PDA

View Full Version : 2.6GHz PowerMac G5s at MacWorld SF 2004?


Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Dec 4, 2003, 05:09 PM
Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=259) that IBM is currently producing 90nm G5s in volume at speeds of 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz.

Apple is expected to announce these new G5 processors in speed bumped PowerMacs at the January according to one source at Appleinsider.

This would be consistent with previous rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031112123844.shtml) and whispers that the low-end PowerMac would become a single 2.0GHz G5.

gwuMACaddict
Dec 4, 2003, 05:10 PM
i can only hope!!

:D

bommai
Dec 4, 2003, 05:11 PM
This is great news. Bumping up by several 100MHz is quite refreshing.

TMay
Dec 4, 2003, 05:12 PM
Dual 2.6 would be the one that takes my lunch money.

CrackedButter
Dec 4, 2003, 05:12 PM
Why don't they just go all dual with that range, it would cleary define the difference between the imac and the pmac.

Ja Di ksw
Dec 4, 2003, 05:14 PM
Dual 2.6. Da**.


here's where people start complaining about how the dual 2.6's are sneaking into their houses and tinkering with the old dual 2's, making them "slow." Kinda cruel how Apple spends money giving them legs and programming them to do that.

jamesatzones
Dec 4, 2003, 05:14 PM
If they release these with a 30" HD Display and I will be a very happy person...

Mudbug
Dec 4, 2003, 05:15 PM
ok - so now I'm kinda glad we haven't ordered our G5 yet for the office - seems like January may be magic time after all :)

A dual 2.6 Ghz G5 would make quite a nice stocking stuffer :D

MacMarino
Dec 4, 2003, 05:17 PM
So if the 2 Ghz is going to be a single proc. Which machines are going to have the duals? How much more expensive is it to have a second proc in the G5's? Will you be able to get a second proc. later on?

the_mole1314
Dec 4, 2003, 05:20 PM
Woah, 2.6ghz G5. Um, wow. I really don't know what to say. WOW!

wymer100
Dec 4, 2003, 05:21 PM
This speedbump would make sense. Apple would need to get around 2.5GHz at this speedbump in order to get to 3GHz by next summer. Nice to know that IBM can successfully implement a fab process.

Perhaps a 2GHz 970 at 90nm is needed for the xserve update. Would be pretty sweet as a dual 2GHz in a 1U rig. They would fly off the shelves (until they got installed, of course!) :p

Now, if only they had this sort of good news about the 980 development.

MattG
Dec 4, 2003, 05:23 PM
Hopefully this means they'll drop the 1.6 and 1.8 completely, and make the Dual 2.0ghz the *ahem* "low-end" model, dropping it's price significantly. Then I may be forced to buy one.

ColoJohnBoy
Dec 4, 2003, 05:25 PM
Yummy. Does that mean they might be faster than 3.0 GHz by WWDC? Can you imagine a Dual 3.2 GHz PowerMac? Wow.

:D

SBG88
Dec 4, 2003, 05:31 PM
Hope its true. Can't wait for the I got ripped off threads.

cthorp
Dec 4, 2003, 05:32 PM
Well I guess I have a couple of weeks to enjoy having the top of the line.

That's ok though because it is one sweet machine.

crap freakboy
Dec 4, 2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by SBG88
Hope its true. Can't wait for the I got ripped off threads.

exactly my thoughts...I can hear those early adopters typing already

Some_Big_Spoon
Dec 4, 2003, 05:36 PM
If Apple/IBM were to go from 2GHz to 2.6, that would be the largest speed jump in the least amount of time for any consumer CPU I believe:


History of x86 Consumer CPU (http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35/1/)

I don't doubt it, but it would be an extremely noteworthy feat should it come to be true.

mikeyredk
Dec 4, 2003, 05:37 PM
that would mean
imac lineup(old 130nm processors)
1.6 g5 15"
1.8 g5 17"
2.0 g5 20"

emac
1.25 g4
1.33 g4


ibook
1.25 g4
1.33 g4

powermac
all duals
2.2 g5 dual
2.4 g5 dual
3.6 g5 dual

powerbook(edit: clarify new 90nm processor)
2.0 g5
with diffrent flavors of screen sizes and video cards

brhmac
Dec 4, 2003, 05:44 PM
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.

JoeRadar
Dec 4, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=259) that IBM is currently producing 90nm G5s in volume at speeds of 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz.
Probably not that unreasonable. At WWDC 03 Jobs claimed the G5 would hit 3 GHz in about a year.

Roughly a half year later, and 2.6 GHz gets us about half way to 3 GHz.

mikeyredk
Dec 4, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.


Yawn actually your making me sleepy

GregGomer
Dec 4, 2003, 05:48 PM
There is nothing speed wise to hold people back from buying a new G5. So the only hold up would be one of two things, price, and room for more storage etc.

Lets hope that now they can strat to drop the pricing some, especially since from what I understand, the G5 chip is cheaper to make then the G4 do to IBM's new plant and process. I.e. Motorolla had to throw so many away from each batch, it drove costs up a lot.

Anyhoo, cheap G5's, Apple couldn't keep up with it. Hopefully we'll get to that point sooner then later.

iShater
Dec 4, 2003, 05:49 PM
With the way Apple works, I doubt we will see the top of the line machine sporting 2.6 GHz chips. They will do what they have always done, up the top of the line and trickle the chips down.

So we might see 2.2GHz top of the line, 2.0Ghz Mid range, 1.8 entry level.

LimeLite
Dec 4, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.
riiiiight. compare a 2.6Ghz 64-bit PowerPC processor to the 2.8GHz Intel chip that Dell is using. I'm sure they're very similar.

ImAlwaysRight
Dec 4, 2003, 05:50 PM
Wow. If this truly happens in January, buyers of the new dual 1.8 G5 will be pissed to see their machines outdated in one month. :eek:

studiopix
Dec 4, 2003, 05:51 PM
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio

[This post was just a joke]

Gyroscope
Dec 4, 2003, 05:52 PM
Cool

Although I don't think that they will release them @ MacWorld but rather later in Feb. I'm quite glad that IBM is making this progress.
Glad but not suprised at all. Once upon the time when AIM aliance was puting some effort into PPC, their chips used to scale like mad. Remember how well PPC 603 and 604 scaled in those days. 350 mhz 603/604 were used in Macs when Intel best chips were running around 200-233 Mhz. PPC just scales much better than x86 due to it's superior design and now with IBM at the helm again will probably keep pace with Intel at the fraction of developement cost ;)

Regards

Dippo
Dec 4, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.

I don't know if I would call Dell Inspiron 5100 a laptop. You pretty much have to have it plugged in all the time because that wonderful 2.8Ghz P4 processor drains the battery like crazy.

avus
Dec 4, 2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by studiopix
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio

Don't tell a joke without a hint of irony, ok? Someone will take it as you are being serious...or are you?

[People, I KNEW that he was only kidding, OK? That's why I said "don't tell a joke without a hint of irony." Gee..... Now, I go back to work with my trusty 2 1/2 year old PowerMac G4 Dual 533MHz ... which is, by the way, the best PowerMac G4 model EVER. No kidding.]

Dippo
Dec 4, 2003, 05:58 PM
A 2.6Ghz G5 processor, that has more megahertz than my new Athlon 3000+ overclocked to 2.5Ghz.

At this rate, AMD & Intel will be start talking about the "megahertz myth" because they will be the slow processors.

I can't even imagine how fast a dual 2.6Ghz G5 processor will be.

studiopix
Dec 4, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by avus
Don't tell a joke without a hint of irony, ok? Someone will take it as you are being serious...or are you?

No, I was only kidding, I just wanted to get the jump on everyone with a dual G5 and a bad case of buyers remorse. ;)

AmigoMac
Dec 4, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.

Do not compare gold and plastic... Apple is as natural and brilliant as gold and dell is moving into the just marketing game...

Open your mind, see the difference or run away and get your 2.8 GHz, 2.2" thick, 3.5 Kg plastic portable heating. Dude, your buying a system not a box.

BenRoethig
Dec 4, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by iShater
With the way Apple works, I doubt we will see the top of the line machine sporting 2.6 GHz chips. They will do what they have always done, up the top of the line and trickle the chips down.

So we might see 2.2GHz top of the line, 2.0Ghz Mid range, 1.8 entry level.

No, that's the way Motorola works.

the_mole1314
Dec 4, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by studiopix
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio

Yeah, my iBook G3 now is sucky thanks to you Apple! Great going! We yell at you when you are too slow, and we yell when you are too fast! ;) :p

NusuniAdmin
Dec 4, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.

Yes but they are 32 bit POS processors. Plus they will only have like a 400 mhz bus. And if you are truely a mac user you would know about the pipelines, alitvec, and all that good floating point and integer stuff. A 64 bit processor pretty much runs twice as fast as a 32 bit processor. AKA: a 1 ghz 64 bit would run nearly equivalent of a 2 ghz 32 bit. Plus if you have ever used a G5 (especialy the dual) it is worth 2k+ for it.

TomSmithMacEd
Dec 4, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.
Ha ha, you are comparing a 2.8ghz p4 m (that is slower then their centrinos) to a g5? Where were you when people finally relized mhz isn't everything.

gwuMACaddict
Dec 4, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Mudbug

A dual 2.6 Ghz G5 would make quite a nice stocking stuffer :D

thats a darn big stocking :D :D

spencecb
Dec 4, 2003, 06:08 PM
Wow...this is the best news I have heard in a while....can only hope its true...if it is true, this means we will finally be getting closer and closer to the gap between PowerPC and Intel...now, before anyone yells at me, I know that the PowerPC is much faster than Intel, but the common people on the Wintel side do not know that....so now they will have no excuse to say the "Apple computers are too slow!!!" because they arent!!!!

Dippo
Dec 4, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by mikeyredk
that would mean
imac lineup(old 130nm processors)
1.6 g5 15"
1.8 g5 17"
2.0 g5 20"

emac
1.25 g4
1.33 g4


ibook
1.25 g4
1.33 g4

powermac
all duals
2.2 g5 dual
2.4 g5 dual
3.6 g5 dual

powerbook(edit: clarify new 90nm processor)
2.0 g5
with diffrent flavors of screen sizes and video cards

I don't see why all of the iMacs can't just have the same specs?? Then they can just be different by screen size.

DTphonehome
Dec 4, 2003, 06:18 PM
Man, my 667Mhz PB is plugging along quite nicely....I can't even imagine what I would do with a dual 2.6Ghz G5. Seriously.

--DT

sharky2313
Dec 4, 2003, 06:18 PM
When did Appleinsider get all this "inside" information? Their sources have been chatting it up a lot lately. Do you think they have a bottom dwelling plant over at fishkill?

MrMacMan
Dec 4, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.


Um, yeah okay... whats the battery on that puppy?

And how heavy?

Also we all know apple is better clock for clock on the 970's...

Originally posted by studiopix
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio

Where have you been... 4 years for a computer is pretty damn good...

And with 'Moore's Law' in play we should be even more ahead... :o

Ensoniq
Dec 4, 2003, 06:20 PM
The iMacs aren't going to get the older 130nm chips for the same reason they don't have them now...supposedly they are too hot for the iMac dome.

But if we hope and assume that the 90nm chips will not be, then the lineup could be:

iMac: Single 2.0 GHz PPC 970 (90nm)

PowerMac: Dual 2.2, Dual 2.4, Dual 2.6

The eMac and iBook lines will move to the IBM 750VX as soon as it's complete. It's essentially a faster, lower powered G4 replacement. All the benefits of the IBM G3, with AltiVec tacked on. And for the eMac and iBook which don't need to go 64-bit until 2005, the perfect chip to keep costs down.

crees!
Dec 4, 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight
Wow. If this truly happens in January, buyers of the new dual 1.8 G5 will be pissed to see their machines outdated in one month. :eek:

The dual 1.8's will still work then right? So what's problem? Unless you have that, GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE ME mindset.

itsbetteronamac
Dec 4, 2003, 06:22 PM
He he this is why I never a early adopeter for cpu's. We have to remember that apple is still a company who is out to do one thing, make money. They always try to get money out of the early adopeters and right before they make a major update. I still can't wait for 2.6GHz or 3GHz G5's. This way we can officailly beat the PC. The P4 is only going to be up to like 3.4GHz in january. And I don't think that AMD is going to update it's 64-bit processor, for a while. Nothing on the pc really utilizes it now, so why up it.

GeeYouEye
Dec 4, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by studiopix
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio

Hey man, if you're going to be knockin' Apple like that, you'd better get yr facts straight first. I mean, the 400mMHz G4 was NEVER the top of the line. :rolleyes:

;)

Sun Baked
Dec 4, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Yes but they are 32 bit POS processors. Plus they will only have like a 400 mhz bus. And if you are truely a mac user you would know about the pipelines, alitvec, and all that good floating point and integer stuff. A 64 bit processor pretty much runs twice as fast as a 32 bit processor. AKA: a 1 ghz 64 bit would run nearly equivalent of a 2 ghz 32 bit. Plus if you have ever used a G5 (especialy the dual) it is worth 2k+ for it. Nope, a 64-bit processor is about more memory and bigger numbers.

They are not magically twice as fast, since a lot of 32-bit processors may already be running 64/128-bit pipelines internally.

And the problem with the G4 is entirely bus related, but the 32/36-bit address bus does limit it's life.

itsbetteronamac
Dec 4, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by studiopix
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio

I'd actually say that 4 years is a good amount of time for a computer. It's still going to be able to run all the things is does now, so why complain. It's just won't be able to do new stuff. So stop your crying.

itsbetteronamac
Dec 4, 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.

The dell your talking about it a oversized, HOT, plastic piece of crap! All it has is a old 32-bit processor that sucks battery life and generates a astonshing amount of heat. Apple whoops dell any day. Not to mention all the do it put parts in plastic boxes.

leet1
Dec 4, 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
This way we can officailly beat the PC. The P4 is only going to be up to like 3.4GHz in january. And I don't think that AMD is going to update it's 64-bit processor, for a while. Nothing on the pc really utilizes it now, so why up it.

What makes you think they won't update the opteron soon? Its already been bumped up from 2.0 to 2.2 <which beats the G5 single and dual> Windows XP will be out soon in 64 bit and you could say the same thing about a Mac and 64 bit not being utilized for it now.

mikeyredk
Dec 4, 2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Dippo
I don't see why all of the iMacs can't just have the same specs?? Then they can just be different by screen size.

increased product diffrentiation

knoxer
Dec 4, 2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by mikeyredk
that would mean
imac lineup(old 130nm processors)
1.6 g5 15"
1.8 g5 17"
2.0 g5 20"

The "Old" 130nm processors will be bigger, and therefor more expensive, and therefor will NOT be used in an iMac.

Besides, they probably need the smaller, cooler processor for heat and space (less heat sink) issues in that little dome...

