Amazon Listing for Dual 2.7 Ghz PowerMac

[joeboy_45101]

The most insulting thing I've heard all day (to continue the style).

AMD currently DOESN'T make PPC processors (to my knowledge). Also, they'd be required to license PPC (would IBM/Motorola/FreeScale allow competition?) You're imagining possible cases here, not relying on actual facts!

Let's see, I can imagine things too: I could also argue with you that you're also ignorant because Apple COULD release OS X for x86, Microsoft COULD buy Apple and shut them down (monopoly-shielding issues aside), FreeScale COULD make x86 processors, Sony COULD dump Microsoft and make a partnership with Apple. And the human race COULD live in peace and harmony (not gonna happen any time soon).

However, I do agree on your "IBM should innovates and the others do the actual production" idea. But those "others" are currently Motorola/FreeScale.
Unless there's other PPC manufacturers I'm not aware of.

Sorry if it came off as insulting, but you're bit about how a switch to AMD designed/manufactured chips would be a switch to the x86 platform is absolutely nutty. Quoting you, "You're imagining possible cases here, not relying on actual facts!" Am I? All I suggested was that there are no known reasons why AMD is incapable of producing a PowerPC chip.

I think that IBM, and don't get me wrong IBM I like you and all, doesn't really have time to care about Apple. Apple's PowerMac's and iMac's don't really pose a huge marketshare for IBM, so keeping the chips in these machines on the cutting edge is not a big business priority for them.

Also, I think this is, in big part, Apple's fault. They have the most elegant and well designed machines on the planet, but when was the last time you saw a commercial for the PowerMac G5 or the iMac G5. The only one I can remember is the one where the guy gets blown out of his house. I'd even wager money to say that the United State's Congress was more productive last year than Apple's Marketing Department. It is a stone miracle that Apple can even sell these machines given the fact that they don't do any advertising whatsoever. It seems to me that not even Apple is very excited about their products anymore! Why aren't there commercials running day and night about the coming of Mac OS 10.4? Why weren't there any commercials proclaiming the amazing engineering feat that is the Mac Mini?

 

[840quadra]

Buss speed plays a BIG part in how fast a CPU can do it's work. The buss speed increase on the 2.7 will help the new Top G5 do more with what it has.

Someone has touched on this in this thread already, but the point needs to be brought up again.

 

[anastasis]

I still wish Apple would give me the option to buy a singe 2.7GHz Powermac.... pretty silly to only have dual configurations.

 

[topgunn]

Why weren't there any commercials proclaiming the amazing engineering feat that is the Mac Mini?

What amazing engineering feat is that?

 

[Mac-Xpert]

Yes I do realize that. However, 1) HE says Opteron. And 2) those Athlons can't work in dual configurations. So they're basically "finally" catching up with Apple's dual processors.

Only if Apple/IBM would introduce the dual core G5 (970MP) around the same time, they would be equal. It's not just about the clock speed being *only* 2.7 Ghz but more the lack of dual cores. That's why they are behind.

The fact that the Athlons can't be used in dual CPU configurations doesn't matter much, since people that really need that power could buy the Opteron instead.

It's a matter of price and choice that Apple / IBM seem unable to match for now.

 

[amac4me]

Yes Yes ... this is true

Buss speed plays a BIG part in how fast a CPU can do it's work. The buss speed increase on the 2.7 will help the new Top G5 do more with what it has.

Someone has touched on this in this thread already, but the point needs to be brought up again.

This is SO true, I wish people would realize this!

 

[Jonx]

does it still has liquid cooling ?

 

[ZildjianKX]

I said it before but I think it needs repeating. While past performance is no indicator of future events, Apple has never released a product only to turn around TWO months later and release a better version of that product. The chances of a better, dual-core G5 being released in June is next to nothing (notice I didn't say completely nothing).
Use some logic.
From the 2.0s to the 2.5s, Apple waited a whole year. Do you not think people would wait the full year again if Apple could squeeze out the dual core in June? People sure would wait - as if they had any choice.
I see NO common sense in the arguement that Powermacs will be single core tomorrow and dual core in June. It's possible but not probable.

Apple killed off the Single Processor 1.8 GHz G5 about 2.5 months after it started shipping for the dual processor model... I'm still bitter.

 

[swissmann]

I wonder if Amazon gets in trouble for this. I expect that Apple shows the systems on their site by 9:00 Pacific Time. As I recall these match the rumors, which must be disappointing to so many people. IBM needs a breakthrough again like they did with the original G5. No way I'm buying one of these. I also doubt that Apple will update the PMs again until next January - September just seems too soon. Please Apple be ahead of the game. You need a blue laser something before the end of this year and a processor that can handle HD stuff well.

 

[deputy_doofy]

Buss speed plays a BIG part in how fast a CPU can do it's work. The buss speed increase on the 2.7 will help the new Top G5 do more with what it has.

Someone has touched on this in this thread already, but the point needs to be brought up again.

Yep.
200MHz per processor and 100MHz per bus.

