Moved: p4 to reach 5 ghz by first half of 2003

robby

This is really starting to beacome embarrising.



3 ghz by end of year with hyperthreading



<a href="http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26616"; target="_blank">http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26616</a>;



[ 09-14-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

leonis

I wonder what they are going to do with their Itanium CPU (marketing wise)

kidred

oh no, not 5ghz!?! life isn't fair, that's it, I'm hanging myself, goodbye cruel slow apple world





come on people, who the frick cares. If you want the 5ghz go switch, otherwise grow up.

applenut

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

<strong>oh no, not 5ghz!?! life isn't fair, that's it, I'm hanging myself, goodbye cruel slow apple world





come on people, who the frick cares. If you want the 5ghz go switch, otherwise grow up.</strong><hr></blockquote>



yawn.. your response is as tired as the topic.





[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>

jdbon

I think it is very naive of the Mac community to disregard the astonishing rate at which the P4 is scaling. Granted, I realize the mhz is not the only measure of performance, but at this point I simply refuse to believe that a 1.25 G4 can meet or beat a p4 3ghz. Performance aside, from a marketing perspective Apple marketing a 1.25ghz machine versus a 3ghz Wintel machine will be a hard sell to most uniformed consumers. Mhz sell. Intel knows this, as does Apple. AMD is trying to dispel the MHZ myth in the X86 world, but as a point of reference to gauge their success, how many large PC makers are using AMD cpu's? I know that the G4 performs quite well considering the GHZ gap, but the truth is a 2.8ghz P4 system is significantly faster in many tasks, not to mention the systems using this chip are usually much cheaper than Apple's.



Bottom line, regardless of real world performance, MHZ do matter from a marketing perspective, and if Apple wants to expand market share, they must provide products at least on par with Wintel, even if their systems are more expensive.

eugene

It probably mattered more when Intel broke the 2 GHz barrier. 3 GHz? Eh, more of the same. 4-5 GHz? that's nice.



As it stands right now:



Itanium 2 = 8 stages = 1 GHz (shipping soon)

G4+ = 7 stages = 1.25 GHz (shipping soon)

UltraSPARC III = 9 stages = 1.05 GHz

Athlon XP = 10 or 11 stages = 2.133 GHz (shipping soon)

Pentium 4 = 20 stages = 2.8 GHz



[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>

matsu

Intel doesn't need Itanium, they can push Pentium seemingly at will, and not just Mhz either, the IPC has been getting better with each P4 revision, and hyperthreading should make another significant boost. AMD may have scared them a bit, but Intel is prooving that no one can hang with them in the consumer space when they put their mind to it.



Better products/companies have met their demise over less concrete disadvantages than that. If you don't think this can seriously hurt Apple, then you're just sticking your head in the sand.

xmoger

5Ghz in 1H03, not according to intel roadmaps. I believe this is a typo. Intel doesn't show signs of moving much past 3.06 in the first quarter.

gamblor

Intel needs Itanium if they plan on being around in a few years, unless they feel making x86-64 clones would be a good strategy. IA32 is nearing the end of it's life (thank goodness), and unless Intel has had a major rethinking of their plans, the P4 is the end of the line. Intel needs IA64 as a way to move beyond the crappy x86 architecture.

faeylyn

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

<strong>who the frick cares. If you want the 5ghz go switch, otherwise grow up.</strong><hr></blockquote>



Why should you or anyone care? Because in order for you to continue using your Mac and OS XXX from Apple, Apple has to remain in business. In order for Apple to remain in business, they have to compete against the 5GHz PCs of the world.



As the gap continues to widen, you'll start to be able to do things with a PC that you can't with a Mac. This will cause more and more people to switch from the Mac to the PC. If Apple's installed base shrinks to the point where they continue to lose money quarter after quarter, they'll go out of business. Perhaps some other company (IBM?) would scoop up the remains and continue to support OS XXX. Perhaps not. All bets would be off.



You personally may think the possibility of that happening is remote. Others do not. And, rumors aside, all the evidence points in a bad direction.

hmurchison

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that despite the slow evolutionary process of the P4 it's suddenly going to jump %50 in clockspeed within 6 months. If Wininformants REALLY wants to inform it's reader why hasn't it mentioned the "method" that will be used. Even a die shrink to .09 isn't going to yield that type of clockspeed jump.



Frankly I'm disappointed. All I hear is what amounts to conjecture. Intel demos a processor and now to hear PC users talk ..it may as well be available right now. Just as AGP 8x is(yeah on what %5 of motherboards ).



Ship it and then I'll worry.

amorph

[quote]Originally posted by jdbon:

<strong>Granted, I realize the mhz is not the only measure of performance, but at this point I simply refuse to believe that a 1.25 G4 can meet or beat a p4 3ghz.</strong><hr></blockquote>



A 1.25GHz G4 doesn't have to meet or beat a 3GHz P4.



Now, if two of them fail to, then we have a serious problem. Of course, there will be areas where one really fast chip is better than two fast ones, but the reverse will also be true. And then there are the sudden bursts of astonishing power that AltiVec is capable of, although those will matter more to serious number crunchers than to general users. Well, except for DVD encoding and the like.

kidred

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:

<strong>



yawn.. your response is as tired as the topic.





[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



haha and yours isn't I suppose? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

kidred

[quote]Originally posted by Faeylyn:

<strong>



Why should you or anyone care? Because in order for you to continue using your Mac and OS XXX from Apple, Apple has to remain in business. In order for Apple to remain in business, they have to compete against the 5GHz PCs of the world.



As the gap continues to widen, you'll start to be able to do things with a PC that you can't with a Mac. This will cause more and more people to switch from the Mac to the PC. If Apple's installed base shrinks to the point where they continue to lose money quarter after quarter, they'll go out of business. Perhaps some other company (IBM?) would scoop up the remains and continue to support OS XXX. Perhaps not. All bets would be off.



You personally may think the possibility of that happening is remote. Others do not. And, rumors aside, all the evidence points in a bad direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>



My saracstic point was that we all know where intel is and stands on their chip progress. We also all know where Apple stands in their posistion which is they will release what can when they can. I personally will use macs as long as they are made pretty much. So when i see a "OMG Intel breaks 500ghz!!" I could really care less what intel does as I could care less about Intel.



As for the pointing to a basd direction, I personally believe otehrwise. I've been told about good things for Apple this time next year. So believe the rumors if you want, we all love specualting about our favorite fruit, I just think the "Intel hits 40terhertz next week" is played.

applenut

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

<strong>



haha and yours isn't I suppose? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



wow. takes a real man to come back with the same thing.. congratulations... you are pathetic!

hmurchison

Wow tempers on the board have really flared lately. Damn PC's causing dissension from within the ranks.



Hey guys screw PC's we're here to talk about Macs. When I need a bunch of megahertz and companies with Big Brother mentalities I'll go Wintel. Right now I'm interested in where Apple is headed.

bunge

After using Win2k at work for about 2 years, I have to say it's a piece of crap. From what little I've seen of XP and all of what I've heard, it's even worse than Win2K.



This is on current hardware.



If anyone here were to try and install XP on whatever machine was available when the Bondi Blue iMac was released, I have a feeling the whole machine would implode.



XP SP1 was just released. The first bug fix and the system requirements for it increased. This means that it's running even slower than than it was a month ago.



OS X has increased in speed significantly over the past 18 months. I think some people forget what parts of a computer are actually important. The hardware is definitely the lesser half.

amorph

And on that note, I'm moving this to General Discussion, since it is not speculation about future Apple hardware.