Frobozz
Dec 4, 2003, 06:32 PM
This has to be true. I completely believe this rumor. IBM is consistently been ahead of the curve on processor speed and fabrication technique... and you can bet your arse that Stevie wouldn't say "we'll hit 3GHz in one year" unless he absoluetly, positively, completly, totally, believed it. That, in turn, meant that Big Blue could say CONSERVATIVELY that they would have no less than 3.0 GHz no later than June/July 2004. That also means that we COULD see better. My guess is we will!

Many of these rumors have stated that we'd see a slight improvement over the obvious 2.5/3.0 revisions to be 2.6/3.2 GHz. To me, that makes plenty of sense.

I don't know about you folks, but a dual 2.6 or 3.2 GHz G5 would be enough for me to buy a new machine. That's damn fast. Think about this: a 1.3 or 1.6 GHz system bus, when less than a year ago the thought of 200 Mhz was a pipedream.

Sweet.

MegaSignal
Dec 4, 2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Ensoniq
The iMacs aren't going to get the older 130nm chips for the same reason they don't have them now...supposedly they are too hot for the iMac dome.

But if we hope and assume that the 90nm chips will not be, then the lineup could be:

iMac: Single 2.0 GHz PPC 970 (90nm)

PowerMac: Dual 2.2, Dual 2.4, Dual 2.6

The eMac and iBook lines will move to the IBM 750VX as soon as it's complete. It's essentially a faster, lower powered G4 replacement. All the benefits of the IBM G3, with AltiVec tacked on. And for the eMac and iBook which don't need to go 64-bit until 2005, the perfect chip to keep costs down.

This is SO encouraging. Waiting for a G5 iMac is tough! Even if it means a different form factor to accomodate the cooling needs of a G5, I really want this machine!

rdowns
Dec 4, 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by avus
Don't tell a joke without a hint of irony, ok? Someone will take it as you are being serious...or are you?

Dude, senseofhumor 6.1 was released last month.

dho
Dec 4, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by leet1
What makes you think they won't update the opteron soon? Its already been bumped up from 2.0 to 2.2 <which beats the G5 single and dual> Windows XP will be out soon in 64 bit and you could say the same thing about a Mac and 64 bit not being utilized for it now.

The new mp g5 will probobly end up being faster then the opteron at first. The opteon will surpass the g5 with annother update, and it will likely be neck and neck for a while.

If amd isnt able to keep up with ibm and apple they will be left behind very quickly at their current speeds.

From my understanding the mac OS doesnt really require dirrect support the 64 bit addres space(and wont have it untill all macs are 64bit). As long as the 64bit chip is there it is not very dificult to take advantage of all the ram. ie, a highend app like photoshop could have 2 threads that each use about 4 gigs of ram.

veloct
Dec 4, 2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by MegaSignal
This is SO encouraging. Waiting for a G5 iMac is tough! Even if it means a different form factor to accomodate the cooling needs of a G5, I really want this machine!

I love the fact that the eMac and iMac take so little space and are so powerful, a G5 in an iMac would be my upgrade point also. :)

tny
Dec 4, 2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
A 64 bit processor pretty much runs twice as fast as a 32 bit processor. AKA: a 1 ghz 64 bit would run nearly equivalent of a 2 ghz 32 bit. Plus if you have ever used a G5 (especialy the dual) it is worth 2k+ for it.

A 64-bit processor is not necessarily twice as fast as a 32-bit processor at the same clockspeed. While a G5 on most things is nearly twice as fast as a P4 at the same clock speed (but not everything), it isn't simply a function of the bit width. See http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html

singletrack
Dec 4, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by leet1
What makes you think they won't update the opteron soon? Its already been bumped up from 2.0 to 2.2 <which beats the G5 single and dual> Windows XP will be out soon in 64 bit and you could say the same thing about a Mac and 64 bit not being utilized for it now.

I agree but the problem with 64bit Windows is that unless you have 64bit applications to run on it, it runs in a 32bit subsystem with all the thunking problems we had with WindowsNT and 32->16bit thunking. Unless M$ can persuade all the application vendors to produce 64bit versions and in turn they can persuade their users to upgrade then WinXP 64bit is merely a tech preview for the early adopters before the next OS comes out.

Apple doesn't have that problem as the G5 itself does the work and there is a much more gradual upgrade path for both developers and users.

if the rumour is true and IBM are producing 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 90nm in volume, are we going to see the base machine hop up to a 2.2 single cpu or are they going to keep on 130nm chips in the lineup? That's what's puzzling me just now. So glad I've not got the cash together to buy that dual 2.0 I was planning on yet.

LostPacket
Dec 4, 2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Frobozz
Think about this: a 1.3 or 1.6 GHz system bus, when less than a year ago the thought of 200 Mhz was a pipedream.


Yeah, but will the system bus be able to keep up with the processor at these speeds? 1.3 GHz sounds a little unrealistic to me. This rumour centers around the processor, but what about the rest of the system?

LP

tny
Dec 4, 2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by crees!
The dual 1.8's will still work then right? So what's problem? Unless you have that, GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE ME mindset.

Well, as an owner of a single 1.8, I can't say that I'm pissed off. I still have a computer everyone drools over, and will for another two or three years (at which time it will be time to buy the PowerMac G6 12 GHz/4 GB/1 TB with OS X 10.6, with holographic display, 7th dimensional memory core, and optional levitation).

lindmar
Dec 4, 2003, 07:04 PM
Studio was joking,, sorry..
funny now that I think about it.

leet1
Dec 4, 2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by lindmar
4 YEARS!!!!! Are you nuts?
If your g4 400 lasted you 2 years you should be happy!! That is exactly 1 year longer than a pc would have lasted.



Don't bring that into this, because your stating false facts :rolleyes:

lindmar
Dec 4, 2003, 07:08 PM
[i], and will for another two or three years (at which time it will be time to buy the PowerMac G6 12 GHz/4 GB/1 TB with OS X 10.6, with holographic display, 7th dimensional memory core, and optional levitation). [/B]

We can only hope :-)
Although, I beg to differ,, I see...
PowerMac G6 Dual 12 GHZ/ 64 GB RAM, 2.5 TB HD, running OSX 10.8.2 Raging Bull, with multidimensional holographic display, and levitation will be standard. Although, human beaming via Bluetooth Multi Extreme will be optional.

lindmar
Dec 4, 2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by leet1
Don't bring that into this, because your stating false facts :rolleyes:

No, I hate to say it but my we bought a pc roughly a year ago, which was fast for the first few months, and always taken care of. Now it is a slug, and my g3 b/w will run circles around it.

daveL
Dec 4, 2003, 07:11 PM
Read the other posts: Studio was joking.

dho
Dec 4, 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by lindmar
4 YEARS!!!!! Are you nuts?
If your g4 400 lasted you 2 years you should be happy!! That is exactly 1 year longer than a pc would have lasted.

As well, buying a computer every 4 years does not make you their target consumer by any means. you are on the low end of anything they produce. They know the chances of a guy like you buying are slim to non....

You should upgrade your mac when your ready to but geezzz dont complain about getting "only 4 years" out of your computer!!!! What did you expect? They would release the g4 400 and say "thats it, computers will officially not go any faster"

You know what , you should have a chat with the folks that bought the new g5's 1.6's and 1.8's,,, then see how it feels to not be top of the line anymore...

man, that post got me going...im all fired up... that just drives me....

By the way,, I still run a B/W g3 400, great computer had for over "4" years and just recentley bought a new g4 ibook, you dont see my complaining,, only thing I complain about is crappy iKlear,,

please read before you post,

he was kidding

leet1
Dec 4, 2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by lindmar
No, I hate to say it but my we bought a pc roughly a year ago, which was fast for the first few months, and always taken care of. Now it is a slug, and my g3 b/w will run circles around it.

I don't see a G3 running circles around a one year old PC. My 1ghz Athlon could run circles and do high jumps over the top of the line G3 ;) Its 2 years old :D

lindmar
Dec 4, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by leet1
I don't see a G3 running circles around a one year old PC. My 1ghz Athlon could run circles and do high jumps over the top of the line G3 ;) Its 2 years old :D

yeah, your prob. right
sorry, just dont like my dads pc..
it is slower then crap

adamfilip
Dec 4, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by studiopix
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio

What!?

whats your problem.. after 4 years.. no one is forcing you to buy a better machine.

what do you expect apple not to release new hardware.

get a reality check.

supercres
Dec 4, 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.

Christ on a cracker...

You'd think that anyone reading these forums would know to not fall for the PC-heads' blather about megahertz. Somehow I think that a P4-M and a G5 aren't really in the same league...

lindmar
Dec 4, 2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by adamfilip
What!?

whats your problem.. after 4 years.. no one is forcing you to buy a better machine.

what do you expect apple not to release new hardware.

get a reality check.

Im with you, i dont think he was joking!

spinner
Dec 4, 2003, 07:20 PM
well I guess Apple will be able to start running those "world's fastest computer" commercials in Europe again ;)


to all those who are giving studiopix a hard time: CHILL OUT
there are concepts that have been recently developed called SARCASM and JOKING AROUNG that might interest you :rolleyes:

crees!
Dec 4, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by tny
Well, as an owner of a single 1.8, I can't say that I'm pissed off. I still have a computer everyone drools over, and will for another two or three years (at which time it will be time to buy the PowerMac G6 12 GHz/4 GB/1 TB with OS X 10.6, with holographic display, 7th dimensional memory core, and optional levitation).

Exactly. I have a 1.25Ghz Powerbook. Want to know the expression on my face? A big ol' smile. I'll be out of college in 1 1/2 years. This Powerbook will serve me just perfect till then. Then at that time I'll be in the market for a PowerMac, which would hopefully be around 4Ghz or so. :D

silvergunuk
Dec 4, 2003, 07:24 PM
My G4 400 mhz is still under warranty...hmmm a dual 2.6 looks like itll have an untimely death.. now i have to make up a story to tell the insurance.. i was carrying it around when it accidently fell out the window.

ITR 81
Dec 4, 2003, 07:30 PM
If those #'s look familar I stated those #'s for next G5 lineup around 24hrs ago.

2.2
2.4
2.6

Reason I selected those #'s was because I was following a pattern that Apples been using.

Next update in 04's will be:

2.8, 3.0, 3.2

Now if IBM does 3 speed bumps per yr likes been rumored then around 3-4 months before the end of the yr. we could see the following:
3.4, 3.6, 3.8
If they remain on their current speed bump pattern.


It's nice to be vindicated by another source.

05' will be yr the G5 goes 4Ghz and will match Intel and AMD offerings if not surpassing them to just get bragging rights. If I was Jobs I would do it...bet PC's at their own game.

daddy-mojo
Dec 4, 2003, 07:34 PM
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
I'd actually say that 4 years is a good amount of time for a computer. It's still going to be able to run all the things is does now, so why complain. It's just won't be able to do new stuff. So stop your crying.

dude, he's not crying, he's joking, learn to read into humor/sarcasm.

omnivector
Dec 4, 2003, 07:37 PM
i'm thinking of getting a g5 soon, and the dual 1.8 is exactly what i'm looking for . i don't want a non dual, and i don't want top of the line. if this rumor is true it would mean that the dual 1.8 will be gone at MWSF and that my only choice for the low-end dual will be a dual 2.2? since i'm sure some of you here have been using macs longer than i, is it likely the dual 2.2 will be the same price as the dual 1.8? or will all the prices jump up will i end up paying more if i wait? could they even end up being cheaper?

the key really here is i want a good price, and dual cpus. i'm not so concerened about performance.

applekid
Dec 4, 2003, 07:39 PM
After Jobs said we'll hit 3 GHz by the next WWDC, I thought to myself, the keynote will have him saying "We said we'd be at 3 GHz this time last year. And we did... and surpassed it, too." It's all coming a bit closer now as long as the rumor is reliable.

n8_
Dec 4, 2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by silvergunuk
My G4 400 mhz is still under warranty...hmmm a dual 2.6 looks like itll have an untimely death.. now i have to make up a story to tell the insurance.. i was carrying it around when it accidently fell out the window.

YAH LEMME TELL MY INSURANCE COMPANY THAT HAPPEND TO MY 3 THOUSAND DOLLAR POWER MAC 6115 CD. SYSTEM lol...





wattttttt r u guys talkin about... it was 3g's....


alright alright it was, just 10 years ago.. u think its time to upgrade?? im still running mac os 9.2.. the cd rom just recently went bad.. everything else is still good.. i dunno. dual 2.6 ghz g5 is tempting.. an kids have been wispering about the g5 since the 200mhz marker was broken.

60mhz g1 vs. 2,600mhz g5... hmmmm :rolleyes: i think this mhz thing is still overrated..

i_am_a_cow
Dec 4, 2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Dippo
I don't see why all of the iMacs can't just have the same specs?? Then they can just be different by screen size.

Hey... that would be a good good idea for pro systems because then they could save TONS of money in mass producing high end processors!

Freg3000
Dec 4, 2003, 08:19 PM
I think we need to have a smiley that alerts readers to not so obvious sarcasm. :) (not that one).

Faster PowerMacs? Bring it on! Dual 2.6 Ghz G5? It will be funny to think that less that a year ago at that time the faster Mac was a dual 1.25 G4. :P

Goblin2099
Dec 4, 2003, 08:27 PM
Did anyone else find it funny that there were FOUR clockspeeds reported? I seriously doubt that there's going to be a shift to four towers, so this seems to be pretty strong evidence in favor of the G5 migrating to either the iMac or xServe (anybody thinking about putting one in a PB or eMac is just kidding themselves at this point...wait another six months, then we'll talk).

paulypants
Dec 4, 2003, 08:30 PM
"With the way Apple works, I doubt we will see the top of the line machine sporting 2.6 GHz chips. They will do what they have always done, up the top of the line and trickle the chips down.

So we might see 2.2GHz top of the line, 2.0Ghz Mid range, 1.8 entry level."

uuummmmmm

no.

Phobophobia
Dec 4, 2003, 08:32 PM
G5 iMacs, here we come!

ITR 81
Dec 4, 2003, 08:38 PM
I wonder if the 2Ghz could be going into the xServe?

hokka
Dec 4, 2003, 08:40 PM
Is AppleInsider the new MacBidouille or something??

as a longtime reader I have noticed before AppleInsider most of the rumors seems to be coming from that French site, and now, every second rumor listed in MR seems to be from them...

I understand new / faster machine will (always) come out, but just how reliable are rumors (before I get flamed I know this is a RUMOR site too) from AppleInsider?? or are they just smoking out of their A** (like ITR 81 have "predicted" - sorry ITR 81, just using you as an example) ??

Can someone please confirm the validity (of any of these sites)? I mostly only trust ThinkSecret... thanks in advance

Goblin2099
Dec 4, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
I wonder if the 2Ghz could be going into the xServe?

Wouldn't surprise me one bit. The move to 90nm really only does one thing: make the chip run cooler. This facilitates higher clockspeeds because you now have more breathing room in terms of whether or not the chip will overheat, so faster chips are more safe. If they stick with a 2.0ghz chip at 90nm, it can really only be in order to keep it nice and cool, which is an absolute necessity for the svelte 1U xServe.

scem0
Dec 4, 2003, 08:46 PM
If this is what comes to pass then I will be very glad that I didn't get a dual 1.8.