Unlike the G4's that will probably still be 167MHz by the time they make it to 2GHz (in 2009), the G5s bus increases with each processor increase (so far). That's kind of nice.

 

[Mav451]

Guys, to put this into perspective, I did a bit of research. The following is the speed increase of various processors over about the past 2 years.

G5 GHz:
2.0-2.7 (35% increase) in 22 months

Pentium-M GHz:
1.6-2.1 (31% increase) in 25 months

Pentium-4 GHz:
3.1-3.8 (23% increase) in 29 months

Athlon XP GHz:
1.8-2.4 (33% increase) in 27 months

Great post. Think I'll repeat it by quoting it.

You cannot simply compare Ghz like that. Things like latencies, cache size, bus size, # of pipelines, etc. are different. P-M, for example, absolutely flies when you overclock the FSB b/c it is like an Athlon XP (in having a restrictively small bus). Also, you may claim that Athlon (XP or 64) haven't gone much above 2.4GHz, but compare a OCed CPU like mine to a stock 3800+ (2.4Ghz), and I know mine can't even come close to a A64-core.

 

[Frobozz]

It will happen. maybe not this time around, but it will. Remember the iMac G5? It was a HUGE step from the iMac G4. Same way with the PowerMac G5 from the G4.

Yeah I agree. I'm basically happy with the machine I bought because I feel I hit it in the sweet spot. Low price, high performance, high tech (at the time.) Here's to hoping the 2.7's are dual core!

 

[cubedco]

while i'm not much for devouring rumors, i've been anxiously awaiting the 'next' PowerMac.

the only 'marketing rumor' assumption i've contrived in relation to this update is as follows:

1) playing off Tiger success, they're releasing minor powermac updates to rid surplus chips before announcing a dual-core system (which would in theory, steal sales).

2) They won't release a single-core dual 3.0 gHz G5 b/c...

3) IF they decide to release dualcore dual G5 PowerMacs @ WDDC, (which i doubt it based on a previous page that sited programming issues w/ Power5 chip) it would probably be at the 3.0 range and would compete with their existing update to the naive consumer.

Remember, they did offer a sub-PowerMac system (single chip G5) VERY shortly after announcing the iMac that appeased everyone who wanted a slight step higher. Maybe they'll do it again for those wanting the next step in power-computing.

Who knows... i'm still flippin the coin whether or not i should order a new powermac or hold off a month and see what WDDC does.

im sad, it's a love/hate relationship.

 

[Skull Leader]

Then people will argue, "Why didn't they just use the liquid cooling and get it to run at 3 ghz?"

Maybe they realized just how difficult and expensive it was to produce the liquid cooled models (they never really could keep up with demand for them). We shall see if the new top end model has liquid cooling or not to test this theory. If the new 2.7GHz PowerMacs are air cooled I think that is real progress towards hitting 3.0GHz for the next major update....(although maybe they'll need an intercooled turbocharger for that too. )

Skull Leader
www.skullsquadron.com

 

[calyxman]

Yes I do realize that. However, 1) HE says Opteron. And 2) those Athlons can't work in dual configurations. So they're basically "finally" catching up with Apple's dual processors.

Uhh, no I think you have it backwards. If anyone has any catching up to do it's Apple. Dual processors have been existent on the x86 platform for a while too.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

Buss speed plays a BIG part in how fast a CPU can do it's work. The buss speed increase on the 2.7 will help the new Top G5 do more with what it has.

Someone has touched on this in this thread already, but the point needs to be brought up again.

Not really. The ratio 1:2 with the CPU clock speed remains the same, so the difference in clock speed between the 2.5 Ghz and the 2.7 Ghz (8%) is the maximum achievable speed gain.

And that's not a lot...

 

[mandis]

See? That's just one small example of what I mean of fantasy world.

First, ONE of those Opteron dual-core processors cost $1,400 APIECE. Competitive? In it's market, yes, but against Apple?... Not really.

MATE DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH A DUAL-CORE OPTERON COSTS?? OR ARE YOU HAVING HALLUCINATIONS??

UNLESS THEY ARE RELEASED HOW CAN YOU EVEN PRETEND TO KNOW HOW MUCH THEY COST??????

AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION A TOP OF THE LINE Opteron 250 2.4GHz S940 1MB Box COSTS £477.63 in the UK!!!!

 

[Frobozz]

You cannot simply compare Ghz like that. Things like latencies, cache size, bus size, # of pipelines, etc. are different. P-M, for example, absolutely flies when you overclock the FSB b/c it is like an Athlon XP (in having a restrictively small bus). Also, you may claim that Athlon (XP or 64) haven't gone much above 2.4GHz, but compare a OCed CPU like mine to a stock 3800+ (2.4Ghz), and I know mine can't even come close to a A64-core.

You make an excellent point. The 2.0 to 2.5 had a half-yeild. There was a 25% GHz increase but, on average, only a 16% speed boost. So, we'd really need to see real world performance.

Dual core. That's what we need.

