or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › new info from macbidouille : 2.3GHz !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

new info from macbidouille : 2.3GHz ! - Page 3

post #81 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
Thanks. That' s the fun of talking about something that you really don't know what you are talking about.

Plus, you can't see that I am just expressing what I personally feel. Several others do that and you should be breathing down on their necks, or should you leave that to Steve?

I do though breath down on their necks. Some of them find it errotic and I have to stop before they get wild ideas.
post #82 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I do though breath down on their necks. Some of them find it errotic and I have to stop before they get wild ideas.

Whatever. THe PPC 970 is going to be great!! Does that meet your approval now??
post #83 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
I personally feel that we will see the 2.3 Ghz chip in the summer release of the PMs. 2.3 is a nice place to be especailly with Intel going to climb past 3 Ghz by the time the 970 is officially announced in Macs. Probably this time next year, we will probably be in the high 3 Ghz range or maybe 4. We will defantely pass Intel not in this revision, but maybe in the next. These chips are going to scale.

Plus, like KidRed was saying, people will see the PM attractive at any price if Panther is going to be wicked fast and that it has the 970 in it. Apple just needs to thread Panther like crazy and we will be doing stuff that we never imagined before all at once.

Yep, 970 + Panther + great price = hmmmmmarket share
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #84 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
I doubt that a 970 @ 1ghz would CRUSH a DP1.42 G4.

I guess that depends on your definition of "crush". A 50-100% performance improvement at 42% lower clock rate is pretty crushing, IMO. And the 970 will debut at a higher clock rate than the 7455 is at (the 7457 may even the playing field but betting on two PPC chips being delivered in the same 6 month period isn't something I'm prepared to do!). As I said elsewhere, in some cases we are going to see a performance differential like the SPECmarks demonstrate -- those aren't purely synthetic benchmarks, they just aren't optimized for the G4 (SIMD, SMP, etc). Lots of code isn't optimized for the G4, and on that code I fully expect the G4 to get "crushed".
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #85 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
I personally feel that we will see the 2.3 Ghz chip in the summer release of the PMs. 2.3 is a nice place to be especailly with Intel going to climb past 3 Ghz by the time the 970 is officially announced in Macs. Probably this time next year, we will probably be in the high 3 Ghz range or maybe 4. We will defantely pass Intel not in this revision, but maybe in the next. These chips are going to scale.

I remember when such reckless things were being said when the first PowerMacs came out many long years ago.
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
post #86 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by BobtheTomato
I remember when such reckless things were being said when the first PowerMacs came out many long years ago.

Yeah, care to elaborate? Just curious. When the first PMs came out, geez when was that like 7 years ago?
post #87 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by KidRed
Yep, 970 + Panther + great price = hmmmmmarket share

If Apple does just like what you said and that they offer some kind of emulation s/w designed by Apple along with it, Steve might just get his 5% or more.
post #88 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by BobtheTomato
I remember when such reckless things were being said when the first PowerMacs came out many long years ago.

Yeah, but Moto was fabbing. If things hold true, Apple will have the power of IBM behind them (an IBM which has just been contracted to build graphics chipsets for NVIDIA -- could signal things to come in terms of Apple offerings, but hopefully not in portables!).

Once the 970 hits .09 process, it could very easily scale up quickly. Thing is, the 970 prolly won't be around too long itself, with the 980 coming up in a matter of a few years.

Cross your fingers...
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
post #89 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by fred_lj
Yeah, but Moto was fabbing. If things hold true, Apple will have the power of IBM behind them (an IBM which has just been contracted to build graphics chipsets for NVIDIA -- could signal things to come in terms of Apple offerings, but hopefully not in portables!).

Once the 970 hits .09 process, it could very easily scale up quickly. Thing is, the 970 prolly won't be around too long itself, with the 980 coming up in a matter of a few years.

Cross your fingers...