Seems like a huge speed bump though which makes me think this rumor may not be true. However I am not used to a semiconductor manufacturer that actually is doing their job how it should be done (unlike moto :rolleyes:).

And what is up with the 4 speeds(2, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 if im not mistaken)? Would we have 4 different models for a change? I sure hope so, more selection is always good.

Not to get anyone over-excited or anything.... but what if apple released powermac up to dual 1.6 and then released new cubes! :eek:

That would be awesome, but I won't dare even dream of that happening ;).

scem0

Mr.Hey
Dec 4, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Mudbug A dual 2.6 Ghz G5 would make quite a nice stocking stuffer :D [/B]


You have got to take a picture of that ;)

Trowaman
Dec 4, 2003, 08:47 PM
FASTER MOMMY FASTER! I WANNA GO FASTER! WEEEEE!!!

We're almost to 3.0GHZ!!! Onward 4 GHZ!

bretm
Dec 4, 2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by DTphonehome
Man, my 667Mhz PB is plugging along quite nicely....I can't even imagine what I would do with a dual 2.6Ghz G5. Seriously.

--DT

My 400mhz rocks! No need for a new one with screen issues. Plus, my 400mhz barely even warms my lap compared to the 1ghz+ models. Those things are painful!

onemoof
Dec 4, 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by LostPacket
Yeah, but will the system bus be able to keep up with the processor at these speeds? 1.3 GHz sounds a little unrealistic to me. This rumour centers around the processor, but what about the rest of the system?

LP


The system bus runs at 1/2 the speed of the processor for the family of G5 chips. The chip was engineered to work closely with the system bus, so there's always going to be a 2:1 ratio no matter how fast the chip gets!

daRAT
Dec 4, 2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
Ha ha, you are comparing a 2.8ghz p4 m (that is slower then their centrinos) to a g5? Where were you when people finally relized mhz isn't everything.

Then why are you all getting a hardon over this rumor of a mhz increase in the G5?

mproud
Dec 4, 2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand. Read: Different processors
Read: Megahertz myth

Stella
Dec 4, 2003, 09:15 PM
Nay, he was deadly serious. :)

I mean, no software runs anymore on my i286 running at a blistering 16Mhz, and a huge 640K of memory.

How DARE hardware manufactures make my Vintage 1992 PC out of date.

:D

Originally posted by lindmar
Im with you, i dont think he was joking! :D

dermeister
Dec 4, 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by lindmar
Im with you, i dont think he was joking!

I'll be blunt:

Hopefully we can all count on natural selection taking care of people like you in the long run.

Mav451
Dec 4, 2003, 09:22 PM
2.6 G5's sound very possible. I think the opteron/G5 should be pretty close in clockspeed. The 248 came out only a few weeks ago (2.2ghz); but considering that the FX-51 was available months ago, i think that apple should be in the same ball park.

With that in mind 2.4-2.6 is already very possible--and considering IBM helps out AMD with FABs/manufacturing, they both should be hitting the same speeds, at the same time.

3Ghz for G5, 3 for Opteron is not out of question in June, but i'd probably say that it's more likely to be 2.8's for both (and for the OCing community, 3ghz).

And what of Intel? Doesn't really matter =D If both AMD and Apple can step it up, it'd begin to cut a substantial amount out of intel's marketshare :)

With Intel's longer pipeline equivalents...i'd say they should be around 4-4.5ghz by then (if they're not, they will not be able to compete).

g4pismo
Dec 4, 2003, 09:29 PM
yeah apple .. my quad950 won't run panther either :-/

wow.. this croud can't take a joke anymore..

Gymnut
Dec 4, 2003, 09:32 PM
Let's hope Apple doesn't have a problem in releasing the updated G5's en masse. Interesting, I guess the next updates should these one's in January happen, are Dual 2.8 and Dual 3.0. Hopefully I'll have enough cash saved up by the end of 04.

Fukui
Dec 4, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
He he this is why I never a early adopeter for cpu's. We have to remember that apple is still a company who is out to do one thing, make money. They always try to get money out of the early adopeters and right before they make a major update. I still can't wait for 2.6GHz or 3GHz G5's. This way we can officailly beat the PC. The P4 is only going to be up to like 3.4GHz in january. And I don't think that AMD is going to update it's 64-bit processor, for a while. Nothing on the pc really utilizes it now, so why up it.
Hmm, if true, then apple has gone from being 1600 MHZ behind with the G4, to 1200 MHZ behind with the G5, and now to 600 MHZ only!!?? NICE!!

NusuniAdmin
Dec 4, 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Nope, a 64-bit processor is about more memory and bigger numbers.

They are not magically twice as fast, since a lot of 32-bit processors may already be running 64/128-bit pipelines internally.

And the problem with the G4 is entirely bus related, but the 32/36-bit address bus does limit it's life.

I dont mean they run like clock speed faster, i mean they feel as if they run about twice as fast.

LostPacket
Dec 4, 2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by daRAT
Then why are you all getting a hardon over this rumor of a mhz increase in the G5?

Because brhmac was comparing MHz across processors. It's perectly ok to get excited over a MHz increase within the same processor line (as long as it's scalable that is).

LP

QCassidy352
Dec 4, 2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by silvergunuk
My G4 400 mhz is still under warranty...hmmm a dual 2.6 looks like itll have an untimely death.. now i have to make up a story to tell the insurance.. i was carrying it around when it accidently fell out the window.

this actually made me laugh out loud... even when I reread it the second time. Well done... well done indeed.

tortoise
Dec 4, 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by dho
The new mp g5 will probobly end up being faster then the opteron at first. The opteon will surpass the g5 with annother update, and it will likely be neck and neck for a while.

If amd isnt able to keep up with ibm and apple they will be left behind very quickly at their current speeds.

If you look at AMDs roadmap, they will stay neck and neck with the G5 for clock speed, and at identical clock speeds, the AMD tends to be a wee bit faster on average (but not enough to worry about in most cases). From what I understand, mid-2.x GHz AMD chips are already be starting to show up in people's hands and should be shipping in volume in a matter of weeks. Dual core AMDs should show up in 2004, IIRC.

AMD has a CPU core that will scale every bit as well as the IBM cores, so that is not an issue. As for fab processes, AMD and IBM are actually connected at the hip and so AMD will be using the same fab technology as IBM.

All of which is just fine with me; I use both PPC and Opteron systems. IBM won't be pulling ahead of AMD for the foreseeable future, and the competition is healthy anyway.

Gyroscope
Dec 4, 2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Fukui
Hmm, if true, then apple has gone from being 1600 MHZ behind with the G4, to 1200 MHZ behind with the G5, and now to 600 MHZ only!!?? NICE!!


Hm! You mean 800. 3400-2600=800 :)

TMay
Dec 4, 2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
If you look at AMDs roadmap, they will stay neck and neck with the G5 for clock speed, and at identical clock speeds, the AMD tends to be a wee bit faster on average (but not enough to worry about in most cases). From what I understand, mid-2.x GHz AMD chips are already be starting to show up in people's hands and should be shipping in volume in a matter of weeks. Dual core AMDs should show up in 2004, IIRC.

AMD has a CPU core that will scale every bit as well as the IBM cores, so that is not an issue. As for fab processes, AMD and IBM are actually connected at the hip and so AMD will be using the same fab technology as IBM.

All of which is just fine with me; I use both PPC and Opteron systems. IBM won't be pulling ahead of AMD for the foreseeable future, and the competition is healthy anyway.


At least for the time being, I have to run my Pro/e on a PC. I priced out a dual Opteron mobo (Tyan Thunder K8W) and 2 chips (244). It came to about $1500 and I still need power supply, case, RAM, SATA drive(s) etc. Opteron may come into its own when it gets to 90nm, but for now, my upgrade is going to be a 2.8 HT Pentium.

Ah, but to have Pro/e on OSX. Only Pro/Concept is currently available, but with these performance increases, anything could happen.

mxpiazza
Dec 4, 2003, 10:58 PM
first off, let me say that i always read the whole thread before responding, perhaps that should be the rule and *not* the exception.

when i read studiopix's post, i almost fell out of my chair because it was hillarious, and rather indicative of the way some people can be on these forums.

when i read the rest of the posts condemning him for a JOKE, it made me sick. it makes me feel like the reason people come on the board are to find fault in someone's post and blast them on it...

why don't we all get a little sense of humor and not rip people apart for anything and everything... they are people too and deserve to have their own opinions and humor.

that's the thing about opinion... it's not right or wrong. let's keep it that way.

illumin8
Dec 4, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by brhmac
Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to compare Dell laptops with Apple laptops because the design philosophy is so different.

Apple will never make a portable that weighs 10 pounds and only gets 2 hours of battery life. It's just not going to happen. Sure, they could have released a G5 PowerBook last summer at the same time as the PowerMac G5s, but it would have weighed 10 pounds, had 6 fans, and would only get 1-2 hours of battery time.

I'd personally rather wait until it's designed properly, that way I don't end up with a desktop replacement that isn't portable.

akac
Dec 4, 2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by LimeLite
riiiiight. compare a 2.6Ghz 64-bit PowerPC processor to the 2.8GHz Intel chip that Dell is using. I'm sure they're very similar.

Not only that, but watch how fast that 2.8 Ghz Intel chip runs on battery...

leet1
Dec 4, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by akac
Not only that, but watch how fast that 2.8 Ghz Intel chip runs on battery...

it runs at 2.8ghz on battery...unless you tell it not to....

Steven1621
Dec 4, 2003, 11:11 PM
normally, there are three different speeds for the power mac line. why would they be developing four chips?????? 2.0 Ghz Powerbook G5 anyone????? ah i can only dream

=pa=
Dec 4, 2003, 11:12 PM
Yeah, count me in the pissed off category! :mad:

illumin8
Dec 4, 2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by omnivector
if this rumor is true it would mean that the dual 1.8 will be gone at MWSF and that my only choice for the low-end dual will be a dual 2.2?
That's never the way it works. Any remaining inventory of the older models will be cleared out at bargain prices. If you can afford to wait, you will always get a better deal. Also, the newer models will most likely be the same price, just faster. Right now the dual 1.8 is the middle of the line. If you wait until the speedbumps and get a dual 2.2 it will most likely cost the exact same amount.

floatingspirit
Dec 4, 2003, 11:17 PM
duhuhuhuhuuuuuude!

I thought he was serious. Guess I'm just a sucka.

Anyone got a website for Sarcasm and Irony? Maybe if we post it, we can all download some, along with "SenseofHumor 6.1," the Panther update. :cool:

So does this mean G5 AluBooks are nearer?

=pa=
Dec 4, 2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight
Wow. If this truly happens in January, buyers of the new dual 1.8 G5 will be pissed to see their machines outdated in one month. :eek:

Yeah, I'd be one of those... :mad: I tried frantically to swap my single 1.8 for a dual when they announced them two weeks after I took delivery, but Apple wanted a 10% restocking fee. Great.

mproud
Dec 4, 2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Steven1621
normally, there are three different speeds for the power mac line. why would they be developing four chips?????? 2.0 Ghz Powerbook G5 anyone????? ah i can only dream Calm down! Nothing's for certain! Who said Apple's using all of them?

It's a "rumor" ;)

It's all good :) :D

[edit: oh, mistook the ?'s - there is hope and optimism - so who knows, right? :)]

illumin8
Dec 4, 2003, 11:27 PM
Wow, if Apple announces that it will just be amazing. I'm waiting until next summer to order my G5 because I want to wait until they have (hopefully) 3 ghz. dual and dual cores (from the Power5) so it will really be like having a quad processor box! That should effectively blow anything Intel or AMD has out of the market.

The only thing that would make me angry is if they somehow pull off a G5 PowerBook, considering I just bought my 1.25 15" AlBook a month ago.

Cheers!

howard
Dec 4, 2003, 11:32 PM
i doubt this means powerbooks in january, but possibly in july??

ImAlwaysRight
Dec 4, 2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by crees!
The dual 1.8's will still work then right? So what's problem? Unless you have that, GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE ME mindset.
I think U missed the point. I didn't say a dual 1.8 would be rendered useless with the introduction of new machines. Here Apple makes an "upgrade" to their product line, so you buy at that time thinking you've got the latest and greatest, at least for a while. But then less than 30 days later Apple brings out a dual 2.4GHz as the mid-line computer for less money than U paid for a dual 1.8, I think that would make one experience a little buyer's remorse.

beatle888
Dec 5, 2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Yummy. Does that mean they might be faster than 3.0 GHz by WWDC? Can you imagine a Dual 3.2 GHz PowerMac? Wow.

:D

with the G5 i can easily imagine a 3.2GHz version.

nice icon by the way, i love the new album.

jade
Dec 5, 2003, 12:08 AM
who knows, maybe IBM was being really conservative about the 3ghz by June...and dual 2.6 will be the low end of the powermacs. (With 2, 2.2, 2.4 going into powerbooks or imacs.)

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by studiopix
I can't believe Apple is doing this. Now my once high end PowerMac 400 MHZ G4 system is too slow compared to a Dual 2.6 G5. Way to screw your loyal customer base Apple!

Does Apple expect me to buy a new machine after only four years of service? Unbelievable!

-Studio
I'm with you... They really need to improve the performance of Panther and the iApps. I need to stick with my G3 400 for another 5 years... 10 years life minimum. :mad:

DTphonehome
Dec 5, 2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight
I think U missed the point. I didn't say a dual 1.8 would be rendered useless with the introduction of new machines. Here Apple makes an "upgrade" to their product line, so you buy at that time thinking you've got the latest and greatest, at least for a while. But then less than 30 days later Apple brings out a dual 2.4GHz as the mid-line computer for less money than U paid for a dual 1.8, I think that would make one experience a little buyer's remorse.

This is why I don't buy until a product is JUST announced or upgraded. I got my bro a iBook G4 the day it came out, my dad a 1Ghz 12" PB, and myself a 30 GB iPod the day after they were announced. I got lucky with my first Mac...the 667Mhz 15" TiBook DVI...I didn't know this site existed at the time, so I didn't know about the rumors, but the 15 inchers didn't see an update for about a year after I got mine (which was already a bit dated).

If you need it, you need it, and it's worth buying on the spot, but if you can hold off, you'll always get better stuff.

--DT

Fukui
Dec 5, 2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Gyroscope
Hm! You mean 800. 3400-2600=800 :)
yea yea...

ITR 81
Dec 5, 2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Fukui
yea yea...

Thing is if IBM is doing 3 speed bumps a yr...that would put them around 3.6-3.8

I'm guessing AMD and Intel are hoping to be around 4Ghz by yr end.

Fukui
Dec 5, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by ITR 81
Thing is if IBM is doing 3 speed bumps a yr...that would put them around 3.6-3.8

I'm guessing AMD and Intel are hoping to be around 4Ghz by yr end.
It would be so nice if they could just jump straight to 3000 in Jan, wouldn't it??

