or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The G5 and what it means for future Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The G5 and what it means for future Macs - Page 3

post #81 of 357
Scoop of what, exactly?

I don't see how anything I posted is dumb, maybe a little too dramatic, sure. Anything Kormac has talked about has not come to pass and never will. My analysis is at least as in tune with reality as his.

That price increase is just plain contemptuous of loyal Apple customers. Before, Apple was falling behind by moving slowly on spec and standing pat on price, now they're falling further behind by standing pat on spec while raising prices.

I sure hope this is temporary. I think that it is, but it's bad press nonetheless. In an industry that isn't exactly fair to Apple they're going to get lambasted for this price increase. Margins are certainly important, but you simply cannot compete without lower priced models. Those don't have to be low margin models, but they need to get affordable to larger audience if they are truly serious about market share. Anyone with a long term business investment in a platform needs to be concerned about market share too. Timely updates of software, third party support, peripheral availibility, etc depends on that.

Why isn't there a 500 USD computer in the Apple line-up? Many people simply WILL NOT buy a computer above that price point. If they can't build the CRT iMac down to that price, then they need to re-engineer it so that they can. Consumers, education buyers, and businesses who vote with their pocketbooks, have been voting against Apple's rigid product structures. IF you need to strip down a computers spec a bit to get a cheaper option, then do it. This isn't like selling a high-end car, or a watch. When some-one buys a computer, they begin making a software investment in that platform. Eventually, the prospect of switching just becomes too expensive/inconvenient, even when people would really like to switch. A sale lost today isn't neccessarily a sale you can get back on the next upgrade cycle. It is even more important to bring people into a platform on the entry level.

Apple's software answer has been brilliant. And it's professional hardware answer adequate. But it has no complete consumer hardware answer. Recent moves only take Apple further out of the low-end market, which incidentally is the only market that can grow your market-share. While it isn't catastrophic to raise prices, it is pretty bad. Tied into a recent trend of sloth like hardware advancement, it just looks that much worse.

People don't really mind paying more, but they want to get more when they do. Take the iPod and HD display. No problem with those. They're clearly high-end products, with high, but very competitive prices. iMac is supposed to be a consumer machine, and as such it is approaching the wrong end of the consumer price range. They need to do better.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #82 of 357
Well the new display IS significant. I don't know that it has much to do with the domestic market (Steve doesn't believe that the family will watch TV on a computer) since the uptake on HD broadcasts in the US has been pretty dismal I understand; and anyway it costs too much.

Its for the pro market obviously but more significantly for the 'Hollywood' market that Steve is now going for. HiDef CRT monitors cost $30,000 and more (even then they 'cheat' on the resolution). Some method of using this monitor as a HiDef video monitor would immediately sell a bucketload of them.

At NAB Apple or a 3rd party needs to bring out a relatively cheap HD Serial to DVI interface box.

Hopefully we will also see a prieview of 'Shake OSX' and something from the Spruce DVD buyout.

What's still missing from the equation however is the rack mount quad G5 Apple 'RenderBeast'
post #83 of 357
Matsu Answer me one question, Why the SDRam price jumped more than a double in the past few months, did they included some new features in the SDRam?

I don't see what you are bragging about, it's not like are are going to buy an iMac anytime soon, or it is wrong for apple to increase the price, the fact is the price of LCD and Ram rose without adding new feature in themselve, if apple needs to raise the price to make a profit so be it.

iMac is a very low margine product, so even a 30 dollars rise in material cost could be a big problem for apple.
post #84 of 357
Matsu, it looks to me that you just don't understand some economic principles. With the current market situation, component shortage, and the already razor thin profit margins on iMacs, Apple really had no choice but to raise the prices on the iMac. Like Steve said, it was that or cut specs. Would you rather Apple have kept the prices the same and have a loss for the quarter? The year?
This is one of those things Apple does looking at the long term results, like when they "took their medicine" back in late 2000 when the computer industry got hit hard. It will help Apple's profits stay afloat during this shortage period, that has no end in sight, but by no means are these going to be permanent iMac prices.

Anyway, back to the G5 dammit. Dorsal come back!
I think it will be here MWNY.
"We're not gonna stop."
- Steve Jobs
Reply
"We're not gonna stop."
- Steve Jobs
Reply
post #85 of 357
Can anything be said about these G5s except that they're fast?? Isn't there anything that you can give to us Dorsal, that would give an idea of its speed, even if its only for a menial task?
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #86 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by mattyj:
<strong>Can anything be said about these G5s except that they're fast?? Isn't there anything that you can give to us Dorsal, that would give an idea of its speed, even if its only for a menial task?</strong><hr></blockquote>

LoL my prediction for G5 is it'll be really fast .....
post #87 of 357
<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phillip.briggs1/G5_3.htm" target="_blank">German Apple System Profiler Snapshot</a>

==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
post #88 of 357
as i said - G5 in July ...
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #89 of 357
866mhz G5?? well, the mhz are not very impressive, but can you tell us how fast it is?
post #90 of 357
what the g5 will mean for the future mans:
"it's like asking what is your favorite breath of air? you say, 'whichever one i'm taking that gets me to the next one' " (j.s.)

"meantime life outside goes on all around you...and if my thought-dreams could b seen, they 'd probably put my head in a guillitine." (r.z.)

-gd
post #91 of 357
Hopefully we can expect to see a 1.8Ghz G5 with 333Mhz DDR, not a 866Mhz 266DDR system.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #92 of 357
Thread Starter 
I don't know where this 800 or 866MHz figure comes from, but I have not mentioned it. The 7500 has a 10 stage pipeline (main) and a pipeline of undetermined length for the FPU units. It apears to be made on a 130nm process (given the amount of die surface area in relation to the on die cache and memory controller) so 866MHz would be a very low balled estimate. The processor speed is based on a ratio of the RapidIO bus; in this case 500MHz * 3, or 1.5GHz. The minimum ratio is 2:1 therefore on a 500MHz system bus you will at the minimum acheive 1.0GHz. The memory controller operates externally with memory at a fixed rate, either 133MHz (266MHz DDR) or 166MHz (333MHz DDR) and is asyncronous with the RapidIO main bus. Internally with the CPU core it is a 256bit wide bus similar to one used by IBM called CoreConnect and operates on the backside of the bus at a fixed ratio speed.
post #93 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>I don't know where this 800 or 866MHz figure comes from, but I have not mentioned it. The 7500 has a 10 stage pipeline (main) and a pipeline of undetermined length for the FPU units. It apears to be made on a 130nm process (given the amount of die surface area in relation to the on die cache and memory controller) so 866MHz would be a very low balled estimate. The processor speed is based on a ratio of the RapidIO bus; in this case 500MHz * 3, or 1.5GHz. The minimum ratio is 2:1 therefore on a 500MHz system bus you will at the minimum acheive 1.0GHz. The memory controller operates externally with memory at a fixed rate, either 133MHz (266MHz DDR) or 166MHz (333MHz DDR) and is asyncronous with the RapidIO main bus. Internally with the CPU core it is a 256bit wide bus similar to one used by IBM called CoreConnect and operates on the backside of the bus at a fixed ratio speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Three Dorsal posts in one thread? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Now I'm really starting to get nervous! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
post #94 of 357
A Kormac post concerning the new displays ....

How about some info on new portable products? I know you were disappointed at the MWSF announcements. Any word on future products?
post #95 of 357
What about some idea of the G5s speed, all we here about is it clocks speeds, what about its performance, is it twice as fast as a 1Ghz dual G4, for instance, or dual 2000 athlon XPs?
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #96 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by mattyj:
<strong>Hopefully we can expect to see a 1.8Ghz G5 with 333Mhz DDR, not a 866Mhz 266DDR system.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What does the processor speed have to do with how fast the machine is? More Mhz BS that is not relavent when comparing processors.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #97 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by philbot:
<strong>German Apple System Profiler Snapshot</strong><hr></blockquote>

866MHz G5?? Gawd I hope not! It better be at least 1.2 GHz!!
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #98 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by mattyj:
<strong>Hopefully we can expect to see a 1.8Ghz G5 with 333Mhz DDR, not a 866Mhz 266DDR system.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Let's hope so. Even at 1.8GHz Apple is still lagging far behind the competition. Even If it were a DP 1.8GHz /w 333MHz DDR by MWNY Apple would still be playing folow the leader.

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #99 of 357
I have to re-post because the thing that totally drives the steak through is that damn intel commercail with the aliens playing the asteroid field game. At the end of it the line is "Leave 'Em In The Dust."

I used to laugh at those intel commercails, but that is the one that every time I see it I know that at this time we are getting smoked, and it does not seem that we are ever going to make it out of this hole.

Yep.. That one drives it home.

What we need is a miracle at MWNY.

