Nor would they change the design of a case that is merely one or two years old...just because there's a processor revision.
Wrong, they changed the tower case with the intro of the 8600/9600, again with the G3 and again with the B&W G3. The 8600 was introduced in February 1997, the G3 in November 1997 and the B&W in Jan 1999 - three different cases in less than two years.
When I read responses like Clive's I wonder what dark and joyless corner of the world he inhabits. Doing pro-audio on the G4 500 TiBk (and, God help me, on a P4 1.6 Vaio too, when I need to multi-task) and with a G5 dual 2.0 on order, I'm HAPPY.
Clive, ferchrissakes, go and be miserable somewhere else....and take your PC with you too.
They say :"Misery loves company." So much hardware angst, so little context.
Back OT: If the next-gen after 970 is a year or even two from now, I'll be earning a living meanwhile AND I'll be smiling.
Nor would they change the design of a case that is merely one or two years old...just because there's a processor revision
Great journalism, Clive. That isn't really what I said, nor is it what I meant. I had a little parenthesis in there that said that the case was designed for several years. Heck, half my post talks about how they built the G5 to be able to handle more than just 2 x 2GHz. Granted, I have no hard facts to base it on, but just look at the design of the thing.
And, history isn't always followed to the 't'. I mean, this is the rapidly growing computer industry. Sure some things repeat themselves, but: THINGS CHANGE.
I believe you misquoted Programmer, too. Or at least you don't quote the important part of what he's saying. He and others here have pointed out that if the POWER 5 and 980 were developed concurrently, they could prevent the 18 month lag that the 970 suffered from.
It seems you only read what you want to. If you are going to argue with somebody, try to understand their points first.
Whether the rumor will become true or not I sure don't know, but the fact is that it exists within the realms of not only Possiblility, but also Reasonableness.
IBM has given us, if not a detailed roadmap, at least the reasonable assumption of many pathways. The road to a G6 or a super G5 does not take alot of imagination!!! 8)
This is MY take on the situation, and I guessed right for WWDC.
Some people are suggesting that the 970 will MAX out at 2-2.5GHz - absolute horseshit!. In fact it has been reported that the 970 will indeed reach speeds of 2.5GHz on its current 0.13um process - so when Apple announced that it WILL be 3GHz in 12months, I immediately accepted the data as most likely with a process (0.09um) update by that time.
Remember, the 980 is likely to be out about that time as well, so PowerMacs will continue to scale in the Workstation Class in Apple's interests - just look at the current design of the PowerMacs. No longer employing GREAT lokks - they want the units to look like like SERIOUS industrial strength computing POWER!.
This gels with the PRO/CONSUMER, 64/32, computing distinctions required. Jonathon Ive can get funky with the iMacs, iBooks, etc, leaving the PowerMacs, xServe, and most likely new corporate looking designs (but beautiful) in the LCD Displays.
Further, the 970 at the 0.09um will provide much production life for Apple's PowerBooks and iMacs, whereby the 980 will commence at 3GHz and beyond for the PowerMacs and xServes to maintain there competitive advantage over Dells, etc in the all important Design, Publishing, Film, Television, Audio markets.
Let me guess, does anyone think that Apple would release a G5 product WITHOUT ANY HEADROOM for updates, until a process upgrade in 6-12months?.
Anyway, I just NEED a G5 15" PowerBook for NOW! Just 1.2GHz would be fine!, PLEASE!
I prefer realist, over the fantasists in this thread.
I'm optimistic that Apple will get to 3GHz in a year (Steve's placed his bet), but pondering about where the 980 is when the 970 hasn't even shipped yet is just nonsense.
I think the perception that the POWER4 & POWER5 are truly different architectures is incorrect. My guess is that they started from the POWER4 and began making improvements. The POWER4->POWER5 transition (and hence 970->980) will be more akin to the PentiumPro -> PentiumII -> PentiumIII transitions. Bigger than the 604 -> 604e (that'll be like 970 -> 970+), but potentially much like the various PentiumIV revisions Intel has been doing.
There was some rumors that the POWER 5 would be 4 times faster than the POWER 4. Like here. That seems like a pretty big jump in performance for the small change you imply. Obviously every POWER chip is based on the previous version but I would think there would be some pretty drastic changes if that performance increase were true.
