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
The "Old" 130nm processors will be bigger, and therefor more expensive, and therefor will NOT be used in an iMac.
Besides, they probably need the smaller, cooler processor for heat and space (less heat sink) issues in that little dome...
This has to be true
This has to be true. I completely believe this rumor. IBM is consistently been ahead of the curve on processor speed and fabrication technique... and you can bet your arse that Stevie wouldn't say "we'll hit 3GHz in one year" unless he absoluetly, positively, completly, totally, believed it. That, in turn, meant that Big Blue could say CONSERVATIVELY that they would have no less than 3.0 GHz no later than June/July 2004. That also means that we COULD see better. My guess is we will!
Many of these rumors have stated that we'd see a slight improvement over the obvious 2.5/3.0 revisions to be 2.6/3.2 GHz. To me, that makes plenty of sense.
I don't know about you folks, but a dual 2.6 or 3.2 GHz G5 would be enough for me to buy a new machine. That's damn fast. Think about this: a 1.3 or 1.6 GHz system bus, when less than a year ago the thought of 200 Mhz was a pipedream.
Sweet.
This has to be true. I completely believe this rumor. IBM is consistently been ahead of the curve on processor speed and fabrication technique... and you can bet your arse that Stevie wouldn't say "we'll hit 3GHz in one year" unless he absoluetly, positively, completly, totally, believed it. That, in turn, meant that Big Blue could say CONSERVATIVELY that they would have no less than 3.0 GHz no later than June/July 2004. That also means that we COULD see better. My guess is we will!
Many of these rumors have stated that we'd see a slight improvement over the obvious 2.5/3.0 revisions to be 2.6/3.2 GHz. To me, that makes plenty of sense.
I don't know about you folks, but a dual 2.6 or 3.2 GHz G5 would be enough for me to buy a new machine. That's damn fast. Think about this: a 1.3 or 1.6 GHz system bus, when less than a year ago the thought of 200 Mhz was a pipedream.
Sweet.
Ich will G5 iMac! Ja!
This is SO encouraging. Waiting for a G5 iMac is tough! Even if it means a different form factor to accomodate the cooling needs of a G5, I really want this machine!
This is SO encouraging. Waiting for a G5 iMac is tough! Even if it means a different form factor to accomodate the cooling needs of a G5, I really want this machine!
The new mp g5 will probobly end up being faster then the opteron at first. The opteon will surpass the g5 with annother update, and it will likely be neck and neck for a while.
If amd isnt able to keep up with ibm and apple they will be left behind very quickly at their current speeds.
From my understanding the mac OS doesnt really require dirrect support the 64 bit addres space(and wont have it untill all macs are 64bit). As long as the 64bit chip is there it is not very dificult to take advantage of all the ram. ie, a highend app like photoshop could have 2 threads that each use about 4 gigs of ram.
Re: Re: Maybe this is my grumpy mood talking, but
A 64-bit processor is not necessarily twice as fast as a 32-bit processor at the same clockspeed. While a G5 on most things is nearly twice as fast as a P4 at the same clock speed (but not everything), it isn't simply a function of the bit width. See http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html
A 64-bit processor is not necessarily twice as fast as a 32-bit processor at the same clockspeed. While a G5 on most things is nearly twice as fast as a P4 at the same clock speed (but not everything), it isn't simply a function of the bit width. See http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html
Thunk Different
I agree but the problem with 64bit Windows is that unless you have 64bit applications to run on it, it runs in a 32bit subsystem with all the thunking problems we had with WindowsNT and 32->16bit thunking. Unless M$ can persuade all the application vendors to produce 64bit versions and in turn they can persuade their users to upgrade then WinXP 64bit is merely a tech preview for the early adopters before the next OS comes out.
Apple doesn't have that problem as the G5 itself does the work and there is a much more gradual upgrade path for both developers and users.
if the rumour is true and IBM are producing 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 90nm in volume, are we going to see the base machine hop up to a 2.2 single cpu or are they going to keep on 130nm chips in the lineup? That's what's puzzling me just now. So glad I've not got the cash together to buy that dual 2.0 I was planning on yet.
