IBM should be able to squeeze 2.4 or 2.5 GHz out of 130 nm 970 chips. If AMD can squeeze 2.3 GHz Athlons and 2.0 GHz Opterons out of a 130 nm fab, IBM should be able to get 2.4 GHz minimum out of the more deeply pipelined 970.
So I'm thinking it would be 2.5 GHz top line announce in January, shipping in February or March. Then, 90 nm 970-based machines announced August and shipping in September.
Year of the laptop? It was about sales. That point being said, I think Apple needs to have 4 notebook lines instead of two: low-end, mid-range, high-end, and ultra-light notebooks. If laptops are going to be the majority of computers sold, it's probably a good idea to have lots of lines to fulfill everyone's desires.
I also see no reason for an intermediate update. 12 months from June puts it 9 months after the 2GHz ships, and 9 months is not too long for a product update cycle- especially for a rev. A product.
IF they can make the 3Ghz PowerMac by July/August next year, it would only leave 4 months (or less) sales for the intermediate revision. And as everyone has been told about the 3Ghz models, why would anyone buy models that they know will be obsolete in 4 months?
If you and the others are right about this, I'll gladly owe you beers . I honestly don't see it happening, though, since there's no precedent whatsoever for such a dramatic bump. If there's no bump to 2 and-a-half GHz by MWSF, then I sincerely doubt we'll see 3GHz in July.
The timetable does work out, too. The DP2GHz will be shipping in quantity by October (hopefully). MWSF we'll see the intermediate bump, and those machines will ship immediately after announcement, like revisions to the G4 have. (If Apple weren't so secretive with each major product launch, we wouldn't have to suffer such prolonged delays.) Then we'll be ready for the 3GHz bump seven months later at WWDC.
The biggest single jump in MHz (in recent times) came when Intel went from the PIII to the PIV (running at a top speed of 1.4GHz). That wasn't a 1GHz increase, and we haven't seen anything close since.
MWSF: 2.3 or 2.4Ghz towers announced, shipping in feb. Quad-pumped DDR.
1.4 - 1.8Ghz Powerbooks announced, shipping in feb.
Seibold 2004: 2.6 - 3.0 Ghz shipping immediately or until october and based on a 90nm process. Double L2 cache, introduces L3 cache to avoid having to move to some completely insane DDR speed.
If you and the others are right about this, I'll gladly owe you beers . I honestly don't see it happening, though, since there's no precedent whatsoever for such a dramatic bump. If there's no bump to 2 and-a-half GHz by MWSF, then I sincerely doubt we'll see 3GHz in July.
Well, I don't think you can go by sheer MHz increase, you have to look at % of increase. The Mac just went from 1.42 to 2.0, an increase of 40%. So a jump from 2.0 to 2.8 would be the 'same' relative jump.
However, I agree with you that there will most likely be a bump, perhaps to 2.4, I would guess sometime shortly after MWSF. Then sometime late next year (Steve's 'in a year' could have just meant 'next year' as in anytime before the end of 2004 they can be announced) we'll see 3.0 hit.
Whether IBM has chips running at 3GHz by June 2004 is not at issue. They probably will.
Will Apple customers be able to walk into an Apple Store and walk out with a 3GHz PowerMac in June 2004? I'd give that less than 5% probability.
I'd say there's about an even chance that you'll be able to buy a 3GHz PowerMac off the shelf ... in June 2005.
We've obviously gotten accustomed to the rate of progress @ MOTO...c'mon, we're talkin' IBM here now, and Apple won't sit on new faster chips for a year.
A few things. The keynote said that we will be at 3 GHz in a year. That doesn't exactly mean that they will be shipping then. The statement could simply mean that they will have a few machines running at 3 GHz, which they probably have received close to that in IBM's 90 nm test batch. I think they will have shippable quantities of 3 GHz chips by the next July, but the keynote didn't actually say that.
With regards to the speed bumps. That depends a lot on when IBM starts to introduce their linux based 970 systems. I am sure that Apple has an agreement for the 970 chips, that they get the fastest CPUs first.
IBM has a vested interest in shipping the fastest 970's as they are made, I doubt that they are willing to wait around for Apple's traditionally slow update schedules. The update intervals were never a problem with Motorola, since they were never able to achieve rapid speed rampups. This will not be the case with IBM.
This is a real opportunity for Apple to have even higher margins on their systems. They should follow Dell/Intel's marketing example. Apple should offer the faster CPUs BTO as they become available (of coursed for an added premium). This means that IBM doesn't have to sit on any faster CPUs and we don't have to wait for Apple to update things. Then, when the yields are high enough Apple bumps the entire line.
