Think secret is being fed disinformation. The next Power Macs will actually max out at 3Ghz with a Dual Single cored 970GX processors. 8X AGP Pro is right on though as well as PCI-X still being used. No Blue Ray support either it may be offered as BTO or at a later date and time. The next update won't be exceptionally great but it will be better than what Think Secret is leading us to believe. Everyone worries too much even if we don't get Dual Core chips now Dual 3Ghz is plenty fast and will beat most Single Chip Dual Cored PCs in Performance. We will have our Dual Core Chips with quad core system configurations by the end of the year. Trust me people.
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.
More PowerMac G5 Details...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
gate said:
but alas...is it for an x86 dual core or a power dual core...or both (64bit from newtek, as of currently ..is much less for for the mac)
Same with DDR2. So far, it's not so great. Actually, same with PCI-Express too. Hmmm.Mav451 said:
However, when they do become a little more viable, here's hoping Apple uses them.
Okay, a quick reality check and a little history.
Apple introduced the dual 2.0GHz G5 Power Mac in June 2003. At that time one might have considered the high-end competition for that system a dual 3.06GHz Intel Xeon workstation. Apple even benchmarked against a dual Xeon workstation at the Power Mac G5 intro and won on a number of different tasks.
Now, Apple is rumored to be ready to introduce a 2.7GHz dual G5 system. That represents a 35% increase in clock speed/performance over the system they introduced in 2003.
And what has Intel done in that same time period? The Xeon is available in 3.6/3.66GHz grades. That represents an approximate 20% increase in clock speed. Although the Xeon has had cache and other architectural changes it's probably fair to say than the Xeon's 20% clock speed increase is at least equaled in performance by the G5's 35% increase.
And what about those new dual-core Pentium systems that have just been announced? They run at a top clock speed of 3.2GHz. Now, we don't have a great number of benchmarks on the dual-core Pentiums as yet, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that on a wide range of tasks a dual-core 3.2GHz Pentium system will not perform any better than a dual 3.6GHz Xeon workstation. One could then extrapolate that in a good number of cases a 2.7GHz dual G5 Power Mac will be a very near performance equivalent to a top-of-the-line dual-core 3.2GHz Pentium system. And the latter (dual-core Pentium) is the newest and nearest direct competition to Apple's dual Power Mac G5. True, Apple will also be facing hard competition for AMD's dual-core Athlon systems. But, as they say, that's another story.
And what about price? Dell has announced dual-core Pentium systems that run between $2300 and $2900 (the latter without display or DVD burner and with 512MB DRAM but with a better video card than Apple's standard Power Mac bundle). All of these dual-core Dell systems use the 3.2GHz Pentium Extreme Edition processor and I'll have to admit that cheaper dual-core PC systems will most likely begin to appear over the next few months (using the dual-core Pentium D processor at speeds between 2.8 and 3.2GHz).
However, Apple offers dual-processor G5 Power Macs at prices between $2000 and $3000. Thus, right now it appears that Apple is at a rough price parity with the dual-core Pentium systems from PC vendors like Dell.
Thus, on performance Apple is likely at rough parity with the dual-core and dual-processor Intel systems (Apple wins on some task or applications, the PCs win others, differences range from moderate to small to none).
On the basis of cost, Apple is again at near parity with the dual-core Pentium systems from major manufacturers like Dell.
Now, everything is not wonderful for Apple. The Pentium systems are using PCI Express expansion while Apple is still using the older AGP graphics. Right now, performance differences between PCI Express and AGP are minimal or nonexistent, but certainly PCI Express is the more forward looking graphics interface. Other than that, for the immediate future I think things look fairly good for Apple's Power Mac G5 systems.
We could also talk about the single-core Pentium 4, but I'll just note that over the last two years it has only gone between 3GHz and 3.8GHz, or a 28% increase.
Bottom line, if you only want a computer so that you can play games, then buy the fastest available single-core Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 system. Otherwise, consider a Mac.
