 (when measuring scalar MFLOPS/MHz).

Analog Kid

Jul 10, 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

Again...no empirical evidence other than the profound "I doubt". You have no technical info to back up your statements at all. The burden of proof is with you .

Not much empirical evidence on your side either, but let me put in some thoughts:

P=.5fCV^2
'C' close to doubles when you double the bit width of the bus. 'f' goes up by a factor of 6 or so. This is just the bus between the CPU and the memory controller.

Then there's that 128bit, 400MHz, DDR (800MHz data) bus to main memory.

Then pull a datasheet on PC3200 memory.

Then remember Job's comment that the memory controller chip was built on the same process that the 970 is built on which means it's already at .13 (and not likely to go to .09 so soon).

Then realize that compromizing any of these specs starts to starve a core that has no L3 cache support.

Then read the news stories about new smaller, faster G4s out of Mot, and the answer seems pretty clear...

It's not all bad-- Mot has been talking about a dual core G4 which would make a pretty sweet basis for a laptop in my mind...

Dave K

Jul 10, 2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by fpnc
Dave K, note that nuckinfutz was asking about integer performance. Given that all the talk from the initial quote and the trailing on that was about FP and combined with the comment about the NASA stats only refering to Altivec-enhanced FP, I presumed the integer reference was a typo...

nuckinfutz

Jul 10, 2003, 06:41 PM

Given that all the talk from the initial quote and the trailing on that was about FP and combined with the comment about the NASA stats only refering to Altivec-enhanced FP, I presumed the integer reference was a typo..

Actually I'm interested in both. However my post tended to combine the two in a confusing way.

AK- Thanks for that explanation. I'm curious to see what the low voltage PPC 970 shows for speed but it looks like Apple may skip in entirely. We'll see. Hell a G4 would be pretty sweet with a Ondie Mem controller.

shawnjackson

Jul 10, 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
First thing I did on my dual 1.42 was switch the fans and especially the CPU cooling system to that of a 3rd Party, now its quiet like my baby son when he sleeps. At any rate, P4 is one lousy selection for that home entertainment system. Since Apple is still denying us a pizzabox headless model I look what I could find in the PC world and this is what I use: www.hush-technologies.com. Its a neatly designed machine with a VIA Epia M 10000 ITX board, a 120MB sound insulated seagate barracuda and a slimline combo drive. All passive cooled so no noisy fans involved and so small it fits perfectly to my stereo and looks absolutely cool too. Its plenty fast for DVD & DivX and AAC audio music files. Only thing I added extra was a M-Audio Audiophile since I prefer an audio card with CINCH output and the sound of the audiophile is simply pristine.
Cheers,

Ahmed

actually, my htpc system is not running windows... its running linux with mythtv and various other parts built into it. that mythtv system is pretty suite and kicks the crap of just about any pvr system i have used, including eyetv, windows xp media center edition, sagetv, and snapstream... its really a dream to work with

not a dream to install though :(

TMJ1974

Jul 10, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by shawnjackson
no you silly guys... they arent going to call it the pentium 5... its codename will be prescott (just like northwood, etc.)

it will be known as the "D" Revision of the Pentium 4

A - 400Mhz Bus
B - 533Mhz Bus
C - 800Mhz Bus
D - not sure on spec but I know its double the cache of the c and is 90nm

oh and anyone who keeps saying that intel chips run hot should actually use one. I have two dp 1.42, an athlon xp 2100+ and a 1700+ and a 3.0 p4 c...

the g4 and the athlon are probably tied for "hotness" at around 55 deg C at max load (using a thermaltake heat probe at cpu core.

the p4 runs load at about 38 with a nice quiet zalman fan. thats why its my home theater system.

