I've banned members for less
You know, I was thinking that once Apple went with IBM we'd be seeing quicker updates, but the way this is going its feeling just like Motorola all over again....
D
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.
New G5 today? [February 10]
- Thread starter Torajima
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've banned members for less
You know, I was thinking that once Apple went with IBM we'd be seeing quicker updates, but the way this is going its feeling just like Motorola all over again....
D
I really think that Apple bought boatloads of G4s and until they are all gone we wont see much. they cant really have G5 towers just running away from everything they make can they? I think it would be very interesting to see those motorola contracts just as it would be very interesting to see how many 970s IBM can produce on a monthly basis.Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I've banned members for less
You know, I was thinking that once Apple went with IBM we'd be seeing quicker updates, but the way this is going its feeling just like Motorola all over again....
D
Well Tuesday 8 am PST and still the pepsi add dominates the Apple Store... oh well not looking promising... maybe next week...
Originally posted by Torajima
Well, the current Dual processor machines are about 4 times faster than your imac.
And they are 30 to 40 times faster than my old G3! This is with real world testing... color correcting 5 minutes of footage on my dual G5 takes about 5 minutes. Same clip takes 3 hours on my G3!
Wow! Well I'm certainly impressed if this is true. I think I might just get a PowerMac G5 (or possibly G6) as my next computer in 2007. Surely I'll be better able to afford one by then since I might be working instead of going to college.
Check at 9:00 AM Pacific Time
If I were you, I'd check again at 9:00 AM Pacific Time, which was about 15 minutes away when I posted this. 9:00 AM PT is a common time for Apple announcements and updates.
Originally posted by Torajima
Well the Apple Store is still up... I guess I was wrong. Maybe next week!?
If I were you, I'd check again at 9:00 AM Pacific Time, which was about 15 minutes away when I posted this. 9:00 AM PT is a common time for Apple announcements and updates.
I was just trying to be informative...
Hey Bilba, the purpose of my post was mainly to inform, not to get people's hopes up. I understand completely why people's hopes might go up on such a post, though.
Hey Bilba, the purpose of my post was mainly to inform, not to get people's hopes up. I understand completely why people's hopes might go up on such a post, though.
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I've banned members for less
You know, I was thinking that once Apple went with IBM we'd be seeing quicker updates, but the way this is going its feeling just like Motorola all over again....
D
I have to believe that the update cycles will remain the same due to consumer/business upgrade cycles. However, the speed bumps should be significantly higher than Moto could ever produce in 6 months.
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I've banned members for less
You know, I was thinking that once Apple went with IBM we'd be seeing quicker updates, but the way this is going its feeling just like Motorola all over again....
D
you're absolutely right, no speed bumps since the G5 release (8 months ago?). heck, maybe they shoulda gone w/ Intel...
I am getting extremely angry with Apple. They are letting all their loyal computer buyers down by focusing on music instead.
Steve Jobs talked about how much salespersons ruined apple in the early-mid 90s, but it seems to me that he certainly isn't doing much innovating right now...
Steve Jobs talked about how much salespersons ruined apple in the early-mid 90s, but it seems to me that he certainly isn't doing much innovating right now...
But so far there has been no speed bump in the PowerMac. The only update has been the 1.8 going from a single to dual. So basically from June to February and a 0% increase that is not very good.
The Moto part of the line is even less unimpressive:
eMac 08/02 - 800 MHz
eMac Today - 1 GHz
Increase 25%
Time - 17 Months
PowerBook 11/02 - 1 GHz
PowerBook Today - 1.33 GHz
Increase 33%
Time - 14 Months
iMac 07/02 - 800 MHz
iMac Today - 1.25 MHz
Increase 53%
Time 18 Months
Only the iBook has had a major update since the intro on the G5's.
Whatever happened to Moore's Law? (If it applied to Apple the PB should be at 1.8 GHz, the eMac and the iMac at 1.6 GHz). If the G5 is the future then Apple is still living in the past.
Originally posted by invaLPsion
I am getting extremely angry with Apple. They are letting all their loyal computer buyers down by focusing on music instead.
Steve Jobs talked about how much salespersons ruined apple in the early-mid 90s, but it seems to me that he certainly isn't doing much innovating right now...
I am glad that you wrote this. I made the same comment about a month ago (when the mini was the only major intro at MWSF). I really feel that the low-end Mac users are being forgotten for the PC owning iPod users.
Just my opinion.
Agreed. They seem poised to do great things with the G5 chip, but their focus is music, music, music.
The iPod is great. I saw 4 people in the same subway car in NYC with iPods yesterday. Pretty impressive. And the ads are great, and the mindshare is huge. But Apple is a computer company. Where are the ads showing OS X? Where are the ads for the 20"iMac, or iBooks?
I understand, iPods make money, and Apple needs it. But they really should update their consumer line soon, or they'll see massive sales decline. The G5 Power Macs are their only competitive computers right now. Now if they get updated to 2.5GHz, add a single 1.6 or 1.8 G5 to a new iMac, and show the power of Panther on TV ads, then we'll be on the right track.
The G5 was not shipping until Sept. We are in the 6th month away from the last update. This is normal. I think, and have thought this since November, that we will not see updates until Feb/March because that is about 6 months between products. I would not call June 23, 2003 the release of the G5. It was announced, but not released until Sept.
