1.2GHz G4s

Rower_CPU

Moderator emeritus
Oct 5, 2001
11,219
0
San Diego, CA
This has been commented on in other threads as well...

I would be pleasantly surprised to see a 1.5 GHz CPU from Moto. DDR may be the main push right now, so clock speed will probably take a back seat.

However, it's worthwhile to note that Apple and Moto are falling further and further behind AMD and Intel in terms of pure clock speed, which is unfortunately still a marketable feature of computers today. Feeling this pressure, they may stun us all...
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
I personally think the 1.5 is too high. I am more inclined to say that the 1.4 is very accurate. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. One thing is certain. and that is DDR.
 

esome

macrumors member
Apr 2, 2002
41
0
typical

the rumors sites just get us all drooling only for us to be let down when the real apple product updates appear. all the people who whine "where's my quad processor 1.5gHz G5?" are the products of the rumor mill.

1.2gHz will be fine with me since the faster bus and RAM are also coming.
 

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,509
1,792
Re: typical

Originally posted by esome
the rumors sites just get us all drooling only for us to be let down when the real apple product updates appear. all the people who whine "where's my quad processor 1.5gHz G5?" are the products of the rumor mill.
Actually, I don't think that's true... in some ways those people are part of the rumor mill.

I can't tell you how many times i've seen this situation happen:

MacWorld happens, PowerMacs are updated... then in 4-6 weeks, there might be another event... such as Seybold, or something... and people are talking like Apple will be bumping the PowerMacs again... and the last speed bumps aren't even shipping. These people aren't the product of any rumor-site reports... but simply their own misguided optimism.

We've always tried to temper the hype - but people only hear what they want to hear.

arn
 

AlphaTech

macrumors 601
Oct 4, 2001
4,556
0
Natick, MA
Judging by what Apple tends to do for speed bumps in the towers I would guestimate that we will see single processor systems in 1GHz and 1.13GHz and a dual 1.2GHz system. Typically, they take the top end speed system, move it to the bottom speed, and do two bumps above it (as mentioned above ~133MHz between them).

If they also include DDR memory (PC2100) and an ATA133 controller on the motherboard (supporting 160GB+ drives) then it will all be good. The current 120GB cap from the motherboard is a bit of a hamstringing affair for Apple. Especially since most other non-Mac's can use the 160GB drives (with the right updates, and current systems, not legacy systems).

Something that would really surprise us, would be if Apple included another ATA bus on the motherboard. That would allow you to put four drives inside without having to go out and get an ATA controller card.
 

firewire2001

macrumors 6502a
Apr 2, 2002
718
0
Hong Kong
moores law anyone?

i know with motorola and ibm that speed jumps are different... but realistically, it doesnt cost apple too much more to make a processor that is a lot more expensive than a slower one.. remember way back when when apple used to make speed increases of only like 10 mhz?...

also.. apple has really gotten into the idea of market share.. there are many factors in deciding this based on peoples opinions.. there are many pc users that just wont buy a mac cause there isnt enough software, since everyone else has em, or because of their speed.. or because of a combo of reasons, which are legitimate to some point... but not really.. someone can legitimately say that the macs clock speed is slower than a pc's, while a macs clock speed is only a small factor in the data it processes (like the tunnel length, bus speed, cache, etc.)

i think that speed is one thing that a lot of professionals (like ps professionals) dont realize is evened out with a mac with a slower bus speed. i think that if apple made processors as fast as pentium or amd did, many people would buy them because of just the bus speed, while people that already know macs were good, but didnt want to buy one, may be convinced further because of the fact that macs are waaaaay faster than pcs, rather than about equal...

i meant well in this post.. so dont get me the wrong way... :(
 

new2macs

macrumors newbie
May 17, 2002
5
0
I have periodically been reading this website and i am glad to see macusers becoming united. I am writing in hope of some honest advice from tha mac community.

I am planning on purchasing a new computer in the following months and seriously considering a mac. Microsoft's coorporate practices have turned me off and i do not wish to support them by buying another windows computer. I do not have a preference in which model to buy, as long as it is faster than my current system.

My current machine is a 700MHZ toshiba notebook that has served me well for the past year, but now want something faster. I am a med student and use programs like MS Office, Medical Programs, Internet, Photoshop, MP3, DVD Playback.