Just curious Programmer, would there be any gain in more fully implementing Altivec into the processor? I know this is not doing the 970 justice but, some of the other threads seem to imply that the 970 is a POWER 4 core with an Altivec unit grafted on. I know that processors are somewhat compartmentalized and maybe if you were designing the chip from scratch it would look alot like it does now. It also seems possible that it would look less like an addition.
When I read responses like Clive's I wonder what dark and joyless corner of the world he inhabits. Doing pro-audio on the G4 500 TiBk (and, God help me, on a P4 1.6 Vaio too, when I need to multi-task) and with a G5 dual 2.0 on order, I'm HAPPY.
Clive, ferchrissakes, go and be miserable somewhere else....and take your PC with you too.
First thing, read my sig, no PCs in this house.
Second. I can only believe that it's you that lives in dark and joyless corners, believing in these fantasies you stop yourself cutting your own throat.
Stop taking the LSD, or whatever mind altering drug you're on, and you'll see that the future can be foreseen with a fair amount of certainty - first stop, look at the past for some clues.
Sure, reality may suck, but that's the world we live in (oh, and you're never going to live on Mars either).
Interesting point. At some point in the future, I would suspect we'll talk to our computers much like we talk on our cell phones. I believe the tablet is just a manifestation of how we will use computers at some point in the future when a keyboard is no longer useful. Right now the tablet isn't too useful. I'd imagine Apple is laying the framework where they would be the 1st ones to get rid of the keyboard and mouse -- as they did with the floppy disk -- and he way you'd use the computer is straight GUI, stylus, and Judy the TimeLife Operator style headsets. Bring it on!
Second. I can only believe that it's you that lives in dark and joyless corners, believing in these fantasies you stop yourself cutting your own throat.
Stop taking the LSD, or whatever mind altering drug you're on, and you'll see that the future can be foreseen with a fair amount of certainty - first stop, look at the past for some clues.
Sure, reality may suck, but that's the world we live in (oh, and you're never going to live on Mars either).
Alright, you got me......... I assumed you were hiding a PC somewhere and were too ashamed to admit it- except in a Freudian sense- hence your scepticism.
My dark and joyless corner moved to Florida from London just over 2 years ago, and in that time Apple has gone from bugger-all KHz to announcing dual 2.0s. I myself moved from perpetual darkness (and perpetual f*****g rain) to Joy, Light and the odd Hurricane.
As for fantasies, how do you figure I've got it wrong? I have a demonstrable workflow, adequately catered for by my present kit, to be supplemented soonish by a G5. George Martin and a few others I could name did quite well with 4-6 tracks and no plugs (and a comparatively lousy S/N ratio).
At SOME point in the future, there'll be a machine that will cover my ass gloriously in Altiverb (48 Ch at 96 KHz ?) while my tracking needs continue to be more than amply covered by the G5 I'll have by September.
Which of us has his head up his .....er........donkey?
Uh oh, it just occurred to me that Apple could be facing a serious problem in the all-important New Zealand market. To Aussie ears at least, the Kiwi accent seems to swallow "e"'s, and we're not talking about the fun sort -- we're talking vowels.
As such, if/when Apple introduces a G6 to the NZ market, it will be called the "Gee Sux" by all and sundry.
If IBM is confident that they will be continually rolling out improved Applechips then why should Apple wait? It is not smart to fall behind in the race and rest on any laurels. If IBM offers Apple a big gun and Jobs refuses and decides to wait it is a big mistake.
If IBM is confident that they will be continually rolling out improved Applechips then why should Apple wait? It is not smart to fall behind in the race and rest on any laurels. If IBM offers Apple a big gun and Jobs refuses and decides to wait it is a big mistake.
Amen.
Whether or not the G5 is really going to lead the field when it comes out, the important thing is that Apple is back in the hunt performance-wise. The odds are that they'll get leapfrogged from time to time, but as long as they stay in the race they won't have to make any excuses.
This is why it's so important (and welcome) that IBM has a roadmap, and a strategy that involves developing lower-cost versions of their high-end CPU line (reducing the costs involved in development, and thus making the project more likely to remain profitable and attractive, and at the cutting edge technologically). It looks like Apple went for the best of the best right out of the starting gate (at least, of the parts that were available to them in the quantities they require), and they have to keep that up. Intel is not going to stand still.
The key here, especially to those who look beyond the next 18 months, is that at last there's a map of sorts that we can work with. I for one can invest in peripherals and software that won't leave me up a gum-tree in two years or so.
