or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: 500-600 MHz jump for next G5 Rev
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: 500-600 MHz jump for next G5 Rev

post #1 of 80
Thread Starter 
MacRumors, in an article titled "Apple, PPC 980, and Upcoming G5s?" presents some pretty exciting speculation on the next Powermac Rev we may see at MWSF. Here is the link: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...29165235.shtml
post #2 of 80
Yes - it will be 2.5 min and 2.8 max.
RF
Reply
RF
Reply
post #3 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by rbfoye
Yes - it will be 2.5 min and 2.8 max.

and you know this because...

\
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
post #4 of 80
~
post #5 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Ernest eMac
They'll announce a 2.8 and Powerdoc's dual 2 gigger will turn up the next day \

Never mind. The new 2.8s won't be delivered until September 2004.....\
post #6 of 80
Well, based on Jobs statement (3 GHz in one year), a 2.5 GHz G5 in January is almost certain. For 2.8 GHz, I don't know, we will see... After June's surprise (2 GHz instead of 1.8 GHz), a January surprise would be equally welcome.
post #7 of 80
Well.... Im a believer for one... This aint Moto.. This is IBM! Yeah baby!!
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #8 of 80
Maybe I'll go for the dual 2 g now.

My guess in Feb:

2.2 single @$1999
Dual 2.5 @ 2499
Dual 2.8 @ 2999

A dual 2 g now would be a kick ass machine for a good 3 years....?
post #9 of 80
500 MHz might sound like a lot for us macusers that were stuck at 500 Mhz for more than a year. It is "only" 25% boost for a 2 Ghz CPU like going from a 8500/200 to a 8500/250. The truth is that a 2.5 GHz is percived as just a little bit faster than a 2.0 GHz CPU.

I pin more hope to getting to 90nm and the reduced power consumption/heat output. That will bring nice things to both blades and PBs imac and eMac. Time to kiss the G4 good night and turn it to "sleep mode"
post #10 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBoar
500 MHz might sound like a lot for us macusers that were stuck at 500 Mhz for more than a year. It is "only" 25% boost for a 2 Ghz CPU like going from a 8500/200 to a 8500/250. The truth is that a 2.5 GHz is percived as just a little bit faster than a 2.0 GHz CPU.

True, but 800Mhz would be a healthy 40%. Even if Apple can keep up with 25% increases every 6 month, they will be far ahead of the wintel competition soon.

I have some doubt concerning the feasability such large increases over such small time intervals however...
post #11 of 80
Naw...this is Apple we're dealing with. They rarely give you EVERYTHING you want. With this in mind here's roughly what you'll get.


$1999= Single 2Ghz
$2399= Dual 2.2Ghz
$2999= Dual 2.6Ghz

That's a 400Mhz jump on the lowend. Dual capability at the midlevel and a 400Mhz x 2 Delta between the midrange and highend units.

This neatly allows Apple to follow up late summer with

2.4 Single
2.6 Dual
3.0 Dual by summers end fulfilling their prophecy.

Hitting 2.8 in January makes no sense.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #12 of 80
I don't know guys. Most importantly prices have to inch lower. Maybe by January the low end goes down $200 and the mid range down $100.
post #13 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
I don't know guys. Most importantly prices have to inch lower. Maybe by January the low end goes down $200 and the mid range down $100.

Do you know something about the G5 sales we don't know?
If the low end really goes up to 2GHz I see no problem for Apple selling them at the present price.
But I wish Apple will listen to you not me
post #14 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by smalM
Do you know something about the G5 sales we don't know?
If the low end really goes up to 2GHz I see no problem for Apple selling them at the present price.
But I wish Apple will listen to you not me

Lower mac prices make it easier to justify to the pointy haired bosses to purchase more. The 2GHz dual, though, is a great deal.
post #15 of 80
Oh mommy, please let there be a mid-range dual in the lineup come spring, when I will be buying.

I doubt we'll see anything faster than 2.5GHz in the next rev, unless Apple plans to be well beyond 3GHz next summer. They can't jump from 2 to 2.8 and then go just to 3. If we go to 2.8 now the expectations will be sky-high for something in the 3.4GHz range next summer.
post #16 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by BrunoBruin
Oh mommy, please let there be a mid-range dual in the lineup come spring, when I will be buying.

I doubt we'll see anything faster than 2.5GHz in the next rev, unless Apple plans to be well beyond 3GHz next summer. They can't jump from 2 to 2.8 and then go just to 3. If we go to 2.8 now the expectations will be sky-high for something in the 3.4GHz range next summer.

