PDA

View Full Version : Powermac G5 at 3ghz by WWDC?


iBookman
Apr 19, 2004, 03:01 PM
You may remember from last years WWDC Apple said they would have a 3 ghz G5 within a year. Well without any new speed bumps since the G5 was released except for dual 1.8ghz processors will the G5 reach 3ghz by this years WWDC? Because of the rumored cooling issues they might be having, might that delay them so that there will be no 3ghz G5 by WWDC? If they do not produce a 3ghz G5 by WWDC will Apple achnowledge that they didn't reach their goal or will they simply act like they never said they'd reach 3ghz?

Sorry if something like this was already posted?

thehuncamunca
Apr 19, 2004, 03:50 PM
apple is doing a horrible job at getting the G5 into anything, whether or not it's apples fault or IBMs for not making enough chips who knows
i highly doubt at WWDC there will be 3Ghz G5 maybe at best 2.4 2.6Ghz for the powermacs and an iMac with 1.6Ghz, powerbooks to follow with the 1.6Ghz or somewhere around there

You may remember from last years WWDC Apple said they would have a 3 ghz G5 within a year. Well without any new speed bumps since the G5 was released except for dual 1.8ghz processors will the G5 reach 3ghz by this years WWDC? Because of the rumored cooling issues they might be having, might that delay them so that there will be no 3ghz G5 by WWDC? If they do not produce a 3ghz G5 by WWDC will Apple achnowledge that they didn't reach their goal or will they simply act like they never said they'd reach 3ghz?

Sorry if something like this was already posted?

Rincewind42
Apr 19, 2004, 03:51 PM
You may remember from last years WWDC Apple said they would have a 3 ghz G5 within a year. Well without any new speed bumps since the G5 was released except for dual 1.8ghz processors will the G5 reach 3ghz by this years WWDC? Because of the rumored cooling issues they might be having, might that delay them so that there will be no 3ghz G5 by WWDC? If they do not produce a 3ghz G5 by WWDC will Apple achnowledge that they didn't reach their goal or will they simply act like they never said they'd reach 3ghz?

Sorry if something like this was already posted?

The cooling issues have been rumored, but I would bet the bigger roadblock to a PowerMac revision is IBM's yields from it's new factory. I would still expect 3Ghz by WWDC tho, because at the very least by the time IBM fixes it's yield issues they should have ready for production a 970 or successor that can reach up to and beyond 3Ghz.

brhmac
Apr 19, 2004, 03:52 PM
News this week from IBM isn't good. Having trouble producing the 2 Ghz in sufficient quantities. Doubtful they'll be able to produce 3 Ghz by WWDC, absent a miracle.

erockerboy
Apr 19, 2004, 04:06 PM
News this week from IBM isn't good.

Where did you hear/see this?

vouder17
Apr 19, 2004, 05:05 PM
Didn't steve say that he would have the G5 at 3GHz in a years time, well the powermac only started shipping in august/september, and the French Expo is then, so apple could have an update now, of say 2.2 2.4 and 2.6 GHZ macs then in September have the 3GHz role off the line.

Well that is what i am quessing, i really doubt that apple will increase the clockrate by 1Ghz at WWDC.

VoTeZ

MacsRgr8
Apr 19, 2004, 05:32 PM
My question is this:

Would a whole (dual) 1 GHz leap in processor speed be good marketing?

Going from a Dual 2.0 GHz G5 to a Dual 3.0 GHz G5 with possible enhancements like PCI Extreme with Radeon X800 or GeForce 6800 suddenly would be pretty outrageous.
Or Apple should slowly lower the prices of the current PowerMacs, or do an update before going to the 3 Ghz mark...

I just can't see it happening. I can understand Apple just trying te get more out of the current form factor. Just squeeze the 2.6 Ghz in, and Radeon 9800 256 MB version, or so...
Get the Dual 3.0 PCI Extreme before X-Mas and most will be happy, keeping a steady PowerMac sales.

Ambrose Chapel
Apr 19, 2004, 05:42 PM
if IBM has had trouble with the 90nm process, why couldn't they have pumped out a 130nm 970 at 2.4GHz or something? at least apple could have had some revision out by now. makes me think there's more to this delay than a shortage of 90nm chips.

