No 3GHz Soon and No G5 Laptop

[deepkid]

Cronic complainers

Apple puts less RAM in the system so they can charge you to upgrade it. They are trying to make money you know. Damn businesses

Yes! It also surprises me that people forget that by Apple shipping the machines with less RAM, it gives Mac resellers the opportunity to sweeten their bundles. There would be less of an incentive to buy from a reseller like Club Mac if it couldn't offer something noticably different from Apple... and there would be even less of an incentive to be a Mac reseller if they didn't have an opportunity to get some of our business.

I'd much rather have Apple price the machines lower, sans the RAM, than force me to buy it at their prices. I can buy it elsewhere for a lower price.

In general, some of the people who post in these forums seem to complain just to get an audience. Granted... there are some legitimate questions being asked (i.e. what's been fixed in the revision machines), but many of you should really keep your babbling to yourself since it seems that you're spending a good deal of your time typing text, rather than doing much else that requires a fraction of what these machines offer.

Have my old Quadra 840AV and OS 9.2 ... it's more than good enough to compose your whining with.

 

[axle_512]

g5 rocks, why the bitching?

Not if we are shooting for 3GHz? The sad thing is... what's next? When everyone else is shooting for 4 and up apple is scrathing their heads.

Actually, AMD chips runs at comparable clock speeds. Intel has decided to ditch the Pentium 4 in favor of the pentium M. The Pentium M at much lower clock speeds is actuallly faster than the fastest P4. I believe the fastest pentium M (Dothan) runs at 2ghz. Instead of higher clock speeds, we're going to see intel and AMD focus on multi-core chips. Meaning 1 chip can actually almost function as if it were two.

I have a question for the people on here who are holding out for a dual 3ghz G5... What kind of applications are you going to run that require that much CPU? I happen to own a dual 2.0 g5, and I have a hard time making it break a sweat. I can run ray tracers in the background and continue to put my normal load on the machine (mail, browse, itunes) and not notice a difference. The machine is insanely fast. I'd like to be able to setup a seperate keyboard, video, mouse for the machine so that two people can login at once. It has enough CPU to accomodate multiple users. Easily.

 

[kangaroo]

Dual G4 iMac?

Would a dual G4 iMac w/an enhanced enclosure satisfy the need for new & improved?

 

[shawnce]

Read B4 you speak child. G5 Bus 1.25ghz , Athlon 64 989pin 1.6ghz ...so u were saying ?????

Lost on what you are saying in the above but to focus on useful information...

The G5 2.5GHz CPU has a FSB running at 1.25GHz. That is a bi-directional bus, with 32 bits going in each direction. That yields a theoretical throughput of 10 GB/s full-duplex (5 GB/s in each direction at the same time) per CPU.

The Athlon 64 FX uses a HyperTransport bus running at 2.0GHz (data rate) or 1.6GHz depending on the Socket (939/940) type. The HT bus supported is 16 bits wide and is bi-directional. That yield a theoretical throughput of 8 GB/s full-duplex (4 GB/s in each direction at the same time) per CPU. This however isn't the memory bus but an IO bus since the the Athlon has an on board memory controller. The memory interface on the Athlon runs at 400MHz and is dual-channel 64 bits wide. That yields a theoretical throughput of 6.4 GB/s to memory (3.2 GB/s per channel) per CPU.

So for the top end Athlon 64 FC you get a total theoretical to system throughput of 12.8 GB/s for socket 940s and 14.4 GB/s for socket 939.

So on the face of things it looks like the Athlon can pump more data however you have to consider what is going on here...

The G5 doesn't have an integrated memory controller like the Athlon, the interface to memory is on the U3 bridge chip instead (part of the Power Mac G5 chip set). So for the Power Mac G5 any IO from devices that is going to main memory directly (DMAed) doesn't head to the G5 CPU but is routed by the U3 chip to main memory. Most IO from devices uses DMA so the CPU doesn't have to be involved. Anyways in the case of the Athlon since the memory controller is on board IO data has to travel to the CPU on the HT bus and then out the memory bus. In other words in the G5 case the CPU bus isn't touched while for the Athlon both are.

I should also note that the memory interface on the U3 chip on the Power Mac G5 supports two channels of PC3200 memory (aka 6.4 GB/s throughput).

Anyways it depend on what you are doing with the CPU to see how things will play out. In some situations the Athlon setup will perform better in others the G5/PowerMac G5 setup will perform better data throughput wise. Also it points out that clock rate isn't the determining factor, you have to consider other things to do a true comparison.

As a side note if faster memory comes along and/or more memory channels are supported by the U3 chip on the Power Mac G5 the G5 CPU (970FX) has a front side bus that can scale to consume that extra memory bandwidth (it is already over 3x faster then a single channel to PC3200 memory) while in the case of the Athlon the CPU itself will have to be modified since it is only supports two channels to PC3200 memory currently.

