If a 200MHz MPX bus is introduced in Q1/2003 I think 1GHz will be the bottom end, but also that they will return to a mixed single / dual processor strategy. You know how Apple likes to flop on that issue. One upgrade period they have mostly duals, the other is scarce on duals. Single 1GHz on the low end with 2MB cache, Dual 1.2GHz for mid range, and maybe a dual 1.4GHz high end. 1.5 if the yields are good. But as we noticed from the last speed bump, L3 cache is important for performance! They need to keep it at 2MB or better yet 4MB if that is what the 7457 can support.
[quote] Single 1GHz on the low end with 2MB cache, Dual 1.2GHz for mid range, and maybe a dual 1.4GHz high end. 1.5 if the yields are good. <hr></blockquote>
With the lowdend at 2x867 now a singele 1 GHz will be slower and by now Apple has learned the hard way what the reactions to downgrades are <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
A line with a single 1.5 as the low end and then dual 1.3 as mid and dual 1.5 as high end is a option speed wise. However, assuming that yields below 1.3 and below is much higher than above 1.3 GHz.
Apple has painted itself into a corner of all duals and the only way out is if a new CPU is so much better that even single CPU at midrange speed is better than the dual G4s.
In the days of mostly OS 9 they could switch back and forth as the second CPU was allmost useless as the OS did not support SMP and very few of the applications had a hack for SMP.
If we assume 1. that the more expensive towere are sold in smaller numbers than the cheaper ones 2. The yields of faster CPUs are less than slower CPUs.
The only way to get out of dual CPUs is having a new CPU that is so fast that a single CPU is faster than the previous duals.
But even this might not cut it. If this faster CPU still is substantially slower than the Intel/AMD Apple still have to use dual CPUs.
Should we care if Apple need to use one or two CPUs to make competetive computers? Not really if the price is OK
The one snag I can see is that games ported from Windows ( one fast CPU) does not seem to work that well with slower dual CPUs. I do not know if this is due to time constraints in the porting work or if it is something that is intrinsic in the games to keep them compatible with the PC versions for adding netgames maps skins and so on. Perhaps someone can enlighten us on this?
Ideally and realistically I would love for Apple to release a 1GHz with 2MB cache and entry level specs for $1399. Then they could go forth with a DP 1GHz, DP 1.2GHz, and DP 1.5GHz at their regular prices ($1699, $2499, $3299 or whatever they are now). They underestimate what a low end machine can do for their bottom line. their core iMac customers will continue to buy their iMacs. But people waiting to upgrade their 1st generation G4's or even G3's will jump all over a $1399 tower. Now I admit this is not an original idea but it doesn't change the fact it would be a GOOD idea. If they did come out with a true entry level machine, I could see my self convince my art department management to upgrade more than half the department.
<strong>Ideally and realistically I would love for Apple to release a 1GHz with 2MB cache and entry level specs for $1399. Then they could go forth with a DP 1GHz, DP 1.2GHz, and DP 1.5GHz at their regular prices ($1699, $2499, $3299 or whatever they are now). They underestimate what a low end machine can do for their bottom line. their core iMac customers will continue to buy their iMacs. But people waiting to upgrade their 1st generation G4's or even G3's will jump all over a $1399 tower. Now I admit this is not an original idea but it doesn't change the fact it would be a GOOD idea. If they did come out with a true entry level machine, I could see my self convince my art department management to upgrade more than half the department.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'd prefer a 1Ghz dual for $1399 ... this one should be there at june... how much does a 2.8Ghz P4 cost?
I'm sure there is many a 'switcher' who'd like an Apple Tower but can't believe Apple's cheapest tower sucks at £1395 inc vat with no monitor and stingy ram.
the games are slower because they are one thread (most of the time). Think of it like this: a processor is a bicycle messenger. If you have two bicycle messengers, you can get twice as many packages delivered in any amount of time, but - it still takes just as long for any given package to get delivered. If a game uses only one processor, the speed of that processor is what effects performance, and x86 processors are faster than PPC's today..... whew, oversimplification is exhausting...
I wonder if the AIM alliance has ever considered buying this company. I mean if all Mac OS X apps were optimized it might buy them a decent speed boost for the interim.
I doubt trying to get gcc up to speed has been cheap.
It says .13µ SOI, 512k L2, 166 or 200Mhz FSB, Q2 '03, up to 1.3 Ghz ( <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ), and fantastic 7.5W typical power consumption at 1Ghz (the 800Mhz 7455 has 11W).
My money is on the 7457 being the Power Mac interim part for the next 12+ months, and perhaps beyond as the low-end part if the 970 proves to be extremely expensive. Some schmo on Ars was hypothesizing them to be $1000+/part (when bought in quantity) - that would be bad for Apple. Very bad.
Even 970-based sales would suffer if they (the 970 Power Macs) ended up being between $3500 and $4000, just to make a modest margin and ROI for Apple.
I would just consider the Motorola pdf a stuff up by Motorola. They acidentally leaked their mobile phone roadmap not too long ago and this was just a forum presentation. It was very likely uploaded without thought.
the next iteration of PowerMac:s will not have fully integrated DDR-RAM since niether the current nor the next generation G4 processors support a doubble pumped system bus.
Motorola's proposed MPC7457-RM does as do IBM's PPC970.
Im just wontering why Apple jsut cant put both processors on separate busses to the U2-controller.. instead of sharing 1.2 GB/s, they's have 1.2 GB/s each to play with.. and the RAM-bus from U2 will be double pumped as usual.
