This jibes with what I've heard as well, but as I understand it, this motherboard has been unfortunately delayed, and a stop-gap DDR motherboard is what we'll see first. We shall see...</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>"I know full well that Apple has no need for a 64 bit chip, until of course someone walks into PC world and is confronted by a 3GHz P4, a '64 bit' 3600+ AMD, and a 1.6 GHz 32 bit G4 - which two of the three do you think will get sold first?"
Succinctly put.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pathetic, who cares what the other guys got, only kids play that game, grow up.
<strong>Oh moki, moki please give us some detail, and oh yeah btw AMBROSIA RULES and EV Nova is incredible and and...don't you think that's pathetic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funnily enough you were the only one I noticed who commented on Ambrosia software, EV Nova, which for some reason my ex loves, or his signature.
Maybe you are a little too focused on it.
[quote] It may not rely on 'bitness' now, but earlier on, the console marketing was completely reliant on how many bits the machines had. Do you not remember the 16 bit SNES, the 32 bit Saturn and PSX ('wow!'), the 64 bit N64 ('gasp!') and the 'first 128 bit console' the Dreamcast ('hold me back before I go and buy one of those processing monsters!')
All I am saying is that, come January (or even as soon as Xmas), Apple is going to get caught in a pincer movement, and as ZoSo says, will have to talk about the MHz myth and the 64-bit myth. I know full well that Apple has no need for a 64 bit chip, until of course someone walks into PC world and is confronted by a 3GHz P4, a '64 bit' 3600+ AMD, and a 1.6 GHz 32 bit G4 - which two of the three do you think will get sold first? <hr></blockquote>
If you remember correctly the Dreamcast and N64 were also both failures so marketing the bitness of the consoles didn't work in the least. At the end of the day people did look at what each package offered them.
People will buy whichever seems right. If you want to talk about pro systems then the people that buy those usually have some idea of what they are looking for and what they want. Inserting model numbers or bitness into the equation won't really effect them as most of those people will look beyond the facade.
Some people will have inbuilt reflexes that naturally reject Apple as the "art" or cult machines with more leaning to fashion than practicality. They really aren't so great a number. Most people looking at purchases in that field will at least let you make the case of what a Mac can do for them.
Now if you are talking about the general community the main three components to purchasing a computer for most people are: 1) What are other people saying, 2) What do I see when I walk down by my local shops and 3) Cost.
Apple can't really do much about 1) except get people actually noticing their products through some reasonable marketing. Also the integration of other electronic devices is a great move on Apple's part they just need a few more. 2) is being covered by opening more stores around the place and in fact numbers show vastly increased sales in the areas where new stores have opened. 3) is of questionable importance.
Low initial price points are important but Apple needs to get the message through that they offer more than just the box you would buy in a PC world. That and lower total life costs are what I would expect they go after enterprise with.
I know where I currently am we have a group of PCs and a group of macs. Around a third of the PCs are currently down (lousy IT staff are also largely to blame in this case) but the Macs run fine even with incompetent staff.
The complete package is what makes Apple such a strong platform and they need to go after that. All in all Apple really isn't in too bad a shape. I would like to see them move into the scientific and engineering computing sectors but I expect that will come. They also reall need to work on developers too but I expect that shall come too.
There has been some really good management decisions over at Apple of late and I would expect good results in the 2002/2003 financial year.
Well I'm sure Apple will come up with something -- be it Gigaflops or Photoshopmarks. A dual 1.5 GHz G4 can claim 24 GigaFlops, which sounds impressive if nobody else is quoting them. Actually it is impressive... if they can increase the memory bandwidth to feed the monster.
Okay, this idea came to me in a dream last night so it must be true (and yes, this proves I'm a geek):
The 7455's architectural design appears to be well modularized, in particular the memory subsystem is connected to the rest of the processor by a set of 3 internal buses which are 128 bits wide each. The e500 core is connected to the OCEAN by 3 128 bit wide internal buses. At this point you should be saying hmmm... This design isn't surprising because the PowerPC is a load/store RISC architecture where memory access is tightly controlled. There are a couple of other opportunities for "uncoupling" the 7455 core from the rest of the chip and attaching it to the new OCEAN fabric. This might not be an unreasonable thing to do during the 0.18 micron to 0.13 micron transition.
