Next Powermacs finally catching up?
According to Spymac the next itineration of Powermacs will revert back to a mixture of single processor and dual processor machines.
They allude to the fact that the current "mirror door" Powermacs are all dual processors to combat slow processor speeds, but the next Powermacs will not have this problem.
Finally they say that Apple has a bright future,
you can read the story at Spymac.com
They allude to the fact that the current "mirror door" Powermacs are all dual processors to combat slow processor speeds, but the next Powermacs will not have this problem.
Finally they say that Apple has a bright future,
you can read the story at Spymac.com
Comments
When apple was in the same "lag behind intel' situation a couple years back. They quietly released dual machines to keep up with the joness (just like a few weeks ago). Then, not too long after that they put out singles that were more in line with current pcs.
I'm in on the spymac's whole "all duals won't last long" theory but I don't forsee a glorious leap forward after paris or xmass. I see us keeping pace for a little while longer and not much more.
I do have faith in the Steve that he will grab more marketshare with better computers in years to come.
<strong>Spymac knows shit. Always have and always will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They did call the eMac dead on when no one else (that I recall) was.
You've got to give them that one.
Now what is coming early '03, god or SJ knows, but it isn't rocket science to reconise that this probably means that the current dual processor machines are an intrium bargin, and that the format is likely to change.
PS have we lost a large number of contributors to this forum? I have never known it to be so quiet.
[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
Anyway,
On the subject of duals, Apple SHOULD NEVER EVER go back to single processor machines for the pro towers. NEVER.
Even if they have to keep slightly slower CPU's in the bottom tier machines to do it, they should keep all their pro machines DUAL CPU. The OS likes it, and the it makes it much easier to keep the consumer offerings current too. With an all dual pro line-up they wouldn't have to limit the speed of the consumer machines. They could (and should) get max speed CPU's, just ONE instead of 2. This way, whatever CPU they're using, they'll have higher speeds for the consumer line-up and buy/sell more total PPC's to keep Mot/IBM happy/interested in making faster PPC's.
SP powermacs? NEVER AGAIN!!!
Knowing Steve, As soon as he gets slightly faster clocks and FSB he'll revert back to a SP low end. Bastard!
The whole point of having more than one processor is to improve performance. Well if you can do that with one processor then let's have it. The cost of two processors must be huge.
<strong>
Finally they say that Apple has a bright future,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Phew...I was getting kinda worried there. Thanks SpyMac for clearing that up.
The problem is that Apple never has a decent spread of speeds to cover pro and consumer machines. Having all dual pro's would allow them to make decently fast high-end consumer machines instead of the bus/cache/CPU crippled AIO's they've been hocking for the last 3 years.
[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>PS have we lost a large number of contributors to this forum? I have never known it to be so quiet.
[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was away from the site for a week, thinking it was down. <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com" target="_blank">www.appleinsider.com</a> was not working and that is how I had the site bookmarked.
It seems to be fixed now.
[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: clonenode ]</p>
<strong>The cost is minimal. PPC's are cheap. About 90 bucks apiece for 867's.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just out of curiousity, where does this number come from? Couldn't find any pricing info on Moto's site, but maybe I just didn't look hard enough?
Bye,
RazzFazz
Next-Generation Power4 Processor No-Go for Power Macs
Fri, 06 Sep 2002, 09:03
[Ed: The following was posted publicly by an Apple SciTech mailing list member; PowerPage.org has confirmed the source but the source has requested anonymity on our site. -PK]
I attended a briefing today on IBM's high performance computing technology, which is hinged on their Power4 CPU (this CPU has awesome performance in the various real-world benchmarks I have seen). After the briefing, I asked the presenter (a chief engineering manager from IBM) about the Power4 derivative for desktops and low end servers to be announced in October. You may recall that there has been speculation that this CPU would find its way into PowerMacs in the future. Well, it sounds like this CPU is not in Apple's future -- the "over 160" vector instructions are not AltiVec (even though AltiVec has 162 instructions), and there are technical issues that would prevent AltiVec from ever marrying with Power4 or its successors. Furthermore, the guy came right out and said that they have pitched the desktop Power4 to Apple, but Apple was not interested.
So, although Power4-based PowerMacs seemed like a promising (and likely) possibility, it looks like it won't happen. I guess we will have to wait and see what Apple has in store for the future . . . .
Well, peeved at the rumour I may be...but I'll believe it when I see no Power next Summer.
There is no way a G4 is ever going to 'catch up'.
It has been soundly thrashed in mhz and all round performance even in creative apps where Macs are supposed to be strong.
Apple and Moto' obviously failed to see the 'white heat' of technology whoop ass that AMD and Intel were to open up.
Short of going 64 bit there is no way for Apple to level the playing field. Going 64 bit is their best chance.
Yeesh. Moto's going .9. What what's the betting we'll see .13 G4s and then .9 G4s hobble up to 2 gig?
And this rumor says no IBM 64 bit? 'Scuse me?
If not that? What?
G4 on Rio takes on 64 bit Hammer?
It will get its arse kicked. Goodbye more 'power'Mac sales.
Hey, if Apple keep going, they can get their 'power' sales under 100,000 K!
I hope Jaguar hasn't come too late for Apple.
I hope it's just my late night melancholy blues speaking...
Lemon Bon bon
<strong>Short of going 64 bit there is no way for Apple to level the playing field. Going 64 bit is their best chance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
64-bit-ness in itself does not mean "twice as fast", even though AMD would like to have you believe otherwise. As has already been pointed out numerous times on these boards, the cases where it will provide significant performance advantages over 32 bit systems are relatively few and not commonly encountered by most people.
Bye,
RazzFazz
THAT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
"even though AMD would like to have you believe otherwise. As has already been pointed out numerous times on these boards, the cases where it will provide significant performance advantages over 32 bit systems are relatively few and not commonly encountered by most people."
Crap. Utter crap. Crap, crap, CRAP! Fluffy crap.
A 3.4 gig Xp Hammer will pound the beezeesus out of any G4 Motorola can drag out of its sorry ass in the next 18 months.
Apple will have their juicy 1.25 shipping in November. One month later-ish, AMD will have their 3.4 Xp Hammer with its (64 bit not necessarily mustering any advantage over 32bit...) beating the snotty tar out of Apple's flagship dual 1.25.
Not that I care any...I wuz just saying...
'BYE'
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
64-bit-ness in itself does not mean "twice as fast", even though AMD would like to have you believe otherwise. As has already been pointed out numerous times on these boards, the cases where it will provide significant performance advantages over 32 bit systems are relatively few and not commonly encountered by most people.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It can, in fact mean the opposite -> half as fast. bandwidth requirements double. The G4 is... bandwidth constrained.
There were a very large number of things that needed more than 8 or 16 bits to express well. But so many things work best at lower bit counts that there's a trade off in going to 64 bit. A combo 32-64 bit chip (as in the IBM ppc) would be fine.
32 bit addressing -> 4GB/thread max.
But 1++; is far, far more common than 4,297,967,296++;
[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Nevyn ]</p>