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.
Clearing out G5s?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mercury said:
Yeah, well I'll just walk you through some steps that I was avoiding. First of all when you are doing it my way AKA 833/700=1.19, we are finding that 833 is 119% of 700. This is easy to do it the head, because all we need to do is chop off the 100% to make it a 19% increase. When you take (833-700)/700=.19, we are essentially just doing the minus 100% that I was talking about doing in my head, with that extra addition step. And using the guy's reference (3000-2000)/2000=.5, we can apply my little short-cut 3/2=1.5 (remember that we can take all those little zeros out cause deviding 10/10=1/1 and 1000/100=10/1, technically I could have done it 8.33/7=1.19). We get the same answer, but my way is just a little easier on the calculator when we are finding how much increase 3456627 is to 4885934.....=1.4135 soo 41% increase. By the way, I'm a physicist.
nuckinfutz said:
Ah, another who's fallen into the "typical" trap. Now you need to double that number to arrive at the maximum output of the chip, and you come up with a 970FX 2.0ghz that puts out 49 watts at full-bore operation. By contrast, the 1.5ghz MPC7447A runs 11 watts typical and 22 watts peak performance, which means that the maxium heat of the G4 is lower than the minimal heat of the next cheap. Even if you take the heat for the 1.4ghz 970FX (which would likely be no faster than a 1.5ghz G4), you still arrive at a figure of 24.6 watts at peak, and that doesn't unclude the 700mhz FSB.
No, the 970FX was developed as a way to combat the existing heat in the 970, which was pretty damn sweltering for a PowerPC. The original 130nm part put out 50-51 watts typical, which if extended... Well, you get the point.
The "not so difficult" changes that you're talking about are completely new motherboards, double the chip heat of the available G4, five times the FSB frequency, the newer dual-channel memory architecture, and so on, ad nauseum.
fpnc said:
Ah, lovely... This fits in even more with my position that the 970 and associated hardware are stopgaps and not intended to remain as the pro machines. How about we add on that odd little heatpipe that goes nowhere on the back of the case? Yet another kludge fix, in my opinion, because you might as well route the radiator around to take advantage of a fan.
SyndicateX said:
I think that it would be a mistake not to create a lower-end tower with a single processor and the current features of the G5s. That would allow an easy differentiation between the pro and consumer lines even if there's no change in processor type (970 to P5D - Power5 Derivative). Also, for those who cry and moan over there not being a cheaper G5 with expandability and options, the iMac is the worst of both worlds, since it would hideously limit what Apple could do with the machine while also denying upgradability. A tower is the only compromise that makes any sense, and it's the only path that would allow the supposed Holy Grail that I keep hearing people whine over - a headless "iMac."
Can anyone say HEADLESS.
Sure can: Tower.
The 7455 can run at 35w typical, but the reference you give does not state either the conditions, the clock rate, or anything else that causes it to reach that point. As such, it's more than a little irresponsible to be bandying about that number as if it proves anything, since we've got hard numbers on clock rate and heat in the 970 and 970FX. The P5D, should it make an appearance in the upcoming product cycle, will almost certainly be a pro tower process and not at all make a blip in the consumer market.
Also:
2.0ghz 970FX, 512 MB PC3200 ECC RAM, 80GB SATA, no graphics card or expansion - 130W typical, 170W max, 444BTU/h typical, 580BTU/h max (xServe G5)
2x 2.0ghz 970FX, 1GB PC3200 ECC RAM, 80GB SATA, no graphics card or expansion - 160W typical, 240W max, 546BTU/h typical, 819BTU/h max (xServe G5)
1.6ghz 970, 256MB PC2700, 80GB SATA, SuperDrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra - 120W typical, 420W max, 410BTU/h typical. 1420BTU/h max (PowerMac G5 single)
1.8ghz 970, 512MB PC3200, 1600GB SATA, SuperDrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra - 120W typical, 430W max, 410BTU/h typical. 1466BTU/h max(PowerMac G5 single)
2x 1.33ghz MPC7455, 1GB PC2700 RAM, 60GB PATA, slot-load CD-ROM, no graphics card - 133W typical, 134W max, 453BTU/h typical, 459BTU/h max (xServe G4 final revision)
So, as we can see, even the single 970FX loses to two 7455 processors (which are hotter than the current MPC7447A), especially at maximum wattage consumption and maximum heat output. Load those babies down and watch the temperature rise... Hell, look at the single 1.8 G5, which throws out an ungodly 1466BTU/h, or some 3-4 times the heat output of two 1.33ghz previous-generation G4s. I threw in the dual-processor G5 just to show you what a system with fans that could drown out aircraft engines do with the heat - lose to the G4 all over the place in heat and power draw.
Oh, and those are Apple's numbers, so if anyone has a reason to spin the G5 as being cooler, it's them. No dice.
You will see 975/980 equipped powermacs, you will see G5 equipped (hopeless) headless iMacs, (which will also negate the need for eMacs, and fulfill the desires of all you cube lovers out there wanting a small form factor G5). And I think you will see something totally unexpected from Apple as well.
Dead God, I hope that you're wrong about the iMac. I like having a computer that doesn't have any fan noise, and they're going to need some high-speed blowers to get rid of the excess. If the formfactor is completely redesigned, then it might be possible we'll see a "G5 iMac" that can double as a hairdryer.
In all seriousness, the best path to take here is to build a real consumer tower with the 970 or 970FX, not some absurd bastard child of the iMac that could be used to toast your breakfast in the morning. Well, maybe there is a market for the iToaster...
fpnc said:
HyperTransport bus on the next chipset for AMD will be 1.6ghz on unidirectional dual-channel, just like the G5's current architecture. The VIA K8T800 chipset, which is in fabrication now with multiple suppliers on the PC side, is reaching 1.6ghz easily and in volume.
Interestingly, a search for this technology shows IBM has their own chip that does a 1.6ghz HT fabric. Also, in February, the HyperTransport Consortium announced HT2.0, which runs at 22.4GB/s and 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4ghz.
Here's the thing: all of the Apple promotions run out, displays and memory, a day or two before WWDC.
I think we will see nothing until WWDC accordingly. Yes, I still think Apple will miss the 3 Ghz goal, but they are going to really beef up the other components (buses, etc) and will want to brag about being first to market about those features, yet again.
I think we will see nothing until WWDC accordingly. Yes, I still think Apple will miss the 3 Ghz goal, but they are going to really beef up the other components (buses, etc) and will want to brag about being first to market about those features, yet again.
jared_kipe said:
Um...why are you doing this again? Your method is correct. That's exactly what I did. In my post, I was showing iswimebikeandrun(who is a physicist too, seemingly) what he did wrong. By the way, I'm a Philosopher. You must be pretty advanced to be a Physicist at 19, though.
The problem was that iswimbikeandrun was doing (x-y)/x to derive increases, where x is the new speed, whereas he did (x-y)/y for the 2 to 3 ghz, the proper formula, to arrive at the proper conclusion as Steve Jobs said, a 50% increase.
Please go read the posts, in order. We are all doing the right math.
I went through college at the same time as high school. Saved myself a lot of money... But I'm not through learning, and I can use my EDU discount. So how well does the being a philosopher pay?
jared_kipe said:
Pretty well. I'm going to go to law school next year. Professorships pay pretty well too; so do books. Back to the topic. Your math is fine. You're just re-iterating what I said. I have no idea why you are doing that. So...if you could explain why...
am i missing something here? how does one achieve that? like college and high school at the same time, only way I can think of is taking classes at a college to get credit, but attending high school at the same time (ie concurrent enrollment, or just winter/summer classes), or you skip high school and go to college like Mercury, or AP classes, or...god, i dont know.jared_kipe said:
Really, if you're doing college/high school together, tell me how that goes, I'm really interested.
just on a sidenote, I may not be a physicist, but hell, even a 10 year old could probably tell that Mercury's math was right, and that some people just don't have a clear grasp on some things in this world, just by looking at the last two or three pages of this thread.
link
Well here is a link: http://developer.apple.com/membership/usa.html
This is the entrance page to the US ADC store. It's kind of buried but here are the directions: apple.com -> Developer -> Hardware Purchase Program (under Developer Support) -> United States (or other preferred region) -> Hardware Purchase Program Store (Country).
If you are a student then you can buy a student developer membership for $99 and you get the discount. Another MacRumors member said he/she received the discount with just the free Online membership, although Apple's website says it is not available with the Online memberships. Signing up for the free one might be worth a try.
later,
a.
yopro213 said:
Well here is a link: http://developer.apple.com/membership/usa.html
This is the entrance page to the US ADC store. It's kind of buried but here are the directions: apple.com -> Developer -> Hardware Purchase Program (under Developer Support) -> United States (or other preferred region) -> Hardware Purchase Program Store (Country).
If you are a student then you can buy a student developer membership for $99 and you get the discount. Another MacRumors member said he/she received the discount with just the free Online membership, although Apple's website says it is not available with the Online memberships. Signing up for the free one might be worth a try.
later,
a.
ADC hardware discount is only for premier/select renewal/student ADC memberships or just hardware purchase assets in their account, I dont get how you could get a hardware discount on a Power Mac, unless the 1.6ghz deal is for everyone, regardless of which level of membership, because apparently it doesnt exactly count towards the machines you get using the discounts.el_aarono said:
iswimbikeandrun
macrumors newbie
Physicist as in an undergraduate or do you actually have a PhD? I too am a physicist, I was kinda embarassed b/c I posted hastily. My apologies. I am getting ready to start my graduate degree in High energy theory. what about you? where do you go to school?jared_kipe said:
Well though I quoted you, it wasn't really in a direct response to you. I was simply trying to say how the supposedly differing methods brought the same results. No harm, no foul.
As for the college at the same time as school. I am originally from Colorado, (here in Washington they call it head start, which I think kind of down plays the achievement) there I went to full day of high school and took many night and summer classes. The only reason I went to full day though was because I had horrible luck and didn't draw the pick 6 that let me take this required class before senior year. We called it dual-enrollment, and as such I didn't have to pay practically any tuition, just bought books. Which I didn't do very often, I'd tend to go without books, and either borrow or check out required material.
Edit: No PhD, working on that one. I'm still a physicist at heart though.
As for the college at the same time as school. I am originally from Colorado, (here in Washington they call it head start, which I think kind of down plays the achievement) there I went to full day of high school and took many night and summer classes. The only reason I went to full day though was because I had horrible luck and didn't draw the pick 6 that let me take this required class before senior year. We called it dual-enrollment, and as such I didn't have to pay practically any tuition, just bought books. Which I didn't do very often, I'd tend to go without books, and either borrow or check out required material.
Edit: No PhD, working on that one. I'm still a physicist at heart though.
jared_kipe said:
The problem is that iswimbikeandrun's method and ours(yours and mine are really the same) didn't bring the same results. His were wrong(not trying to pick at you there iswimbike, just trying to get the facts straight) except for the 2-3 ghz one. Any formulae that can be converted into the other (where they will always convert exactly the same) are thus equivalent, by identity of indiscernibles.
Heh, alright. Cool, yeah thats what i meant by concurrent enrollment...sucks that my high school wont let us do that.jared_kipe said:
aswitcher said:
Hmm, but what if the completely revamp the product line? Turn it into more of a digital hub, have a removeable screen, update the guts big time - but make it $2500? They turn the eMac into the only consumer level machine, the PowerMacs stay at the pro level and the iMacs become mid-level machines? Just crazy speculation...
aswitcher said:
Sounds pretty good to me...
aswitcher said:Better home TV recording support with iMovie and iDVD...a Mac digitial SD/HD TV tuner!
Sounds like a good segway into the 4G Video iPods that can play your own recordings!
jared_kipe said:
<applause> What do you want, a cookie? Physicists aren't the only people who can do math, I hope you realize...
No, but we physicists do love our math. But we do like it sugar coated, not like math majors....
~Shard~ said:Kay, my head hurts after trying to follow this whole mess...
What I don't get reading through this whole mess is how anyone in their right mind thought that an increase from 700 to 833 was an increase of 5%.
ibookin' said:
Subtract seven from eight and you get one (as from 8XX minus 7XX), subtract this one from a three to get two (as in 83X minus X1X), and then add the two to a three to get five (as in 2 plus XX3). That gives five as in 5%.
Now, please, can we stop this nearly endless talk about whose math is correct or not. IMO, enough said already.
jared_kipe said:
The things you guys do to math aren't nearly as heinous as what engineers do. "And, we don't like this term, so we set it to zero. Now, the DiffEQ is in canonical form, so the answer is clearly i/2." :shudder: