The next Powermacs.

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Based on absolutely nothing, I'll predict dual 2.0, dual 2.25, dual 2.5.



    I'm not even going to try to defend that, so there.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 53
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Based on absolutely nothing, I'll predict dual 2.0, dual 2.25, dual 2.5.



    I'm not even going to try to defend that, so there.




    Is that a Jan prediction Amorph?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 53
    Here's my baseless prediction:



    single 2.0

    dual 2.2

    dual 2.4



    A 20% boost on the top end in January, leaving room for a 25% boost when going to 3GHz in July.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 53
    ryaxnbryaxnb Posts: 583member
    What I would like:

    1.6 Single

    1.6 Dual

    1.8 Dual

    2.25 Dual.

    The 1.6 models would go up to 6/8GB RAM and not feature SATA by default, to make it easier to upgrade.

    1.6 Single: $1,875 or $1,900

    1.6 Dual: $2,250

    1.8 Dual: $2,600 (with SATA and up to 8GB RAM)

    2.25 Dual: $3,100 or $3,050. Go wild with the price. People who aren't rich can use the 1.8 or 1.6 duals.

    What I expect:

    1.8 Single 2.0 Dual 2.2 Dual at exisiting price points. The 1.8 single would likely be based on the earlier 1.6 single motherboard, iBet, so yo only have 4GB RAM max and PCI slots.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 53
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Here is my take on the subject. First Apple wants to maintain the thought, in the publics mind atleast, that they have the fastest computers available. Since the other world has and will see significant introductions of new PC hardware that can be positioned as being much faster Apple will be compelled to bring out faster machines in January.



    Now the question is how fast. I'm willing to bet on systems in the 2.5 to 2.6 GHz range for the top of the line duals. I say this for a number of reasons. First there is already the infrastructure with in the G5 case to support such processors. The present cooling system should be able to handle much more heat without breaking a sweat. Second there have been a considerable number of rumours indicating that IBM already has the present rev of the 970 running at 2.5GHz. Lastly faster memory should be hitting the market to support the current bus ratios.



    Further knowing that Apple eventually responses to market demand, I think the present G5, the dual 2GHz, will stay in the line up. This would leave us with one single processor machine which will hopefully be configured for a much lower selling point.



    Thanks

    DAve
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 53
    chagichagi Posts: 284member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wizard69

    Here is my take on the subject. First Apple wants to maintain the thought, in the publics mind atleast, that they have the fastest computers available. Since the other world has and will see significant introductions of new PC hardware that can be positioned as being much faster Apple will be compelled to bring out faster machines in January.



    Now the question is how fast. I'm willing to bet on systems in the 2.5 to 2.6 GHz range for the top of the line duals. I say this for a number of reasons. First there is already the infrastructure with in the G5 case to support such processors. The present cooling system should be able to handle much more heat without breaking a sweat. Second there have been a considerable number of rumours indicating that IBM already has the present rev of the 970 running at 2.5GHz. Lastly faster memory should be hitting the market to support the current bus ratios.



    Further knowing that Apple eventually responses to market demand, I think the present G5, the dual 2GHz, will stay in the line up. This would leave us with one single processor machine which will hopefully be configured for a much lower selling point.



    Thanks

    DAve




    I have to agree on this. Apple obviously needs to have the future path for models planned out, but there's not much reason to hold back on newer, faster CPUs.



    If Apple can announce dual 3GHz G5s spring of 2004, they will. If they need to wait longer for CPU availbility at that speed, there will be a stopgap.



    Bear in mind that Apple didn't deliberately lose ground compared to shipping CPU speeds in the PC world. It was due to the ineptitude of a certain CPU manufacturer.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 53
    Only speculation / wishful thinking, but I think that:



    2.2 GHz on the 130nm process

    2.4 Ghz either on the 130nm or 90nm process

    2.6 GHz on the 90nm process



    is possible "FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT ONLY" near the MWSF '04 or shortly there-after (meaning late January early February).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 53
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    Is that a Jan prediction Amorph?



    Jan/Feb; the usual early refresh time for PowerMacs.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 53
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacJedai

    Only speculation / wishful thinking, but I think that:



    2.2 GHz on the 130nm process

    2.4 Ghz either on the 130nm or 90nm process

    2.6 GHz on the 90nm process



    is possible "FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT ONLY" near the MWSF '04 or shortly there-after (meaning late January early February).




    It's too early for 90nm process. I am sure that will go on sale in August/September 2004, delivery Octoberish
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 53
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Addison

    It's too early for 90nm process. I am sure that will go on sale in August/September 2004, delivery Octoberish



    Let's all remember, unless the product is a whole sale revision, apple usually have products available immediately or within a couple weeks.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    It would be nice to have matching displays...



    ...and that rumoured 30 incher...



    Lemon Bon Bon




    ....And the money to buy it all...

    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wireless

    I forget where I heard this....



    But some where it says that the 3Ghz will not be achived by the 970, it will only be able to reach 2.5Ghz. and the chip that will give us 3Ghz is the 980.



    I for one think that sounds reasonable.




    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wireless

    "acEdition's Naked Mole Rat report clarifies some information about the upcoming GPUL2 Processor which was referenced by eWeek as a replacement to the 970 (GPUL) PowerPC processor by Mid-2004.



    According to MacEdition, the GPUL2 is essentially the same architecture as the PPC 970, and that the Power5 derivative chip is a separate project. (MacEdition article).



    Based on the timing of release, the GPUL2 would presumably be the processor to take Apple's computers to 3GHz by next year. If so, it may cast some doubts on this ambitious report."




    Im in on this last one. It doesnt make ANY sense for a 2-3 year project to develop a chip, which only goes into Apple's machines for 2 revisions!



    If you ask me, 4Ghz is for the '980'.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 53
    Everyone assumes that IBM will continue to derive the 9x0 series directly from versions of the POWERx series. This isn't necessarily the case. It is possible that, having forked the designs, they will instead migrate technologies between the two processor lines. This would allow the chips to evolve according to their own needs, sharing features only where required. If IBM enhanced their design tools to build a feature for one, they might be able to apply this to the other. Techniques proven by one can be migrated to the other. Modules designed for one might be possible to migrate to the other.



    Or not.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 53
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I'm actually assuming that, henceforth, the two lines are being developed in parallel, and the low end development can fork into variants if it suits IBM's purposes to do so.



    If true, that should make the 970's successor a bit better integrated than the 970 itself (which is not at all to slag the 970).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.