//Starting to burn incence and pray...:D

dho
Dec 5, 2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by mxpiazza
first off, let me say that i always read the whole thread before responding, perhaps that should be the rule and *not* the exception.

when i read studiopix's post, i almost fell out of my chair because it was hillarious, and rather indicative of the way some people can be on these forums.

when i read the rest of the posts condemning him for a JOKE, it made me sick. it makes me feel like the reason people come on the board are to find fault in someone's post and blast them on it...

why don't we all get a little sense of humor and not rip people apart for anything and everything... they are people too and deserve to have their own opinions and humor.

that's the thing about opinion... it's not right or wrong. let's keep it that way.

I disagree ;)

Seriosly i think you make a good point lots of people (me included reeally need to be a little more nice)

dho
Dec 5, 2003, 12:50 AM
I think the recent speed bump of the mid line and price drop for the low end really opens it up for annother model.

maybe something like this:

sp 1.6 -> sp 2.0 1800

-> sp 2.2 2000

OR
->mp 2.2 2200

mp 1.8 -> mp 2.4 2500

mp 2.0 -> mp 2.6 2999



^my dream machine :)

well my 450 cube looks really cool

wizard
Dec 5, 2003, 01:01 AM
Actually the move provides for a number of possibilities. One would be an enlarged cache. Another would be additional power management circuitry. There is no reason to believe that reduced power is the only goal, they could possibly increase performance.

If Apple is honest in saying that the Ibook won't see a G5 anytime soon then it is possible to say that maybe the goal of this new chip was more than just reduced operating power. Performance could be part of the equation. A very likely one considering Apples desire to go after certain markets.

Dave



Originally posted by Goblin2099
Wouldn't surprise me one bit. The move to 90nm really only does one thing: make the chip run cooler. This facilitates higher clockspeeds because you now have more breathing room in terms of whether or not the chip will overheat, so faster chips are more safe. If they stick with a 2.0ghz chip at 90nm, it can really only be in order to keep it nice and cool, which is an absolute necessity for the svelte 1U xServe.

themadchemist
Dec 5, 2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Ensoniq
The iMacs aren't going to get the older 130nm chips for the same reason they don't have them now...supposedly they are too hot for the iMac dome.

But if we hope and assume that the 90nm chips will not be, then the lineup could be:

iMac: Single 2.0 GHz PPC 970 (90nm)

PowerMac: Dual 2.2, Dual 2.4, Dual 2.6

The eMac and iBook lines will move to the IBM 750VX as soon as it's complete. It's essentially a faster, lower powered G4 replacement. All the benefits of the IBM G3, with AltiVec tacked on. And for the eMac and iBook which don't need to go 64-bit until 2005, the perfect chip to keep costs down.

This all seems reasonable, and it just shows how big a difference 90 nm chips could make in the lineup because they'll open so many possibilities for the introduction of G5 chips into coming systems that would have been incapable of housing the hotter 130 nm chips.

What you describe above is almost a revolution for the Apple lineup, and one that I say it could use.

The laptop speeds are abysmal right now. The iMac's pretty bad off, as well. They need G5 chips and I'd say that even still, the laptop would be pretty far off the competition.

Unfortunately, we're still significantly behind the highest-end PCs. Has anyone seen the Apple v. Alienware faceoff in Macworld? Those AMD chips trounced us. It made me cringe.

But anyway, January COULD BE very exciting. I think that at the very least, we'll see the desktop updates and a new display. I'd be pleasantly surprised to see the iMac and PB updates, and a bit more surprised to see the iBook and eMac updates w/the 750VX (I haven't, though, been keeping up with the progress on this chip, so I shouldn't pass judgment on the likelihood of its appearance).

Now what would really be a treat is to see 20th Anniversary Macintosh II. That would be the only thing that made me waver from buying the top-of-the-line G5, unless it was prohibitively expensive. I mean, that's one of those pieces that you treasure forever, even though its specs aren't as great as the PowerMac 9600 of today, the G5.

m_gerbik
Dec 5, 2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by mikeyredk
that would mean
imac lineup(old 130nm processors)
1.6 g5 15"
1.8 g5 17"
2.0 g5 20"

emac
1.25 g4
1.33 g4


ibook
1.25 g4
1.33 g4

powermac
all duals
2.2 g5 dual
2.4 g5 dual
3.6 g5 dual
Dang! I'm with this dude. He says we're gonna see 3.6 G5s! Does it have a Hemi?

Sherman
Dec 5, 2003, 01:50 AM
Still under warranty? :eek:

What did you get, the Super Ultra Mega Extended Über 1337 Apple Care Program?

m_gerbik
Dec 5, 2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by mxpiazza
first off, let me say that i always read the whole thread before responding, perhaps that should be the rule and *not* the exception.

when i read studiopix's post, i almost fell out of my chair because it was hillarious, and rather indicative of the way some people can be on these forums.

when i read the rest of the posts condemning him for a JOKE, it made me sick. it makes me feel like the reason people come on the board are to find fault in someone's post and blast them on it...

why don't we all get a little sense of humor and not rip people apart for anything and everything... they are people too and deserve to have their own opinions and humor.

that's the thing about opinion... it's not right or wrong. let's keep it that way. Yeah, maybe you should chill out a little yourself. I mean no one is making kittens eat pop-rocks here. It's a web site.

acarboni
Dec 5, 2003, 03:24 AM
Woo hoo! Look at that gap between us and the PC world close. If this keeps up, we won't have to keep piles of those Megahertz Myth fliers onhand to give out to people on the street.

What, am I the only one that does that?

true777
Dec 5, 2003, 03:35 AM
I'd almost bet they'll be single 2.0, dual 2.2 and dual 2.4 machines, with no 2.6's just yet. Steve always wants to play it safe, and WWDC is only 4-5 months away where they'll speed bump them further.

I'd also predict single and dual 2.0 XServes, new displays, but nothing else (except for software, possibly a low-end iPod, and maybe an off-chance for a 20th anniversary thingy, though I doubt it).

I think hoping for new iMacs and PBs is just a bit too early.
Remember, they always like to bring out some serious stuff in February,
so I bet they'll announce something in the iMac or PB arena in Feb.

Just my 2c.

stingerman
Dec 5, 2003, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight
I think U missed the point. I didn't say a dual 1.8 would be rendered useless with the introduction of new machines. Here Apple makes an "upgrade" to their product line, so you buy at that time thinking you've got the latest and greatest, at least for a while. But then less than 30 days later Apple brings out a dual 2.4GHz as the mid-line computer for less money than U paid for a dual 1.8, I think that would make one experience a little buyer's remorse.

Welcome to the computer industry. Its been this way for the last 25 years. Buy when you need it, not when you lust it. Keep in mind key release dates throughout the year. Because what is worse is buying a Mac/PC the day before a major release. Other than that plan on being ahead of the curve for one month and relish that month until you buy again. Of course, if your productivity is based on the speed of the PC (Video, Graphics, Science, etc.) than get a new Mac every major speed bump, it will pay for itself if you can cut your render time significantly.

Belly-laughs
Dec 5, 2003, 04:34 AM
2.0 GHz iMac G5s

2.2, 2.4 & 2.6 MP G5 PowerMacs


Making the PMs all dual and the iMac single will make a distinct difference between the two lines, besides the expansion options. I bet most people buying the low-end PM G5 with a 17" Studio Display would love a similar spec´d iMac with a 20" LCD for less money.

With a cooler running processor this should be feasable.

stingerman
Dec 5, 2003, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by ITR 81
Thing is if IBM is doing 3 speed bumps a yr...that would put them around 3.6-3.8

I'm guessing AMD and Intel are hoping to be around 4Ghz by yr end.

AMD will not be at 4GHz by the end of the year, unless you are referring to their own numbering system not Hz.

Intel is reportedly going to announce the 3.4GHz 90NM Prescot (140W!) on February 2, 2004 with delivery set for March/April in Quantity, so its really becoming a 2nd Qtr 2004 release and the heat is still too high in the 90NM process for it to scale well. The Pentium 4 eXtreme is experiencing Sudden Overclocking Death (SOD) after working a few days at a higher clock. The overclocking sites are saying that the processor just dies and downclocking it doesn't bring it back to life, so that line is at its limit as well.

I personally do not think AMD will be able to keep up. Opteron has only sold 10,000 processors, hardly enough to cover its ramp up. A64 is in its adoption phase, but initial benchmarks are showing it equal to and maybe slightly slower than the top Pentiums, with no Win64 in sight to leverage its only differentiating feature. AMD is going to take a financial beating during this transition and when the cash starts drying up so goes the innovation.

It's my belief that IBM/Apple has the processor with the best legs right now. And, IBMs ability to innovate on the processor side is boundless as is Apple's ability to innovate on the Software and Systems side. Having the best processor and the best OS is a pretty powerful combination.

stingerman
Dec 5, 2003, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by themadchemist
The laptop speeds are abysmal right now. The iMac's pretty bad off, as well. They need G5 chips and I'd say that even still, the laptop would be pretty far off the competition.

Unfortunately, we're still significantly behind the highest-end PCs. Has anyone seen the Apple v. Alienware faceoff in Macworld? Those AMD chips trounced us. It made me cringe.


The laptop speeds are pretty darn fast. Apple doesn't sell those 9 pound bricks that last for one hour, their notebooks are real notebooks and their speed is up there for their form factor. That they have 9200 and 9600 GPU's is pretty good as well.

"we're still significantly behind the highest-end PCs." Did you even read that review, they were comparing MS Word and Premiere between those two platforms! Not Final Cut Pro, they were the same tests that PC World ran and the article clearly stated that this showed Premieres age more than anything else. Premiere has been a dead App on OS X for the last two years. FCP blows them away.

reflex
Dec 5, 2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by singletrack
I agree but the problem with 64bit Windows is that unless you have 64bit applications to run on it, it runs in a 32bit subsystem with all the thunking problems we had with WindowsNT and 32->16bit thunking. Unless M$ can persuade all the application vendors to produce 64bit versions and in turn they can persuade their users to upgrade then WinXP 64bit is merely a tech preview for the early adopters before the next OS comes out.

So what's the difference with OS X on a G5?

ITR 81
Dec 5, 2003, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
AMD will not be at 4GHz by the end of the year, unless you are referring to their own numbering system not Hz.

Intel is reportedly going to announce the 3.4GHz 90NM Prescot (140W!) on February 2, 2004 with delivery set for March/April in Quantity, so its really becoming a 2nd Qtr 2004 release and the heat is still too high in the 90NM process for it to scale well. The Pentium 4 eXtreme is experiencing Sudden Overclocking Death (SOD) after working a few days at a higher clock. The overclocking sites are saying that the processor just dies and downclocking it doesn't bring it back to life, so that line is at its limit as well.

I personally do not think AMD will be able to keep up. Opteron has only sold 10,000 processors, hardly enough to cover its ramp up. A64 is in its adoption phase, but initial benchmarks are showing it equal to and maybe slightly slower than the top Pentiums, with no Win64 in sight to leverage its only differentiating feature. AMD is going to take a financial beating during this transition and when the cash starts drying up so goes the innovation.

It's my belief that IBM/Apple has the processor with the best legs right now. And, IBMs ability to innovate on the processor side is boundless as is Apple's ability to innovate on the Software and Systems side. Having the best processor and the best OS is a pretty powerful combination.

Correct, I believe by the middle of this yr when Apple hits 3Ghz marks then basically the Apple/AMD battle will be almost done and if not by then, then by the end of the yr.

I believe Apple has always had it's eye on Intel and meeting and beating it in the performance area. IBM would also love to call it's self the fastest PC 64bit processor in the world at some point as well.

AMD's apparently love to be overclocked but I read their are problems with trying to overclock the current 64bit processors.

IBM has both the Power 5, Power 5+ and Power 6 and already a rumored Power 6+ in works. So I doubt IBM will be holding back anytime soon with it's processors.

I wonder when we will see a ver. of the Power 5+ in PPC form?? Probably not until sometime in 06' I'm guessing.

AidenShaw
Dec 5, 2003, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
with no Win64 in sight to leverage its only differentiating feature.

Ummm - Windows for AMD 64-bit is in beta, and is pretty easy to get if you need it.

For example, if you look at the Broadcom driver download site (http://www.broadcom.com/drivers/downloaddrivers.php), you'll see drivers listed for Windows x86-64 and Linux x86-64. Do you think companies would be posting drivers for an operating system that isn't available?

64-bit Windows is here now for IA64, and it's definitely in sight for x86-64 if you're looking for it!

leet1
Dec 5, 2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
I personally do not think AMD will be able to keep up. Opteron has only sold 10,000 processors, hardly enough to cover its ramp up. A64 is in its adoption phase, but initial benchmarks are showing it equal to and maybe slightly slower than the top Pentiums, with no Win64 in sight to leverage its only differentiating feature. AMD is going to take a financial beating during this transition and when the cash starts drying up so goes the innovation.

It's my belief that IBM/Apple has the processor with the best legs right now. And, IBMs ability to innovate on the processor side is boundless as is Apple's ability to innovate on the Software and Systems side. Having the best processor and the best OS is a pretty powerful combination.


The opteron 2.2Ghz is the best processor out right now, not the G5. The 2.2 beats the G5. I don't know what your reading, but everything I see shows the Opteron being a success and being sold with no problems<IBM is using them, ect.> Its already planned to have a dual core and hyperthreading support soon. I think it can and will keep up, probably overtake it when the G5 gets a boost in Ghz, just like it has now.

~Shard~
Dec 5, 2003, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.

Some people never learn... I think someone needs to give a course on the MegaHertz myth, and how more clock cycles/greater MHz is only one small piece of the equation.

Yah, I'm sure you're right brhmac, a 2.8 GHz 32-bit Intel chip no doubt kicks the crap out of a 64-bit 2.6 GHz PowerPC chip. :rolleyes:

ITR 81
Dec 5, 2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by leet1
The opteron 2.2Ghz is the best processor out right now, not the G5. The 2.2 beats the G5. I don't know what your reading, but everything I see shows the Opteron being a success and being sold with no problems<IBM is using them, ect.> Its already planned to have a dual core and hyperthreading support soon. I think it can and will keep up, probably overtake it when the G5 gets a boost in Ghz, just like it has now.

But next PPC update in the middle of next yr is also to have dual cores and probably hyperthreading as well. So I doubt AMD will have the advantage long if at all.

drizahy4
Dec 5, 2003, 08:24 AM
I just want to say apple has come out this year and turn the computing world upside-down. We as mac users will always have 1 thing I believe above pc. And that is competition. I say this not as a pc vs mac sense. We as users have to stick by apple decisions or go elsewhere. I see all my friends fighting over the 64 bit AMD's and how one should get it and others don't believe they should. Apple made a pretty much flawless change over into the 64 bit world.
**** apple has showed me this year that they are power hungry. I cant waiit to see whats to come next year.

