or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A look at the July Power Macs now that we know the Xserve specs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A look at the July Power Macs now that we know the Xserve specs - Page 3

post #81 of 239
Thread Starter 
It always kills me during the earnings calls. "We still think our pro customers are holding off their hardware purchases for more professional OSX apps to become available.."

So what you are saying is that if I buy a Dual GHz G4 Photoshop 7 will not run on it when it comes out?? So I should hold off on my hardware purchase until they make Quark for OSX?

I realize that this is just Apple's spin they are putting on this and that they cannot actually believe this. But I really hope someone somewhere on that campus at Cupertino realizes that Apple is stil selling computers with a 66MHz bus, the "high end" machines have sdram and 133MHz bus speeds and ATA-66 interfaces.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #82 of 239
"Thats why iMacs are flying off of shelves and Powerbook sales are strong."

Excellent point.

It doesn't really matter what the economy is doing. Sure the IT industry is in the doldrums. But Apple have shown, if you make a compelling consumer product...sales will come.

Equally so. IF you let your professional line of Macs stagnate in relation to the competition (and yes, Apple, you are competing with the x86 directly or indirectly....) then guess what, your Powermac sales will drop.

The DDR/mobo fix and bump may 'bump' the sales. But as overall 'Power'Mac sales have shown...its a 'spurt' in an overall shrinking 'cup' size. Because the updates aren't frequent enough, the architecture is old, the innovations haven't been compelling or soon enough.

IF Apple DO make a compelling 'POWER'mac eg G5 will trimmings and gravy on top then I'd be among the first needing a/ ice and b/ a hole in my wallet.

Problem is. If apple don't deliver this soon enough its impact will be diluted by what the COMPETITION will probably have to offer by then.

Bra size? Right now? The 'Power'Mac aint no double D.

Lemon BOn BOn
:cool:
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #83 of 239
<strong>Originally posted by G-News:
The main problem Apple has is that they aparently have never understood that bandwidth is of the essence.</strong>

No, I think the main problem is that they don't control their own CPU hardware. They really should have started designing their own PowerPC processors when they killed cloning.

<strong>They clocked up the MHz ramp on the 604ev to notice it wasn't quite all there is to it.</strong>

The 604e was an excellent processor. It was bandwidth limited for which a backside cache would have helped tremendously. I think it would have performed better (10 to 20%) clock for clock with the 750 if it had backside cache and a good compiler.

<strong>They just took the G3 with all it's aged flaws, added double precision FPU and Altivec (all pure IPS rate wanking actually) and completely forgot about the fact that they might eventually need to have a bus that could support the chips speed...</strong>

Once again, the G3 had double precision FPU. The only difference is the G4 can do 3 cycle DP multiplies while the G3 could only do 4 cycle DP multiplies.

They also improved the bus efficiency 2 to 3 fold by moving from the 60x PPC bus to the MPX PPC bus. The MPX bus could do streaming reads, 3 times the simultaneous reads, had better cache performance, and eliminated a lot of dead cycles with respect to memory allocation. With the 7450 revision, they added DDR SRAM backside cache support, increasing cache performance further.

So, they didn't forget the fact that the G4 needed more bandwidth. If the STREAM numbers are true and 133 MHz MPX machines can push 800 to 900 MByte/s bandwith, then Apple's machines have about the same realworld bandwidth as Athlon and P4 PC2100 machines. That's if the STREAM benchmarks are true, I think it still needs to be verified.

<strong>You can tell me whatever you want, but it's not all tech issues right there, it's bad judgement, a whole whooping lot of it. In war you get shot for that, and the IT industry IS WAR...
Also military courts like facts, not words...

I've said it in the past, adn I'll say it till the day has arrived: they've got time until MWSF 03, then it's deliver or die, as sorry as I am.</strong>

This is a touch too dramatic. If you want the fastest hardware one can buy, a 2.4 GHz P4 is probably the way to go. Whether it's a do or die problem for Apple is a much more complex problem.
post #84 of 239
"It always kills me during the earnings calls. "We still think our pro customers are holding off their hardware purchases for more professional OSX apps to become available.."

Well, Apple, you can keep telling yourselves that. Cos, maybe when 'Power'mac sales reach under 100,000 per quarter...you may just take the 'HINT'.

"So what you are saying is that if I buy a Dual GHz G4 Photoshop 7 will not run on it when it comes out?? So I should hold off on my hardware purchase until they make Quark for OSX?"

(Now let's not tempt fate here. We'll probably still be on cutting edge dual 1.2 gig 133 bus, 266DDR 'Powermacs' by the time Quark goes carbon in two years time... )

I realize that this is just Apple's spin they are putting on this and that they cannot actually believe this.