On the consumer standpoint the ibook needs a serious speed upgrade, after sampling a 600MHZ model i would not consider this notebook unless it was in the 1000MHZ range. I want to support Apple Computer but but the rumored 700MHz model is a joke compared to other PC notebooks (1.5 GHZ)in the same price range.
thanks and hope for some responces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Dephex Twin

macrumors newbie
May 22, 2002
15
0
Hearing what I want to hear?

Originally posted by arn

I can... tell you... i've seen this... :

...Apple will be bumping the PowerMacs again...
Alright! Apple will be bumping the PowerMacs again!

Thanks for the info. I'll spread the word.

:D

mark
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
On the consumer standpoint the ibook needs a serious speed upgrade, after sampling a 600MHZ model i would not consider this notebook unless it was in the 1000MHZ range. I want to support Apple Computer but but the rumored 700MHz model is a joke compared to other PC notebooks (1.5 GHZ)in the same price range.
new2macs your name serves you well

the 600iBook isnt slow at all and the new upgraded 700MHZ one cooks P3 labtops. those P4 1.5+ labtops will end up costing you more then the iBook will and you will still be running XP and not the lovely OSX.

but im not sure if what kind of mac youre looking for, i'm guessing a labtop since you only mentioned them so far. try giving the iBook another chance. My friend has a 1GHZ AMD Athon and he wishes he went with an iBook instead.

I'm can relate your journey to become a mac user instead of a PC one. That where I am, still stuck with my P1 200MHZ and can't wait to upgrade to a dual G4 PM. Don't think of MHZs and GHZ as speed markings but rather as power ratings.

You can easily compare a computer to a car.

GHZ=horsepower

horsepower doesnt always equal speed
there are other factors involved such as the weight of the car, it's transmition, clutch, intake system ect....

with macs you have to look at pipeline stages, L2 and L3 caches, Antivec and so on.

feel free to respond, there boards are here to educate and inform while having fun at the same time
 

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,123
12
Lancashire
A 1 multiplyer increase every 6 months could be better.

First we had the 733Mhz G4

Within a month someone had taken it to 867Mhz with overclocking.

Next macworld, it's 867Mhz!

Then the same guy takes his new 867Mhz G4 to 1Ghz

wow, another macworld another predictable clockspeed, 1Ghz

Within weeks of the Ghz G4s being out the same guy took it upto 1.2Ghz

so we know for a fact that MWNY will have several things to definately look forward to:

1. 1.2Ghz G4s (I'd say that's at the very least)

2. DDR Ram

3. laughing at steve doing a photoshop bake off against a 2.5Ghz Pentium 4 and then inviting Paul Daniels* to come on stage to say "Every Second Counts" and then do a few lame magic tricks to distract everyone from the fact the speed difference would be insignificant.

At this point apple would get some developers to come on stage and demostrate their new OS X native software, at least one of them will pronounce it "OS X" not "OS 10".

Okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic/realistic here but we're only getting 1 measly multiplier every 6 months off the 7450 and 7455 G4s, If these 7470 CPUs are in the new macs, maybe we'll see a 2 multiplier increase this time.

I'd still be satisfied if apple only managed to get enough chips over 1.2Ghz to put on the mid range, at least then we'd definately be able to bank on the low end model being the same as the current high end one, minus L3 cache and the second CPU.

If we get this:

fast : 1Ghz with L3
faster: 1.3 or 1.4Ghz
fastest : 1.2Ghz (dual)

or this:

fast : 1Ghz with L3
faster : 1.2Ghz
fastest : 1.4Ghz (dual)

I'll be pretty happy personally.

* host of an old Quiz show in the UK who also happened to be a magician.
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
ohh and one more thing

don't listen to what spymac says anyway.

dual 1.4s G4s make sense

dual 1.2s G4s would be a disapointment.

last july steve wasn't happy about the reaction his dual 800s and 867 G4 got.

only upgrading 200MHZ on the top of the line machine seems silly after clearancing the dual 1GHZ g4s to $2700.

steve knows that we know that DDR will be included, the Xserve gave that away.

we are getting at least ATA 100 drives since ATA 66 has been included for far too long

if he throws in the Ti Nvidia card for the top machine, then that still wont turn heads sinse Geforce 5s are rumored for the fall and the Ti Nvidia cards were held back for so long

so whats left? a faster superdrive?

that would be a pleasant surprise, sinse the $1800 iMac has the same one thats found in flagship dual G4 PM. but i haven't heard any rumors about this besides a small blurb from macosrumors.com

so if everything that i said is included and steve want to raise the price of the top of line dual G4 back to $3500 then he would be crazy, the only thing thats going to allow that to happen is dual 1.4 G4s.
 

