Apple's future speed bumps determined

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
It now seems somewhat predictable in how Apple upgrades it's product lines.



It's usually a 200 mhz speed bump or so at the most. None of this 600mhz jump as some have dreamed about.



Not that it's not technically possible, but from a business and marketing point of view, it's best to take the progressive route. They not only milk customers for more money along the way but don't piss off existing owners by introducing something better so soon.

So all those clamoring for a 2Ghz PowerMac, you've got a long way to go.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,227member
    A 2Ghz PM would require an architecture change. It's obvious that recent advances in G4 Megahertz have come from
    • The move from 4 stages to 7

      SOI

      Process Shrink?

    So basically unless we're getting a G4++ I didn't even really think we'd get 1.6hz. I was thinking 1.4 VERY tops.



    Somehow I think that Apple will be using the G4 for sometime. That doesn't rule out a G5 within the next 12 months but the G4 still has enought life IMO
  • Reply 2 of 28
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    If you can show Apple a 2Ghz G4 I'm sure they'll be happy to build a super PowerMac.
  • Reply 3 of 28
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:

    <strong>If you can show Apple a 2Ghz G4 I'm sure they'll be happy to build a super PowerMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree, I'm sure that Jobs would love to make another debute like when he announced the G4 towers, as long as he had the processors to back it up.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:

    <strong>It now seems somewhat predictable in how Apple upgrades it's product lines.



    It's usually a 200 mhz speed bump or so at the most. None of this 600mhz jump as some have dreamed about.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's only NOW becoming clear to you? Then you've been reading AI Future Hardware too much.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 5 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>A 2Ghz PM would require an architecture change. It's obvious that recent advances in G4 Megahertz have come from
    • The move from 4 stages to 7

      SOI

      Process Shrink?

    So basically unless we're getting a G4++ I didn't even really think we'd get 1.6hz. I was thinking 1.4 VERY tops.



    Somehow I think that Apple will be using the G4 for sometime. That doesn't rule out a G5 within the next 12 months but the G4 still has enought life IMO</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And an interesting thing is that by sticking with the G4 design, but continuing to evolve fabrication techniques and process size alongside innovative engineering, you continue to leverage a very power-efficient chip and all of the amortized investment.



    That's not to say I wouldn't want to see something a little more revolutionary, but if the rumours are true that Intel/MS are really having difficulty scaling the P4 (and presumably the Xeon MP/DP variants) to the vaunted 2.8GHz mark, it makes a lot of sense to keep the powder dry for the moment and ultimately release a more well-specced/developed solution.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    gfeiergfeier Posts: 127member
    800 --&gt; 1000 +25%

    1000 --&gt; 1250 +25%

    1250 --&gt; 1600 +28% (MSWF 2003)



    800 --&gt; 1600 +100% in 18 months.



    Moore's law wins again!
  • Reply 7 of 28
    o and ao and a Posts: 579member
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:

    <strong>It now seems somewhat predictable in how Apple upgrades it's product lines.



    It's usually a 200 mhz speed bump or so at the most. None of this 600mhz jump as some have dreamed about.

    .</strong><hr></blockquote>



    don't foreget that they also bump them down by a 50 mhz a month later



    So powermac got speed bumped by two hundred mhz three times. that estabilishes some sort of pattern? we're talking about apple and motorola there's no telling what to predict
  • Reply 8 of 28
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by gfeier:

    <strong>800 --&gt; 1000 +25%

    1000 --&gt; 1250 +25%

    1250 --&gt; 1600 +28% (MSWF 2003)



    800 --&gt; 1600 +100% in 18 months.



    Moore's law wins again!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Moore's Law says nothing directly about clockspeed. It only says that the numbers of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:

    <strong>That's not to say I wouldn't want to see something a little more revolutionary, but if the rumours are true that Intel/MS are really having difficulty scaling the P4 (and presumably the Xeon MP/DP variants) to the vaunted 2.8GHz mark, it makes a lot of sense to keep the powder dry for the moment and ultimately release a more well-specced/developed solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not sure where that rumour came from but Intel is having no troubles increasing the PIV's speed yet. In fact they are ahead of their original schedules.
  • Reply 10 of 28
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Telomar:

    <strong>

    Not sure where that rumour came from but Intel is having no troubles increasing the PIV's speed yet. In fact they are ahead of their original schedules.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Someone probably mixed up Intel and AMD here.

    The latter do seem to have some difficulties ramping up their clock speeds - at least moving to 130nm has only brought them a 66MHz increase (compared to 1733 MHz on 180nm!) in clock speed up to now.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 11 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by gfeier:

    <strong>800 --&gt; 1000 +25%

    1000 --&gt; 1250 +25%

    1250 --&gt; 1600 +28% (MSWF 2003)



    800 --&gt; 1600 +100% in 18 months.



