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.
IBM Preps for Apple Announcements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Consumers will probably claim that 64-bit is unnecessary and that megahertz is still the most important measure of computer speed. Many people might assume that since 64-bit is supposed to be better, the megahertz rating should also increase. Getting people past this misconception is difficult for Intel's competitors.
I love this quote!!!! and wacko's reply was as articulate as his thought processes. What is it with these numbnuts who equate the cardinal number as THE reality in chip performance? Of course, they will choke when the 970 or 980 actually hits 4 Gigs... close to the self destruct point for the pentium... and I am told, on the highest authority, that at that point it becomes a diathermic prostate ablater!
Don't be concerned, my thinking right now is that the front side bus specs might be for hypertransport maybe/maybe not. In any event it is most likly that apple is making really good use of the dual channel nature of the 970.
When it comes down to it though, I'm going to put my money on the IBM guys for having the most interesting seminars at the conference. In one swoop they should clear up all of our confusion. If not, hopefuly they will have more info on their web site after the show. The reality is that there are anumber of possibilities on how this is handled, they could even have a supplier lined up with special ($$$$) memory just for this beast.
Dave
When it comes down to it though, I'm going to put my money on the IBM guys for having the most interesting seminars at the conference. In one swoop they should clear up all of our confusion. If not, hopefuly they will have more info on their web site after the show. The reality is that there are anumber of possibilities on how this is handled, they could even have a supplier lined up with special ($$$$) memory just for this beast.
Dave
Jeeze, no freaking kidding, do people just read a thread until they find a mistake and immediately reply to it no matter how old it is? I'm seeing replies an hour and a half after the first correction.
That's spam, people. Way lame.
[Note: regards the SATA article date mistake]
Re: A simple question
You just proved it to yourselves that no one would buy the old system and they would all pre-order the new-just annouced system. I don't think that Apple or any other company would take your money when you pre-order before they actually ship the product. If it was just a speed bump the sale of the old system wouldn't be hurt because useually the price go down, but with the new processor and new architecture, noone would buy the old system.
Furthermore, if by misfortune for Apple there are some manufacturing clitchs and they could not deliver as promises what a bad rap they would get...ie à la PB 17"
You just proved it to yourselves that no one would buy the old system and they would all pre-order the new-just annouced system. I don't think that Apple or any other company would take your money when you pre-order before they actually ship the product. If it was just a speed bump the sale of the old system wouldn't be hurt because useually the price go down, but with the new processor and new architecture, noone would buy the old system.
Furthermore, if by misfortune for Apple there are some manufacturing clitchs and they could not deliver as promises what a bad rap they would get...ie à la PB 17"
Why is this to good to be true? It barely represents catching up with the PC world. The best thing to come if the post is real is the 970, but the rest of the machine is just PC hardware that has been around for awhile now.
As far as nothing left to go into this unit - well let me tell you this is not what I would call pushing the envelope. Pushing the envelope would involve a high speed graphics adapter connected to open transport, screw that AGP standard. Pushing the envelope would have dual 970 in the 17" laptop. Pushing the envelope would mean RAID hardware on all desktops. Pushing the envelope would mean access to half the address range of the 970 for real ram.
I could go on and on, but to be honest this really looks like a machine for peopel who need better CPU performance now. Besides the 64 bit issue we aren't breaking alot of ground with the specs I saw.
Dave
As far as nothing left to go into this unit - well let me tell you this is not what I would call pushing the envelope. Pushing the envelope would involve a high speed graphics adapter connected to open transport, screw that AGP standard. Pushing the envelope would have dual 970 in the 17" laptop. Pushing the envelope would mean RAID hardware on all desktops. Pushing the envelope would mean access to half the address range of the 970 for real ram.
I could go on and on, but to be honest this really looks like a machine for peopel who need better CPU performance now. Besides the 64 bit issue we aren't breaking alot of ground with the specs I saw.