Steve said this case has room to grow in his keynote. My only question is how fast of a CPU (taking in account FSB/memory speed) can this motherboard design actually handle?
I agree with the sentiment that we've been brain-washed into thinking that a 10% speedbump every 9 months is a God-send. I don't foresee 9-month updates for much longer. I would imagine the timeframe to be made substantially smaller - say 6 months.
Steve said this case has room to grow in his keynote. My only question is how fast of a CPU (taking in account FSB/memory speed) can this motherboard design actually handle?
I doubt we will see higher RAM speeds in the next revision. It is hard enough getting 1GB modules of PC3200, and even in 6-9 months, I can't see it ccoming down to a sensible price. I think performance from a system with 4GB of PC3200 will be better for most things a high-end Mac is used for than 1GB of new speedy RAM (that will cost the same as the 4GB).
As for the FSB (from Ars Technica): "Peter Sandon: The processor design itself supports several ratios. The one that Apple announced was a 2:1 ratio. And the processor supports at least 3, 4 and 6 as other ratios."
I doubt we will see a 2x bus multiplier on the 3Ghz, I think they will stay with the 1GHz bus and increase the multiplier to 3x.
First glance at this thread had me thinking that Giga was right ... that thered be no bumps till 3 gig ( for various previously mentioned reasons) ....
After a little thinking though, I think there will be one speed bump between 2G and 3G .... otherwise , when they come out with 3G, the next step down would be the 2G and that just seems like too big of a gap. So some time before 3G, i think we'll see something around 2.5.
I also see no reason for an intermediate update. 12 months from June puts it 9 months after the 2GHz ships, and 9 months is not too long for a product update cycle- especially for a rev. A product.
IF they can make the 3Ghz PowerMac by July/August next year, it would only leave 4 months (or less) sales for the intermediate revision. And as everyone has been told about the 3Ghz models, why would anyone buy models that they know will be obsolete in 4 months?
of course apple will switch in new and better cpus as soon as they are available... the system architecture is ideal for this. apple did this today with the iPod and will do so again as soon as there are 50G harddisks in this size... also: the PPC970 with 2GHz dual is fast, but a dual 2.5GHz is much faster... do you think apple will allow intel to come closer with faster pentiums if they (apple) have 2.5GHz 970s on their hands? further on this will give apple the opportunity to offer 2GHz single as low end !!! ... apple will do this you can bet on it...
Whether IBM has chips running at 3GHz by June 2004 is not at issue. They probably will.
Will Apple customers be able to walk into an Apple Store and walk out with a 3GHz PowerMac in June 2004? I'd give that less than 5% probability.
I'd say there's about an even chance that you'll be able to buy a 3GHz PowerMac off the shelf ... in June 2005.
Well let's think a bit more logically here.
You can't just consider the G5s as the only product line they're updating currently.
With the shortage of G4 procs for the PBs, I think the *best* possible estimation is as follows:
MWSF: PB updates to 1.25 and 1.4-1.5
ADC: 2.4, DP/SP 2.6, DP 3, shipping late 2004
Based on a current and logical assessment of Apple's typical turnarounds, and based up on the recent activity they've shown in terms of both updates and/or promises for revisions, there should NOT be a midrange update between now and next year.
Just a thought but the most logical one I can think of atm.
I doubt we will see higher RAM speeds in the next revision. It is hard enough getting 1GB modules of PC3200, and even in 6-9 months, I can't see it ccoming down to a sensible price. I think performance from a system with 4GB of PC3200 will be better for most things a high-end Mac is used for than 1GB of new speedy RAM (that will cost the same as the 4GB).
As for the FSB (from Ars Technica): "Peter Sandon: The processor design itself supports several ratios. The one that Apple announced was a 2:1 ratio. And the processor supports at least 3, 4 and 6 as other ratios."
I doubt we will see a 2x bus multiplier on the 3Ghz, I think they will stay with the 1GHz bus and increase the multiplier to 3x.
Wonder if they can get a 2.5 bus multiplier to keep at 1 GHz FSB and 2.5GHz chip? Cant' see them jumping to 3 GHz on 0.13µ.¿!
I can't see them making a new MB already unless the existing one gets slimmed down for the iMacs and PB's.
Is there any reason why we assume that the system controller Apple built was designed to stop at a FSB @ 1 GHz? Since it supports .8, .9 and 1 GHz already I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be able to do 1.25 GHz either.. or even 1.5 GHz. The speed of the FSB seems to be of little concern to the speed of the RAM or the graphics bus. They are on separate busses with the system controller acting like a switch between. The FSB is supposed to be elastic so I guess the system controller is built to handle this.
If Apple did their homework they might even have prepared for faster RAM too. Why stop at DDR400 MHz?
