or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Nr9 Prophecy being fullfilled?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nr9 Prophecy being fullfilled?

post #1 of 75
Thread Starter 
Intel Kills Plans for 4GHZ

Guess we'll have to hear from everyone else now ...
post #2 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Intel Kills Plans for 4GHZ

Guess we'll have to hear from everyone else now ...

this is not news to me, and nr9 had nothing to do with it.
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 #3 of 75
I think we hit 3Ghz before hitting the wall. IBM is going to have to utilize some of the more expensive processes to eek out the performance(Ghz) and then scale horizontally. I'm not worried I'd take a quad 2.8Ghz any day.
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 #4 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think we hit 3Ghz before hitting the wall. IBM is going to have to utilize some of the more expensive processes to eek out the performance(Ghz) and then scale horizontally. I'm not worried I'd take a quad 2.8Ghz any day.

I agree. I think it'll probably hit 3.2GHz at some point, but probably not by MWSF. I would rather see Apple make motherboard modifications, and open the graphics system to the outside rather than a speed increase right now. Nobody is getting much faster, so in the mean time try, and address some of the other areas that prevent Mac sales to the greater public.
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 #5 of 75
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #6 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I agree. I think it'll probably hit 3.2GHz at some point, but probably not by MWSF. I would rather see Apple make motherboard modifications, and open the graphics system to the outside rather than a speed increase right now. Nobody is getting much faster, so in the mean time try, and address some of the other areas that prevent Mac sales to the greater public.

Opening the "graphics system" to the outside isn't going to happen. Apple uses Open Firmware, and there's no way in hell they're going to implement an ATX style BIOS. . . ever. This isn't a bad thing. The only reason why there aren't a ton of graphics cards out there for mac is because Apple has to supply the firmware for them, and the mac isn't a gaming platform, so the manufacturers have no incentive to make there own mac-compatible firmware.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #7 of 75
Splinemodel, as your nick would suggest I thought you would be more susceptible to what I was I was referring to.
I'm not interested in gaming on the Mac nor are most of the people that I know that would like more graphics options from Apple. Highend 3D cards is what we are after. Not the kind intended for use with games.
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 #8 of 75
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #9 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
Notice the article doesn't say Intel will never produce higher Hz chips ever, just not higher Hz P4's because the multi-core version will be out before they could get proper ROI for a 4GHz single core P4.

I'm not holding out alot of hope that Intel can bring to market a fast dual core chip either. The problem with the P4 is thermal and it won't get that much better with a dual core chip.

Sure they could lower the clock rate to manage thermal issues but that won't satisfy everyone. I certainly wouln't complain about a dual core P4 running at 2.6GHz or so, but that doesn't mean everybody can make good use of slower cores. SMP support in Linux is really good now, it would be nice to have low cost hardware to take advantage of that software.
Quote:
And that for now they are working on a wide number of options to increase performance--just as IBM has been saying and designing for over a year now. Those are huge differences in the business details from the main thesis of that painfully expired thread.

There are still options floating about for improving 90nm and smaller processes. So I will not be throwing in the towel on faster processors any time soon. I would not be surprised at all to see Intel though come out with a faster processor that does away with alot of the baggage that P4 carries around. Intel may very well build dual processor chips on Dothan type cores, this could happen much faster that trying to squeze 2 P4's on a die. Dothan would allow them the physical space along with the possibility of scaling frequency in the future. That is my take anyways Dothan could be the basis of Intels dual core efforts.

Dave
post #10 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Sure they could lower the clock rate to manage thermal issues but that won't satisfy everyone. I certainly wouln't complain about a dual core P4 running at 2.6GHz or so, but that doesn't mean everybody can make good use of slower cores. SMP support in Linux is really good now, it would be nice to have low cost hardware to take advantage of that software.

They'd have to break the megahertz myth.. which they started in the first place.

"bleh, this xeon 3.6ghz is like way faster than this dual core 2.8Ghz 64bit IBM wuzamajibbit... hah! it even costs more!.. morons.. What's this fancy 'dual core' thing anyway, I bet it means the processor is painted purple or something."
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #11 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
Gaming card revenue drives the R&D budget for supposed high end Pro cards, there's your tie-in. Not to mention that most of those high end pro cards are just non-crippled versions of the same hardware the gamers get. Then the requisite QA and Cert process is done--I'll grant the manufacturers need to be paid for that, but they could go about the whole vertical lineup much more effectively and reduce those outlandish prices by spreading the QA/Cert over a larger number of shipped cards--which don't get crippled--even though they are just Gamer boxes they are shipped in..

