Although Motorola are no doubt producing 1.6GHz processors, I'd be very surprised if the yield was high enough to enable Apple to release single processor yet alone dual processor machines running at this speed. Apple have made the mistake of announcing machines at certain speeds in the past, only to be forced to downgrade them later. I shouldn't think they'd risk making the same mistake twice.
<strong> ...Full 128-bit internal memory data paths
*snip*
333MHz system frontside bus supporting over 2.7GB/s data throughput
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BS Detector On:
(333X10^6 sec-1)*(128 bits) = 42624X10^6 bits/sec
= 5328x10^6 bytes/sec
= 5.1 GB/sec, *not* 2.7 GB/sec for the frontside bus. The person who made up this story forgot that 333 MHz = 2700000 bits/sec with a 64-bit bus, not a 128-but bus.
<strong>No way. To expensive to implement on a machine < $10k.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was listed as a feature of the processor, not the mainboard. I'm not sure what a "memory data path" is, but the 7455 already has 128-bit wide busses to its caches.
[quote] If you were Apple, would you rather introduce Aqua going from OS 8.5 to OS 9, or would you rather introduce Aqua going from OS 9 to OS X?
If you were Apple, would you rather introduce a new PowerMac case going from 1.x GHz G4 to 1.y Ghz G4, or would you rather introduce a new PowerMac case going from G4 to G5?<hr></blockquote>
#1 Aqua can't exist on OS9.x - pretty simple decision there.
#2 If they've redesigned the MB, including placement of ports, controllers, etc - they don't have a choice. Seems to me like a big waste of time creating a MB layout only to switch it back because the G5 isn't ready to go along with the new MB/case.
(I am assuming that they *have* moved things around in the first place of course)
I agree. This does sound kinda fishy, but then again...if this was just a wish list far from reality then where are the digital audio ports for instance?
Anyway, the dual-channel 5.4 GB/s memory bus-thing doesn't sound quite so far out as some of you guys seem to think. I wouldn't be so surprised to see Apple cooperate with nVidia on a chipset somewhat similar to the nForce, which happens to have a dual channel design with ordinary DDR266 and a throughput of 4.2 GB/s. Just without the geForce2-part of the chipset, but maybe with HyperTransport technology.
Still, the G4 needs to support a faster FSB to take advantage of this. So the question is whether Moto will deliver or not...I'm sceptical, to say the least!
Do we ALL really expect a new case? I personally believe that the G5 is coming in the next update after MWNY. Seems like it would be silly on apple's part to redesign the case and then do so again in less than a year. And we know apple. They stick with case designes on the powermac for what, 2-3 years? Its possible but i wouldnt be to positive if i were you that the new cases are CONFIRMED, DEF COMING, ABSOLUTELY GOING TO BE AT MWNY. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't expect a new case. otherwise it would have been foolish for them to design the new cinema display to match the current quicksilver case.
= 5.1 GB/sec, *not* 2.7 GB/sec for the frontside bus. The person who made up this story forgot that 333 MHz = 2700000 bits/sec with a 64-bit bus, not a 128-but bus.
Credibility destoyed, ignore the rest...
;-)
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: NMR Guy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, good point. (dropping this thread like the plague now.)
#1 Aqua can't exist on OS9.x - pretty simple decision there.<hr></blockquote>
I'm talking about Aqua as we essentially know it. Had Steve chosen to, he could have ordered a redesign of the default theme present in OS 9. White stripes, traffic light gumdrops, etc. Minus shadows and translucency, of course. The point is, why would he have?
[quote]#2 If they've redesigned the MB, including placement of ports, controllers, etc - they don't have a choice. Seems to me like a big waste of time creating a MB layout only to switch it back because the G5 isn't ready to go along with the new MB/case.
(I am assuming that they *have* moved things around in the first place of course)<hr></blockquote>
Exactly. As an earlier poster mentioned, it basically hinges on whether that red board from eBay is what's coming at MWNY or not. IMO it's a pretty big assumption.
[quote]#3 El Capitan is too old. Period.<hr></blockquote>
I won't disagree with that one, but the question is, can it stand to get a little bit older? I think it's certainly possible for a major case refresh shortly before the G5, but it would be a little weird.
= 5.1 GB/sec, *not* 2.7 GB/sec for the frontside bus. The person who made up this story forgot that 333 MHz = 2700000 bits/sec with a 64-bit bus, not a 128-but bus.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you go back and read the first post, the processor has 128-bit "memory data paths" (the current G4s already have 128 bit busses to cache, so there's nothing bold about this assertion). The RAM is listed as 64 bit DDR running at an effective 333MHz, which, assuming a matching bus, would produce the right numbers.
I'll grant that the wording is vague, and I'm not holding my breath for a 60% jump in clock speed. But the part of the post you're looking at seems passable to me.