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #100 of 357
onlooker- at 1.8 ghz, apple would in no way be behind wintel. AMD are around there and no one smokes them for being behind. I can't remember the source, but about 6 months ago, I read an assesment of various processor architectures by a guy who was involved in processor design and was in no way a mac fanatic. His view (backed by tests) was that was ppc was roughly 20% more efficient than x86 at any given clock speed. That is completely ignoring altivec or anything. No, a 1ghz g4 will not smoke a P4 on most tasks. A 1.8ghz G5 with massively improved memory architecture will be a different kettle of fish. With altivec, DP and other advancements, the G5 will be more than competitive, whether it is a new architecture or simply an improved G4.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #101 of 357
Seriously...let's not exaggerate here. I don't think there is a single person here who wouldn't be ecstatic to own a 1.5 GHz PPC (SP or DP) with RIO, DDR and the rest. I also think at least a few of us would probably wet our pants if had a chance to see how fast said machine would be compared to just about anything we've seen.

Given how admirably the existing dual gig machine performs with much outdated technologies under the hood - there's little doubt its replacement would kick the crap out of most Wintel boxes. Even at 1.5 GHz....

Numbers don't interest me. Performance interests me. Wintel and AMD can duke it with their 20 stage pipelines all they want. Come summer what some of us will be running will likely make their cookoffs completely irrelevant.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #102 of 357
What I didn't write into that post was the that I figure that at the rate intel seems to be going (it seems like there is no stoping them) they will be making 2.4 to 2.6GHz processors by MWNY, or shortly there after. I put 1.8GHz up there because that is what I think they should shoot for. Any thing less is going to put us in the same boat we are in now. It's not what anyone wants to hear, but it's on my mind every time I see that intel commercial.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #103 of 357
post #104 of 357
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> the main consideration for the g5 powermacs that will be introduced in ny will be the motherboard.
from what ive been reading at various sites what they have so far is a hybrid-type motherboard,not a true next generation,all new g5 board.
like i said:i expect to see an all-new powermac motherboard at macworld sf in 2003.
this business about integrating ddr-ram with rapid i/o and L2/L3 cache is tricky business,anyone can drop a new chip into an old motherboard.
as we all know the powermacs have bottlenecks galore and address these issues will take some engineering prowess to say the least.
to be honest with you all,i think its much better to use slower processors,but multiple processors instead of using a fast cpu with a slow bus.
keeping these cpus fed with data is going to be a tough task even with ddr-ram and rapid i/o.
post #105 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by greyisgood:
<strong>yeah, what about the case design other than the fact that the designers worked hard on it? spill it buddy....</strong><hr></blockquote>

I no longer work at Apple so I am allowed to guess

Look at the new 23" Display... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
post #106 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by geekmeat: <strong> from what ive been reading at
various sites what they have so far is a hybrid-type motherboard,not a
true next generation,all new g5 board.</strong><hr></blockquote>

... yes, but those "sites" don't know any better than we do, do they?
post #107 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>I don't know where this 800 or 866MHz figure comes from, but I have not mentioned it. The 7500 has a 10 stage pipeline (main) and a pipeline of undetermined length for the FPU units. It apears to be made on a 130nm process (given the amount of die surface area in relation to the on die cache and memory controller) so 866MHz would be a very low balled estimate. The processor speed is based on a ratio of the RapidIO bus; in this case 500MHz * 3, or 1.5GHz. The minimum ratio is 2:1 therefore on a 500MHz system bus you will at the minimum acheive 1.0GHz. The memory controller operates externally with memory at a fixed rate, either 133MHz (266MHz DDR) or 166MHz (333MHz DDR) and is asyncronous with the RapidIO main bus. Internally with the CPU core it is a 256bit wide bus similar to one used by IBM called CoreConnect and operates on the backside of the bus at a fixed ratio speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow, Dorsal has almost doubled his posts in this one thread alone. We're going to stop paying any attention if you keep this up.

What I really want to know, however, is whether there is any improvement in per-cycle performance relative to the 7455? A new memory bus is great, a 400 MHz gain is great, but if they have extended the pipeline to get there is performance improving or suffering as a result?
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #108 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by smalM:
<strong>

* bandwidth is not transferrate
* there's only one PCI bus with 4 Slots
* a PowerMac has 2 USB busses


- 1GB/s AGP 4x
- 266MB/s 64-bit/33MHz PCI
- 100MB/s Firewire2
- 120MB/s USB 2
Total = 1.5 GB/s</strong><hr></blockquote>


I think the point of my original message was missed: I said that I hope the new processor's RapidIO bus would scale quickly in the future. The current spec Dorsal has given us seems fast enough, in terms of throughput at least, but going forward there could be issues unless the RapidIO implementation can be clocked faster. Consider:

- AGP 8x would consume all the bandwidth.
- Motherboard based graphics chips could easily consume 4-8 GB/sec.
- Multiprocessors probably need to communicate via the RapidIO interface.
- PCI is probably going to cease being the primary system interface and the various motherboard devices will talk RapidIO directly (Ethernet, audio, ATA, FireWire, USB), so their throughputs will need to be in addition to the PCI's capability.
- After reading some of the RapidIO technical documents, it looks like there is 10-50% overhead on all RapidIO transactions. This means that the theoretical 2 GB/sec rate computed earlier in the thread is probably only 1 - 1.5 GB/sec realized (depending on the average transaction size).

Don't get me wrong, this setup is a huge improvement over just the MPX bus w/ PCI/AGP bridge. I think the RapidIO spec has room for growth up to about 8 MB/sec, IIRC. Hopefully the 7500 will be able to support that right away, or be revved to that capability quickly. The last thing we want is to go from a 1 GB/sec bus to a 2 GB/sec bus (albeit with RAM on the processor side now), and be stuck there again, meanwhile the competition is racing ahead. This is particularly relevent when GPUs are considered, since they are more of a bandwidth hog than the main processor.

The whole shared processor memory situation becomes pretty sticky in this model, as well. We might see the much-vaunted PPC MP advantage evaporate if the sharing of data between the processors becomes significantly slower.

[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #109 of 357
I think the main thing is PCB technology has to cath up with the RIO spec. The thicker the board layer the faster it can go but the more expensive motherboards get. Maybe someone will develop an insulation that will allow for 1GHz speeds on RIO. Later RIO can expand to 32 bit or dual RIO 16 bit to double the bandwidth to 16GBps.
post #110 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>I think the main thing is PCB technology has to cath up with the RIO spec. The thicker the board layer the faster it can go but the more expensive motherboards get. Maybe someone will develop an insulation that will allow for 1GHz speeds on RIO. Later RIO can expand to 32 bit or dual RIO 16 bit to double the bandwidth to 16GBps.</strong><hr></blockquote>

PCB issues not withstanding, if the 7500's RIO and/or memory controller is not scalable then Apple once again cannot move forward without Motorola revving the processor. It would sure be nice if (for once) the processor had some legs in terms of system integration so that Apple didn't need to wait for Moto to give them a new processor to make their systems faster (as opposed to the processors faster, which is clearly solely up to Moto).

The more that is put into the processor, the more it is out of Apple's hands (or perhaps that should be "the more that it is in Moto's hands"). Higher processor integration is better (and is the future), but it has its dark side as well...
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #111 of 357
SORRY

[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: DOSAL ]</p>
you won't find me when you look but when i find you
Reply
you won't find me when you look but when i find you
Reply
post #112 of 357
I just got through with the G5 and this machine rocks. Unfortunately, there are a lot of bugs and one of my superiors just said to leave the machine and redesign a new chip. One of the main problems is that the DDR 133 doesn't support the keyboard and so the drivebay won't open because of a glitch in the airport card that links the case to the hard drive of the flash card of the BRAND NEW 23" CINEMA DISPLAY. Another bug is that the chip stops working after a couple of controlled power surges (I don't know why). Then the mobo, um, breaks and, um, won't work. So Apple really needs to finish the work on this machine, um, But it really rocks!!!
you won't find me when you look but when i find you
Reply
you won't find me when you look but when i find you
Reply
post #113 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>[qb]Both HT and RapidIO have to scale to 1 GHz clock rates to achieve superior bandwidth. The 500 MHz number is logical if not necessary. Considering that RapidIO, the 16 bit wide version, delivers 4 bytes per clock and at 500 MHz only delivers 2 GByte/s, that's barely enough to support main memory. No wonder there is a memory controller on the CPU die.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not entirely sure about RapidIO but with HyperTransport the protocol allows for full duplex operation meaning that the data can be both sent and received simulataneously allowing for twice the amount of bandwidth you have identified.
post #114 of 357
<strong>Originally posted by Eskimo:
Not entirely sure about RapidIO but with HyperTransport the protocol allows for full duplex operation meaning that the data can be both sent and received simulataneously allowing for twice the amount of bandwidth you have identified.</strong>

RapidIO is full duplex as well. Okay, a 500 MHz 16 bit wide RapidIO bus can deliver 2 GByte/s in one direction.