I might have to wait a bit- or I might be pleasantly surprised- by the shipping date on the next-next generation, but I won't be left picking the pieces of my career off the floor either.
In the absence of hope/info, there's little to tie us all to the platform. No longer the case. whatever you may say, Clive.
Also, as things currently stand, Apple is the only known customer for these processors. Given that we know IBM will definitely be producing 980s, why would they let Apple wait? Why would Apple think waiting would do any good?
The question is really only concerned with when the procs will ship. Apple will _surely_ use them as soon as they possibly can, keeping their products competitive and IBM's accountants happy.
There was some rumors that the POWER 5 would be 4 times faster than the POWER 4. Like here. That seems like a pretty big jump in performance for the small change you imply. Obviously every POWER chip is based on the previous version but I would think there would be some pretty drastic changes if that performance increase were true.
Its not really that big a change. The original Pentium Pro shipped at 200 MHz and the latest Pentium III Xeon is somewhere north of 1.3 GHz, which is a 5x performance improvement. It had MMX and SSE strapped on to essentially the same core. We're seeing similar things being done with the basic Pentium4 architecture. The POWER4 architecture has a lot of up side to it, and was designed as something to be built on.
If you look at how IBM is typically measuring this performance increase you'll see it revolves around things which are multi-threaded. Simply adding SMT to the POWER5 and doubling the clock rate will get the on the order of 3x improvement (over the 1.3 GHz POWER4 that they discuss). Add the FastPath stuff to avoid distracting the core(s), clean up any bottlenecks that 2 years of testing on the POWER4 showed up and blam!, you're running 4x faster.
Quote:
Just curious Programmer, would there be any gain in more fully implementing Altivec into the processor? I know this is not doing the 970 justice but, some of the other threads seem to imply that the 970 is a POWER 4 core with an Altivec unit grafted on. I know that processors are somewhat compartmentalized and maybe if you were designing the chip from scratch it would look alot like it does now. It also seems possible that it would look less like an addition.
Ya know, the guys over at Ars talk about how AltiVec was "tacked on" but I just don't get it. Yes they took the POWER4 and integrated a VMX unit into it, but in what way was it "tacked on"? All the internal busses are expanded to register widths, the AltiVec unit is fully integrated into the group dispatch mechanism, etc. The AltiVec unit in the G4 was just as tacked on to the G3 as it is onto the 970. This doesn't mean that future IBM chips won't have improved AltiVec units, but saying this about the 970 just isn't doing it justice. They are getting performance increasing linearly with clock rate, which is pretty damn good considering how impressive AltiVec performance has always been. Very few things scale linearly with clock rate.
Clive is missing my point (either deliberately or not) about the 970 vs. 980 design cycles. The first one takes a long time, but the successive ones benefit greatly from the lessons of the first. The benefit might be enough to ship the POWER5 & 980 simultaneously. The 980 isn't necessarily a "G6", either. That is part of the reason Apple didn't call the machines "970" -- it lets them change their product naming on their own terms without causing confusion when a processor number is incremented.
So what's more likely: that the 970 will scale from 1.8 GHz to 3 GHz with just a process shrink from 0.13 -> 0.09, or that it will require some design changes/improvements that are part of the POWER5 heritage? I don't know, but I think either could be the case and we'll have to wait and see. Its a bit silly to dismiss the latter possibility just because you can't remember past the last 5 years or so of Apple history, and refuse to look at what other chip companies (besides Motorola) have been able to do. IBM Microelectronics is a really good outfit.
And as for Apple's motivation for the time between G5 announcement and shipping... we'll each have to believe what we want because there will never be a real, believeable report on why. I'm sure there were lots of factors and they weighed them carefully before deciding. The single biggest was probably that they needed to start generating PowerMac sales again and the G4's had trickled off to practically zero. By intro'ing the G5s and removing that uncertainty early and dropping the G4 price, they've probably boosted G4 sales.
So what's more likely: that the 970 will scale from 1.8 GHz to 3 GHz with just a process shrink from 0.13 -> 0.09, or that it will require some design changes/improvements that are part of the POWER5 heritage?.
Ill have to agree, particularly, when the Gx nomenclature for the 980 may not achieve G6 status?. Apple said they would reach 3GHz - but did not guarantee it would be with the 970, just it WOULD with the G5!.