The NVIDIA thing looks very interesting. By the time Apple comes out of this year, maybe all the parts of their computer will be made by IBM. Now wouldn't that be an oxymoron as Apple and IBM were enemies in the 70s and 80s. How times change.
post #90 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
Yeah, care to elaborate? Just curious. When the first PMs came out, geez when was that like 7 years ago?

The first PowerMacs were introduced in 1994. Do the math.
post #91 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
The first PowerMacs were introduced in 1994. Do the math.

Thanks.
post #92 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
I doubt that a 970 @ 1ghz would CRUSH a DP1.42 G4. Benchmarks and real world are two different things, as far as I can see, keeping in mind that I don't know about the technical bits, just what I see.

IBM PPC 970 @ 1.8 GHz SPECfp2000 1051
Mot PPC G4+ @ 1.0 GHz Specfp2000 187
That's NOT a typo.

2*(1.42*187)=531

That implies a single 1.8GHz 970 has near double the floating point of a dual 1.42 G4. A dual 2.3 GHz 970 would have, um, MORE.

There are some fairly prominent tasks where the ppc970 will annihilate the G4+. For programs that actually use floating point, Specfp is a pretty good benchmark - it's a wide pile of actual science/engineering code.

It's true that this is 'benchmarking'. But don't doubt that there _are_ niches where any kind of 970 will destroy a G4. Period. (assuming they don't come out at 0.2 GHz or something silly.)
post #93 of 164
Another thread degenerates into price/performance.

OK:

First, Apple will offer the fastest configuration they can engineer at a non-absurd price. That's what they've been doing at the top of the line since at least the Mac SE. We're coming out of a period where their options were subject to unusual constraints, but it's through no fault of Apple's (at least, unless you expect them to have foreseen all the snags that the PPC and Motorola hit) that their top end hasn't held the speed crown for a while.

Second, although Apple will charge what the market will bear, it helps to remember that Apple (and especially Steve) takes an almost childlike pleasure in bringing previously inaccessible technology to affordable price points. That's what the first Macintosh did, in fact. AirSluf pointed out that people were shelling out $10K and up for the equivalent of the Cinema HD display before Apple rolled it out at the comparative bargain price of $4K, and before they turned around and slashed the price to $2K. The SuperDrive is another example, and so is AirPort. So, just because Apple has access to a near-workstation-grade chip doesn't mean they'll charge workstation-grade prices. You can bet they'll make a point of offering Sun performance at PC prices. Maybe not Matsu prices, but close enough.

I'm confident that the PowerMac G4 will no longer be offered more or less the moment that the 970 becomes available. I have a feeling that Steve is counting the days until he can take that albatross off his neck, and he'll do what he has to to see that it comes off. Also, I doubt the 970 will be any more expensive than the custom-made, absolute-bleeding-edge 7455s currently going into PowerMacs. If anything, it will cost less, since it appears that IBM is having no trouble at all producing them.

Fred Anderson has explicitly and repeatedly affirmed that Apple is trading margins for market share, so that argument is settled. Apple is going that way. They might not be doing it as aggressively as some would like, but market share won't mean anything if they can't afford to keep their nest egg, and their half-billion-dollar R&D budget, and their talent. (Before you disagree, look at their SEC filings: Apple has been basically breaking even operationally for the last several years. Their profits, when they have come, have come from Anderson's carefully engineered and well-maintained "cash machine." They don't have a lot of room to maneuver.) They've also been setting up and testing ways to get their message out to consumers more effectively (via Apple reps in CompUSA, and of course the Apple Stores).

Steve has said that Apple will close the megahertz gap. Of course, he said it when we were still stuck with the G4, but he obviously could see a lot farther forward than we can.

I'll believe that MacBidouille somehow got information from someone testing a 2.3GHz 970-based Mac. If IBM's making them, why not try them out? It's every bit in Apple's interest to unleash the absolute fastest Mac they can put together. It was in Apple's interest when the G3 was crushing Pentiums, and it certainly is now that the Pentium is crushing G4s.