Apple introduced the dual 2.0GHz G5 Power Mac in June 2003. At that time one might have considered the high-end competition for that system a dual 3.06GHz Intel Xeon workstation. Apple even benchmarked against a dual Xeon workstation at the Power Mac G5 intro and won on a number of different tasks.
Now, Apple is rumored to be ready to introduce a 2.7GHz dual G5 system. That represents a 35% increase in clock speed/performance over the system they introduced in 2003.
And what has Intel done in that same time period? The Xeon is available in 3.6/3.66GHz grades. That represents an approximate 20% increase in clock speed. Although the Xeon has had cache and other architectural changes it's probably fair to say than the Xeon's 20% clock speed increase is at least equaled in performance by the G5's 35% increase.
And what about those new dual-core Pentium systems that have just been announced? They run at a top clock speed of 3.2GHz. Now, we don't have a great number of benchmarks on the dual-core Pentiums as yet, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that on a wide range of tasks a dual-core 3.2GHz Pentium system will not perform any better than a dual 3.6GHz Xeon workstation. One could then extrapolate that in a good number of cases a 2.7GHz dual G5 Power Mac will be a very near performance equivalent to a top-of-the-line dual-core 3.2GHz Pentium system. And the latter (dual-core Pentium) is the newest and nearest direct competition to Apple's dual Power Mac G5. True, Apple will also be facing hard competition for AMD's dual-core Athlon systems. But, as they say, that's another story.
And what about price? Dell has announced dual-core Pentium systems that run between $2300 and $2900 (the latter without display or DVD burner and with 512MB DRAM but with a better video card than Apple's standard Power Mac bundle). All of these dual-core Dell systems use the 3.2GHz Pentium Extreme Edition processor and I'll have to admit that cheaper dual-core PC systems will most likely begin to appear over the next few months (using the dual-core Pentium D processor at speeds between 2.8 and 3.2GHz).
However, Apple offers dual-processor G5 Power Macs at prices between $2000 and $3000. Thus, right now it appears that Apple is at a rough price parity with the dual-core Pentium systems from PC vendors like Dell.
Thus, on performance Apple is likely at rough parity with the dual-core and dual-processor Intel systems (Apple wins on some task or applications, the PCs win others, differences range from moderate to small to none).
On the basis of cost, Apple is again at near parity with the dual-core Pentium systems from major manufacturers like Dell.
Now, everything is not wonderful for Apple. The Pentium systems are using PCI Express expansion while Apple is still using the older AGP graphics. Right now, performance differences between PCI Express and AGP are minimal or nonexistent, but certainly PCI Express is the more forward looking graphics interface. Other than that, for the immediate future I think things look fairly good for Apple's Power Mac G5 systems.
We could also talk about the single-core Pentium 4, but I'll just note that over the last two years it has only gone between 3GHz and 3.8GHz, or a 28% increase.
Bottom line, if you only want a computer so that you can play games, then buy the fastest available single-core Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 system. Otherwise, consider a Mac.
Little_Endian
Are you an engineer for Apple, or just God? Last time I heard trust me, trust me, it came around to be f*ck you, f*ck you.
Are you an engineer for Apple, or just God? Last time I heard trust me, trust me, it came around to be f*ck you, f*ck you.
AMD Athlon 64 systems can also have PCIe. Maybe Serial ATA II in a future PMG5 revision.ManchesterTrix said:
crpchristian said:
I can't tell for sure if it's for Mac or the other platform but it was posted today on macnn.com:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/04/18/lightwave.3d.8.3/
personally speaking,
i could care less about the high end PowerMac's
give me a Dual 2.0ghz G5 PM Refurb for $1699
Considering that the Dual 2ghz was $2999 new and $2599 refurb'ed 1 year ago... thats all that matters to me. The original flag-ship will be much more affordable no matter what the updates are, and thats all I'm interested. Yea its got less ram slots but hell i'll never put more than 2GB in it anyway.
