I agree with Ensoniq, I don't see why the 970 can't be put in the iMacs too, not too long after the 970-mac intro. ~1GHz 970's will probably have very good yields, it'll be pretty cheap, and most of the R&D to create a companion chip for the iMac 970 will be done already (because of the work done for pro-models). And it'll be cooler than the current G4's by far.
A lower-clocked 970 is exactly what the iMac needs now. It's been lacking speed compared to PC's in the same price-range for quite a while because of the slow G4, and in order to recreate some competiveness, switching to a twice-as-fast processor will allow Apple to market the iMac as just more than a user-friendly, easy computer, but also a deadly fast one too. They can demo iMacs crushing their competitors in common tasks (instead of just telling customers that they will), and of course, move more demanding (wow, cool-factor-) apps and tasks to the consumer-level (which has been staying in pro apps, for pro machines).
This of course depends on price, but if Apple are in the lucky position of being able to produce and sell a full lineup of dual 970 powermacs at affordable prices, they can very well create a large enough performance-delta between the iMacs and powermacs to avoid cannibalization.
I say: Do yourselves a favour, Apple, give your customers a fast 970 mac quickly!
Its what Ive been saying, Barto is right, I too have seen the heat sinks in a DP 1.25 - theyre massive!. They wont fit in an iMac - unless theyre DP required.
I dont mind G4's, they are a great chip - its just that I believe we deserve better performance for our hard earned cash. So either they speed bump them to something decent, which appears unlikely (745x's) , or they drop 970's in them.
quote FrostyMMB "I thought the same thing eight months ago when we got the MDD PowerMacs, but that's what we got. It's also pathetic that we got a 200Mhz bump after a year (I think) of the flat panel iMac, but that's what we got. What we want is rarely what we get."
Yeh, but with a 64bit CPU and a 64bit OS - I think that makes the situation now a little unique, dont you think
As other have told the 970 at any resonable speed will offer a substantial performance improvement over the G4, so there is no reason not to migrate to the 970 ASAP. The "ASAP" will be determined by how fast the towers and servers get the 970.
Every 970 bought by Apple make them a more important customer for IBM and also makes a bigger platfrom for the 970. So there are several reasons to get the 970 in the bulk computers by Apple namely the iMac and iBook as soon as possible.
So my guess is that we will se one more speed bump with G4s for the iMac and iBook while the rest migrate to 970 and then they will follow 6 or at the most 12 months later8)
I think it'll be at least one year after the PowerMac gets a 970 that the iMac/PowerBook will get one. Look at other huge speed jumps in Apple's history:
The 68040 was 2-3 times as fast as the 68030 at equal clock speed. It was released in two very expensive machines in 1991 and it wasn't available in a lower-cost machine until 1993.
The G3 was 50-100% faster than the 604e at equal clock speed. It was released in 1997 and it made its way into PowerBooks and iMacs in 1998. So just a year there. Still, a year during which consumers bought 4400s, 6500s, and clones.
I really doubt it'll debut in all their systems simultaneously. Why even discuss 970 in an iMac? We'll know for sure if it's getting one because once the PowerMac gets one, it's only a matter of time. I suppose it could get that IBM G3 + Altivec (what? the 850? okay) but that's basically a G4 so they could just stick with what it is now unless they wanted to scale higher than the current G4s can go. Remember, it did take nearly four years for the iMac to get a G4. I don't think it'll take that long to get a 970 though.
I do not think that the 970 will be introduced across the line all at once. Replacing the G3 with the G4 was no hurry as the G4 took a very long time to get past the 500 Mhz barrier and the G4 offrered som few advantages that iMac users really did have very limited or no use for.
The G3 was not a bad CPU that Apple needed to get away from and the did not offer that much extra so there really was no hurry to replace them.
Things are different now
1. The G4 really have a bad reputation, that the G3 did not have
2. The G4->970 offers a real performance boost that the G3->G4 did not.
3. Buying G4 is investing in a manufacturer that alredy has left the desktop CPU market for embedded applications. Bying 970 is investing in a manufacture that will let its CPUs compete against the best Intel and AMD has to offer, while running the same OS (Linux)
So due to 1. and 3. I rather see a iMac with a 1 GHz 970 than a 2 GHz G4 with DDR support (if there ever will be such a CPU).