Yeah. It's spin and they KNOW it. Perhaps I just want Apple to break down and cry at their conference calls and wail,

'We've been b-bad...we know...sniff...we'll (blub) try to d-do better with our (wail) 'POWER' WAHHHHHHH....Mac line...'

"But I really hope someone somewhere on that campus at Cupertino realizes that Apple is stil selling computers with a 66MHz bus, the "high end" machines have sdram and 133MHz bus speeds and ATA-66 interfaces."

Hmmm. Hey, don't Apple have a reputation for using way years old technology? Just my imagination or are they slow to adopt new technology. Cos if the people at Cup of tea land don't realise it then I'm clearly off my rocker.

Lemon Bon Bon

We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #85 of 239
"The 604e was an excellent processor."

Agreed. I had mine for four years. Only recently sold it for, sniff, £99. I await it's successor. But my wallet stays where it is until...

"It was bandwidth limited for which a backside cache would have helped tremendously."

I've heard that said. It was a fine CPU at the time and recall it giving one or two Pantiums a bloody nose. Remember the Powercomputing crowd? Shame Apple didn't keep 'em around for 'Competition'. (Gee, that word again...)

"This is a touch too dramatic. If you want the fastest hardware one can buy, a 2.4 GHz P4 is probably the way to go. Whether it's a do or die problem for Apple is a much more complex problem."

Yes. Agreed. But the drama comes from the frustration many feel at Apple's apparent 'lack' of progress in this area.

It's a good job Apple have started to diversify into developing more of its own software solutions, 'x', styling of machines, server hardware, eye on the '3D' ball... However, the CPU/mobo and keeping their 'specs' fresh do seem to be constant issues.

It can't be helping Apple's cause. If they hadn't started the above innovations then a os '9' and beige box PC strategy would have seen Apple dead and buried by now.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #86 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by photoeditor:
<strong>If the 7470 G4 -- the 0.13 micron version that's due out shortly -- does not support faster than a 133 bus, that means Apple is going to have to do this XServe hack with DDR for the disk drives and SDR for the processor in its desktop machines. While the XServe seems fine for a server, there are going to be a lot of disappointed folks on the desktop end.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

they're skipping .15? thank god.
post #87 of 239
You're getting me wrong, I wasn't saying their chips had bad bandwdith in the past, obviously that's not the case. but those chips are bound to other components, and THESE have traditionally been slower than what the chips could actually push.
With the g4 it's a little bit more complicated, as obviously there the limits already start in the CPU, with that damn bus that wasn't designed to scale with the CPU itself.

So my point is, that Apple has always had the bottlenecks in the system and HD busses and NEVER EVEN REMOTELY in the chips themselves.

And that's bad. AND it's getting worse.

And yes I am bitter on that issue.

When we got our first Mac at home, for the family, in 1995, I knew I wanted one for myself too.

I had to wait until 1998, thats 3 years, until Apple came out with something that was reasonably priced and as fast, or faster than a PC with the same "visual" specs.

That machine was the Beige G3 Tower.

Well, 4 years have passed now, and there hasn't been a single point where I would have had to admit that now, Apple has achieved another revolutionary step like the Beige G3.

Maybe it's Steve Jobs reign, maybe it's Motorola's incompetence, but Apple has failed to bring us another such revolution, performance and functionality wise. The iMacs revolutionized personal computing, but it's about looks and experience, and while these maybe be important to be "special", being special alone won't get you over the rounds.

Thus I give Apple time until MWSF 03 to revolutionize computing again, the way they did with the first G3s.

That includes a new mainboard, a new chip, and pentium beating performance. plus minus one factor.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #88 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by theMagius:
<strong>
On Apple DissatisfactionIdle threats to “leave the Mac and buy a PC” are commonplace on some of the Macintosh forums. My personal belief is that the people who make such statements are really Apple’s biggest fans. When their favorite computer maker appears to have a flaw, they see a flaw within themselves. It has also been suggested that we (the Apple consumers) should write to Apple telling them what we want from our OS and our hardware. While this is a noble effort, I have an alternate method for getting Apple to “listen” to our requests.

Don’t buy any new Apple hardware.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, both of those only go halfway. If you just fail to buy Apple hardware, they have to guess why. If you write them and tell them what you want from your OS and your hardware, and you tell them that you aren't buying until you get it, then they know they're losing the sales and they know why.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #89 of 239
Forgive me for being a newbie, but I just want to make a couple of points.

First of all, this .5 GHz in the last 2 years thing defies logic. How many years did it take to get to the first .5 GHz?

Second, It seems to me that this is the first time in a while that Motorola has very high yields of the processors in the high end PMs. Is it safe to assume that they have chips rated higher than 1 GHz from the same batches? I realize that they may be using a slightly different rev of the G4 next round, but I would think that 1.2 and probably 1.4 GHz G4s exist in some quantity already.