Major bummer for folks that have been waiting months to buy the high end model, but if you need a computer - BUY a computer - don't wait anymore than a month and a half. if you need it, then you need it, and you should buy it.
Don't be pissed at Apple, be pissed at yourself.
I don't hear a single Dual 2.5ghz owner whining.
i could care less about the high end PowerMac's
give me a Dual 2.0ghz G5 PM Refurb for $1699
Considering that the Dual 2ghz was $2999 new and $2599 refurb'ed 1 year ago... thats all that matters to me. The original flag-ship will be much more affordable no matter what the updates are, and thats all I'm interested. Yea its got less ram slots but hell i'll never put more than 2GB in it anyway.
Major bummer for folks that have been waiting months to buy the high end model, but if you need a computer - BUY a computer - don't wait anymore than a month and a half. if you need it, then you need it, and you should buy it.
Don't be pissed at Apple, be pissed at yourself.
I don't hear a single Dual 2.5ghz owner whining.
Object-X said:
You're still not showing why it will be useful to the consumer. Some good quotes for you:
"Sure, the Cell will probably have a huge number of vector units but most work on the PC side is done by integer and floating point operations. SIMD/vector operations are not as common, especially because such things are hard to do."
"Yes, rendering would see quite a boost, but it's not something that enough Mac users do to increase the costs of Apple CPU's by that much, which is why it would make more sense to sell it as an accelerator like Durandal suggested, much like the old x87's. "
"Only in VERY select pro applications. Why do you think someone hasn't done this before? Why did the drive to use GPU's for software besides games largely fail? Because it's a lot of silicon that isn't going to be of much use outside of HPC."
"Ever take a look at the design philosophy of the PowerPC 970? It excels at unoptimized code. The Cell ... excels (heh) at highly parallelized code, in other words, code that was written for it.
Putting a Cell as the CPU in a PowerMac would be akin to putting just the AltiVec from a G4/G5 core as a CPU. It's good at a very limited set of things. That doesn't make it bad or anything, but just because it's "scalable" doesn't mean that it can do everything under the sun equally well."
"The only feasible application a Cell processor would have in Macs would be as some sort of dedicated media processor for high-end workstations. You won't be seeing Cell-based PowerMacs."
ok..money down
with the chud tools displaying 4 procs, 'year of HD', and now newtek coming out with dual suport within days (being reported on macnn(although that doesn't really convince me by itself) i put my money on new 'dual' PMs or some new workstation.
I'm wasting to much time waiting for this thing... i'm ready for lightwave experience to increase in speed by one serious freaking factor
with the chud tools displaying 4 procs, 'year of HD', and now newtek coming out with dual suport within days (being reported on macnn(although that doesn't really convince me by itself) i put my money on new 'dual' PMs or some new workstation.
I'm wasting to much time waiting for this thing... i'm ready for lightwave experience to increase in speed by one serious freaking factor
Hmmm. The Dual 2Ghz Power Mac that I bought 17 months ago is going for $2699 new with 1GB RAM and Bluetooth. You'd pay $1699 for it? I've still got the box and all the books/disks. PM me - let's talk...adamjay said:
Mav451 said:
The HyperTransport speed is unrelated to the memory on the AMD chips. The memory controller is on-die, and runs at full CPU speed. The memory DIMMs are not connected to the HT, they are connected to the CPU.
HT is an I/O and IPC bus - not a memory bus.
_________________________
My real point, though, is that touting the FSB MHz on the PPC970 is touting a myth. The G5 has similar memory bandwidth to the Intel and AMD PCs - because it's using the same memory.
