The G-Series naming sytem is definitely getting too old. Sure, it makes some sense. But I think after the G6, apple should look for some other way to name their subsequent chip and powermac designs. Perhaps changing the first letter would help- "PowerMac X7" sounds much more advanced and interesting than staying with the G system for years to come.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dual Core PowerPC 970s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Antares
Maybe they'll just keep the name Antares. Had to refresh my memory, I knew I remembered the name from sometime years ago when I used to know my astronomy. From Dictionary.com:
"A giant red binary star, the brightest in the constellation Scorpio, about 424 light-years from Earth."
--Dave
Maybe they'll just keep the name Antares. Had to refresh my memory, I knew I remembered the name from sometime years ago when I used to know my astronomy. From Dictionary.com:
"A giant red binary star, the brightest in the constellation Scorpio, about 424 light-years from Earth."
--Dave
jettredmont said:
Didn't you read the response to the post on the third page? 70% OF HOME COMPUTERS ARE USED TO PLAY GAMES FOR MORE THAN THREE HOURS PER DAY.
Dave00 said:
They can't http://www.antarestech.com audio company but close enough to computers to cause problems with that name.
nuckinfutz said:
When I followed your link, I was informed that the page did not exist... perhaps apple can use the name after all
The most obvious use for a dual-core (single FSB) 970 would be the powerbook. Less power consumption than 2 FSBs, smaller package to cram into the thin enclosure. Easier cooling since you only have to pump heat off of one package. I know powerbook g5 rumors are really old by now, but seriously, it makes sense logically. I'm willing to bet that a 970MP has lower power consumption also simply because IBM has a few chips behind their belt at this point.
Probably... or a new source/angle on it.afields said:
Can't count out the XBox either.
Though IBM finally did publish some Maximum Power Dissipation specs for the original PPC970 -- done on a rev A DP 2.0GHz PowerMac G5.
Of course these numbers back up IBMs claim that it dissipates less Watts than Apple says it does, and some have pointed out that IBM did there test using an Integer spec suite -- neglecting the Altivec and FP units, which could boost the power dissipation into the range Apple was stating (for the FX).
mac_head101 said:
Just because 70% of computers play games, does not mean that they were bought for the sole purpose of playing games. I know mine wasn't, but I still play games on it.
P-Worm
Ugh...
Game consoles do not provide a better gaming experience than a PC dammit!
Its the worst Mac cop-out ever!
Games are what keep me locked to PC, thats for sure.
One day my precious...
Game consoles do not provide a better gaming experience than a PC dammit!
Its the worst Mac cop-out ever!
Games are what keep me locked to PC, thats for sure.
One day my precious...
nuckinfutz said:
Let's not forget about the Xserve. Perhaps Apple is laying the ground work multicore servers. Apples seems to really want to get a foothold in the server market.
Here was the original thread on this issue...
http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=999
Though I never saw the proof that was shown, possible somebody grabbed a copy.
http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=999
Though I never saw the proof that was shown, possible somebody grabbed a copy.
Kelvin said:
Why would a dual core processor make more sense for a powerbook than a single core processor like we have now? It seems much more likely to me that a single core processor will end up in the powerbook first, even if this dual core rumor pans out to be true and available by the time a G5 powerbook shows up.
mac_head101 said:
Correct, I missed your later clarification on home vs business PCs. My apologies. Now please stop shouting.
Please provide a link to that Janus survey. I can't find it anywhere. In the meantime, a few more notes on surveys:
1) Just because some organization comes up with a statistic doesn't mean it is valid.
2) Anecdotal evidence isn't much better, but my experience completely differs from "70% of home computers playing games for more than three hours per day". I know of no one who is not currently in college on their parents' dime who has this kind of time or who would spend it playing computer games. Frankly, as I said before, the folks I know who play video games of any sort for more than a couple of hours per week invested in dedicated gaming hardware. The only cases I can see where a single computer gets that kind of gaming use is when it is used by several children in the family for games (in which case the assertion that games drive computer sales for 70% of the market is obviously incorrect).