Nice fleet of computers, I'm catching up to ya! Anyway, everything you said is correct....BUT, you forgot an important fact..."Prescott" uses a new instruction set, a successor to the SSE2. EVERYTIME Intel has changed the instruction set or other major technical features in such a major way the marketing name of the chip has been changed. If it were just the die size decrease or upping the cache, I'd agree with you. But, with the instruction set change, especially since the new one is specifically aimed at Multimedia authoring....it will be the Pentium 5 ;)

By the way, how do you keep the P4 at 38C....my 2.6C P4 runs at 50 with minimal load - I used the Arctic Silver and have really good case fans, I am using the "Intel designed thermal solution" which I know won't compare to other manufacturers CPU fans.

Either way....still cooler than my DP867....I had to move that to the basement, it would heat up the room upstairs way too much.

Tim

Mav451

Jul 11, 2003, 01:36 AM

I am running an Athlon (as you can see in my sig) and i maintain 38-40c's idle and 43c's full load.
If i dropped it to a lower clock (i.e. the default clock), probably closer to 36-38, and 40-41 load.

(P4's run a bit cooler already b/c they need only 1.5v of vcore compared to the AIUHB's 1.6)
I only have 2 exhaust fans. And i'm in my upstairs room--however, i'm running a swiftech mcx370-c :)

If you're using retail...you should prolly toss it (though I've heard that Intel's retail coolers are considerably better than AMD's).

If you even TRIED to run an athlon using a stock cooler, you'd hit a lousy 50+ c's on idle...C.O.P would probably shut it off if you even tried to open an intensive app (game/encoding software).

Case fans don't affect it as much if your ambient is already low enough.

GroundLoop

Jul 11, 2003, 06:11 AM

I haven't read through all of the posts, so sorry if this has already been stated. Intel's new Prescott processor will likely not have a compatible mother board until Q2 2004 due to voltage incompatibilities. Therefore, it seems that Prescott won't officially be useable until after the socket overhaul. Seems like a major oversight on Intel's part. I am thinking that there would be some kind of workaround, but I am sure that Socket 478 Precott sales just vaporized.

http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=20014

Hickman

wizard

Jul 11, 2003, 08:54 AM

I do not consider it to be silly either, on the other hand I don't expect them to use the same hardware they used in the G5. Between power usage and board space requirements I think they would have problems. That doesn't mean that they aren't working on a solution or for that matter have it already. It simply means that we would have a different architecture, probally with a lower performance.

Of course there is also the possibility of greater integration. Here a 970 with built in memory controllers and hypertransport could provide an implementation that would squeeze into the consumer lines. The problem with this is that I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple/IBM are working in this direction. It does look like there is a mad rush to get to the 980 revision as soon as possible. Probally so they will actually have a chip that is faster than the Intel/AMD offerings.

Dave

Originally posted by soggywulf
It's not silly at all, at least for the iMac and eMac. Unless we approach it from a sheltered Mac-only perspective.

If we want consumers to buy Macs, the consumer Macs have to stay relatively competitive with PCs at the same price points.

wizard

Jul 11, 2003, 09:16 AM

Hi Brandon;

I more or less agree with what you have said below. After all if you look at my shop you will find a good number of my fathers tools and I love to recycle older furniture and stuff.

Understanding that I'm willing to state that this perspective does not apply to computers for me and a lot of other people. Due to the rather terrible rate of performance increase over the last couple of years in the Mac line I think your going to see a huge demand for consumer line performance similar to the new G5. Apple may be able to meet that demand with an uprated G4, but that G4 will have to be a stellar performer. The problem is that most users DO benefit from increased performance of their CPU's. Even if it is to run iChatAV, which I think has the potential to drive MAc sales.

I do not tihink that a G5 in an Imac or similar computer is silly at all. It won't likely be the same design as the G5 towers but it is a possibility. How quickly it happens will be a question of market demand. I could not honestly reccomend any of the consumer Macs now to a friend. Even if they had a new G4 the reccomendation would be hard to make unless it was clearly a significant perfromer.

