or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will MWSF Close The GHz Gap?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will MWSF Close The GHz Gap?

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
2.2 GHz Pentiums are <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,77564,00.asp" target="_blank">now shipping</a>.

[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: glurx ]</p>
post #2 of 36
No.
post #3 of 36
Maybe.

Dont suffer from the megahertz myth.

[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
post #4 of 36
I hope it does, but I don't think it will.
post #5 of 36
Thread Starter 
[quote]
<strong>Dont suffer from the megahertz myth.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't.

In any event it's now the "gigagertz myth" and give Motorola a few more years and it might even become the "terahertz myth".
post #6 of 36
If they don't come up with anything faster than 1.2 GHz, I will not be happy . Hopefully all three PM-models will pass the GHz barrier.
post #7 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by koldolme:
<strong>If they don't come up with anything faster than 1.2 GHz, I will not be happy . Hopefully all three PM-models will pass the GHz barrier.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It will be 867, 1 Ghz and 933DP. The consumer desktop will be the main attaction. Might not even be called iMac.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #8 of 36
Phew. Sounds more and more like the "I have 384x oversampling@1 bit and you have only 24x oversampling@16 bit, therefore *my* CD player must play faster"-konundrum.
42 = 54 base 13
Reply
42 = 54 base 13
Reply
post #9 of 36
no it doesn't. it doesn't at all
post #10 of 36
How about "my two way speakers have a maximum wattage of 700 with a frequency range of 10hz-5khz
compared to your three way 70 watt 50hz-50khz....damn your speakers suck"

somethign along those lines


the problem is Though mhz. is for the most part balogne, In CPU benchmarks and that shite, apple is usually 3rd or 4th, against athlons and pentiums that are at peak mhz, meaning that if apple doesn't shape up a bit, mhz will matter, because there is no way a 1 ghz mhz g4 will be stomping a 2.2 ghz p4 when a 867 g4 hardley holds up against a 1.6 p4 and athlon...ya know what I'm saying?

personally I'm optimistic, Apple has surprised us before, they could always surprise us again, but if apple doesn't pass ghz(or just barely passes it) this mw they sure as hell better be offereing a faster system bus, ddr-ram at 300mhz or over,geforce 3 on all computers and make their comptuers a helluva lot cheaper
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #11 of 36
There is no way Apple could close the mhz/ghz gap. There won't be Motorola CPUs @ 2 ghz within the next few weeks, I can assure you...

If the 7460 is basically a 7450 (maybe with some slight improvements) with SOI we can expect a mhz increase of 20-30% (that's what Moto said at least), so you coul expect something like 867 | 1000 | 1133 mhz.

1200 or 1266 would really be the absolute maximum, 1.4 ghz sounds very unlikely unless Moto would add more stages to the pipeline.

Even if a 1.2 ghz G4 is as fast as a higher clocked P4 (and I assume that the 1.2 ghz G4 is not as fast as a 2.2 ghz P4 in common tasks, especially not when comparing G4/OSX and P4/XP), Apple really has to do something about it, it just doesn't look good. As I already mentioned in other posts, consumers know almost nothing about tech and they are led by a few numbers, especially mhz/ghz. On the other hand Apple MUST deliver faster PMs, at least if they want to attract people in pro-areas like 3D graphics.

The only way Apple could really top Intel/AMD would be using raw MP power. Imagine the following lineup:

good - 1 ghz G4
better - dual 867 ghz G4
best - quad 1.133 ghz G4

Maybe Apple could even introduce performance comparing numbers like AMD (dual 867 = 1600, quad 1.133 = 4000 for example - "4000" sounds better than "quad 1.133", doesn't it?)

But to be honest I think the only true solution would be the G5. A 1.6 ghz G5 could easily compete with the P4/2.2.

I often remember AIM announcing new CPUs. Specs were always way ahead, but then we had to wait months (years) until the CPU finally came out. By then Intel/AMD had already equivalent or better CPUs on the market.

I think the G5/1.6 ghz would be a sensation if it came out in January. In mid 2002 it will have to compete with the (guessing) 2.5 ghz P4. If the G5 comes in Jan 2003 you will then be able to buy a 3 ghz PC. Who will care about a 1.6 ghz G5 then???

Whatever Apple plans to do, they will have to do it quickly. We need powerful CPUs, and we need them NOW.
post #12 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

It will be 867, 1 Ghz and 933DP. The consumer desktop will be the main attaction. Might not even be called iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>

While I want a G5 badly, I don't think we will see one. However, even the sites that have said no G5 have at least said 'insanely fast G4s". Your specs are not 'insanely faster' in fact they are barely faster.