<mod edit>efforts to circumvent the profanity filter are frowned upon</mod edit>

k2k koos
Dec 5, 2003, 09:02 AM
Well I've been reading all of your responses so far, and it made me chuckle.
Pro's con's, yes no, just the standard sort of thread I'd expected on this subject.
Let's keep it that way, it is one of the reasons why I love Macrumors, some might not be true at all, it always makes for entertaining reading, and what's best; it is all about our every passion; Apple and everything it is about!

Anyway, back on topic: i've read the Macworld review too, and i must say the G5's hav been treated a littel unfair in some cases. no doubt there is a fasterPC system out there, but indeed using final cut pro would have beet more realistic, who on earth still uses Premiere on an OSX machine?
Interesting though how bad Office for MAC fared against it's PC counter part, that must have to do with bad porting (but hey it's MS, so what do you expect...)

As for the up and coming speedbumps, bring em on!!!


:D

willmg
Dec 5, 2003, 09:06 AM
Hey all I hate to be a downer but at these awesome speeds we start to have some other issues. Namely memory speed and chip connections on the MB, unless IBM has some secret source of super fast DDR2 or DDR3 and Apple has a speedier chipset waiting to go won't we sort of be in the reverse problem we had before? Instead of an FSB that cant handle the systems components, we will have a system that cant utilize the FSB! Or will Apple increase memory bandwidth with triple or quad channel DDR (just kidding as I do't think thats possible). Any ideas out there about this? I know some super fast memory is out there, but the fastest I've seen is 533 DDR with horrible CAS of 3.

iN8
Dec 5, 2003, 09:17 AM
All this talk of Gigahertz. I don't even know what it feels like to work on a system as fast as these. I've been using a G4-450 at home and work since 1999. My boss is too cheap to pay for an upgrade and I am still paying for my G4 and all the software and accessories I bought with it.

One day I will leave the matrix. Until then ignorance is bliss.

Edit: Oh by the way, I have NEVER used a machine faster than my G4-450

Trimix
Dec 5, 2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by MattG
Hopefully this means they'll drop the 1.6 and 1.8 completely, and make the Dual 2.0ghz the *ahem* "low-end" model, dropping it's price significantly. Then I may be forced to buy one.

I am with you all the way :D

neilw
Dec 5, 2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by k2k koos
Interesting though how bad Office for MAC fared against it's PC counter part, that must have to do with bad porting (but hey it's MS, so what do you expect...)


It took me about 5 minutes with Office X to realize how appallingly slow it was, especially Word X. I happen to think it's rather awful in other ways as well, but its performance is undeniably bad in many areas.

It's funny how Office X got a lot of good press and kudos at its introduction because of its rather thorough redesign for OSX. It's a necessary evil for me and for the platform, but as a cross-platform benchmarking tool it is a liability for the Mac. An almost perfect best-case scenario for Microsoft...

Trimix
Dec 5, 2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by leet1
Don't bring that into this, because your stating false facts :rolleyes:

How can facts be false ? Or is there more sarcasm hidden in that too
:D

~Shard~
Dec 5, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by neilw
It took me about 5 minutes with Office X to realize how appallingly slow it was, especially Word X. I happen to think it's rather awful in other ways as well, but its performance is undeniably bad in many areas.

It's funny how Office X got a lot of good press and kudos at its introduction because of its rather thorough redesign for OSX. It's a necessary evil for me and for the platform, but as a cross-platform benchmarking tool it is a liability for the Mac. An almost perfect best-case scenario for Microsoft...

Interesting, this is the first I've heard of this. For some reason, I remember hearing that Office X actually worked better on the Mac than the PC, so there was a sense of irony that a MS product worked better in a non-Windows environment! ;)

But, if that's the case, then I guess that's the way it is. You learn something new everyday on these forums!

Jagga
Dec 5, 2003, 09:40 AM
:D Ok I remember the days of early 1990 in the new of LA when the clear sole Nike Air Jordans came out and the rich kid on the block got 'Rolled' for those shoes. This phenomenon spread all the way to Toronto, Canada.

Dude, I have a Dell and I'm suffering, If my neighbor gets a PowerMac G5 before I do then I'm rolling her for it!!!!!!!! LOL! She can come over only once a week to use it!!

Just Kidding!! Stealing is wrong no matter what its for..........but Oh man I sure wish I had Jedi mind tricks!!!!!!!!:D

supertex
Dec 5, 2003, 10:11 AM
I try to keep up with these forums, but this one exploded overnight. So to throw in my two cents or dollars or something, Here I am.

<joke>
I know it was way back at the beginning of the thread, but I'm going to have to agree with our friend who is upset about the 2.8 Ghz Dell laptops. Apple needs to keep up with the times for cryin' in the beer. My girlfriend has one of those and it has an amazing feature that I've never seen in an Apple laptop. Just the other day, the electricity in my house was out, and she started up her laptop and brought it over so I could flip it over and cook myself some breakfast on it... mmmm... Bacon, fried eggs, and if you do a little photoshop work on it, you can shut the lid afterwards and make waffles between the keyboard and the screen. Of course we had to go in the other room to talk as we couldn't hear ourselves over that ingenious and oh so aesthetically pleasing fan once it cranked up... what are the folks at Apple thinking!?!!?!?!?</joke>

Anyway, in all seriousness, with Intel's huge gains this year in the stock market, they're destined to get sacked here soon, looks like Apple and IBM are aiming for their knees with the roadmap for the PowerPC. I pose this question: What will we all do with our freetime when we don't have to teach our friends about the megahertz myth anymore?

Go Apple, and one of these days I'm gonna have to replace my 500mhz iBook, maybe when if it ever stops working, oh wait, it's an Apple, I guess I can live with two working computers...

Edit: I just remembered, it is now necessary to clarify when one is joking and when one is not....

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
Intel is reportedly going to announce the 3.4GHz 90NM Prescot (140W!) This reminds me......

It's my understanding that Apple has been working on liquid cooling. I wonder if we'll see the first implementation in the new powermacs? I imagine that we'll see it in the PM before the PB.

ddbean
Dec 5, 2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Gymnut
Let's hope Apple doesn't have a problem in releasing the updated G5's en masse. ...

For the record, I'm STILL waiting for my 9800 graphics card to get shipped from Apple to my local reseller, on a box that I paid for back in July 2003. Apple had to finally ship my box less B/T and 9800 card in Oct due to some unknown hdw conflict between them, and I'm still waiting for 9800 card.

neilw
Dec 5, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Interesting, this is the first I've heard of this. For some reason, I remember hearing that Office X actually worked better on the Mac than the PC, so there was a sense of irony that a MS product worked better in a non-Windows environment! ;)


Well, it *looks* nice and OSX-ish on the surface. What I have found, among other things, is that certain kinds of embedded objects in documents cause hellacious slowdowns on the Mac.

I was trying to do something very simple: extract two diagrams from a 40-page PC-created document. Open the document, scroll to the diagrams, copy-paste them to a new document, and save. Every time I touched the scroll bar, though, I had a 30 second beach-ball. Roughly 45 hair-pulling minutes later, I had finished. I then went back and pulled up this document on an old crappy PC at work, and it was smooth as silk.

That's by far the worst example I've encountered, but at the time I was ready to chuck it out the window. In general, I find it to be pretty but pretty slow at everything. My ancient copy of Office 98 running under Classic is infinitely crisper.

But it functions, and serves its purpose in its own way. I probably overstate how bad it is; others might have better experience than mine. But it irks me how it was held up as a paragon of great Mac programming when it first came out.

encro
Dec 5, 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by DTphonehome
Man, my 667Mhz PB is plugging along quite nicely....I can't even imagine what I would do with a dual 2.6Ghz G5. Seriously.

--DT

I know what I would do:

It would go something like creaming in my pants daily ;)

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by encro
I know what I would do:

It would go something like creaming in my pants daily ;) So nothing new...

~Shard~
Dec 5, 2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
So nothing new...

HAHA - nice one! :cool:

encro
Dec 5, 2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
So nothing new...

True :)

But now the focus has switched from Ladies to Hardware.

encro
Dec 5, 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
HAHA - nice one! :cool:

Ah Dr Zebor, I have created something miraculous and perfect. I shall call him "Clone".

JoeRadar
Dec 5, 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by neilw
It took me about 5 minutes with Office X to realize how appallingly slow it was, especially Word X.
I use Word a fair amount for proposals, reports, memos, etc. Around 1991-92 I used Word (4?) on my Mac SE/30 to produce the proceedings for a conference we held.

IMHO, Word today is worse than Word was back around 1992. Today Word is much slower, does some things worse (e.g., stitching together multiple documents into one meta document), and a few things that did work (e.g., embedding EPSF) do not work or work really badly.

I was looking at MS's recent SEC filing, and 86% of their profits come from their Windows desktop and Office divisions. In other words, one of the largest capitalized companies in America ($284 billion) is based on selling you things you already own and that still work.

In the case of Office, they do this by adding bloated code, most of which you will never need, re-casting existing capabilities as "improvements", and then forcing large corporations into license deals that push upgrades. Then MS adds incompatible file format that force the rest of us to upgrade once we start receiving documents we cannot read. :mad:

supertex
Dec 5, 2003, 11:13 AM
In a MWSF thread someone mentioned Apple coming out with a pro-level AppleWorks (seems unlikely to me) but here's what I think:

For Apple to come out with something that would be on par with Office for Windows would be specfreakingtacular. Even though Office v.X allows us to use Microsoft's file formats, it's features are way behind Office 2003, Outlook's contact management is lightyears ahead of Entourage. (granted 2003's goodies appeal mostly to IT professionals running big networks) Give it Office 2003 compatibility, a comparable feature set, and don't do like Microsoft and require servers and all sorts of server software to use half the goodies like sharepoints and Information Rights Management. IMHO, If Apple could do that, then that would be the software release of the decade.

JoE950
Dec 5, 2003, 11:25 AM
thanks to all the early adopters that fund future developments. really, if nobody "early adopted" then nothing new would ever come out. right? support the future!

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 11:38 AM
So am I the only one that thinks we might see liquid cooling in the new PowerMacs?

If Apple goes to .90 process, I'd imagine liquid cooling may be an option... At least trying it in the PowerMacs before the PowerBooks.

~Shard~
Dec 5, 2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
So am I the only one that thinks we might see liquid cooling in the new PowerMacs?

If Apple goes to .90 process, I'd imagine liquid cooling may be an option... At least trying it in the PowerMacs before the PowerBooks.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but because the .90s are smaller than the existing chips, do they not draw less power and throw off less heat as a result? If so, liquid cooling may not be as necessary, but it would still be really cool (pun intended). And I guess as the processors get faster and faster cooling will become more and more important....

Bring on liquid cooling!

supertex
Dec 5, 2003, 11:42 AM
Here I go being ignorant again...

Isn't the exciting thing about 90nm 970s that they would be inherently much cooler, thereby reducing the need for some extreme cooling solution?

Don't hurt me, just correct me...

Edit: Oh Look! Shard beat me to it, but another thought, I imagine you'd need some kind of mechanism to circulate the liquid, wouldn't that drain the battery like mad?

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by supertex
Here I go being ignorant again...

Isn't the exciting thing about 90nm 970s that they would be inherently much cooler, thereby reducing the need for some extreme cooling solution?

Don't hurt me, just correct me...

Edit: Oh Look! Shard beat me to it, but another thought, I imagine you'd need some kind of mechanism to circulate the liquid, wouldn't that drain the battery like mad? That's my understanding, but they become less cool as you go higher in Mhz/Ghz. I was riding on an earlier comment about intels .90 process pushing 140W. I'm not sure how much the G5 @ .90 would push, but if you want silent computing, maybe liquid cooling would help achieve the results without 9 fans and 80 lb heatsinks... Just a guess. :p

supertex
Dec 5, 2003, 11:50 AM
heehee, an 80 lb. heatsink, that would just look funny...
Sorry, too much coffee this morning...

redeye
Dec 5, 2003, 11:51 AM
I would be content with what they have now, if they can get it problem free.

Fukui
Dec 5, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by leet1
The opteron 2.2Ghz is the best processor out right now, not the G5. The 2.2 beats the G5....I think it can and will keep up, probably overtake it when the G5 gets a boost in Ghz, just like it has now.

This is very true, because as we all know, word and an emulated (classic) version of premier against a non-emulated one is the best benchmark for a processor....

A64 is a very fast proccessor, but then, why didn't virginia tech use them if thier THAT much faster??

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by supertex
heehee, an 80 lb. heatsink, that would just look funny...
Sorry, too much coffee this morning... Then add a second processor and you're shooting 160 lbs. Steve will announce it with an iForklift and a crazed look on his face...

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Fukui
A64 is a very fast proccessor, but then, why didn't virginia tech use them if thier THAT much faster?? Price/performance.. No one quoted them a good price and they weren't available in large quantities at that point.

bsichran
Dec 5, 2003, 11:57 AM
I agree with everyone having problems with OS X office. It is slow. But I after using Disk Warrior, I am not getting the beach ball anymore on a 100 page Word document.

Hope this helps.

JoeRadar
Dec 5, 2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by supertex
In a MWSF thread someone mentioned Apple coming out with a pro-level AppleWorks (seems unlikely to me) but here's what I think:
And here is my 2 cents... Apple should develop its own word processor, but develop an open standard document format. Perhaps they could start with something like LaTex, troff, or RTF, re-map it to an XML format, and make some basic extensions. The goal is to eventually create something like the W3C for documents.

While MS still has a strong hold in the US, government all over the rest of the world are taking active measures to discourage the MS lock-in. Most countries are embracing the phrase "open source", but I can also see these countries embracing an "open standard" file format as well.

Safari was a great example to follow. Apple's next generation MacWord should be lean, efficient, and as open-standards compliant as possible.

supertex
Dec 5, 2003, 12:01 PM
DThen add a second processor and you're shooting 160 lbs. Steve will announce it with an iForklift and a crazed look on his face...

The crazy look on his face would be because of the hernia he gave himself putting it up on the stage...
Maybe the heatsink would be detachable, Jobs would say, "and now, we've included a revolutionary functionality to better reach the metalworker market, I would like to introduce the iAnvil." And his presentation could use that Keynote Drop build so that the iAnvil falls onto the screen to crush an Inspiron...

... I am so looking forward to MWSF!

silvergunuk
Dec 5, 2003, 04:17 PM
They should have compared microsoft word on the athlon vs preview on a dual G5...both optimised for each system. G5 would slaughter it and as for premier and final cut lol

BenRoethig
Dec 5, 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Interesting, this is the first I've heard of this. For some reason, I remember hearing that Office X actually worked better on the Mac than the PC, so there was a sense of irony that a MS product worked better in a non-Windows environment! ;)

But, if that's the case, then I guess that's the way it is. You learn something new everyday on these forums!

I have Word on both the family PC (athlon 1800) and the my 900mhz iBook. Word is almost instant on the iBook under 10.3, much faster than under XP.

visor
Dec 5, 2003, 05:06 PM
ok
2.2,2.4,2.6 is nice, but it will be quite costly.
the lower end is all with integrated monitor, which is completely uninteresting for me....

