2GHz --> 3GHz

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 114
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BrunoBruin

    I agree. I hope the middle box goes to dual with the next rev.



    That depends on two things: CPU yeilds and how much people whine over having to pay more for the middle config. I hope for four configurataions:



    single 1.8

    single 2.0

    dual 2.0

    dual 2.5



    Where the first one sells (sans superdrive) for about $1799-1899.
  • Reply 22 of 114
    All this talk of chips is making me hungry.
  • Reply 23 of 114
    producerproducer Posts: 283member
    "The G5's were built for SMP"



    Bring on the Quads.. that is what I am waiting for and then I am in... I really wanted a Powerbook 5 but a dual G4 will do







    So what is stopping them from releasing a G5 Quad? Do you guys think the case/mobo is designed for it? I am hoping for the next rev... A chip designed for for multiprocessing needs to be atleast in quads... also what is the possibility of octos?
  • Reply 24 of 114
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Producer

    "The G5's were built for SMP"



    Bring on the Quads.. that is what I am waiting for and then I am in... I really wanted a Powerbook 5 but a dual G4 will do







    So what is stopping them from releasing a G5 Quad? Do you guys think the case/mobo is designed for it? I am hoping for the next rev... A chip designed for for multiprocessing needs to be atleast in quads... also what is the possibility of octos?




    Man imagine the case for a quad machine? It would have like 6 zones and 2 dozen fans!
  • Reply 25 of 114
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    I'm curious. I've poked around a bit on a few sites including Sun's. Does anyone build quad processor workstations? It seems Sun does not. Any more than 2 and you're basically talking about a server.



    Quads sound neat but duals already bring a truckload of power to the table. I wouldn't be surprised to see a quad Xserve in the not so distant future though (in a revised enclosure). What about clustering? Would that be a more realistic/economical solution?



    These are just questions. I'm not taking shots at anyone's dream of a quad processor room heater/computer.
  • Reply 26 of 114
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Man imagine the case for a quad machine? It would have like 6 zones and 2 dozen fans!



    Actualy, the G5 has two fans per processor (those also do the RAM), two for the Power supply, two for the AGP/PCI-X zone and one for the drives.



    So a Quad would have 8+2+2+1=13 fans is they don't need more for the Power Supply.
  • Reply 27 of 114
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Force

    Actualy, the G5 has two fans per processor (those also do the RAM), two for the Power supply, two for the AGP/PCI-X zone and one for the drives.



    So a Quad would have 8+2+2+1=13 fans is they don't need more for the Power Supply.




    Perhaps the concentration of heat in the CPU zone will warrent more than the normally allotted fans? Personally I think that Apple will do quad when the 9X0 series goes dual core. Too much of a complicated motherboard and chipset otherwise.
  • Reply 28 of 114
    hello







    i'd like to see Apple do thrice-yearly upgrades to all their models, beginning with the g5. more releases = more buzz = more switchers = more sales = justifies expense of extra yearly product releases.
  • Reply 29 of 114
    macjedaimacjedai Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The Mactivist

    I don't buy this ramping up production stuff. I think personally (based on nothing but speculation) that they likely have the next speed bumps ready and are sitting on it for economic reasons - IE - new chip, tonnes of people going to upgrade right now, let's take advantage of that. I don't imagine it costs IBM any more to make a 2.5Ghz chip over a 2gig. So, milk each mini-bump.



    My prediction:



    January:



    1.8Ghz low end. 2 Ghz middle 2.4 or 2.5 dual as the high.



    June 2004:



    2.2 low, 2.8 mid, dual 3ghz high.




    Here's a hint : MWSF '04 wil be 6 monthes after WWDC '03. The PowerMac updates have been on a 6 mo. cycle ... expect some changes ... like was said before, the 970 is an interrim chip, to really see the "magic" wait till you see the 980 in action.
  • Reply 30 of 114
    macjedaimacjedai Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Yevgeny

    Do you have a link for that timeframe? This is super important because a 970 portable is dependent on the 90 nm die shrink.



