or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › No new PowerMacs until March?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No new PowerMacs until March? - Page 6

post #201 of 231
Quote:
As a rule of thumb technology doubles every 18 month

What does that mean? The size of technology doubles? The weight of technology doubles? The number of technologies double? What is a technology?
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #202 of 231
That is why it is safer to guage an update by PERCENT GAIN rather than Mhz, MB, or GB.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #203 of 231
Going to 2.4 is a 20% increase in speed. The question is - does that relate to a 20% increase in performance? I've read that a 10% speed increase on a Pentium results in only a 2 - 3% increase in performance. How will the G5 compare?

To me the upgrade is really about moving tot he 90 nm G5's and I have a feeling that has required a bit of engineering, plus probably some revisions to Panther - read 10.3.3. The other issue is will this engineering work also cover the next revision this summer when the magic 3.0 is reached?

As for Steve's comment on hitting 3.0 in a year, remember that an IBM VP came on stage and said 3.0 in a year. IBM's commitment for 12 months is rather impressive and, I think, dependable.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #204 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
As for Steve's comment on hitting 3.0 in a year, remember that an IBM VP came on stage and said 3.0 in a year. IBM's commitment for 12 months is rather impressive and, I think, dependable.

I gotta agree here. I am thinking, again, that Apple and IBM have some kind of deal where Apple gets to announce the faster chips. Maybe they let IBM tell about the 2.4Ghz chips but not the faster ones???
Come checkout SetiLogger X
Dual 3Ghz G5 coming soon!!!
Reply
Come checkout SetiLogger X
Dual 3Ghz G5 coming soon!!!
Reply
post #205 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by tfworld
I gotta agree here. I am thinking, again, that Apple and IBM have some kind of deal where Apple gets to announce the faster chips. Maybe they let IBM tell about the 2.4Ghz chips but not the faster ones???

Apple has learned theri lesson, and IBM is too smart (and conservative) to let Steve announce they will be at 3 Ghz without being almost absolutely sure it will happen. Really I wouldn't be surprised if they made it to (or at least announced) 3.2 or higher in that time frame.

So... when will revisions be made? When 10.3.3 is out?
post #206 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
How does that affect AppleCare coverage?

iDon'tCare .
post #207 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
Going to 2.4 is a 20% increase in speed. The question is - does that relate to a 20% increase in performance? I've read that a 10% speed increase on a Pentium results in only a 2 - 3% increase in performance. How will the G5 compare?

Chances are that the 970FX will perform better than the 970 at the same clock speed thanks to the SSOI technology. I am not sure though how performance is affected here by clock speed scaling.
post #208 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Chances are that the 970FX will perform better than the 970 at the same clock speed thanks to the SSOI technology. I am not sure though how performance is affected here by clock speed scaling.

No, the 970FX will not perform better per clock because of SSOI. SSOI enables it to run more efficiently - at lower power at the same frequency. To predict how a faster G5 will run compared to a slower, just check out benchmarks comparing the dual 1.8 and 2.0, as well as single 1.8 and single 1.6.

Everything indicates that performance scales pretty well with clock speed increases, for the 970(fx).
post #209 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by cowerd
What does that mean? The size of technology doubles? The weight of technology doubles? The number of technologies double? What is a technology?


tech·nol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tk-nl-j)
n. pl. tech·nol·o·gies

1.
a) The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.

b) The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.

2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.

That help?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #210 of 231
Quote:
That help?

No, however this may help you:
Quote:
Moore's Law
The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #211 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by cowerd
No, however this may help you:

Is that still true today? I know intel is around 100 million... g5 is around 58 mill?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #212 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Is that still true today? I know intel is around 100 million... g5 is around 58 mill?

May be you missed per square inch ?
Moore's Law is about the density of transistors on a chip not the quantity!

But to your question: yes, sometimes they are behind and sometimes ahead of Moore's prediction. Chip technology advances in leaps.

For Motorola it was quantum leaps

And quantum leaps will be the end of Moore's Law...
post #213 of 231
I spoke to an Apple "insider" today. He told me that Apple WILL release new G5s the week of March 15th-19th (on Mon or Tues probably). I know I, know, you dont believe me, but...
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
post #214 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by dstranathan
I spoke to an Apple "insider" today. He told me that Apple WILL release new G5s the week of March 15th-19th (on Mon or Tues probably). I know I, know, you dont believe me, but...

Ya but this is what makes the week bearable, knowing that another exciting announcement from apple is just around the corner.
post #215 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by dstranathan
I spoke to an Apple "insider" today. He told me that Apple WILL release new G5s the week of March 15th-19th (on Mon or Tues probably). I know I, know, you dont believe me, but...

I think this why the online stores went down Friday evening (EST). They were testing for the update on Monday or Tuesday. This also coincides with the 10.3.3 update, which is said to be almost complete, and probably required for the new Power Macs, etc.
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #216 of 231
Sorry folks, I posted in the wrong thread. I read two or three of them at once and I got confused. Sorry.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #217 of 231
Hmmmm....If Apple announces new machines this week how long until they actually ship one?\
post #218 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by Beige_G3
Hmmmm....If Apple announces new machines this week how long until they actually ship one?\

Well lets see... we'll do the math.

The XServes still haven't shipped. They were announced on Jan 6th. They have a shipping prediction of April 4th. We'll just call that 3 months even.

The PowerMac sells about 6 times more then the XServe... soo

3*6 = 18 months.

Assuming the PowerMac is released next week... we're looking at: Sept 23rd '05

Thats assuming that some college like VT doesn't buy all of them

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #219 of 231
post #220 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Assuming the PowerMac is released next week... we're looking at: Sept 23rd '05

That'll be a nice b'day present for me, finally getting the computer I've ordered
"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 #221 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
I remember when apple went from 33mhz to 66mhz on the 68040.

