Well, I'm banking on PM G4s running at 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 GHz. Here's why:
The oft quoted MHz increase simply for using SOI on an existing processor design is 30%. I'm then guessing on one of the following to happen:
a) Current fab process perfected, meaning higher yields at higher clock rates. Result: 20% clock speed increase. This is based on the fact that Mot moved from 733 to 867 with the last PM revision, which is an increase of about 20% in 6 months.
b) Apollo G4 rumored to have slight modifications over the current G4 in regards to internal bandwidth, thus allowing it to be clocked higher. The quoted number for this increase is 20%.
I find it unlikely that Mot (given their track record) would be able to make a change to the processor design *and* benefit from higher yields over time as the fab process is perfected. Thus, I doubt A and B will happen at the same time.
So, we have a theoretical speed increase of 50% over the current crop of G4s, which ring in at 733, 800, and 867. Adding 50% to each of these gives you 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 GHz respectively.
Edit: or perhaps 1.06, 1.2, and 1.33 when you consider 133MHz bus multipliers. I know Apple seems to like using half of that (66.5 MHz) for stepping their processor speeds, but 66 MHz difference isn't all that much once you break the GHz barrier.
did anyone know something about the g4? no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. We knew a lot about the G4. A lot. We just didn't think they would release it so soon. And you know why? Becaue they shouldn't have. Remember the G4 fiasco?
...It better be a G5 now ... they have more time to prepare ... no choice, but to bite the bullet. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does it have to be a G5??? I don't see the connection between no Powermac announcement at MWSF and "It better be a G5 now..."?
Frankly, what would be so terrible about a 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 GHz G4 lineup on the Powermac? I mean, we all like faster, faster, faster...but what do you really need? Do you render objects that take hours/days or are we talking bragging rights?
I'm not going to be one to get into "the 500 MHz G4 is faster than a 900 MHz Intel" simply because I cannot verify or prove such a claim, but really why does it have to be a G5?
So you can buy a 2 GHz (soon or now, I'm not sure) Intel chip, but if your alternate choice was from the lineup I presented above, what would be so wrong?
To put some perspective on all these "we gotta have a 2 GHz PPC because we're so behind Intel"; I have a QS 733. I'm a gamer, programmer, computer-geek (in that order thank you) and while OS X could still use some improvement in overall performance (even so, I use it all the time), I don't feel I'm "missing anything" right now other than bragging rights.
I ask again. Why does the next Powermac announcement have to include a G5?
<strong>I ask again. Why does the next Powermac announcement have to include a G5?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It has to be a G5 or something screaming because of the Pro market. People who need that kind of speed for a living are a large part of Apple's dedicated market, and when PCs offer far more power for far less money, it's hard to convince people to spend more for the mac. Also, even though it may just be "bragging rights," I think you underestimate the type of mental marketshare it gives a company whey they can offer a flagship product that is clearly superior to the competition, even though the products that most people buy are at the low-end of that company's product spectrum.
Because some pro's running stuff like Maya, FCP and AE could sure the hell use it. Some people actually use the power instead of bragging about it. The PM lineup is supposed to be PRO machines, and the G5 and the mobo technology that accompanies it will be well beyond the133mhz bus and sdram taht apple uses in its PRO line now.
Comments
The oft quoted MHz increase simply for using SOI on an existing processor design is 30%. I'm then guessing on one of the following to happen:
a) Current fab process perfected, meaning higher yields at higher clock rates. Result: 20% clock speed increase. This is based on the fact that Mot moved from 733 to 867 with the last PM revision, which is an increase of about 20% in 6 months.
b) Apollo G4 rumored to have slight modifications over the current G4 in regards to internal bandwidth, thus allowing it to be clocked higher. The quoted number for this increase is 20%.
I find it unlikely that Mot (given their track record) would be able to make a change to the processor design *and* benefit from higher yields over time as the fab process is perfected. Thus, I doubt A and B will happen at the same time.
So, we have a theoretical speed increase of 50% over the current crop of G4s, which ring in at 733, 800, and 867. Adding 50% to each of these gives you 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 GHz respectively.
Edit: or perhaps 1.06, 1.2, and 1.33 when you consider 133MHz bus multipliers. I know Apple seems to like using half of that (66.5 MHz) for stepping their processor speeds, but 66 MHz difference isn't all that much once you break the GHz barrier.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: SkullMac ]</p>
did anyone know something about the g4? no. steve even said that "the rumor sites didn't expect this until next year. well, they were wrong".
btw, the updated moto-roadmap shows the g5 starting at 800 mhz...
<strong>
did anyone know something about the g4? no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. We knew a lot about the G4. A lot. We just didn't think they would release it so soon. And you know why? Becaue they shouldn't have. Remember the G4 fiasco?
<strong>
...It better be a G5 now ... they have more time to prepare ... no choice, but to bite the bullet. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does it have to be a G5??? I don't see the connection between no Powermac announcement at MWSF and "It better be a G5 now..."?
Frankly, what would be so terrible about a 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 GHz G4 lineup on the Powermac? I mean, we all like faster, faster, faster...but what do you really need? Do you render objects that take hours/days or are we talking bragging rights?
I'm not going to be one to get into "the 500 MHz G4 is faster than a 900 MHz Intel" simply because I cannot verify or prove such a claim, but really why does it have to be a G5?
So you can buy a 2 GHz (soon or now, I'm not sure) Intel chip, but if your alternate choice was from the lineup I presented above, what would be so wrong?
To put some perspective on all these "we gotta have a 2 GHz PPC because we're so behind Intel"; I have a QS 733. I'm a gamer, programmer, computer-geek (in that order thank you) and while OS X could still use some improvement in overall performance (even so, I use it all the time), I don't feel I'm "missing anything" right now other than bragging rights.
I ask again. Why does the next Powermac announcement have to include a G5?
<strong>I ask again. Why does the next Powermac announcement have to include a G5?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It has to be a G5 or something screaming because of the Pro market. People who need that kind of speed for a living are a large part of Apple's dedicated market, and when PCs offer far more power for far less money, it's hard to convince people to spend more for the mac. Also, even though it may just be "bragging rights," I think you underestimate the type of mental marketshare it gives a company whey they can offer a flagship product that is clearly superior to the competition, even though the products that most people buy are at the low-end of that company's product spectrum.