Intel/AMD VS. IBM
First, s far as the expected updates are concerned, so long as they update it and get rid of the liquid cooled system, I'll be happy. (I just don't trust liquid cooling, take it as you will)
I've let some crap on these boards go on for long enough without saying anything, and I'm sure by the end of this someone's gonna try and tell me I'm wrong about something or other, but I do ask if you plan on arguing with me when it comes to the true performance of x86 VS. PPC and Power4, at least look into what I've said below, then cite your information so I can verify and comment.
I'll make this easy here, x86 is CRAP compared to Power4 and the PPC subset. You can have the most Ghz in the world, but if the rest of your system is crawling along an endless pipeline where every peice of information is fighting for bandwidth controlled by an OS that doesn't know how to properly handle it (thats why Windows users have to defrag), what the hell kinda speed does that give you. I will give credit where credit is due, AMD does a much better job with the way it handles x86 (Eliminating the Northbridge was a great idea)
Let me explain, the x86 Architecture forces every subsystem's throughput into a single fronside bus which then communicates to the CPU and Main Memory. This has worked fine, I was a Wintel user for 10 years myself before switching. The problem with that is every component of your system (USB, Ethernet, Graphics, PCI Cards, etc) is all fighting for bandwidth, so if your say trying to use multiple programs and access hardware functions (ie CD/DVD Burning) this causes system slowdown and because Windows is written the way it is (I'm not sure the tech side of the software) can cause programs to stall, crash, and freeze the system (remember when you couldn't do anything while your CD's were being burnt, that's because of x86's and Windows limitations) This is even worse due to the fact that the intel/amd CPU's only offer limited instrution sets (OK "1" on any non Hyper-Threading/Hyper-Transport System, those offer a whopping "2", Perhaps more on newer AMD's) There are more limitations I may mention later for now, lemme compare whats above to the current Power4 Architecture. Oh one more little thing before I move on, the maximum throughput of any Intel system is 6.4GBps
Power4 at it's core, allows EVERY subsystem to talk directly to the main memory and the CPU INDEPENDENTLY, NOTHING fights for bandwidth due to whats at the core of the Architecture, the System Controller. Forget Northbridge/Southbridge, The sytem controller regulates data moving through the system, it can direct data where it needs to go directly, making for efficient data throughput. On top of that, add to it, Branch Prediction Logic, with 95% accuracy (roughly), BPI can detect where data needs to go before it reaches the cpu, making dataflow even faster. Also add Enchanced Velocity engines in each CPU, DUAL INDEPENDENT SYSTEM BUSES Maxing out at 1.25GHz (For the moment) TWO CPU's with 2 Double Precision Floating Point Units per (Intel/AMD = 1) and you have a system that's total throughput max's out at 20GBps with much more efficiancy than that of any x86 system on the market today. A 3.8 GHz Pentium or for that matter a Dual Core 3.4GHz Pentium can't even compare when it comes to true RAW POWER, The Dual Core Pentiums still use a single System bus and the same architecute thats been around since 1989, ok so that's that. By the Way, Each G5 has 8 In-Flight Instruction Sets, VS 2 on any x86 system (AMD may have more as cited earlier, I'm not 100% on that)
OK clock speed, Max right now 3.8Ghz VS 2.5Ghz Dual, who wins.....what'd I say earlier, yeah, IBM/Apple wins, hell even on a single 2.5, though not by as considerable a margin. Clock speeds help the overall performance of the system in both respects, but a better system will stand to take better advantage of the CPU. To anyone who wants to refute this by comparing BENCHMARKS, don't waste your time or mine, there is no real way to compare these, one's running Windows, the other Mac OS, they treat filesystems and executables VERY differently. Not even the ones on Apples website really show the speed, efficiancy, and performance. Hell if there was a way to rate efficiancy with benchmarks, Apple would win hands down. Not to say benchmarks don't work on AMD VS. Intel, they're great for that, and yes AMD kicks Intels rears in most of those.