As an aside, I believe it was Matsu who claimed that the Wintel world is accustomed to steady, reliable increases. Well, uh, as of the last couple of years, maybe. You don't have to think that far back to remember when Macs got steady, reliable increases and the x86 was faring poorly enough that any number of pundits were predicting its death. Those turned out to be abberations, and I'm confident that the Great 500MHz Plateau will be remembered as an abberation in the PowerPC's history as well.
"...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 #94 of 164
post #95 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Nonsuch
Prepare to be branded an apologist.

Don't you know that everyone here knows how to run Apple better than Apple?

I've been called much worse.

My point was that all this whining about how Apple needs to cut their prices to boost market share is naive. Apple is a business, whose first obligation is making money for their shareholders. I hope folks will see that these are the same basic principles that drive any business. There have been a lot of businesses that went belly-up despite growing sales and market share. You cannot grow beyond what your products can profitably sustain.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #96 of 164
One important difference, for Apple, between IBM and Motorola is their internal use of the CPUs.

For IBMs 970 to be useful to IBM they have to be competetive with Intels Xeon (at least for the blade servers, IBM might also have other plans for the 970 outside computer CPUs)

For Motorola the G4 is a good processor in embedded applications and they have no interest in the G4 as a computer CPU.

With such divergent goals for the G4 it is not stange if there has been a lot of armtwisting between Apple and Motorola, and that is allways a bad situation.

Regarding the PPC scaling. When the 9600/350 came out the Peniums were at 266 or 300 MHz IIRC. Then the G3 came that dropped a bit in clock speed but gained in performance So from the first PPC in 1994 to the G3/450 in the spring of 1999 the PPC was on par or a bit ahead of the Pentiums.

Then we had the G4 clock down, the AMD 1 Ghz Athlon starting a real race between Intel and AMD in January 2000, while the G4 would be stuck at 500 Mhz until 2001
So 1994-1999 the race was made by 601 and then the 604 and lastly the G3. All 3 CPUs made well and it was a good period only marred by the nonnative OS and applications during the nubus PPC year. 1999-2003 have not had 3 diffrent CPU generations but only one the G4 and the kindest I can say is: at least it has been consistent the 2x clock speed gap it lost in 1999 and 2000, it has keept 2001 and 2002 and 2003 without any signs of failing. If anything it seems to err on the safe side and sometimes archiving almost a 3X clock gap
post #97 of 164
Matsu Prices? Amorph, come on now. I've always said that I'm perfectly happy to pay a "little" more for macs of similar performance, and a little more again for macs of far greater performance. In the desktop realm this question will be settled with 970's (hopefully) so we are left to ruminate on price.

I say, if 970's provide the kind of performance that they suggest, then the CURRENT PM prices are acceptable, they are high end prices already, matching PPC970 performance to said prices would solve a lot of problems, and hopefully let the rest of the consumer line get respectable (without impinging on the PM line)

When, however, I take to ranting about the lack of a real consumer/edu/business machine, I not up the buisness of saying a PM ought to be priced like an eMachines, though the G4 PM's are iffy. I'm saying that they need to make a consumer model with far broader appeal. Clearly that is a headless machine of some sort with a basic degree of expansion/upgradeability.

Right now, Apple is missing such a machine. The iMac doesn't qualify for well document reasons.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #98 of 164
The quoted speeds do make some sort of sense, taking rounding into account.

If Apple have a memory controller than can cope with a 450 MHz maximum bus speed (900MHz effective due to DDR transmission), and the PPC970 can run it's bus at an integer fraction of the core clock, then we get chips at 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 giving clock speeds of 1.35GHz, 1.8GHz, and 2.25GHz, which might be rounded to give the 1.4, 1.8, 2.3 mentioned by MacBidouille. Any other speeds would require a slower bus, reducing bandwidth, maybe Apple didn't want to do that.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #99 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
When, however, I take to ranting about the lack of a real consumer/edu/business machine, I not up the buisness of saying a PM ought to be priced like an eMachines, though the G4 PM's are iffy. I'm saying that they need to make a consumer model with far broader appeal. Clearly that is a headless machine of some sort with a basic degree of expansion/upgradeability.

