No 3GHz Soon and No G5 Laptop

[moep]

These Hardware-Updates (eMac, iBook, PB and PM) and the Airport Express alone don't make a "great year for the Macintosh". They're just what we'd expect pretty much every year.

We might see G5 iMac or a completely new Headless-iMac at WWDC. Apple really lacks a normal midrange mac, not everyone needs a Powermac with two Processors for surfing the net and typing a doc in word. And not everyone wants an outdated machine with a TFT that can't be used with any other macs.

 

[jiggie2g]

AMD cannot put out a 3GHz processor either. You do realize that the Athlon 64 3800+ runs at 2.4GHz and that 3800 is a "speed rating".

AMD does not need to be at 3ghz clock speed wise at this moment , they only need to be as fast or faster than Intel which is exactly where they are. Apple on the other hand needs all the speed they can get or else more people will continue to Buy Dell's + HP's. they are the one's backed into a corner not AMD , The Athlon 64 series has the PC world by the balls at the moment they will be the Speed King for atleast the next 18 months till Long Horn comes out and Intel Finally get's thier New Chip Architecture together.

it is realistic for AMD to get a 35-40% market share , for Apple even +5% dosen't even seem likey anymore.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

... and By the Way didn't Tom Boger Already say that they don't expect 3ghz chips anytime soon prob not till Macworld SF '05

....so please stop wishing on a star.

Has it occured to anyone that Apple learned it's lesson on the 1 year, 3 GHz "promise". Not anytime soon is nice and vague it could just as easily be six months as another year.

 

[shawnce]

I see that some people don't think that reaching 3GHz in the Powermacs is very important. But they need to understand that if the Powermacs don't keep going up, the Powerbooks, iMacs, iBooks, and eMacs cannot move up either. And that's where the sales are. The 970FX (assuming that the new G5s use the 970FX) still seems to be a problem. The move to 90nm did not increase the clockspeed at all. Without liquid-cooling, maybe we won't even have the 2.5GHz in the lineup.

The new systems do appear to use a PPC 970 FX.

The liquid cooling is not needed to get the 970FX to run at 2.5GHz. In general the 90nm process should reduce power dissipation over 25% when running at the same clock speed, some documents on the 90nm process imply close to 50%. The PPC970 is already more power miserly then a P4 or even an Athlon 64 so if those systems can run without liquid cooling so can a PPC970 based system. The liquid cooling being used is to help keep the system quiet, it does this by making the heat transfer more efficient (also it is future compatible for higher speed parts) thus reducing how fast one has to pull air through the chassis. Slow air movement mean quieter system.

The switch to a 90nm process (PPC970->PPC970FX) has increased the clock speed by 25% (2.0GHz to 2.5GHz) so far and as yields increase in the process it may go higher (still trying to find a definitive doc on what scaling factor is expected with the 90nm process being used by IBM).

Would it be great to have a 3GHz G5 now, sure it would for those that really need it but it is not correct to state that no improvements have been made.

Also a lot of space exists in the product line to bring a 1.6-2.0 GHz PPC 970 into the iMac, etc. (much more then existed in the G4 days not so long ago). Finally Apple has repeatedly stated the G5 will not make into the laptops any time soon, so don't get your hopes up.

 

[morkintosh]

We got longhorned!

rotfl ... indeed we did, makes me glad I didn't wait and just bought the dual 1.8 a month ago.

 

[yuphorix]

Where's the proof that the 2.0ghz and 1.8ghz processors are 970fx?

 

[Swift]

"Broken Promises"

those were goals.

at the time the statements were made, perhaps under optimistic views, he thought those statements would come true.

I'll have to come up with the quote from the G5 intro, I guess, but "promise" is too much of a word. He said, 3 Ghz by the end of next year, I believe. That leaves 6 months. IBM is a big company, see; they've fallen a little short making a brand-new chip. I believe Steve looked over at the IBM guy and said, "next year, right?"

As for those people who are disappointed with a 2.5 GHz Dual, and a bit of a wait for G5 iMacs and Powerbooks, you've just got to get serious someday. Don't let disappointment turn into anger at Apple.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

AMD does not need to be at 3ghz clock speed wise at this moment , they only need to be as fast or faster than Intel which is exactly where they are. Apple on the other hand needs all the speed they can get or else more people will continue to Buy Dell's + HP's. they are the one's backed into a corner not AMD , The Athlon 64 series has the PC world by the balls at the moment they will be the Speed King for atleast the next 18 months till Long Horn comes out and Intel Finally get's thier New Chip Architecture together.

it is realistic for AMD to get a 35-40% market share , for Apple even +5% dosen't even seem likey anymore.