You see the trouble with PC or Macs is that software often does eclipse the pefromance of the CPU. It is find to buy at the bottom of the line, if such PC has a specific application, but not for general purpose machines. In that case I generlaly reccomend getting close to the state of the art in performance, this allows the owner a competitive and functional machine for atleast a couple of years. Lets face it software is the driver when it comes to deterrmining if a computer is useful anymore. Once that CPU has problems with the users application it will be labeled a dog and will be relegated to some other duty.

I don't specifically like this as a closet full of old computer hardware is not very usefull. On the other side of the coin is the desire to have a machine that runs your desired applications properly. I would also be willing ot say that most people are still not satisfied with their computing experience and would love nothing more than a little more peformance and a lot more features.

Dave

Originally posted by LinuxGigolo
My point was actually less about the fact that macs are slow enough/fast enough and more about the fact that people complain the second something new comes out that it needs to be implmented across the line. This sort of reminds me of the whole iPod Software 2.0 complaint whereby people somehow suddenly stop liking their older iPods just because something newer came out. (I own an iPod that does not support software 2.0 and if I want it, I'll buy a new iPod... but just because a new one came out, mine didn't lose any of its functionality). Nothing is stopping home users who need the power of the G5 architecture from buying Power Mac G5s, just as nothing stops people who can't fit in Saturns or who want different/bigger cars from buying them. Thinking that Apple will put a G5 into an iBook/eMac anytime soon, though, just seems silly.

wizard

Jul 11, 2003, 09:38 AM

Hi nuck

The only thing that I have to reference with respect to integer performance is Apples own benchmarking and a scrap of information posted awhile back. Actually very little to go on. On the other hand Apple did a lot of bake offs that took advantage of the G5's best features, and this is fully expected as it is marketing. So we really have very little to go on with repsect to how these machines perform with code that is not heavly FP based or bandwidth limited. The fact that the Specmark integer scores where low and that we do not have a L3 cache could be worrisome. Time will tell though. The big frustration is that I may not be able to experience a G5 until much later in the year! Even worst is that I may decide to go the laptop route.

The reality is that I think that objective testing will show a mixed bag as far as performance goes especially on old optimized G4 code. Especially if that code is Altvec optimised as it appears that most of the limitations of the 970 revolve around handling vector instructions (prefetches).

Dave

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The only problem with this is that NO ONE has any definitive benchmarks to either prove or dissaprove your statements. The only thing I've seen is the NASA Benchmarks which show that Alitvec on the PPC 970 is superior primarily because of the increase in clock. I haven't seen anything that shows that Integer performance follows the same pattern. FPU is important to those in Content creation that run Maya or Scientific apps. FPU is a strong part of the P4 as well.

wizard

Jul 11, 2003, 10:01 AM

I don't believe it is a question of killing off laptops sales, its a question of having a solution to squeezing a 970 into a laptop. That is squeezing the processor in and getting anything that resembles a significant performance boost over a G4.

The problem with laptops is that the thermal issues revolve around all of the parts in the system. We do not yet have a good idea how the chipset in the G5 behaves thermally, it might be completely unsuitable for a laptop. We do know that high speed memory is a problem. In fact I'm willing to bet that if a 970 based laptop ever did come out from Apple it would be implemented with a differrent chip set.

Thinking has resulted in this evaluation. Every indication is that 970 based laptops are not going to be the next rev to the powerbooks. Do understand that I'd love to be wrong and find out that Apple has a solution that maintains all the good features of the current powerbooks. Number one being the ability to run on battery power for extended lengths of time. Who knows may be Apple has a norht bridge that gets rid of hyper transport and integrates much of the peripheral support chips. Now that would be a surprise.

Dave

Originally posted by Nemesis
Uff, do people really believe that Apple would kill their laptop sale by announcing G5 in a Powerbook in 3-4 months? Who would in hell buy anything before that?
Jeeez, some people are unbeleivable. Just use your heads, mates. Think! Think!

ColdZero

Jul 11, 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
LOL. Shuttle?? Please I've heard plenty of stories about the Shuttles overheating .

