iriejedi said:
So go ahead and hook the S-Video out of your Powerbook to the HDTV and see how you like it.
Yeah, it sure does sound like you're in an MBA program...
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.
90nm G5 Supplies Improving?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So go ahead and hook the S-Video out of your Powerbook to the HDTV and see how you like it.
Yeah, it sure does sound like you're in an MBA program...
JFreak said:
Until we get dual-core chips there's always going to be a way to get a lower-cost tower out if it's single chip and there's a market for that.
So, go dual-core!
tortoise said:
It's easier and faster to have good cache-coherency on a single chip than on chips on a bus, so it ought to be a bit faster too.
Ambrose Chapel said:if the slowest Power Mac is at 2.2 GHz, then a G5 iMac could replicate the initial Power Mac line - 1.6 through 2.0
thats what i've been saying for a while now. its an excellent idea
Watch, we'll probably get a single core Power5 processor -- which gives you similar performance to a dual core PPC970.ClimbingTheLog said:
Remember, IBM said the next step was doubling the number of instructions the processor could handle per cycle.
And it was a software trick, not a dual core chip.
And he changed it in September of last year to say "End of next summer." So whoever expects 3Ghz to ship at WWDC is just not paying attention.
iriejedi said:Trust me I want to believe in Steve... after all he did promise 3 gig by June (or next WWDC) - but all I want is a rev B G5! I'll even take a 2.1 I accept that the new G5s are amazing... but the whole "I'm not buying a first gen thing for me is personal".
Irie
In Sept 2003, Steve said "by end of next summer" e.g. summer 2004. So expecting them at WWDC is somewhat unrealistic.
This is one spot I would *love* to be proven wrong, BUT for Steve to say "by end of next summer" in Sept 2003, he must have had word from IBM that that was when they were expecting to be able to ship them in volume (or within 6-8 weeks thereafter).
He'd love to go 5Ghz today, but Apple has to wait for IBM (much better than waiting on the Motorola!).
This is one spot I would *love* to be proven wrong, BUT for Steve to say "by end of next summer" in Sept 2003, he must have had word from IBM that that was when they were expecting to be able to ship them in volume (or within 6-8 weeks thereafter).
He'd love to go 5Ghz today, but Apple has to wait for IBM (much better than waiting on the Motorola!).
LaMerVipere said:
Hattig said:
the G5's fsb runs at half clock, doesn't it? that would mean a 2.7 would have a 1.35 fsb. or is the fsb limited by current chipsets, or am i missing something entirely
I agree with centauratlas...centauratlas said:
That was also a target date, not a "date" you'll be paying for whether you meet your escort or not.
Tech companies always have a habit of missing target dates due to manufacturing difficulties, and software companies miss them all the time.
Expecting to have it sitting on your desk 365 days + 1 hour after the announcement is unrealistic.
.a said:
What he didn't say was WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF WHAT!!!!
Announcment or shipping or Christimas? ;-)
Regarding speed of CPU, one can't simply put the PPC970 up against any chip of any other architecture and base a comparison on GHz. It's 64bit for starters and has a very different architecture to Intel.
HOWEVER.. Mr Jobs did say we would have 3GHz and that Apple had comitted to that "within 12 months".
HOWEVER.. Mr Jobs did say we would have 3GHz and that Apple had comitted to that "within 12 months".
ClimbingTheLog said:
always? no... powermacs were dual-only before G5 intro, there's no reason why they couldn't do it again. the current 1.6 model is so crippled compared to the duals, that one could call it the headless imac - and, in my opinion, apple should throw a G5 into every desktop they sell, but differentiate the "power" product line with dual setups and consumer line having the single.
(and for portables, please, the powerbook needs the G5. let the ibook be the only one that has a motorola inside...)
With GPU providers (ATI and Nvidia mostly) prices drop as yields improve. Could this lead to price drops on G5 machines? Perhaps post WWDC?
carletonmusic said:
From the rumors that I've heard, the 970FX was never the 3GHz chip--it was the Power5 derivitive (980?). Apple was supposed to be developing the 970 (Power4) and 980 (Power5) chips in tamden. IBM has announced the Power5 shipping (soon?), so that track could still be on schedule. However, I think that Apple needs to get a faster Mac out now, but doing so based on the 2.6 MHz 970FX now (shipping in June?) would seem (for marketing reasons) to push out the 980 (even if it was going to be ready at the end of summer). The Power5 isn't currently using the 90nm process, so the 980 might not either, so these production problems may not affect it. So, if the 3 GHz is indeed the next gen G5, for marketing reasons, I would suspect that it is being delayed. If the 2.6 GHz arrives in June, I couldn't see a 3 GHz arriving any earlier than end of Sept--that would be just too quick of a marketing turnaround for a model.
2.6 now, 3.2 coming?
I know I don't have any solid ground to stand on, but I'm willing to bet that Apple will say something like this at WWDC:
"Today we are introducing the dual 2.6, dual 2.4 and dual 2.2 GHz PowerMac G5. All duals, shipping today. And I'll bet some of you are wondering if I'll keep my promise of 3.0 Ghz within a year of the G5 release. I'm also pleased to announce that we'll be doing a little better than that, and we'll be doing it in September. In September we will ship a dual 3.2 GHz top end model to complement today's line-up."
