Dual 1.8gigs by end '03?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Got my MacWorld magazine today, it says that the new IBM Processor will be released in the second half of '03 and will top out at 1.8gig's.



It goes on to say that if Apple were to decide and make a dual 1.8gig Powermac it would bring the Mac very close to the top of the line Intel and AMD systems.



Think we'll actually see this in '03?
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 85
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    but by the time we get those 1.8 GHz chips Intel will be at 4 GHz.
  • Reply 2 of 85
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>but by the time we get those 1.8 GHz chips Intel will be at 4 GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wrong. Intel only plans to bring the P4 to 3.6GHz next year. They stated publically that they are going to be cutting back a bit. Perhaps they've hit a wall or perhaps they're diverting some of their resources to other projects, like the P4's sucessor. Perhaps both.



    Either way, IBM and AMD will have an oppertunity to catch up with Intel in 2003. Provided the PPC970 and Hammer aren't delayed, Intel could lose the performance crown again.
  • Reply 3 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:

    <strong>



    Wrong. Intel only plans to bring the P4 to 3.6GHz next year. They stated publically that they are going to be cutting back a bit. Perhaps they've hit a wall or perhaps they're diverting some of their resources to other projects, like the P4's sucessor. Perhaps both.



    Either way, IBM and AMD will have an oppertunity to catch up with Intel in 2003. Provided the PPC970 and Hammer aren't delayed, Intel could lose the performance crown again.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The Intel chips are still twice as fast in the eyes of the average consumer, meaning Apple still isnt going to gain any market share based on speed alone, and their Mhz Myth isn't holding up. True the IBM will be faster, but Apple needs to be sure they can prove it and market it that way.
  • Reply 4 of 85
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    [quote]Originally posted by filmmaker2002:

    <strong>



    The Intel chips are still twice as fast in the eyes of the average consumer, meaning Apple still isnt going to gain any market share based on speed alone, and their Mhz Myth isn't holding up. True the IBM will be faster, but Apple needs to be sure they can prove it and market it that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Perhaps Apple should go to a performance rating system like AMD? Although I'm not a big fan performance ratings (You're still deceiving consumers.), I can see how it might help Apple's image.



    But, would changing the name of the PowerMac G5 to PowerMac G5 5000+ really make any difference in sales? I think MHz is irrelivent as long as Apple shows consumers that their machines are faster than Intel's. It's simply one more reason to switch.



    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 85
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    the AMD scheme wouldn't really work for Apple. That is used to compare two x86 processors running Windows (other OSs as well, but we're talking about consumers). I wouldn't be so excited about 1.8ghz, there's a good chance that the G4s will be at or near that speed by the end of next year. The 970 yields better performance at the same clockspeed, so in order to market the 970 Apple will have to post benchmarks and give the usual mhz myth argument. If you remember, when the original Beige G3s came out, the top end ran at 266mhz, and the 9600 ran at 350mhz. Even though the 9600 had a higher clockspeed the G3 was faster, and Apple did not "re-reach" the 350 mark until the B&W G3s. Apple just needs real world benchmarks that meet and exceed the competition and is noticeable in everyday usage.





    If I were to offer advice to Apple concerning a G4 revision for January, i would do the following:



    All duals again. New case with several 5.25 bays. Front USB,Firewire, audio out. Quieter! Use quiet fans and convection cooling. Lower the price 200 dollars across the line. 512+ ram, Superdrive across the board. digital audio in and out, and svideo out on the video card.





    Whats my point? even if apple made these changes and realeased the machines at the same clockspeeds, these improvements would make for much better machines. I know performance is important, but if Apple cannot rectify the solution immediatly, then they should focus on other design improvements and additions right now to the make the machine better.
  • Reply 6 of 85
    I've thought for a while that Apple should market its processors in terms of Peak Operations per Second. I can think of a few advantages of this:



    1) It has a nifty acronym (POPS). I work in advertising; I think of these things.

    2) It is somewhat comprehensible to lay people.

    3) It is no more or less arbitrary/inaccurate a metric than MHz.

    4) By suggesting a computer's actual performance (rather than a mostly abstract measurement of speed most people don't really get anyway), it might actually force Intel and other chip makers to respond. Someone weighing a computer purchase sees a Windows system at 3.4 GHz. Sounds like a lot. Then they see an Apple system at whatever billions of ops-per-sec that the 970 will be capable of. It also sounds like a lot, but unlike GHz, it's vaguely comprehensible. "Well," this customer might wonder, "how many POPS can this Windows system do?" Might encourage the market to gently drift away from this clock speed fixation.