I think we mostly agree on this, except that I don't think expansion/upgradeability is nearly as much of an issue as it used to be. An AGP card, an optional modem, an optional wireless node, a spare drive bay (beyond the main drive and DVD) and maybe a single PCI slot (but probably not). DIMM slots and ZIF mounted processors are much par-for-the-course. Most expansion needs are now either built-in or handled just fine by USB / FireWire. The box in this market space should be as small as possible because that would broaden its appeal far more than a couple of slots. And a fast G4 is plenty (a la the current high end iMac). The price should be at eMac levels or below, and this ought to be doable because the components are almost the same minus the display.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #100 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
The quoted speeds do make some sort of sense, taking rounding into account.

If Apple have a memory controller than can cope with a 450 MHz maximum bus speed (900MHz effective due to DDR transmission), and the PPC970 can run it's bus at an integer fraction of the core clock, then we get chips at 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 giving clock speeds of 1.35GHz, 1.8GHz, and 2.25GHz, which might be rounded to give the 1.4, 1.8, 2.3 mentioned by MacBidouille. Any other speeds would require a slower bus, reducing bandwidth, maybe Apple didn't want to do that.

michael

Instead of doing that I expect the memory controller to be run at half the processor speed. So what if bandwidth is a little lower on slower machines? It makes sense from a marketing and technical viewpoint.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #101 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Instead of doing that I expect the memory controller to be run at half the processor speed. So what if bandwidth is a little lower on slower machines? It makes sense from a marketing and technical viewpoint.

Yes, but what if Apple can't get the companion chip above the 900MHz rate?

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #102 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
The quoted speeds do make some sort of sense, taking rounding into account.

If Apple have a memory controller than can cope with a 450 MHz maximum bus speed (900MHz effective due to DDR transmission), and the PPC970 can run it's bus at an integer fraction of the core clock, then we get chips at 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 giving clock speeds of 1.35GHz, 1.8GHz, and 2.25GHz, which might be rounded to give the 1.4, 1.8, 2.3 mentioned by MacBidouille. Any other speeds would require a slower bus, reducing bandwidth, maybe Apple didn't want to do that.

michael

Could that be why a 1.6ghz was never mentioned but meerly assumed? It was always 1.ghz-1.8ghz and assumed that was 'thru' and not 'and'. So the 2.3ghz seems to be posible, very interesting assertion.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #103 of 164
Programmer, that sounds GREAT to me, actually. One Industry standrad graphics card SLOT (whatever that may be when they finally get around to making this box), one ZIFF mounted CPU (or daughter-card, so long as it can be changed), one optical bay and 1 or 2 HDD bays (internal) with plenty of DIMM's (2-4) and you can color this critic pleased to lay down e-iMac money. Though, I would argue that only the very fastest G4 with a bit of L3 cache will do, or depending on how long Apple takes to finally see the light, a low end 970.

But yeah, something that shadows the performance of a high-end iMac while offering much better flexibility, is just about the perfect answer to a multitude of market demands.

Come on Apple, my PB is getting lonely.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #104 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Matsu Prices? Amorph, come on now. I've always said that I'm perfectly happy to pay a "little" more for macs of similar performance, and a little more again for macs of far greater performance.

Yeah, I know, but I felt like tweaking you anyway.

The face of computing is about to change radically, though. All the pieces are falling into place, and I think Apple will push the new connection standards the way it pushed USB — firmly and absolutely, but making sure that the PC world is at least providing the new capabilities as a common option so that they don't end up with another NuBus.

We should see what these new technologies are, and how they work together, and what they imply. A PCI slot in a new model might suddenly become legacy, and it might not. It's also important to keep in mind that a well-executed AIO like the iMac has a lot of advantages as a consumer machine that a modular machine would be hard pressed to match, and (crucially) those advantages speak to Steve's sensibilities.
"...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 #105 of 164
Has anyone entertained the thought of a limited expansion (no PCI slots) cube like box with an optional PCI-whatever breakout box connectred via a highspeed interconnect? I think RapidIO is supposed to support external high speed connections provided the distance is not too long (2-3 feet high-speed fiber).
post #106 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
Has anyone entertained the thought of a limited expansion (no PCI slots) cube like box with an optional PCI-whatever breakout box connectred via a highspeed interconnect? I think RapidIO is supposed to support external high speed connections provided the distance is not too long (2-3 feet high-speed fiber).

