I agree. Wizard69, Apple used 2.0 Ghz chips when IBM was planning on no more then 1.8 Ghz AFAIK. They could have used 1.8 Ghz max and people would be happy, they were expecting that. Instead, they used 2.0 Ghz max.
Err.. how cannot newer/faster processors boost performance on Windows?
I'm at a loss with this. Windows, so far (it's coming soon, and betas are already available,) is not 64-bit. What I don't understand is if Windows can handle more then 4 GB of RAM and 64-bit processes, much the same way Mac OS X v10.3 currently handles things.
I'm at a loss with this. Windows, so far (it's coming soon, and betas are already available,) is not 64-bit. What I don't understand is if Windows can handle more then 4 GB of RAM and 64-bit processes, much the same way Mac OS X v10.3 currently handles things.
more than 4GB Ram ... maybe but i don't think it can handle 32bit and 64bit processes the way like os x. wasn't this a shortcoming of the amd 64bit cpu? that it can't do 32bit and 64bit mode at once but had to restart ...? anyone knows more on that?
perhaps this is the reason for intel not to offer a 64bit consumer-chip yet
Thankfully the majority of engineers don't think like that. You aren't a graduate or ever going to be a particularly good engineer if you believe that. Any engineer past 2nd or 3rd year uni will be able to talk to you about the importance of understanding the assumptions and limitations a model is built on and why more complex models are necessary.
sure but most of them dont go out and create models.
Can I just say this has evolved into one of the most arcane threads in some time, with all of the strange 'handbags at twenty paces' bitchiness that you sometimes find in closeted academic environments.
And I didn't even have to drive to Oxford, negotiate the one-way system, or find a parking space.
Well as someone else has already used, I think the operative word is sandbagging. What CEO in is right mind would commit to 3GHz machines if he hasn't already seen them? Further your information is not consistant with materials supplied by IBM.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I agree. Wizard69, Apple used 2.0 Ghz chips when IBM was planning on no more then 1.8 Ghz AFAIK. They could have used 1.8 Ghz max and people would be happy, they were expecting that. Instead, they used 2.0 Ghz max.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
'handbags at twenty paces'
Do you mind if I borrow that? That's a great phrase.
As to the "3GHz" claim: I have no doubt that Steve saw a 970 running at 3GHz some time ago. It was probably one of a handful of freaks to come off the line that illustrated the CPU's potential as manufacturing and fabrication technology improved. (It's only 50% faster than the 2GHz, and 50% scaling isn't such a lofty goal on an architecture built for speed.) Apple is currently on track to sell over well over a million 970s in their PowerMacs over the course of a year - hundreds of times more volume than Intel can claim for their Itanium, or AMD for their Opteron. They can only offer speeds that IBM can offer in large quantities, and it stands to reason that those would be toward the middle (if not actually in the middle) of the performance curve. Note, again, that the machine Apple is offering at the top of the line uses faster chips than IBM promised it could sell in quantity. How you can derive from this that they're holding back, I cannot imagine.
There was a rumor that IBM had seen a 4.2GHz 970 in their labs. Well and good. But is Apple supposed to have taken that one lab creation and slapped it into a single custom-engineered PowerMac?
IBM, as recently as this week, has begun the process of fabricating 90nm G5s in volume. According to sources, test yields have shown the revision to clock up to 2.6GHz and come in a variety-pack of 4 flavors: 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz, and 2.6GHz.
What do you think the G5 line will be with this information?
Personally, I doubt we'll see these processors early in 2004. If I were predicting...
Jan/Feb we'll see
G5 Towers(still using a 0.13µm process) @
....2.4GHz dual
....2.2GHz dual
....2.0GHz single
G5 iMac
....1.4GHz 15" and 17"
....1.6GHz 20"
maybe slight decreases in price, but not much. As IBM manufactures the 970, small tweaks in the process may yield small decreases in heat generated, but I believe the G5 case design, focused on the ability to dissipate more heat than the current cpu's and system generate.
Sometime in July/August the 0.09µm process will be in production and then we'll see the 3.0GHz G5 Steve Jobs mentioned.
As far as laptops, I fear we're in for a somewhat longer what for a G5, but sitting out here on this limb, if I squint, I can see a 1.4GHz G5 Powerbook introduced in the Jan/Feb timeframe. But this limb is kind of limp and skinny, and some guy with a big capital M on his headset is taking a chainsaw out.
Originally posted by snoopy, Nr9, or mmicist (take your pick):
If we can resonate the biomolecular echo, we might be able to shut down the metaphasic flux and inhibit the magnetic deflector!
To replicate the gravitational entity would not be logical, because the dampening flow would then optimize the cloaked transporter.
Quote:
If we can shatter the spacial diagnostic, we might be able to overload the low-speed nacelle and reverse the anaphasic neural net!
It?s just possible that the quantum filament would analyze the phased matrix, but only if we decrypt the navigational servo-mechanism and destabilize the two-dimensional fragment!
Quote:
If we can adjust the localized radiation, we might be able to shut down the modular inducer and overload the unstable carrier!
Captain, I canna cancel out the computer because the extra-dimensional inhibitor is about to stabilize the magnetic morphosis!
Comments
Originally posted by Nr9
the majority of engineers just use the models and are given quantitative limits to the models.
No, that would be technicians.
michael
Originally posted by mmicist
No, that would be technicians.
michael
so what models have you developed?
Originally posted by 709
Nr9, you were alot more palatable when you were just giving 'inside info'. Now you're seemingly defensive, and not very friendly. Stop it.
im just exposing people who think they kno shit but dont.
