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.
970MP - Still Coming?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kaborka said:My guess is that Apple's next Power Mac generation will be equipped with the XBOX CPU, which seems to be Cell's tripled PPC Core. That would be funny...
Kaborka
Actually the life after 970s will be rather interesting... I am more than sure Apple will pick the best option available to them at a given time, IBM will probably have Power5 derivatives or maybe a more Apple friendly version of the Cell processor (or hell, a Power5 and Cell hybrid) or they will turn to Freescale and their dual core processors (which I doubt but anything is possible)... Or they will simply come out with something totally new and unexpected...
All in all there is definately a lot of interesting and new technology around and I wonder which route Apple will go... Although PowerPC development has been a bit stagnant lately (but so was x86 world) it definately looks the brightest in near future than anything x86 can throw at them...
Clues that I wonder about
Perhaps - but the rambus technology XDR RAM is impressive in terms of the reported speed of operating at a peak 6.4 GHz. Toshiba states this is four times faster than DDR3 (see press release link below). Even more, however, is the fact that rambus has been selected to work with the Cell processor. See link: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2341
My understanding is that the cell processor is a collaborative of three companies [ http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars ] that include IBM and Toshiba (which just announced the second gen XDR RAM) [ http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr3001.htm ]. It looks like IBM is already working with Rambus on the consoles.
Given all of that - the IBM/Toshiba collaboration with Rambus, including use of XDR RAM on the Cell processor system, especially - if we might see this ("this" being XDR RAM, not the Cell processor to be clear) come to the PM. Why not leapfrog DDR3 by a factor of 4 if you can?
Hector said:
Perhaps - but the rambus technology XDR RAM is impressive in terms of the reported speed of operating at a peak 6.4 GHz. Toshiba states this is four times faster than DDR3 (see press release link below). Even more, however, is the fact that rambus has been selected to work with the Cell processor. See link: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2341
My understanding is that the cell processor is a collaborative of three companies [ http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars ] that include IBM and Toshiba (which just announced the second gen XDR RAM) [ http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr3001.htm ]. It looks like IBM is already working with Rambus on the consoles.
Given all of that - the IBM/Toshiba collaboration with Rambus, including use of XDR RAM on the Cell processor system, especially - if we might see this ("this" being XDR RAM, not the Cell processor to be clear) come to the PM. Why not leapfrog DDR3 by a factor of 4 if you can?
The Cell processor and the one used in the Xbox 360 are completely different chips. The Cell doesn't have triple PPC cores, for one thing. What are you talking about?Kaborka said:My guess is that Apple's next Power Mac generation will be equipped with the XBOX CPU, which seems to be Cell's tripled PPC Core. That would be funny...
Kaborka
The only thing I can say is, that I'em happy with what I got!
Yeah sure do remeber them good old days where it used to be that Mac will last you for 10 years.
And know maybe 6 months.
Yeah sure do remeber them good old days where it used to be that Mac will last you for 10 years.
And know maybe 6 months.
Shaggy_Alien said:The only thing I can say is, that I'em happy with what I got!
Yeah sure do remeber them good old days where it used to be that Mac will last you for 10 years.
And know maybe 6 months.
Yeah sure do "remember" them good old days where it used to be that Mac will last you for 10 years.
And "now" maybe 6 months.
DOH!!!
5 max
I have the top of the line PowerMac G4 from 5 years ago, I can't imagine using an iMac that old. Anyways, it's still a great computer, however, my CD drive is weak and failling, my memory is "weak" according to the Apple store guy, and my hard drive has been completely revamped in the last 4 months. =( SUCK. I really need a NEW PMac, not a 2-3 year old one. What would be the gain? Ha. I might buy a Macmini to hold me over, then my parents would have a nice little "gift." Nol
Shaggy_Alien said:Yeah sure do "remember" them good old days where it used to be that Mac will last you for 10 years.
And "now" maybe 6 months.
DOH!!!
I have the top of the line PowerMac G4 from 5 years ago, I can't imagine using an iMac that old. Anyways, it's still a great computer, however, my CD drive is weak and failling, my memory is "weak" according to the Apple store guy, and my hard drive has been completely revamped in the last 4 months. =( SUCK. I really need a NEW PMac, not a 2-3 year old one. What would be the gain? Ha. I might buy a Macmini to hold me over, then my parents would have a nice little "gift." Nol
FlyNolJ said:
I used a 1999 iMac today, and was surprised at how fast it was. Click, boom, as Steve would say
It was only running 9.1 but was still perfectly usable.
ehhhhh, i know this is a mac forum but since you all talk about how mac shelf life is longer than pcs and i dont agree with it... My sister still uses my old Toshiba Infinia 7200 (PC from 1996)... 200Mhz PC with 128mb ram and good ol voodoo2 card inside of it and it does everything she wants it to do as she is not a power user but probably what an average consumer uses the pc for...