So by the same regards, Apple doesn't need to reach 3.0GHz. Apple is a niche computer, and they will continue to be so long as they control both the hardware and OS for their systems.
If you are comparing chip market share, you should be comparing IBM to AMD. Apple is not a chip maker.

 

[jiggie2g]

But you are talking about a 2.4GHz part in comparison to a 1.8GHz part you say... Well the PPC970 running at 1.8 GHz is about the same as the FX-53 in performance on many tasks, slower in some faster in others but lets be nice and say it is 50% slower for the hell of it (which it isn't at all). Note that the FX-53 dissipates about 74% more power then the PPC970@1.8GHz.

i can't believe the crap that comes out the Mouths of Mac Fanatics you are comparing a G5 1.8ghz or a top of the line Athlon FX-53 thats nuts , the Dual 2ghz couldn't even keep up with the FX-51 except in Video encoding.

I bet you believe those fake benhmarks that Good O'l Stevo Puts up on the Apple Web site are tried and true... Steve Jobs is the Worlds greatest illusionist.

anyways getting back to the processors it's supposed to dissipate more heat Duh..... it's 600mhz faster . Post those numbers for the G5 2.5ghz then come talk 2 me.

 

[Capt Underpants]

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.

So you add 89 bucks for the OS. It is available in their configuration pages.
No duh its not as good as OSX.... but its a hell of alot cheaper. Not everyone can afford a mac. They like games, and a thousand dollar machine is much better for them than a 3,000 machine (that still has an inferior cideo card!)
If you can't use a windows computer without getting a virus, you need to stay off any computer. it's not rocket science.
Slower CPU? 3.4 GHz versus 2.5 GHz. Apple has to put 2 of their CPUs into a computer to compete with PC's.
If you really want speed, spend the extra money and get an AMD 64. It's fast as a bat out of you know where.

I'm comparing a cheaply priced machine (with similar performance, most likely) to a high end machine costing 2,000 more. It's easy to see why Apple doesn't have very much market share.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade my powerbook for anything, I just can't see buying a G5 for speed when there are less expensive, high performance computers out there. I can, however, see myself buying a G5 because of software. NOT hardware.

 

[macrumors12345]

You (jiggie2g) do realize that the Athlon 64 3800+ runs at 2.4GHz and that 3800 is a "speed rating".

No, he doesn't realize that. He doesn't even realize that the Athlon's Hypertransport bus is only 32 bits wide, but he tries to compare it to the 64 bit wide Elastic bus on the G5. Another typical clueless troll...

 

[shawnce]

AMD does not need to be at 3ghz clock speed wise at this moment , they only need to be as fast or faster than Intel which is exactly where they are.

Goal post shifting?

Anyway G5s (aka PPC970/FX) are basically as fast (yes some times slower) as current Athlon 64s and both are generally faster, on average, then any current P4/XEON (not talking clock rates but performance on real tasks). Factor in that you can get dual G5 systems but you cannot do that with an Athlon 64 currently and you can get a performance win if go with a Power Mac G5 (depending on what you need to do).

Now AMDs Opteron is the big winner at the moment.

 

[yuphorix]

Yeah... the FX-53 is top of the line AMD and most benchmarks show that the G5 2.0 ghz could not keep up with the FX-53. The 2.5 might now but that will be reviewed by macworld.

From what I remember from the macworld review, the FX-53 and P4EE both surpassed the dual 2.0ghz in almost every single benchmark. The only tests that the G5 won in was the task completion, which different software sets was used to perform a task. Yes, it's true that the G5 can complete tasks like CD burning and other things faster (not by much), but that doesn't say anything about the hardware performance.

I laughed at the benchmarks on apple's website. Not even an idiot would believe that. Those statistics looked like they took the performance of a single G5 processor and doubled it... or halved the time. This isn't how dual processor works.

 

[shawnce]

i can't believe the crap that comes out the Mouths of Mac Fanatics

By the way if you look at my posts it is clear that I am not a "Mac Fanatic" as you seem to believe I am. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[jiggie2g]

I support IBM ThinkPad T41's day in and day out at work and there are ZERO crashes. We haven't had a BSOD in this office in over a..check that. We've had three all due to a bad batch of hard drives (corrupt sectors in the boot partition tend to make any OS unhappy.) and that happens on even Macs. Other then that Zero in about a 2 year period.