For IBM 1 GHz 970 really do not compete well with Intel offerings but for Apple those CPUs are way better then the G3 and G4, go for it Apple
I think it'll be at least one year after the PowerMac gets a 970 that the iMac/PowerBook will get one. Look at other huge speed jumps in Apple's history:
...
The G3 was 50-100% faster than the 604e at equal clock speed. It was released in 1997 and it made its way into PowerBooks and iMacs in 1998. So just a year there. Still, a year during which consumers bought 4400s, 6500s, and clones.
...
well, actually, the powermac G3 and the powerbook G3 (aka kanga) where both introduced in 1997 (same month iirc) . the imac was introduced less than a year later. the G4 is a frustrating story of low yields and scalability issues. that's why we had to wait that long for a powerbook G4 and an imac G4. now everything will be different, but i still think apple wants to milk this cow as much as possible so indeed: imac (at least) one year later but the powerbook muchmuchmuch faster
Half the CPU implies half the heat. I wouldn't expect consumer Macs to have dual CPUs anyway, as it adds to cost in a sector that won't appreciate it as much as the pro market, technically or practically.
Quote:
The overall facts are that the G4, at least for the PRO market to be competitive to the 3+G Wintels will not be able to be scaled to meet the challenge and its consequence.
For the Pro market the G4 needs replaced, bt maybe not for the concumer market. Is the current G4 still manufactured on a 0.18u process? If it is, then it should have some headroom if it's shifted to a smaller process.
Actually the exact opposite has been proven. Do your homework before whining!
What dont you understand about the current state of the G4 processor?, Either wake up and smell the roses or better still, remove your head from your rear before posting.
Yeh, but with a 64bit CPU and a 64bit OS - I think that makes the situation now a little unique, dont you think
Hardly, but I'll say 'a little'. Apple has let us so many times before I'm not about to be unrealistically hopeful about things like a large majority of people on these forums. Some things were Moto's fault, but the arguments are well founded given what has happened in the past 5 five years.
I have a question now. Since Panther is a 64-bit OS, does it mean that machines with something less than the 970 won't be able to run it?
- Nobody knows what Panther is (or isn't) when it comes to 32/64 bit
When I say nobody what I really mean is nobody that is willing to put their alias on the line and come out and spill the beans. Now if you want to hear SPECULATION well it would make sense that if Apple was going to release a new machine that uses a 64bit CPU and at the same time release a new OS Apple would make sure the new OS would run on BOTH the new 64 bit machines as well as the MILLIONS of 32 bit machines. Otherwise you'd have one heck of a time selling the OS to your existing user base wouldn't you...
Quote:
I've heard OS X will need to be recompiled. Does this mean there will be two versions of Panther (one 32-bit and the other 64-bit)?
Agian NOBODY knows for sure (same disclaimer) but EACH and EVERY TIME a new version of the OS is release the source code has to be compiled... wouldn't do much of us any good if it wasn't.
That being said a single OS sould be doable for both 32bit support as well as 64bit.
Again we are dealing with WAY to many unknowns so the questions as well as the answers are silly...
It's kinda like asking...
Hey if I'm going to get a container exactly how much liquid would it hold and how soon could I expect to hold it and would I be able see the liquid thru the container (once I do get it... err if I do get it).
And this has what to do with whether the iMac will get a 970?
Personally, I think the iMac will sit right where it is until either the 7457 or the 90nm 970 arrives. And I'm not going to bet on which comes first. The high-clocked 7455s are probably too hot, too rare, and too expensive to supply the iMac. But if the PowerMac goes 970, and Apple does some extra cooling work on the iMac, they'd make a decent upgrade to the line.
That's exactly my opinion. I don't expect a 970 in a Imac before 2005.
I disagree with your first point. I've seen the 1.42's all copper heatsink. Even with one CPU, there is no way that chip would work in any Mac other than a Power Mac.