What is really confusing me is that Apple is a member, a founding member, of the HyperTransport Consortium. Why invest the resources when your processor vendor is the main force behind a competing bus architecture, and will use RapidIO in its future processors? Unless Apple convinced Moto to design a PPC processor with a HyperTransport bus, why promote it? And using HT to connect core logic chips seems a waste when RIO is perfectly fine for it.
post #115 of 357
Especially since future processors will have the memory controller totally off the main system bus with its own pipe to the CPU core.
post #116 of 357
[quote] - Multiprocessors probably need to communicate via the RapidIO interface. <hr></blockquote>

Don't forget that RIO is a switched bus- this means that any two (unique!) given devices can talk together with full theoretical bandwidth between them. So, for example, if the HDD needs to write to RAM, there's (in this 500 MHz 16-bit RIO example) 2 GB/s for it to do so, while at the same time, there's 2 GB/s for (say) two CPUs to talk to each other.

Think switch instead of hub, to borrow a networking analogy.

As for future scaling, although I could be wrong, I really don't see this as a problem for RIO. One of the benefits of reducing pin count by moving to a "narrower" bus (16 bits for RIO instead of 64 for current system busses, a la 60x or MPX) is that it makes it easier to design circuits for reduced crosstalk, leakage, etc.

Although if I wanted to complain, I would argue that Apple's chipsets are Apple's problems, and Apple needs to spend more of that $4x10^9 kitty on designers.

A valid question is, since the PMG4 is supposed to Apple's high-end "workstation-class" computer, why is it only using a 64-bit bus? MPX allows for 128. Also, why hasn't, say, a 128-bit bus between northbridge and CPU been implemented, and dual 64-bit busses out to RAM (from the northbridge) been implemented to effectively interleave?

In other words, a lot of Apple's performance problems can be laid squarely at the feet of Apple instead of Moto.

-HOS
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
post #117 of 357
The G4 itself can only handle 64bit MPX. It's the same argument as why Apple cannot use DDR memory; the bus does not support it. MPX specs theoretically support 128 bit MPX... but none of Motorolas parts do. The pin count would have to be very large.

Another brain teaser; why doesn't motorolas own memory controller (the MPC107) support MPX on the G4? It's only able to use the 60X bus. It's sad really.

Blame: shifted back to Motorola.
post #118 of 357
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HOS:
[QB]

Don't forget that RIO is a switched bus- this means that any two (unique!) given devices can talk together with full theoretical bandwidth between them. So, for example, if the HDD needs to write to RAM, there's (in this 500 MHz 16-bit RIO example) 2 GB/s for it to do so, while at the same time, there's 2 GB/s for (say) two CPUs to talk to each other.

This case is only possible if CPU has two implemented RapidIo switches.

Rooster
post #119 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Derrick 61:
<strong>

866MHz G5?? Gawd I hope not! It better be at least 1.2 GHz!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't worry about the validity of this screen shot. If by some odd chance you think this might be real (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phillip.briggs1/G5_3.htm), I suggest you check out the other pages on this web site that were not part of the original link:

<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phillip.briggs1/G5_1.htm" target="_blank">http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phillip.briggs1/G5_1.htm</a>
<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phillip.briggs1/G5_2.htm" target="_blank">http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phillip.briggs1/G5_2.htm</a>
post #120 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by onlooker:
<strong>What I didn't write into that post was the that I figure that at the rate intel seems to be going (it seems like there is no stoping them) they will be making 2.4 to 2.6GHz processors by MWNY, or shortly there after. I put 1.8GHz up there because that is what I think they should shoot for. Any thing less is going to put us in the same boat we are in now. It's not what anyone wants to hear, but it's on my mind every time I see that intel commercial.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I understand what you're saying, but it's really still a bit premature to worry about clock speed before we know anything substantial about the G5 design. For example, if the rumored SPEC performance (as reported by the Register), is correct or even ball park (which I'd be surprised if it was), it would take a 4 GHZ P4 to even start to approach a 1.6 GHZ G5. That said, worrying about MHZ at this stage is sort of like worrying about how many RPMs your next car will do before you've even decided to stick with the old 4cyl. engine or go with a new 8 cyl. engine. MHZ (like RPM) is a very relative measure of performance.

Steve
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The G5 and what it means for future Macs