Windows Updates? Ya right. I've not rebooted my home desktop in heck it's got to be 6 months. Every vulnerability that is in Windows is nulled with a firewall. So please. Windows isn't a friendly OS to the average user but for those who are nerds and work with this damnable OS day in and day out we can make it our *****.

FYI - I've never had a single virus\Trojan\Worm or any other type of Malware on my computers EVER. Its all about safe computing. As long as you aren't stupid enough to open and run an attachment from a friend that says: Greatest thing EVER! Run me! You are fine.


And as a followup as to my rant: No way am I going to spend $3,000 on a system that is anywhere from 20%-30% slower then its PC counterpart. I have no love affair with Microsoft or Windows but I'm not going to lube up simple because I want to get away from MS. I'm trying to get AWAY from being screwed by a company. Not go to a different company and simply exchange the tools they use to screw their customer over with. So instead of dealing with semicrapy software from MS I would have to deal with semicrappy hardware from Apple. Great tradeoff.

Great Post SiliconAddict, I to believe while windows may in way be inferior to OSX expessially when it comes to ease of use, for us who are Nerds or just computer savvy it really dosen't matter what OS you use cuz chances are you know ur ways around both. know how to avoid things like viruses , and keeping a system optimized.

Stupid PC user's who don't use common sense to avoid viruses are every bit as responsible as the hackers who make them. all it takes is a few determined Hackers and OSX would become just as big as a risk as windows.

just like if u contract an STD who's fault is it the filthy person who gave it 2 u and didn't tell u , or your dum ass for not using protection.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

So you add 89 bucks for the OS. It is available in their configuration pages.
No duh its not as good as OSX.... but its a hell of alot cheaper. Not everyone can afford a mac. They like games, and a thousand dollar machine is much better for them than a 3,000 machine (that still has an inferior cideo card!)
If you can't use a windows computer without getting a virus, you need to stay off any computer. it's not rocket science.
Slower CPU? 3.4 GHz versus 2.5 GHz. Apple has to put 2 of their CPUs into a computer to compete with PC's.
If you really want speed, spend the extra money and get an AMD 64. It's fast as a bat out of you know where.

I'm comparing a cheaply priced machine (with similar performance, most likely) to a high end machine costing 2,000 more. It's easy to see why Apple doesn't have very much market share.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade my powerbook for anything, I just can't see buying a G5 for speed when there are less expensive, high performance computers out there. I can, however, see myself buying a G5 because of software. NOT hardware.

You compare 3.4GHz to 2.5GHz and then you suggests to get an AMD if you want more speed. Well the fastest AMD chip runs at 2.4GHz. so I am not sure where you got your numbers. If you want to play games then get the $1000 machine to play games on. But if you want/need to use programs like FCP, DVD SP and Shake, good luck on your $1000 PC.

Apple is not focused in the very low-end market. They make iBooks, eMacs and iMacs to satisfy it to some extent, but it is not the primary market for Macs.

Macs are not for everyone:
1)They are for people who either need them for the job they do. People can post all the benchmarks in the world, there will always be things that the Mac is better and there will always be things a PC is better.
2)They are are for people who don't like Windows or Windows software and are willing to pay a premium for an alternative choice.

No one is ever going to win a Mac vs. PC argument, but it sure is fun to keep arguing.

 

[a_iver]

None of the viruses were critical though. It's true that it takes a good amount of not only computer experience but windows system experience to keep one running in top shape. OSX is relatively easy to understand, but when you dive into the X11 and Unix world, things get just as complex too.

While although what you said is true, UNIX and X11 are tools that are optional, while running your operating system is not (although technically speaking OS X runs UNIX). I understand with every operating system at least some maintenance is required. But you would think that they would incorporate instructions on how, especially when the threat of viruses is so immense. My grandma runs Windows 2000 and when I mention antiviruses, firewalls, and software update she has absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

Sorry for running this off topic. How we manage to go from availability of G5s to viruses is beyond me.

 

[Capt Underpants]

You compare 3.4GHz to 2.5GHz and then you suggests to get an AMD if you want more speed. Well the fastest AMD chip runs at 2.4GHz. so I am not sure where you got your numbers. If you want to play games then get the $1000 machine to play games on. But if you want/need to use programs like FCP, DVD SP and Shake, good luck on your $1000 PC.

Apple is not focused in the very low-end market. They make iBooks, eMacs and iMacs to satisfy it to some extent, but it is not the primary market for Macs.