Think PCI-Express
"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 #107 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
Has anyone entertained the thought of a limited expansion (no PCI slots) cube like box with an optional PCI-whatever breakout box connectred via a highspeed interconnect? I think RapidIO is supposed to support external high speed connections provided the distance is not too long (2-3 feet high-speed fiber).

I've been banging that drum for a while now.

I was unable to find it in their non-searchable archives, but Think Secret posted a brief note that "Thing 2," the codename that TS had associated with a rackmount server project at Apple way back in 2001, actually referred to a companion box for the Cube (codenamed "Thing"). There was apparently a variant Cube with a high-speed connector to Thing 2, which provided the Cube with additional expansion options.

This just fueled my line of thought, needless to say.
"...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 #108 of 164
Truth be told, An industry standard graphics card slot, a removable CPU and open DIMMs are all I really need internally. Firewire is almost there, for a scenario like Amorph describes. 800 has nearly the bandwidth of 32/33 PCI, and most PC mobo's really only have that much. 1600 and 3200, provided a couple of independent channels, could handle just about anything including the huge demands of uncompressed 4:4:4 HD from something like a Thompson Viper (currently handled by HD-SDI outputs.)

If anything, Apple ought to push firewire to adopt faster speeds NOW and then get the whole pro "FILM" market behind one unified connector as quickly as possible.

Imagine dumping a few hundred gigabytes worth of video to a racked Xserve plus Xserve raid (all in the field) and then controlling the whole thing right there on location from the comfort of a Powerbook! High end video (film), oh yes.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #109 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
Has anyone entertained the thought of a limited expansion (no PCI slots) cube like box with an optional PCI-whatever breakout box connectred via a highspeed interconnect? I think RapidIO is supposed to support external high speed connections provided the distance is not too long (2-3 feet high-speed fiber).

So I suppose nobody saw what I post in another thread
It remember me of this quote from Mr NSX on Ars : Think outside the box.

See this Link and this PDF
"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 #110 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu

If anything, Apple ought to push firewire to adopt faster speeds NOW and then get the whole pro "FILM" market behind one unified connector as quickly as possible.


I wonder what would help is this regard?

It's kinda like the old - "how do I get a hew computer platform accepted?" - thingy, all over again, since you've got to get people to use the thing, but they wont unless there's software/hardware to back it up, and the hardware/software manufacturer's won't supply anything until somebody's actually using it.

I guess it's a classic case of Keyensian pump priming ... it's even got a bit of a macroeconomic angle come to think about it ... hmmmmmmmm

Anyway, how does one get FW accepted as the cradle to home theatre delievery system it should be?
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #111 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
The quoted speeds do make some sort of sense, taking rounding into account.

If Apple have a memory controller than can cope with a 450 MHz maximum bus speed (900MHz effective due to DDR transmission), and the PPC970 can run it's bus at an integer fraction of the core clock, then we get chips at 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 giving clock speeds of 1.35GHz, 1.8GHz, and 2.25GHz, which might be rounded to give the 1.4, 1.8, 2.3 mentioned by MacBidouille. Any other speeds would require a slower bus, reducing bandwidth, maybe Apple didn't want to do that.

michael

Some of the other quoted speeds fit half-integer values, as well:

450 MHz x 3.5 = 1575 (1.6 GHz)
450 MHz x 4.5 = 2025 (2.0 GHz)
450 MHz x 5.5 = 2475 (2.5 GHz)

I don't know what the 970 gurus are saying about half-integer steps, but these fit, anyway.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #112 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
Yes, but what if Apple can't get the companion chip above the 900MHz rate?