 

[SonComet]

Guys, to put this into perspective, I did a bit of research. The following is the speed increase of various processors over about the past 2 years.

G5 GHz:
2.0-2.7 (35% increase) in 22 months

Pentium-M GHz:
1.6-2.1 (31% increase) in 25 months

Pentium-4 GHz:
3.1-3.8 (23% increase) in 29 months

Athlon XP GHz:
1.8-2.4 (33% increase) in 27 months

Athlon 64s have gone from a launch at 2.0 to 2.6, the 1.8 was released after the 2.0. And you can't really compare the speed of a water cooled cpu to that of a cpu that has to rely on a relatively bad aur cooler to run. If an athlon 64 was watered cooled it could easily run faster than the G5 does (if that's still being watercooled, if not then I take that back). But just remember dual core 2.4ghz Athlon 64s are going to be out in the fall, and a 2.8ghz model that is air-cooled will be joining the line up pretty soon. Oh and the P4 C models started with a max of 3.0 not 3.1. 3.066 (I am assuming this is what you call the 3.1) was a B model and so it doesn't quite fit in your chart. The C then only scaled to 3.4, then the E went to 3.8, and now the pentium D is at 3.2. I wonder what the percentage is on the P4 line as a whole, I think it started at 1.4 or 1.6 and then finished at 3.8 (with a number of changes along the way).

 

[Mac-Xpert]

MATE DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH A DUAL-CORE OPTERON COSTS?? OR ARE YOU HAVING HALLUCINATIONS??

UNLESS THEY ARE RELEASED HOW CAN YOU EVEN PRETEND TO KNOW HOW MUCH THEY COST??????

AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION A TOP OF THE LINE Opteron 250 2.4GHz S940 1MB Box COSTS £477.63 in the UK!!!!

Is there something wrong with your CAPS

 

[AidenShaw]

Warning: FSB MHz Myth Resurfaces

Buss speed plays a BIG part in how fast a CPU can do it's work. The buss speed increase on the 2.7 will help the new Top G5 do more with what it has.

Actually, the faster bus won't help much at all - unless the RAM speeds up.

When your memory DIMMs are still clocking at 400 MHz, adding 100 MHz to the FSB isn't going to speed up your memory accesses.

Since the specs aren't saying "DDR2 667MHz", it's probably a safe bet that the memory system hasn't been upgraded.

 

[deputy_doofy]

Well, despite all this arguing, I wish they would just release the crappy 2.7 machine so I can buy it already. WTF? Why must I wait another day (if the rumor sites are correct)?

 

[Mav451]

You make an excellent point. The 2.0 to 2.5 had a half-yeild. There was a 25% GHz increase but, on average, only a 16% speed boost. So, we'd really need to see real world performance.

Dual core. That's what we need.

Yup. If there is one thing to look at, take a benchmark and put the 2.0, 2.5 and now the new 2.7 in there. I seriously doubt the FSB increase is going to help much, when the corresponding overall clock frequency increase just ISN'T there. I believe we call this diminishing returns...you guys need a new core

(and by diminishing, for every new CPU release, you have to have a MUCH bigger %-wise, increase in clock speed to see a proportionally large increase in performance.)

 

[tromboneaholic]

Guys, to put this into perspective, I did a bit of research. The following is the speed increase of various processors over about the past 2 years.

G5 GHz:
2.0-2.7 (35% increase) in 22 months

Pentium-M GHz:
1.6-2.1 (31% increase) in 25 months

Pentium-4 GHz:
3.1-3.8 (23% increase) in 29 months

Athlon XP GHz:
1.8-2.4 (33% increase) in 27 months

You really need to factor in the price point over the same time period to make a real comparison.

Which is the point that is ignored by people who say don't complain.

The problem is after 1 year, the cost to apple is much less to build these machines. They should be priced:

2.0 = $1500
2.3 = $2000
2.7 = $2500

 

[Freg3000]

The problem isn't the clock speed (well, the meager speedbump is a problem, but not the one I am angry about). Fine we don't have 3GHz, I couldn't care less, it's only an irrelevant numbers game.

What I am very angry about is that Apple doesn't do anything else to pad the lackluster upgrade in CPU speed. The last PowerBook G4 revision saw a patry speedbump too, but Apple decided to add an assortment of other features to them, including the scroll trackpad, Sudden Motion Sensor, Bluetooth 2.0, default 512 MB of RAM, support for the 30" monitor, etc. All of these things are not tied to the CPU speed, so Apple was able to soften the dissapointing blow with some extra goodies.

They could be doing the same thing here, but it doesn't look like it. PCI-E? Nope. High end graphics cards as standard? Highly doubtful. A "Pro" level of memory, say 1GB? Nope.

All they seem prepared to do is uncripple their already shipping DVD burner and make it into a DL burner, go from the utter ridiculous 256 MB of RAM to 512 MB, and eek out a digustingly small boost in CPU speed, all while maintaining the same prices?

Shame on you Apple for not even trying.