I'd like to buy a cheap apple desktop, but there is none.

daveL
Dec 5, 2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by visor
ok
2.2,2.4,2.6 is nice, but it will be quite costly.
the lower end is all with integrated monitor, which is completely uninteresting for me....

I'd like to buy a cheap apple desktop, but there is none.
I'd like to buy a cheap BMW M5, but there is none :)

~Shard~
Dec 5, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by daveL
I'd like to buy a cheap BMW M5, but there is none :)

M5? I'm waiting for a cheap Z8... :cool:

rdowns
Dec 5, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
M5? I'm waiting for a cheap Z8... :cool:

Nobody wants a cheap anything. AN inexpensive one, yes. Cheap, no.

~Shard~
Dec 5, 2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by rdowns
Nobody wants a cheap anything. AN inexpensive one, yes. Cheap, no.

Heh heh - fair enough, that's what I meant to say. ;)

Telomar
Dec 5, 2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Price/performance.. No one quoted them a good price and they weren't available in large quantities at that point. Opterons aren't as great in terms of raw floating point power too, at least compared to the PPC970, so more processors would have been needed. At 2GHz the PPC970 can do 8 GigaFLOPs theoretically and the Opteron does 6. Opterons had also had 2 extra months to ramp up so production carried both ways.

leet1
Dec 5, 2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Telomar
Opterons aren't as great in terms of raw floating point power too, at least compared to the PPC970, so more processors would have been needed. At 2GHz the PPC970 can do 8 GigaFLOPs theoretically and the Opteron does 6. Opterons had also had 2 extra months to ramp up so production carried both ways.

Hmm, los alamos chose the opterons over the 2ghz ppc970; heres the link:

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=49052,00.asp

Any reason why?

the cluster will have a peak of 11.2 teraflops (trillion floating point operations per second).

g5man
Dec 6, 2003, 01:28 AM
Well let me add my 2 cent prediction.

Power Mac G5 2.2 SP- $1799

Power Mac G5 2.4 Dual -$2499

Power Mac G5 2.6 Dual - $3299

wrldwzrd89
Dec 6, 2003, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by g5man
Well let me add my 2 cent prediction.

Power Mac G5 2.2 SP- $1799

Power Mac G5 2.4 Dual -$2499

Power Mac G5 2.6 Dual - $3299

I hope the prices are lower than this (ie they stay pretty much the same or even drop a little) but I like your prediction processor-wise.

Sunrunner
Dec 6, 2003, 05:15 AM
(crosses fingers and hopes for a 3ghz G5 by summer)

Sunrunner
Dec 6, 2003, 05:17 AM
I think that the trends show that apple will most likely move to an all DP lineup in 2004... They may offer a SP 2Ghz for the value customers though, and make it a 4-version lineup.

Did everyone see that Apple is offering refurb G5's for sale? This means that they are clearing out excess stocks in preperation for the new models....hehehe

Telomar
Dec 6, 2003, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by leet1
Hmm, los alamos chose the opterons over the 2ghz ppc970; heres the link:

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=49052,00.asp

Any reason why? Note that's 2800 Opterons as opposed to the 17.6 teraflop peak of the 2200 PPC970s. An opteron at an equal clock will never beat out a PPC 970 at an equal clock speed in floating point ops per second until the processor is revised, it simply doesn't have the capability. I also wouldn't count on Opterons scaling a whole lot faster than PPC970s either given they should scale around the same rate.

In fact I was also incorrect and the Opterons only do 2 flops per clock. The only other microprocessors that can obtain that sort of peak operation per clock cycle (4 flops/cycle) are the Itanium or POWER4/5 series.

For reference the system is number 6 here. (http://www.top500.org/list/2003/11/)

g5man
Dec 6, 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
I hope the prices are lower than this (ie they stay pretty much the same or even drop a little) but I like your prediction processor-wise.

The reason I increased the prices on the high end, is because it follows the pattern I have seen from Apple the last 6 years. Every other update increases and decreases. The first batch of G5 was priced lower, with the exception of the low end. This was done to move more high end machines in a weaker economy.

Things have turned around a little and Apple can risk rasing prices on the 2nd rev.

I bought a G3 233mhz in 1997 for $1999. In January 1998 I believe it went up to 300mhz and it was $1699.

Krevnik
Dec 6, 2003, 12:48 PM
Also be aware though, that the processors are becoming cheaper to produce, and so the cost of production will go down. The R&D cost has already been paid for the most part, so the main cost of speed-bumped machines at this point is manufacturing costs.

Not to mention Apple probably bumped up the prices due to supply/demand rather than anything else. The demand for the 2Ghz was so high, they could charge more because the market would bear it. (and IBM was probably charging a little more on the batch because of the supply/demand problem as well).

Travis Novak
Dec 6, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Goblin2099
Did anyone else find it funny that there were FOUR clockspeeds reported? I seriously doubt that there's going to be a shift to four towers, so this seems to be pretty strong evidence in favor of the G5 migrating to either the iMac or xServe (anybody thinking about putting one in a PB or eMac is just kidding themselves at this point...wait another six months, then we'll talk).

I think a 17inch pb G5 would be more realistic at this time. The powerbooks have had equal or better prossecors than the imacs and more people want a g5 pb than a g5 imac.

skymac
Dec 6, 2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Travis Novak
I think a 17inch pb G5 would be more realistic at this time. The powerbooks have had equal or better prossecors than the imacs and more people want a g5 pb than a g5 imac.

They wont make a 17" g5 PB without changing thre other two to G5 at the same time, it does not make any sense.

Anyways i think the 2ghz will be thrown in the xserve and the other three will be used for the PM. We will probablty see a PB G5 or iMac G5 at WWDC. Of course there is always the chance that a new not existing yet product could be released
:)
I guess this means i'll have to tell my dad to hold of his purchase for a few months. A 2*2.6ghz PM would be sopo kick A@$

Sunrunner
Dec 6, 2003, 06:52 PM
There are currently too many heat issues with the G5 to get it into a laptop. Apple has been reportedly working on a liquid-cooling technology for work with the G5, but I wouldnt expect that kind of R&D to be done in time for MWSF. I'm betting well see the new desktops in January, followed by G5 Powerbooks in late spring.

AidenShaw
Dec 6, 2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Sunrunner
Apple has been reportedly working on a liquid-cooling technology for work with the G5


Don't you all know that "liquid cooling technology" is really old hat, and already in widespread use on laptops?

My 2001 vintage Compaq M700 uses liquid-cooled heatpipes on its 700 MHz Pentium III mobile chip. My new Dell Centrino 1.7 GHz has liquid-cooled heatpipes on the Pentium M 1.7 GHz chip.

Photos of the Powermac G5 show liquid-cooled heatpipes on the chips on the bottom of the mobo.

"Liquid cooling" is really run-of-the-mill mid-90's technology that is widely used.

Apple could do a portable G5 anytime - they'd just have to shut the whiners up. "If you want battery life - get the Powerbook G4, if you want the fastest portable Mac, and battery life is not your highest priority - get a Powerbook G5".

Very simple - there's a tradeoff. Choose battery life or power. Simple. Obvious. Get over it.

Guess the problem is that Apple is not a pro-choice company.... (Try choosing a five-button mouse at the Apple store!)

Fukui
Dec 7, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw

Guess the problem is that Apple is not a pro-choice company.... (Try choosing a five-button mouse at the Apple store!)
5 Buttons not enough? (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70702/wo/Rb6K1XczuXSW2lU46ZVfgvYh3GJ/0.0.7.1.0.5.13.0.2.1.3.0.7.4.1.1.0)

///mdriver
Dec 7, 2003, 12:50 AM
what woudl prices run?

=pa=
Dec 7, 2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by ///mdriver
what woudl prices run?

Certainly a whole lot less than your ///M!!!

Mord
Dec 7, 2003, 11:49 AM
I wand a quadruple prosessor pm for £3k + 2x agpslots for quadruple moniters 4x30" tft's

+appleworks 7

jouster
Dec 7, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Hector
I wand a quadruple prosessor pm for £3k + 2x agpslots for quadruple moniters 4x30" tft's

+appleworks 7

Yeah, well I want a solid gold toilet seat....</Austin_Powers>

:rolleyes:

JoE950
Dec 7, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Hector
I wand a quadruple prosessor pm for £3k + 2x agpslots for quadruple moniters 4x30" tft's

+appleworks 7
dont forget about all the monitors you could hook up with pci cards.. yipes that would be nice!

ffakr
Dec 7, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Fukui
This is very true, because as we all know, word and an emulated (classic) version of premier against a non-emulated one is the best benchmark for a processor....

A64 is a very fast proccessor, but then, why didn't virginia tech use them if thier THAT much faster??

Leet1 needs to look a little deeper into the benchmarks before he/she goes off on a Mac board about how superior the Opteron/Athlon64 is.

try this on for size...
FFT Benchmarks (http://www.fftw.org/)
It's a link to some Fast Fourier Transform benchmarks (set up by some guys at MIT). The G5 eats up the Opteron, sometimes with nearly double the performance. FFTs are pervasive in research computing.

This just goes to show that you can pick out a benchmark to make just about any processor faster than another. Benchmarking Opterons against G5s in Word and Premier is a total joke.

The facts are, Opteron/Athlon64 is a great processor. The 970 is also a great processor. The Opteron has the on-die memory controller, The 970 can retire MORE instructions per clock cycle than an Opteron... Both architectures have their advantages and dis-advantages.

The reality is, the 970 was picked over the Opteron, Itanium, and Xeon because of price, availability, AND performance benefits.
G5s really are wicked research machines, even if they are somewhat lacking in MS Word performance :snicker:

I hate to beat a dead horse here... but as far as i've been able to tell, the G5 requires more optimization (over previous architectures) than the Opteron requires (over older x86 32bit code). This isn't because the 970 runs 32bit code worse, but because it is based off a different (Power4) architecture, so it 'does some stuff differently' than the G4 and G3. it's also much wider... FP code compiled for G4s are only expecting half the hardware to be there...
Pretty much all Mac software is effectively crippled on the G5 right now. OS X and Mac OS X programs run really fast on the G5 right now, but they will only get better as GCC comes up to speed, and as developers get their hands on truely optimized compilers like IBMs xlc and xlf. xlc sometimes generates code that is 70% faster than gcc, and xlc for the 970 is still in beta!
2003 was a good year for Mac users. 2004 will be unbelievable.

jmho.. ffakr

ffakr
Dec 7, 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Hector
I wand a quadruple prosessor pm for £3k + 2x agpslots for quadruple moniters 4x30" tft's

+appleworks 7

AGP is a port, not a bus. You can only have, by design, one AGP port in a computer.
You'd be better off praying for a quad monitor video card... maybe the next Permedia from Matrox will support 4 monitors.

g4pismo
Dec 7, 2003, 09:12 PM
I think i would rather wish for quad G5's rather than quad displays, but thats just cpu lust:

yamabushi
Dec 7, 2003, 10:10 PM
Bring on the 2.0GHz G5 Cube!:D

Krevnik
Dec 7, 2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
AGP is a port, not a bus. You can only have, by design, one AGP port in a computer.
You'd be better off praying for a quad monitor video card... maybe the next Permedia from Matrox will support 4 monitors.

Uhm, actually, AGP is a bus with a single port. You can run multiple AGP buses in a system, but there are design considerations to be had (since an AGP card can access RAM directly, you make your controllers more complex and expensive as you add more devices that can access RAM, not to mention degrade performance).

So yeah, a quad monitor video card is more likely, or just get a dual head AGP card and a dual head PCI card.

Malus120
Dec 7, 2003, 11:34 PM
Hmm My Predictions

MWSF 2004

What i expect
SP 2.0Ghz G5 $1799
DP 2.25Ghz G5 $2499
DP 2.5Ghz G5 $2999

Optomistic/Hopefull
SP/DP 2.2Ghz G5 $1799
DP 2.4Ghz G5 $2499
DP 2.6Ghz G5 $2999

Either way i will probably be buying whatever is the low end tower(so as you might guess im REALLY Hoping for DP 2.0-2.2Ghz on the low end, as that would really be nice).

PretendPCuser
Dec 8, 2003, 12:10 AM
G4 400 or so Mhz, i'll be accepting these machines for the everyday great price of $5 per usable CPU to start the ultimate G4 400Mhz CLusteR. WIll be called ClusTer's Last Stand and that puppy is gonna be 5000 CPUs strong by the end, and oh yea, it'll almost be as fast as the new dual G5 3.2Ghz due next summer.

For the last time, the dude was joking! Oh what the hell,

"Are you crazy? YOu expect Apple to slow down for you, you slimebag!"

I'm sure the author of the original post knows i'm kidding.

Cheers!~

Edited for stupidity.


:p

ffakr
Dec 8, 2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Krevnik
Uhm, actually, AGP is a bus with a single port. You can run multiple AGP buses in a system, but there are design considerations to be had (since an AGP card can access RAM directly, you make your controllers more complex and expensive as you add more devices that can access RAM, not to mention degrade performance).

So yeah, a quad monitor video card is more likely, or just get a dual head AGP card and a dual head PCI card.
So, you are saying that the Accelerated Graphics Port is actually a bus?

I was mistaken, but you're not right either.
The new PCI 3.0 Spec does, in fact, support multiple AGP Ports. It's a change introduced in the new spec. AGP 2 and AGP 1 specs didn't support multiple ports (there was a technical reason for this that was too detailed for me to bother remembering ;-))
Page 14 of the spec.

So, if you read the AGP 3.0 final Spec from Intel's web site, you'll see Accelerated Graphics Port is a Port not a bus, and it finally supports multiple AGP 3.0 ports. AGP 3 has been designed to be backward compatible with AGP 2 (to some extent). I haven't seen yet if you can have multiple 4x/8x ports (that's AGP 2 and AGP 3 compatible ports) or if you have to have multiple ports that ONLY have compatibility for AGP 3 spec. I'm too tired to read the rest and find out. ;-P

ffakr
Dec 8, 2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Malus120
Hmm My Predictions

MWSF 2004

Optomistic/Hopefull
SP/DP 2.2Ghz G5 $1799
DP 2.4Ghz G5 $2499
DP 2.6Ghz G5 $2999

I actually think that we'll see these, either very close to MWSF or shortly after.
I would guess that if we see single/dual/dual, then we'll see a price cut across the board. It could come at the same time, but Apple may try to milk early adopters of the Rev2 G5s, then cut shortly after.
If Apple goes all dual (which is possible), then I expect to see a price cut on the mid/high end... again at the same time or shortly after.

I'm ever the optimist, but I'm guessing that near or at MWSF, we'll see the above machines, maybe a price cut, and a G5 iMac.

Slightly different note. I'm pretty sure Apple won't pre-announce a faster G5. If it isn't ready at MWSF, they'll announce it at an event shortly after, when it's ready to ship. Apple needed to pre-announce the G5 in June because there was serious discontent over the desktop line. The G4 wasn't shipping anyway so it didn't hurt much.. and the developers needed an early look at the G5 architecture. Now, the G5s are shipping well, it wouldn't be a good idea to cause buyers to put off purchases and wait for the next great thing.

