SiliconAddict said:
Yes. Please. Jobs made that claim. IBM didn't. And the fact of the matter is the reason they didn't hit 3Ghz is because of the trans to the 90nm process. You can bet your CPU that if they had the process down pat in spring we would be on a 3Ghz G5 right now. I'm willing to bet hard cash that IBM was cranking out 3Ghz G5's but the yeilds of stable 3Ghz G5's were so low that they scaled them back to 2.5Ghz.
I'd imagine this is true, along with the other problems we saw with the 2.5's (radiator production problems, etc).
SiliconAddict said:
Yes. The key word of the day? EVENTUALLY. What does E=? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years?
Yes, this is what I see with Intel's 65nm promise: Thank you for telling us your road map, now go back to sucking.
Everyone is headed to dual core and 65nm, including IBM and AMD. Intel's just talking loudly about it because AMD's been outselling them in some markets recently. One of the problems I see is that the market looks at Intel to be the market leader, when we know the Itanic was worthless, IBM got the first 64bit PC CPU, and AMD is still beating the pants off Intel for the race to the 64bit transition.
Intel made a big mistake IMO in overlooking x86-64, and they're paying for it now.
SiliconAddict said:
Nope. Im sorry but Apples the one who has been hosed. The G3 was a strong CPU. So was the G4 in the beginning. But at the end moto unzipped their pants and hosed on them alright. With craptastic micro speedbumps that lagged farther and farther behind the competition. The G5 was and is a breath of fresh air. And as for a short memory. While its never been proven you seem to forget that last falls release of a speedbumped POwerbook was held up for unspecified reasons until after the start of the school season. It was reported on multiple sites that Jobs was foaming at the mouth because of it. Can anyone verify this? Nope because this is Apple after all. But yet again Apple gets bent over for the moto ride. Has Moto had some strong releases? Sure. But lets be real. Moto cant be trusted with their CPU roadmaps.
I agree, don't let those "eats pentiums for lunch" ads (I still have a powerbook poster with that
) fool you, the G3 may have been good in mid-98 but they were basically frozen in time until the G4s, which were great.. until they stopped advancing.
Now we have IBM's G5s and they're advancing at least comparable to the rest of the market (even with their 3ghz shortfall), as well as been a cut above immediately after coming out.