Dave
I've gotta agree here. Remember when Sega used 16 bit vs. 8 bit in advertising for the Genesis? Video Game hardware manufacturers have long touted bits instead of MHz, often with much success. At what speed does the PS2 Emotion Engine run? It doesn't matter because the PS2 is a 128 bit machine and the original PlayStation is just 32. How many have they sold now? Forget MHz and start talking bits. That's a language that the average consumer can understand.
P.S. - Yes, I know we're talking about graphics on these machines, but the point is still the same. ATI and nVidia advertise the same way.
Then why Dual 1.4 and Single 1 GHz G4s? Sorry, but anyone who calls the current G4s overclocked, obviously doesn't know the meaning of the term. There are so many things wrong with this, and it's already been discussed to death, so I won't start flaming. But the 1.25, 1.33, and 1.4s are NOT overclocked. Besides, how do you explain the upgrade cards that are up to 1.4 GHz and can be OC'ed to 1.467+? They are rated to run at the speeds the run.
And by this logic, 1.6 GHz 970s would be duals, since they would have a higher yield, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Anyway, back on topic, I wonder when IBMs 970 Server will be ready. Seems they would have a better reason to be upping the clock speed if they use the chip themselves. Especially if they become popular. Once the R&D part is paid for, the chips (and chipsets) should be really cheap and really fast.
But no, even if you could install OS X on an IBM 970 PC, you wouldn't want to because they'll probably be expensive. It would be cheaper and easier to buy a Mac.
Reuters' article posted at Forbes and other news websites:
Article
Wolf also noted that the new 970 chips will run at 1.4 gigahertz, or billion cycles per second, to 1.8 gigahertz, compared with Intel's Pentium 4 chips that run at more than 3.0 gigahertz.
"However, the 970 could reach a 2.5 gigahertz speed by mid-2004 and 4.0 to 5.0 gigahertz speeds by 2005," Wolf wrote.
Article
Wolf also noted that the new 970 chips will run at 1.4 gigahertz, or billion cycles per second, to 1.8 gigahertz, compared with Intel's Pentium 4 chips that run at more than 3.0 gigahertz.
"However, the 970 could reach a 2.5 gigahertz speed by mid-2004 and 4.0 to 5.0 gigahertz speeds by 2005," Wolf wrote.
Yeah, cuz most Wintels come with Gb ethernet, Serial ATA, DVD-R drives, AGP 8x, PCI-X, built-in wireless. Maybe the high end ones. Not even that sometimes. What about FW800, 1 GHz FSBs, 8GB DDR-Ram, etc. Maybe this doesn't impress you, but it does me. Sure, some of this stuff (most of this stuff) doesn't provide much more in real world performance over what we have now, but it's still something.
I was one of many to complain about the lack of options, and price vs. performance before. No longer. If this is true, we should be very happy "just to be on par". Par's pretty good right now.
Besides, the 970 alone is worth it. This could be a VERY nice CPU.
...and...
I agree with unreg. That is one reason why I find the "leaked" specs very suspect. If Apple ships any of these configurations either at or immediately after WWDC then they arguably could be the most advanced PCs on the market. Add to that Firewire 800 and built-in support for both Bluetooth and 802.11g and you've got a computer that is second to none. The only area where they might have competition is in raw CPU performance, but a dual PPC970 at 2GHz would __easily__ outperform any single-processor Pentium. So, if these are really marketed and sold as "Personal Computers" they really could be the "world's fastest."
Of course, if you configured a dual Intel Xeon or dual AMD Opteron then the G5 performance starts to look a little less exciting.
NO NO NO!!!
They make the 7455 A and B version specifically for a higher voltage to be used in desktops for Apple and for upgrade card vendors. The chips are RATED at 1250, 1333, 1400 etc... Here's proof:
NO NO NO NO!! for the millionth time, apple is NOT using overclocked G4s. Motorola simply chooses not to market the G4 as a desktop processor, simply quoting the 1GHz max speed for EMBEDDED use.