Nermal said:I used a 1999 iMac today, and was surprised at how fast it was. Click, boom, as Steve would say
It was only running 9.1 but was still perfectly usable.
9.1.
That's why it was usable.
I have a 400mhz iMac running 10.3 with stacks of ram, and it's not really an option to actually work on, mainly because of the graphics card not running quartz extreme, plus its obviously only a G3.
Got a dual 533 PowerMac, lots of ram, big fast drives with an upgraded graphics card that can run quartz extreme as my main machine, and that's merely sluggish (bus speeds on these old clunkers are pretty glacial).
My 800mhz G3 iBook is hardly a stellar performer under 10.3 either.
I personally think the pain point is around 1GHz. Haven't tried Tiger to see if that makes it better or worse on these old ducks.
Getting a 2.3 G5 Powermac once the WWDC announcements are over, and we know one way or the other if the current Powermacs are going to get a new top end any time soon (unlikely perhaps, but if it happened it might lead to a price drop on the mid range - that's why I'm waiting)
And that will be my first brand new Mac ever. (Bought a couple of Mac clones new in the old days, but they don't count)
Im totaly in your shues.mvc said:9.1.
That's why it was usable.
I have a 400mhz iMac running 10.3 with stacks of ram, and it's not really an option to actually work on, mainly because of the graphics card not running quartz extreme, plus its obviously only a G3.
Got a dual 533 PowerMac, lots of ram, big fast drives with an upgraded graphics card that can run quartz extreme as my main machine, and that's merely sluggish (bus speeds on these old clunkers are pretty glacial).
My 800mhz G3 iBook is hardly a stellar performer under 10.3 either.
I personally think the pain point is around 1GHz. Haven't tried Tiger to see if that makes it better or worse on these old ducks.
Getting a 2.3 G5 Powermac once the WWDC announcements are over, and we know one way or the other if the current Powermacs are going to get a new top end any time soon (unlikely perhaps, but if it happened it might lead to a price drop on the mid range - that's why I'm waiting)
And that will be my first brand new Mac ever. (Bought a couple of Mac clones new in the old days, but they don't count)
Im waiting, i guess till september if i need, but im getting a dual 2.3Ghz. Im just hopeing for a price cut.
Right now i have a 1Ghz iBook, do you think there will be an Extreem performance boost, or just an increase in performance?
ZLurker said:
Odd, I'm not sure why I got this post to the thread mailed to me but it's worth responding to.
This is a question about user experience and personal opinion so take the answer for what it's worth.
A dual G5 will be a drastically different experience to a 1GHz G4. I managed to purchase a dual 2.0 for one of my workers not too long after it was released.
I've been using a 866MHz G4 Quicksilver till this year when I moved to a 1.67GHz Powerbook (I may never go back to a boat anchor). Since I'm so tuned to using slower macs, the Dual G5 is shockingly fast every time I use it. It's pretty much without exception, at some point every time I'm using it, I conciously think 'holy crap this thing is fast'. What's more surprising is, it isn't even that great of a mac anymore. ;-)
For the most part, I'm so happy with my powerbook. Techsupport is so much easier with a powerbook (testing jacks, repairing-backing up-reinstalling machines on site while the users machine is in target disk mode... my powerbook rules.
That said, I was ripping several Divx movies (500+MB each) back to DV for DVD creation this past weekend. Man, I wished I had that dual available. Aside from lack of drive space, it took about 3+ hours per movie.
Nice to hear someone not complaining about performance on the dual G5, seems like alot of ppl want to hit 3Ghz just because its 3Ghz, not because of the performance boost.ffakr said:Odd, I'm not sure why I got this post to the thread mailed to me but it's worth responding to.
This is a question about user experience and personal opinion so take the answer for what it's worth.
A dual G5 will be a drastically different experience to a 1GHz G4. I managed to purchase a dual 2.0 for one of my workers not too long after it was released.
I've been using a 866MHz G4 Quicksilver till this year when I moved to a 1.67GHz Powerbook (I may never go back to a boat anchor). Since I'm so tuned to using slower macs, the Dual G5 is shockingly fast every time I use it. It's pretty much without exception, at some point every time I'm using it, I conciously think 'holy crap this thing is fast'. What's more surprising is, it isn't even that great of a mac anymore. ;-)
For the most part, I'm so happy with my powerbook. Techsupport is so much easier with a powerbook (testing jacks, repairing-backing up-reinstalling machines on site while the users machine is in target disk mode... my powerbook rules.
That said, I was ripping several Divx movies (500+MB each) back to DV for DVD creation this past weekend. Man, I wished I had that dual available. Aside from lack of drive space, it took about 3+ hours per movie.
Im really looking forward to owning a dual G5 this fall. Hopefully even to a better price than now!
I hope this investment will carry me till 2010 (5y).
ffakr said:Odd, I'm not sure why I got this post to the thread mailed to me but it's worth responding to.
This is a question about user experience and personal opinion so take the answer for what it's worth.