Makes for an interesting thought, but if the 980 could achieve performance increases of 2 times or more!, do you think Apple would just say, Hey guys this PowerMac is a 3Gz G5, but its twice as fast as our shipping 2.5GHz - I doubt it. \
Comments
Originally posted by bauman
Nor would they change the design of a case that is merely one or two years old...just because there's a processor revision.
Wrong, they changed the tower case with the intro of the 8600/9600, again with the G3 and again with the B&W G3. The 8600 was introduced in February 1997, the G3 in November 1997 and the B&W in Jan 1999 - three different cases in less than two years.
Clive, ferchrissakes, go and be miserable somewhere else....and take your PC with you too.
They say :"Misery loves company." So much hardware angst, so little context.
Back OT: If the next-gen after 970 is a year or even two from now, I'll be earning a living meanwhile AND I'll be smiling.
Originally posted by Clive, quoting bauman
Nor would they change the design of a case that is merely one or two years old...just because there's a processor revision
Great journalism, Clive. That isn't really what I said, nor is it what I meant. I had a little parenthesis in there that said that the case was designed for several years. Heck, half my post talks about how they built the G5 to be able to handle more than just 2 x 2GHz. Granted, I have no hard facts to base it on, but just look at the design of the thing.
And, history isn't always followed to the 't'. I mean, this is the rapidly growing computer industry. Sure some things repeat themselves, but: THINGS CHANGE.
I believe you misquoted Programmer, too. Or at least you don't quote the important part of what he's saying. He and others here have pointed out that if the POWER 5 and 980 were developed concurrently, they could prevent the 18 month lag that the 970 suffered from.
It seems you only read what you want to. If you are going to argue with somebody, try to understand their points first.
IBM has given us, if not a detailed roadmap, at least the reasonable assumption of many pathways. The road to a G6 or a super G5 does not take alot of imagination!!! 8)
Some people are suggesting that the 970 will MAX out at 2-2.5GHz - absolute horseshit!. In fact it has been reported that the 970 will indeed reach speeds of 2.5GHz on its current 0.13um process - so when Apple announced that it WILL be 3GHz in 12months, I immediately accepted the data as most likely with a process (0.09um) update by that time.
Remember, the 980 is likely to be out about that time as well, so PowerMacs will continue to scale in the Workstation Class in Apple's interests - just look at the current design of the PowerMacs. No longer employing GREAT lokks - they want the units to look like like SERIOUS industrial strength computing POWER!.
This gels with the PRO/CONSUMER, 64/32, computing distinctions required. Jonathon Ive can get funky with the iMacs, iBooks, etc, leaving the PowerMacs, xServe, and most likely new corporate looking designs (but beautiful) in the LCD Displays.
Further, the 970 at the 0.09um will provide much production life for Apple's PowerBooks and iMacs, whereby the 980 will commence at 3GHz and beyond for the PowerMacs and xServes to maintain there competitive advantage over Dells, etc in the all important Design, Publishing, Film, Television, Audio markets.
Let me guess, does anyone think that Apple would release a G5 product WITHOUT ANY HEADROOM for updates, until a process upgrade in 6-12months?.
Anyway, I just NEED a G5 15" PowerBook for NOW! Just 1.2GHz would be fine!, PLEASE!
Originally posted by AirSluf
Still, ever the optimist Clive?
I prefer realist, over the fantasists in this thread.
I'm optimistic that Apple will get to 3GHz in a year (Steve's placed his bet), but pondering about where the 980 is when the 970 hasn't even shipped yet is just nonsense.
Originally posted by Programmer
I think the perception that the POWER4 & POWER5 are truly different architectures is incorrect. My guess is that they started from the POWER4 and began making improvements. The POWER4->POWER5 transition (and hence 970->980) will be more akin to the PentiumPro -> PentiumII -> PentiumIII transitions. Bigger than the 604 -> 604e (that'll be like 970 -> 970+), but potentially much like the various PentiumIV revisions Intel has been doing.
There was some rumors that the POWER 5 would be 4 times faster than the POWER 4. Like here. That seems like a pretty big jump in performance for the small change you imply. Obviously every POWER chip is based on the previous version but I would think there would be some pretty drastic changes if that performance increase were true.
Just curious Programmer, would there be any gain in more fully implementing Altivec into the processor? I know this is not doing the 970 justice but, some of the other threads seem to imply that the 970 is a POWER 4 core with an Altivec unit grafted on. I know that processors are somewhat compartmentalized and maybe if you were designing the chip from scratch it would look alot like it does now. It also seems possible that it would look less like an addition.