Thom_Edwards
Dec 8, 2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by ffakr

I hate to beat a dead horse here... but as far as i've been able to tell, the G5 requires more optimization (over previous architectures) than the Opteron requires (over older x86 32bit code). This isn't because the 970 runs 32bit code worse, but because it is based off a different (Power4) architecture, so it 'does some stuff differently' than the G4 and G3. it's also much wider... FP code compiled for G4s are only expecting half the hardware to be there...
Pretty much all Mac software is effectively crippled on the G5 right now. OS X and Mac OS X programs run really fast on the G5 right now, but they will only get better as GCC comes up to speed, and as developers get their hands on truely optimized compilers like IBMs xlc and xlf. xlc sometimes generates code that is 70% faster than gcc, and xlc for the 970 is still in beta!
2003 was a good year for Mac users. 2004 will be unbelievable.

jmho.. ffakr

i'm glad you posted this, because code optimization is the first thing i thought of after reading fukui's post, and i think you are dead on.

a friend of mine worked on an existing cluster at los alamos (he's at UC-berkley now), and it's all about optimization. they're doing nuclear sims, where saving .00000000000001 (or so :) ) seconds on one cycle can equal weeks or more in the whole scheme of things. (you should talk to this guy with a couple of bourbons in him--it will boggle your mind!)

they have sooooo many lines of code already there, and it just wouldn't make sense to have to go back and re-optimize the existing stuff for a different chip. the g5 *may* be faster, but i don't know if it would matter for los alamos compared to the time for a re-write. it's kind of like me switching to a pc *if* it were a bit faster--i've already got a lot of money invested in mac software so it wouldn't be financially sound.

Mord
Dec 8, 2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by ffakr
AGP is a port, not a bus. You can only have, by design, one AGP port in a computer.
You'd be better off praying for a quad monitor video card... maybe the next Permedia from Matrox will support 4 monitors.

the point is that this is predicting what will happen in the future it may not work now but they can find a way

jefhatfield
Dec 9, 2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=259) that IBM is currently producing 90nm G5s in volume at speeds of 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz.

Apple is expected to announce these new G5 processors in speed bumped PowerMacs at the January according to one source at Appleinsider.

This would be consistent with previous rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031112123844.shtml) and whispers that the low-end PowerMac would become a single 2.0GHz G5.

that seems to make sense and 90 nanometer chips should run cooler

...which could also make a powerbook g5 a possibility

pgwalsh
Dec 9, 2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
that seems to make sense and 90 nanometer chips should run cooler

...which could also make a powerbook g5 a possibility I'll be surprised if there's 2.6Ghz chips.. That's a major jump. 2.4 wouldn't be a major surprise.

~Shard~
Dec 9, 2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I'll be surprised if there's 2.6Ghz chips.. That's a major jump. 2.4 wouldn't be a major surprise.

It is a major jump, I agree, but keep in mind we're dealing with IBM now, and not Motorola!

jefhatfield
Dec 9, 2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
It is a major jump, I agree, but keep in mind we're dealing with IBM now, and not Motorola!

moto-who?

hey wait, didn't ibm invent the PC?:p

pgwalsh
Dec 9, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
It is a major jump, I agree, but keep in mind we're dealing with IBM now, and not Motorola! True true.. I just don't think we should set our expectations too high. In magine how annyoing it would be if people are disappointed with 2.4 ghz at the top of the line. The rumor gets the best of them.

~Shard~
Dec 9, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
True true.. I just don't think we should set our expectations too high. In magine how annyoing it would be if people are disappointed with 2.4 ghz at the top of the line. The rumor gets the best of them.

Very true, and I am by no means expecting 2.6 GHz @ MWSF, but I'm just thining not that Apple is dealing with IBM and not Motorola anymore, the likelihood of it is definitely more plausible. Honestly though, I don't think anything @ MWSF will disappoint me, regardless of the announcements - it's all good! But you're right, there are those who take rumors as gospel and are extremely upset when they're 20" dual G5 PowerBook doesn't get announced. ;)

Rezet
Dec 21, 2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by LimeLite
riiiiight. compare a 2.6Ghz 64-bit PowerPC processor to the 2.8GHz Intel chip that Dell is using. I'm sure they're very similar.


Dude, he was just joking :)

Travis Novak
Dec 22, 2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by skymac
They wont make a 17" g5 PB without changing thre other two to G5 at the same time, it does not make any sense.

Anyways i think the 2ghz will be thrown in the xserve and the other three will be used for the PM. We will probablty see a PB G5 or iMac G5 at WWDC. Of course there is always the chance that a new not existing yet product could be released
:)
I guess this means i'll have to tell my dad to hold of his purchase for a few months. A 2*2.6ghz PM would be sopo kick A@$

Still even though the pb might not be updated this cycle it should happen before the imac. Unless they change the form factor of the imac it remains quite difficult to cool.

chris h 1997
Dec 23, 2003, 09:30 PM
I just got my Dual 2Ghz G5 in October and this machine screams. I certainly won't be complaining when Apple does a speed bump, that's the nature of the biz. This is my first Mac and I bought it for amatuer video editing, and it does what I need it to do very well. (Using Final Cut Express, great software) Will my 2Ghz machine be any slower because a 2.6Ghz machine exists, no. I agree though, I think I am in the minority, most people will be bummed.

bousozoku
Dec 23, 2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by chris h 1997
I just got my Dual 2Ghz G5 in October and this machine screams. I certainly won't be complaining when Apple does a speed bump, that's the nature of the biz. This is my first Mac and I bought it for amatuer video editing, and it does what I need it to do very well. (Using Final Cut Express, great software) Will my 2Ghz machine be any slower because a 2.6Ghz machine exists, no. I agree though, I think I am in the minority, most people will be bummed.

An enlightened view--wow! Glad to have you here.

It must be a great first Mac. :)

kcotme
Dec 26, 2003, 09:54 AM
I'd really like to purcahse a top end G5 this tax year. OTOH, certainly would like to wait until after MacWorld 2004.

Wondering if I could order something then postpone or change it?

jefhatfield
Dec 26, 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by kcotme
I'd really like to purcahse a top end G5 this tax year. OTOH, certainly would like to wait until after MacWorld 2004.

Wondering if I could order something then postpone or change it?

since my wife and i need tax writeoffs since we share a business that is computer related, we would go for the writeoff if we needed it for this year

i am sure things will be better at macworld, and somewhat cheaper...but don't expect something so far ahead of the curve like 3 ghz dual g5s or way more ram in the machine for the same price

ffakr
Dec 26, 2003, 12:36 PM
There very well may be no hardware release at MWSF. Jobs would really prefer to not have hardware updates tied to major trade shows. The hardware should ship when it's ready. Keeping them tied to trade shows is disasterous for steady sales in the lead up. No one's every going to buy macs in Dec if Apple releases new hardware every January.

That said, if the new G5s are ready in a week and a half, they'll be announced. Personally, I fully expected Apple to bump the whole line around the time that the dual 1.8s were released [meaning a) I don't know what Apple has planned, b) I think a bump is past due] :D

I'd say, if you need a high end mac, buy one now and take the Tax writeoff. The current G5s are very very powerful and they are very nice machines. You won't be disappointed with your purchase. If, however, you need to have the absolutely fastest machine possible.. to the point that you loose money when you wait for jobs to finish, I'd probably wait a bit. I think only a small percentage of people REALLY fit in the later category though. The dual 2GHz machine really does scream, as does the dual 1.8 at a much more friendly price.
If you need a stop gap.... Amazon had the single processor 1.8 machines for about $6 more than the single 1.6GHz models. You could get a really fast machine at a good price.. get a smaller writeoff, and you won't feel sick when dual 2.6's ship in January because you got such a good deal. :p

shawnjackson
Dec 26, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Hey man, if you're going to be knockin' Apple like that, you'd better get yr facts straight first. I mean, the 400mMHz G4 was NEVER the top of the line. :rolleyes:

;)

Actually, it was top of the line. Originally when apple introducted the G4 there was a 500mhz model, however they could not actually ship the model for over 5 months and canceled all orders. Therefore for those 5 or 6 months, the 400mhz was top dog.

Dont Hurt Me
Dec 26, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by shawnjackson
Actually, it was top of the line. Originally when apple introducted the G4 there was a 500mhz model, however they could not actually ship the model for over 5 months and canceled all orders. Therefore for those 5 or 6 months, the 400mhz was top dog. our buddies at Motorola again.:rolleyes:

sen_almighty
Dec 26, 2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Some_Big_Spoon
If Apple/IBM were to go from 2GHz to 2.6, that would be the largest speed jump in the least amount of time for any consumer CPU I believe:


History of x86 Consumer CPU (http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35/1/)

I don't doubt it, but it would be an extremely noteworthy feat should it come to be true.

wasn't the 1.42 G4 to 2ghz G5 about a 600mhz jump.....

primalman
Dec 26, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by shawnjackson
Actually, it was top of the line. Originally when apple introducted the G4 there was a 500mhz model, however they could not actually ship the model for over 5 months and canceled all orders. Therefore for those 5 or 6 months, the 400mhz was top dog.

Don't you mean 450mhz?

http://history.eis.net.au/

"There were extreme supply issues with the G4 initially, due largely to Motorola's inability to deliver the 7400 chips in adequate supply. This was further compounded by an "errata" in the initial revision of the 7400 that effectively lowered the ceiling of the chip to 450Mhz. As a result, all models of the G4 were "speed dumped" in October. The $2499 450 Mhz model was lowered in speed to 400 Mhz, and the $3499 500 Mhz model was lowered to 450Mhz. The price, and all other specs were the same.

Not a single first-run G4/500 shipped, and very few $2499 G4/450s ever made it to the channel. Orders placed before the speed reduction were honored, with the exception of the 500Mhz orders, which were filled with 450Mhz models with more Memory."

There was also the PCI graphics G4 first. The G4 was not introduced at 500mhz at very first.

heublein
Dec 28, 2003, 09:06 PM
My bet is that the new 90 nm G5 CPUs will be initially focused on bringing out a G5 PowerBook. The dual 2GHz PowerMac competes very nicely even with a dual 2.2 GHz AMD Opteron configuration, but the PowerBook line fares less well with the Centrino line of processors from Intel. If I were Apple, I would focus whatever 90 nm CPUs I could get from IBM on the laptop market, rather than the desktop market...a 1.33 GHz G4 doesn't match up very well with a 1.6 GHz Centrino.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
since my wife and i need tax writeoffs since we share a business that is computer related, we would go for the writeoff if we needed it for this year

i am sure things will be better at macworld, and somewhat cheaper...but don't expect something so far ahead of the curve like 3 ghz dual g5s or way more ram in the machine for the same price

ffakr
Dec 29, 2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by sen_almighty
wasn't the 1.42 G4 to 2ghz G5 about a 600mhz jump.....

No, those are two different processors. The other poster indicated that no CPU family ever bumped that much at once. Intel went from a 1GHz PIII to a 1.6GHz PiV but those are two very different chips... the P4 has much longer pipelines and is designed to clock much higher. Same with the G5.. it has much longer pipes than a G4 and it's designed to clock much higher.

A good comparison of a processor in the same family jumping significantly might be the 604e. When the "Mach5" version came out, the clock scaled up quite a bit. I think the pre-Mach 5s were shipping something like 225MHz and they jumped to 300MHz when the line was rev'ed.. soon hitting 350MHz. That's nearly a 50% increase in clock speed. :-)

ffakr
Dec 29, 2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by heublein
My bet is that the new 90 nm G5 CPUs will be initially focused on bringing out a G5 PowerBook. The dual 2GHz PowerMac competes very nicely even with a dual 2.2 GHz AMD Opteron configuration, but the PowerBook line fares less well with the Centrino line of processors from Intel. If I were Apple, I would focus whatever 90 nm CPUs I could get from IBM on the laptop market, rather than the desktop market...a 1.33 GHz G4 doesn't match up very well with a 1.6 GHz Centrino.
Personally, I think the 90 nm G5s will go into the desktops first. Apple has stressed the desktop space before laptops in the past (took a year for a G4 laptop). Also, Apple has for the first time since the G3 been truely competative in the desktop space. It'd be silly to let that slip by putting faster processors in laptops (and probably clocking them down for heat).
Right now, the 970 competes favorably against the P4 and the Athlon64 but barely. The P4 is still faster at some things, and the Athlon64/Opteron is a better performer when memory latency and bandwidth are very important. Opterons have half the latency of the P4 and as a result they continue to cream P4 machines in memory intensive benchmarks... the same is true of the Athlon64 vs. the G5. Though the G5 can do more work per clock, it often looses due to the memory latency.

IMHO, Apple needs to stay ahead of AMD in raw clock speed. This will give them the advantage they need. They also need to pursue Intel's percieved speed advantage that they hold due to the high frequencies that they acomplish.
AMD will be moving to .09 by Q2 2004 and Prescott is due from Intel in the first week of Feb. 2004. Now isn't the time to slip on desktop performance. Now is the time to close any existing gaps in performance superiority.

If Apple can release 2.6 GHz desktops, they'll get respect which will drive sales. Stronger sales will increase market share and increase demand among those 'on the fence'. I think this is the way to drive laptop sales now and especially in the future if they release a G5 laptop in the summer.

I think the #1 priority now is to prove that the initial G5 release was not a fluke.. that Apple can sustain market leading performance.

.... but Apple never bothered to hunt me down for my insightful market evaluations so take it for what it's worth. ;-)

wizard
Dec 29, 2003, 10:18 PM
If Apple puts a 90nm chip in any laptop before they upgrade the G5 that will be a throughly stupid move on their part. The need to keep the G5 platoform out ahead of the rest of tyhe market for a couple of years just to earn back a modicum of respect. As good as the G5 is overall its leadership position is questionable now and certainly will be in more question early next year.

While I have to agree with you that the P-M is a significant competitor to the G4 in a laptop I'm hopeing that Apple / IBM has a significant replacement for the G4 in the wings. I loved to be proven wrong but I don't think the current 970, nor the 90nm rev, will come in at a reasonable power point relative to the performance needed. Performance is significant here a 970 clocked at 1.4 or 1.6 GHz is not going to be much of a competitor to the P-M.