A dual G5 will be a drastically different experience to a 1GHz G4. I managed to purchase a dual 2.0 for one of my workers not too long after it was released.
I've been using a 866MHz G4 Quicksilver till this year when I moved to a 1.67GHz Powerbook (I may never go back to a boat anchor). Since I'm so tuned to using slower macs, the Dual G5 is shockingly fast every time I use it. It's pretty much without exception, at some point every time I'm using it, I conciously think 'holy crap this thing is fast'. What's more surprising is, it isn't even that great of a mac anymore. ;-)
For the most part, I'm so happy with my powerbook. Techsupport is so much easier with a powerbook (testing jacks, repairing-backing up-reinstalling machines on site while the users machine is in target disk mode... my powerbook rules.
That said, I was ripping several Divx movies (500+MB each) back to DV for DVD creation this past weekend. Man, I wished I had that dual available. Aside from lack of drive space, it took about 3+ hours per movie.
I must agree. I have a 12" Powerbook 1GHz and a new dual 2.3GHz PMG5. The speed difference is amazing. Sure, surfing the web is the same, but GarageBand is a different story. It doesn't choke and it does the mixdown in less than half the time my G4 struggles to do it (depending on the number of tracks in the tune).
The G5 may not be the best chip out there but it is certainly not the worst - not even close. I'm happy with my purchase.
Yeah, the processor front is very exciting...
Multi-core proc issues are being solved, Cell, DDR3, RAMBUS, PCIe... it's hard for me to rememebr when such a slew of newer technologies were all coming out within a short timeframe.
My feeling is that Apple will be behind the other companies in producing comp's with a dual-core chip. Maily because intel and AMD have been at each others throats in establishing market dominance. And, quite frankly, IBM/Hitachi/Whatever have never really (and smartly) never joined in. And, for what? That select niche of computer users who are obsessed with speed/gaming?
MOST computer users use their comps as tools. Reports, spreadsheets, etc. That's why the bread and butter of companies like Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway are business's. They sell, no, not sell, but LEASE bland computers with a money making service agreement. True, Dell does have dual proc and dual-core PC's out but it's harder for them to compete since at that point most types build their own machines and hand select components. And, as someone stated, other than a graphics/video professional, few people would actually use all that. One again, the only people buying those would be school's or business's that want someone to take care of service for them.
The same can almost be said for Apple. Most people buy their laptops and e/iMac's. Because most people just want a machine to do the afore-mentioned stuff. The desktops are only a small margine. To put any mroe resources into a product that represents a minor segment of their customer base isn't economical.
Plus, have yuo seen the prices of those dual-core intel proc's? Not cheap, be better to wait until the manufacturing process has higher yields.
Multi-core proc issues are being solved, Cell, DDR3, RAMBUS, PCIe... it's hard for me to rememebr when such a slew of newer technologies were all coming out within a short timeframe.
My feeling is that Apple will be behind the other companies in producing comp's with a dual-core chip. Maily because intel and AMD have been at each others throats in establishing market dominance. And, quite frankly, IBM/Hitachi/Whatever have never really (and smartly) never joined in. And, for what? That select niche of computer users who are obsessed with speed/gaming?
MOST computer users use their comps as tools. Reports, spreadsheets, etc. That's why the bread and butter of companies like Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway are business's. They sell, no, not sell, but LEASE bland computers with a money making service agreement. True, Dell does have dual proc and dual-core PC's out but it's harder for them to compete since at that point most types build their own machines and hand select components. And, as someone stated, other than a graphics/video professional, few people would actually use all that. One again, the only people buying those would be school's or business's that want someone to take care of service for them.
The same can almost be said for Apple. Most people buy their laptops and e/iMac's. Because most people just want a machine to do the afore-mentioned stuff. The desktops are only a small margine. To put any mroe resources into a product that represents a minor segment of their customer base isn't economical.
Plus, have yuo seen the prices of those dual-core intel proc's? Not cheap, be better to wait until the manufacturing process has higher yields.
electronbee said:
Why do some people automatically assume that all the initial speed increases and core enhancements are only for gaming. Apple is definately not a gaming computer company and yet in 2003 they released the fastest consumer processor at that time.
Apple is for the creative kind, all the artists musicians seem to prefer Apple products and you are telling me that those multimedia tasks dont require the fastest technology available? Try editing or encoding HD movies even on todays 2.7GHZ Macs (or any high end equivalent from the Wintel side) and you will see that the speed is definately lacking and is not as responsive as you might want it to be considering the top price people pay for it. I know a lot more people who buy high end computers for business/art/music purposes than for gaming, PC gaming is done mostly by kids and kids can't afford to buy $3500 computers, but adults can.
So anyway, where the hell are my Dual dual core Power5 derivatives with multiple independent Altivec2 units attached to them so I can do soem serious video editing????
Hector said:
Only one doc came up for me - an overview of IBM processors dated this spring - and searching within the document only found 970, but no 970MP, but my search my have somehow missed it.
Did you search just on the main page search line or somewhere else?