Moving on, this is really simple, Steve Jobs will not go x86 if he can help it, and for good reason, they cannon handle multitasking the way the PPC subset in Power4 can, Apple has always been about better multitasking and more stability and security, a little tidbit I picked up the other day actually about PowerPC, it actually helps secure the Mac Platform, unlike x86, PowerPC treats data as data and executables as exacutables, x86 treats data and executables, like executables, meaning someone could write a virus that when you open a word document, the file itself sends the virus to the system without you being any the wiser, because on-screen it could work exactly like a document.
OK, This was really long, I'm trying to get everything into this one message, but I know I might be forgeting some points, I apoligize ahead of time, though I know I'll get slammed by some of you making those points, then I have to come back and explain and.......well you all know the drill.
First, s far as the expected updates are concerned, so long as they update it and get rid of the liquid cooled system, I'll be happy. (I just don't trust liquid cooling, take it as you will)
I've let some crap on these boards go on for long enough without saying anything, and I'm sure by the end of this someone's gonna try and tell me I'm wrong about something or other, but I do ask if you plan on arguing with me when it comes to the true performance of x86 VS. PPC and Power4, at least look into what I've said below, then cite your information so I can verify and comment.
I'll make this easy here, x86 is CRAP compared to Power4 and the PPC subset. You can have the most Ghz in the world, but if the rest of your system is crawling along an endless pipeline where every peice of information is fighting for bandwidth controlled by an OS that doesn't know how to properly handle it (thats why Windows users have to defrag), what the hell kinda speed does that give you. I will give credit where credit is due, AMD does a much better job with the way it handles x86 (Eliminating the Northbridge was a great idea)
Let me explain, the x86 Architecture forces every subsystem's throughput into a single fronside bus which then communicates to the CPU and Main Memory. This has worked fine, I was a Wintel user for 10 years myself before switching. The problem with that is every component of your system (USB, Ethernet, Graphics, PCI Cards, etc) is all fighting for bandwidth, so if your say trying to use multiple programs and access hardware functions (ie CD/DVD Burning) this causes system slowdown and because Windows is written the way it is (I'm not sure the tech side of the software) can cause programs to stall, crash, and freeze the system (remember when you couldn't do anything while your CD's were being burnt, that's because of x86's and Windows limitations) This is even worse due to the fact that the intel/amd CPU's only offer limited instrution sets (OK "1" on any non Hyper-Threading/Hyper-Transport System, those offer a whopping "2", Perhaps more on newer AMD's) There are more limitations I may mention later for now, lemme compare whats above to the current Power4 Architecture. Oh one more little thing before I move on, the maximum throughput of any Intel system is 6.4GBps
Power4 at it's core, allows EVERY subsystem to talk directly to the main memory and the CPU INDEPENDENTLY, NOTHING fights for bandwidth due to whats at the core of the Architecture, the System Controller. Forget Northbridge/Southbridge, The sytem controller regulates data moving through the system, it can direct data where it needs to go directly, making for efficient data throughput. On top of that, add to it, Branch Prediction Logic, with 95% accuracy (roughly), BPI can detect where data needs to go before it reaches the cpu, making dataflow even faster. Also add Enchanced Velocity engines in each CPU, DUAL INDEPENDENT SYSTEM BUSES Maxing out at 1.25GHz (For the moment) TWO CPU's with 2 Double Precision Floating Point Units per (Intel/AMD = 1) and you have a system that's total throughput max's out at 20GBps with much more efficiancy than that of any x86 system on the market today. A 3.8 GHz Pentium or for that matter a Dual Core 3.4GHz Pentium can't even compare when it comes to true RAW POWER, The Dual Core Pentiums still use a single System bus and the same architecute thats been around since 1989, ok so that's that. By the Way, Each G5 has 8 In-Flight Instruction Sets, VS 2 on any x86 system (AMD may have more as cited earlier, I'm not 100% on that)
OK clock speed, Max right now 3.8Ghz VS 2.5Ghz Dual, who wins.....what'd I say earlier, yeah, IBM/Apple wins, hell even on a single 2.5, though not by as considerable a margin. Clock speeds help the overall performance of the system in both respects, but a better system will stand to take better advantage of the CPU. To anyone who wants to refute this by comparing BENCHMARKS, don't waste your time or mine, there is no real way to compare these, one's running Windows, the other Mac OS, they treat filesystems and executables VERY differently. Not even the ones on Apples website really show the speed, efficiancy, and performance. Hell if there was a way to rate efficiancy with benchmarks, Apple would win hands down. Not to say benchmarks don't work on AMD VS. Intel, they're great for that, and yes AMD kicks Intels rears in most of those.