What if the 7500 is actually an 85xx design with the 7455's core attached in place of the e500? Why would you do such a thing? Well the 7455 core is better for the desktop than the 8450 core and it already exists. The 7455 would gain the RapidIO bus, on-chip memory controller, DMA engine, and any of the other system-on-chip devices that Apple might want.
And since it came in a dream you know it must be true.
[quote]There are a couple of other opportunities for "uncoupling" the 7455 core from the rest of the chip and attaching it to the new OCEAN fabric. This might not be an unreasonable thing to do during the 0.18 micron to 0.13 micron transition.<hr></blockquote>
Very interesting, maybe even planned. What would Apple call a speedbumped 7xxx OCEAN-ized CPU? G4? G5? Something else?
"And since it came in a dream you know it must be true."
HeHeHeHe ...
It's funny you know ... like 3 nights ago ... no joke ... i had a dream about apple releasing a IBM Power4 desktop chip with a "Velocity Engine" aka. ALTIVEC...
hmmm ... i wonder which one of our dreams will come true if any ...
noooooh please, don´t give us a stop gap-mobo!! well, or if there´s really no other choice than this, let´s at least have a through-the-line-powermac price drop of let´s say 1k. that would be fair , no? (btw: i don´t think that a stop gap-mobo would even have fw2 or usb2... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> ).
i still hope that this time we´ll get the "real deal"... and i´d consider a mobo described/confirmed by Dorsal/moki being one "real deal" (even if it´s not a true G5 7500/8500 whatever)
"The 7455's architectural design appears to be well modularized, in particular the memory subsystem is connected to the rest of the processor by a set of 3 internal buses which are 128 bits wide each. The e500 core is connected to the OCEAN by 3 128 bit wide internal buses. At this point you should be saying hmmm... This design isn't surprising because the PowerPC is a load/store RISC architecture where memory access is tightly controlled. There are a couple of other opportunities for "uncoupling" the 7455 core from the rest of the chip and attaching it to the new OCEAN fabric. This might not be an unreasonable thing to do during the 0.18 micron to 0.13 micron transition.
What if the 7500 is actually an 85xx design with the 7455's core attached in place of the e500? Why would you do such a thing? Well the 7455 core is better for the desktop than the 8450 core and it already exists. The 7455 would gain the RapidIO bus, on-chip memory controller, DMA engine, and any of the other system-on-chip devices that Apple might want."
Isn't this what the Register said a while back? That this would be out San Fran next year according to their 'sources'?
A Rio G4. ie a G4 engineered to take on board modular components in superior architecture. Could this 'uncoupled' core take on an extra fpu? G4 core in superior architecture = 7500? Worthy of name change 'G5' (32 bit version?)
But how does that become 64 bit afterwards? Is that where IBM steps in?
Lemon Bon Bon
big C(!) (It's called 'progress'. Consumers like that sorta thing...)
I wasn't making that up, I've personally seen and read posts that sounded pretty much identical to what I called pathetic.
I'm just trying to keep things at a certain level here, were everyone is on roughly the same level, without some personality cult that doesn't belong here. (that belongs into ASWs own forums).
[QB]Isn't this what the Register said a while back? That this would be out San Fran next year according to their 'sources'?
A Rio G4. ie a G4 engineered to take on board modular components in superior architecture. Could this 'uncoupled' core take on an extra fpu? G4 core in superior architecture = 7500? Worthy of name change 'G5' (32 bit version?)
But how does that become 64 bit afterwards? Is that where IBM steps in?
QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yes, the 7500 that the TheRegister described does sound like what this 7455 core + OCEAN hybrid would be but they didn't really have any details on how it would be designed. Adding an FPU to the 7455 core would be independent of attaching it to OCEAN. I wouldn't object to calling it a G5, given the radical change in how it fits into the system. Replacing the core becomes much easier at this point since the interface to the rest of the chip is well defined and (I presume) clean. Adding multiple cores also becomes much more straightforward.
It'll be interesting to see if their timeline was correct or not.
<strong>noooooh please, don´t give us a stop gap-mobo!! well, or if there´s really no other choice than this, let´s at least have a through-the-line-powermac price drop of let´s say 1k. that would be fair , no? (btw: i don´t think that a stop gap-mobo would even have fw2 or usb2... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> ).
i still hope that this time we´ll get the "real deal"... and i´d consider a mobo described/confirmed by Dorsal/moki being one "real deal" (even if it´s not a true G5 7500/8500 whatever)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't really need a new, faster Mac. I'd just want a new, faster Mac. Considering that I'm still getting along quite well with my TiBook 800 for the work I do, the only thing that will motivate me to buy a new PowerMac is a significant performance jump.
