Next Powermacs finally catching up?

blangblang
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
According to Spymac the next itineration of Powermacs will revert back to a mixture of single processor and dual processor machines.



They allude to the fact that the current "mirror door" Powermacs are all dual processors to combat slow processor speeds, but the next Powermacs will not have this problem.



Finally they say that Apple has a bright future,

you can read the story at Spymac.com
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Spymac knows shit. Always have and always will.
  • Reply 2 of 33
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    If Apple goes back to a single processor in the PM linup I hope that it is a dual core. Otherwise they may take some bad press from the move, unless of course it is to make a new "low end" PM at about $1299.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    echodriverechodriver Posts: 10member
    We've seen this all before.



    When apple was in the same "lag behind intel' situation a couple years back. They quietly released dual machines to keep up with the joness (just like a few weeks ago). Then, not too long after that they put out singles that were more in line with current pcs.

    I'm in on the spymac's whole "all duals won't last long" theory but I don't forsee a glorious leap forward after paris or xmass. I see us keeping pace for a little while longer and not much more.



    I do have faith in the Steve that he will grab more marketshare with better computers in years to come.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    i have questionsi have questions Posts: 97member
    Maybe the powers that be could figure out a way to automatically make any post that contains the phrases: "Spymac says," "according to Spymac," or "Spymac is reporting" automatically disappear into the nether regions of cyberspace, never to appear again.

  • Reply 5 of 33
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>Spymac knows shit. Always have and always will.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    They did call the eMac dead on when no one else (that I recall) was.

    You've got to give them that one.
  • Reply 6 of 33
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    The nerve of Spymac, spreading false rumours.
  • Reply 7 of 33
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    I think they are right. I don't think Apple is getting the margins they want from the current PM range. The whole thrust of Apple the last qtr has been to reduce costs. They have shifted the iMac production, and going dual dosn't fit in. If you all remember Dorsal (Where is he now :confused: ) he predicted good news late in the year (Which I take to be DDR PM's) and a quantium leap early 2003.



    Now what is coming early '03, god or SJ knows, but it isn't rocket science to reconise that this probably means that the current dual processor machines are an intrium bargin, and that the format is likely to change.





    PS have we lost a large number of contributors to this forum? I have never known it to be so quiet.



    [ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 33
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    please. Apple still has hueg margins on these towers. There's nothing amazing about that, no new expensive components. They are usuing components that have been on the market for a long time now. G4s are cheap compared to high end P4s. Apple makes their money off the pro lines and they keep it that way. They won't lower prices. and they have big 25%+ margins on these. especially the high end
  • Reply 9 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Actually, pricing components out at RETAIL reveals margins of 40% percent or better on these PM's.



    Anyway,



    On the subject of duals, Apple SHOULD NEVER EVER go back to single processor machines for the pro towers. NEVER.



    Even if they have to keep slightly slower CPU's in the bottom tier machines to do it, they should keep all their pro machines DUAL CPU. The OS likes it, and the it makes it much easier to keep the consumer offerings current too. With an all dual pro line-up they wouldn't have to limit the speed of the consumer machines. They could (and should) get max speed CPU's, just ONE instead of 2. This way, whatever CPU they're using, they'll have higher speeds for the consumer line-up and buy/sell more total PPC's to keep Mot/IBM happy/interested in making faster PPC's.



    SP powermacs? NEVER AGAIN!!!



    Knowing Steve, As soon as he gets slightly faster clocks and FSB he'll revert back to a SP low end. Bastard!
  • Reply 10 of 33
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    No, no. If a new SP machine can out perform the current dual and costs less that's what we will get and it won't matter.



    The whole point of having more than one processor is to improve performance. Well if you can do that with one processor then let's have it. The cost of two processors must be huge.
  • Reply 10 of 33
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    [quote]Originally posted by blang:

    <strong>



    Finally they say that Apple has a bright future,

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Phew...I was getting kinda worried there. Thanks SpyMac for clearing that up.



  • Reply 12 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The cost is minimal. PPC's are cheap. About 90 bucks apiece for 867's. Two 800ish PPC's are cheaper than one 1.25Ghz.



    The problem is that Apple never has a decent spread of speeds to cover pro and consumer machines. Having all dual pro's would allow them to make decently fast high-end consumer machines instead of the bus/cache/CPU crippled AIO's they've been hocking for the last 3 years.



    [ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 33
    clonenodeclonenode Posts: 392member
    [quote]Originally posted by Addison:

    <strong>PS have we lost a large number of contributors to this forum? I have never known it to be so quiet.



    [ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was away from the site for a week, thinking it was down. <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com"; target="_blank">www.appleinsider.com</a> was not working and that is how I had the site bookmarked.