Moving on, this is really simple, Steve Jobs will not go x86 if he can help it, and for good reason, they cannon handle multitasking the way the PPC subset in Power4 can, Apple has always been about better multitasking and more stability and security, a little tidbit I picked up the other day actually about PowerPC, it actually helps secure the Mac Platform, unlike x86, PowerPC treats data as data and executables as exacutables, x86 treats data and executables, like executables, meaning someone could write a virus that when you open a word document, the file itself sends the virus to the system without you being any the wiser, because on-screen it could work exactly like a document.
OK, This was really long, I'm trying to get everything into this one message, but I know I might be forgeting some points, I apoligize ahead of time, though I know I'll get slammed by some of you making those points, then I have to come back and explain and.......well you all know the drill.
Will people stop with the cell already? The same thing happened when Sony announced the "emotion engine" for the PS2. Ooo, look! It will be in TVs and computers and cell phones and watches!
Nope. Never even came close. They just now figured out how to get great performance out of it, just to be blasted out of the water by the Xbox and it's 733mhz Celeron.
And the clock speeds on the cell? They never gave what specs it will be coming out at, just the theories on how fast they COULD make it. Sounds a lot like the theories on G5s to me.
Sony served a bunch of hype and many of the mac faithful ate it up. It's a console chip, people.
Same thing with the Xbox 2. People keep saying "triple core!" but it could in fact be a core for the CPU, GPU, and PPU (physics processing unit).
Besides that, Microsoft has said NOTHING about the Xbox2. It has all been speculation so far. It has very little impact on the G5 as Apple knows it.
p.s. I love video games.
Nope. Never even came close. They just now figured out how to get great performance out of it, just to be blasted out of the water by the Xbox and it's 733mhz Celeron.
And the clock speeds on the cell? They never gave what specs it will be coming out at, just the theories on how fast they COULD make it. Sounds a lot like the theories on G5s to me.
Sony served a bunch of hype and many of the mac faithful ate it up. It's a console chip, people.
Same thing with the Xbox 2. People keep saying "triple core!" but it could in fact be a core for the CPU, GPU, and PPU (physics processing unit).
Besides that, Microsoft has said NOTHING about the Xbox2. It has all been speculation so far. It has very little impact on the G5 as Apple knows it.
p.s. I love video games.
No High End Yet
Remember the reason Apple gave for cutting the Clones years ago was because they were taking away the top end sales & not making the low end sales they wanted of the Clones. So this lack of developing a excellent Pro top end model has been a problem for many years now. I picked up a used dual 1.25 GHz G4 a few months back. I plan to use it until a deent upgrade comes out for the G5 PowerMac. I can & will wait. The resons talked about here is one of the reasons that Apple's Pro line, PowerMac - PowerBook sales are not what they could be.
Bill the TaxMan
weezer160 said:... at least, that's what I hope.
This gives me another reason to blow off purchasing a PM until I'm 1) Done with college, 2) Done with OCS at the Air Force... which will both be done in about two years.
This is ridiculous.
Those Wintel trolls are probably having a laugh at us right now. It kind of makes me embarssed to own a Mac because aren't we supposed to be on the forefront of personal computing technology? Has Apple stuck all its stakes on selling great MP3/MP4 player and chosen to lay its true calling of advanced personal computing to the cheap, generic plastic PC assemblers just to sell a few iPods? Good thing I didn't decide to buy any Apple stock.