Let's face it, for many of us the desire for a hot new toy comes first. Often justifying how said toy will increase our productivity is an afterthought
I don't think an Xserve-style DDR hack for the PowerMac would impress me enough to inspire a new purchase. Only if and when the next PowerMac is in the 1.4-1.5 GHz range with true DDR will I be overcome by technolust and buy a new system. If Apple takes too long getting to that point, then they'll have even further to go to make people impressed performance-wise.
One reason I'd most be interested in seeing a speed boost is for my own Java astronomy software (<a href="http://www.skyviewcafe.com"; target="_blank">Sky View Cafe</a>). On my old 1.1 GHz AMD system, I get impressively smooth, fluid animation by quickly spinning the clock on the sky map a minute at a time. But my TiBook, or even dual gig PowerMacs I've tried, produce noticeably more sluggish and jerky animation. I don't know how much of this is a matter of processor speed, hardware video acceleration, or JVM performance, but certainly a more powerful PowerMac can only help.
Besides wanting a faster PowerMac for my own personal reasons, even more I want there to be a faster PowerMac because I want Apple to be gaining market share, not losing it. I want something out there to truly impress the PC crowd and draw a few more percentage points away from Wintel systems, so that all of us Mac users can benefit from the increased software support and availability that bigger market share would bring.
<strong>Well I'm sure Apple will come up with something -- be it Gigaflops or Photoshopmarks. A dual 1.5 GHz G4 can claim 24 GigaFlops, which sounds impressive if nobody else is quoting them. Actually it is impressive... if they can increase the memory bandwidth to feed the monster.
Okay, this idea came to me in a dream last night so it must be true (and yes, this proves I'm a geek):
The 7455's architectural design appears to be well modularized, in particular the memory subsystem is connected to the rest of the processor by a set of 3 internal buses which are 128 bits wide each. The e500 core is connected to the OCEAN by 3 128 bit wide internal buses. At this point you should be saying hmmm... This design isn't surprising because the PowerPC is a load/store RISC architecture where memory access is tightly controlled. There are a couple of other opportunities for "uncoupling" the 7455 core from the rest of the chip and attaching it to the new OCEAN fabric. This might not be an unreasonable thing to do during the 0.18 micron to 0.13 micron transition.
What if the 7500 is actually an 85xx design with the 7455's core attached in place of the e500? Why would you do such a thing? Well the 7455 core is better for the desktop than the 8450 core and it already exists. The 7455 would gain the RapidIO bus, on-chip memory controller, DMA engine, and any of the other system-on-chip devices that Apple might want.
And since it came in a dream you know it must be true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting idea, but don't you think that the 7455 core is not enough pipelined in order to increase his clock frequency in the future ?
I know that the only important thing is the performance and not the mhz myth, but if a 10 % loss of performance per mhz is balanced by a 30 % increase of the frequency, it's worth to make the pipeline longer.
To your advice what will be the maximum frequency of the 7455 core on a 0,13 SOI process ?
Interesting idea, but don't you think that the 7455 core is not enough pipelined in order to increase his clock frequency in the future ?
I know that the only important thing is the performance and not the mhz myth, but if a 10 % loss of performance per mhz is balanced by a 30 % increase of the frequency, it's worth to make the pipeline longer.
To your advice what will be the maximum frequency of the 7455 core on a 0,13 SOI process ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Motorola has already said it expects the G4 to scale to 1.8 GHz. Unshackled by bandwidth problems it should really fly. And there is another core coming, this would just be a short term solution to fix the bandwidth problem.
[quote]Apple today revised its guidance for the financial quarter ending this June. The company anticipates seeing revenues of US$1.4 to $1.45 billion for the quarter, down from previous guidance of about $1.6 billion.
The company cited soft demand in the consumer and creative markets as reasons for the low numbers. Europe and Japan have been particularly weak, according to Apple.
If there's a silver lining here, it's that Apple remains profitable despite the shortfall. Apple has revised earnings guidance to $.08 to $.10 per diluted share, compared to $.11 previously suggested.
Apple CEO Steve Jobs noted that like others in the computer industry, Apple is experiencing a slowdown. "We've got some amazing new products in development, so we're excited about the year ahead," said Jobs. "As one of the few companies currently making a profit in the PC business, we remain very optimistic about Apple's prospects for long-term growth."