You missed my first point, which addressed the overclocking issue only. The chips are rated for the speeds they're clocked to, so there's nothing about them that prevents Apple from putting them in any product they can put the chip into. I go on to argue that I don't believe the iMac is one of those products.
But the first point dismissed the argument that the >1GHz G4s are somehow pushed beyond their design limits. They aren't.
What dont you understand about the current state of the G4 processor?, Either wake up and smell the roses or better still, remove your head from your rear before posting.
The current state of the G4 processor is that Mot is supplying Apple with high-voltage 7455s rated by Motorola at 1.25GHz and 1.42GHz that they don't supply to anyone else. They similarly made (and make) a low-voltage 7455 for Apple that they don't sell to anyone else.
People have looked in the new 1GHz G4 PowerMacs, and at least some of the CPUs are rated for 1.25GHz and clocked down. It's been pointed out that Apple has downclocked CPUs many times in their history. (The 1.33GHz CPU in the Xserve is a downclocked 1.42GHz.) Apple doesn't do overclocking. Never has, never will.
That's the current state of the G4, at least in PowerMacs.
Since the 1.25GHz and 1.42GHz G4s need almost 2 volts to reach those clockspeeds, and since they run hot as a result, I don't expect to see them in an iMac. That doesn't mean they're overclocked, it just means they're hot. And probably expensive, since they're custom parts.
Actually, there is a way for Apple to introduce the 970 into their consumer desktops, and still differentiate from the pro machines. Say apple comes out in June (or July) with 970 based Powermacs with 1.4, dual 1.6, and dual 1.8 GHz models, with bus speeds running at 700, 800, and 900 MHz, respectively, all machines using a 128 bit wide memory bus, running dual DDR333 or DDR400. Then, in September (please, Apple-- realize that Christmas is the biggest buying season of the year and bring out your damn consumer machines before it starts! Apple remindes me of Homer holding on to all the pumpkins he bought in October thinking the market would top out around March... ), bring out iMacs with 1.2 & 1.4GHz 970, with 600 & 700MHz busses, and 64 bit wide memory busses, running DDR333 or DDR400. That should be enough to differentiate the consumer desktops from the pro machines, as far as the CPU & memory goes...
Actually, there is a way for Apple to introduce the 970 into their consumer desktops, and still differentiate from the pro machines. Say apple comes out in June (or July) with 970 based Powermacs with 1.4, dual 1.6, and dual 1.8 GHz models, with bus speeds running at 700, 800, and 900 MHz, respectively, all machines using a 128 bit wide memory bus, running dual DDR333 or DDR400. Then, in September (please, Apple-- realize that Christmas is the biggest buying season of the year and bring out your damn consumer machines before it starts! Apple remindes me of Homer holding on to all the pumpkins he bought in October thinking the market would top out around March... ), bring out iMacs with 1.2 & 1.4GHz 970, with 600 & 700MHz busses, and 64 bit wide memory busses, running DDR333 or DDR400. That should be enough to differentiate the consumer desktops from the pro machines, as far as the CPU & memory goes...
Actually that would be the smart thing to do. They should introduce the 970 all across the lineup. But I don't see that happening. I'm guessing the iMac won't see the 970 in a very very long time. It'd be great tho.
Actually, there is a way for Apple to introduce the 970 into their consumer desktops, and still differentiate from the pro machines. Say apple comes out in June (or July) with 970 based Powermacs with 1.4, dual 1.6, and dual 1.8 GHz models, with bus speeds running at 700, 800, and 900 MHz, respectively, all machines using a 128 bit wide memory bus, running dual DDR333 or DDR400.
Unlike MaxBus, which has 64-bit and 128-bit variants, GigaBus appears to be 64 bits wide, period.
Quote:
Then, in September [...], bring out iMacs with 1.2 & 1.4GHz 970, with 600 & 700MHz busses, and 64 bit wide memory busses, running DDR333 or DDR400.
First of all, Apple's having a hard enough time getting people to make sense of dual processors, let alone dual-channel RAM and bus widths. Most people literally can't tell their RAM from their hard drive.