Remember the reason Apple gave for cutting the Clones years ago was because they were taking away the top end sales & not making the low end sales they wanted of the Clones. So this lack of developing a excellent Pro top end model has been a problem for many years now. I picked up a used dual 1.25 GHz G4 a few months back. I plan to use it until a deent upgrade comes out for the G5 PowerMac. I can & will wait. The resons talked about here is one of the reasons that Apple's Pro line, PowerMac - PowerBook sales are not what they could be.
Bill the TaxMan
Lacero said:99% of you complainers about a 3GHz G5 will likely not even buy it if and when it is introduced.
Yes but we like the IDEA of it
Same with PCI Express... it's important, but what percentage of people here actually have their eye on a particular PCI Express board that they'd planned to put in their next Mac?
These blind hardware fantasies treated like fact need to stop.
We're not commenting on what's "going to happen" at the end of 'Enterprise'...
With people throwing around the "trust me" moniker all over the place, I somehow picture Jack Bauer blabbing some garbage on '24'.
Whatever, and whenever an update is released, it will likely be expensive.
If an entirely new 1st generation line is introduced, don't forget to add "flawed" to the description.
What on earth are people doing that requires anything faster than a dual 2.5 workstation anyway?
We're not commenting on what's "going to happen" at the end of 'Enterprise'...
With people throwing around the "trust me" moniker all over the place, I somehow picture Jack Bauer blabbing some garbage on '24'.
Whatever, and whenever an update is released, it will likely be expensive.
If an entirely new 1st generation line is introduced, don't forget to add "flawed" to the description.
What on earth are people doing that requires anything faster than a dual 2.5 workstation anyway?
y0
My opinions after 11 pages actually read:
1. I think TS is correct. I am not surprised if off on the date though (the prices for the PM line don't change for their respective upgrade).
2. Neither the graphics cards or processors are really so much of Apples fault or control.
3. I agree that dual core and PCIe will debut together, or close enough.
4. I think that when Apple releases a dual core machine(s), they will be so expensive that I will be not able to afford it anyways. If Intel and AMD systems will go for around 3-4k, then how much do you think Apple will sell for? I strongly think it will be cheaper!
5. I don't find any good reasoning in dropping Jobs. I think any company would be very lucky to have someone like Jobs working for them.
4. I think IBM is a fine company for partnership with Apple, I really question a better alternative.
5. The article I read about Jobs "promising" 3Ghz, wasn't a promise. The article I read quoted him as saying "probably", which is different. Feel free to show me up.
6. Second of all, why do people think they will come out with a dual core dual processor at 3ghz? If dual cores come out, then the will more than likely drop in processor speed (hence the reasoning for intels 3.7ghz barrier and apples liquid cooling). So if you think a dual core is coming, there is vitually no chance that it will be at 3ghz speed. That would be rediculous from a financial standpoint for the company, and many other reasons.
My opinions after 11 pages actually read:
1. I think TS is correct. I am not surprised if off on the date though (the prices for the PM line don't change for their respective upgrade).
2. Neither the graphics cards or processors are really so much of Apples fault or control.
3. I agree that dual core and PCIe will debut together, or close enough.
4. I think that when Apple releases a dual core machine(s), they will be so expensive that I will be not able to afford it anyways. If Intel and AMD systems will go for around 3-4k, then how much do you think Apple will sell for? I strongly think it will be cheaper!
5. I don't find any good reasoning in dropping Jobs. I think any company would be very lucky to have someone like Jobs working for them.
4. I think IBM is a fine company for partnership with Apple, I really question a better alternative.
5. The article I read about Jobs "promising" 3Ghz, wasn't a promise. The article I read quoted him as saying "probably", which is different. Feel free to show me up.