If G4s then at least 2 models above 1.0ghz, maybe 1.0 and 1.2ghz.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #13 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
...even the sites that have said no G5 have at least said 'insanely fast G4s". Your specs are not 'insanely faster' in fact they are barely faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes but then again I don´t have to make money on people coming to my (nonexisting) rumour page.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #14 of 36
There's no possible way that the Mhz gap will be closed all at once, in one single jump. We should be more than satisfied with a narrowing of the Mhz gap, and the release of some really nice Ghz-plus machines with more modern bus speeds and DDR RAM.
post #15 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

Yes but then again I don´t have to make money on people coming to my (nonexisting) rumour page.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think AsTheAppleTurns fits into your desciption.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #16 of 36
They better.

MHz DOES MATTER!

The Athlon XP is one hell of a processor and the Pentium 4 still beats a G4.
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
post #17 of 36
MHz does matter, but its just one factor in the performance equation. The design goals for the original IBM POWER architecture said essentially that (for a single processor):

performance = C * E * I

where:
C is the clock rate (MHz)
E is the number of execution units
I is a measure of how many instructions it takes to do the job and the complexity of those instructions

At various times the PPC family has had a lead over x86 in terms of "C" and "E", and arguably they will always have the advantage of "I". Currently, however, PPC is way behind because the x86 world has been cranking up both C and E, leaving the G4 way behind.

If the G4 gets a clock rate boost then it will catch up in terms of "C", but not "E". When the G5 arrives then it promises an increase in "E" as well, putting PPC back in the lead at least until the next x86 chips come out. Hopefully Apple gets the G5 before those x86 chips catch up to its promise.

And yes, when it arrives it could close the "MHz Gap" all at once. This is in fact more likely than Apple incrementing clock rates in steps so rapidly that it'll catch up to the x86 world. Since its a single manufacturer it will never be able to update its product lines as fast as the Wintel world -- doing so would canabalize and confuse its own market share, not to mention the headaches it would cause to Apple's QA & support departments.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #18 of 36
AMD is also shipping Athlon XP 2000+ (1600mhz) already (in japan)
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #19 of 36
Most likely:

1.0, 1.133, 1.266 GHz G4s (Apollo)

Less likely but possible:

1.0, 1.2, 1.4 GHz G5s

Not likely, but still possible:

1.2, 1.4, 1.6 GHz G5s.

Apple will close the GHz gap, but not abolish it.

Apple doesn't need to abolish the GHz gap since with Altivec even a 1.6 GHz G5 will trounce a 2.x GHz P4. The current problems are due to the G4 coming in last in virtually ever CPU test. Once a G-chip comes along that can beat the P4 at most tasks, then the GHz myth will be just that, a myth. Moto just needs to find their G-spot.
post #20 of 36
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Anders:

It will be 867, 1 Ghz and 933DP. The consumer desktop will be the main attaction. Might not even be called iMac.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that your specifications are accurate Anders.
Isn't you that nailed perfectly the specifications of the last MWNY? I remember that it was someone from Danemark, the night before the show ...
I think that Apple is definitely over on the pro line... Can you realise folks??? a 133 speed bump in 6 months?
This is a SHAME
And Knowing Apple, I'm pretty sure that the DDR will not be implemented neither.
post #21 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Toofeu:
<strong>quote: I think that Apple is definitely over on the pro line... Can you realise folks??? a 133 speed bump in 6 months?
This is a SHAME
And Knowing Apple, I'm pretty sure that the DDR will not be implemented neither.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you consider the specs we have about the 7460 (7460=7450+SOI) you cannot expect the G4 to go over 1.2 ghz in January. I think 1.133 ghz is the best they can do for now.

If the G5 is really almost ready (I mean for a release in mid 2002 or so) Apple will introduce it with a new Motherboard for sure (RapidIO). So it would not make much sense to introduce a totally new G4 motherboard for only 6 months. Probably they we will get a slightly modified Sawtooth with the new Apollo CPU, don't expect big changements here.

On the other hand, IF Apple will introduce a totally new MB with the Apollo, this would rather be really bad news. Apple will not design a totally new board that would be used for only 6 months or so, this would mean that the G5 would be far away (the G5 cannot be used in G4 motherboards - well, maybe, using bridges, but then loosing most advantages). In the best case this could mean that there could be two PowerMac lines in future (G4 and G5), but a G5 affordable for most users would then be very far, far away...
post #22 of 36
I'll say:

POWERMACS:

866 Mhz
1.133 Ghz
dual 1.0 Ghz

lowend is the current G4 processor and mobo. The others are Apollo's + ddr ram.

and this will no way make the G4's as fast as Athlons and P4's...