Macs are not for everyone:
1)They are for people who either need them for the job they do. People can post all the benchmarks in the world, there will always be things that the Mac is better and there will always be things a PC is better.
2)They are are for people who don't like Windows or Windows software and are willing to pay a premium for an alternative choice.

No one is ever going to win a Mac vs. PC argument, but it sure is fun to keep arguing.

Yes, I do say that one should get an AMD. Why? Simple. They have been proven (in benchmarks) to be faster than the dual 2.0 Ghz. We will see how well the new AMDs and the new 2.5 GHz G5's do when comparing one to the other. Al I'm saying is that the G5 probably isn't the fastest processor in the world right now. that's just my guess, though, as we will both have to wait for benchmarks to come out. You are right, you can't get FCP, shake, motion, etc. on a PC. How many people actually need these programs? Do you own them? I certainly don't because I am a consmer, not a professional. I know that for gaming, a $1,500 PC gaming rig will out perform a Dual 2.0 GHz (and maybe a 2.5 GHz) G5. Gaming+mac=slow.

I know no one will never win. I really do like macs, though. Debating PC vs. Mac is rather amusing.

 

[BeigeUser]

The liquid cooling is not needed to get the 970FX to run at 2.5GHz...The liquid cooling being used is to help keep the system quiet, it does this by making the heat transfer more efficient...

So you are saying that the 9 fan system used by the old dual 2GHz is not sufficient to run the dual 2.5GHz quietly. Hence, liquid cooling is needed to get the 2.5Ghz to the same level of quietness as the old dual 2GHz.

From another perspective, the maximum speed that a 970FX can run without liquid cooling is dual 2GHz which happens to be the same max speed that the regular PPC 970 can run without liquid cooling.

So my point was: Is this really an improvement? I understand your point about better power consumption but if it's too hot to put in a laptop, what's the point of having better power consumption?

 

[shawnce]

anyways getting back to the processors it's supposed to dissipate more heat Duh..... it's 600mhz faster . Post those numbers for the G5 2.5ghz then come talk 2 me.

You do realize that the difference between 2.6 and 1.8 is 25% while the power dissipation difference between them is 74%. In general the active power dissipation component (power due mostly to switching) is linear with clock rate so (ignoring the process change) a G5 running at 2.5 GHz would dissipate about the same power as a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 (FX-53). In other words it is still more power efficient if you want to do some thing stupid like compare them clock rate wise.

 

[yuphorix]

Your grandma uses windows 2000? Isn't that a lil too... PRO for her? Either way, yes... firewalls and viruses are hard to deal with, especially since they aren't automatically done by the OS. Mac's tend to have less viruses so the chances of getting one are slim, so maybe people who do not know how to deal with viruses should get a mac. But the proper way to secure a mac is not much different from a windows system. You still have to buy anti-virus software, install it, and maintain it. As for the firewall, I guess for some people it's a lil difficult to find...

Iono, if you were to ask me... I'd probably stick to buying laptops from apple for the form factor and buying PC desktops since I don't believe in spending $2k mainly for the processors when I much rather put the money towards better video card, SATA RAID, and lots of RAM. Then again, I'm only a programmer that does web design and photo editing as a hobby. Having a dual processor is about as good as having a single processor for me.

 

[tortoise]

Theory meets reality

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).

In real world memory and I/O benchmarks e.g. STREAM, the Athlon/Opteron systems get very close to theoretical, but the PPC970 does not even get close. And the memory latency on the PPC970 is attrocious, and without even a large cache to compensate.

In terms of real memory performance, the dual 2.0 GHz G5 gets in the range of 2-3 GB/s depending on the compiler. GCC 2.9x is the fastest, GCC 3.x is the slowest, and IBM XLC splits the difference.

A dual 2.0 GHz Opteron gets 4.5-5.5 GB/s in 32-bit mode depending on the compiler. The Athlon64 memory profiles look very similar to the Opteron profile in practice.

The supercomputing guys have been all over both these systems and benchmarked the crap out of them. Outside of very narrow application spaces, the G5s deliver disappointing real-world system performance compared to the AMD systems. The benchmark with the highest correlation with general application performance for supercomputing and such is generally considered to be STREAM, which as I highlighted above shows the PPC970 series processors giving a very mediocre showing.

So forget whatever the nominal architecture specs say. When you actually test the real limits of the systems, you find that AMDs memory controller is the only one capable of delivering performance that looks remotely like whatever the architecture theoretically supports. It is the Achilles Heel of the current crop of PPC970.