Originally posted by fuzzylogic
When I read responses like Clive's I wonder what dark and joyless corner of the world he inhabits. Doing pro-audio on the G4 500 TiBk (and, God help me, on a P4 1.6 Vaio too, when I need to multi-task) and with a G5 dual 2.0 on order, I'm HAPPY.
Clive, ferchrissakes, go and be miserable somewhere else....and take your PC with you too.
First thing, read my sig, no PCs in this house.
Second. I can only believe that it's you that lives in dark and joyless corners, believing in these fantasies you stop yourself cutting your own throat.
Stop taking the LSD, or whatever mind altering drug you're on, and you'll see that the future can be foreseen with a fair amount of certainty - first stop, look at the past for some clues.
Sure, reality may suck, but that's the world we live in (oh, and you're never going to live on Mars either).
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Interesting point. At some point in the future, I would suspect we'll talk to our computers much like we talk on our cell phones. I believe the tablet is just a manifestation of how we will use computers at some point in the future when a keyboard is no longer useful. Right now the tablet isn't too useful. I'd imagine Apple is laying the framework where they would be the 1st ones to get rid of the keyboard and mouse -- as they did with the floppy disk -- and he way you'd use the computer is straight GUI, stylus, and Judy the TimeLife Operator style headsets. Bring it on!
Two comments:
1. Think Knowledge Navigator: Video clip
2. Can you imagine telemarketers being reduced to banks of Macs?
Originally posted by bauman
Great journalism, Clive.
Huh, suddenly AppleInsider is the New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian all rolled into one!?
Get real will you.
I'll place bets with anyone big enough to put their money where their mouth is. Put up or shut up.
Originally posted by Clive
First thing, read my sig, no PCs in this house.
Second. I can only believe that it's you that lives in dark and joyless corners, believing in these fantasies you stop yourself cutting your own throat.
Stop taking the LSD, or whatever mind altering drug you're on, and you'll see that the future can be foreseen with a fair amount of certainty - first stop, look at the past for some clues.
Sure, reality may suck, but that's the world we live in (oh, and you're never going to live on Mars either).
Alright, you got me......... I assumed you were hiding a PC somewhere and were too ashamed to admit it- except in a Freudian sense- hence your scepticism.
My dark and joyless corner moved to Florida from London just over 2 years ago, and in that time Apple has gone from bugger-all KHz to announcing dual 2.0s. I myself moved from perpetual darkness (and perpetual f*****g rain) to Joy, Light and the odd Hurricane.
As for fantasies, how do you figure I've got it wrong? I have a demonstrable workflow, adequately catered for by my present kit, to be supplemented soonish by a G5. George Martin and a few others I could name did quite well with 4-6 tracks and no plugs (and a comparatively lousy S/N ratio).
At SOME point in the future, there'll be a machine that will cover my ass gloriously in Altiverb (48 Ch at 96 KHz ?) while my tracking needs continue to be more than amply covered by the G5 I'll have by September.
Which of us has his head up his .....er........donkey?
As such, if/when Apple introduces a G6 to the NZ market, it will be called the "Gee Sux" by all and sundry.
That can't be good.
Originally posted by Clive
you'll see that the future can be foreseen with a fair amount of certainty.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!........gnf.............cough..... ...splutter.........
you're having a laugh, right?
And he talks about me being on drugs....
Originally posted by groverat
If IBM is confident that they will be continually rolling out improved Applechips then why should Apple wait? It is not smart to fall behind in the race and rest on any laurels. If IBM offers Apple a big gun and Jobs refuses and decides to wait it is a big mistake.
Amen.
Whether or not the G5 is really going to lead the field when it comes out, the important thing is that Apple is back in the hunt performance-wise. The odds are that they'll get leapfrogged from time to time, but as long as they stay in the race they won't have to make any excuses.
This is why it's so important (and welcome) that IBM has a roadmap, and a strategy that involves developing lower-cost versions of their high-end CPU line (reducing the costs involved in development, and thus making the project more likely to remain profitable and attractive, and at the cutting edge technologically). It looks like Apple went for the best of the best right out of the starting gate (at least, of the parts that were available to them in the quantities they require), and they have to keep that up. Intel is not going to stand still.
The key here, especially to those who look beyond the next 18 months, is that at last there's a map of sorts that we can work with. I for one can invest in peripherals and software that won't leave me up a gum-tree in two years or so.
