PDA

View Full Version : 2.4 Gig G5?


akuma
Nov 5, 2001, 01:27 PM
Just saw this a couple of minutes ago...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/22654.html

I've only been a rumor-watcher for a couple of months now and was wondering if anybody has ever witnessed any of the register's claims to come true.

eyelikeart
Nov 5, 2001, 03:00 PM
It's really hard to say. There are always so many rumors circulating, it's hard to say whether they usually end up happening or not. I usually just sit back and read it all, and come up with my own conclusions.

rekras
Nov 5, 2001, 04:26 PM
i think it's true, it's to conservative to be false.

mymemory
Nov 5, 2001, 06:21 PM
It is just a rumor, that won't happend.

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 6, 2001, 12:00 AM
Check out http://www.macosrumors.com. They have a little more info, but it's essentially the same as theRegister. I personally think that it'll be longer than January that we see the G5, and that there will be 7460 Apollo chips in the meantime. I for one can wait, but many can't. Just keep in mind that Apple wants to see the 7460 and the G5 go into production more than any of us do. I look forward to Macworld SF! Oh, and pardon me while I drool over the very thought of a 2.4 Ghz G5. Now that would be something to make those PC people stand up and take notice.

SPG
Nov 6, 2001, 12:08 AM
'tis the season. A lot of rumored stuff should be coming up especially in the next couple months and then the full fury of the rumor storm will start swirling in the weeks before Macworld. I'd expect to see a lot of new iMac "spyphotos" and design mockups made in photoshop.
The Register is just above the Enquirer to most readers, a lot of ridiculous untrue stuff and then every now and then they'll break a story that nobody else got.
This stuff from Motorola might be true to a degree, everyone is expecting some kind of G5 to be at least announced at MWSF in January, but we will have to wait until then since no matter what chips are made, Apple will have the ultimate say in what gets released due to marketing concerns, business plans, and the state of the economy.

________________________
"We'll see Junior, We'll see."

SPG
Nov 6, 2001, 12:20 AM
Geez, You are the most negative person I have ever heard!
IT'S A FREAKING RUMOR!
This stuff should be at least somewhat entertaining, like reading a catalog or a car brochure. G5 2.4ghz? Wow, that'd be nice!
Hey that girl is smiling at you. She must have a boyfriend.
Do you want some grapes? They must be sour.

_______________________
Lighten Up.

spikey
Nov 6, 2001, 01:36 PM
no SPG its nothing like that.
Its called being a realist. yes 2.4Ghz G5 is nice, but if everyone goes on like that then we will have a repeat of the MacworldNY saga. and we dont want that.
the realistic date isnt MWSF it would be more like sometime near spring 2002.
Especially if they are only on build 0.7 of the G5.
Yeah 2.4 Ghz is nice, but if there are hardly any yields then you shouldnt read into it very much, these things happen.
I am interested by the scaleability of the G5, it sounds as though it is much better than the G4.


Hey that girl is smiling at you.
(points and laughs) i already have my beautiful girfriend and i love her with all my heart.

Hey that girl is smiling at you. no, shes smiling at your wallet.

Do you want some grapes? i hope thats not sexual innuendo.

evildead
Nov 6, 2001, 01:42 PM
I have been reading the Register for a while now... I think that they are fairly reliable. Note that the artical didnt claim all that much... I mean.. Apple has 2 count them 2 2.4ghz G5's... its just a proto type. Its not like it reported that they are shipping tommorrow. The register is a good link in the rummor mill.

spikey
Nov 6, 2001, 01:44 PM
i think that its all good if the G5 is out in january, but i think a repeat of MacworldNY would destroy alot of potential buyers faith in apple.
And personally i doubt it will be out that soon.

evildead
Nov 6, 2001, 01:50 PM
It would be fast an I almost regret getting my quicksilver. I was hopping that things like USB 2.0 and Firewire2.0, DDR memory would have been included with it. But I got it anyway. I dont think I could upgrade to a G5 in Jan. If they did ship the G5 in Jan.. it would be the 1.6ghz max chips... not anything faster. Then they might slide in some 1ghz G3's into the New iMac's. But thats just what I think.

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2001, 03:42 PM
could we jump from a dual 800 and 867 G4 now in november 2001 to a 2.5 GHz G4 or G5 in january 2002?

it seems unlikely since even the faster moving pc world has never had that type of a jump in processor speed...three times the speed in just months...unlikely...but it really would put the MHz/GHz myth to sleep once and for all!