Again, I am a newbie who doesn't know a whole lot about chip production, but I am aware of the problems that Apple has had in the past of getting enough of the high end processors to satisfy demand.
post #90 of 239
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>Forgive me for being a newbie, but I just want to make a couple of points.

First of all, this .5 GHz in the last 2 years thing defies logic. How many years did it take to get to the first .5 GHz?

Second, It seems to me that this is the first time in a while that Motorola has very high yields of the processors in the high end PMs. Is it safe to assume that they have chips rated higher than 1 GHz from the same batches? I realize that they may be using a slightly different rev of the G4 next round, but I would think that 1.2 and probably 1.4 GHz G4s exist in some quantity already.

Again, I am a newbie who doesn't know a whole lot about chip production, but I am aware of the problems that Apple has had in the past of getting enough of the high end processors to satisfy demand.</strong><hr></blockquote>


That's great and all but it doesn't dispute the fact that technically we are stuck at 133MHz bus for the foreseable future.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #91 of 239
I wasn't talking to you.
post #92 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>

Actually, both of those only go halfway. If you just fail to buy Apple hardware, they have to guess why. If you write them and tell them what you want from your OS and your hardware, and you tell them that you aren't buying until you get it, then they know they're losing the sales and they know why.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Normally, I would agree with your stance on this issue, Amorph.

However, the slouching of PowerMac sales over the past few quarters does not seem to have motivated Apple Computer to revamp their motherboard capabilities.

What Apple HAS done is re-focused their efforts toward: laptops, consumer AIOs, servers, and their next generation OS. All of these things are important, but they do not address PowerMac line whatsoever.

Now, it is possible that the executives at Apple Computer do not realize that comparable PC hardware is CONSIDERABLY MORE ADVANCED than their own.

But I would like to think that I have invested stock in a company that is intelligent enough to realize that Hard Drive controllers really should be faster than ATA/66 for a price tag of $2999.

My $0.02,
-theMagius
post #93 of 239
<strong>Originally posted by G-News:
With the g4 it's a little bit more complicated, as obviously there the limits already start in the CPU, with that damn bus that wasn't designed to scale with the CPU itself.</strong>

The MPX bus was designed with AltiVec loads in mind. It doubled or tripled the bus utilization. An AltiVec load is like equivalent to a 2x to 4x increase in clock rate, so they tried to match the increase bandwidth needs 1 for 1 when moving from the PPC 750 w/60x bus to the 7400 w/MPX bus. Mind that 80 to 90% bus utilization is an incredible number, to good to believe, but those STREAM benchmarks are pretty good.

On the surface, it's not a technical problem to move from SDR to DDR signaling for the MPX bus. Either Apple doesn't have enough weight with Moto, Moto simply doesn't want to go through the effort (considering it does not have a chipset that supports the MPX bus let alone a DDR MPX bus), or there is still some unresolved contention between Apple and Moto.

<strong>So my point is, that Apple has always had the bottlenecks in the system and HD busses and NEVER EVEN REMOTELY in the chips themselves.</strong>

The system bus, ie, the processor bus, is an integral part of the processor. If the processor doesn't support the signaling, there's nothing Apple can do. Yes, Apple has a problem if they can't convince Moto to design PPCs to their and our liking.

The hard drive issue is overblown. ATA/133 and ATA/100 isn't that big of a deal for Apple's market. If the Xserve represents Apple's new system architecture, that the Power Macs will use the new core logic chipsets, then I think they'll be fine, especially if they keep the 4 independent ATA/100 bus controllers. If there is a new G4 processor that supports DDR signaling in the processor bus, then it'll be a very nicely balanced system.

Furthermore, never say always. For a long while, PowerMac shipped with SCSI drives (both hard disks and opticals). They were faster then.

<strong>And that's bad. AND it's getting worse.</strong>

Compared to the PC side? Perhaps it will get worse, perhaps it won't. I do think that a lot of people are getting overwhelmed with the numbers. Steady clock rate improvements, steady memory performance improvements, steady video improvements, and steady disk improvements is about all we should expect. There really isn't a revolution in performance.

<strong>Well, 4 years have passed now, and there hasn't been a single point where I would have had to admit that now, Apple has achieved another revolutionary step like the Beige G3.</strong>

I'm surprised you think the Beige G3 were a revolution. It's a rather mundane architecture. In fact, there is nothing revolutionary about personal computer architectures. They are all rather typical.

What was a mistake was dropping the development of the 604e.
post #94 of 239
<strong>Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
Yes. Agreed. But the drama comes from the frustration many feel at Apple's apparent 'lack' of progress in this area.</strong>

People have unrealistic expectations even when the facts say otherwise. It's been obvious since the clones were killed and since Moto and IBM decided to design processors for embedded or big iron server markets that Apple wouldn't have gotten their best efforts.