    It seems to be fixed now.



    [ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: clonenode ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 33
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>The cost is minimal. PPC's are cheap. About 90 bucks apiece for 867's.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Just out of curiousity, where does this number come from? Couldn't find any pricing info on Moto's site, but maybe I just didn't look hard enough?



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 15 of 33
    sarasotabob13sarasotabob13 Posts: 7member
    Might find this an interesting read at O'Gradys.



    Next-Generation Power4 Processor No-Go for Power Macs

    Fri, 06 Sep 2002, 09:03



    [Ed: The following was posted publicly by an Apple SciTech mailing list member; PowerPage.org has confirmed the source but the source has requested anonymity on our site. -PK]



    I attended a briefing today on IBM's high performance computing technology, which is hinged on their Power4 CPU (this CPU has awesome performance in the various real-world benchmarks I have seen). After the briefing, I asked the presenter (a chief engineering manager from IBM) about the Power4 derivative for desktops and low end servers to be announced in October. You may recall that there has been speculation that this CPU would find its way into PowerMacs in the future. Well, it sounds like this CPU is not in Apple's future -- the "over 160" vector instructions are not AltiVec (even though AltiVec has 162 instructions), and there are technical issues that would prevent AltiVec from ever marrying with Power4 or its successors. Furthermore, the guy came right out and said that they have pitched the desktop Power4 to Apple, but Apple was not interested.



    So, although Power4-based PowerMacs seemed like a promising (and likely) possibility, it looks like it won't happen. I guess we will have to wait and see what Apple has in store for the future . . . .

  • Reply 16 of 33
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Yeah.



    Well, peeved at the rumour I may be...but I'll believe it when I see no Power next Summer.



    There is no way a G4 is ever going to 'catch up'.



    It has been soundly thrashed in mhz and all round performance even in creative apps where Macs are supposed to be strong.



    Apple and Moto' obviously failed to see the 'white heat' of technology whoop ass that AMD and Intel were to open up.



    Short of going 64 bit there is no way for Apple to level the playing field. Going 64 bit is their best chance.



    Yeesh. Moto's going .9. What what's the betting we'll see .13 G4s and then .9 G4s hobble up to 2 gig?



    And this rumor says no IBM 64 bit? 'Scuse me?



    If not that? What?



    G4 on Rio takes on 64 bit Hammer?



    It will get its arse kicked. Goodbye more 'power'Mac sales.



    Hey, if Apple keep going, they can get their 'power' sales under 100,000 K!



    I hope Jaguar hasn't come too late for Apple.



    I hope it's just my late night melancholy blues speaking...



    Lemon Bon bon
  • Reply 17 of 33
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

    <strong>Short of going 64 bit there is no way for Apple to level the playing field. Going 64 bit is their best chance.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    64-bit-ness in itself does not mean "twice as fast", even though AMD would like to have you believe otherwise. As has already been pointed out numerous times on these boards, the cases where it will provide significant performance advantages over 32 bit systems are relatively few and not commonly encountered by most people.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 18 of 33
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    "64-bit-ness in itself does not mean "twice as fast",



    THAT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE.



    "even though AMD would like to have you believe otherwise. As has already been pointed out numerous times on these boards, the cases where it will provide significant performance advantages over 32 bit systems are relatively few and not commonly encountered by most people."





    Crap. Utter crap. Crap, crap, CRAP! Fluffy crap.



    A 3.4 gig Xp Hammer will pound the beezeesus out of any G4 Motorola can drag out of its sorry ass in the next 18 months.



    Apple will have their juicy 1.25 shipping in November. One month later-ish, AMD will have their 3.4 Xp Hammer with its (64 bit not necessarily mustering any advantage over 32bit...) beating the snotty tar out of Apple's flagship dual 1.25.



    Not that I care any...I wuz just saying...



    'BYE'



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 19 of 33
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    [quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:

    <strong>

    64-bit-ness in itself does not mean "twice as fast", even though AMD would like to have you believe otherwise. As has already been pointed out numerous times on these boards, the cases where it will provide significant performance advantages over 32 bit systems are relatively few and not commonly encountered by most people.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It can, in fact mean the opposite -&gt; half as fast. bandwidth requirements double. The G4 is... bandwidth constrained.



    There were a very large number of things that needed more than 8 or 16 bits to express well. But so many things work best at lower bit counts that there's a trade off in going to 64 bit. A combo 32-64 bit chip (as in the IBM ppc) would be fine.



    32 bit addressing -&gt; 4GB/thread max.



    But 1++; is far, far more common than 4,297,967,296++;



    [ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Nevyn ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I think 32bit adressing should give 4GB max?
Sign In or Register to comment.