What'cha think? Plausible? Too much gap between 2.6 and 3.2? They'd probably have to figure out a transition plan to space out the low end with the top end evenly. Assuming the top end was 3.2, maybe the low end would be 2.4 and the middle 2.8?
I know I don't have any solid ground to stand on, but I'm willing to bet that Apple will say something like this at WWDC:
"Today we are introducing the dual 2.6, dual 2.4 and dual 2.2 GHz PowerMac G5. All duals, shipping today. And I'll bet some of you are wondering if I'll keep my promise of 3.0 Ghz within a year of the G5 release. I'm also pleased to announce that we'll be doing a little better than that, and we'll be doing it in September. In September we will ship a dual 3.2 GHz top end model to complement today's line-up."
What'cha think? Plausible? Too much gap between 2.6 and 3.2? They'd probably have to figure out a transition plan to space out the low end with the top end evenly. Assuming the top end was 3.2, maybe the low end would be 2.4 and the middle 2.8?
Mr_Ed said:LOL!!
If Dr. Who had a budget, this is what K-9 would have looked like.
Sure.
And, since Winblow$ is such a great operating system, we'll *NEVER* have any problems with our AMD64 systems [angry sarcasm].
Wake up and smell the coffee. Windows is the worst piece of feces I've ever seen and worked on. EVERY TIME I even think of working with a Winblow$ system, my blood-pressure rises to dangerous level.
Consumers are finally realizing that any Micro$oft product is inferior to anything else out there, and the interest in opensource is growing more and more each day. I'll NEVER move back to Winblow$.
"THE LINE IS DRAWN HERE, NO FURTHER!"
tortoise said:Heh. The difference is that the AMD64 systems are available NOW, and it isn't like AMD is sitting still with their new product lines. The short-term product pipeline for AMD looks very good. While we use OSX for workstations, the heavy lifting is done by Opteron systems (sorry, PPC can't touch them for memory performance and scalability), and I am quite pleased with their broad and agressive AMD64 roadmap.
Beside which, clock for clock, AMD64 is a bit faster than PPC on average (excepting the DSP stuff which the PPC is quite excellent at). Yeah, I know, flame on.
And, since Winblow$ is such a great operating system, we'll *NEVER* have any problems with our AMD64 systems [angry sarcasm].
Wake up and smell the coffee. Windows is the worst piece of feces I've ever seen and worked on. EVERY TIME I even think of working with a Winblow$ system, my blood-pressure rises to dangerous level.
Consumers are finally realizing that any Micro$oft product is inferior to anything else out there, and the interest in opensource is growing more and more each day. I'll NEVER move back to Winblow$.
"THE LINE IS DRAWN HERE, NO FURTHER!"
Let me see if I've got this right:
The new G5's are being tested and they use 90nm technology?
The 970fx uses 90nm technology.
The Power5 has just been released and it uses 130nm technology.
So I've only taken one logic class, but doesn't it seem that Power5 derived chips will not be used to make the G5s in the next PowerMacs? I seriously could not be more ignorant of all the current chip designs and so forth, but I would like the latest and greatest (Power5) to be inside the next PowerMacs. Please clue me in as to what chip people are expecting.
The new G5's are being tested and they use 90nm technology?
The 970fx uses 90nm technology.
The Power5 has just been released and it uses 130nm technology.
So I've only taken one logic class, but doesn't it seem that Power5 derived chips will not be used to make the G5s in the next PowerMacs? I seriously could not be more ignorant of all the current chip designs and so forth, but I would like the latest and greatest (Power5) to be inside the next PowerMacs. Please clue me in as to what chip people are expecting.
Borg3of5 said:
Who said anything about using Windows? All we have around these parts are OSX and Unix. Unix (of various flavors) runs very nicely on AMD64 right now, and in 64-bit mode. I'm guessing it will still be a few more years before Apple even offers a 64-bit version of OSX. Without a 64-bit ABI, having a 64-bit CPU is almost worthless.
Soire said:
The Power5 Derived chips are not modified versions of the Power5. They were developed at the same time as the Power5. In the past, with the 970 and the Power4, it was not this way. The 970 was engineered from an existing, shipping product.
It's very likely that the 975 based Macs will be out this year.
minstryoffunk said:
That can change, that was just one of the possibilities. The 3GHz could use a 3:1, so it would still have a 1 GHz bus but be 3GHz. If the low-end was a 2.4, then it could have a 800MHz bus, the same as it is now. The 2.7 could be 900Mhz, the same as the 1.8. Just because the CPU speed increases doesn't mean that the bus will. Intel has used 400 and 533 MHz for how long?
Not comparing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the record - I WAS not comparing TV to monitor - just stating a better use of $1799!
However the XBOX on the HDTV rocks!
Irie
PS - you really know yor stuff - can you stop the clock on my Betamax from blinking!
For the record - I WAS not comparing TV to monitor - just stating a better use of $1799!
However the XBOX on the HDTV rocks!
Irie
PS - you really know yor stuff - can you stop the clock on my Betamax from blinking!
Fiveos22 said: