Future of the PPC? (970, 980, 990, 9900)

[hvfsl]

With all these comments about typing on Macs, it seems most people only use their Macs for Office. I use my PC for Office and my Mac for creative stuff like PhotoShop. I thought that was the whole point of getting a Mac, doing creative stuff on it.

Anyway I can't wait for the new 20Ghz chips, I will be able to encode DVDs in realtime (although it will be C3D by then) and play games with better graphics than The Matrix Reloaded or Star Wars. Another tec I am really looking forward to is the special wallpaper that can act as a computer screen, so I can change the colour depending on my mood. It is based on the tec for the new flat screens (I think its called OLED).

 

[jouster]

As Soggywulf notes, there are many applications for which the 20 - 25 Ghz range would be necessary - real time rendering in games, for example.

Software companies will ALWAYS come up with apps that need more power to run. Of course, whether we need them to make our computing experience better or not is open to debate, but that doesn't matter - they WILL be developed.

Also, don't forget that the economic models on which hardware manufacturers base their developments depend on continuous speed and memory gains. People _must_ upgrade continually for the hardware companies to survive.

Finally, don't rule out the (probable) development of some sort of previously inconceivable application for so much computing power. These speeds will happen. Whether they happen in this article's timeframe is open to debate, but they _will_ happen.

 

[cooter]

the future is bright

i dont know how true this time line is, but i have read independent stories on cnn etc about the future of cpu's and they predicted that PCs (probably meaning Intel etc) would be in 10 ghz ranged around 2006-2007. and that by 2015 or so, we will have weather forecasts that can forecasts weather based on models accurate to 2sq feet and up to 30 days in advance. the weather guy in story said that would be a "holy grail" of forecasting.

things like simple AI i imagine will be more possible, a pc which knows it users mood etc thru face recognition or voice analysis. i can see games like warcraft having all the grunts have thier own little AI's like WETA's Massive.

while this is all good, i think this is bad for computer industry on the back-end, because honestly, most people dont even need a 1 ghz computer. a 5 ghz pc/mac could very well be the last computer you ever need to buy.

 

[rickmoen]

Future of the PPC? (970, 980, 990, 9900)

I wonder if Motorola will be up to 2 Ghz by then?

 

[BigJayhawk]

Re: the future is bright

Originally posted by cooter
a 5 ghz pc/mac could very well be the last computer you ever need to buy.

OK, Bill Gates. (Too bad you don't have the money, too. Right?)

 

[Malic]

Re: 25 GHz?

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
Not to be rude, but what does someone need 25 Ghz for?

Simple: Games. Games always eat the whole machine up. I'm sure Carmack will come up with something that test a 20Ghz processor to it's limits.

 

[jouster]

Re: Future of the PPC? (970, 980, 990, 9900)

Originally posted by rickmoen
I wonder if Motorola will be up to 2 Ghz by then?

Yeah, we'll have a G8 at 20 Ghz with a 10 Ghz bus and multi Terabyte drives........and we'll STILL need a 56k modem for faxes!!

 

[soggywulf]

Re: the future is bright

Originally posted by cooter
while this is all good, i think this is bad for computer industry on the back-end, because honestly, most people dont even need a 1 ghz computer. a 5 ghz pc/mac could very well be the last computer you ever need to buy.

This same statement could have been made at any point in the history of the PC. Substituting smaller numbers, of course.

 

[Frobozz]

Re: 25 GHz?

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
Not to be rude, but what does someone need 25 Ghz for? Honestly, that is just insane, especially if they are dual processors.

Answer: anything that requires massive amounts of math. Some possibilites:

-- Calculation of complex mathematical systems, including accurate physics.
-- Complex artificial intelligence. You'd probably need at least a hundred 25 Ghz 9900's to equal the computational power of a human brain: it's not just about computing an answer you're given, it's figuring out the question that's tough.
-- 3D rendering could be done in realtime with caustics, raytracing, etc.
-- Video composition.

It's all about being able to scale up the number of accurate mathematical processes.

 

[Macmaniac]

I want one already! Whats nice about IBM is that they are constantly updating their chips in speeds that our PC brethern enjoy. So we will be able to catch up and surpass the WinTel world!
I can't wait to play Warcraft 4 and 5 one these machines

 

[rjwill246]

Re: Re: the future is bright

Originally posted by soggywulf
This same statement could have been made at any point in the history of the PC. Substituting smaller numbers, of course.

And that is true of everything. Now, if only the software didn't suffer the inevitable bloat as well. Imagine the speed boost we would really get if efficiency came back into software writing. Machine.... Assembler...

Holographic images that don't look like see-through glass, communicating using AI and full speech recogntion with no delays in responses - fabulous if we could get back to efficient programming.

 

[jouster]

>>> And that is true of everything. Now, if only the software didn't suffer the inevitable bloat as well. Imagine the speed boost we would really get if efficiency came back into software writing. Machine.... Assembler...

Holographic images that don't look like see-through glass, communicating using AI and full speech recogntion with no delays in responses - fabulous if we could get back to efficient programming.


Hmmm....agreed, but don't hold your breath. Coding is only going to reach higher levels of abstraction to make it easier....think Xcode. The days of hand coding and assembly language are in the past and receding fast (hey, I'm a poet!). Bloat is here to stay unfortunatley, but if some of the awesome apps being predicted in this thread come to pass, so what? Also, if the processor can handle it, again so what?

 

[Pete_Hoover]

I am getting a new computer anywhere from august 2004-January 2005. Maybe I can get a rev. A 980 right when they come out. Along with those new rumored aluminum displays, that would be a pretty sweet setup.

 

[jouster]

Pete, I'm looking at the same time frame....see you in the store!

Though part of me is tempted to see how long my (modest) computing needs can be fulfilled by my current setup (PB G3 320 20), the other part is rapidly becoming a techno ho!

Edit: Holy status upgrade! I just became a member......nearly 18 months after I registered!

 

[MacFan25]

I wonder what speeds Intel and AMD will be running at if IBM hits 25Ghz. By that time, we will probably be loading our computers up with 200GB of RAM, too.

 

[rog]

Apple is clearly not interested in increasing market share. They need to get the G5 in consumer machines imemdiately. They cost less apparently than the G4s, so why not? High end P4s and Athlons can be found in consumer level PCs for dirt cheap. 2 years ago the iMac had a 700 MHz G3. Not it's up to a whopping 1 GHZ, albeit with a crippled no L3 cache G4. A year to get a G5 is too long. What Apple needs to do is get low GHz G5s in the iMac, and put duals in all the towers. The entry price for a G5 is $1999 (although they can be had for $1799 with combo drive, the media isn't reporting this. Apple has serious marketing problems. A $1299 iMac should be able to keep up with a $799 PC. Even with a 1.4GHz G5, I am not sure that would be the case. With a processor half as fast, like they are now, the iMac, iBooks, and even PowerBooks are overprice, underpowered jokes. At least they look nice.

 

[jouster]

Well, this is because Apple sees them as consumer machines. The thinking is that if they run WP, browsers and the iApps efficiently then they are filling their market niche.

Also, there may currently be yield issues with the G5.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
Finally, don't think of 25GHz in terms of doing the same thing faster. Think of it in terms of shorter development cycles for new software. Assembly coding is quickly going the way of Latin. Look at how quickly amateur coders are putting out Cocoa apps. If you have more cycles to burn, you can focus less on optimizing and more on putting apps together quickly with more reusable code.

Coding in assembly is going the way of Latin. Being able to read assembly however is still the hallmark of a good programmer on his platform. There will always be a need to optimize your code because people will always expect things to be faster. So, you can calculate pi to 10 million digits in 2 seconds? Why couldn't you do it in 1 second while decrypting a 10 GB file? Sure, it's great to be able to put an app together without writing more than a handful of code - but if you can do it so can thousands of others and your app really isn't all that distinctive in that sense then is it? A distinctive app requires a programmer to take full advantage of all of the tools available to him or her - including optimizing.

 

[rog]

Re: 25 GHz?

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
Not to be rude, but what does someone need 25 Ghz for? Honestly, that is just insane, especially if they are dual processors. I know people making music or animation or whatever would like them, but for your average Joe, do we really need that much?

Apparently 25 GHz is needed to be able to resize a window in OSX as fast as my 25 MHz first mac could do it in OS 7.1 (an LC3). The GUI in OSX has essentially 10% of the performance of OS9. Such as with scrolling or the let 1000 windows bloom benchmark. So, until there is a 12.5 GHz mac running OSX, a 1.25GHz mac running 9 will still feel more snappy. Very sad.

 

[Freg3000]

Re: Re: Future of the PPC? (970, 980, 990, 9900)

Originally posted by jouster
Yeah, we'll have a G8 at 20 Ghz with a 10 Ghz bus and multi Terabyte drives........and we'll STILL need a 56k modem for faxes!!

And PCs will STILL have Serial and Parallel ports. What is worse?

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: 25 GHz?

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
Not to be rude, but what does someone need 25 Ghz for?

By 2005, you're going to be shooting your home movies in uncompressed high definition video and editing them to HD-DVD in real time.

Current systems can barely keep up with DV video. We have a long way to go yet before we can talk about how nobody needs more oomph.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: Re: Bill Gates

Originally posted by daRAT
Ahh yes he did, do a web search for that phrase. All the famous quote sites list him as the author.

Oh, well then, it must be true.

 

[Jeff Harrell]

Re: Re: 25 GHz?

Originally posted by Frobozz
-- Complex artificial intelligence. You'd probably need at least a hundred 25 Ghz 9900's to equal the computational power of a human brain.

AI is not a computationally bound problem. It's not like we have AI systems out there right now that can do the job but are too slow. AI is a theoretically bound problem: we don't even know if it's possible yet, much less if it's possible with existing technology, much less whether existing technology is fast enough.

 

[Rincewind42]

A little perspective.

Originally posted by rog
Apparently 25 GHz is needed to be able to resize a window in OSX as fast as my 25 MHz first mac could do it in OS 7.1 (an LC3). The GUI in OSX has essentially 10% of the performance of OS9. Such as with scrolling or the let 1000 windows bloom benchmark. So, until there is a 12.5 GHz mac running OSX, a 1.25GHz mac running 9 will still feel more snappy. Very sad.

When System 7 came out people were complaining about how much slower it was than System 6. Never mind that it did things that System 6 could/would never do. So Mac OS X is slower than Mac OS 9 for a few things - so what. It can do things that Mac OS 9 will never do.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by rog
Apple is clearly not interested in increasing market share. They need to get the G5 in consumer machines imemdiately. They cost less apparently than the G4s, so why not? ... A year to get a G5 is too long

Apple is intensly interested in increasing market share. But that doesn't necessarily equate into G5 iMacs in less than a year. With the G5 in the PowerMacs Apple can now put out 1.4 Ghz iMacs (although I doubt that will be soon). Yes it would be nicer if they were G5s now - but looking at the engineering that went into the PowerMac G5 I can probably tell you right now that it will take a year to get them into the iMac form factor without them sounding like a Windtunnel G4. I think it has very little to do with cost (which no one actually knows at this point) and just simple engineering issues.

Originally posted by jouster
Also, there may currently be yield issues with the G5.

I don't know for certain, but I doubt there are yield issues. The PowerMac G5s at WWDC were preproduction models - not a one off the production line. It seems that Apple pretty much said 'Is the design done? Ok, we'll announce it'. And that is why they won't ship till August (or early September). They have to have enough machines to fill the market place too.