It was really time for them to start desiging their own processors at the time. Further developing the 604e would have been a good start.
post #95 of 239
"Further developing the 604e would have been a good start."

I was about to ask you if it would have scaled well...?

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #96 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>Forgive me for being a newbie, but I just want to make a couple of points.

First of all, this .5 GHz in the last 2 years thing defies logic. How many years did it take to get to the first .5 GHz?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The problem people have is that Moore's Law predicts an exponential growth in transistor density which would thus result in twice the features and/or speed every 18-24 months. Thus as a simple mathmatical excercise Apple's product line should be doubling in capacity more quickly than it is currently according to industry standards.
post #97 of 239
[quote]Furthermore, never say always. For a long while, PowerMac shipped with SCSI drives (both hard disks and opticals). They
were faster then.<hr></blockquote>

Haha, they were probably faster back in 1986, but almost the whole line of powermacs with G1 and G2 processors was not.

They had SCSI I or Fast SCSI at best, that means 5 to 10MB/sec...and the PCs have had ATA with 16MB/sec for ages. and the bus on the 60x chip maxed out at 50MHz in most systems, 60 in the fastest afaik...

And yes the Beige G3 was revolutionary:
SDRAM, a 66MHz bus as seen in PCs, IDE harddrives, CD-ROMs and such, some of the first 3D accellerated graphics chips that actually did something (Rev B and C), socketed CPU instead of slotted, a brand new CPU chip, backside cache architecture at 2:1 ratio, internal modems, the works. The revolution would have been perfect if they had also ditched the serial ports in favor of USB already.

Eventually it was also an evolutionary step, but a significantly bigger one than the measly 8-25 MHZ increments they had made before (before the MACH G2s)

They could have thrown in Ultrawide SCSI years ago, the 9500,9600 sure would have profited.

And the Beige G3s could have gotten ATA33 too maybe even a 75-83MHz bus, as was planned, but decided against.

They have made bad decisions in the past, where it wasn't moto's fault at all.

It's strange to have one half of the company do incredible things,while the other one just does or has to do incredibly stupid things.

As for the ATA 100 vs 133 issue:
It's not about speed there, taht's no problem, but imagine how good it would have sounded to say:

4x160GB drive space instead of 4x120 (or probably 4x137 at the next update)

640GB is more than half a TB, not "almost half a TB per 1U".

The RAID is going to fix some of those concerns for sure, but I'm convinced, teh big customers wouldn't have minded ATA-133 in that xserve

I wonder what they'll drop on us at MWNY...
Somehow I think not only the whiners are going to be dissapointed.

I hope Mike is right about the 100% performance increase, but I doubt it more than I doubt my grandma is going to return some day. Or elvis for that matter.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #98 of 239
[quote]The problem people have is that Moore's Law predicts an exponential growth in transistor density which would thus result in
twice the features and/or speed every 18-24 months. Thus as a simple mathmatical excercise Apple's product line should be
doubling in capacity more quickly than it is currently according to industry standards.
<hr></blockquote>

My dear friends:
Intel and AMD may be more or less following Moore's law, which is actually only a rule, not a law.

But, my companions, Apple and Motorola are not following Moore's law, there's another famous law they follow, and that is known by the name of

"Murphy's Law"

and yeah, that is a law, not a rule.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #99 of 239
beside faster bus system and so on: at the beginning of this thread people made the conclusion that powermacs are (much) slower than PC based on this famous AE race or based on game performance.

am i the only one who thinks, that this is also caused by non-optimal portings of PC programms ? who says that two computers (one pc, one mac), both technically with the same performance, would have to show the same speed with adobe's AE ? maybe they didn't put much efford into optimizing it for the mac platform in terms of speed.

or take a look at the game sacifice - not playable on mac (sooo slow) and buggy. not because of bad mac hardware, but bad programing.

maybe apple needs beside faster hardware also software (game) companies who are willing to put as much work into a stable, fast mac version as they put into the pc version.

maybe an apple (partly) owned game company wouldn't be such a bad idea. i would like to compare a highly optimized, multithreaded, G4 enhanced mac game with it's pc version on actual mac and pc hardware ...
post #100 of 239
In 1997 PowerComputing had 275MHz G3s. For most tasks, a G4 is no faster than a G3, especially taking into account the longer pipeline of the 7450.

So in almost 5 years, Mac processor speeds have less than quadrupled.

Within the same time frame, x86 processor speeds have increased to more than 8x their original speeds.

That is just sad. If it continues for another 5 years, in 2008 we'll have 3.5GHz G5s and PC users will have 21GHz Pentium 6s.

Wonder what Apple stock will be at that point.
post #101 of 239
just get over it, powermacs aren't fast. i remember reading a comment from john carmack about developing Quake3 for the mac...

"We did a ton of testing the last two weeks while we were putting the demo together.