This thought process (which is common within AI) doesn't match the real world. Apple will use the processors IBM produces - Apple doesn't hold back. As IBMs processes and manufacturing improve, the number of processors > 1.6, or > 1.8, or > 2.0, or > 2.2 etc keeps going up. Eventually, there are enough > the current lineup that upgrades can be sold. Apple (& IBM) does predict what they think will happen, and so does the engineering on the motherboard to enable the predicted timeframes. If IBM started giving Apple 4 GHz chips tomorrow, they probably couldn't be used, because the motherboard probably needs faster parts to keep pace - which means new engineering drawings, integration, testing, etc.
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #17 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Naw...this is Apple we're dealing with. They rarely give you EVERYTHING you want. With this in mind here's roughly what you'll get.


$1999= Single 2Ghz
$2399= Dual 2.2Ghz
$2999= Dual 2.6Ghz

If that were to be marketed, not many would purchase the DP/2.6 when it's clear the DP/2.2 is the much better value (if the two models are configured as they are now: same HD, video upgrade is $50): $600 is a lot of money for 800mhz. When upgrading from a G4 (a DP/800 in my case), any dual G5 will feel fast, so I might as well choose the DP 2.2. I'm sure others would do the same.

My layman's 2 bits:

$1899 = 1x 2.2Ghz
$2399 = 2x 2.0Ghz
$2999 = 2x 2.6Ghz (or whatever's the fastest at the time)

$500 gets me an extra chip; $600 on top of that gets me 1200Mhz. I'm assuming that all PowerMacs will have identical mobo specs, not like the 1.6, currently.
post #18 of 80
ah, i cant wait.. the minute they announce revisions is when im ordering my top-end g5
post #19 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBoar
It is "only" 25% boost for a 2 Ghz CPU like going from a 8500/200 to a 8500/250.

Well, Intel went from 3.0GHz to 3.2GHz last upgrade. That is an increase of 6%. So that would be like that 8500/200 going up to a 8500/212. Hip, hip hurray. A 25% increase for Apple would be nice, if they can keep that up a few upgrades, we will be looking good.

Overall in the last 2 years (when the 1GHz barrier was broken), Intel has gone from 1GHz to 3.2GHz a 220% increase. Apple has gone from 500MHz to 2GHz a 300% increase. This was over the same two year period, and is right after the G4 fiasco (the next update was to the Digital Audio 733 Macs). Not too shabby for Apple.
post #20 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by scottiB

My layman's 2 bits:

$1899 = 1x 2.2Ghz
$2399 = 2x 2.0Ghz
$2999 = 2x 2.6Ghz (or whatever's the fastest at the time)

I'll be amazed if Apple offers a higher-line machine with a slower CPU clock rate, even if there are two. The last time they did that (with the dual 533 option) they caused a lot of confusion.

I'd like to see 'em go all dual, personally. But I have no idea whether they will.
"...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 #21 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by BrunoBruin
Oh mommy, please let there be a mid-range dual in the lineup come spring, when I will be buying.

I doubt we'll see anything faster than 2.5GHz in the next rev, unless Apple plans to be well beyond 3GHz next summer. They can't jump from 2 to 2.8 and then go just to 3. If we go to 2.8 now the expectations will be sky-high for something in the 3.4GHz range next summer.

That's what I thought when I was adding this up. Maybe IBM is achieving more than they expected, or/and Apple is having these ramped up side by side with the Power5. If it's true it would be the first Apple MHz dream of mine to ever come true.

That would be a happy day.
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 #22 of 80
How about this age old idea: Powermac gets dual G5 and new iMac gets single G5? That would make the price vs. performance better...
Come checkout SetiLogger X
Dual 3Ghz G5 coming soon!!!
Reply
Come checkout SetiLogger X
Dual 3Ghz G5 coming soon!!!
Reply
post #23 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
I'll be amazed if Apple offers a higher-line machine with a slower CPU clock rate, even if there are two. The last time they did that (with the dual 533 option) they caused a lot of confusion.

I'd like to see 'em go all dual, personally. But I have no idea whether they will.

Yes ideally they would all be duals. During the G4 drought Apple really pushed dual designs into people's awareness and they would do well to continue down that path even though they have a much more capable processor supplier these days. Also it would help seperate the professional and personal desktop lines so that the iMac3 can have a single G5 processor at it's heart.

My humble suggestions would be:

Dual G5 1.8GHz
Dual G5 2.5GHz
Dual G5 2.8GHz

All three models should sport DDR400 RAM or better.

