No1 by Dec 2005?
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?
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
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
Okay, But you'll have
Dual 3GHz PowerMacs
Dual 2.7Ghz
Single 2.5Ghz
I don't care about the iMacs now.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.