"The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1 ghz PIII in any of the trouble areas. Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU's just aren't as fast as the x86 ones."

"We did a couple functions with AltiVec, but they didn't make much difference."

<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/storyforum/forums/2001/02/23/geforceannc/?read=4" target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/storyforum/forums/2001/02/23/geforceannc/?read=4</a>

sorry...you just need to realize that you won't have top-notch performance using a powermac. maybe apple/motorola will get their s**t together someday and keep up with the rest of the industry, cuz right now they are on borrowed time.
post #102 of 239
[quote] One other thing... although our discussions of all of this helps US flush-out information and ideas... it's somewhat
masturbatory in nature unless these thoughts make their way to Apple. (stating the obvious here)
<hr></blockquote>

A few years back didn't xlr8yourmac and some other gamer sites get a petition going to get 3dfx to make Mac drivers for its video cards. (Maybe Invidia, I can't remember) They got over 10,000 signatures, and I beleive we got our Mac drivers.

It be interesting to draw up an open letter to Apple, collect thousands of signatures through sites like this one, and present it to them at MYNY, where you'd be sure to get some press coverage. Of course, you'd have to hold off until after the keynote, cause if you did it before and they rolled out 2 gig dual G5s with 500mhz FSBs you'd look pretty stupid.
post #103 of 239
If they did that, you'd know that you're still asleep and are going to miss the expo because you're already too late.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #104 of 239
The probability of G5 coming out is very high. Despite everything we see so far are all based on Apollo. There are no reason why G5 won't be out. If I remember right, Motorola has HiPerMOS 7 (.13 micron) for 1 year already. As of up to now, the latest PowerBook, PowerMac and Desktop r only beginning to migrate to SOI. The performance enhancement through SOI allows .18 micron process to deliver higher performance solutuion. However, 1GHZ G4 dissipates 30 Watts of power already, if Motorola continues to try squeezing more out of the G4 through 0.18 process, power consumption and heat issue will eventually become a problem. Since we have yet to see .13 process Mac chips, there are high possibilities that G5 will be announce shortly. Although almost every single rumor site have comment on the invaidity of Motorola Roadmap, I believe the roadmap is definitly still valid. My reasoning is simple, we have seen the G4 evolved from 4 pipelines to seven along with enhancement in L2 cache along with L3 caches, but Apple still calls it a G4. This is mainly because of Apple still recognize the enhancements should still be classified as G4 category. In other words, Apple does not believe the improvements are worth the G5 name. Motorola likes to utilize its process fully, when Intel is utlizing .13 already, Motorola continues to offer .18 solutions to Apple, even though HIPERMOS 7 is available. Take a look at P3 and P4, no major changes in architecture except crazy pipelines but they did get the name change. In Motorola roadmap, the G5 architure will be more extensive, with new system bus, new pipelines (although 7450 and 7455 have more 3 more pipes, the change is necessary for the sole purpose to break the 500MHZ red light). Just think about what is likely to come up in the coming year. First USB 2 and high possibility of Gigawire, not to mention new graphics card. Right now AGP is 4x and possibly evolved into 8x in the coming future. What about higher speed 802.11 wireless, they are likely to be improved. I believe Apple knows it and the G5 architecture with Rapid I/O tailored in,was designed exclusively for that purpose, their current buses are running out of room. Small improvements are not enough, they need new direction and new architeture. Rapid I/O is their answer to traffic congestion and G5 will be based on newer buses and new process.
post #105 of 239
I hope that you are correct tiramisubob, I have been optimistic for similar reasons, especially now that the eMac has been launched with a pretty fast G4.

With PowerMac sales down 34% this last quarter (MacWorld) to around 200k, I think Apple must understand that the reasoning is due to the limited spec. Some exec at Apple was quoted though as saying that they 'had some wonderful products in development' (possibly talking about the Xserve) and that this next quarter was 'one of transition' - could mean just Jaguar, Xserve, but could also mean the icing on the cake.

I just hope that all that R+D money that they spent recently hasn't all been funelled to the Xserve.
post #106 of 239
i am strangely optimistic. i havn't really been impressed by a keynote since i bought my G4 450 (downgraded tragically in the 500mhz fiasco) in the fall of '99.. they've had their moments, but nothing truly impressive in the recent years

i need a new computer, and apple needs another homerun, so i'm totally unfoundedly betting on 1.6-2ghz G5's. idiotically optimistic i know, because theres no way they'd increase their mhz 100% and w/ a new cpu, but it's what i want to beleive
post #107 of 239
That would be nice, but I would be chuffed with a 1.4-1.6 GHz G4 or G5 with a RapidIO based architecture, DDR333 with a suitably quick bus (the speeds Dorsal quoted of around 500 or 667 MHz sound lovely - but too optimistic), possibly duals with these specs but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If not something like this, then certainly duals across the board with reduced prices.
post #108 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>-snip-

...this .5 GHz in the last 2 years thing defies logic. How many years did it take to get to the first .5 GHz?