<hr></blockquote>
That was from MacCentral.
I wonder if this gives credibility to the rumor that things are NOT ready for the next-big-thing in the PowerMac line... that the "Plan-B" solution is what will be released, and Apple knows that the graphics market won't "bite" until the Big guns come-out.
Motorola has already said it expects the G4 to scale to 1.8 GHz. Unshackled by bandwidth problems it should really fly. And there is another core coming, this would just be a short term solution to fix the bandwidth problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it is only a short term solution i agree with it.
Well, considering that the warning was for the quarter that ends in June, I'd have to say that this really has no insight what-so-ever to MWNY releases.
Even the "we've got great stuff in the pipeline" quote was standard marketing PR and contains no useful information.
Comments
They do everything in their power to steer you away from Apple anyway, guess it was a bad example.
<strong>
This jibes with what I've heard as well, but as I understand it, this motherboard has been unfortunately delayed, and a stop-gap DDR motherboard is what we'll see first. We shall see...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yikes!!!
<strong>"I know full well that Apple has no need for a 64 bit chip, until of course someone walks into PC world and is confronted by a 3GHz P4, a '64 bit' 3600+ AMD, and a 1.6 GHz 32 bit G4 - which two of the three do you think will get sold first?"
Succinctly put.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pathetic, who cares what the other guys got, only kids play that game, grow up.
If there is no benefit why have it.
<strong>Oh moki, moki please give us some detail, and oh yeah btw AMBROSIA RULES and EV Nova is incredible and and...don't you think that's pathetic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funnily enough you were the only one I noticed who commented on Ambrosia software, EV Nova, which for some reason my ex loves, or his signature.
Maybe you are a little too focused on it.
[quote] It may not rely on 'bitness' now, but earlier on, the console marketing was completely reliant on how many bits the machines had. Do you not remember the 16 bit SNES, the 32 bit Saturn and PSX ('wow!'), the 64 bit N64 ('gasp!') and the 'first 128 bit console' the Dreamcast ('hold me back before I go and buy one of those processing monsters!')
All I am saying is that, come January (or even as soon as Xmas), Apple is going to get caught in a pincer movement, and as ZoSo says, will have to talk about the MHz myth and the 64-bit myth. I know full well that Apple has no need for a 64 bit chip, until of course someone walks into PC world and is confronted by a 3GHz P4, a '64 bit' 3600+ AMD, and a 1.6 GHz 32 bit G4 - which two of the three do you think will get sold first? <hr></blockquote>
If you remember correctly the Dreamcast and N64 were also both failures so marketing the bitness of the consoles didn't work in the least. At the end of the day people did look at what each package offered them.
People will buy whichever seems right. If you want to talk about pro systems then the people that buy those usually have some idea of what they are looking for and what they want. Inserting model numbers or bitness into the equation won't really effect them as most of those people will look beyond the facade.
Some people will have inbuilt reflexes that naturally reject Apple as the "art" or cult machines with more leaning to fashion than practicality. They really aren't so great a number. Most people looking at purchases in that field will at least let you make the case of what a Mac can do for them.
Now if you are talking about the general community the main three components to purchasing a computer for most people are: 1) What are other people saying, 2) What do I see when I walk down by my local shops and 3) Cost.
Apple can't really do much about 1) except get people actually noticing their products through some reasonable marketing. Also the integration of other electronic devices is a great move on Apple's part they just need a few more. 2) is being covered by opening more stores around the place and in fact numbers show vastly increased sales in the areas where new stores have opened. 3) is of questionable importance.
Low initial price points are important but Apple needs to get the message through that they offer more than just the box you would buy in a PC world. That and lower total life costs are what I would expect they go after enterprise with.
I know where I currently am we have a group of PCs and a group of macs. Around a third of the PCs are currently down (lousy IT staff are also largely to blame in this case) but the Macs run fine even with incompetent staff.
The complete package is what makes Apple such a strong platform and they need to go after that. All in all Apple really isn't in too bad a shape. I would like to see them move into the scientific and engineering computing sectors but I expect that will come. They also reall need to work on developers too but I expect that shall come too.
There has been some really good management decisions over at Apple of late and I would expect good results in the 2002/2003 financial year.