So, that is the latest info posted today in <a href="http://www.macbidouille.com"; target="_blank">www.macbidouille.com</a> based on the Apple Pro meetings in France:
(1) Confirmation that there will be no G5 before 2003.
(2) The new G4 will be 7460.
(3) Apple is capable to manufacture an ASIC in order to exploit to the maximum the DDR modules for maximizing the bandwidth.
Are you serious. Someone needs to pull their heads out of the clouds ie: Spymac and any other person who believes this nonesense. Sure, I am among those hopeful mac fans that wish for a faster system that can blow away the competition, but this is crazy.
You might as well go out and say that one day you invent the wheel and the next day you invent the nuclear sub. What your sugesting is that mac has took a quantum leap over the last year. Not possible. You cant just start with a model-t ford and the next day expect to have a hover craft.
I question the validity of this post and the validity of the so called insider information that Macspy has aquired. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I don't really belive, but those specs will be in my heart come the keynote
As for a new case, why not? The new G4 we may or may not see may incorperate a new case and some of the best technology Apple can scrape together. Why you ask? Because Apple can simply drop a G5 in the MB when it comes out (ala Yosemite -> Yikes!). If they didn't change the color scheme too much they could keep the display lineup unchanged. 1.6 seems a tad high. As for this being a "quantum leap" for Apple, hah.
[quote] You might as well go out and say that one day you invent the wheel and the next day you invent the nuclear sub. <hr></blockquote>
A leap like that would be like Apple going from a electro/mechanical hybrid to a G5. Get some better examples, and who is to say cavemen didn't have Phd's in Nuclear Physics .
But the G3 was a pretty big leap from the 68040, wasn't it? I remember the first time I used a G3 system, it felt like a massive increase in speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was a wee little bit of time between the 68040 and the G3
[quote]There was a wee little bit of time between the 68040 and the G3 <hr></blockquote>
Yes, but my point was that there can be big leaps in performance. It isn't always just incremental upgrades, one processor a little faster than the last.
1. - USB 2.0 support (USB Raid system would be nice)
2. - Rack mountable cases (Make it an after purchase option)
All of the speculation is nice, but what will any of us do with this extra power. I'm working with Maya on the Mac, and it's powerful (Dual G4 1GB). Some of you sound like PC geeks, we're Mac people aren't we? It's not the machine, but what you do with it...well that's what my girlfriend said.
Comments
<strong>
Hardware Specifications
Processor
Dual PowerPC G4 processors(1.2ghz,1.4ghz,1.6ghz)
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: DevNull ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Although Motorola are no doubt producing 1.6GHz processors, I'd be very surprised if the yield was high enough to enable Apple to release single processor yet alone dual processor machines running at this speed. Apple have made the mistake of announcing machines at certain speeds in the past, only to be forced to downgrade them later. I shouldn't think they'd risk making the same mistake twice.
<strong> ...Full 128-bit internal memory data paths
*snip*
333MHz system frontside bus supporting over 2.7GB/s data throughput
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BS Detector On:
(333X10^6 sec-1)*(128 bits) = 42624X10^6 bits/sec
= 5328x10^6 bytes/sec
= 5.1 GB/sec, *not* 2.7 GB/sec for the frontside bus. The person who made up this story forgot that 333 MHz = 2700000 bits/sec with a 64-bit bus, not a 128-but bus.
Credibility destoyed, ignore the rest...
;-)
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: NMR Guy ]</p>
[Full internal 128-bit memory data paths]
<strong>No way. To expensive to implement on a machine < $10k.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was listed as a feature of the processor, not the mainboard. I'm not sure what a "memory data path" is, but the 7455 already has 128-bit wide busses to its caches.
If you were Apple, would you rather introduce a new PowerMac case going from 1.x GHz G4 to 1.y Ghz G4, or would you rather introduce a new PowerMac case going from G4 to G5?<hr></blockquote>
#1 Aqua can't exist on OS9.x - pretty simple decision there.
#2 If they've redesigned the MB, including placement of ports, controllers, etc - they don't have a choice. Seems to me like a big waste of time creating a MB layout only to switch it back because the G5 isn't ready to go along with the new MB/case.
(I am assuming that they *have* moved things around in the first place of course)
#3 El Capitan is too old. Period.
Anyway, the dual-channel 5.4 GB/s memory bus-thing doesn't sound quite so far out as some of you guys seem to think. I wouldn't be so surprised to see Apple cooperate with nVidia on a chipset somewhat similar to the nForce, which happens to have a dual channel design with ordinary DDR266 and a throughput of 4.2 GB/s. Just without the geForce2-part of the chipset, but maybe with HyperTransport technology.
Still, the G4 needs to support a faster FSB to take advantage of this. So the question is whether Moto will deliver or not...I'm sceptical, to say the least!