 

[pulsen]

Wow! I'm surprised that the dual 1.8 GHz and 2.0 GHz machines are actually DOWNGRADES from the previous models!

The dual 1.8 GHz model no longer has PCI-X, only has half of the previous hard drive size (80 GB), is now only expandible to 4 GB RAM, and ships with only 256 MB of memory instead of 512 MB.

And the graphics card of the dual 2.0 GHz machine has been downgraded to the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra!

Sure, the prices have been reduced and they now all have 8x superdrives (about which I could really care less), but this "downgrade" is incredible... How can this be?

The only thing i disagree about is the price reduction! In Denmark/ Europe the general price was raised 1000 ,- DKR. If you add to the 2x1.8Ghz, 2x256Mb Ram and a 160Gb Hd (The 8x DVD is a plus but lacks PCI-X & "only" takes 4Gb Ram), you end up 1000,- Dkr cheaper than the last 2x1.8Ghz wich again makes the OLD machine a better buy, @ least in my world! And i've been waiting for this. This just dont make my day, and Apple dk sure wont get my money this time, and i even have them. I cant afford the overpriced top model at DKR. 25.990,00 or $4247,00 USD. Which again makes me wonder why it is more than $1000 USD more expensive in Denmark/ Europe. Sorry, im just frustrated!!!

 

[seraphnyc]

One must admit that with these higher clock speeds gaming on the mac is becoming more and more appealing. We have the clock speeds now to run some HOT games and even a few console developers are starting to look in our direction (Strange Flavor ). Any processor speed bump is a good one, especially if it brings us some more games (I have become a Mac Game-a-holic lately).

 

[migue]

Hypertransport

Lost on what you are saying in the above but to focus on useful information...

The G5 2.5GHz CPU has a FSB running at 1.25GHz. That is a bi-directional bus, with 32 bits going in each direction. That yields a theoretical throughput of 10 GB/s full-duplex (5 GB/s in each direction at the same time) per CPU.

The Athlon 64 FX uses a HyperTransport bus running at 2.0GHz (data rate) or 1.6GHz depending on the Socket (939/940) type. The HT bus supported is 16 bits wide and is bi-directional. That yield a theoretical throughput of 8 GB/s full-duplex (4 GB/s in each direction at the same time) per CPU.

So the current top end G5 (970FX) can pull/push 25% more data then the current top end Athlon 64 FX.

I remember reading on the technical specification of Opteron/Athlon64FX that the 1.6GHz Hypertransport runs at 800Mhz in each direction per single instruction, and the 2.0GHz Hypertransport at 1 GHz either way. Hypertransport is not the same thing as a (bidirectional) Front Side Bus.

 

[QuiteSure]

Walter Murch edited Cold Mountain on G4s. He was very happy with their performance using FCP. If you're working on something more demanding than a $90 million major motion picture, you have a right to complain about these updates.

 

[jragosta]

I'm sure that one could get that computer for $900. $750 is rather unlikely, though. Even if it was $1000, i would be 1/3 the price of a high end G5, have a better graphics card, more RAM, room for more optical drives, a floppy (yes, a flopp... still comes in handy sometimes...), etc.

Try building a computer here. You'll find you can get a good gfx card, HD, processor, etc. for a grand or less.

And no operating system.
And no software.
And no OS anywhere near as good as OS X.
And millions of viruses.
And a dramatically slower CPU (and only one of them).
And a dramatically slower memory bus.

What you've just said is that a Yugo is a better deal than a Mercedes because it costs less and they both have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and a trunk.

 

[numediaman]

The sales figures over the next quarter or two will tell the story. I think they will be horrible.

With everyone lining up to nail Apple's iPod and iTunes categories, Job's is going to have to explain where the profits will come from.

I find the new G5 update completely disappointing. I have been scheduled to upgrade my desktop since January. Now, I will hold off until next year -- or later if they continue to update this slowly.

(I have to update my signature to "no G5 in my future".)

 

[HardHatMac9]

FINALLY

I can finally buy the new 15" and not have to worry about a G5 coming out the next day.

 

[moep]

No 3Ghz G5, no new-gen Graphics card, no G5 Powerbook. And well, Steve, shove that walljack on sterioids up your ... you know what.

this is going to be a great year for the mac...

I might just get a new PB, at least I can rest assured that there won't be a G5 PB coming out anytime soon.

Although, frankly, I'm so angry about the recent Apple up(down?)grades - I might just stick with the trusty G4/800 iBook for now.
Switching back to the PC-World will never be an option though. The latest Dell Insprion Entry-Level Notebook looks like some sort of 50$ printer-scanner-fax combo next to my iBook. I actually had to laugh out loud when I put them both next to each other. (Had one here to fix it for my aunt.)