Make the iMac line into something like this:

1.2GHz (15-inch)
1.4GHz (17-inch)
1.6GHz (17-inch "Extreme")
Pismo, Deus Ex Machina.
Reply
Pismo, Deus Ex Machina.
Reply
post #24 of 80
I don't see Apple getting 800 MHz boosts, even if IBM's production is absolutely flying. However, given what IBM has been demonstrated as capable of doing (2.5 GHz prototypes a few months ago), I wouldn't be surprised if the high-end clock speed today is the low-end clock speed in February. It might even be better.

A (relative) pessimist's prediction:

- single 2.0 GHz
- dual 2.2 GHz
- dual 2.4 GHz

And the optimist's:

- single 2.2 GHz
- dual 2.4 GHz
- dual 2.6 GHz

You just know that the truth is somewhere in between (or not there at all), though.
post #25 of 80
2999 = 2x2.5 GHz Power Mac G5
2499 = 2x2.2 GHz Power Mac G5
1999 = 2x1.8 GHz Power Mac G5

1799 = 1x2.0 GHz G5 Mini
1599 = 1x1.8 GHz G5 Mini
1399 = 1x1.6 GHz G5 Mini

1799 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 iMac
1399 = 2x1.00 GHz G4 iMac

1299 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0999 = 1x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0699 = 1x1.00 GHz G4 Mini
post #26 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
2999 = 2x2.5 GHz Power Mac G5
2499 = 2x2.2 GHz Power Mac G5
1999 = 2x1.8 GHz Power Mac G5

1799 = 1x2.0 GHz G5 Mini
1599 = 1x1.8 GHz G5 Mini
1399 = 1x1.6 GHz G5 Mini

1799 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 iMac
1399 = 2x1.00 GHz G4 iMac

1299 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0999 = 1x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0699 = 1x1.00 GHz G4 Mini

NOW we're talking! Cube revived... The thing is: I have owned two powermacs, an original G4 graphite 500 MHz, and a 8600 way back. But I have never had *any* use for PCI ports. I haven't even though about using either. So a G4/G5 Mini would have none (or maybe one for the "pci entusiasts" on the G5 Mini), but it would have a AGP slot that is wicked fast (is it 8x these days), and that can hold a standard sized graphics card from nVidia or Ati. Now THAT would be my choice for a computer.

IT wouldn't have to look like a cube, it could be rectangualr, either tall or wide. Wide enough to fit a superdrive and tall enough to fit a standard size graphics card. Whats that ? 6 inches wide and 9 inches tall ?

Place a G5 in there, have FireWire (400 and/or 800), USB 2.0, gigabit ethernet (or 100Mbps is sufficient for this kind of machine I guess), DVI out, SVideo out and that cool optical out that the PowerMac G5 has.

Perfect machine for the office, for the family and for the gamer. Bundle the machine with the 17inch or 23 inch flat screen (give a 200 dollar dicounted "bundle price"), and I think Apple would have a winner!

Of course, it would cannibalilse the iMac sales, but its due for a replacement anyways. Call it the Apple SuccessfullMac or something.

.:BoeManE:.
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #27 of 80
Argh!

What is it with people who make unrealistic predictions?

Not to single anyone out in particular (I've seen at least a few others), but posts like THT's make me scratch my head in wonderment. Dual-processor iMacs? G4 and G5 "Minis?" I don't think so. While I can't rule it out, I'm even skeptical of dual-1.8 GHz G5s at the low end of the PowerMac lineup.

It'd be nice if people kept a few common things in mind before making a prediction:

1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.

2. The iMac has a small enclosure, and probably can't fit two CPUs (at least, not without addressing heat first).

3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.
post #28 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by jwdawso
This thought process (which is common within AI) doesn't match the real world. Apple will use the processors IBM produces - Apple doesn't hold back. As IBMs processes and manufacturing improve, the number of processors > 1.6, or > 1.8, or > 2.0, or > 2.2 etc keeps going up.

I couldn't agree more. I don't know how people here got it in their heads that Apple deliberately holds back on the good stuff....
post #29 of 80
Apple wants to make money. They will give us what they know will make the most money. They DO have shareholders to look out for... Since they have been caught at the same speeds for a while, it is sometimes perceived that they do not have high enough speeds, therefore they will release machines that counter that thinking. See the G5 for a recent example. Who would have thought that we would jump from dual 1.42Ghz to dual 2.0Ghz?

Oh yeah, all of this talk about a dual iMac is garbage... The only way you will ever get a dual anything in such a small space is a huge die shrink and then probably only dual-cored machines...
Come checkout SetiLogger X
Dual 3Ghz G5 coming soon!!!
Reply
Come checkout SetiLogger X
Dual 3Ghz G5 coming soon!!!
Reply
post #30 of 80
Quote:
1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.

