New g4 specs & info

kidredkidred
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
From <a href="http://www.railheaddesign.com"; target="_blank">http://www.railheaddesign.com</a>;



[quote] New G4?s At MWNY

It looks like we?ll be getting new G4 systems at Macworld New York in a few days ? which is exactly what everyone wants and expects. Details are still rough and sketchy at best, but some tidbits that should come into fruition are:



? QuickSilver is dead. Long live the White Apple (for a year or so, at least).

? It looks as though the current 800MHz base system will be replaced with a single processor 1GHz.

? Mid and top-level systems will sport dual processors, and they should clock-in around 1.2GHz and 1.4GHz respectively.

? It seems that the total RAM amount will still max-out at 1.5GB ? but that seems odd to me?

? The case will sport more internal bays to better handle multiple IDE drive installations.

? Low-end systems will have the GeForce4 MX card, and mid and top-level Macs will have the GeForce4 Titanium (this is pretty well-known already).

? Drive capacity will start at 60GB, 80GB, and 2x80GB.

? Prices will not change from they are now (supposedly).

<hr></blockquote>



he's been pretty good far i can remember, especially with the OS side. I hope he's right as a 400mhz jump is the biggest that I can think of in a 6 month stretch. Looking forward to seeing what is unveiled-at the least- I want to see a new case.



[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    los2000los2000 Posts: 7member




    [ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: los2000 ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 37
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Whatever. He's just repeating other internet rumors. Notice that he says nothing about the frontside bus...IMO what happens with the bus is more important than the final MHz. True DDR support would be epic for Powermacs, I'd take 1.2 GHz with true DDR over 1.4 MHz with the same 133 MHz frontside bus as now.
  • Reply 3 of 37
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    The guy is pretty good with the rumors that he chooses to post. He just doesn't post crap willy nilly to get hits on his site (no ads anyways).

    At any rate, if those prediction pan out, and it has a good bus, the middle range Powermac would be one sweeeet deal.
  • Reply 4 of 37
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    One thing I still don't understand is that why it still only supports 1.5GB RAM as maximum :confused:



    Hopefully this is not the stop gap thing that Moki mentioned a while ago
  • Reply 5 of 37
    dennis the phantom menacedennis the phantom menace Posts: 64member
    Those specs sounds pretty good and Railhead is a pretty reliable source. It looks as though I'll be getting a Powermac next week. Now I just have to decide if I want 1.2 or 1.4 Ghz...

    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 6 of 37
    tigerwoods99tigerwoods99 Posts: 2,633member
    White towers? Please no. I've been waiting for that metallic black or glossy black PowerMac. You owe me Steve.
  • Reply 7 of 37
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    [quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:

    <strong>White towers? Please no. I've been waiting for that metallic black or glossy black PowerMac. You owe me Steve.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why not just slap an Apple sticker on a Dell? Hey, you're halfway there already!
  • Reply 8 of 37
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Oh the other hand.



    White tower isn't too bad....



    At least you now have WAY MORE choices on those VGA monitors (many of them are in white)
  • Reply 9 of 37
    cowofwarcowofwar Posts: 98member
    [quote]Originally posted by frawgz:

    <strong>



    Why not just slap an Apple sticker on a Dell? Hey, you're halfway there already! </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Or why don't you just slap an Apple sticker on a trash can?



    Honestly, who cares what it looks like. I just wish Apple would spend more time on what's in the case than what it looks like.