3) Battling surveys. Here's a Pew survey which found, among other things, "Seventy percent (70%) of college students reported playing video, computer or online games at least once in a while." If only 70% report of college students report playing games once in a while, even if you were to stretch "once in a while" out to 3+ hours per day because said college students wanted to appear more studious on their anonymous surveys, that leaves the rest of the computer-owning world at a much lower game-play rate; it leaves it mathematically unlikely for the overall average to come out with 70% of the computers getting 3 hours of Doom3-loving per night. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/93/report_display.asp
4) Battling surveys 2. This one's much older, but from the Interactive Digital Software Association, which would tend to skew the results towards more than actual usage. http://www.idsa.com/consumersurvey2001.html Again, this is from 2001, but at that time the IDSA found that amongst households with computers and consoles, "the typical family uses its console or computer to play games for an average of 10 to 11 hours per week, up about one hour over last years figures." This shows a much lower rate than 3-hours-per-day, and also notes that on average the gaming is done by 4.5 individuals (two console players and 2.5 computer players). Assuming 1.5 computers/consoles per household (a conservative estimate), and half of the reported time being spent on computers instead of consoles, that leaves about four hours per week per computer; remember that that's not calculated in the study, so it's not necessarily accurate, but it gives an idea of how those number compare to your purported numbers. Even leaving that entire 11 hours per week on computers and assuming that this is one computer in the house where the gaming is going on, three years later you're claiming 70% of computers spend more than 21 hours per week on games, which would put the "average" at a significantly higher number. Where did the typical family pull an extra 10 hours per week of game playing from?
Again, please provide a link if you have one. That statistic just doesn't look anywhere near right. Either their methodology was screwed up, or you're reading their results wrong.
If this this IS true, then HOLY MOSES ON A CRUTCH! But then again I don't trust ThinkSecret. Look at the July 14th headline, it gets the new iPods totally wrong. And I think they were also saying that the new iPods wouldn't be coming until August or September.
A rumor is a rumor, until it hits the stores.
A rumor is a rumor, until it hits the stores.
carletonmusic said:
slew is singular, too......so that would be "There is a slew...."
If you're gonna correct people........
jouster said:slew is singular, too......so that would be "There is a slew...."
If you're gonna correct people........
Well done!! That is one that has almost become vernacular in both forms - but you are very right! Thanks for keeping me honest!
another common one is "there are a group of people outside"
hassanpr said:
Apple gives academic institutions more precedence then regular customers. This is nothing new. That's probably why they moved the the ship date back, they've been slammed with orders from schools and universities.
~Shard~ said:Even if Apple implements this chip "sometime in 2005" I doubt they will brand it as a G6. The G5 hasn't been out for that long relatively, even when next year rolls around, and I don't think a processor change like this would really warrant a name change like that. Save the "G6" moniker for something truly big - maybe "The G6 in '06"...
Pretty soon, around 2005, it will have been around about as long as the G4.. and remember, that G5 has had production problems. So if we hadn;t had any problems, it would have gone through many different revisions. The G6 would be a great thing to roll out next year... paving the way for all of the Mac lineup to become 64-bit, and not having any more G4. They should be scrapping the G3 completely by now, and they can't do that until they drop the G4 totally as well, due to bit limitations.
It seem we are only talking about processor power consumption, and inclusions like the cache. Did anyone stop to think about the speeds of the processors? With the altivec engine, and Single core, this WILL be an amazingly fast computer. When this comes out, I may have to sell my PowerBook, and look at a Dual Core, Dual Processor G6(If Pontiac doesn't copyright it) we may well see it come to fruition.
Maybe they'll call it the G5.2.
It would make sense since it is still a 970, dual core, and the third version of the chip (the original and then the 90nm version).
It would make sense since it is still a 970, dual core, and the third version of the chip (the original and then the 90nm version).