Then they have to work harder?

Seriously though, the chip really only has to run at 450 MHz and be able to feed the double pumped bus. Getting parts to run at ~500 MHz these days doesn't seem to be too tall of an order and despite how people like to slag them, Apple's ASIC team seems to know what they are doing. If they are having issues with getting the whole chip to run fast enough they can always resort to splitting it into parts and connecting them with HyperTransport (the consortium for which they are part of). IBM is going to have a companion chip to use with the 970 and I'm sure they'd license the IP to Apple if necessary to ensure them as a customer for their new processor.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #113 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by TJM
Some of the other quoted speeds fit half-integer values, as well:

450 MHz x 3.5 = 1575 (1.6 GHz)
450 MHz x 4.5 = 2025 (2.0 GHz)
450 MHz x 5.5 = 2475 (2.5 GHz)

I don't know what the 970 gurus are saying about half-integer steps, but these fit, anyway.

Very interesting. May be this will be Apple's new spped line. Personally, I would like to see two configs of the PM that would be in the 2 Ghz range. Single 2.0 and dual 2.5 or dual 2 and dual 2.5. That would be really nice.
post #114 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
Very interesting. May be this will be Apple's new spped line. Personally, I would like to see two configs of the PM that would be in the 2 Ghz range. Single 2.0 and dual 2.5 or dual 2 and dual 2.5. That would be really nice.

What we're saying is that the 970 may not have a clock multiplier... the bus runs at 1/4 the chip speed, double pumped. Period. Don't bother trying to figure out clock multipliers.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #115 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
What we're saying is that the 970 may not have a clock multiplier... the bus runs at 1/4 the chip speed, double pumped. Period. Don't bother trying to figure out clock multipliers.

Programer, do you know what apps would take advantage of a 64 bit system? I asked this in another thread and no one answered. Would it be apps like Photoshop, FCP, Maya, Shake?
post #116 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
What we're saying is that the 970 may not have a clock multiplier... the bus runs at 1/4 the chip speed, double pumped.

Programmer, here's my straight-in-the-face question. If the 970 does not have a clock multiplier, do you think the 2.3 or 2.25GHz figures technically possible in regard with the bus frequency? If so, do you believe they're possible at Apple? I am just asking about your opinion. No sarcasm meant.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #117 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
Programer, do you know what apps would take advantage of a 64 bit system?

I am not Programmer but I at least can "guess" what apps will get the benefit out from 64 bit systems in general.....

1) Video Software
2) Encoder / Decoder
3) 3D apps
4) Scientific software (Astronomy, Geology, Biotechnology, etc)
5) Military software
6) Enterprise solutions
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #118 of 164
A guy at MacBidioulle yesterday said that optimizing for 64 bits can colossally improve the performance of OS X in the areas of disc accesses, OpenGL, and Quartz. "In the fields quoted above, 64 bits can really make a difference quasi as significant as AltiVec."
post #119 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Jupiter
A guy at MacBidioulle yesterday said that optimizing for 64 bits can colossally improve the performance of OS X in the areas of disc accesses, OpenGL, and Quartz. "In the fields quoted above, 64 bits can really make a difference quasi as significant as AltiVec."

To be honest, I don't see how 64-bitness can affect disk access speed. And what does Quartz have to do with 64 bit CPU architecture if it uses 32 bits for displaying and storing pixels?
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #120 of 164
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
What we're saying is that the 970 may not have a clock multiplier... the bus runs at 1/4 the chip speed, double pumped. Period. Don't bother trying to figure out clock multipliers.

The bus runs at an integer fractions of the chip speed and is not fixed to 1/4 and is not fixed to 450 MHz. Exclamation mark.
Chip frequecies are "1.4 to 1.8 GHz" with no steps mentioned inbetween.
The 970 is targeted to reach 1.8 GHz at 1.3 V. Maybe the higher speeds are at higher voltage? Like you can't find the higher voltage types of the 7455 in the papers of Moto exept the engineering test results.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › new info from macbidouille : 2.3GHz !