Okay, this idea came to me in a dream last night so it must be true (and yes, this proves I'm a geek):
The 7455's architectural design appears to be well modularized, in particular the memory subsystem is connected to the rest of the processor by a set of 3 internal buses which are 128 bits wide each. The e500 core is connected to the OCEAN by 3 128 bit wide internal buses. At this point you should be saying hmmm... This design isn't surprising because the PowerPC is a load/store RISC architecture where memory access is tightly controlled. There are a couple of other opportunities for "uncoupling" the 7455 core from the rest of the chip and attaching it to the new OCEAN fabric. This might not be an unreasonable thing to do during the 0.18 micron to 0.13 micron transition.
What if the 7500 is actually an 85xx design with the 7455's core attached in place of the e500? Why would you do such a thing? Well the 7455 core is better for the desktop than the 8450 core and it already exists. The 7455 would gain the RapidIO bus, on-chip memory controller, DMA engine, and any of the other system-on-chip devices that Apple might want.
And since it came in a dream you know it must be true.
Very interesting, maybe even planned.
"And since it came in a dream you know it must be true."
HeHeHeHe ...
It's funny you know ... like 3 nights ago ... no joke ... i had a dream about apple releasing a IBM Power4 desktop chip with a "Velocity Engine" aka. ALTIVEC...
hmmm ... i wonder which one of our dreams will come true if any ...
Let the battle of the prophecies begin
Pathetic, who cares what the other guys got, only kids play that game, grow up.<hr></blockquote>
Meeow! It is a good job that you aren't the CEO of Apple, or else they would have gone under long ago.
Why don't you check out Telomar's salient and informed response and come back to me.
And Telomar, I agree with what you say, but consumers are consumers and they will buy anything. I just want Apple to try and reclaim some of the 95%.
i still hope that this time we´ll get the "real deal"... and i´d consider a mobo described/confirmed by Dorsal/moki being one "real deal" (even if it´s not a true G5 7500/8500 whatever)
What if the 7500 is actually an 85xx design with the 7455's core attached in place of the e500? Why would you do such a thing? Well the 7455 core is better for the desktop than the 8450 core and it already exists. The 7455 would gain the RapidIO bus, on-chip memory controller, DMA engine, and any of the other system-on-chip devices that Apple might want."
Isn't this what the Register said a while back? That this would be out San Fran next year according to their 'sources'?
A Rio G4. ie a G4 engineered to take on board modular components in superior architecture. Could this 'uncoupled' core take on an extra fpu? G4 core in superior architecture = 7500? Worthy of name change 'G5' (32 bit version?)
But how does that become 64 bit afterwards? Is that where IBM steps in?
Lemon Bon Bon
big C(!) (It's called 'progress'. Consumers like that sorta thing...)
I'm just trying to keep things at a certain level here, were everyone is on roughly the same level, without some personality cult that doesn't belong here. (that belongs into ASWs own forums).
G-News
[QB]Isn't this what the Register said a while back? That this would be out San Fran next year according to their 'sources'?
A Rio G4. ie a G4 engineered to take on board modular components in superior architecture. Could this 'uncoupled' core take on an extra fpu? G4 core in superior architecture = 7500? Worthy of name change 'G5' (32 bit version?)
But how does that become 64 bit afterwards? Is that where IBM steps in?
QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yes, the 7500 that the TheRegister described does sound like what this 7455 core + OCEAN hybrid would be but they didn't really have any details on how it would be designed. Adding an FPU to the 7455 core would be independent of attaching it to OCEAN. I wouldn't object to calling it a G5, given the radical change in how it fits into the system. Replacing the core becomes much easier at this point since the interface to the rest of the chip is well defined and (I presume) clean. Adding multiple cores also becomes much more straightforward.
It'll be interesting to see if their timeline was correct or not.
<strong>noooooh please, don´t give us a stop gap-mobo!! well, or if there´s really no other choice than this, let´s at least have a through-the-line-powermac price drop of let´s say 1k. that would be fair , no?
i still hope that this time we´ll get the "real deal"... and i´d consider a mobo described/confirmed by Dorsal/moki being one "real deal" (even if it´s not a true G5 7500/8500 whatever)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't really need a new, faster Mac. I'd just want a new, faster Mac. Considering that I'm still getting along quite well with my TiBook 800 for the work I do, the only thing that will motivate me to buy a new PowerMac is a significant performance jump.
Let's face it, for many of us the desire for a hot new toy comes first. Often justifying how said toy will increase our productivity is an afterthought
I don't think an Xserve-style DDR hack for the PowerMac would impress me enough to inspire a new purchase. Only if and when the next PowerMac is in the 1.4-1.5 GHz range with true DDR will I be overcome by technolust and buy a new system. If Apple takes too long getting to that point, then they'll have even further to go to make people impressed performance-wise.