I figure that Apple will continue to do what they've done, which is to make sure that CPU clock speeds march up the line more or less linearly. If the PowerMac gets the higher-voltage 970 and the iMac gets the lower-voltage 970, that'll happen anyway (more volts -> higher clockspeed).
Unlike MaxBus, which has 64-bit and 128-bit variants, GigaBus appears to be 64 bits wide, period.
I don't think I made myself clear. When I mentioned bit width, I was only refering to the memory bus, not the processor bus. Substitute "dual channel memory" for "128 bit wide memory bus" and "single channel memory" for "64 bit wide memory bus" and perhaps it'll be a bit clearer. I wasn't refering to the front side bus at all.
GigaBus? I thought it was called ElasticBus...
Quote:
First of all, Apple's having a hard enough time getting people to make sense of dual processors, let alone dual-channel RAM and bus widths. Most people literally can't tell their RAM from their hard drive.
I'm not so sure about this. I think the people who really benefit from MP systems are already aware of their benefits. "If you don't know what it is, then you don't need it."
Besides, in the scheme I outlined above, there'd still would be little overlap in raw processor speeds (1.2 & 1.4 GHz in the iMacs, 1.4, 1.6, & 1.8 in the Powermacs). That would provide the same differentiation as we've got with the current lineup.
Having said all that, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple went another year with the G4 in the iMac. Might not even see them until MWSF '05.
---
The amazing thing about the jump to the 970 is that even a 1.2GHz processor with a 600MHz front side bus is going to be able to better utilize the bandwidth provided by even DDR333 memory than the 167MHz SDR Maxbus in the current top-of-the-line Powermacs can... The G4s are definitely strangled by the Maxbus.
I don't think I made myself clear. When I mentioned bit width, I was only refering to the memory bus, not the processor bus. Substitute "dual channel memory" for "128 bit wide memory bus" and "single channel memory" for "64 bit wide memory bus" and perhaps it'll be a bit clearer. I wasn't refering to the front side bus at all.
Ah, OK. So, basically, you just meant dual channel (i.e., 2x64) vs. single channel.
Quote:
GigaBus? I thought it was called ElasticBus...
The name I've heard is GigaBus.
Quote:
I'm not so sure about this. I think the people who really benefit from MP systems are already aware of their benefits. "If you don't know what it is, then you don't need it."
Well, first of all, I don't buy that. Second of all, anyone who used a DP machine under Mac OS 9 is probably not persuaded of the benefit. And a lot of people don't look past the processor speed.
I've been through all of this, alas.
Quote:
The amazing thing about the jump to the 970 is that even a 1.2GHz processor with a 600MHz front side bus is going to be able to better utilize the bandwidth provided by even DDR333 memory than the 167MHz SDR Maxbus in the current top-of-the-line Powermacs can... The G4s are definitely strangled by the Maxbus.
On the other hand, the memory subsystem will no longer be able to feed the CPU and every I/O subsystem simultaneously. It's definitely not a hard tradeoff to make, but there was something pretty about the idea that RAM could keep the entire motherboard busy at once.
Comments
A lower-clocked 970 is exactly what the iMac needs now. It's been lacking speed compared to PC's in the same price-range for quite a while because of the slow G4, and in order to recreate some competiveness, switching to a twice-as-fast processor will allow Apple to market the iMac as just more than a user-friendly, easy computer, but also a deadly fast one too. They can demo iMacs crushing their competitors in common tasks (instead of just telling customers that they will), and of course, move more demanding (wow, cool-factor-) apps and tasks to the consumer-level (which has been staying in pro apps, for pro machines).
This of course depends on price, but if Apple are in the lucky position of being able to produce and sell a full lineup of dual 970 powermacs at affordable prices, they can very well create a large enough performance-delta between the iMacs and powermacs to avoid cannibalization.
I say: Do yourselves a favour, Apple, give your customers a fast 970 mac quickly!