It sure does, but a faster CPU is way more expensive! For the AMD Barton XP CPU the 3 GHz cost more two and half time as much as the 2.5 GHz one. So while having a more complex motherboard dual sockets, two CPUs etc do cost more the skyrocketing cost of the leading edge CPUs off set a large part of that cost.

If Apple now let the eMac linger in the G4 domain for the next year as low cost alternative and have G5 iMacs then the option of having the towers all dual again looks quite natrual to Apple and the currently steep price would look better for us buyers
So my suggestion is:
DP 1.6 (a substantial boost aviable right away)
DP 2.0 (a substantial boost aviable right away)
DP 2.x (as fast as IBM can crank them up, aviable within a resonable time frame)
post #31 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
2999 = 2x2.5 GHz Power Mac G5
2499 = 2x2.2 GHz Power Mac G5
1999 = 2x1.8 GHz Power Mac G5

1799 = 1x2.0 GHz G5 Mini
1599 = 1x1.8 GHz G5 Mini
1399 = 1x1.6 GHz G5 Mini

1799 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 iMac
1399 = 2x1.00 GHz G4 iMac

1299 = 2x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0999 = 1x1.25 GHz G4 Mini
0699 = 1x1.00 GHz G4 Mini

Look, child, waaay too many models. Considering the current G5 is barely expandable...

Anyway...

The current high-end becomes the mid-end. The low-end remains a single CPU machine. In January:

1x1800 MHz - $1800
2x2000 MHz - $2400
2x2400 MHz - $3000
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #32 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Commodus

3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.

Look, child, I don't see why people are enamored with mini-PCs either. You have to cut a lot of corners to get truly small desktop PCs...Just look at http://www.mini-itx.com/ ... In what form-factor would it really save space? A cube? Do we really want that again? The Cube was small because it had a big fat external PSU, an external amplifier, no built-in speaker, nothing...Put those back in and the footprint increases. A pizza box? Flat on the table, it takes up more area than a tower. Are you going to put it underneath your 17" ASD? Straddle your 23" ACD around it? On its side it's still going to need a stand to stabilize it.

I do see Apple slimming down the current G5 tower while maintaining its expandability, and then introducing a truly expandable tower with more internal bays and more expansion slots.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #33 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene

I do see Apple slimming down the current G5 tower while maintaining its expandability, and then introducing a truly tower with more internal bays and more expansion slots.


Look, child, that probably will happen. Apple needs a "consumer tower".....doesn't have to be a mini-cube type thing....it should be a ....GASP....MINITOWER.....GASP..... things we had all over the place just a few years ago.

All it needs is an external drive bay, 2 internal bays, PCI slot and AGP slot. Single G5 cpu....front mounted ports.....and make it look cool as hell.

definitely possible....definitely cheaper to make......and definitely would sell.
post #34 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
I'll be amazed if Apple offers a higher-line machine with a slower CPU clock rate, even if there are two. The last time they did that (with the dual 533 option) they caused a lot of confusion.

I'd like to see 'em go all dual, personally. But I have no idea whether they will.

There was a 1x867 offered below my 2x800 in August/2001, but I know what you mean. I'd love to see all duals, too, and I think we will in the future, but there'll need to be greater differences in chip speed and/or configurations among the price points.

We're so accustomed to seeing 133-250Mhz increments in the product line (or 50Mhz in the Dark Days), that we expect/want dual 2.0, 2.2, 2.4s at the next refresh, but Apple won't sell many DP 2.4s at $2999 if the DP 2.0s are $1999 (much like many bought the DP 867 over the DP 1.0 or 1.25 G4s, and I believe why Apple nixed the all-DP config at the next refresh).

Once the G5 reaches 3.0 Ghz, I hope we'll see all duals in this guestimation:
  • 2x2.0 @ $1999
  • 2x2.5 @ $2499
  • 2x3.0 @ $2999
Little cannibalism among pricepoints. Keep the single G5s for the iMac and PowerBook.

edit: Basically what Kane wrote if I'd paid more attention to this thread. Sorry 'bout that.
post #35 of 80
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).

Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
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 #36 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Commodus
Argh!

What is it with people who make unrealistic predictions?

Not to single anyone out in particular (I've seen at least a few others), but posts like THT's make me scratch my head in wonderment. Dual-processor iMacs? G4 and G5 "Minis?" I don't think so. While I can't rule it out, I'm even skeptical of dual-1.8 GHz G5s at the low end of the PowerMac lineup.