Intel hasen't done much either remember, they're stalled @ 3.2GHz P4EE, which was released just to spite the release of the AMD64FX. which has been stuck @ 2.2GHz.
Prescott was suppose to be released in January, like many things it was a no show.
My Guess, the new BTX motherboard format is set for release arround late april, early may. With the new PCI Express graphics standard (not PCI-X,) plus many other improved features, including better air flow, etc... Once this is done we will see leaps and bounds of improvement on the x86 side. As for Apple they'll just have to play catch up or set the market early.
As was mentioned, it's not like Intel is doing any better, in fact it's been even worse over there. In the last 15 months or so, the top speed desktop P4 has only gone from 3.06GHz to 3.4GHz (and the 3.4GHz chips are in very limited supply currently) which is only an increase of about 11%. Apple has certainly done much better than that over the last 15 months.
You're kinda missing the point with Intel...
The 3.06P4's ran on a measly 533FSB (or quad pumped 133mhz) -- these 533 FSB P4's ranged from the 2.4 to the 3.06.
The change from 533 to 800 fsb is the very reason Intel was able to take back the crown from AMD (back then AMD was still paper launching the 2700 and 2800+, which easily matched the 2.6Ghz Pentium 4 Bs, but were beaten marginally by the 2.8Ghz P4-Bs.
Until AMD released the athlon 64, even the 3200+ could only beat/match with the 3.0ghz P4C with its monstrous 800fsb. The 3.2 P4 or a 3.0-3.3ghz OCed Pentium 2.4C (the year 2003's equivalent of AMD's overclocking beast 1700+) were the clear performance leaders. By hitting 3.0Ghz or more with those overclocked Pentium 4 C's, the FSB of the overclocked (and stable on most 875 chipsets, most notably either the IC7 or Asus's P4800) was either 1000fsb or MORE!
(reference: http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/cpu/intel/p4/2.4c/4.htm)
So while stock 3.0P4Cs were already matching the aging 3200+ bartons, the overclocked 2.4Cs were running all over the AMD chips.
I think perhaps this is some proof that megahertz, and more likely a combination of cache/FSB will big bigger factors than simply the megahertz game...I'm not sure Moore's Law can be applied at all anymore.
The 3.06P4's ran on a measly 533FSB (or quad pumped 133mhz) -- these 533 FSB P4's ranged from the 2.4 to the 3.06.
The change from 533 to 800 fsb is the very reason Intel was able to take back the crown from AMD (back then AMD was still paper launching the 2700 and 2800+, which easily matched the 2.6Ghz Pentium 4 Bs, but were beaten marginally by the 2.8Ghz P4-Bs.
Until AMD released the athlon 64, even the 3200+ could only beat/match with the 3.0ghz P4C with its monstrous 800fsb. The 3.2 P4 or a 3.0-3.3ghz OCed Pentium 2.4C (the year 2003's equivalent of AMD's overclocking beast 1700+) were the clear performance leaders. By hitting 3.0Ghz or more with those overclocked Pentium 4 C's, the FSB of the overclocked (and stable on most 875 chipsets, most notably either the IC7 or Asus's P4800) was either 1000fsb or MORE!
(reference: http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/cpu/intel/p4/2.4c/4.htm)
So while stock 3.0P4Cs were already matching the aging 3200+ bartons, the overclocked 2.4Cs were running all over the AMD chips.
I think perhaps this is some proof that megahertz, and more likely a combination of cache/FSB will big bigger factors than simply the megahertz game...I'm not sure Moore's Law can be applied at all anymore.
Some of it is real and some is just perception. Right now, I am talking about how badly the low-end Mac need to be update. Everything but the PowerMac still comes with 1 GHz G4's. Apple first introduced a computer with a 1 GHz G4 two years ago. I know that technically they are not the same processors, but it would be hard to find evidence of that on Apple's website. There is even evidence that Apple intentially clocks down the current chips to keep their product structure intact. I know the is a common practice in the chip making world, but Apple even killed the clones because other companies wanted to release new technology too quickly for Apple to keep up. Or at least in such a way that it would have seriously hurt Apple bottom line.
Heck the G4 family has been around for nearly five years. Apple probably could have done a much better job naming the progressions of the G4 to keep the perception from being that it is outdated technology.
Right now, I think people are a lot more upset about the progession of the "low-end" Mac then they are about the G5's.
I don't believe that Apple will release G5 PowerBooks/iMacs/etc. as soon as they can solve the heat/form factor/etc. problem. On my cynical days, I think they will do it when the can't get anymore money from the G4 versions of it. On my more optimistic days I just think that have stores of Moto G4's hanging around and don't want to through them in the trash (which sadly in 2005 is where the belong).
on a measly 533FSB (133Quad pumped)
Don't foget that the G4 has hit a BRICK wall @ 167MHz, and at this point can't be double pumped. The emac and ibook are still @ 133MHz.
The fastest true FSB on the x86 side of the Fence is the 400MHz on the Opterons and 64 FX's. However IBM has managed to have the G5's FSB set @ half the clock speed.
All we need now is RAM to keep up.
Bring back RD RAM@1066HHz or higher.