<strong>
Do we ALL really expect a new case? I personally believe that the G5 is coming in the next update after MWNY. Seems like it would be silly on apple's part to redesign the case and then do so again in less than a year. And we know apple. They stick with case designes on the powermac for what, 2-3 years? Its possible but i wouldnt be to positive if i were you that the new cases are CONFIRMED, DEF COMING, ABSOLUTELY GOING TO BE AT MWNY. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't expect a new case. otherwise it would have been foolish for them to design the new cinema display to match the current quicksilver case.
<strong>
BS Detector On:
(333X10^6 sec-1)*(128 bits) = 42624X10^6 bits/sec
= 5328x10^6 bytes/sec
= 5.1 GB/sec, *not* 2.7 GB/sec for the frontside bus. The person who made up this story forgot that 333 MHz = 2700000 bits/sec with a 64-bit bus, not a 128-but bus.
Credibility destoyed, ignore the rest...
;-)
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: NMR Guy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, good point. (dropping this thread like the plague now.)
#1 Aqua can't exist on OS9.x - pretty simple decision there.<hr></blockquote>
I'm talking about Aqua as we essentially know it. Had Steve chosen to, he could have ordered a redesign of the default theme present in OS 9. White stripes, traffic light gumdrops, etc. Minus shadows and translucency, of course. The point is, why would he have?
[quote]#2 If they've redesigned the MB, including placement of ports, controllers, etc - they don't have a choice. Seems to me like a big waste of time creating a MB layout only to switch it back because the G5 isn't ready to go along with the new MB/case.
(I am assuming that they *have* moved things around in the first place of course)<hr></blockquote>
Exactly. As an earlier poster mentioned, it basically hinges on whether that red board from eBay is what's coming at MWNY or not. IMO it's a pretty big assumption.
[quote]#3 El Capitan is too old. Period.<hr></blockquote>
I won't disagree with that one, but the question is, can it stand to get a little bit older? I think it's certainly possible for a major case refresh shortly before the G5, but it would be a little weird.
i highly doubt it.
<strong>
BS Detector On:
(333X10^6 sec-1)*(128 bits) = 42624X10^6 bits/sec
= 5328x10^6 bytes/sec
= 5.1 GB/sec, *not* 2.7 GB/sec for the frontside bus. The person who made up this story forgot that 333 MHz = 2700000 bits/sec with a 64-bit bus, not a 128-but bus.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you go back and read the first post, the processor has 128-bit "memory data paths" (the current G4s already have 128 bit busses to cache, so there's nothing bold about this assertion). The RAM is listed as 64 bit DDR running at an effective 333MHz, which, assuming a matching bus, would produce the right numbers.
I'll grant that the wording is vague, and I'm not holding my breath for a 60% jump in clock speed. But the part of the post you're looking at seems passable to me.
(1) Confirmation that there will be no G5 before 2003.
(2) The new G4 will be 7460.
(3) Apple is capable to manufacture an ASIC in order to exploit to the maximum the DDR modules for maximizing the bandwidth.
Does someone know what the third statement means?
Are you serious. Someone needs to pull their heads out of the clouds ie: Spymac and any other person who believes this nonesense. Sure, I am among those hopeful mac fans that wish for a faster system that can blow away the competition, but this is crazy.
You might as well go out and say that one day you invent the wheel and the next day you invent the nuclear sub. What your sugesting is that mac has took a quantum leap over the last year. Not possible. You cant just start with a model-t ford and the next day expect to have a hover craft.
I question the validity of this post and the validity of the so called insider information that Macspy has aquired. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
As for a new case, why not? The new G4 we may or may not see may incorperate a new case and some of the best technology Apple can scrape together. Why you ask? Because Apple can simply drop a G5 in the MB when it comes out (ala Yosemite -> Yikes!). If they didn't change the color scheme too much they could keep the display lineup unchanged. 1.6 seems a tad high. As for this being a "quantum leap" for Apple, hah.
[quote] You might as well go out and say that one day you invent the wheel and the next day you invent the nuclear sub. <hr></blockquote>
A leap like that would be like Apple going from a electro/mechanical hybrid to a G5. Get some better examples, and who is to say cavemen didn't have Phd's in Nuclear Physics
But the G3 was a pretty big leap from the 68040, wasn't it? I remember the first time I used a G3 system, it felt like a massive increase in speed.
<strong>
But the G3 was a pretty big leap from the 68040, wasn't it? I remember the first time I used a G3 system, it felt like a massive increase in speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was a wee little bit of time between the 68040 and the G3
Yes, but my point was that there can be big leaps in performance. It isn't always just incremental upgrades, one processor a little faster than the last.
1. - USB 2.0 support (USB Raid system would be nice)
2. - Rack mountable cases (Make it an after purchase option)
All of the speculation is nice, but what will any of us do with this extra power. I'm working with Maya on the Mac, and it's powerful (Dual G4 1GB). Some of you sound like PC geeks, we're Mac people aren't we? It's not the machine, but what you do with it...well that's what my girlfriend said.