Do you really want me to find more? (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Shuttle++ATX+overheating&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3E237D6D.9010007%40yahoo.com&rnum=3)

Don't write checks your ass can't cash. I've never heard of a G4 system shutting down due to overheating and I doubt a G5 will.

Really? Do you own a shuttle? Have you ever used one for extended periods? Have you ever seen one in person? Do you know anything about how the cooling system works in a shuttle? Probably not, so basically you have no idea what you are talking about. You're some ignorant zealot sitting at his godly mac that bashes anything that thinks different, so much for Apple's own slogan. I own a Shuttle, an iBook, a G4 and work on Xserves and the full range of Apple products every day at work. So I think I can make a comment based on actual fact and experiance rather than some google post I could get in 30 seconds. But while we're on the subject lets take a look at that post....that you didn't even read. And I quote from that very google post:

I had difficulties correctly applying thermal compound. When originally unpacking, I didn't see the thermal compound included with the SK41G, and bought some. I then carefully followed the instructions included with the compound I bought about applying a THIN layer to the heat sink and CPU. After putting it all together I booted up, and it lasted about 2 minutes before shutting down due to the heat. Took it apart again, having found the included thermal compound. I piled the whole package high on the CPU die, and haven't had a reset due to overheating since.

WOW lots of overheating problems, he didn't apply thermal compound correctly, THAT is why it was overheating. Do that to ANY processor and see if it can run without overheating.

Now lets look at some facts. You know those things the rest of the world likes to work on:

A comparison of internal case temperature (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mobile/display/cubes_9.html)
What do they say? That the shuttle best coped with the change in higher temperatures. Next:

A Low Temperature (http://www.ocworkbench.com/2002/shuttle/sb51g/sb51gp9.htm)

Next:

CPU at a comfortable temp (http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/Motherboards/shuttle_sb51g(2).shtml)

So lets see, I have 3 sources that say that it handles temperature of the whole system well, you have one source where the guy admits that he applied thermal paste wrong and now that he has done it correctly, it works fine.

Why don't we look at some G4 overheating stories:

G4 Upgrades Overheating (http://cubeowner.com/macfixit.html)

TiBooks Overheating (http://www.appletechs.com/archives/00000077.html)

Flaw in G4s cause overheating (http://macweek.macworld.com/2000/11/12/1114switchglitch.html)

I guess you just never heard of those. You've never heard of a G4 shutting down because it is overheating? I guess you don't know that the Cube has temperature circutry to do this very thing, along with every Xserve out there. But I guess you think the laws of physics don't apply to Apple computers. If 45 watts of power go into the processor, that much power needs to be dissipated in some other form of energy. Its called the law of conservation of energy, go to school and learn something.

[mod. edit - Personal attacks will get you banned. First and only warning.]

de_la_saracen

Jul 13, 2003, 01:05 PM

For Pete sake guys,
Who gives a toss about gains in heat and in an extra Ghz or so, and all that other techi nerdy geeky tripe! sod all that! XP can't touch OS X, nuff said! I use a Mac cos of OS X, not because of IBM or Moto or clockspeed!

nuckinfutz

Jul 13, 2003, 02:31 PM

Coldzero.

Hahahah. Look up at the title of this website. It states this is Macrumors. Now I may be going out on a limb here but methinks that means this site is probably centered around all things Macintosh. Try and remember that next time mmmm'kay.

I don't own a shuttle because I don't like them. That doesn't preclude me from stating my dislike. Nor render my concerns about thermal issues moot.

WOW lots of overheating problems, he didn't apply thermal compound correctly, THAT is why it was overheating. Do that to ANY processor and see if it can run without overheating

Mac users don't have to mess with Thermal Compound.

I don't like the Shuttles and that form factor. Doesn't mean I expect anyone else to. Remember these comments followed your "Fry eggs" comment so no one here provoked you in any way to start this.