    Not one you can access!
  • Reply 31 of 114
    macjedaimacjedai Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    (snip) Personally I think that Apple will do quad when the 9X0 series goes dual core. Too much of a complicated motherboard and chipset otherwise.



    In a word ... yes
  • Reply 32 of 114
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member
    How does this sound?



    January 2004:

    1.6 G5: $1,499

    1.8 G5: $1,999

    2.0 G5: $2,399

    Dual 2.5: $2,999



    June 2004:

    1.8 G5: $1,499

    Dual 2.0 G5: $1,999

    Dual 2.5 G5: $2,399

    Dual 3.0 G5: $2,999
  • Reply 33 of 114
    macjedaimacjedai Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DHagan4755

    How does this sound?



    (snip)




    Like you're "sandbagging" a little bit.
  • Reply 34 of 114
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacJedai

    Here's a hint : MWSF '04 wil be 6 monthes after WWDC '03. The PowerMac updates have been on a 6 mo. cycle ... expect some changes ... like was said before, the 970 is an interrim chip, to really see the "magic" wait till you see the 980 in action.



    The 980 is the "real deal" even though the 970 is not too shabby, although it seems likely that Apple & IBM will have one 970 speed bump and then the 970+ before the 980 is debuted in a PowerMac. We shall see in time.
  • Reply 35 of 114
    opusopus Posts: 15member
    Why wouldn't Apple follow the BTO PC marketing scheme (ala Dell). As shippable quantities of new higher MHz CPUs become available offer them immediately as an increased price (2.2 GHz +$200 or so). Then, periodically as Rev.(s) come out or the overrall processor speeds reach +0.4 GHz increase or so, raise the base speeds for Good, Better, Best across the board.



    This is more profitable than Apple's typical method (which was limited by Motorola's poor yields). Because, when the across the board speed bumps occur, they will likely leave the price points the same.



    I would much rather have the option to buy the fastest processor produced than wait for Apple to decide it is time for the bi-annual bump.



    The new pricing might become necessary once IBM introduces their own Linux-based 970 systems. Hopefully, Apple has negotiated with IBM to get first rights to the fastest CPUs available. Because, I am sure that IBM would not choose to sit on faster CPUs for 6 months for their own systems, until Apple bumps their speeds.



    Opus...
  • Reply 36 of 114
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    Except that the PowerMac won't begin shipping until early September. That's 3 months.



    I don't know, maybe... but I think we'll be seeing other things at MWSF 04.
  • Reply 37 of 114
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacJedai

    Not one you can access!



    No fair! S'alright. Yo comprendo.



    Any thoughts as to what quarter (Q1 or Q2)?
  • Reply 38 of 114
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacJedai

    In a word ... yes



    As much as I would like to see quad G5's, I have to agree with you that it will be two dual core G5's. Then we get into the real marketing wars- are two dual core CPU's four CPU's or not? I would say that they are four CPU's in that there are four distinct sets of registers and four distinct sets of pipes.



    THAT is going to be a good day.
  • Reply 39 of 114
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Yevgeny

    As much as I would like to see quad G5's, I have to agree with you that it will be two dual core G5's. Then we get into the real marketing wars- are two dual core CPU's four CPU's or not? I would say that they are four CPU's in that there are four distinct sets of registers and four distinct sets of pipes.



    Just wait'll each core is threaded! Then you'll have two processors with two cores each, with each core pretending to be two CPUs.



    There are your octos, more or less, and Apple wouldn't even have to change their current system controller!
  • Reply 40 of 114
    macjedaimacjedai Posts: 263member
    Yevgeny,



    Glad you understand. Unfortunately, I don't have access to timelines for the 980 ... yet (like I did with GUL) ... and even then, they were old (hence my not having complete trust in them, schedules slip sometimes ... fortunately I was "in the ballpark" this time by saying mid May to 1st week in July. I'm not an "Apple" insider, just got lucky on some info from "a friend".



    Stay tuned, if I come across anything, and feel I can "safely" pass it on ... I will.
Sign In or Register to comment.