 

[macenforcer]

Coexisting macs and pcs

For me the choice is simple. I do website programming and video work, vhs to dvd etc.. I have a dual 1.42ghz mac at home with a 20in cinema. I got them when the G5 first came out and paid $2200 for the G4. Got it from macwarhouse on closeout and it came with a 512mb ram upgrade bringing it to 1gb. I dropped in another 1gb so now I have 2gb. I have 2x250gb wd hardrives in it and I must say it is a nice tool to do video with. With all the space It also doubles as a file server for my pc.

On the flip side I need Outlook from microsoft plain and simple. Can't go into corporate america without it. Also I use coldfusion and access databases so a pc is a must. I just picked up a new IBM Thinkpad T23 with a 1.2GHZ PIII M with 1gb ram, wireless networking type B, 14.1 in screen with 1400x1050 resolution, 48gb hard drive and 16mg video. Got all that for $700 shipped. Now how can you beat that? I also added a 2x dvd-r burner to it for $160. This machine is still faster than the current powerbooks in my opinion. I had a Titanium G4 1ghz with superdrive but sold it for $2400 to buy my Dual G4. I tell you its the only configuration I can live with.

Granted if microsoft ever gets off their A$$ and makes access and outlook for osx then I will be all macintosh but I don't ever see that happening. Its sad really. I love my mac but PCs are just so cheap. A titanium 400mhz mac goes for $800 on ebay, now thats holding its value I must say but come on you can't do didly on a 400mhz g4. Good thing about my Dual 1.42 is they will always have an upgrade in the wings at sonnet for it. THis can't be said about the G5. However the G5s are plenty fast for video.

Bottom line, if you don't due video, or edit music on your mac then just go to ebay and pick up a cheap G4 for $600 and upgrade it later.

For now its Mac tower at home, IBM thinkpad on the road. CHeers.

 

[shawnce]

I remember reading on the technical specification of Opteron/Athlon64FX that the 1.6GHz Hypertransport runs at 800Mhz in each direction per single instruction, and the 2.0GHz Hypertransport at 1 GHz either way. Hypertransport is not the same thing as a (bidirectional) Front Side Bus.

Well the G5 (PPC 970) doesn't use HT for its FSB, it is a special IBM bus and it only has one. The Athlon 64 FX has two separate buses to the system, one is an HT bus as I outlined in what you quoted above and the other is a memory only interface (dual channel to PC3200).

Check the specs on AMDs site for clearification. (also note I updated my post to include more information)

So HT is an aspect of the Athlon's CPU system interconnect but not involved for the G5 CPU. However HT is an aspect of interconnect between bridges on the Power Mac G5 mother board.

 

[macenforcer]

Quad 3ghz G5

I still say a quad mac is coming at wwdc. Lets not forget the photos from the manual that thinksecret was told by apple to remove from the website. It had a huge block processor heatsink as opposed to the 2 heatsinks on the new 2.5ghz systems.

Also an important factor to realize is what product would developers be interested in? Its not a dual 2.5 because they already know about that. NO its a QUAD SYSTEM. You see there are different programming practices needed to program for a quad processor system. THis fact makes it important to developers.

I am going on record as predicting a quad system at wwdc. Anyone else with me?

 

[afields]

I still say a quad mac is coming at wwdc.

Let it go......let it go

 

[365]

I've had time to chill out a little and I think I'm actually pleased with the updates. At first glance 256mb in the low end is a joke but with only four memory slots the first thing you would do with a machine of this nature would be upgrade the memory to what ... say minimum 2GB so that's four 512mb sticks and the 2 x 128's go in the bin so why have 2 x 256 when they are also going in the bin, same with the 80GB drive, you still have a spare bay so put a second 400GB SATA drive in there and the graphics card isn't fantastic but the upgrade to 9600 isn't a stupid price and it's not cutting edge but it's good enough for photoshop work.

The upshot is that here in the UK we have gotten a MASSIVE price reduction on the dual 1.8Ghz and it's now looking like a bit of bargain to me, now all I need is the new monitors ( thanks to the stupid AppleCare clause that says you have to buy your monitor at the same time as your CPU to get 3 years monitor warranty ) and I'm at last ready to buy.

 

[machinehead]

I am going on record as predicting a quad system at wwdc. Anyone else with me?

Given the quote that starts this thread ("we are not getting to 3 GHz anytime soon"), that's probably the most optimistic scenario for a further dramatic performance boost in the near future.

After all, if "moving to 90 nm is a much bigger challenge than anyone expected," then using more of the existing chips is one way to end-run that roadblock.

I wish I knew more about all the issues that 4 vs. 2 processors raise. If 4 procs fit in the space, there would be twice the heat. Even multiple fans and the cheese-grater case might not move enough air to cool 4 procs.

