No1 by Dec 2005?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
We all knoiw that Apple expect to release a 3ghz G5 before the end of the year but there is no guarentee that they will be the fastes desktop machines in real world applications. Just take a look at the cinebench speed marks and you can see my point, optomised or not macs are still being trounced so what is the soloution?



Dec 2004 year end line up...



PowerMacs



Quad 3ghz G5

DP 3ghz G5

DP 2.6ghz G5



New iMac3



2.4 ghz G5 20"

2.2 ghz G5 17"

2 ghz G5



Power Books*

2.2 ghz 17"

2.2 ghz 15"

2.00ghz 12"



* assuming 90nm g5.



Steve has told us to expect a 3ghz G5, so we can assume he has left us a suprise and I think it is a top end quad. That will assure macs will have the undesputed "fastest" crown.



BTW - anyone know what comes after Panther?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Boy, you're a pessimistic one. Steve said the "3 GHz" line in, what, August? So we should see them by Summer of 2004. I sure as hell hope we aren't still stuck at 3 GHz eighteen months later. (Or even six months later, assuming you meant Dec 2004.)
  • Reply 2 of 19
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    The great thing about using IBM chips is it forces Apple to update their lines as soon as IBM comes out with a new chip for their servers that utilize the PPC 970 & Beyond architecture.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    By December 2005, you'll have the same lineup as the summer 2005, if things doesn't change radically.



    So we'll have



    PowerMacs

    DP 4.2Ghz G6

    DP 3.8GHz G6

    SP 3.6Ghz G6



    iMacs have



    2.8GHz G5 18" (No 20", it was a failure )

    2.5GHz G5 18"

    2.2Ghz G5 17"

    OLED Displays



    Powerbooks will be 4 inches thick, and carry the same equipment as the PowerMac, although in SP configs
  • Reply 4 of 19
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    I MEANT December 2004! Just early morning mist on the brain.
  • Reply 5 of 19
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    ARGH!



    Okay, But you'll have



    Dual 3GHz PowerMacs

    Dual 2.7Ghz

    Single 2.5Ghz



    I don't care about the iMacs now.
  • Reply 6 of 19
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    Boy, you're a pessimistic one. Steve said the "3 GHz" line in, what, August? So we should see them by Summer of 2004. I sure as hell hope we aren't still stuck at 3 GHz eighteen months later. (Or even six months later, assuming you meant Dec 2004.)



    Actually he made the statement at WWDC in June.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    just throwing more processors at shit is ignoring the real problems.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    What galaxy are you living in, another dimention maybe?



    December 2004? I don't think we'll ever see a Quad Processor machine from Apple, and if we are still at 3GHz in December 2004 this coming year is going to be a huge downfall for Apple.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by applenut

    just throwing more processors at shit is ignoring the real problems.



    real problems?

    seems to me if the g5 continues to scale well, the bottlenecks and mhz gap wil be gone (bottlenecks are already gone).



    What other problems?

    I agree that the g5 should be past the 3ghz mark by december '04.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cosmo

    real problems?

    seems to me if the g5 continues to scale well, the bottlenecks and mhz gap wil be gone (bottlenecks are already gone).



    What other problems?

    I agree that the g5 should be past the 3ghz mark by december '04.




    software optimization
  • Reply 11 of 19
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by applenut

    software optimization



    Exactly. There are these stories that IBM has a super compiler for the Power4 which we should be able to start using. Once that's built into XCode, we could get hugely better performance across the board.



    A quad processor machine might make sense as a 3U XServe Cluster Node, where it could be used as a database server. But it makes little sense sitting on people's desks. Besides, it'd add another foot to the already very tall cabinet!
  • Reply 12 of 19
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    Exactly. There are these stories that IBM has a super compiler for the Power4 which we should be able to start using. Once that's built into XCode, we could get hugely better performance across the board.



    A quad processor machine might make sense as a 3U XServe Cluster Node, where it could be used as a database server. But it makes little sense sitting on people's desks. Besides, it'd add another foot to the already very tall cabinet!




    It seems to me that 4 processors in a 3U node isn't the most efficient use of space. They have DP g4 cluster nodes that only take up 1U. If they were to make a 3U node, it should hold 6 processors @ least, right?



    I know the 970 runs hotter than the g4, but an xServe can also have fans that are real loud and fast. I really disagree that cooling is what is keeping apple from producing a g5 xServe.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    Why, just why, in the world do you need 4 processors. I fine with one, thank you.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Agent Macintosh

    Why, just why, in the world do you need 4 processors. I fine with one, thank you.



    Well as I sit here reading the AppleInsider forums, because my machine is rendering (and has been since 7am this morning) and will just make it take longer by doing any other real work, I can't seem to come up with a single reason to have 4 processors. -not everybody uses their mac just for email, web, and text editing.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    What galaxy are you living in, another dimention maybe?



    December 2004? I don't think we'll ever see a Quad Processor machine from Apple, and if we are still at 3GHz in December 2004 this coming year is going to be a huge downfall for Apple.




    Well, that's what it's going to be, so you might as well get used to it!

    3Ghz in the late summer followed by the next update in early 05.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ennerseed

    -not everybody uses their mac just for email, web, and text editing.



    But most do. The question is, are there enough people that need quad processors to warrant Apple putting all the develpment, marketing, and energy into creating and selling them?



    My answer would be no.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Pixar?

    VA Tech?

    those kind of places seem to want macs

    Imagine the VA tech cluster with quad processor xSevers. The same processing power in a fraction of the space, of many times more power in the same space.



    I remember reading that Pixar would make the shift to g5s. They certainly need all the processing power they can get.



    Software applications will always push the hardware.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    CRAZY REPLIES....



    Why not say by the time of 2020... Apple will have



    QUAD G9 - 9 teraflops



    Just dreaming, because I know one fact... my personal computer will need all that power! Maybe it will even go to work for me?
  • Reply 19 of 19
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    It's a qudos thing. Why did he reveal that they would be at 3ghz within a year, if he hasn't kept a suprise. It seems to me that a quad would put Apple firmly in the fastest desktop bracket without any near competition. Yes the market is going to be small... or is it what if the premium was say $1000, would you pay a $1000 premium for a quad 3ghz machine?



    Many would I am sure, and with all the strides Apple is making in the scientific arena I could see this having a certain appeal.
Sign In or Register to comment.