    Well, I can dream anyway.
  • Reply 7 of 85
    Is 1.8Ghz really going to be enough by the end of the year? And even if it is available in the second half of '03, does that mean anything for us Mac users. As far as I can tell Apple has become VERY VERY unresponsive to new technology. Just look at the iMac, its gonna go a whole year without a speed bump. That isn't competitive in the slightest. Same thing for FW2 and USB2. Both are available, but neither made its what into the latest Power Macs. I am afraid to think how long it will take Apple to get the 970 into a Power Mac.
  • Reply 8 of 85
    Maybe they should start rating thier processors in GigaFLOPs. Sure they list it on the website, but thats one of the areas that the G4 really kicks x86 chips, I believe. Sure at first no one would no what they were but they could find a way to convince the general public that they needed more FLOPs.



    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: iplead5th ]



    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: iplead5th ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 85
    "Intel only plans to bring the P4 to 3.6GHz next year"



    ok you are telling me intel only plans to increase there chips by %20 for the entire year?



    one thing that worries me about IBM is it appears they will be one of the last on the .09 proccess...
  • Reply 10 of 85
    "Megahertz does not matter!!"



    "Megahertz myth"



    "Presenting the new dp 900, 1 Ghz and 1.25 Ghz Powermacs"



    Uh, Apple? wake up! if you want people to believe your myth, believe it yourself and stop selling based on mhz.

    I like te POPs idea, it makes a hell of alot more sense to granny when you tell her that this is the amount of times the processor can do 2+2 than trying to explain busses and clockrates and whatnot.



    the problem of gigaflop? The name. You sound stupid just saying it, plus flop has the conotation of crap.
  • Reply 11 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Producer:

    <strong>"Intel only plans to bring the P4 to 3.6GHz next year"



    ok you are telling me intel only plans to increase there chips by %20 for the entire year?



    one thing that worries me about IBM is it appears they will be one of the last on the .09 proccess...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    From <a href="http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000320"; target="_blank">http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000320</a>;



    [quote]As far as I know, no x86 CPU has dissipated so much heat as the 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 with HyperThreading. The maximum power dissipation will never occur in the real world, as this can only be reached with special "thermal viruses." Luckily, the Pentium 4 has a very efficient heatspreader and a good clamping mechanism. We could not measure temperatures higher than 57°C with a decent cooler.



    Nevertheless, the enormous amount of electrical current that the 3 GHz P4 requires will bring many motherboards and PSUs to their knees. <strong>This is probably the reason why we won't see the 3.2 GHz version arriving soon, as Intel will lower the power dissipation of its cores before moving to higher speeds</strong>. But right now, the current 3 GHz parts require 1.55V core voltage, and it is the most demanding processor of all.



    Pentium 4 3.06 GHz Typical 81 W Max +/- 105 W

    <hr></blockquote>



    It seems like at the same time they increase MHz, they increase the watts.



    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 85
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by jdbon:

    <strong>If I were to offer advice to Apple concerning a G4 revision for January, i would do the following:



    All duals again. New case with several 5.25 bays. Front USB,Firewire, audio out. Quieter! Use quiet fans and convection cooling. Lower the price 200 dollars across the line. 512+ ram, Superdrive across the board. digital audio in and out, and svideo out on the video card.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    yeah, and while you are at it, why not include a 23" touch screen cinema display and price the whole package at $299 so everyone can afford one... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    (im not saying that apple shouldn't provide more "bang for the buck, but a lot of what you depict sounds pretty impossible... )
  • Reply 13 of 85
    kupan787 but Intel is moving to .09 next year so this will help...in anycase AMD will have there processors out by spring that will be at higher mgz and are suppose to perfrom better clock per clock than the 970 (although I don't necessarily believe that) and AMD chips will support multiprocessor configurations and desktop chip prices....we still don't know the pricing on the 970 chips...so by fall AMD will be way above 2+mgz for possibly cheaper prices than the 970 ....I still have high hopes for IBM...since they will have chips that span everymarket and will be the biggest maker of game player chips (powering the nintento and the playstion 3) so I think that bodes well for them...
  • Reply 14 of 85
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Producer:

    <strong>kupan787 but Intel is moving to .09 next year so this will help...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    were the estimated 970 speeds actually based on .13 or .09 sizes?



    i really would not be surprised if the 970 would go over 2.0 ghz in 2003 - at least it would surprise a few people Apple-sytle and jobs would have his "hah!" effect
  • Reply 15 of 85
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eupfhoria:

    <strong>"Megahertz does not matter!!"



    "Megahertz myth"



    "Presenting the new dp 900, 1 Ghz and 1.25 Ghz Powermacs"



    Uh, Apple? wake up! if you want people to believe your myth, believe it yourself and stop selling based on mhz.