That is total speculation from point 1. And crippled is not anywhere near an accurate way to describe the distinct differences in Pro 3D, and gaming card drivers.
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 #12 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
While there was a kernel of truth deeply buried in what Nr9 said, the rest of the histrionics around his prediction separate it enough from this that it bears too little resemblance to give him much if any credit.

Notice the article doesn't say Intel will never produce higher Hz chips ever, just not higher Hz P4's because the multi-core version will be out before they could get proper ROI for a 4GHz single core P4. And that for now they are working on a wide number of options to increase performance--just as IBM has been saying and designing for over a year now. Those are huge differences in the business details from the main thesis of that painfully expired thread.

whatever you say man..

you will see..
post #13 of 75
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #14 of 75
I think there is another GHz left for each processor architecture. There is still the 65 nm node and possibly 45/50 nm node to eek out additional GHz.

Nr9's multi-core PPC 440 predictions is also looking to be true, though probably not for Apple machines. The BlueGene/L (dual-core 440) will be the heart, well 65k hearts, of IBM's upcoming 360 TFLOP supercomputer.

Also remember that there are no free lunches. Multi-core is nice, but it also has diminishing returns with increasing cores. They will become more and more inefficient due to network traffic (communication between cores) as more cores are added. And only certain applicatioins will benifit fully from it. The 700 MHz BlueGene/L supercomputer won't run many applications much faster than an iMac G5.

So there is pressure for companies to both increase single threaded performance (clock rate) and multi-threaded performance for a long while yet.
post #15 of 75
I think scaling has largely died, that doesn't mean we wont see faster processors, like THT said, there is still a gig left in maturing the process.

There will come a point when cores catch up with the hertz, and the two will increase slowly side by side, but for the next few years it seems that cores will be favourable to speed.

I think there will come a time in about 10 years, when personal computer will become so powerful that there just won't be a need for the rapid development we've seen so far.

If you have an 8 core chip running at 10ghz with a 128 pipe graphics card, that can render 200fps of exceptional photorealistic graphics on a 21"screen with 300 dpi resolution, with 128 channels of sound, realword physics and particles systems, 32 GB of memory, then I don't think the demand will be there to push the development at anywhere near the speed we have seen.

Some people will want more of course, but they'll be buying the 32 way Power8's - that will cost about the same as a kitted out Powermac 2.5 today.
post #16 of 75
Prediction: There will be faster processors....maybe not copper based switching, but perhaps optics. Anyway, the wall is temporary and will be brought down. Yawn.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #17 of 75
We now know that Intels fastest chips at the end of 2005 will be dual core 3.2ghz 64bit.

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1018027458.htm

Im sure there were also articles on The Register and Arstechnica yesterday, but they seem to have been pulled.

Clock speed is going backwards! and the fatest single chip you can expect from intel for some time is a 3.8GHZ 2MB cache.
post #18 of 75
OTOH AMD's 90nm process seems to be working
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/7417
post #19 of 75
Now I thought AMD and IBM where teamed up at this process node. Actually this would be pretty significant as it would indicate to me that AMD probally can get another 500MHz at will out of their Athlon64/Opteron hardware. They are most likely enjoying the fact that they have whiped Intels behind in processor design.

That extra 500MHz comes from the fact that IBM got that much out of the 970FX. Now AMd is actually in the postion of supplying the low power processor so one has to wonder how much they will be willing to crank up the current design.

As to IBM and our supplier of 970's I do wonder when the low power variants will be on line. With the rumors of the iBook updates coming soon there is a remote possibility that the new low power 970FX is ready to hit the street. What would be even better is if this low power 970 was the GX variant with the larger cache. Larger cache is now a popular way to help control power demands in portable chips.

Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
OTOH AMD's 90nm process seems to be working
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/7417
post #20 of 75
I'm sure we'll see significant shrinkage, but each subsequent step will require more and more problems to be surmounted. That's clear to everybody. I'm no chip expert, but making statements about absolute speed caps is still a little sketchy at best.

Eventually, a viability wall will be hit and the quantum phenomena (which will be responsible for the eventual downfall of current technologies) will prove to be our saving grace. Processing technology built on quantum states will make current computing technology look like vacuum tubes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1007082711.htm
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #21 of 75
IBM released earnings today and said that semiconductor production will increase by 40%!!!
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 #22 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
We now know that Intels fastest chips at the end of 2005 will be dual core 3.2ghz 64bit.