I dont mind G4's, they are a great chip - its just that I believe we deserve better performance for our hard earned cash. So either they speed bump them to something decent, which appears unlikely (745x's) , or they drop 970's in them.
quote FrostyMMB "I thought the same thing eight months ago when we got the MDD PowerMacs, but that's what we got. It's also pathetic that we got a 200Mhz bump after a year (I think) of the flat panel iMac, but that's what we got. What we want is rarely what we get."
Yeh, but with a 64bit CPU and a 64bit OS - I think that makes the situation now a little unique, dont you think
Every 970 bought by Apple make them a more important customer for IBM and also makes a bigger platfrom for the 970. So there are several reasons to get the 970 in the bulk computers by Apple namely the iMac and iBook as soon as possible.
So my guess is that we will se one more speed bump with G4s for the iMac and iBook while the rest migrate to 970 and then they will follow 6 or at the most 12 months later8)
The 68040 was 2-3 times as fast as the 68030 at equal clock speed. It was released in two very expensive machines in 1991 and it wasn't available in a lower-cost machine until 1993.
The G3 was 50-100% faster than the 604e at equal clock speed. It was released in 1997 and it made its way into PowerBooks and iMacs in 1998. So just a year there. Still, a year during which consumers bought 4400s, 6500s, and clones.
I really doubt it'll debut in all their systems simultaneously. Why even discuss 970 in an iMac? We'll know for sure if it's getting one because once the PowerMac gets one, it's only a matter of time. I suppose it could get that IBM G3 + Altivec (what? the 850? okay) but that's basically a G4 so they could just stick with what it is now unless they wanted to scale higher than the current G4s can go. Remember, it did take nearly four years for the iMac to get a G4. I don't think it'll take that long to get a 970 though.
The G3 was not a bad CPU that Apple needed to get away from and the did not offer that much extra so there really was no hurry to replace them.
Things are different now
1. The G4 really have a bad reputation, that the G3 did not have
2. The G4->970 offers a real performance boost that the G3->G4 did not.
3. Buying G4 is investing in a manufacturer that alredy has left the desktop CPU market for embedded applications. Bying 970 is investing in a manufacture that will let its CPUs compete against the best Intel and AMD has to offer, while running the same OS (Linux)
So due to 1. and 3. I rather see a iMac with a 1 GHz 970 than a 2 GHz G4 with DDR support (if there ever will be such a CPU).
For IBM 1 GHz 970 really do not compete well with Intel offerings but for Apple those CPUs are way better then the G3 and G4, go for it Apple
Originally posted by hasapi
The G4 appears to be stuck at 1-1.42, the 1.42 is overclocked.
Actually the exact opposite has been proven. Do your homework before whining!
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I think it'll be at least one year after the PowerMac gets a 970 that the iMac/PowerBook will get one. Look at other huge speed jumps in Apple's history:
...
The G3 was 50-100% faster than the 604e at equal clock speed. It was released in 1997 and it made its way into PowerBooks and iMacs in 1998. So just a year there. Still, a year during which consumers bought 4400s, 6500s, and clones.
...
well, actually, the powermac G3 and the powerbook G3 (aka kanga) where both introduced in 1997 (same month iirc) . the imac was introduced less than a year later. the G4 is a frustrating story of low yields and scalability issues. that's why we had to wait that long for a powerbook G4 and an imac G4. now everything will be different, but i still think apple wants to milk this cow as much as possible so indeed: imac (at least) one year later but the powerbook muchmuchmuch faster
The overall facts are that the G4, at least for the PRO market to be competitive to the 3+G Wintels will not be able to be scaled to meet the challenge and its consequence.
For the Pro market the G4 needs replaced, bt maybe not for the concumer market. Is the current G4 still manufactured on a 0.18u process? If it is, then it should have some headroom if it's shifted to a smaller process.
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Actually the exact opposite has been proven. Do your homework before whining!
What dont you understand about the current state of the G4 processor?, Either wake up and smell the roses or better still, remove your head from your rear before posting.
I've heard OS X will need to be recompiled. Does this mean there will be two versions of Panther (one 32-bit and the other 64-bit)?
