1.5GHz PowerMac

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
i just saw that some people have successfully overclocked a DP 1.25 to 1.5GHz. Possibility of a small speed bump before 2003?



Link: <a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=b3b74aa65c9e6bdf27af072d8d7d7cca&; threadid=12067" target="_blank">http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=b3b74aa65c9e6bdf27af072d8d7d7cca&; threadid=12067</a>



The new models could line up like this:







[ 10-02-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stoo:

    <strong>The new models could line up like this:</strong><hr></blockquote>



    tasty
  • Reply 2 of 18
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    All fixed



    [ 10-02-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 18
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    I would seriously doubt that we will see a speed bump on the PM lin-up. Apple has been putting speed increases off as long as possible lately. The iMac hasnt seen a speed increase since January, just new features/monitor size added this summer. The iBook/PowerBook are due for a product update based on historical product cycles that Apple has followed. But the PM just saw an increase in speed, which even more recently just began shipping.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    Is cool that they can go faster but lets face it, Apple just dont speed bump stuff that soon after releasing it. "Sigh" Thinks how cool dual 1.5ghz would be...
  • Reply 5 of 18
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    I did the original about six months aog and just copied and pasted from the spec froms the low end PowerMac. RAM was much easier to understand in the PC66/100/133 days.



    Right, fixed that. All three models have the same bus, 166MHz. I didn't bother with the 56k internal modem, but it'll probably still be there are broadband is nowhere near universal anywhere.



    [ 10-02-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by Thereubster:

    <strong>Is cool that they can go faster but lets face it, Apple just dont speed bump stuff that soon after releasing it. "Sigh" Thinks how cool dual 1.5ghz would be... </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wouldn't it be just as cool as a dual 1.25GHz but about 10-20% faster in some cases?







    [ 10-02-2002: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 18
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    Would Apple release be hesitant to release a G4 at 1.5ghz if they had a new processor, say Power4 derivitive that clocked at only 1.5ghz in the pipeline?



    Well we only have to wait until the 7th january to find out what Apple has in store.
  • Reply 8 of 18
    Why would Apple decrease the FSB 167Mhz to 166Mhz?
  • Reply 9 of 18
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    The one 'successful' 1.5 GHz overclock from the Ars Technica forums turned out to be unsuccessful. It merely fooled the computer into identifying the CPUs as 1.5 GHz when they really weren't running above rated speed.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    Congratulations, you've accurately predicted Apple's February PowerMac update in 2003.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    wher does it say it wasn't successful??



    <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=994091243 5&p=2" target="_blank">Ars</a>
  • Reply 11 of 18
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by Addison:

    <strong>Would Apple release be hesitant to release a G4 at 1.5ghz if they had a new processor, say Power4 derivitive that clocked at only 1.5ghz in the pipeline?



    Well we only have to wait until the 7th january to find out what Apple has in store.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If that GPUL was a Multi-Core chip with a better FSB and showed sugnifigant performance increase over the 1.5 G4 then there would be nothing holding the G4's release up. If it didnt perform better than the G4 then they might hold back on the G4. However the GPUL is suposed to perform much better than the G4, have a faster FSB, and possibly be multi-cored as well. Given this, and Apple's loosing marketing battle with the PowerMacs I doubt that Apple would have held back on a 1.5 ghz chip if they had it available in quantity.
  • Reply 13 of 18
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Bigc:

    <strong>wher does it say it wasn't successful??



    <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=994091243 5&p=2" target="_blank">Ars</a></strong><hr></blockquote>



    Woops, I mixed up two posts. There was one attempt at a software overclock from 867 to 1000 and the attempt from 1.25--&gt;1.33--&gt;1.5. tobglyn does mention that 1.5 GHz causes apps to crash though.
  • Reply 14 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by Altivec_2.0:

    <strong>Why would Apple decrease the FSB 167Mhz to 166Mhz?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's 166.66666

    rounded to 167, or 166 depending on your fancy.



    If apple were to release those machines, there probably wouldn't be a lvl 3 cache on the low end (if there was, it would be smaller than the others)
  • Reply 15 of 18
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    Euph, I think he was just taking the piss
  • Reply 16 of 18
    arisaris Posts: 65member
    [quote]Originally posted by Altivec_2.0:

    <strong>Why would Apple decrease the FSB 167Mhz to 166Mhz?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    its not 167 now. its 166.66



    every other computer company rounds it to 166. but apple had to be "different" and round up instead of down like the rest of the PC industry
  • Reply 17 of 18
    g::mastag::masta Posts: 121member
    common sense (and everyone in the world) rounds off like this:



    x.0 - x.49 = x

    x.5 - x.99 = x+1



    the wintel world rounds down cos they are retarded and are afraid they might get sued when ppl realise that their 267Mhz bus actually runs 0.333333333333333333Mhz slower than they were told by the sales-rep.







    [ 10-03-2002: Message edited by: g::masta ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 18
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    or like this:





    [code] //rounds a double to the nearest integer

    int round(double x)

    {

    \treturn x &gt;= 0 ? (long)(x+0.5) : (long)(x-0.5);

    } </pre><hr></blockquote>



    Getting back on topic, what multipliers does the G4+ (7455) support? I'd reckon that it supports the 9x required for 1.5GHz on a 166 2/3MHz bus and probably higher.



    [ 10-03-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.