Originally posted by John Q Public
...my issue is not that the G5 is a bad machine...nor do I believe the G4 is faster (although...for now...many synthetic tests paint a differing picture)...when the G5 finally gets an OS (with more than a few optimised libraries) that is written specifically to address it's unique archetecture...and when apps are finally coded to take advantage of the PPC970...it'll be one of the fastest PC's available...
If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't have been so harsh. My posts had a tendency to come up just before your replies to others, and I was a little too quick to hit the reply button.
On this point, I agree to disagree. We're looking at the same results and are interpreting it differently:
I expected the low-end G5 to perform much worse than the high end FW800 dual G4 in CPU benchmarks that either took advantage of Velocity (Altivec/VMX) or took advantage of two processors. I was pleasantly surprised when it performed comparably or better. IMO, even the underpowered single CPU G5 looks like a very good machine even as it stands today. You might have been expecting it to blow away the G4, especially given its price tag, and and now see evidence that it doesn't unless the benchmark code is recompiled.
BUT as I've stated...ad nauseum...I bought a G4 (to replace a dead G3)...and I found the G4 to be a much better "Fit" for what I wanted/needed in a desktop machine...and seeing that I paid $150 under MSRP it gave me more than enough money to add a few minor upgrades...I'm not defending a purchase...
I bought one of the first G4's (G4/400 Yikes) four years ago and, truth be told, it was too much computer for my needs at the time. Surprisingly, it still serves an essential need today because even it's cobbled-together-from-the-G3 motherboard had enough forward thinking components and a decent-enough CPU. For many people purchasing a G5 (100k preorders and counting as you mentioned), it may be too much computer for them. The nice thing is it will hold its value for a long time and still probably end up with a decent ROI.
Yes, Apple needs to ship much more than 100k G5s. While it represents as much as the first year and a half of iPods, it still is not significant enough yet.
...if Itanic (ITANIUM, Merced or IA64...or whatever name Intel's calling it this week which has again been delayed...this time to Q3 2004) fails...they can easily take the hit...
The Itanium has been out for a couple years now,
there are full Itanium 2 configurations right now. Price/performance for a 64-bit server is miserable and
now that AMD has a tier one vendor, I imagine Intel now finally has some fire under their butt.
You're probably thinking of Prescott (aka Pentium 5) which is supposed to debut at 3.4Ghz and is rumored to have some hidden 64-bit support (I'll believe it when I see it). It has only slipped schedule from Q3 2003 to Q4 2003 and it looks like they'll make it, even though it is running a bit hot right now (so it won't be breaking 4Ghz this year, like everyone was bragging Intel would be at).
It's a open secret that Intel has had a lot of troubles with their new Fab11x in Arizona getting the 90nm designs from their research Fab to work (11x sort of like the production half of IBM's Fishkill: 12" wafers, robotic, etc.). Prescott is supposed to debut at 90nm.
BTW, so will the 3Ghz G5s sometime next year (I doubt IBM will have any trouble hitting this date, they already fab 90nm chips for other companies out of Fishkill) as well as perhaps a low-powered G5 suitable for notebooks. As for when the Apple will introduce the latter, who knows. My personal view is the Motorola G4 still has a lot of legs (heck they're just shrunk down to 130nm!). More importantly, IBM's G3 still can has some wiggle room (it just reached 1Ghz and they can always tack on VMX or go down to 90nm), so it looks like Apple can put in two more generations of G3s in their consumer line: I think a G5 professional notebook any earlier than Q1 2005 would be "aggressive".
...if AMD's Athlon64 (which still won't have a Microsoft OS until Q2 2004) stumbles...no problem...they've very deep pockets...
The Athlon64 has a Microsoft OS right now because the chip is still 32-bit compatible. Last I heard Microsoft had not set any ship date on 64-bit Windows targetting AMDs, so Q2 2004 may be a little optimistic. I don't think there are any hurdles in particular as I believe a friend of mine had 64-bit Windows for Hammer on his desk for about two years now--I'm only guessing though.
If you want to talk about a chip that has slipped schedule, the Athlon64 was supposed to have debuted in Q3 2002 and now they'll be lucky for Q4 2003!
AMD
does not have very deep pockets. They have $700 million dollars in capital and lose between half and a quarter of a billion dollars a quarter--thankfully, they are slowing down the rate of loss. A modern Fab now costs $3-5 billion dollars! AMD Dresden is still an excellent fab, but in order to compete, they're going to be using IBM's Fishkill facility for some production (and rumor has it that they've moved most of the development there too).
In other words, the Opteron and Athlon64 needs to turn the company around in the coming year. (I think they will.)
Isn't it shocking at how rich Intel is? It seems almost as if the rest of the CPU industry can just scrape together enough cash for one 12" fab, while Intel has two (that really should only count as one), is building another (they scrapped one however), and leaves most of their 9" fabs at capcity. The whole chip industry is screaming for a respite and Intel keeps on with their death march.
...BUT...if the G5 fails to draw enough "Switchers" and new users into the fold, it could mean financial trouble to an already unstable company...
At the risk of sounding ill-tempered,
where do you get this FUD? Apple has nearly 7x's AMDs capital, is trading just above book value, and has turned a profit nearly every quarter for the last 6 years. In fact, last quarter is the first quarter in a while they've managed a profit greater than the interest they make off their capital.
Given how much money Apple is sinking into capital investments like AppleStores, you realize how shocking it is that it has managed to continue to spend through the downturn and return anything remotely resembling a profit.
No, they're no Microsoft, but there is a reason many have Apple listed as a BUY.
...last and certainly not least...my apologies to WM. and tychay...the "Slow Learner" comment was aimed at one person...not either of you...
Apology accepted. I'd like to reiterate my apology of jumping down your throat thoughtlessly.