Yeh, but with a 64bit CPU and a 64bit OS - I think that makes the situation now a little unique, dont you think
Hardly, but I'll say 'a little'. Apple has let us so many times before I'm not about to be unrealistically hopeful about things like a large majority of people on these forums. Some things were Moto's fault, but the arguments are well founded given what has happened in the past 5 five years.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
I have a question now. Since Panther is a 64-bit OS, does it mean that machines with something less than the 970 won't be able to run it?
- Nobody knows what Panther is (or isn't) when it comes to 32/64 bit
When I say nobody what I really mean is nobody that is willing to put their alias on the line and come out and spill the beans. Now if you want to hear SPECULATION well it would make sense that if Apple was going to release a new machine that uses a 64bit CPU and at the same time release a new OS Apple would make sure the new OS would run on BOTH the new 64 bit machines as well as the MILLIONS of 32 bit machines. Otherwise you'd have one heck of a time selling the OS to your existing user base wouldn't you...
I've heard OS X will need to be recompiled. Does this mean there will be two versions of Panther (one 32-bit and the other 64-bit)?
Agian NOBODY knows for sure (same disclaimer) but EACH and EVERY TIME a new version of the OS is release the source code has to be compiled... wouldn't do much of us any good if it wasn't.
That being said a single OS sould be doable for both 32bit support as well as 64bit.
Again we are dealing with WAY to many unknowns so the questions as well as the answers are silly...
It's kinda like asking...
Hey if I'm going to get a container exactly how much liquid would it hold and how soon could I expect to hold it and would I be able see the liquid thru the container (once I do get it... err if I do get it).
Dave
Originally posted by Amorph
And this has what to do with whether the iMac will get a 970?
Personally, I think the iMac will sit right where it is until either the 7457 or the 90nm 970 arrives. And I'm not going to bet on which comes first. The high-clocked 7455s are probably too hot, too rare, and too expensive to supply the iMac. But if the PowerMac goes 970, and Apple does some extra cooling work on the iMac, they'd make a decent upgrade to the line.
That's exactly my opinion. I don't expect a 970 in a Imac before 2005.
Originally posted by Barto
I disagree with your first point. I've seen the 1.42's all copper heatsink. Even with one CPU, there is no way that chip would work in any Mac other than a Power Mac.
You missed my first point, which addressed the overclocking issue only. The chips are rated for the speeds they're clocked to, so there's nothing about them that prevents Apple from putting them in any product they can put the chip into. I go on to argue that I don't believe the iMac is one of those products.
But the first point dismissed the argument that the >1GHz G4s are somehow pushed beyond their design limits. They aren't.
Originally posted by hasapi
What dont you understand about the current state of the G4 processor?, Either wake up and smell the roses or better still, remove your head from your rear before posting.
The current state of the G4 processor is that Mot is supplying Apple with high-voltage 7455s rated by Motorola at 1.25GHz and 1.42GHz that they don't supply to anyone else. They similarly made (and make) a low-voltage 7455 for Apple that they don't sell to anyone else.
People have looked in the new 1GHz G4 PowerMacs, and at least some of the CPUs are rated for 1.25GHz and clocked down. It's been pointed out that Apple has downclocked CPUs many times in their history. (The 1.33GHz CPU in the Xserve is a downclocked 1.42GHz.) Apple doesn't do overclocking. Never has, never will.
That's the current state of the G4, at least in PowerMacs.
Since the 1.25GHz and 1.42GHz G4s need almost 2 volts to reach those clockspeeds, and since they run hot as a result, I don't expect to see them in an iMac. That doesn't mean they're overclocked, it just means they're hot. And probably expensive, since they're custom parts.
Originally posted by Gamblor
Actually, there is a way for Apple to introduce the 970 into their consumer desktops, and still differentiate from the pro machines. Say apple comes out in June (or July) with 970 based Powermacs with 1.4, dual 1.6, and dual 1.8 GHz models, with bus speeds running at 700, 800, and 900 MHz, respectively, all machines using a 128 bit wide memory bus, running dual DDR333 or DDR400. Then, in September (please, Apple-- realize that Christmas is the biggest buying season of the year and bring out your damn consumer machines before it starts! Apple remindes me of Homer holding on to all the pumpkins he bought in October thinking the market would top out around March...