I agree with Anders that the consumer desktop will be the main attraction, and I guess the G5 will be released some time in the spring in a special event.

ap

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: ap ]</p>
post #23 of 36
SOI is supposed to increase clock speed about 20 - 30% according to rumors.

What about the die shrink to 0.13µ the Apollo was supposed to have? Shouldn't that also allow faster speeds?

SOI 867 X 0.3 = 260
Die Shrink 867 X 0.?? = ??

867 + 260 + ??? = 1127 + ??

Does any one think the Apollo will remain @ 0.18 µ?
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 #24 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>Does any one think the Apollo will remain @ 0.18 µ?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It depends on the viability as always - if the Apollo is ment to drive us trough 2002 then a 0.16 micron process (or was it even less? 0.13?) is likely, else it might not make much sense to shift production, I guess.
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #25 of 36
The MHz numbers won't begin to equate until

1. the G5 is out and matures a bit (inital runs are always tricky)

2. Intel is forced to dump the P4 (the true Pentium legacy anyway) for their next-gen chips (which will undoubtedly be named P5, P6, etc.)
post #26 of 36
xype: the xp 2000+ is 1664 mhz as I recall. The 1900+ is 1600 mhz.

As for everyone who doesn't believe DDR will feature in the next revision:
how could apple possibly have not tested DDR into the ground by now? How
long have they had?
post #27 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:
<strong>xype: the xp 2000+ is 1664 mhz as I recall. The 1900+ is 1600 mhz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My bad - only proves the point that AMD is confusing people with the naming
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #28 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

It will be 867, 1 Ghz and 933DP. The consumer desktop will be the main attaction. Might not even be called iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>

God I hope not, you're making me cry
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #29 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>Does any one think the Apollo will remain @ 0.18 µ?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apparently the initial Apollo's are to use a .18µ process. Motorola supposedly wasn't ready in time to produce them using a .13µ process.

It definitely won't stay that way but any Apollos seen in the next revision will be that way.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #30 of 36
On April 9th, 2001 Motorola had the following press release.

<a href="http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=mot&script=411&layout=-6&item_id=164832" target="_blank">http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=mot&script=411&layout=-6&item_id=164832</a>

"This HiP7 technology is the latest development in Motorola's continuous scaling of CMOS process technology. It is commonly referred to as 0.13 micron but contains minimum features of 0.07 micron"

"In addition, Motorola offers specialized features such as Silicon on Insulator (SOI), and in the future, plans to offer breakthrough modules such as MRAM (magnetoresistive random access memory)," she explained. "


"Motorola is currently running embedded microprocessor cores on this advanced 0.13 micron process. Production is expected to begin in second quarter of this year in MOS13,"

So, Motorola has been manufacturing @ least embedded microprocessor cores using the HiP7 process since April 9th 2001, NINE MONTHS ago. Is this long enough to work out the kinks and use this process for the Apollo? I'm not an engineer nor an expert in this field. Any one know the answer?
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 #31 of 36
Thread Starter 
Does anyone on this board know just how many Pentium MHz it takes to equal one PPC MHz?
post #32 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by glurx:
<strong>Does anyone on this board know just how many Pentium? MHz it takes to equal one PPC MHz?</strong><hr></blockquote>

There's no valid ratio. The architectures are different enough that there's no real common ground; That's even ignoring SIMD instruction sets like SSE(2) and AltiVec.

MHz comparisons like this rely heavily on the calculations being performed. The G4 is a beast at RC5, yet may not hold the same performance advantage in another test. The only valid comparison would be using multiple benchmarks that test various processing aspects; There is no golden ratio.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: whee ]</p>
post #33 of 36


[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: whee ]</p>
post #34 of 36
Yea but as a general rule I've always heard and been told that our processor is about 2/3's of Intel. So a 500 PPC is about a 750 Plll.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #35 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Yea but as a general rule I've always heard and been told that our processor is about 2/3's of Intel. So a 500 PPC is about a 750 Plll.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then how did apple say that the g3s toasted (more then 2x as fast) the pentiums like 3, 4 years ago?

I'd say around double... But what do i know...

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #36 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by psantora:
<strong>

Then how did apple say that the g3s toasted (more then 2x as fast) the pentiums like 3, 4 years ago?

I'd say around double... But what do i know...

-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>

I said general as in across the board all tests configured for a total. That total is around 2/3s. Not sure what the Altivec does to that formula tho.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will MWSF Close The GHz Gap?