IBM: "initial estimates of 970 processor speeds were 'conservative'"

coscos
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Senior editor to IBM's Microprocessor Review Tom Halfhill suggests that initial estimates of 970 processor speeds (In October it appeared the chips would offer speeds of 1.2-1.8GHz) are "conservative".



Read the full article at:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_n...fm?NewsID=6332



Does "conservative" simply mean that the high-end 1.8GHz will be 2.0GHz, or could this mean that that speeds will be even faster?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by COS



    Does "conservative" simply mean that the high-end 1.8GHz will be 2.0GHz,




    No!
    Quote:

    or could this mean that that speeds will be even faster?



    Yes and no.



    What they mean by conservative, is that if IBM say that it's gonna be released at 1.8 max, we won't see Apple need to downgrade their top-of-the-line powermac due to a processor makers inability to live up to it's promise.



    Most likely we will see the 970 released at 1.8 max with upgrades in the 2.0 - 2.5 being very possible maybe early next year. But hey, I don't mind being proved wrong here



    [edit: and was it necessary to post a new thread just because of this, there are already a gazillion 970 threads]
  • Reply 2 of 21
    Strange article... 'Confirms' facts we have known since october...?

    And Intel is offering 800 Mhz FSB, not 533 Mhz...
  • Reply 3 of 21
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Can't seem to find any articles by IBM that were supposedly released. Anyone?
  • Reply 4 of 21
    coscos Posts: 99member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    Can't seem to find any articles by IBM that were supposedly released. Anyone?



    "The company released formerly limited circulation excerpts from October 2002's Microprocessor Review "to selected media outlets, including Macworld UK."
  • Reply 5 of 21
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Is it this you're talking about?
  • Reply 6 of 21
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by COS

    "The company released formerly limited circulation excerpts from October 2002's Microprocessor Review "to selected media outlets, including Macworld UK."



    So it's the same MPF2002 pdf file that was released before then...What's new? The fact they read it finally??
  • Reply 7 of 21
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    So it's the same MPF2002 pdf file that was released before then...What's new? The fact they read it finally??



    Seems like it. So here we are discussing an EIGHT month old document. The new thing is that it was hosted at IBM's homepage, and there's quite a few comments towards it being used in a future powermac. That has to mean... hey wait... maybe... Apple... will... use... it!
  • Reply 8 of 21
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    Seems like it. So here we are discussing an EIGHT month old document. The new thing is that it was hosted at IBM's homepage, and there's quite a few comments towards it being used in a future powermac. That has to mean... hey wait... maybe... Apple... will... use... it!



    Boy', Howdy! Apple might use the PPC970, who'd a guessed!
  • Reply 9 of 21
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    So it's the same MPF2002 pdf file that was released before then...What's new? The fact they read it finally??



    It wasn't available unless you paid the $750 per year subscription or whatever it is. I saw blurbs from it, never in it's entirety though. No big news here...certainly not enough to start a new thread...\
  • Reply 10 of 21
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Right now there is nine open threads about the 970. I think that should do for a while.
  • Reply 11 of 21
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    If you go to IBM's website, you will see that the last revision date is given as 5/9/03. What was revised I have no idea.
  • Reply 12 of 21
    eskimoeskimo Posts: 474member
    It should be clarified that this article was in no way written by IBM but rather by an analyst at MPF based on conversations he's had with IBM and his own informed speculation. The topic attributes this quote to IBM when in fact it comes from a 3rd person source that provides speculation on future products to subscribers who pay large amounts of money.
  • Reply 13 of 21
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    Slightly off track but who wants to bet that the next MOSR update is a slightly re-worded version of the article on Macworld UK?



  • Reply 14 of 21
    jrcjrc Posts: 805member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    Right now there is nine open threads about the 970. I think that should do for a while.





    There's nothing I despise more than discussion police.



    I'm amazed that anyone has so little time than to say what belongs in what forum, how many times it's there, whether or not to lock stuff.



    That all is such who-gives-a-flying-F*** type of stuff.



    And, oh by the way, I've been here longer than all of you...



    neener neener.



    And I will NEVER tell anyone to shut up, post in a different spot, or anything.



    How long have/will (all of) you be(en) here?
  • Reply 15 of 21
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    too long.... If I had a 970 I'd have something to do, so it's all Apple's fault.

  • Reply 16 of 21
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JRC

    There's nothing I despise more than discussion police.



    I'm amazed that anyone has so little time than to say what belongs in what forum, how many times it's there, whether or not to lock stuff.



    That all is such who-gives-a-flying-F*** type of stuff.



    And, oh by the way, I've been here longer than all of you...



    neener neener.



    And I will NEVER tell anyone to shut up, post in a different spot, or anything.



    How long have/will (all of) you be(en) here?




    i think that was kinda harsh and well plain out wrong...u have been a member here longer then him, and longer then me too but my post count is higher then urs (neither mean anything, see what i'm going with this?



    he has a good point seriously though, it would be ok if a new 970 was started every time one got to long but it seems if someone has a creativve thread title they post a new thread



    and i am bashing on those people but my posts rn't the greatest (so bad i was suspended haha)



    all in all i laugh because i have wasted a small portion of ur life!
  • Reply 17 of 21
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    I just wish people would read what is already there before they write. Failure to do so results in so much repetitive trash.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bodhi

    Slightly off track but who wants to bet that the next MOSR update is a slightly re-worded version of the article on Macworld UK?







    I've noticed this also. Seems like they regurgitate most of what is already known. Maybe they should change their name to Mac OS Regurgitaters...
  • Reply 19 of 21
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    I just wish people would read what is already there before they write. Failure to do so results in so much repetitive trash.



    sounds like a good argument for family planning
  • Reply 20 of 21
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    I just wish people would read what is already there before they write. Failure to do so results in so much repetitive trash.



    sounds like a good argument for family planning
Sign In or Register to comment.