First off minis are hot in the market place right now. Second the new G5 is much larger than many people are willing ot deal with. As to the dual processor iMacs, it will happen sooner or later SMP is actually a cheaper way to improve performance. I wuold not be surprised if the SMP iMacs are a dual core solution.
Quote:

It'd be nice if people kept a few common things in mind before making a prediction:

1. It (usually) costs considerably more to have dual CPUs than a single CPU at a higher clock speed.

Not at all - yes there is an incremental cost but it is not unmanageable. For certain classes of probelms the resultant machine can be a much bette performer thatn trying to buy a CPU fast enough to get the results you want.
Quote:

2. The iMac has a small enclosure, and probably can't fit two CPUs (at least, not without addressing heat first).

I suspect that the present IMac is dead. What they do to replace it is up in the air. But the issue of heat is a none issue G4's are running cooler than they have ever done in the past with the most recent revisions. We are talking here only a few watts beyond the original IMacs thermal load.
Quote:

3. It's not impossible to have a cheap headless box at Apple, but Steve Jobs is loathe to admit that people would want it.

While I'm not willing ot speculate on what is possible at Apple one only needs to look at the market to see what is need to fill out the product line. The G5 is big - that will turn off people right there. As I've said mini's are hot in the market place right now and the current IMacs are not meting sales expectations. This all adds up to something being offered to fill the voids. Headless or nt I do expect it to be a bit cheaper than the IMac, have limited expansion capability and a 970 based processor.
Quote:

post #37 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
Look, child, waaay too many models. Considering the current G5 is barely expandable...

Old man, I'm not making a prediction. If I do, it'll be too depressing, therefore I put up what I want the lineup to be and close my ears to criticism. Lalalalalala... I can't hear you.
post #38 of 80
Don't expect more than 2.4 ghz.
post #39 of 80
Here is how to make a low costs feature rich mini.

1. A high integration 970, that is a chip with an on board memory controller.

2. A new high integration bus interface chip. Since the memory controller is now gone and much bandwidth has been freed up this should work out nicely. This chip would supply all I/O for the machine. In otherwords SATA, USB, Firewire, Networking and a graphics port and whatever.

Note: This means that your logic board has two main chips, video and memroy to worry about.

3. Move to notebook form factor SATA drives. These should just be coming on the market and will save on power and space.

4. No sound hardware, rely instead on external USB speakers.


I realize that as described above we loose a bit of flexibility, it the expansion realm, but how many people even bother to put PCI cards in their machines anymore. With a bit of design effort though this machine could fit inot a lunch box. And that would be without the minitaurized mother boards of a portable. This brings up the interesting possibility of using existing portable chipsets or even more so a freshly design 970 chipset for both portable and compact usage.

Look at it this way if a whole computer can be stuffed into a laptop it should be a piece of cake to do a mini desk top. I;m not talking the current PC route whcih has normal motherboards stuffed into mini or mivro enclosures, we are talking a motherboard purposefully designed for a minmalist machine.

Thanks
Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).

Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.
post #40 of 80
Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
The only problem I see with such low cost G4 systems is the MPC7447/MPC7457 and the G5 both use a 0.13µm process, but the G4's have more transistors than the G5, so I'd expect them to cost more than the G5. And to be competative would need some form of L3 cache(got to overcome the anemic 167MHz bus).

Even though the 7457 has more transistors than the 970, it's die size (98 sq mm) is actually smaller than the 970 (118 sq mm). IBM's floorplan for the 970 seems atrocious considering how tightly they've packed the 750fx, 35 sq mm for 39M transistors. Since the 7457 is 20% smaller than the 970, and given the same yields, the 7457 should be cheaper.

If the 970 has much better yield than the 7457, than the 970 may be cheaper. Moto seems to have had a lot of yield problems with their 130 nm process, so the 970 may very well have been cheaper for a few months. Who knows.

Quote:
Of course this doesn't take into account the myriad of other parts in a computer and I couldn't begin to figure out(re: as my technical knowledge is very limited) how Apple could reduce these other costs so they could introduce a $700 mini cube.

Apple sells an eMac with a 1 GHz 7455 CPU, combo optical, 128 MB RAM and 40 GB disk for 799$. They also sell an 800 MHz iBook G3 for 899$. Given the integration issues for these all-in-one machines, I'm sure they can sell a headless G4 mini for 700$. My G4 mini idea would just be the El Capitan case shrunk to a 12x12x9 size.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: 500-600 MHz jump for next G5 Rev