Comments
So I'm thinking it would be 2.5 GHz top line announce in January, shipping in February or March. Then, 90 nm 970-based machines announced August and shipping in September.
Year of the laptop? It was about sales. That point being said, I think Apple needs to have 4 notebook lines instead of two: low-end, mid-range, high-end, and ultra-light notebooks. If laptops are going to be the majority of computers sold, it's probably a good idea to have lots of lines to fulfill everyone's desires.
Originally posted by AngryAngel
I also see no reason for an intermediate update. 12 months from June puts it 9 months after the 2GHz ships, and 9 months is not too long for a product update cycle- especially for a rev. A product.
IF they can make the 3Ghz PowerMac by July/August next year, it would only leave 4 months (or less) sales for the intermediate revision. And as everyone has been told about the 3Ghz models, why would anyone buy models that they know will be obsolete in 4 months?
If you and the others are right about this, I'll gladly owe you beers
The timetable does work out, too. The DP2GHz will be shipping in quantity by October (hopefully). MWSF we'll see the intermediate bump, and those machines will ship immediately after announcement, like revisions to the G4 have. (If Apple weren't so secretive with each major product launch, we wouldn't have to suffer such prolonged delays.) Then we'll be ready for the 3GHz bump seven months later at WWDC.
The biggest single jump in MHz (in recent times) came when Intel went from the PIII to the PIV (running at a top speed of 1.4GHz). That wasn't a 1GHz increase, and we haven't seen anything close since.
MWSF: 2.3 or 2.4Ghz towers announced, shipping in feb. Quad-pumped DDR.
1.4 - 1.8Ghz Powerbooks announced, shipping in feb.
Seibold 2004: 2.6 - 3.0 Ghz shipping immediately or until october and based on a 90nm process. Double L2 cache, introduces L3 cache to avoid having to move to some completely insane DDR speed.
Originally posted by Big Mac
If you and the others are right about this, I'll gladly owe you beers
Well, I don't think you can go by sheer MHz increase, you have to look at % of increase. The Mac just went from 1.42 to 2.0, an increase of 40%. So a jump from 2.0 to 2.8 would be the 'same' relative jump.
However, I agree with you that there will most likely be a bump, perhaps to 2.4, I would guess sometime shortly after MWSF. Then sometime late next year (Steve's 'in a year' could have just meant 'next year' as in anytime before the end of 2004 they can be announced) we'll see 3.0 hit.
Will Apple customers be able to walk into an Apple Store and walk out with a 3GHz PowerMac in June 2004? I'd give that less than 5% probability.
I'd say there's about an even chance that you'll be able to buy a 3GHz PowerMac off the shelf ... in June 2005.
Originally posted by cubist
Whether IBM has chips running at 3GHz by June 2004 is not at issue. They probably will.
Will Apple customers be able to walk into an Apple Store and walk out with a 3GHz PowerMac in June 2004? I'd give that less than 5% probability.
I'd say there's about an even chance that you'll be able to buy a 3GHz PowerMac off the shelf ... in June 2005.
We've obviously gotten accustomed to the rate of progress @ MOTO...c'mon, we're talkin' IBM here now, and Apple won't sit on new faster chips for a year.
Bring on the dual or quad 3GHz G5+
With regards to the speed bumps. That depends a lot on when IBM starts to introduce their linux based 970 systems. I am sure that Apple has an agreement for the 970 chips, that they get the fastest CPUs first.
IBM has a vested interest in shipping the fastest 970's as they are made, I doubt that they are willing to wait around for Apple's traditionally slow update schedules. The update intervals were never a problem with Motorola, since they were never able to achieve rapid speed rampups. This will not be the case with IBM.
This is a real opportunity for Apple to have even higher margins on their systems. They should follow Dell/Intel's marketing example. Apple should offer the faster CPUs BTO as they become available (of coursed for an added premium). This means that IBM doesn't have to sit on any faster CPUs and we don't have to wait for Apple to update things. Then, when the yields are high enough Apple bumps the entire line.
Steve said this case has room to grow in his keynote. My only question is how fast of a CPU (taking in account FSB/memory speed) can this motherboard design actually handle?
Opus...
2 updates a year is pretty great IMO
3 would be jaw-dropping
G
Originally posted by opus
Steve said this case has room to grow in his keynote. My only question is how fast of a CPU (taking in account FSB/memory speed) can this motherboard design actually handle?
I doubt we will see higher RAM speeds in the next revision. It is hard enough getting 1GB modules of PC3200, and even in 6-9 months, I can't see it ccoming down to a sensible price. I think performance from a system with 4GB of PC3200 will be better for most things a high-end Mac is used for than 1GB of new speedy RAM (that will cost the same as the 4GB).