PowerMacMan
Apr 19, 2004, 06:15 PM
if IBM has had trouble with the 90nm process, why couldn't they have pumped out a 130nm 970 at 2.4GHz or something? at least apple could have had some revision out by now. makes me think there's more to this delay than a shortage of 90nm chips.

And what do you think, I'm interested to hear :D

djbahdow01
Apr 19, 2004, 06:44 PM
There have been a number of rumored problems with the G5 delays. ATI having supply issues, IBM having supply issues, heat problems with the 970FX. And the list goes on an on. Who knows what the hold up is. It could be that Apple is waiting on the new technology to come up to speed, ie PCI Express, waiting on the Dual Layer Superdrives, etc. I believe it could be a number of these things, who knows though the rumor boards have been quiet. Lets just hope there is an update either before or on WWDC. No matter what it is it will be well worth the wait as there is so much new technology coming out.

Capt Underpants
Apr 19, 2004, 07:35 PM
Didn't steve say that he would have the G5 at 3GHz in a years time, well the powermac only started shipping in august/september, and the French Expo is then, so apple could have an update now, of say 2.2 2.4 and 2.6 GHZ macs then in September have the 3GHz role off the line.

Well that is what i am quessing, i really doubt that apple will increase the clockrate by 1Ghz at WWDC.

VoTeZ

Steve said that they would be at 3 GHz in 12 months. He announced this in June. Therefore, one would think that 3 GHz would be achieved in June, and not in September.

PowerMacMan
Apr 19, 2004, 07:38 PM
Steve said that they would be at 3 GHz in 12 months. He announced this in June. Therefore, one would think that 3 GHz would be achieved in June, and not in September.

I, as one, would think that! :)

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 19, 2004, 07:49 PM
apple is doing a horrible job at getting the G5 into anything, whether or not it's apples fault or IBMs for not making enough chips who knows
i highly doubt at WWDC there will be 3Ghz G5 maybe at best 2.4 2.6Ghz for the powermacs and an iMac with 1.6Ghz, powerbooks to follow with the 1.6Ghz or somewhere around thereI think if we were to see more G4 Imacs we would have seen them. I am expecting a G5 imac in the next two months. is this optimistic? :eek: Apple needs some bread winner computers. G5 Imac would be a sales leader. bring it on. :)

Mav451
Apr 19, 2004, 07:55 PM
I dunno. From a business standpoint, they would stand to benefit by releasing them slowly (2.2 and 2.4 and next dual models, 1.6 phased into iMac/eMac, the 1.8 lowest model).

If you compare it to the AMD Opteron, even they do not have dual/quad configurations above 2.2 (248 and 848).

Only in single configurations do they have the 2.4ghz model, the AMD Athlon 64 FX-53.

So if Apple does release 3.0ghz, I think it would be a bit early and perhaps frivolous. I'm sure AMD could have released the FX-53 sooner, but why? If they could sell FX-51 and define that as the top model...and then move into the FX-53 several months later, then it would be smart. For this reason, if Apple indeed releases a 3.0ghz, dual proc model, then indeed, it would be the most powerful personal computer in June.

A Mac Gamer
Apr 20, 2004, 06:48 PM
In the PowerMac Video http://www.apple.com/powermac/video/, the IBM guy says they have already buildt the prototypes of the next generation processors. I'm sure they are at 3ghz, but I think they are having a hard time yielding enough chips above like 2.0.

Hopefully they will iron it out soon. Since IBM has hundreds of engineers working on these new chips, it looks like a very good for the future of Apple's computers.

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 08:53 AM
I personally don't care about 3Ghz Powermacs. I would just like to buy a single G5 configuration for $1500 or less with a superdrive. If that's an imac... fine!

wdlove
Apr 21, 2004, 02:55 PM
A Rev. B Power Mac G5 would be a priority, problem issues solved. A 3GHZ would be icing on the cake. Steve Jobs should not have promised a 3 GHZ by next year unless he knew it was technically possible.