    Moore's law wins again!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Give your math co-processor a whack man. 25+25+28=78% increase, not 100%



    Also the Moore's Law thing was already pointedd out. Double the transistors not MHz speed, although that has usually been about on target too
  • Reply 12 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:



    Not that it's not technically possible, but from a business and marketing point of view, it's best to take the progressive route. They not only milk customers for more money along the way but don't piss off existing owners by introducing something better so soon.

    So all those clamoring for a 2Ghz PowerMac, you've got a long way to go.<hr></blockquote>



    I believe that Apple would try to introduce computers with the fastest chips they can stuff in them. This is from a business perspective.



    How many people have said in the past, "Well, the new PM are great, but not compelling enough for me to upgrade"?



    If Apple introduced 2GHz chips yesterday, the cybertumbleweeds rolling through these forums would be because everyone would be at the Apple store trying to place an order.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    [quote]Originally posted by Hagen Kirk:





    Give your math co-processor a whack man. 25+25+28=78% increase, not 100%

    <hr></blockquote>







    Funny, I could have sworn that two eights are sixteen....
  • Reply 14 of 28
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hagen Kirk:

    <strong>

    Give your math co-processor a whack man. 25+25+28=78% increase, not 100%

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, he's completely correct. You can't just add up the percentages, as the base value is increased with each bump, like that:



    1.0 GHz * 125% = 1.25 GHz

    1.25 GHz * 125% = 1.5625 GHz

    1.5625 GHz * 128% = 2.0 GHz



    Bumps: 25%, 25%, 28%

    Total increase: 100%



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 15 of 28
    qnxqnx Posts: 4member
    "It's usually a 200 mhz speed bump or so at the most. None of this 600mhz jump as some have dreamed about."



    Well, well...Imagine in few years...we'll get to 5Ghz. Do you think then it will be a 200Mhz increase?

    What about when we were at 100Mhz?



    Your logic doesn't work.



    MOBO simply can't produce good/fast enough.

    Yes, logicaly, we should go the same path x86 went.

    1Ghz, 1.2Ghz, 1.4Ghz, 1.6Ghz

    200Mhz increment is a 20-30% speed increment, which is good. Talk in ration, not in number.



    But still, we could go from 1.2 to 1.6, or could even go higher 1.2-&gt;1.8, 1.2-&gt;2.0.....IF apple change is processor manufacturer or moto got something big working on.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Well then what happens if IBM brings out a dual core 1 GHz chip with Hypertransport and 6.4 GB/s bandwidth.



    As always MHz don't mean jack.



    SMP and bandwidth count for power users, Web surfers and spreadsheeters can get by with an 800 Mhz iMac.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    gfeiergfeier Posts: 127member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hagen Kirk:

    <strong>



    Give your math co-processor a whack man. 25+25+28=78% increase, not 100%



    Also the Moore's Law thing was already pointedd out. Double the transistors not MHz speed, although that has usually been about on target too</strong><hr></blockquote>



    1.25 X 1.25 X 1.28 = 2.00



    Don't worry kid, you'll get straight on this when you hit percentages in sixth grade.



    Your comment on Moore's Law is correct, of course, but in popular culture it has come to mean that CPUs double in power (= speed) every 18 months. This isn't entirely true of course - even within the G4 family the older chips with the shorter pipeline were faster MHz for MHz than the later ones, but it's been surprisingly close. Just another example of the Megahertz Myth.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    o and ao and a Posts: 579member
    [quote]Originally posted by boy_analog:

    <strong>







    Funny, I could have sworn that two eights are sixteen....</strong><hr></blockquote>





    bWHAHAHHAHAHA...i'm done

  • Reply 19 of 28
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Some of them are easy enough to calculate.



    1.25GHz at 1.8v = 900MHz at 1.3v. So that's the top speed of the TiBook that Apple could manage with the current chip, assuming they use the same low-voltage 7455.



    1.25GHz at .18u = 1.73GHz at .13u, assuming the same design and the same power consumption. So Mot can easily reach 1.6GHz with a process shrink - in fact, prototypes of this chip might be responsible for all the rumors about chips at that speed. That also means 1.2GHz low-voltage procs for the TiBook.



    Note that I'm not taking bus speed multipliers into account here, so the speeds will have to be adjusted downward as appropriate.



    Now, that's the 7455. If Mot releases a new chip, of course, things change. But if it's a 7 stage G4 with, say, another FPU and a RIO interface, these numbers should still be in the ballpark.



    Mot's move to .13u is imminent (overdue, actually).
  • Reply 20 of 28
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>

    Mot's move to .13u is imminent (overdue, actually).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Overdue is an understatement, it's criminal



    remember the wanted posters



    [ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.