I might have to wait a bit- or I might be pleasantly surprised- by the shipping date on the next-next generation, but I won't be left picking the pieces of my career off the floor either.
In the absence of hope/info, there's little to tie us all to the platform. No longer the case. whatever you may say, Clive.
The question is really only concerned with when the procs will ship. Apple will _surely_ use them as soon as they possibly can, keeping their products competitive and IBM's accountants happy.
Edit: spelling
Originally posted by Kurt
There was some rumors that the POWER 5 would be 4 times faster than the POWER 4. Like here. That seems like a pretty big jump in performance for the small change you imply. Obviously every POWER chip is based on the previous version but I would think there would be some pretty drastic changes if that performance increase were true.
Its not really that big a change. The original Pentium Pro shipped at 200 MHz and the latest Pentium III Xeon is somewhere north of 1.3 GHz, which is a 5x performance improvement. It had MMX and SSE strapped on to essentially the same core. We're seeing similar things being done with the basic Pentium4 architecture. The POWER4 architecture has a lot of up side to it, and was designed as something to be built on.
If you look at how IBM is typically measuring this performance increase you'll see it revolves around things which are multi-threaded. Simply adding SMT to the POWER5 and doubling the clock rate will get the on the order of 3x improvement (over the 1.3 GHz POWER4 that they discuss). Add the FastPath stuff to avoid distracting the core(s), clean up any bottlenecks that 2 years of testing on the POWER4 showed up and blam!, you're running 4x faster.
Just curious Programmer, would there be any gain in more fully implementing Altivec into the processor? I know this is not doing the 970 justice but, some of the other threads seem to imply that the 970 is a POWER 4 core with an Altivec unit grafted on. I know that processors are somewhat compartmentalized and maybe if you were designing the chip from scratch it would look alot like it does now. It also seems possible that it would look less like an addition.
Ya know, the guys over at Ars talk about how AltiVec was "tacked on" but I just don't get it. Yes they took the POWER4 and integrated a VMX unit into it, but in what way was it "tacked on"? All the internal busses are expanded to register widths, the AltiVec unit is fully integrated into the group dispatch mechanism, etc. The AltiVec unit in the G4 was just as tacked on to the G3 as it is onto the 970. This doesn't mean that future IBM chips won't have improved AltiVec units, but saying this about the 970 just isn't doing it justice. They are getting performance increasing linearly with clock rate, which is pretty damn good considering how impressive AltiVec performance has always been. Very few things scale linearly with clock rate.
Clive is missing my point (either deliberately or not) about the 970 vs. 980 design cycles. The first one takes a long time, but the successive ones benefit greatly from the lessons of the first. The benefit might be enough to ship the POWER5 & 980 simultaneously. The 980 isn't necessarily a "G6", either. That is part of the reason Apple didn't call the machines "970" -- it lets them change their product naming on their own terms without causing confusion when a processor number is incremented.
So what's more likely: that the 970 will scale from 1.8 GHz to 3 GHz with just a process shrink from 0.13 -> 0.09, or that it will require some design changes/improvements that are part of the POWER5 heritage? I don't know, but I think either could be the case and we'll have to wait and see. Its a bit silly to dismiss the latter possibility just because you can't remember past the last 5 years or so of Apple history, and refuse to look at what other chip companies (besides Motorola) have been able to do. IBM Microelectronics is a really good outfit.
And as for Apple's motivation for the time between G5 announcement and shipping... we'll each have to believe what we want because there will never be a real, believeable report on why. I'm sure there were lots of factors and they weighed them carefully before deciding. The single biggest was probably that they needed to start generating PowerMac sales again and the G4's had trickled off to practically zero. By intro'ing the G5s and removing that uncertainty early and dropping the G4 price, they've probably boosted G4 sales.
Originally posted by Programmer
So what's more likely: that the 970 will scale from 1.8 GHz to 3 GHz with just a process shrink from 0.13 -> 0.09, or that it will require some design changes/improvements that are part of the POWER5 heritage?.
Ill have to agree, particularly, when the Gx nomenclature for the 980 may not achieve G6 status?. Apple said they would reach 3GHz - but did not guarantee it would be with the 970, just it WOULD with the G5!.
Makes for an interesting thought, but if the 980 could achieve performance increases of 2 times or more!, do you think Apple would just say, Hey guys this PowerMac is a 3Gz G5, but its twice as fast as our shipping 2.5GHz - I doubt it.