Honestly, I would give a quad PowerMac about a 1 in 100 chance of being announced at WWDC. But if you want to imagine a truly radical, pre-emptive, shock-and-awe strike that would electrify the computer world, that would be it.

 

[dr.Zoidberg]

not too exciting beyond this forum....

i called my local authorized apple reseller.....he didnt know that apple had "updated" anything......(lol, some of you might say they havent, hahaha).....i think that goes to show how many people are really affected by this...

 

[macenforcer]

3GHZ Quad systems

Maybe not a quad 3ghz but possibly and most likely a quad 2.5ghz system. That would surely satisfy all the people upset that a 3ghz dual is not here yet and it wouldn't be hard to do. I don't think that the heat is doubled by adding double the processors is it? Not sure. But there is definately enough room down there for 2 more cpus. The architecture is there, the space is there, I say it happens. This was the problem faced back in the G4 days when they couldn't scale past 500mhz. Apple just came out with a dual 500 to satisfy people. I could see that happening here.

Lets face it. If you could get a quad processor for $1000 more that would increase performance by 40% would you buy it? I would. Video encoding would fly like the wind. Apps are already optimized arent they? I mean if you have a wintel bod with dual xeons arent you basically using a qud sytem because of hyperthreading? I would think most apps could utilize it now but could be even fast with code tweaking. Hence WWDC.

Yeah, still say quads are coming. Can't wait.

 

[NOV]

My favorite Audio editing program is on PC. have you used Adobe Audition? That program is rocks.

With respect to Cool Edit Pro...eh...Adobe Audition, but it's not really in the same ballpark as Logic Pro.

As others mentioned, I think the real ROI with a PM, altough more expensive than a PeeCee initially, is really the up-time and a superior OS.

 

[gothamac]

Something very interesting

I still say a quad mac is coming at wwdc. Lets not forget the photos from the manual that thinksecret was told by apple to remove from the website. It had a huge block processor heatsink as opposed to the 2 heatsinks on the new 2.5ghz systems.

Also an important factor to realize is what product would developers be interested in? Its not a dual 2.5 because they already know about that. NO its a QUAD SYSTEM. You see there are different programming practices needed to program for a quad processor system. THis fact makes it important to developers.

I am going on record as predicting a quad system at wwdc. Anyone else with me?

Notice the difference in the weight of the type "G5" on the service manuals.
The new manual type is much bolder.
Now look at the new G5 released today. Same type.
Maybe a 20th anniversary mac is in store.

 

[shawnce]

I remember reading on the technical specification of Opteron/Athlon64FX that the 1.6GHz Hypertransport runs at 800Mhz in each direction per single instruction, and the 2.0GHz Hypertransport at 1 GHz either way. Hypertransport is not the same thing as a (bidirectional) Front Side Bus.

Also meant to note that the data rate is either 1.6GHz or 2.0GHz for the Athlon 64 FX (depending on socket type). That is the data rate not the clock rate. The bus is double pumped (transmits a data bit on the up and down swing of the clock, so twice per clock cycle) or in other words the clock rate is half the data rate. So that is 800MHz and 1 GHz clock rate respectively. Which is what you noted I believe in the above.

The HT bus the Athlon 64 FX uses is a symmetric HT-16 bus. That is the up stream point-to-point unidirectional data path is 16 bits wide and the down stream data path is 16 bits. So 16 bits wide x 2.0 GHz data rate yields 32 Gb/s or 4 GB/s for one of the point-to-point unidirectional data paths. It has one up and one down so that gives a full-duplex max of 8 GB/s. Just in case if anyone was confused on how the numbers work out.

 

[jiggie2g]

Man the Guy's on AMDZone.com are already Bashing the new G5's ...LOL

And it is true that while the G5 may have reached 2.5ghz they do need to be Liquid cooled which is Expensive to add, this is not good as this means yealds at hight speeds with be even harder to produce with out extensive cooling.

it's funny that AMD is using the same Fish Kills Plant to build thier CPU's and are rolling them out with no prob. AMD will have an Athlon FX-55 and +4200 by Oct/Nov , but IBM can't even put out a 3Ghz processor just pitiful.

I can run an Athlon 64 FX-53 or +3800 quietly and cool with just a Copper Zalman Fan/Heat sink combo , they don't need Liquid cooling + 9 fans just to run normally.

 

[yuphorix]

Gaming these days is more dependent on the video card than the processor. I mean who still runs in software mode. All the work is done by the video card. So in reality, the standard video card provided by apple is rather outdated for gaming.

No, the quad system is not possible for a desktop. I can see them using it for some bigazz server but it's not gonna be able to work architechturally and physically in a even large desktop case. Dual processor itself is already a workload. Also, considering the price of the G5 is mostly the processor, that thing would cost the price of a small car. That and the performance gain would not really justify the cost.