Well, I can remember when Apple Marketing decided to retroactively double the 040 Megahertz rating for no good technical reason. But I don't think Apple ever shipped a 66Mhz 040. Only 33Mhz and 40Mhz (Q840AV).
post #222 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
Well, I can remember when Apple Marketing decided to retroactively double the 040 Megahertz rating for no good technical reason. But I don't think Apple ever shipped a 66Mhz 040. Only 33Mhz and 40Mhz (Q840AV).

This entire post is qualified with an "IIRC"...

There was a 66MHz '040, as well as one that ran at 80MHz. See the thing is, back then PCs and Macs were rated by the speed of their FSB. So a Quadra 840AV had a 40MHz FSB, but internally the CPU ran at 80MHz. When Intel switched the way they marketed their chips (I believe the 486DX2 was the first to use the new naming system), Apple switched the way they marketed their computers.

This all happened a long time ago, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if I'm wrong.
post #223 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
The XServes still haven't shipped. They were announced on Jan 6th.

Conspiracy theory: remember the Xserve images that briefly appeared on the Apple Store showing 2.3 GHz? Maybe the plan has been all along for the Xserve to be at 2.3, but they have to wait for the next tower revision before they start shipping. If Apple planned to bump the towers in late January or February but ran into delays, that could have forced them to delay the Xserve as well. (If they shipped an Xserve at 2.3, tower sales would come to a screeching halt until the bump).

No, I don't actually think this is the case, but it's at least possible...
post #224 of 231
post #225 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416
Conspiracy theory: remember the Xserve images that briefly appeared on the Apple Store showing 2.3 GHz? Maybe the plan has been all along for the Xserve to be at 2.3, but they have to wait for the next tower revision before they start shipping. If Apple planned to bump the towers in late January or February but ran into delays, that could have forced them to delay the Xserve as well. (If they shipped an Xserve at 2.3, tower sales would come to a screeching halt until the bump).

No, I don't actually think this is the case, but it's at least possible...

Cool theory... but why do you think they didn't just announce the Towers at MAC World too?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #226 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by Whisper
This entire post is qualified with an "IIRC"...

There was a 66MHz '040, as well as one that ran at 80MHz. See the thing is, back then PCs and Macs were rated by the speed of their FSB. So a Quadra 840AV had a 40MHz FSB, but internally the CPU ran at 80MHz. When Intel switched the way they marketed their chips (I believe the 486DX2 was the first to use the new naming system), Apple switched the way they marketed their computers.

This all happened a long time ago, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if I'm wrong.

The 80486 and 68040 were the first mass market desktop processors which clocked the processor higher than its bus so nobody had figured out how to market that yet. Apple just went with the external clock speed, but Intel went with the internal speed... causing Apple to shift its policy later. First they went to a 33/66 kind of notionation, and later just to calling it 66.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #227 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
The 80486 and 68040 were the first mass market desktop processors which clocked the processor higher than its bus so nobody had figured out how to market that yet. Apple just went with the external clock speed, but Intel went with the internal speed... causing Apple to shift its policy later. First they went to a 33/66 kind of notionation, and later just to calling it 66.

I always thought that was pure hot air as far as the 68040 went - it couldn't do a string of NOPS at 66Million per second, never mind any other interesting instructions. There might have been some section of the 040's guts that was double clocked but not the whole shebang. I think there were some FPU instructions that demonstrated slightly improved latency due to that detail but the basic heartbeat of the chip was 33 million instructions per second (peak) at 33mhz.

The 486 DX2 on the other hand could in fact execute twice as many instructions per second as the 33MHz part in the best case.
post #228 of 231
I like how the current discussion on this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the subject

Look what I started... hehe

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #229 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416
Conspiracy theory: remember the Xserve images that briefly appeared on the Apple Store showing 2.3 GHz? Maybe the plan has been all along for the Xserve to be at 2.3, but they have to wait for the next tower revision before they start shipping. If Apple planned to bump the towers in late January or February but ran into delays, that could have forced them to delay the Xserve as well. (If they shipped an Xserve at 2.3, tower sales would come to a screeching halt until the bump).

No, I don't actually think this is the case, but it's at least possible...

The only problem is that nothing would keep them from only shipping a 2.0 Xserve today, unless they never intended to release them at 2.0 and don't have a way of down-clocking them to 2.0. I would not be supprised if Apple releases a 2.3 after the PM is updated but I would be if Apple does not release any Xserves at 2.0.
post #230 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
The 80486 and 68040 were the first mass market desktop processors which clocked the processor higher than its bus so nobody had figured out how to market that yet.

Except that the 040 didn't really run faster than its bus. Here's the first post on Google I found, where an Apple engineer is quoted "The 68040 is not clock doubled ... Instructions are not executed at a 66 MHz rate."

http://groups.google.com/groups?f&se...fellow.MIT.EDU

Oh well, no use dredging up 10 year old flamewars, so I'll leave it at that.
post #231 of 231
Quote:
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
Except that the 040 didn't really run faster than its bus. Here's the first post on Google I found, where an Apple engineer is quoted "The 68040 is not clock doubled ... Instructions are not executed at a 66 MHz rate."

http://groups.google.com/groups?f&se...fellow.MIT.EDU

Oh well, no use dredging up 10 year old flamewars, so I'll leave it at that.

Good find, it brings back memories. Strangely we found that the DX2 wasn't particularly faster than the 040 at double the clock rate, which may be why I was thinking it was running internally at double the rate. That was the beginning of Motorola's falling behind, however, especially when Intel went to a 3x clock. The PowerPC was mainly an injection of IBM technology to keep Moto in the game, but eventually even that wasn't enough. Fortunately IBM has picked up Apple's business.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › No new PowerMacs until March?