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.
2.6GHz PowerMac G5s at MacWorld SF 2004?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Re: What G5 to buy before the end of the year?
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
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
nothing is for sure
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]
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.
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]
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.
Re: Re: Rot in hell Apple...
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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Rot in hell Apple...
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.
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.
Re: Re: What G5 to buy before the end of the year?
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.
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.
Re: Re: 600 MHz Increase?
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: What G5 to buy before the end of the year?
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. ;-)
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. ;-)
Re: Re: Re: What G5 to buy before the end of the year?
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.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
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?
irony is often lost
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.
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".
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.
Re: irony is often lost
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
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
Re: Maybe this is my grumpy mood talking, but
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
Re: irony is often lost
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Re: Re: Maybe this is my grumpy mood talking, but
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
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
Re: Re: irony is often lost
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)
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)
Re: Re: Re: irony is often lost
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
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
Re: Re: Re: Re: irony is often lost
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
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
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
- Status