Dave


Originally posted by heublein
My bet is that the new 90 nm G5 CPUs will be initially focused on bringing out a G5 PowerBook. The dual 2GHz PowerMac competes very nicely even with a dual 2.2 GHz AMD Opteron configuration, but the PowerBook line fares less well with the Centrino line of processors from Intel. If I were Apple, I would focus whatever 90 nm CPUs I could get from IBM on the laptop market, rather than the desktop market...a 1.33 GHz G4 doesn't match up very well with a 1.6 GHz Centrino.

jefhatfield
Dec 29, 2003, 10:28 PM
could the 90 nanometer, low voltage G5 chips go into both desktops and laptops at the same time?

that would kick the pc side in the butt and put centrino on alert...at least centrino took the emphasis off of clock speed in laptops and looked at battery life...which is what counts for us laptop users who don't always want to haul around a power cord

portable macs will be the battery time champs again and this centrino mania thing was so big mostly because pc laptops were so bad for so long when it came to battery time and now some reviews i have seen claim five and six hour battery times for the centrino

the mac users i have talked to have found about four hours or a little bit more to be the average since the rev a ibook up through today's powerbooks

i hope a 90 nm G5 in a mac portable could give us a "working" six hours battery time and i can't think of too many people who would need more than that away from a cord between charges...unless they don't have a life;)

macrumors12345
Dec 29, 2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by ffakr

A good comparison of a processor in the same family jumping significantly might be the 604e. When the "Mach5" version came out, the clock scaled up quite a bit. I think the pre-Mach 5s were shipping something like 225MHz and they jumped to 300MHz when the line was rev'ed.. soon hitting 350MHz. That's nearly a 50% increase in clock speed. :-)

Yes, thank you. Percentages are what matter, not levels. Jumping from an 8 Mhz 68000 to a 16 Mhz 68000 (100%) is a much bigger percentage increase than jumping from a 2 Ghz G5 to a 2.6 Ghz G5, even though the difference is 8 Mhz vs. 600 Mhz.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
could the 90 nanometer, low voltage G5 chips go into both desktops and laptops at the same time?


No. IBM is only planning to produce a single 90 nm G5 chip, period. Thus, Apple can choose to put this one chip into a laptop or a desktop (only one). I imagine this desktop (or laptop) will be quite expensive since it will have a limited production run (one unit!!!). Too bad it can't be dual processor. Plus the processor will cost Apple quite a bit to buy, because obviously IBM will have to use an entire 300 mm wafer even if they are just going to produce one processor (generally one wafer produces dozens, if not hundreds, of processors). Well, I dunno, maybe they could put some other unrelated stuff onto the wafer (like some Nvidia chips, or whoever it is that they are currently producing chips for). But think of the per unit R&D cost when you are only producing a single unit. Wow, this is going to be an expensive machine...

In a more serious vein, I am not sure what would ever lead you to believe that a 90 nm G5 would be more power efficient than a 90 nm G4 or 90 nm G3+Altivec. The latter two would be much more efficient than the former. Heck, it's not even clear that a 90 nm G5 would be as efficient as a 130 nm G4.

dongmin
Dec 29, 2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i hope a 90 nm G5 in a mac portable could give us a "working" six hours battery time and i can't think of too many people who would need more than that away from a cord between charges...unless they don't have a life;) Wishful thinking, but unlikely, unless Apple brings out some new, improved battery technology. The 90nm 970 is not any more power-efficient than a similarly clocked 7457 which are in the current PBs. And with a faster bus, ram, etc., I think the overall power consumption will be higher for a 970-powered PB, even at 90nm. We'll have to see what kind of power-saving features Apple puts in.

As for desktops vs. laptops, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Whatever chips go into the PBs will be at a lower clock speed than whatever goes into PMs. If this report is right, than the PMs will come in at 2.2, dual 2.4, and dual 2.6. If by miracle Apple is able to bring out a G5 laptop this Spring, it'll be in the 1.4-1.8 ghz range, 2.0 ghz if we're lucky. So there shouldn't be any conflict.

Finally, in the great G5 vs. Athlon64 vs. Opteron debate, keep in mind that the G5 will be 50%-60% faster in 8-9 months. (Actually the performance increase should be more with the architectural improvements of the 980 PLUS the improved compilers that're in the pipeline.) Can AMD keep up with that pace?

ffakr
Dec 29, 2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by macrumors12345

No. IBM is only planning to produce a single 90 nm G5 chip, period. Thus, Apple can choose to put this one chip into a laptop or a desktop (only one). I imagine this desktop (or laptop) will be quite expensive since it will have a limited production run (one unit!!!).
You know, only 5% of people will realize this is a joke. ;-)

Originally posted by dongminThe 90nm 970 is not any more power-efficient than a similarly clocked 7457 which are in the current PBs
Well, we have no idea what a .09 micron 970 will take to run. It is rumored to have enhanced powersaving features. I'd have to agree though.. the 7457 is a very low power CPU. Also, other vendors are having serious issues with current leakage w/ thier .09 micron processes. This is [one reason] why the .09 micron Prescott will generate MORE heat than the .13 micron P4. As a Physicist told me last week.. "quantum mechanics is for real".

Just in case it didn't occur to anyone.. there isn't a compelling reason to move to 64bit in a laptop at this time.
You can't put a significant amount of memory in a laptop so you don't need large memory addressing. The only reason for 64 bit-ed-ness would be super high precision integer math... and not many people actually need that (encryption/decryption are the only common tasks that come to mind).
The only compelling reason to put a PPC 970 in an apple laptop is because it's a better processor than a G4.

Motorola has been promising a G4 7457PM processor for a while now. Everyone knows how Moto blows promises regarding cpus, but they were promising a DDR FSB version of the G4 that clocked up to 2GHz at ultra low power... and they promised it in the 4th quarter of 2003.

It isn't beyond the realm of posibility that Moto could actually deliver one last G4 revision to Apple. If Apple could get a G4 with a DDR FSB, and a clock of between 1.5 and 2GHz, it would be a very competitive portable CPU.. and it would likely have excellent power characteristics since wattage has been Moto's main goal with their PPCs for a long time now.
If it's in development, and Moto can deliver it, Apple would probably be better off sticking with the G4 for a while... at least till they can evaluate the G3s w/ Altivec.. or low power 970s more.

Heck, now that iBooks have G4s, maybe we'll see next gen G4s in Powerbooks, and then later next year.. G5 Powerbooks and G4 iBooks.

Falleron
Dec 30, 2003, 04:26 AM
Who knows what it means. Here in the UK the build times of all of the current powermacs has gone up to 10-15 days.

jefhatfield
Dec 30, 2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by ffakr


It isn't beyond the realm of posibility that Moto could actually deliver one last G4 revision to Apple. If Apple could get a G4 with a DDR FSB, and a clock of between 1.5 and 2GHz, it would be a very competitive portable CPU

as much as i would like to see a G5 laptop at mwsf, and i am holding onto the hope until then, i also know that motorola can get in one more G4 revision for portables and a clock of 1.5 to 2 ghz sounds good to me and for just about everybody, that would be a great machine

the computer i use most is still my 300 mhz ibook:p

edesignuk
Dec 30, 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by brhmac
BOR-ING!

2.6 GHz?

Dell is putting 2.8 GHz in laptops. And at a thousand bucks. Apple can't even do it for 3 grand.
most...dumb...post...evar! 64-bit > 32-bit boi! More cache, faster BUS...*list goes on*, I cannot even be bothered to waste my breate any further :rolleyes:

wizard
Dec 30, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
You know, only 5% of people will realize this is a joke. ;-)


Well, we have no idea what a .09 micron 970 will take to run. It is rumored to have enhanced powersaving features. I'd have to agree though.. the 7457 is a very low power CPU. Also, other vendors are having serious issues with current leakage w/ thier .09 micron processes. This is [one reason] why the .09 micron Prescott will generate MORE heat than the .13 micron P4. As a Physicist told me last week.. "quantum mechanics is for real".

Well I have no idea either but I find it hard to believe that they have a significant power savigs with out a mojor change in the chips design. To this end I suspect that the move to .90Um will initially be for the G5 to allow a significant performance boost there. I would not be surprised in Apple attempts to hit 3GHz in the next few weeks, they certianly need to boost performance of aht G5 a bit to be able to clearly claim that titlle of fastest PC. From a marketing perspective that claim is very important.

The thing that is see as an issue is that even if they cutt power usage 50% the improved 970 would still be to power hungery for a laptop. Further power hungery laptops really don't fit into Apples niche, so for them to bring out a power eat would be rather foolish. By the way I'd love to be proven wrong about the 970 at 0.90um.

Just in case it didn't occur to anyone.. there isn't a compelling reason to move to 64bit in a laptop at this time.

Well here I have to disagree a bit. The same argument could be made of r the desktop market but it is a very real trend that everyone is following. I geuss it is a matter of how you define compelling there certainly are applications for such hardware in a laptop as there similarly are applications that could take advantage of SMP in a laptop. In either case there are issue delivering such technology to the mass market.

You can't put a significant amount of memory in a laptop so you don't need large memory addressing. The only reason for 64 bit-ed-ness would be super high precision integer math... and not many people actually need that (encryption/decryption are the only common tasks that come to mind).
The only compelling reason to put a PPC 970 in an apple laptop is because it's a better processor than a G4.

Here I have to disagree again, we currently are movign into anther genration of memory chips. A laptop with 4G of ram should be a possibility in a few weeks. The advantages of 64 bit is not just in the pathways and integer math capabilities it offers, ultimately the big advantage is addressable memory. There are many ways to address address space issues going 64 bit is one of them.

Also I'm not convinced that the 970 is that much of a better processor, its advantage comes from clock rate and FP advantages. A G4 if available at the same frequencies would compete very well


Motorola has been promising a G4 7457PM processor for a while now. Everyone knows how Moto blows promises regarding cpus, but they were promising a DDR FSB version of the G4 that clocked up to 2GHz at ultra low power... and they promised it in the 4th quarter of 2003.

It isn't beyond the realm of posibility that Moto could actually deliver one last G4 revision to Apple. If Apple could get a G4 with a DDR FSB, and a clock of between 1.5 and 2GHz, it would be a very competitive portable CPU.. and it would likely have excellent power characteristics since wattage has been Moto's main goal with their PPCs for a long time now.
If it's in development, and Moto can deliver it, Apple would probably be better off sticking with the G4 for a while... at least till they can evaluate the G3s w/ Altivec.. or low power 970s more.

I won't even pretend to know what motorola is up to or how their relationship with Apple went to hell. I do know that Motorola has had interesting processors avialable for some time with built in features such as memory interfaces and the like. Why Apple and Motorola could never come up with an implementation for the Mac hardware line is beyond me. There are many ways to increase a processors peformance, but sometimes you need to know what to ask for. I'm begining to think that Apple engineering dropped the ball as much as Motorola did. It would be very interesting indeed to find out just how much of the G5 design is IBM's work.


Heck, now that iBooks have G4s, maybe we'll see next gen G4s in Powerbooks, and then later next year.. G5 Powerbooks and G4 iBooks.

To an extent that is my thinking; G4 type processors for a while longer. I however don't think we will see a 970 in a Powerbook anytime soon. I suspect that a purpose built 64 bit processor will go in these machines. That could be a ways off though.

wizard
Dec 30, 2003, 12:39 PM
So edesignuk, is that really you I see to the left of your messages? Just wondering :)

By the way we could have all you describe below in a 32 bit processor if we had a vendor to deliever such a device. The 970's problem is power usage, not everyone is willing to put up with that.

Dave


most...dumb...post...evar! 64-bit > 32-bit boi! More cache, faster BUS...*list goes on*, I cannot even be bothered to waste my breate any further

ffakr
Dec 30, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by wizard
Here I have to disagree again, we currently are movign into anther genration of memory chips. A laptop with 4G of ram should be a possibility in a few weeks. The advantages of 64 bit is not just in the pathways and integer math capabilities it offers, ultimately the big advantage is addressable memory. There are many ways to address address space issues going 64 bit is one of them.

Also I'm not convinced that the 970 is that much of a better processor, its advantage comes from clock rate and FP advantages. A G4 if available at the same frequencies would compete very well

Most laptops use 2 SO-DIMMs. The current max for nearly all laptops is 1GB of ram. The largest SO-DIMMs available are 1GB per stick. You'd have to get memory densities that were 2x what we are seeing now just to max out 32bit addressing. If this were really an issue.. needing more than 4GB of RAM in a laptop.. then I suppose the vendors would make it easier to use the real addressing size of the current processors. All the current 32bit CPUs (to the best of my knowledge) actually use 36bit physical memory addressing. If there really is a 4GB limit on today's processors, it's a lack of software/library/compiler support for the full native addressing of todays '32bit' processors.

Just because AMD is pushing 64bit processors (hot 64 bit processors) into laptops doesn't automatically mean that the laptop market needs 64bit support just yet.
Personally, I really think that you should be using a high end desktop if you need access to more than 4GB of RAM now.. or in the near future (next 2 years out). I'm not saying that there aren't people who can't use gobs of memory... but they probably need more horsepower and screen realestate than a laptop is going to provide.

As far as the 970 being a better processor, I don't think there is really any question about this. The only thing about the cpu that is inferior to the current G4s would the the Altivec implementation. The inflexibility in the 970s altivec is probably more than made up for by the significantly enhanced bandwidth available.
The 970 is just a better processor. It has a higher IPC, it has gobs more bandwidth, it clocks faster... but it's design requires more software support to realize its potential. The G5 is, by most guages, a better performing machine than any G4 Mac. The dual 1.42s were giving them a run in some apps at first, but many developers have been showing significant speed gains from early optimization (Adobe excluded).
I really think that we won't see the full potential of the G5s until at least half way through next year. the fall 2004 rev of OS X will probably be heavily optimized for the G5s (10.4)

jefhatfield
Dec 30, 2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
Just because AMD is pushing 64bit processors (hot 64 bit processors) into laptops doesn't automatically mean that the laptop market needs 64bit support just yet.
Personally, I really think that you should be using a high end desktop if you need access to more than 4GB of RAM now.. or in the near future (next 2 years out). I'm not saying that there aren't people who can't use gobs of memory... but they probably need more horsepower and screen realestate than a laptop is going to provide.



i also don't see a huge need for laptop users needing more than 4 gigs of ram at this point in time...but projecting that two years into the future is very crystal ball like in this business of computers

but the pc world has forged forward with the 64 bit laptop and even though it may burn battery time, it will be improved and one day be the standard

apple inc is very known for being an early adapter of a new concept...floppy, then no floppy, usb, firewire, etc

if i got an athlon 64 bit chip in a laptop right now, i am sure i would have to carry an adpter all over the place and the best thing i would really have is bragging rights and a sore shoulder:p

jefhatfield
Dec 30, 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


if i got an athlon 64 bit chip in a laptop right now, i am sure i would have to carry an adapter all over the place and the best thing i would really have is bragging rights and a sore shoulder:p

the most practical thing i see for me, working techie and student, is a 4.6 lb. powerbook or an equally light centrino laptop if the pc thing is what a person wants...both get battery times which would allow a person to leave the adapter at home and spend the day untethered and that is the most important issue i can really think of after having used laptops for over 4 years

my ibook is great because of its ability for me to keep the adapter home, but this old model is over six pounds and a tad bit heavy for lugging around...my pc laptop is over seven pounds and its battery time, which is totally terrible by today's standards, made me have to carry the laptop and adpater which made the load nearly nine pounds

jade
Jan 1, 2004, 05:11 PM
I want it all: an under 6lb laptop with 64 bit power and 4 hour battery life. Laptops are replacing desktops...why can't we have some serious portable power and but the power back in powerbook!