-snip-</strong><hr></blockquote>

How long it took to reach the first 500MHz is not the issue. The issue is that we have gone from .5 GHz to 1 GHz in about 3 years, while the x86 has gone from ~700MHz to 2.4GHz in the same time. If MOT had kept up with Intel/AMD we would already be using 2GHz G5s, and looking forward to those G6s. :confused:

I'm still waiting for a PowerMac that is worthy of a $3K+ price tag (performance-wise, so don't start with the ease of use/elegance/case design stuff. I know all that, that's why I bought a Mac in the first place).

Beige G3 desktop 266
288 MB RAM
Voodoo2
USB
OrangePC card (so I can play Ultima Online)
Apple Computer, Inc.

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

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #109 of 239
[quote]tiramisubomb
" If I remember right, Motorola has HiPerMOS 7 (.13 micron) for 1 year already."<hr></blockquote>

I believe they have HiPerMOS 7 on paper only. Could you provide a link to an actual selling part that uses HiP7.

As far as any documents I have found, Motorola has only stated that the 0.13µ process(no mention of SOI on this process either) has been used manufacturing the cores of some embedded chips.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #110 of 239
[quote]THT
"So, they didn't forget the fact that the G4 needed more bandwidth. If the STREAM numbers are true and 133 MHz MPX machines can push 800 to 900 MByte/s bandwith, then Apple's machines have about the same realworld bandwidth as Athlon and P4 PC2100 machines. That's if the STREAM benchmarks are true, I think it still needs to be verified."
"The MPX bus was designed with AltiVec loads in mind. It doubled or tripled the bus utilization. An AltiVec load is like equivalent to a 2x to 4x increase in clock rate, so they tried to match the increase bandwidth needs 1 for 1 when moving from the PPC 750 w/60x bus to the 7400 w/MPX bus. Mind that 80 to 90% bus utilization is an incredible number, to good to believe, but those STREAM benchmarks are pretty good."<hr></blockquote>

Very interesting. I guess we will see(if I'm reading/understanding your quotes correctly) very shortly, when and if any xServe speed comparisons appear?? And the effect DDR sdram on the current bus has on speed??

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #111 of 239
[quote]Take a look at P3 and P4, no major changes in architecture except
crazy pipelines but they did get the name change.<hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, that claim is just totally and fatally wrong. The P4 has gone through massive architectural changes up from the P3, it's not just a P3 with some extra pipeline stages bolted on, it's a whole new architecture and the only thing it really has in common with the P3 is the ISA.

Do some google searching on P4 architectural descriptions or check out anandtech and tomshardware for facts.
P3 to P4 is most likely more fo a change than G3 to G4 was.

G-news
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #112 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by G-News:
<strong>

Unfortunately, that claim is just totally and fatally wrong. The P4 has gone through massive architectural changes up from the P3, it's not just a P3 with some extra pipeline stages bolted on, it's a whole new architecture and the only thing it really has in common with the P3 is the ISA.

Do some google searching on P4 architectural descriptions or check out anandtech and tomshardware for facts.
P3 to P4 is most likely more fo a change than G3 to G4 was.

G-news</strong><hr></blockquote>

In fact the P3 -&gt; P4 transition was more significant than any PowerPC transition so far. The rumoured G4 -&gt; G5 transition will be of a similar mangnitude, if true.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #113 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

In fact the P3 -&gt; P4 transition was more significant than any PowerPC transition so far. The rumoured G4 -&gt; G5 transition will be of a similar mangnitude, if true.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes the P3 to P4 transition was as significant than the transition from the K6 to the Athlon.. The G5 will be a brand new architecture : but do not expect it before next year. i fear that we will even not see for MWSF, perhaps before MWNY 2003. Why i fear this : because the 7460 or 7470 is not shipped yet.
post #114 of 239
"Actually, both of those only go halfway. If you just fail to buy Apple hardware, they have to guess why. If you write them and tell them what you want from your OS and your hardware, and you tell them that you aren't buying until you get it, then they know they're losing the sales and they know why."

I took your advice.

I don't know where the 'disappointing hardware' feedback tab is on Apple's site. So I used the OS X feedback tab to let Apple know how I'm not buying a 'Power'mac until Apple ship a G5 or equivalent in power spec. I explained my reasons and I was polite about it.

I stressed the positives in terms of my supporting the rest of their soft and OS strategies but I let them know in no uncertain terms my wallet (and that of many others, I suspected) was staying shut until they come on line with more compelling POWERmac performance.

Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #115 of 239
Just a thought, maybe we could start a 'Power'mac cpu protest thread to have a moderator pass on to apple for after Macworld New York if things fail to live to up expectations?