    I like te POPs idea, it makes a hell of alot more sense to granny when you tell her that this is the amount of times the processor can do 2+2 than trying to explain busses and clockrates and whatnot.



    the problem of gigaflop? The name. You sound stupid just saying it, plus flop has the conotation of crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This poster is exactly right. If you look at AMD offerings, you'll seldom find a true MHz rating. Yet there is the general notion that AMD chips are a good amount faster than Intel chips. AMD has successfully marketed their machines without MHz, so why can't Apple? Apple certainly isn't winning anything by posting its machines clock frequencies.
  • Reply 16 of 85
    mmicistmmicist Posts: 214member
    [quote]Originally posted by Producer:

    <strong>"Intel only plans to bring the P4 to 3.6GHz next year"



    ok you are telling me intel only plans to increase there chips by %20 for the entire year?



    one thing that worries me about IBM is it appears they will be one of the last on the .09 proccess...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why do you think this? From what I can see, they will be amongst the first. IBM say they will have .09micron in the second half of 2003, Intel have moved their estimated date to the end of 2003, and AMD have moved theirs to 2004. Possibly UMC and TSMC may get there earlier, but they are in a different market. IBM also have SOI in place already and will have it at .09, unlike Intel.



    michael
  • Reply 17 of 85
    spookyspooky Posts: 504member
    [quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:

    <strong>



    This poster is exactly right. If you look at AMD offerings, you'll seldom find a true MHz rating. Yet there is the general notion that AMD chips are a good amount faster than Intel chips. AMD has successfully marketed their machines without MHz, so why can't Apple? Apple certainly isn't winning anything by posting its machines clock frequencies.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's because when they were marketing in MHz it was clear to everyone that AMD



    were



    faster than intels. so changing the naming convention is not what has kept amd going - its the reputation they already built up for being better and faster



    sadly, macs have never really had the rep to trade on in terms of raw power
  • Reply 18 of 85
    spookyspooky Posts: 504member
    [quote]Originally posted by Paul:

    <strong>



    yeah, and while you are at it, why not include a 23" touch screen cinema display and price the whole package at $299 so everyone can afford one... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    (im not saying that apple shouldn't provide more "bang for the buck, but a lot of what you depict sounds pretty impossible... )</strong><hr></blockquote>



    why not? a lot of pc vendors (ie apple's competitors) seem to be able to.
  • Reply 19 of 85
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]Originally posted by jdbon:

    <strong>Front USB,Firewire, audio out.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I really hope apple does not put anything on the front, that is really ugly having wired connect in the front, I havn't seen the new MDD in person but I kinda think aesthetically that it's audio out on the front would be kinda unpleasing. I know its for convience but I think kinda ew...not sure where I would like it though.



    1)Audio Out On The Displays



    2)Perhaps secretly somewhere or on the keyboard



    3)who knows
  • Reply 20 of 85
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    [quote]Originally posted by dygysy:

    <strong>Got my MacWorld magazine today, it says that the new IBM Processor will be released in the second half of '03 and will top out at 1.8gig's.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wrong -- IBM says that it will start at 1.8 GHz. Who knows what it'll "top out" at; I've heard numbers like 2.5 GHz. Also note that 2nd half '03 starts July 1st.



    [quote]<strong>

    It goes on to say that if Apple were to decide and make a dual 1.8gig Powermac it would bring the Mac very close to the top of the line Intel and AMD systems.



    Think we'll actually see this in '03?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, I think we'll see it and well before the end of the year.



    A single 1.8 GHz 970 will bring the Mac very close to the top of the line single processor Intel/AMD systems. A dual 970 system should perform better since it'll probably play better with other processors than the x86 machines. Higher speed versions of the 970 will probably follow before too long -- even on 0.13 they're likely to eek out a little more performance and their 0.09 rollout is aggressive.



    I have no doubt that IBM has other plans in the works to followup on the 970. Modified designs, faster versions, multiple cores. Sony is interested in IBM's "Cell" processor work, but its applications extend well beyond the PS3 (in both directions -- up into the workstation space, and down into the embedded space).



    Everybody is going to have to come up with new performance measurements, including Intel. They have IA-64 machines at much lower clock rates which out perform their x86 processors. AMD already has this problem. Apple has used GigaFLOPS before, but do you really want to tell your mass market customer how fast your processor will "flop"? Bad idea. Even just straight MIPS would be better (although it is convoluted in its own right), unfortunately those silly guys at the MIPS processor design center trademarked that one! Some kind of catchy new number will be found, which is unfortunate since it by definition hugely oversimplifies the performance situation.



    I'm partial to "Operated Bits / Second" myself. This way the 970 will show really well and you can say that the "1.8 GHz 970 can produce 1382 GOBS" (it can too, I worked it out). The 1.25 G4 can only produce 840 GOBS, so clearly the 970 is much faster! The latest Pentium IV is about even at 1350 GOBS, but I'm confident that IBM can quickly out-GOB them with the next release.
Sign In or Register to comment.