Originally posted by jwdawso
I agree. Wizard69, Apple used 2.0 Ghz chips when IBM was planning on no more then 1.8 Ghz AFAIK. They could have used 1.8 Ghz max and people would be happy, they were expecting that. Instead, they used 2.0 Ghz max.
Originally posted by Zapchud
Err.. how cannot newer/faster processors boost performance on Windows?
I'm at a loss with this. Windows, so far (it's coming soon, and betas are already available,) is not 64-bit. What I don't understand is if Windows can handle more then 4 GB of RAM and 64-bit processes, much the same way Mac OS X v10.3 currently handles things.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I'm at a loss with this. Windows, so far (it's coming soon, and betas are already available,) is not 64-bit. What I don't understand is if Windows can handle more then 4 GB of RAM and 64-bit processes, much the same way Mac OS X v10.3 currently handles things.
more than 4GB Ram ... maybe but i don't think it can handle 32bit and 64bit processes the way like os x. wasn't this a shortcoming of the amd 64bit cpu? that it can't do 32bit and 64bit mode at once but had to restart ...? anyone knows more on that?
perhaps this is the reason for intel not to offer a 64bit consumer-chip yet
8 64bit processors with 64GB RAM.
Datacenter Edition goes up to 128 processors with
512 GB RAM.
Both are for Intel's IA64.
The AMD64 support will be at Server 2003 Enterprise
Edition level and later desktop/workstation.
AMD64 can happily run 32bit and 64bit processes
side-by-side.
On top of this older versions of Windows support
PAE which enables up to 36bit addressing with
a 4GB limit per process.
Apple are the ones lagging on 64bit at the moment,
though I'd expect 10.4 to offer a 64bit version.
Originally posted by Nr9
im just exposing people who think they kno shit but dont.
Exposing yourself again? Tsk, tsk.
Originally posted by Telomar
Thankfully the majority of engineers don't think like that. You aren't a graduate or ever going to be a particularly good engineer if you believe that. Any engineer past 2nd or 3rd year uni will be able to talk to you about the importance of understanding the assumptions and limitations a model is built on and why more complex models are necessary.
sure but most of them dont go out and create models.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Exposing yourself again? Tsk, tsk.
no. what do you have to say? get out.
And I didn't even have to drive to Oxford, negotiate the one-way system, or find a parking space.
Dave
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I agree. Wizard69, Apple used 2.0 Ghz chips when IBM was planning on no more then 1.8 Ghz AFAIK. They could have used 1.8 Ghz max and people would be happy, they were expecting that. Instead, they used 2.0 Ghz max.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
'handbags at twenty paces'
Do you mind if I borrow that? That's a great phrase.
As to the "3GHz" claim: I have no doubt that Steve saw a 970 running at 3GHz some time ago. It was probably one of a handful of freaks to come off the line that illustrated the CPU's potential as manufacturing and fabrication technology improved. (It's only 50% faster than the 2GHz, and 50% scaling isn't such a lofty goal on an architecture built for speed.) Apple is currently on track to sell over well over a million 970s in their PowerMacs over the course of a year - hundreds of times more volume than Intel can claim for their Itanium, or AMD for their Opteron. They can only offer speeds that IBM can offer in large quantities, and it stands to reason that those would be toward the middle (if not actually in the middle) of the performance curve. Note, again, that the machine Apple is offering at the top of the line uses faster chips than IBM promised it could sell in quantity. How you can derive from this that they're holding back, I cannot imagine.
There was a rumor that IBM had seen a 4.2GHz 970 in their labs. Well and good. But is Apple supposed to have taken that one lab creation and slapped it into a single custom-engineered PowerMac?
Originally posted by linefear
IBM, as recently as this week, has begun the process of fabricating 90nm G5s in volume. According to sources, test yields have shown the revision to clock up to 2.6GHz and come in a variety-pack of 4 flavors: 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz, and 2.6GHz.
What do you think the G5 line will be with this information?
Personally, I doubt we'll see these processors early in 2004. If I were predicting...
Jan/Feb we'll see
G5 Towers(still using a 0.13µm process) @
....2.4GHz dual
....2.2GHz dual
....2.0GHz single
G5 iMac
....1.4GHz 15" and 17"
....1.6GHz 20"
maybe slight decreases in price, but not much. As IBM manufactures the 970, small tweaks in the process may yield small decreases in heat generated, but I believe the G5 case design, focused on the ability to dissipate more heat than the current cpu's and system generate.
Sometime in July/August the 0.09µm process will be in production and then we'll see the 3.0GHz G5 Steve Jobs mentioned.
As far as laptops, I fear we're in for a somewhat longer what for a G5, but sitting out here on this limb, if I squint, I can see a 1.4GHz G5 Powerbook introduced in the Jan/Feb timeframe. But this limb is kind of limp and skinny, and some guy with a big capital M on his headset is taking a chainsaw out.
Originally posted by snoopy, Nr9, or mmicist (take your pick):
If we can resonate the biomolecular echo, we might be able to shut down the metaphasic flux and inhibit the magnetic deflector!
To replicate the gravitational entity would not be logical, because the dampening flow would then optimize the cloaked transporter.
If we can shatter the spacial diagnostic, we might be able to overload the low-speed nacelle and reverse the anaphasic neural net!
It?s just possible that the quantum filament would analyze the phased matrix, but only if we decrypt the navigational servo-mechanism and destabilize the two-dimensional fragment!
If we can adjust the localized radiation, we might be able to shut down the modular inducer and overload the unstable carrier!
Captain, I canna cancel out the computer because the extra-dimensional inhibitor is about to stabilize the magnetic morphosis!
Generated by Treknobabble