6. Second of all, why do people think they will come out with a dual core dual processor at 3ghz? If dual cores come out, then the will more than likely drop in processor speed (hence the reasoning for intels 3.7ghz barrier and apples liquid cooling). So if you think a dual core is coming, there is vitually no chance that it will be at 3ghz speed. That would be rediculous from a financial standpoint for the company, and many other reasons.
Who says drop Jobs???
If they didn't have Steve that company would've been screwed along time ago. Their success is mainly due to the recent splurge of iPods which was conjured and implemented by Steve. If they didn't have iPods, they'd have PowerMacs & Pro software selling to Professionals and iMacs selling to customers. The iMacs would be there only base of income. Keep Steve.
If they didn't have Steve that company would've been screwed along time ago. Their success is mainly due to the recent splurge of iPods which was conjured and implemented by Steve. If they didn't have iPods, they'd have PowerMacs & Pro software selling to Professionals and iMacs selling to customers. The iMacs would be there only base of income. Keep Steve.
I'm tired of the this argument
Why not? Jobs may not actually engineer the chips himself, but he made the deal with IBM. And he made promises. He was wrong to promise and he was wrong about the chip.
Not in his control? Should have never promised. Or he should have said: "We will have 3 GHz in a year, unless IBM can't get it to work, in which case we won't. We should have 30 teraflops by 2006, unless we don't, in which case we won't."
acidreflux said:
Why not? Jobs may not actually engineer the chips himself, but he made the deal with IBM. And he made promises. He was wrong to promise and he was wrong about the chip.
Not in his control? Should have never promised. Or he should have said: "We will have 3 GHz in a year, unless IBM can't get it to work, in which case we won't. We should have 30 teraflops by 2006, unless we don't, in which case we won't."
I have to admit I was a bit disappointed with Apple and IBM, too. But let's get things straight. Comparing Apple with Intel is not fair. Intel has many customers, so they can sell every CPU they produce. The fastest chip are usually available in small quantities only. That's why it's still hard to find a system with a 3.8 GHz P4. But like I said Intel can sell everything they have. Apple on the other hand can't sell everything IBM produces. I'm sure Apple already has PPC970FX CPUs running at 3GHz (not overclocked ones). What do you think would happen if Apple announced a 3 GHz PM? Everyone who's been holding off would order one immediately. Furthermore, many early adopters would want to exchange their 1.6/1.8 SP system with a 3 GHz DP system. So if you ordered such a system right, you would probably get it in October. While it would now be good press for Apple if they announced a 3 GHz PM, this would change when the press got wind that those 3 GHz systems were basically vaporware.
nagromme said:Yes but we like the IDEA of it
Same with PCI Express... it's important, but what percentage of people here actually have their eye on a particular PCI Express board that they'd planned to put in their next Mac?
Well, if you look at it through a primary PC-user eyes, the first thing I see is lower prices.
Lower prices b/c technology is getting older. Take the 9800Pro for example. I didn't buy mine until very late in 2004. X800/X850 stuff was already flying around until I finally decided to buy a used board for $140. The problem is, with Apple's fist on hardware, you almost never see this trickle down effect.
You have FS/FT forums and then nothing. On the other hand, 9800Pro boards were going on fire sales at various websites. New, retail boards going for nearly half of it cost over a year ago.
Now, I would hope to GOD that Apple gets a Mac-version of the X800XL. That is, lb for lb, greatest bang-for-your-buck card out there on the PCI-E standard. 16 pipes, just like the higher end X800/X850's. But, a lower clock. Your choice if you wanna try to achieve those high-end clocks of course.
clock speed, clock speed, clock speed.
if apple can show me some (unbiased) benchmarks with the new powermacs doing well against AMD and Intel, i wouldn't be utterly disappointed in this (long-awaited) revision.
if apple can show me some (unbiased) benchmarks with the new powermacs doing well against AMD and Intel, i wouldn't be utterly disappointed in this (long-awaited) revision.