I agree but the problem with 64bit Windows is that unless you have 64bit applications to run on it, it runs in a 32bit subsystem with all the thunking problems we had with WindowsNT and 32->16bit thunking. Unless M$ can persuade all the application vendors to produce 64bit versions and in turn they can persuade their users to upgrade then WinXP 64bit is merely a tech preview for the early adopters before the next OS comes out.
Apple doesn't have that problem as the G5 itself does the work and there is a much more gradual upgrade path for both developers and users.
if the rumour is true and IBM are producing 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 90nm in volume, are we going to see the base machine hop up to a 2.2 single cpu or are they going to keep on 130nm chips in the lineup? That's what's puzzling me just now. So glad I've not got the cash together to buy that dual 2.0 I was planning on yet.
Re: This has to be true
Yeah, but will the system bus be able to keep up with the processor at these speeds? 1.3 GHz sounds a little unrealistic to me. This rumour centers around the processor, but what about the rest of the system?
LP
Yeah, but will the system bus be able to keep up with the processor at these speeds? 1.3 GHz sounds a little unrealistic to me. This rumour centers around the processor, but what about the rest of the system?
LP
Well, as an owner of a single 1.8, I can't say that I'm pissed off. I still have a computer everyone drools over, and will for another two or three years (at which time it will be time to buy the PowerMac G6 12 GHz/4 GB/1 TB with OS X 10.6, with holographic display, 7th dimensional memory core, and optional levitation).
We can only hope
Although, I beg to differ,, I see...
PowerMac G6 Dual 12 GHZ/ 64 GB RAM, 2.5 TB HD, running OSX 10.8.2 Raging Bull, with multidimensional holographic display, and levitation will be standard. Although, human beaming via Bluetooth Multi Extreme will be optional.
Re: Re: Re: Rot in hell Apple...
No, I hate to say it but my we bought a pc roughly a year ago, which was fast for the first few months, and always taken care of. Now it is a slug, and my g3 b/w will run circles around it.
Originally posted by leet1
Don't bring that into this, because your stating false facts
No, I hate to say it but my we bought a pc roughly a year ago, which was fast for the first few months, and always taken care of. Now it is a slug, and my g3 b/w will run circles around it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rot in hell Apple...
yeah, your prob. right
sorry, just dont like my dads pc..
it is slower then crap
Originally posted by leet1
I don't see a G3 running circles around a one year old PC. My 1ghz Athlon could run circles and do high jumps over the top of the line G3
yeah, your prob. right
sorry, just dont like my dads pc..
it is slower then crap
Re: Rot in hell Apple...
What!?
whats your problem.. after 4 years.. no one is forcing you to buy a better machine.
what do you expect apple not to release new hardware.
get a reality check.
What!?
whats your problem.. after 4 years.. no one is forcing you to buy a better machine.
what do you expect apple not to release new hardware.
get a reality check.
Re: Maybe this is my grumpy mood talking, but
Christ on a cracker...
You'd think that anyone reading these forums would know to not fall for the PC-heads' blather about megahertz. Somehow I think that a P4-M and a G5 aren't really in the same league...
Christ on a cracker...
You'd think that anyone reading these forums would know to not fall for the PC-heads' blather about megahertz. Somehow I think that a P4-M and a G5 aren't really in the same league...
well I guess Apple will be able to start running those "world's fastest computer" commercials in Europe again
to all those who are giving studiopix a hard time: CHILL OUT
there are concepts that have been recently developed called SARCASM and JOKING AROUNG that might interest you
to all those who are giving studiopix a hard time: CHILL OUT
there are concepts that have been recently developed called SARCASM and JOKING AROUNG that might interest you
Exactly. I have a 1.25Ghz Powerbook. Want to know the expression on my face? A big ol' smile. I'll be out of college in 1 1/2 years. This Powerbook will serve me just perfect till then. Then at that time I'll be in the market for a PowerMac, which would hopefully be around 4Ghz or so.
My G4 400 mhz is still under warranty...hmmm a dual 2.6 looks like itll have an untimely death.. now i have to make up a story to tell the insurance.. i was carrying it around when it accidently fell out the window.
- Status