Dr. Distortion

macrumors regular
May 2, 2002
159
0
Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Well, I'm quite sure that any iBook apple sells right now will be faster than a Celeron equipped pc laptop. Also, the Apple portables are generally far more rigid and components won't fail as easily as in pc laptops. I speak out of my own experience, since I unfortunately had to buy a Toshiba Satellite pro 4600 for my study (haven't seen a mac running Solid Works yet...).

The biggest problem with laptops nowadays isn't processor speed. It's also not the video speed. What really counts is your harddisk speed. Since osX does multitasking, it can be quite demanding on your harddisk from time to time. At such moments you want to have a fast disk, or the entire computer will slow down.
 

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,509
1,792
Re: ohh and one more thing

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
don't listen to what spymac says anyway.

dual 1.4s G4s make sense

dual 1.2s G4s would be a disapointment.
How does 1.4 make more sense than 1.2?

If anything, 1.2 (or 1.13) makes more sense than 1.4...

Jan, 2001. 733mhz G4
July, 2001. 867mhz G4 (733->867 134mhz jump)
Jan, 2002. 1GHz G4 (867->1Ghz 133mhz jump)

July 2002...??? So, you're saying 400mhz jump is more likely?

arn
 

me hate windows

macrumors 6502
Jan 18, 2002
420
0
Re: typical

Originally posted by esome


since the faster bus and RAM are also coming.
And how do you know that? Saying that there will be a faster bus and faster ram is just like saying that there will be 1.5Ghz G4's.
 

eyelikeart

Moderator emeritus
Jan 2, 2001
11,897
0
Metairie, LA
I think 1.2 is reasonable to wish for...

it would make sense...I don't think we'll see a 1.13 Ghz..according to the 133 Mhz increases that Alpha pointed out...Apple may do some strange things...but I do not think that will be one...

I'm banking on 1.2 at least...maybe a 1.4 down the line...
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
How does 1.4 make more sense than 1.2?

If anything, 1.2 (or 1.13) makes more sense than 1.4...

Jan, 2001. 733mhz G4
July, 2001. 867mhz G4 (733->867 134mhz jump)
Jan, 2002. 1GHz G4 (867->1Ghz 133mhz jump)

July 2002...??? So, you're saying 400mhz jump is more likely?


yes yes i am Arn

Macs can't keep going up by 133MHZ or 200MHZ on each upgrade or they will get killed. eventually they have to make a leap.

the dual 800s sold for $3500
when the dual 1000s came out apple dropped the price $500
hmmm why would apple do that?

ohh i know becuase the machines were not up to par, so they went down to $3000 and now $2700.

this alone is evidence that a major speed increase is in order. the dual 1000s will be down to $2500 or less this summer and please dont tell me that 100GB or 120 GB HD and 512 DDR ram packed with a dual 1.2 is going to drive the price back up to $3500

actually if apple were to release this then id be surprized if it went above 3 grand.

now add 1.4s instead of 1.2s and a price of $3300 or even $3500 look a lot clearer.
 

me hate windows

macrumors 6502
Jan 18, 2002
420
0
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


new2macs your name serves you well

the 600iBook isnt slow at all and the new upgraded 700MHZ one cooks P3 labtops. those P4 1.5+ labtops will end up costing you more then the iBook will and you will still be running XP and not the lovely OSX.

Don't forget the battery life and heat on a P4 laptop. The battery is horrible, somewhere around 3 hours. And with the heat, you could almost cook something on it.
 