They make the 7455 A and B version specifically for a higher voltage to be used in desktops for Apple and for upgrade card vendors. The chips are RATED at 1250, 1333, 1400 etc... Here's proof:
Yes, that's true. I can understand adding optical outputs, because a reasonable number of users could make use of that feature (for connection to a multi-channel receiver). However, enabling optical audio input with support for recording might cause some concern at the RIAA and other media providers. Would Apple really take any risk at upsetting these organizations? Remember the "Rip and Burn" controversy?
In any case, it could turn out to be a non-issue, because even if they've added optical ports it may be that Apple will not support them in the initial software release. And it could be years (if ever) before the inputs ports are useful "right out of the box."
Ah but the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 has proven essentially superfluous when it comes to home stereo components. AHRA applies only to "home audio recorders" with digital audio connectors that are capable of real time audio recording. The vast majority of stereo components that do contain a digital audio in connection do not have the capability of recording audio and so are exempt, i.e amplifiers. Devices that have digital connections, but do not copy in real time, i.e. mp3 players, are not effected per the 1998 RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia case.
What is covered by AHRA are the DAT, MiniDisc, and DCC type of devices that have digital connections, that record directly to digital media in real time, and are not produced for professional audio recording or computer data backup purposes. This is one reason that there are so few of these devices on the market, and the majority of them are used either for professional recording or computer data backup.
I will give you a half a point for effort, although it looks to me that, instead of knowing this information a-priori, you Googled "digital audio connection rights management" or something like that and posted a quote from Galkin's report on "the White Paper" without citing your source. I will concede the 1/2 point, there is some level of DRM required in home audio components that are capable of real time audio recording to digital media, and have digital connections.
However, AHRA does not apply to computer equipment. RIAA missed the boat on this one when they allowed computer CD-R's to be built without the the AHRA mandated SCMS protection. Of course, had they taken it to court they probably would have been trounced like they were in the Diamond Multimedia case. Like MP3 players, computer CD recorders do not record in real time and are classified as computer peripheral devices, not home audio recorders. Keep in mind that USB and Firewire are both digital connections just like optical, and the RIAA has not pulled AHRA-SCMS on the computer manufacturers yet. The addition of this connector just allows a machine that is already a digital recorder with digital I/O to integrate with a wider spectrum of legal equipment. Musicians are going to love this machine and its now-seamless integration with other studio equipment.
So it all comes down to a screwy, poorly written law that never developed into the tool that the RIAA wanted. It placed high restrictions on real-time recording devices, but was not forward looking enough to restrict the next generation of much higher speed devices that were built for another purpose, but could also be used to copy. This could be considered Hillary Rosen's one big defeat.
Until Next Time
bd
Yeah right, Apple has a long sordid history of putting extraneous non-enabled ports on their MOBO's. I've been telling them what a waste of money this is, but they insist on keeping all these ports because, "we might enable them SOMETIME in the future." </sarcasm>
If it was going to be years before these ports were useful Apple would not spend the money to put them on their MOBOs now. If they are on the MOBO's when they come out on Monday, they will be supported in the Fall release of Panther at a minimum.
bd
If Monday is essentially for Developers of the software variety, isnt it more likely that the real wow factor will be Panther and info on iTMS for Windows? Then a neat little boot into the PC market will be the extra hardware revelations of what is just around the corner with the 970 chip - server and consumer side.
If Panther is the upgrade that is being touted elsewhere on this forum, everyone will be able to work quite a bit faster without having to dish out on a new machine.
If Panther is the upgrade that is being touted elsewhere on this forum, everyone will be able to work quite a bit faster without having to dish out on a new machine.
So how does this work exactly? The 1 gig bus waits for the 800 meg RAM at every clock? That sounds like it would be equivalent to an 800 meg bus then. Unless the ram timing automatically gets faster when you put in PC3700 or PC4000, i.e. the mobo takes the ram timing from the installed memory? Is this how it works in wintel mobos?