PDA

View Full Version : Late Next Year for the Dual G5 3Ghz PowerMacs?


Izanaki
Nov 11, 2003, 02:05 PM
I'm wondering when we'll see 3Ghz Dual Processor Power Macs. I heard once they were suppose to appear around late next year. Anyone else hear the same thing?

mactastic
Nov 11, 2003, 03:01 PM
Well Steve did promise us 3Ghz G5s within a year at the initial announcement of the G5 at the WWDC in what, July? They started shipping in August sometime, so if all goes well we should see 3Ghz G5's by August 2004. Not holding my breath once that time comes however.

Actually what I am more interested in is how long before the next G5 update. Unless we are to believe that a revA product can make it a full year without an update, there should be a new G5 out perhaps in January? And how far will they have gotten the speed increase by then? Will they have hit 2.4 - 2.6 Ghz by then? That would bode well for seeing 3Ghz before the end of next summer. Hopefully the increases will be better than going from 1.25 to 1.42.

MacsRgr8
Nov 11, 2003, 03:31 PM
Steve has mentioned it twice.
At the WWDC, and at the MWP....

I think he is putting himself on the spot on purpose. It's not like dear Steve to show somekind of roadmap of (near) future processor speeds, and mentioning "will reach 3 GHz within a year" is some promise to make!
I don't think Steve wants to put pressure on IBM..... so I think Steve actually knows this, as in confirmed by IBM before the first G5 had taken the stage in July.

Just my 0.02

ddtlm
Nov 11, 2003, 04:16 PM
MacsRgr8:

Heh, just like Intel "knew" they could launch Prescott on time and on target (which turned out to not be the case). Steve was guessing.

Izanaki
Nov 11, 2003, 04:21 PM
I could see a revision in the late first quarter of 2004 with speeds of 2.4 and 2.6

A speed jump to 3ghz in the first quarter seems a little early to me.

MacsRgr8
Nov 11, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MacsRgr8:

Heh, just like Intel "knew" they could launch Prescott on time and on target (which turned out to not be the case). Steve was guessing.

He he... I "know" what you mean....
But you think Steve is guessing IBM's roadmap of the 970?
"thin ice..."

mactastic
Nov 11, 2003, 05:08 PM
I think SJ knows something we don't. It's not like him to say soemthing like this at all.

ddtlm
Nov 11, 2003, 05:16 PM
mactastic:

Yeah SJ knows what IBM plans on doing, but lets see what IBM can get out the door. Even big ol Intel has run into 90nm troubles, the full extent of which isn't widely known yet.

yamabushi
Nov 11, 2003, 05:25 PM
IBM has already worked out most if not all of their problems with the 90nm process that might prevent full scale production. I am hoping for at least 2.8Ghz in 1Q 2004. IBM needs to sprint ahead since Motorola was lagging behind for so long.

jonapete2001
Nov 11, 2003, 06:18 PM
I think that the g5 will not crank to 3ghz untill Q4 2004. I know the g5 has not been out long but to go up so fast will not happen. the next jump will go as follows:

1.8
2.0 Dual
2.2 Dual

mactastic
Nov 11, 2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
mactastic:

Yeah SJ knows what IBM plans on doing, but lets see what IBM can get out the door. Even big ol Intel has run into 90nm troubles, the full extent of which isn't widely known yet.

Fair enough. I just think Steve wouldn't have said anything, or would have said "IBM promises a 3Ghz processor by date x..." if he wasn't sure about it himself. It's not like he's in the habit of mapping out where Apple is going. Maybe he knew it would get out anyway or something. We were plenty impressed with 2Ghz, he didn't HAVE to say we'd be at 3 within a year if he wasn't pretty darn sure....

But like you said, we have to wait and see. It wouldn't be the first time Apple's gotten burned by a chip manufacturer.

TyleRomeo
Nov 11, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by jonapete2001
I think that the g5 will not crank to 3ghz untill Q4 2004. I know the g5 has not been out long but to go up so fast will not happen. the next jump will go as follows:

1.8
2.0 Dual
2.2 Dual

nope. You're going to see between 2.4-2.6 for the top dual machine. This is IBm we're talking about.

Tyler

madamimadam
Nov 12, 2003, 12:21 AM
I think ur all forgetting that IBM were prototyping the next G5s when they released the first ones. It has also been shown that they can reach 3GHz on the .13um process

madamimadam
Nov 12, 2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
It wouldn't be the first time Apple's gotten burned by a chip manufacturer.

or the second or the third or the forth........
:)

IBM has been pretty good in the past, though

crees!
Nov 13, 2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Izanaki
A speed jump to 3ghz in the first quarter seems a little early to me.

What's wrong with a ump to 3Ghz or any other speed? Please tell me because I don't understand. You don't get ahead in the game by playing follow the leader all the time.

jonapete2001
Nov 13, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by crees!
What's wrong with a ump to 3Ghz or any other speed? Please tell me because I don't understand. You don't get ahead in the game by playing follow the leader all the time.

There is nothing wrong with going to 3 ghz. It just does not seem like a thing steve will do right off the bat. If they are going to go to 3 by the end of the year i think they would be releasing incremental updates, just like the intel/amd side. chip manufacturers dont go from 2.0 ghz to 2.6ghz on the top end over night. If i am wrong i will be glad. It seems like to big of a speed jump for apple to make.

Izanaki
Nov 13, 2003, 10:27 AM
Your 100% right, but I think apple will go with a single 2ghz setup and a dual 2.5ghz in the first quarter. But hey, I could be wrong ;)

Putting out a 3ghz cheap would really put apple in the front but why do that when you can still please the market with a 2.5ghz processor and make some money from that?

manitoubalck
Nov 13, 2003, 04:55 PM
This thread has been posted so many times, alos check out the 'News and Discussion" part of the fourm.