Reckon we could get to 500 comments?

Just a thought, Amorph...(care to referee one?)

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #116 of 239
<strong>Originally posted by G-News:
Haha, they were probably faster back in 1986, but almost the whole line of powermacs with G1 and G2 processors was not.

They had SCSI I or Fast SCSI at best, that means 5 to 10MB/sec...and the PCs have had ATA with 16MB/sec for ages. and the bus on the 60x chip maxed out at 50MHz in most systems, 60 in the fastest afaik...</strong>

IDE = 3 MByte/s
EIDE = 13 MByte/s
SCSI 1 = 5 MB/s
Fast SCSI = 10 MB/s
Fast&Wide SCSI = 20 MB/s

Also remember that IDE systems of the time had more limitations, such as a 500 MB disk limit before the enhanced IDE, limited number of devices on the chain, and hurt processor performance more. For a high end system, SCSI was the best way to go pre-1995.

<strong>And yes the Beige G3 was revolutionary:
SDRAM, a 66MHz bus as seen in PCs, IDE harddrives, CD-ROMs and such, some of the first 3D accellerated graphics chips that actually did something (Rev B and C), socketed CPU instead of slotted, a brand new CPU chip, backside cache architecture at 2:1 ratio, internal modems, the works. The revolution would have been perfect if they had also ditched the serial ports in favor of USB already.</strong>

It was a midrange desktop machine. The Beige G3 machines came out in November 1997. All the parts in the Beige G3 machines were typical personal computer components for the time. Not even state of the art. Backside cache? The Pentium II already had it let alone other RISC chips. Socketed CPU? It used a socket yes. But it was a socketed daughtercard. To my knowledge, all desktop PowerPC chips had BGA packaging. The PPC 750 was a midrange CPU: 2 way superscalar, poor FPU performance, and running on an aging 60x bus. 66 MHz bus? This was just an increased clock rate on the 3 year old 60x processor bus.

<strong>They have made bad decisions in the past, where it wasn't moto's fault at all.</strong>

No disagreement there. It's just all the drama queens around that are getting a little too hysterical.

<strong>As for the ATA 100 vs 133 issue:
It's not about speed there, taht's no problem, but imagine how good it would have sounded to say:

4x160GB drive space instead of 4x120 (or probably 4x137 at the next update)

640GB is more than half a TB, not "almost half a TB per 1U".</strong>

I don't think it's much of a concern. The worse problem is that the 7455 needs another FPU unit and better memory performance.

<strong>I wonder what they'll drop on us at MWNY...
Somehow I think not only the whiners are going to be dissapointed.</strong>

If an x86 machine is a better buy for someone, they should buy it. It's really not that hard. We all know that Apple and Motorola could do better for every new product, and there should be some disappointment, but the level of expectations people have are irrational.
post #117 of 239
Rickag

This is the article from Maccentral:

Motorola announces 0.13-micron fabrication process
by David Read,
April 10, 2001, 7:00 am ET

Yesterday, Motorola announced its new HiPerMOS7 (Seventh Generation High Performance Metal Oxide Semiconductor -- called HiP7) manufacturing process that will allow future processors from Motorola, including the next PowerPCs, to run faster, use less power, generate less heat and be less expensive than ever before. This new fabrication process will be the first to use 0.13-micron lithography and SOI (Silicon on Insulator) technology along with copper interconnects.

"With HiPerMOS7, Motorola has tried to implement parallel design efforts with all of Motorola's future microprocessors," said Suresh Venkatesan, Motorola's HiP7 Process Technology Manager. "Initial products using SOI and HiP7 will address the embedded and infrastructure markets, with Motorola's PowerPC microprocessors adopting these technologies early next year." Motorola hopes that the smaller size of a processor manufactured with the new process will allow its embedded processors to drop significantly in price and increase in functionality. Venkatesan stresses that HiP7 will migrate to the PowerPC portfolio.

Currently, Motorola uses a 0.18-micron lithography process to manufacture Motorola 7450s, the G4s currently used in Apple's highest end systems. By moving to a far smaller 0.13-micron lithography process, Motorola's new processors will be able to use less energy per transistor, and have more transistors per processor. "Speed and dynamic power consumption are a function of voltage and frequency," said Venkatesan. "All things remaining equal, a processor manufactured using the 0.13-micron fabrication process could see a 50 percent power savings over a similar processor made using a 0.18-micron fabrication process."

That's not all. Because of the lowered power consumption of processors manufactured with the new process, it will be possible for Motorola to ramp up its processor's frequencies. This, coupled with Motorola's SOI technology which allows individual transistors to operate more quickly and efficiently, should allow Motorola to reach the goals that it outlined at last summer's Microprocessor Forum for its GHz+ G4 Apollo.