I wouldn't be the least surprised if that was true for IBM as well.
post #23 of 75
Hmmm.

If Apple received 970MPs in August then how long from Alpha chip samples to actual production. 2005 has been muted. ie early 2005...Jan' maybe for the production to begin. Can Apple announce then? At San Fran'?

Or will the G5 Powerbook steal the limelight and go first..?

(With the 970MP ramping discreetly for a March intro'?)

Intel, having 'taped out' a dual core...the links suggest dual core Pentiums a year from now? Seems that they'll be there with AMD. So is dual core a late 2005 item?

I'd hope a dual core specialist like IBM can get there quicker?

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #24 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

If Apple received 970MPs in August then how long from Alpha chip samples to actual production. 2005 has been muted. ie early 2005...Jan' maybe for the production to begin. Can Apple announce then? At San Fran'?

San Francisco looks too early to me.

Quote:

Intel, having 'taped out' a dual core...the links suggest dual core Pentiums a year from now? Seems that they'll be there with AMD. So is dual core a late 2005 item?

I'd hope a dual core specialist like IBM can get there quicker?

I am afraid it is not a matter of who can get there first. Things may be much more complicated. Actually, I expect Apple following a more conservative approach and trying to not rush the thing. Appropriate software support, cost issues and demand may delay more than we think the introduction of a dual core G5.
post #25 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Hmmm.

If Apple received 970MPs in August then how long from Alpha chip samples to actual production. 2005 has been muted. ie early 2005...Jan' maybe for the production to begin. Can Apple announce then? At San Fran'?

Lemon,
Let the time of the 970 introduction be a guideline. Apple received "alpha" chip samples of the 970 around the late July (IIRC) before the year of the G5 intro at WWDC.

Quote:

Or will the G5 Powerbook steal the limelight and go first..?

(With the 970MP ramping discreetly for a March intro'?)

Maybe a stall tactic! . . . with intro of 970MP at WWDC?

Quote:

Intel, having 'taped out' a dual core...the links suggest dual core Pentiums a year from now? Seems that they'll be there with AMD. So is dual core a late 2005 item?

I'd hope a dual core specialist like IBM can get there quicker?

Lemon Bon Bon

Me being an optimist, I think late second quarter, but I can't say. I too hope that IBM can get to 970MP quicker.
post #26 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by MacJedai
Lemon,
Let the time of the 970 introduction be a guideline. Apple received "alpha" chip samples of the 970 around the late July (IIRC) before the year of the G5 intro at WWDC.

On the other hand that was for an all-new architecture. The 970MP will just drop into the existing machines.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #27 of 75
Quote:
On the other hand that was for an all-new architecture. The 970MP will just drop into the existing machines.

Programmer's playing mood music...be still my beating heart.

(This Antares is my purchase...surely, after years of waiting for a Mac tower, this one will be THE ONE!?)

I'm hoping, praying that 'Antares' will squeak the Mac upto 3 gig. Or will it 'merely' be two 2.5s on a chip? (ie for heat reasons..? In much the same way I'll doubt we'll see Intel's 3.6 going dual core at that speed grade...) But...PPC chips are much smaller and IBM will hopefully crack some of the problems that delayed the ramping of the 970 revB. So who knows.

Although, who could argue with a dual 'dual core' 970fx?

A 60% speed up would be much better than the 20% we'd get by going to 3 gig anyhow?

It's not just 'dual core' that is exciting. But what about Hypertransport 2? The prospect of faster graphics cards...with possibly 512 megs of ram on board? PCI Express surely will be in the dual core revision.

Will the Powermacs be bumped in the meantime? Morpheus over at Thinksecret's boards thinks a 2.7 'Ataire' bump is coming.

So we could see a 2 gig, 2.5 and 2.7 gig PowerMac line-up?

But if 2.5 yields are that bad...why not go to the next big thing like Intel themselves are doing. 4 gig isn't going to get them a whole boat load of performance. Similarly, in the scheme of things, a 2.7 won't be noticeably faster than a 2.5, will it?

If true, this could be ominous. At the rate Apple currently updates the PowerMac we may not see dual core until late 2005 if a 2.7 rev ships early 05. Or at all if the bump is delayed like the Rev B clearly, CLEARLY was.

Surely a better move will be to aggressively go to dual core. Morpheus seems to think the MP plans are as solid as a 'diamond'. Good. I'd like a timetable to match. ie 'WHEN?'



Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #28 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
(This Antares is my purchase...surely, after years of waiting for a Mac tower, this one will be THE ONE!?)

O Lemon Man....

I remember that you the last two years drooled over the new G5 and when it finally came out you said you would buy the Rev B. And now: Still not done it? Waiting for Antares?
post #29 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Sophie_
O Lemon Man....

I remember that you the last two years drooled over the new G5 and when it finally came out you said you would buy the Rev B. And now: Still not done it? Waiting for Antares?

Don't let him read this: http://www.macosrumors.com/102504A.php
....or he will be waiting for a full Power 5.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #30 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Although, who could argue with a dual 'dual core' 970fx?

The 970MP is from what I understand a dual core 970GX with 1 MB L2 cache for each core. Small difference but relevant.
post #31 of 75
I would rather see Apple ship a 2x2 machine at less than nose-bleed speeds, just to avoid the thermal issues and improve longevity. The extra few percentage of clock rate doesn't buy you that much after all, the big win is going multi-threaded.




edit: fixed poor word selection (least -> less)
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #32 of 75
Yeah, I would rather see increase in throughput than more mhz crap. A crossbar backplane with up to 4 x FCAL disk and dual core chips. All this by Xmas (dunno which year tho) .

Dobby.
post #33 of 75
Quote:
O Lemon Man....

Well, I nearly bought the dual 2 gigger...but it took so long to deliver them that I thought I may as well wait for the infamous 'January update' oops, March, OOOOPS, JUNE?!? which never came. And when it did turn up, it didn't even ship the apologetic 2.5 speeds until August 2004! And they're still trickling through in late October..!

I would have definitely have bought the dual 3 gigger.

It's a similar situation, the 2.5 has been limited in quantity.

It hasn't got PCI Express and yields on the Nvidia card are low. The 30 inch LCD that I want and the graphics card are barely shipping.

It's nearly November. May as well wait until the next big thing hits aka Dual Core. Hopefully it will breach the 3 gig mark.

970GX MP?

GX for Powerbook?
MP for PowerMac?

Well, they'll have to do something to get the G5 into a Powerbook and laptops are massive at the moment. With Dothan kicking spades out of desktops and Mac laptops alike surley it is a good idea to invest in the fasionable uptake of laptops to soak up the iPod PC crowd.

Things are going well for Apple at the moment. Even better than the iMac renaissance of the late 90s...when Moto's cpu progress torpedoed attempts at real growth.

This time? Apple have stunning tower, desktop and laptop and iPod and software and OS offerings. And a good cpu in the G5 which is holding its own, especially in dual formations and with huge bandwidth!

I'd like to see Apple play the same aggression with cpu in the PowerMac/Book and desktops as they are with iPod.

Sure, they can't run IBM for them. But IBM is a world class CPU partner.

2005 should be an exciting year after the luke warm 2004 in terms of cpu progress (but above the disastrous moto' years...let's be fair here...)

I'm hoping for the real heritage of Power and PowerPC to filter down to Mac offerings early to mid-2005.

So, the cpu while good? Not excellent, the initial excitement and clamour has not been built upon...and the promise not delivered...yet.

I may seem like a perenial 'gonna buy if' but I know what I want Apple to offer and if they deliver at the right time compared to Wintel offerings...then I'll buy.

Apple didn't deliver their 2 gig machines on time. Jobs didn't deliver on his 3 gig promise. I didn't deliver with my wallet. Fair game. It's fun watching all the other stuff Apple are doing in the meantime from the Production Suite to Tiger to iMac G5 to the remarkably energetic iPod line. I'll raise a glass to Apple on their $100 million profit.



Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #34 of 75
Quote:
The 970MP is from what I understand a dual core 970GX with 1 MB L2 cache for each core. Small difference but relevant.

GX, will that keep the heat down in the MP ie sticking in two low power cores.

Keep the high grades for the PowerTower. eg 2-3 gig.

1.4-1.8 gig for the PowerBooker?

So, it's not an 'FX' but a modified chip in light of the power/heat difficulties at 0.09.

It's a tweaker 970 fx design to address thermal issues?

Hopefully it will be easier to get those speed grades out and ramp to slightly higher speeds. I doubt we'll see 4 gig PPCs any time soon in light of Intel's difficulties.

But a 2.8-3.2 gig 970GXMP? ('GXMP'...sounds messy...)

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #35 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
On the other hand that was for an all-new architecture. The 970MP will just drop into the existing machines.