    [ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: cowofwar ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 37
    shaktaishaktai Posts: 157member
    There is no harm in having a little style, and Apple will do just fine with the internals this time. Dual 1.4 (around that) with DD Ram. Still not certain if it will be 266 or 333. 7470 chip will support both 2x133 or 2x166. Also of note is that it should have 512k L2 on chip cache instead of 256k, running at processor speed, backed up by a 1 or 2 meg L3 cache at half speed, just to keep the very hungry CPUs fed. Larger cache will more than offset the longer pipeline. (still much shorter than P4 though). If only 1.5 gigs of RAM max, I have to think that is an articial design limit but don't know why, unless there was a chip design problem. Should be capable of 2 plus gigs easily. Boxes won't be available until August though, but will ship with Jaguar. Overall speed boost between chips, cache, DD Ram, Jaguar and new mobo should be around 60%. Essentially for anything that can use the two CPU's it will be a 2.8 ghz box that screams.
  • Reply 11 of 37
    cobracobra Posts: 253member
    While a 400 MHZ speed bump is rather ho-hum, DDR ram and a faster FSB in conjunction with that would be pretty sweet.
  • Reply 12 of 37
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    a 400MHz speedbump would be ho-hum on any other platform, but not on a Mac. This would be a *huge* speedbump! :eek:
  • Reply 13 of 37
    macubusmacubus Posts: 95member
    [quote]Originally posted by othello:

    <strong>a 400MHz speedbump would be ho-hum on any other platform, but not on a Mac. This would be a *huge* speedbump! :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not with the same crappy 133Mhz bus. It's like getting a ferrari and setting a speed governor to 55mph. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 14 of 37
    thereubsterthereubster Posts: 402member
    So what?! Apple have never bumped the powermac by such a big % before (which is a sure sign they are worried) but I'll be happy with a dual 1.4 GHz!!
  • Reply 15 of 37
    apple.otakuapple.otaku Posts: 590member
    [quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:

    <strong>



    Or why don't you just slap an Apple sticker on a trash can?



    Honestly, who cares what it looks like. I just wish Apple would spend more time on what's in the case than what it looks like.



    [ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: cowofwar ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, and lets all move into jail cells since all we need are a bed, sink and toilet.
  • Reply 16 of 37
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by macubus:

    <strong>



    Not with the same crappy 133Mhz bus. It's like getting a ferrari and setting a speed governor to 55mph. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Speaking of speed governors...I hate speed governors. It scared the shit out of me when my jimmy decelerated 20 mph after I hit 100 on the way to vegas last year.
  • Reply 17 of 37
    stevessteves Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by macubus:

    <strong>



    Not with the same crappy 133Mhz bus. It's like getting a ferrari and setting a speed governor to 55mph. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't mean to pick on anyone here in particular. However, people keep quoting crap like this to the point where others start to believe it.



    There is absolutely no basis for making claims like this! Not all CPU based applications are Bus bandwidth limited. Do you even know the speed difference between a standard 133mhz SDRAM based system as opposed to a 266mhz DDRAM based system as opposed to a 400mhz based RDRAM based system? PC magazine (amongst others) have compared these very same systems using the same processor a couple months back using real benchmarks like Photoshop, MP3 encoding, games, etc. The real world differences between the high end and low end was on the order of 5% to 10% difference! That's it! Now factor in the heavy dose of L3 cache that Apple currently uses but not found on most PC motherboards and you're down to about a 2% to 3% difference.



    So, for all of the EE wannabe's, I beg you to stop making claims like this without substantial performance proof to back it up.



    Sorry for the rant...



    Steve
  • Reply 18 of 37
    phrogmanphrogman Posts: 21member
    [quote]Originally posted by Thereubster:

    <strong>So what?! Apple have never bumped the powermac by such a big % before (which is a sure sign they are worried) but I'll be happy with a dual 1.4 GHz!! </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Didn't Apple jump from 500 mhz to 733mhz??....which is a 47% increase....7% more than going from 1ghz to 1.4 ghz.
  • Reply 19 of 37
    ed m.ed m. Posts: 222member
    These guys should get a clue about the throughput of the current G4 bus. It moves more data than either the Athlon or Pentium. Want proof? Check out the post that discusses the G4 bus. It's located under the topic: "G5 Speculation Revisited" \t



    --

    Ed M.
  • Reply 19 of 37
    thereubsterthereubster Posts: 402member
    Damn, math never was my best subject..... Anyhow, whats 7% between friends (probably a lot to the sad obcessives who pop up on AI)



    Roll on Macworld..... I'm taking the day off work and will miss the whole thing... Ah well
Sign In or Register to comment.