new powermac speculation from eweek...
interesting quote from eweek article by matthew rothenberg:
"Multiple eyewitnesses insist that Apple is far along in the development of new towers that already offer clock speeds in the neighborhood of 1.6GHz and triple the performance of the current systems' 133MHz system bus. My sources say the tangible boosts in graphics performance and Mac OS X speeds are immense.
The as-yet-unannounced Macs are also reported to include some significant improvements to I/O, possibly including new versions of FireWire and USB; DDR RAM in place of the current SDRAM; and a faster interface to hard drives. Now that's an upgrade!"
believe it or not. mileage may vary.
[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: koffedrnkr ]</p>
"Multiple eyewitnesses insist that Apple is far along in the development of new towers that already offer clock speeds in the neighborhood of 1.6GHz and triple the performance of the current systems' 133MHz system bus. My sources say the tangible boosts in graphics performance and Mac OS X speeds are immense.
The as-yet-unannounced Macs are also reported to include some significant improvements to I/O, possibly including new versions of FireWire and USB; DDR RAM in place of the current SDRAM; and a faster interface to hard drives. Now that's an upgrade!"
believe it or not. mileage may vary.
[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: koffedrnkr ]</p>
Comments
<strong>How drastic of a motherboard or CPU revision did it take to make the DDR Level 3 cache? I'm just wondering if it were a big deal to add, then I'm thinking Apple wouldn't have done it if the G5 were coming soon. If it were a relatively simple hack then the G5 might be just around the corner. Otherwise this could be Apple's way of extending the life of the PowerMac G4 for a while to come.</strong><hr></blockquote>
it's been around since the 867 i believe,not sure when it was introduced but it's not new, apples just pushing it now from a marketing perspective. ddr ddr ddr ddr
<strong>
it's been around since the 867 i believe,not sure when it was introduced but it's not new, apples just pushing it now from a marketing perspective. ddr ddr ddr ddr</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so.
the old 867 and dual 800 used 1/4 clockspeed SDR L3 cache
the new ones use 1/4 but DDR to get a theoretical half speed L3 cache.
it's new
It's not impossible that Apple could have a substantially faster Powermac in the works that doesn't include a G5, and since the eweek article doesn't mention the G5, I don't see how the inference should be automatic that this guy's "sources" must be testing G5 prototypes.
<strong>The second, third and fourth messages in this topic all make the leap from "much faster Powermacs in the works" to the mention of G5s.
It's not impossible that Apple could have a substantially faster Powermac in the works that doesn't include a G5, and since the eweek article doesn't mention the G5, I don't see how the inference should be automatic that this guy's "sources" must be testing G5 prototypes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
gee, I guess Apple somehow has "special" apollos at 1.6Ghz that support ddr but just decided not to use them or even a 1.2 ghz just for shits and giggles
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/G4_733_overclock/G4_733_overclock.html"; target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/G4_733_overclock/G4_733_overclock.html</a>;
<strong>How drastic of a motherboard or CPU revision did it take to make the DDR Level 3 cache? I'm just wondering if it were a big deal to add, then I'm thinking Apple wouldn't have done it if the G5 were coming soon. If it were a relatively simple hack then the G5 might be just around the corner. Otherwise this could be Apple's way of extending the life of the PowerMac G4 for a while to come.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The L3 cache is on the daughter card with the processor(s). I wouldn't doubt if very little was done to the motherboard. And I would guess that the processor change to handle DDR is one of those things that gets carried on to the next generation. Even if it took some work for a short lifecycle (or at least for Apple it does have other uses), it would be that much less design work needed for the next chip.
Maybe these test units mentioned in eweek really ARE G5s, but gwhere does it say that?
The article on maccentral.com a couple of days ago, the interview with one of the guys at Motorola, indicated that there's still a lot of headroom for developing faster Apollos. It also mentions clock speeds in the 1.2-1.8ghz range.
Other threads in this same Forum indicate that a DDR Powermac G4 will be released at some point, and since that hasn't happened yet, then why does it follow that the next Powermac will be a G5? Would Apple release a G5 and THEN release a DDR Apollo later?
<strong>
I don't think so.
the old 867 and dual 800 used 1/4 clockspeed SDR L3 cache
the new ones use 1/4 but DDR to get a theoretical half speed L3 cache.
it's new</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naw, all L3 cache has been DDR running at 1/4 speed. Check out this disection at Xlr8yourmac from April 2001:
<a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/G4_733_overclock/G4_733_overclock.html"; target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/G4_733_overclock/G4_733_overclock.html</a>;
The only difference that I can tell between the 7450 is the L1(?) cache locking and the new registers. The rest (e.g. DDR L3) are old features that Apple didn't bother to tout until now in an effort to make the 7455 look like a greater improvement over the 7450 than it really is.
<strong>Hey Outsider. A deaf person cannot hear but can still speak. A dumb person cannot speak. Just being picky. I thought it was funny anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey Snoopy. A deaf person typically uses sign language. Your not picky, just ignorant.
<strong>
The article on maccentral.com a couple of days ago, the interview with one of the guys at Motorola, indicated that there's still a lot of headroom for developing faster Apollos. It also mentions clock speeds in the 1.2-1.8ghz range.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One can argue that Apple will need this headroom with the G4s for future iMacs and iBooks/PowerBook while the PowerMacs will get the G5s.
Hey Outsider. A deaf person cannot hear but can still speak. A dumb person cannot speak. Just being picky. I thought it was funny anyway.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by I Have Questions:
<strong>
Hey Snoopy. A deaf person typically uses sign language. Your not picky, just ignorant.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=speech"; target="_blank">consult a dictionary</a> you'll find sign language does not fit the definition of speech:
[quote] Note: Speech is voice modulated by the throat, tongue, lips, etc., the modulation being accomplished by changing the form of the cavity of the mouth and nose through the action of muscles which move their walls.
<hr></blockquote>
That seems pretty clearly directed at the system bus, not the system itself and yes that IS about 400MHz...
Time for Dorsal to contact us again.
Aside from Sarasotabob, anyone else here feel comfortable citing E Week as a reputable news source vs. a part-news, part-rumor source? I just checked out the article and the first paragraph where he talks about "multiple eyewitnesses" makes me think he's pulling that info from places like this.
The "personal source" is - we can only hope - NOT someone prone to posting in places like AI. If he's legit, then this is an encouraging piece of information he has passed along. All depends on his source....
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>[edit]
Aside from Sarasotabob, anyone else here feel comfortable citing E Week as a reputable news source vs. a part-news, part-rumor source? I just checked out the article and the first paragraph where he talks about "multiple eyewitnesses" makes me think he's pulling that info from places like this.
The "personal source" is - we can only hope - NOT someone prone to posting in places like AI. If he's legit, then this is an encouraging piece of information he has passed along. All depends on his source....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Matthew Rothenberg is aka Mac the Knife/Naked Mole Rat, so I guess there's some sort of history to evaluate his credibility, for better or worse.