 

[tortoise]

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.

Differences in architecture matter as well as the process technology, particularly when it comes to things like heat management. While I don't know much about it myself, I have heard that certain efficiencies and nuances of AMDs design helps minimize the formation of hotspots on the chip. If the heat is more evenly spread across the die, it is easier to manage.

 

[jiggie2g]

Apple is not focused in the very low-end market. They make iBooks, eMacs and iMacs to satisfy it to some extent, but it is not the primary market for Macs.

With these prices it seems Apple is not focused on any kind of consumer market at all and instead only care's about getting the most money out of unsuspecting users with deep pockets who don't know anything about hardware.

when i brought my 1st mac in 2002 ( 1st gen Flat panel iMac 800mhz Super Drive) I was very curious about the mac platform, bust most of all the Design /Screen and Price of what i was getting . i felt like I was getting a real Bargin.

At a time when 2ghz was tops, PC's and LCD's were still expensive . a similarly priced PC would have set me back $2,500 compared to the $1799 that i paid for my iMac.

at the end of the day the thing that secured my purchase was overall value something that Apple has totally forgotten. the iMac line is a Freakin joke now , PB's are getting killed by Pentium M's , and G5's though very fast are priced at a Premium that most good hardworking people cannot afford or are just unwilling to pay .....that value no longer exist.

sure they can come out with some crippled 1.6G5 iMac but it will be a Joke by now as i would not pay $1799-1999 for that unless it came with a things i expect in todays $2000 PC , things like 512-1gig Ram , 160gb HD , higher Mid range video cards, Dual Layer/8x DVD+/-RW. .......not 256 ram , 80 gig drives , and crappy -R only super drives that will be a $200 option on lower end models(8X DVD-/+R/RW's go for $79 at New Egg) but that's Apple always trying to make an extra buck then a few extra more on top of that.

in this Day 2004 , for $2000 i'd better get top end or near top end componets all around in my PC , and in the PC market i will. other than the G5's chip and Fancy case that comp is filled with Sub-par Bargin Parts when it should all be sub-lime.

So i will soon end's my journey in Mac Wonderland and go PC AMD.

i bid you all a very fond fare well. atleast till apple wakes up again.

P.S.

While I am Glad to see the new Cinema Displays will be Aluminum w/DVI i will be getting a 20in CD as soon as they are availibale , will look cool next to my Wave Master Case

 

[Ishan]

WWDC-what will be...

Think about it logically, after seeing today's introductions of new Powermacs. The only "new" unit is the dual 2.5 GHz and it includes water cooling and multiple fans which far exceed the need for cooling the 970fx x 2 chips installed. Other features, including the lack of a high-end video card, approriate PCI slots, a small single "slow" HD (for professional videographers and the like) all indicate that this 2.5 Ghz Powermac was designed to accommodate another chip, i.e., the 975.

At WWDC, Jobs will introduce a 3.2 GHz dual PowerMac using the 975 chip which is being produced with reasonable yields at IBM's Fishkill plant. This model will have a $1000 price premium for educational pricing alone and will be actually available, i.e., delivered to customers after September 1. In addition, Jobs will indicate that a quad processor variant (with an astronomically high price tag) is under development and will be available within a year. The 975 chip in limited amounts has scaled up to 4+ Ghz although reliability/endurance testing is not complete as of today.

In summary, today's release was scheduled for January, but due to fab problems, an insufficient supply of 2.5 Ghz chips was available and even now, it somewhat constrained. The mistakes make in the design of this chip were rectified early on in the design of the 975 chip-the development of these two chips were in parallel but not entirely synchronous.

The current 2.5 GHz dual unit is a good value, but Apple is not investing much in advertising or offering "the best" in hardware (hard drives, video cards, memory, etc), all of which is reserved for the 975 dual 3.2 GHz unit. In preliminary testing, this unit using all of the various Photoshop filters/actions (not just the select few which favor the 970 series vs. the P4) performs at least twice as fast as the highest-end units available from large vendors.

I have several 2.0 Ghz units and have ordered several 2.5 Ghz machines (but I get a huge discount, thankfully). However, I will cancel most of these orders when the WWDC announcement is made and get the 3.2 dual Ghz machines. I think the quad machines are going to be beyond my budget i.e., will exceed $7000 for the base machines for education store customers.

Just a FYI from a devoted reader.

Have a good evening.