One reason I'd most be interested in seeing a speed boost is for my own Java astronomy software (<a href="http://www.skyviewcafe.com"; target="_blank">Sky View Cafe</a>). On my old 1.1 GHz AMD system, I get impressively smooth, fluid animation by quickly spinning the clock on the sky map a minute at a time. But my TiBook, or even dual gig PowerMacs I've tried, produce noticeably more sluggish and jerky animation. I don't know how much of this is a matter of processor speed, hardware video acceleration, or JVM performance, but certainly a more powerful PowerMac can only help.
Besides wanting a faster PowerMac for my own personal reasons, even more I want there to be a faster PowerMac because I want Apple to be gaining market share, not losing it. I want something out there to truly impress the PC crowd and draw a few more percentage points away from Wintel systems, so that all of us Mac users can benefit from the increased software support and availability that bigger market share would bring.
I agree with everything you said there.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Well I'm sure Apple will come up with something -- be it Gigaflops or Photoshopmarks. A dual 1.5 GHz G4 can claim 24 GigaFlops, which sounds impressive if nobody else is quoting them.
Okay, this idea came to me in a dream last night so it must be true (and yes, this proves I'm a geek):
The 7455's architectural design appears to be well modularized, in particular the memory subsystem is connected to the rest of the processor by a set of 3 internal buses which are 128 bits wide each. The e500 core is connected to the OCEAN by 3 128 bit wide internal buses. At this point you should be saying hmmm... This design isn't surprising because the PowerPC is a load/store RISC architecture where memory access is tightly controlled. There are a couple of other opportunities for "uncoupling" the 7455 core from the rest of the chip and attaching it to the new OCEAN fabric. This might not be an unreasonable thing to do during the 0.18 micron to 0.13 micron transition.
What if the 7500 is actually an 85xx design with the 7455's core attached in place of the e500? Why would you do such a thing? Well the 7455 core is better for the desktop than the 8450 core and it already exists. The 7455 would gain the RapidIO bus, on-chip memory controller, DMA engine, and any of the other system-on-chip devices that Apple might want.
And since it came in a dream you know it must be true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting idea, but don't you think that the 7455 core is not enough pipelined in order to increase his clock frequency in the future ?
I know that the only important thing is the performance and not the mhz myth, but if a 10 % loss of performance per mhz is balanced by a 30 % increase of the frequency, it's worth to make the pipeline longer.
To your advice what will be the maximum frequency of the 7455 core on a 0,13 SOI process ?
<strong>
Interesting idea, but don't you think that the 7455 core is not enough pipelined in order to increase his clock frequency in the future ?
I know that the only important thing is the performance and not the mhz myth, but if a 10 % loss of performance per mhz is balanced by a 30 % increase of the frequency, it's worth to make the pipeline longer.
To your advice what will be the maximum frequency of the 7455 core on a 0,13 SOI process ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Motorola has already said it expects the G4 to scale to 1.8 GHz. Unshackled by bandwidth problems it should really fly. And there is another core coming, this would just be a short term solution to fix the bandwidth problem.
The company cited soft demand in the consumer and creative markets as reasons for the low numbers. Europe and Japan have been particularly weak, according to Apple.
If there's a silver lining here, it's that Apple remains profitable despite the shortfall. Apple has revised earnings guidance to $.08 to $.10 per diluted share, compared to $.11 previously suggested.
Apple CEO Steve Jobs noted that like others in the computer industry, Apple is experiencing a slowdown. "We've got some amazing new products in development, so we're excited about the year ahead," said Jobs. "As one of the few companies currently making a profit in the PC business, we remain very optimistic about Apple's prospects for long-term growth."
<hr></blockquote>
That was from MacCentral.
I wonder if this gives credibility to the rumor that things are NOT ready for the next-big-thing in the PowerMac line... that the "Plan-B" solution is what will be released, and Apple knows that the graphics market won't "bite" until the Big guns come-out.
I dunno... just looking for a connection.
<strong>
Motorola has already said it expects the G4 to scale to 1.8 GHz. Unshackled by bandwidth problems it should really fly. And there is another core coming, this would just be a short term solution to fix the bandwidth problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it is only a short term solution i agree with it.
Even the "we've got great stuff in the pipeline" quote was standard marketing PR and contains no useful information.