As for the FSB (from Ars Technica): "Peter Sandon: The processor design itself supports several ratios. The one that Apple announced was a 2:1 ratio. And the processor supports at least 3, 4 and 6 as other ratios."
I doubt we will see a 2x bus multiplier on the 3Ghz, I think they will stay with the 1GHz bus and increase the multiplier to 3x.
Originally posted by Henriok
And in that respect I think he well be proven wrong for the development of 970+
moore is lame
After a little thinking though, I think there will be one speed bump between 2G and 3G .... otherwise , when they come out with 3G, the next step down would be the 2G and that just seems like too big of a gap. So some time before 3G, i think we'll see something around 2.5.
In any case, it sounds reasonable to me.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
.... otherwise , when they come out with 3G, the next step down would be the 2G and that just seems like too big of a gap
What is stopping them from releasing a line-up with intermediates?
I expect the Rev. B to come next Summer with: Single 2.0, dual 2.5, dual 3.0, all with 1GHz FSB and PC3200 RAM (still).
Originally posted by AngryAngel
I also see no reason for an intermediate update. 12 months from June puts it 9 months after the 2GHz ships, and 9 months is not too long for a product update cycle- especially for a rev. A product.
IF they can make the 3Ghz PowerMac by July/August next year, it would only leave 4 months (or less) sales for the intermediate revision. And as everyone has been told about the 3Ghz models, why would anyone buy models that they know will be obsolete in 4 months?
of course apple will switch in new and better cpus as soon as they are available... the system architecture is ideal for this. apple did this today with the iPod and will do so again as soon as there are 50G harddisks in this size... also: the PPC970 with 2GHz dual is fast, but a dual 2.5GHz is much faster... do you think apple will allow intel to come closer with faster pentiums if they (apple) have 2.5GHz 970s on their hands? further on this will give apple the opportunity to offer 2GHz single as low end !!! ... apple will do this you can bet on it...
Originally posted by cubist
Whether IBM has chips running at 3GHz by June 2004 is not at issue. They probably will.
Will Apple customers be able to walk into an Apple Store and walk out with a 3GHz PowerMac in June 2004? I'd give that less than 5% probability.
I'd say there's about an even chance that you'll be able to buy a 3GHz PowerMac off the shelf ... in June 2005.
Well let's think a bit more logically here.
You can't just consider the G5s as the only product line they're updating currently.
With the shortage of G4 procs for the PBs, I think the *best* possible estimation is as follows:
MWSF: PB updates to 1.25 and 1.4-1.5
ADC: 2.4, DP/SP 2.6, DP 3, shipping late 2004
Based on a current and logical assessment of Apple's typical turnarounds, and based up on the recent activity they've shown in terms of both updates and/or promises for revisions, there should NOT be a midrange update between now and next year.
Just a thought but the most logical one I can think of atm.
MW Tokyo: Single 2GHz, Dual 2GHz, Dual 2.5GHz
September 2004: Single 2.5GHz, Dual 2.5GHz, Dual 3GHz
All systems have DDR2-RAM and "available today"
I'm sure i'm right
Bye
Then announces new G5 (3.0) in Jun/July04 shipping in August 04
I also say steve will announce the first G5 Powerbook Feb 04 and will ship in march of 04
I will bet by jun/jul 04 steve has announced an G5 iMac(2.0)
just my guess.
Originally posted by AngryAngel
I doubt we will see higher RAM speeds in the next revision. It is hard enough getting 1GB modules of PC3200, and even in 6-9 months, I can't see it ccoming down to a sensible price. I think performance from a system with 4GB of PC3200 will be better for most things a high-end Mac is used for than 1GB of new speedy RAM (that will cost the same as the 4GB).
As for the FSB (from Ars Technica): "Peter Sandon: The processor design itself supports several ratios. The one that Apple announced was a 2:1 ratio. And the processor supports at least 3, 4 and 6 as other ratios."
I doubt we will see a 2x bus multiplier on the 3Ghz, I think they will stay with the 1GHz bus and increase the multiplier to 3x.
Wonder if they can get a 2.5 bus multiplier to keep at 1 GHz FSB and 2.5GHz chip? Cant' see them jumping to 3 GHz on 0.13µ.¿!
I can't see them making a new MB already unless the existing one gets slimmed down for the iMacs and PB's.
If Apple did their homework they might even have prepared for faster RAM too. Why stop at DDR400 MHz?
Originally posted by Henriok
Why stop at DDR400 MHz?
Because anything faster is MUCH more expensive. It is better to have 4x as much RAM, than 1.5x the speed for the same price.