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,509
1,792
Originally posted by TyleRomeo

this alone is evidence that a major speed increase is in order. the dual 1000s will be down to $2500 or less this summer and please dont tell me that 100GB or 120 GB HD and 512 DDR ram packed with a dual 1.2 is going to drive the price back up to $3500
But, you're assuming Apple will raise the price back to $3500... why won't it just keep it at $3000 with 1.2GHz G4's?

arn
 

new2macs

macrumors newbie
May 17, 2002
5
0
Originally posted by TyleRomeo


new2macs your name serves you well

the 600iBook isnt slow at all and the new upgraded 700MHZ one cooks P3 labtops. those P4 1.5+ labtops will end up costing you more then the iBook will and you will still be running XP and not the lovely OSX.

but im not sure if what kind of mac youre looking for, i'm guessing a labtop since you only mentioned them so far. try giving the iBook another chance. My friend has a 1GHZ AMD Athon and he wishes he went with an iBook instead.

I'm can relate your journey to become a mac user instead of a PC one. That where I am, still stuck with my P1 200MHZ and can't wait to upgrade to a dual G4 PM. Don't think of MHZs and GHZ as speed markings but rather as power ratings.

You can easily compare a computer to a car.

GHZ=horsepower

horsepower doesnt always equal speed
there are other factors involved such as the weight of the car, it's transmition, clutch, intake system ect....

with macs you have to look at pipeline stages, L2 and L3 caches, Antivec and so on.

feel free to respond, there boards are here to educate and inform while having fun at the same time

Thanks for the responce,
I will probably be making my purchase in aug-sept and will probably go with one of apples desktops, because i think i can get more machine for my money. I am trying to my my homework before purchasing.
I have had mac users tell me i will never need the power of a 1Ghz Powermac but i always thought faster was better ;) . Or would an G4 imac serve me well?
Do you guys honestly think these mac systems are faster than windows counterparts on the apps i listed.
I guess i am just a little nervous about laying out a few Grand on a computer i am unfamiliar with.
thanks
 

Falleron

macrumors 68000
Nov 22, 2001
1,609
0
UK
Originally posted by new2macs
On the consumer standpoint the ibook needs a serious speed upgrade, after sampling a 600MHZ model i would not consider this notebook unless it was in the 1000MHZ range. I want to support Apple Computer but but the rumored 700MHz model is a joke compared to other PC notebooks (1.5 GHZ)in the same price range.
thanks and hope for some responces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are wrong by saying this! The ibook 700Mhz is easily equivalent in speed with the fastest mobile P3 chips (1.2Ghz I think). The G4 (Tibook) is the equivalent to the P4 chips.
 

new2macs

macrumors newbie
May 17, 2002
5
0
Originally posted by Falleron


I think you are wrong by saying this! The ibook 700Mhz is easily equivalent in speed with the fastest mobile P3 chips (1.2Ghz I think). The G4 (Tibook) is the equivalent to the P4 chips.
My mistake, apple did release an 700Mhz ibook. Anyone got one out there, i would like to hear from you. Or does someone have a link where these new ibooks were reviewed?
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
My mistake, apple did release an 700Mhz ibook.
yes they have, check out apple.com for more details and im sure real world speed results will be posted shortly at barefeats.com

i suggest you add them to your hotlist and check up on their mac performance results.

if youre doing very simple apps and aren't doing any profesional editing with video, audio, or images then i think an iMac would suit you well. with the 3 choices with the iMac for you to make, i'd go with the 800MHZ 60GB with superdrive, you will get more life out of this computer then the other two iMacs.

and also if you can wait until late august or even september then look forward to a slight iMac upgrade.

my 2 cents
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
ok arn i know you want the dual 1.4s and are saying 1.2s becuase its the safe bet.

everyone who follows apple knows that 1.2s will be out.

most of us here see apples drastic discounts as a sign of something big coming this July (ex. 1.4s) so lets be optimistic and not so damn practical here.
 

Curiousstrngmint

macrumors member
Aug 12, 2001
32
0
Clock speed

Everybody seems to make generalizations that G3=P3 and G4=P4, even though G3's seem to have about 75% the clock speed of their "equivalent" and G4's about half. But nobody seems to have any evidence to back this up, except faith.

I'm not saying it's not true--it's just damn hard to believe when a P4 has double or more the clock speed, DDR RAM, and a 533 MHz system bus. I really, desperately, want to buy a Mac for college, but I'm running XP on my home PC now, and I have to say I'm impressed.

I'm still definitely leaning towards Apple, but it's getting harder to maintain my convictions. It will be difficult to rationalize (personally, but even more so to my parents) buying a $3000 PowerBook, when for $2500 or less I can get a laptop with twice the apparent speed, and when the only advantage is "I like Macs better."