SPG
Nov 6, 2001, 06:30 PM
Yeah, if we read the article it clearly mentions that the 2.4ghz is not expected to be the norm any time soon.
Sure we should maintain some reasonable expectations from Apple, but damn they need to do something soon to generate some real interest and sales in the platform. iPods would sell twice as well if Apple had twice as much market share. A really fast flagship machine would help that. I hope they do get a G5 together for SF and no I don't exect it to be 2.4ghz.

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2001, 06:46 PM
G5 1 GHz would be all that is needed to get the ball rolling on the professional side

ever since the pcs have hit 1 GHz and done it relatively cheaply, sales of computers in their sector have gone down

if you were a pc user with 1 GHz, why move to 1.2 or even 1.5 GHz?

...i would then simply use my machine to its limit for 2 to 3 years

my 300 MHz mac is 2 years old and i have no reservations for using it another 12 months before replacing it

Catfish_Man
Nov 6, 2001, 07:54 PM
I'm still using an original beige g3 (233mhz), although it has been upgraded quite a bit (30GB 7200rpm HD, 384MBs of RAM). I plan to keep using it until it can't run the OS anymore, then I'll start thinking about a new one.

I would expect (if everything goes smoothly) to see a 7460 based TiBook, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6Ghz G5s, and 750fx based imacs/ibooks. Since nothing every goes completely smoothly, some of that will most likely be missing.

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2001, 08:14 PM
if i remember correctly, that is from late '97 and is four years old...that is an amazing computer because it is still viable after 48 months which is way more than any late '97 pc would be at this time

in this era in late-2001, which moves so fast, any computer bought now will be hard pressed to last over two years unless you get the top of the line machine

i remember when any computer would easily get five years right off the shelf and i am still amazed at all the posters ready to ditch their earlier G4s and last year's imacs just yet

judging from some of the collections i see listed on macrumors, some posters buy a new mac every 12 months or less...yes, i am jealous but i like to hear their first impressions because this is better than a macworld review

neither my '99 era mac nor '99 pc have firewire (IEEE 1394) and i really don't feel that left behind...but if USB 2 or a new firewire comes out in a new G5 or LCD iMac, then i will feel the need to upgrade

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-06-2001 at 09:19 PM]

SPG
Nov 6, 2001, 09:21 PM
Everybody sing with me...
happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday dear G4/450!
Happy Birthday to you!

My G4 is now exactly two years old, and has kicked out four movies, numerous tv spots, and a few odd web movies with only one bad HD that was swapped out in the first month.
Still a capable machine, but I will definitely replace it with a dual processor G5 as soon as I can. In my business render time is money, so most of the FCP rendering is done on another machine already, a DP500.
If I can work faster and not have to sit and watch progress bars then I can make more money to afford the toys like iPod.
If I was just using it to check this site and swap MP3's then it would already be overkill and a G5 wouldn't be neccessary except for my ego or toylust.

jefhatfield
Nov 6, 2001, 09:40 PM
happy birthday, G4!

i guess in your business, two years old is OLD

i hope we get that G5 in january...macrumors has got me going on that G5 thing even though i will never need one as a pc tech

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 7, 2001, 12:46 AM
The fact that Macs last longer may be an area Apple may want to pusue. Think about it... in 1997 what were pc's at? I think they were just pushing 300 mhz? Maybe I'm wrong. This machine would be functional in its own right, but would have already been replaced by now. This is why I can justify the extra expense in getting a Powerbook: I want a computer that lasts. I don't want to have to buy another laptop until after I graduate from college.

About January, we might just see the G5. If it's on .7 right now, and was at .6 just three weeks ago, it might make it to a release version (and production) by G5, assuming the source is correct.

spikey
Nov 7, 2001, 08:28 AM
Motorolas G4 destroyed what apple had after the imac came out. And has left apple in a ditch the G5 is going to get them out of.
Die G4 Die.

If the G5 is roughly 3 times faster clock for clock than a G4 then a 1Ghz is more than enough.

Maybe apple should start concentrating on bus speed, seeing as that is a big bottleneck in a machine.

jefhatfield
Nov 7, 2001, 10:03 AM
that is the magic bullet (bus speed) that amd used to grab a corner of a market that was once a fully intel dominated sector of IT

by the time intel countered with the P4, it was too late since the athlon won over a whole generation of geeks and supergamers

ShawnLavin
Nov 7, 2001, 12:20 PM
The thing is that if Motorola can get decent yield on the G5s and can shake out the problems that are reported in the Altivec side of things, a dual 1.2 Gigahertz G5 would guarantee enough real world performance for just about anyone for the next cycle.