Actually that would be the smart thing to do. They should introduce the 970 all across the lineup. But I don't see that happening. I'm guessing the iMac won't see the 970 in a very very long time. It'd be great tho.
Originally posted by Gamblor
Actually, there is a way for Apple to introduce the 970 into their consumer desktops, and still differentiate from the pro machines. Say apple comes out in June (or July) with 970 based Powermacs with 1.4, dual 1.6, and dual 1.8 GHz models, with bus speeds running at 700, 800, and 900 MHz, respectively, all machines using a 128 bit wide memory bus, running dual DDR333 or DDR400.
Unlike MaxBus, which has 64-bit and 128-bit variants, GigaBus appears to be 64 bits wide, period.
Then, in September [...], bring out iMacs with 1.2 & 1.4GHz 970, with 600 & 700MHz busses, and 64 bit wide memory busses, running DDR333 or DDR400.
First of all, Apple's having a hard enough time getting people to make sense of dual processors, let alone dual-channel RAM and bus widths. Most people literally can't tell their RAM from their hard drive.
I figure that Apple will continue to do what they've done, which is to make sure that CPU clock speeds march up the line more or less linearly. If the PowerMac gets the higher-voltage 970 and the iMac gets the lower-voltage 970, that'll happen anyway (more volts -> higher clockspeed).
Unlike MaxBus, which has 64-bit and 128-bit variants, GigaBus appears to be 64 bits wide, period.
I don't think I made myself clear. When I mentioned bit width, I was only refering to the memory bus, not the processor bus. Substitute "dual channel memory" for "128 bit wide memory bus" and "single channel memory" for "64 bit wide memory bus" and perhaps it'll be a bit clearer. I wasn't refering to the front side bus at all.
GigaBus? I thought it was called ElasticBus...
First of all, Apple's having a hard enough time getting people to make sense of dual processors, let alone dual-channel RAM and bus widths. Most people literally can't tell their RAM from their hard drive.
I'm not so sure about this. I think the people who really benefit from MP systems are already aware of their benefits. "If you don't know what it is, then you don't need it."
Besides, in the scheme I outlined above, there'd still would be little overlap in raw processor speeds (1.2 & 1.4 GHz in the iMacs, 1.4, 1.6, & 1.8 in the Powermacs). That would provide the same differentiation as we've got with the current lineup.
Having said all that, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple went another year with the G4 in the iMac. Might not even see them until MWSF '05.
---
The amazing thing about the jump to the 970 is that even a 1.2GHz processor with a 600MHz front side bus is going to be able to better utilize the bandwidth provided by even DDR333 memory than the 167MHz SDR Maxbus in the current top-of-the-line Powermacs can... The G4s are definitely strangled by the Maxbus.
Originally posted by Gamblor
I don't think I made myself clear. When I mentioned bit width, I was only refering to the memory bus, not the processor bus. Substitute "dual channel memory" for "128 bit wide memory bus" and "single channel memory" for "64 bit wide memory bus" and perhaps it'll be a bit clearer. I wasn't refering to the front side bus at all.
Ah, OK. So, basically, you just meant dual channel (i.e., 2x64) vs. single channel.
GigaBus? I thought it was called ElasticBus...
The name I've heard is GigaBus.
I'm not so sure about this. I think the people who really benefit from MP systems are already aware of their benefits. "If you don't know what it is, then you don't need it."
Well, first of all, I don't buy that.
I've been through all of this, alas.
The amazing thing about the jump to the 970 is that even a 1.2GHz processor with a 600MHz front side bus is going to be able to better utilize the bandwidth provided by even DDR333 memory than the 167MHz SDR Maxbus in the current top-of-the-line Powermacs can... The G4s are definitely strangled by the Maxbus.
On the other hand, the memory subsystem will no longer be able to feed the CPU and every I/O subsystem simultaneously. It's definitely not a hard tradeoff to make, but there was something pretty about the idea that RAM could keep the entire motherboard busy at once.
Maybe Apple will go quad channel.