Heh, guess I have something in common with IBM ... I under-estimate things in case of problems.

I don't blame Lemon for waiting though. I too am waiting, but for a few other enhancements to come along.
post #36 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by MacJedai
Heh, guess I have something in common with IBM ... I under-estimate things in case of problems.

I don't blame Lemon for waiting though. I too am waiting, but for a few other enhancements to come along.

Me too. Of course my current Mac is only 3 years old (dual 1 GHz G4) and I typically wait for a solid 6x performance increase before upgrading. 2.5 GHz x 2 SMT cores ought to do just fine.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #37 of 75
I read these postings, and I can get into the prediction game, too. But I just received my 30" ACD coupled with a dual G5 2.5Mhz with the Nvidia 6800 card, and well, this machine is so fast, I have to wonder who really needs that kind of speed? Unless you are doing weather modeling or analyzing nuclear explosions, do you really need more?

Tonight I worked on my Halloween costume, editing an 80MB file in Photoshop to output to a large format HP DesignJet, and I never needed to wait for the computer. Not once. I never see the color wheel.

I can open iPhoto (Apple's worst app, but I still use it), have over a hundred photos on the screen at once (remember, this is on the 30" ACD), then move the slider to resize all the photos at once. No problem. No waiting.

At this point, if you are waiting for the next generation Mac, you aren't likely to actually ever purchase a machine. So, while you can enjoy speculating, you lose some credibility saying that you are going to wait.

Woodman
post #38 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Me too. Of course my current Mac is only 3 years old (dual 1 GHz G4) and I typically wait for a solid 6x performance increase before upgrading. 2.5 GHz x 2 SMT cores ought to do just fine.

Chances are we upgrade our powermacs at the same time again.
I'm holding out for something at preferably faster than the current dual 2.5 Ghz, that'll offer at least 4x the performance of my two year old PowerMac. With the slowdown of processor advancement it should last at least three or four years in time before getting too slow. Then it can last another year. So for a machine that I hope to last a half decade, I expect it to have all the functions I need and some more for expansion. Hopefully in the fashion of PCIe slots, and extra hard drive bays.
post #39 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by The Woodman
I read these postings, and I can get into the prediction game, too. But I just received my 30" ACD coupled with a dual G5 2.5Mhz with the Nvidia 6800 card, and well, this machine is so fast, I have to wonder who really needs that kind of speed? Unless you are doing weather modeling or analyzing nuclear explosions, do you really need more?


Heh. Look at my user name and tell me that again with a straight face. Not only that, but give me a bit of time and I'll make your machine whimper and plead for mercy. I agree that many of the existing apps in general use don't require this level of horsepower, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a very large (infinite?) number of potential software packages that do things that you'd really like to do but require far far greater computing power.

This isn't even about wild new kinds of software -- any game player will tell you his machine isn't fast enough for next year's games.



My specific reasons for wanting the next Mac are to work with a highly-SMP machine that has huge vector processing and 64-bit addressing capabilities. The current 2 - 2.5 GHz clock rate is fine, but I want 4+ hardware threads. 8 would be best: 2 chips w/ 2 cores w/ 2 HW threads each. At 2.5 GHz such a PowerPC's peak theoretical floating point performance rate should be about 200 GFlops, plus a graphics card which is also approaching 1 TFlops. I think Apple has the best chance of getting us this level of performance on the desktop in the next 1-3 years, in a usable fashion.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #40 of 75
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
My specific reasons for wanting the next Mac are to work with a highly-SMP machine that has huge vector processing and 64-bit addressing capabilities. The current 2 - 2.5 GHz clock rate is fine, but I want 4+ hardware threads. 8 would be best: 2 chips w/ 2 cores w/ 2 HW threads each. At 2.5 GHz such a PowerPC's peak theoretical floating point performance rate should be about 200 GFlops, plus a graphics card which is also approaching 1 TFlops. I think Apple has the best chance of getting us this level of performance on the desktop in the next 1-3 years, in a usable fashion.

From which hat do you pull that 200 GFlops figure? 2.5 GHz * 2 chips * 2 cores * 2 HW threads * 4 FLOPS (FMAC) + 2.5 GHz * 2 chips * 2 cores * 2 HW threads * 4 FLOPS (Altivec)?

Edit 2: I'm not sure I get this. With 2 HW threads, you don't get twice the peak performance? The FPUs themselves won't be able to push through twice as much work, do they?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Nr9 Prophecy being fullfilled?