Mike Mendacino, Motorola's SOI Technology Manager, said that future PowerPC processors created using the 0.13-micron manufacturing process could have larger on-die L2 caches. "With more transistors on a given area, one could logically conclude that we could add more cache if the processor's performance and price worked out in a larger cache's favor," said Mendacino. He also suggested that, given Motorola's history, a larger on-die cache is a logical progression in the PowerPC's development.

Venkatesan also said that Motorola is skipping the 0.15-micron manufacturing process. This may result in Motorola leapfrogging their semiconductor competitors, many of whom have recently begun shipping processor products using a 0.15-micron lithography process -- Nvidia's GeForce3 being a high-profile example. Nevertheless, other major semiconductor manufacturers have announced their own twist of a 0.13-micron manufacturing process. For example, rival processor manufacturer Intel last week announced that it had successfully manufactured its first .13-micron processors on a larger wafer.

Motorola is currently sampling embedded processors fabricated using the 0.13-micron process, which it intends to begin shipping in volume in the second quarter of this year. Motorola also will be showing off its new technology at the Embedded systems conference this week in San Francisco.
post #118 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>We all know that Apple and Motorola could do better for every new product, and there should be some disappointment, but the level of expectations people have are irrational.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you really think that waiting for a Dual G4 1.4 Ghz with a FSB @ 266 Mhz it's silly ?
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #119 of 239
[quote]Originally posted by theMagius:
<strong>Normally, I would agree with your stance on this issue, Amorph.

However, the slouching of PowerMac sales over the past few quarters does not seem to have motivated Apple Computer to revamp their motherboard capabilities.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In that case, nothing will change anything, so you're also disagreeing with yourself.

[quote]<strong>What Apple HAS done is re-focused their efforts toward: laptops, consumer AIOs, servers, and their next generation OS. All of these things are important, but they do not address PowerMac line whatsoever.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They have to work with what they have to work with. If the CPUs they have available are better suited to PowerBooks and iMacs than to high-end towers, Apple would be foolish not to concentrate its efforts on PowerBooks and iMacs.

The reason I see their focus as component-driven, rather than as Steve forgetting power users, is that Apple is targetting higher end customers than they ever have.

And (I can't resist asking) have you actually tried a dual-GHz PowerMac? Is the performance actually inadequate for your needs in practice? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm wondering if you've given it a chance. I have, and as far as I can tell the thing just blazes. As some of the engineers on this board have discovered, Apple's 133Mhz bus holds its own against some DDR implementations on the PC side. Quality of implementation matters.

[quote]<strong>Now, it is possible that the executives at Apple Computer do not realize that comparable PC hardware is CONSIDERABLY MORE ADVANCED than their own.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And it's quite possible that people who look at nothing more than spec sheets do not realize that Apple isn't as far behind as they imagine. Spec sheets are marketing; they're designed to make the product look as good as possible. On the other hand, good engineers pride themselves on doing more with less. This is why there is no love lost between engineers and marketers, generally speaking.

Are they behind in some areas? Sure. Woefully behind in running a couple of professional applications (I'm thinking 3D here). Could Apple solve those problems by throwing hardware at them, even though some of them may be specific to the software? Of course. Hardware was eventually able to make even System V UNIX run fast. But I suggest sitting down in front of what they're offering now, if you haven't, and giving it a fair shot first.

[quote]<strong>But I would like to think that I have invested stock in a company that is intelligent enough to realize that Hard Drive controllers really should be faster than ATA/66 for a price tag of $2999.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Faster? Name one ATA HDD that comes anywhere close to transferring 66MB/s sustained. If Apple put ATA/100 on a PowerMac tomorrow without telling you, you'd never know they had. I expect Apple to leap up to ATA/133 soon, not for the added bandwidth, but because ATA/133 can address volumes bigger than 137GB, and hard drives are getting up there.

If you really want speed, forget the onboard controller and get <a href="http://www.macgurus.com/graphics/customraid.html" target="_blank">one of these</a>.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #120 of 239
That is the point Amorph.

It is just 'future-proofing' to an extent. When the first G4's were released they had, what, a 10GB HD?
Now that we have got at least an 8x increase in storage space on shipping computers, Apple should show that if someone wanted to upgrade the HD (which is pretty much the easiest thing to do barring RAM) then thay still have at least some support. Obviously companies have to maintain cost effectiveness of hardware implementations, but at the moment the situation is getting a little ridiculous. People buying a Dual 1GHz should be comfortable that the hardware is good for a while, the ATA bus is almost up to the point of saturation with CURRENT hard-drives, what do you think will happen two years down the line (not an unreasonable lifetime for a 'Power' computer)?

All this points to a computer that appears to be reaching the end of it's life in it's current form.

I don't know. Just frustrated I guess.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A look at the July Power Macs now that we know the Xserve specs