In fact, without doing some bus speed enhancements at the same time (i.e. just leaving it on the Quicksilver specs) this processor would in a lot of real world cases be throttled by the bus, not by the CPU speed.

Why dual ? Take a look at the real world measurements. You launch a handful of non-multithreaded tasks on a dual 800 and they execute significantly (not quite 2 times) faster than the same on a 867. With OS X, multi-processors is the way to go.

If Apple sold a solid quad 800 Mhz box, I'd much rather have that over a single cpu 2.4 Ghz and in fact would very gladly take a dual 1.2 over a single 2.4.

The future of the Mac is in SMP boxes, not in how fast each processor is.

SPG
Nov 7, 2001, 12:23 PM
If you look back at speed developements through the years, you'll always see people who make the comment that their machines are plenty fast for what they do and they don't see the need to make 'em any faster. (Start using the voice of Abe Simpson here) "When I was young we had an abacus, and that was plenty fancy like when we would tie an onion to our belts as it was the style at the time..."
The machines out there now can barely keep up with what we want them to do, and I'm sure that there are plenty of programmers just lusting for more processor power to unleash even better apps. I would love to see Final Cut Pro get real time effects, and the only way that's going to happen is with more raw power. Final Cut is unimagineable on the machines that everyone thought were plenty fast a few years ago.
__________________
Think of what can be, not what is.

ShawnLavin
Nov 7, 2001, 12:42 PM
Your reasoning is exactly why I chose my language...

"would suit me just fine...", note the pronoun

"would guarantee enough real world performance for just about anyone for the next cycle."

Yes, some people will gladly soak up every CPU cycle that is available, but they are not 'just about everyone', they are the exception and by the the time the apps catch up with this need, the cycle (I think of a computer model cycle as 1 year max) will have come about.

I still maintain that a dual 1.2 will be more practical than a single 2.4 as it will price out a lot cheaper until the yields on 2.4 go way up and the number of high end apps that benefit from SMP under OS X goes up all the time.

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 7, 2001, 01:06 PM
I think (or at least hope) that the G5 will have a high bus speed. The fact that the G4 uses 133 mhz memory while the Athlon uses DDR 266 and Intel uses 400 mhz rambus could be one of the reasons we don't see the performance out of the chip except in AltiVec operations. Motorolla would be stupid not to push the speed up. And it would kill all our hopes for the G5.

spikey
Nov 7, 2001, 03:10 PM
Rambus doesnt perform as good as it sounds.

SPG
Nov 7, 2001, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by ShawnLavin
Your reasoning is exactly why I chose my language...

"would suit me just fine...", note the pronoun

"would guarantee enough real world performance for just about anyone for the next cycle."

Yes, some people will gladly soak up every CPU cycle that is available, but they are not 'just about everyone', they are the exception and by the the time the apps catch up with this need, the cycle (I think of a computer model cycle as 1 year max) will have come about.

I still maintain that a dual 1.2 will be more practical than a single 2.4 as it will price out a lot cheaper until the yields on 2.4 go way up and the number of high end apps that benefit from SMP under OS X goes up all the time.

I started to type my post before seeing yours so it wasn't directed at you exactly.
I do think that a DP G5@1.2ghz would be plenty for now and with FCP and OSX, I'd rather have a DP machine anyway. If it comes out in January I will buy it. But why stop there? If Apple keeps pushing it, FCP in it's current form would probably wind up being almost real time with a dual 2.4 ghz G5. Those are guesses, and more appropriately hopes or wishes, but since we're on a rumors board I think it's appropriate to have a little wishful thinking.

mnkeybsness
Nov 7, 2001, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by spikey
Motorolas G4 destroyed what apple had after the imac came out. And has left apple in a ditch the G5 is going to get them out of.
Die G4 Die.




and you call me confusing

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 8, 2001, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by spikey
Rambus doesnt perform as good as it sounds.

Yeah, I know, it's supposedly only 3-5% faster than DDR 266, but that's still a lot faster than pc133!

spikey
Nov 8, 2001, 11:30 AM
Ive used it against a DDR system and it doesnt seem as fast. But yeah 133MhzSDRAM is pretty pathetic.

spikey
Nov 8, 2001, 11:31 AM
your right that is confusing.

mnkeybsness
Nov 8, 2001, 08:24 PM
so why do you get so pissed at me then spikey???

spikey
Nov 9, 2001, 09:33 AM
because you annoy me.

mnkeybsness
Nov 9, 2001, 06:25 PM
then don't read what i have to say

spikey
Nov 10, 2001, 02:00 PM
i have to read it to be able to point out how annoying you are.