<strong>the next iteration of PowerMac:s will not have fully integrated DDR-RAM since niether the current nor the next generation G4 processors support a doubble pumped system bus.
Motorola's proposed MPC7457-RM does as do IBM's PPC970.
Im just wontering why Apple jsut cant put both processors on separate busses to the U2-controller.. instead of sharing 1.2 GB/s, they's have 1.2 GB/s each to play with.. and the RAM-bus from U2 will be double pumped as usual.
What would "senior tech" have anything to do with the number of posts made? Generally speaking, the most intelligent posts I've seen have come from people with few posts. Yes, there are exceptions.
If Apple go for a 200 MHz bus how does that affect the price of RAM? The 133/266 DRR seem to be quite resonable on the PC side how about RAM that support the 200 MHz bus that Motorola will implement?
Will Apple even care about the 200 MHz bus in the towers? If the IBM 970 arrives one year later than the 200 MHz bus G4 yes probably. However, it seem like the time span is closer to 6 months (Q2 for the Motorola stuff an Q 4 for the 970)
If Apple do not implement the 200 Mhz bus I take that as sign of good things to come
Too elitist, it would ruin the entire point of a rumors site.
If you want "high-level" discussion, then why not go to /. and view threads with a karma threshold of "5"? Then you can avoid base discussions amongst blathering idiots, since of course you must do so as a proud intellectual.
If Apple go for a 200 MHz bus how does that affect the price of RAM? The 133/266 DRR seem to be quite resonable on the PC side how about RAM that support the 200 MHz bus that Motorola will implement?
Will Apple even care about the 200 MHz bus in the towers? If the IBM 970 arrives one year later than the 200 MHz bus G4 yes probably. However, it seem like the time span is closer to 6 months (Q2 for the Motorola stuff an Q 4 for the 970)
If Apple do not implement the 200 Mhz bus I take that as sign of good things to come
It's very possible that the current system controller is already designed to handle a 200 MHz FSB effectively. Currently the system controller can work with FSBs at both 133 and 166 MHz, and the DDR RAM in the Powermacs is more than fast enough to feed a 200 MHz FSB. I suspect it's merely an issue of dropping in a G4 with a faster FSB.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the current system controller could support a DDR FSB. For a part so expensive to design and implement, it seems like Apple would design it to have a life longer than a single G4 revision.
Comments
[quote] Single 1GHz on the low end with 2MB cache, Dual 1.2GHz for mid range, and maybe a dual 1.4GHz high end. 1.5 if the yields are good. <hr></blockquote>
With the lowdend at 2x867 now a singele 1 GHz will be slower and by now Apple has learned the hard way what the reactions to downgrades are <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
A line with a single 1.5 as the low end and then dual 1.3 as mid and dual 1.5 as high end is a option speed wise. However, assuming that yields below 1.3 and below is much higher than above 1.3 GHz.
Apple has painted itself into a corner of all duals and the only way out is if a new CPU is so much better that even single CPU at midrange speed is better than the dual G4s.
In the days of mostly OS 9 they could switch back and forth as the second CPU was allmost useless as the OS did not support SMP and very few of the applications had a hack for SMP.
If we assume 1. that the more expensive towere are sold in smaller numbers than the cheaper ones 2. The yields of faster CPUs are less than slower CPUs.
The only way to get out of dual CPUs is having a new CPU that is so fast that a single CPU is faster than the previous duals.
But even this might not cut it. If this faster CPU still is substantially slower than the Intel/AMD Apple still have to use dual CPUs.
Should we care if Apple need to use one or two CPUs to make competetive computers? Not really if the price is OK
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
The one snag I can see is that games ported from Windows ( one fast CPU) does not seem to work that well with slower dual CPUs. I do not know if this is due to time constraints in the porting work or if it is something that is intrinsic in the games to keep them compatible with the PC versions for adding netgames maps skins and so on. Perhaps someone can enlighten us on this?
<strong>Ideally and realistically I would love for Apple to release a 1GHz with 2MB cache and entry level specs for $1399. Then they could go forth with a DP 1GHz, DP 1.2GHz, and DP 1.5GHz at their regular prices ($1699, $2499, $3299 or whatever they are now). They underestimate what a low end machine can do for their bottom line. their core iMac customers will continue to buy their iMacs. But people waiting to upgrade their 1st generation G4's or even G3's will jump all over a $1399 tower. Now I admit this is not an original idea but it doesn't change the fact it would be a GOOD idea. If they did come out with a true entry level machine, I could see my self convince my art department management to upgrade more than half the department.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'd prefer a 1Ghz dual for $1399 ... this one should be there at june... how much does a 2.8Ghz P4 cost?
Could help boost those 'power'Mac sales...
Lemon Bon Bon
I'm sure there is many a 'switcher' who'd like an Apple Tower but can't believe Apple's cheapest tower sucks at £1395 inc vat with no monitor and stingy ram.
<strong>
erm..
<a href="http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2002/press_motorola.html"; target="_blank">it's old news?</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
That's ancient news, and that's just the toolchain. It has nothing with Linux for PPC is getting more and more optimized for Altivec.
<a href="http://gravity.psu.edu/~khanna/autovp.html"; target="_blank">http://gravity.psu.edu/~khanna/autovp.html</a>;
I wonder if the AIM alliance has ever considered buying this company. I mean if all Mac OS X apps were optimized it might buy them a decent speed boost for the interim.
I doubt trying to get gcc up to speed has been cheap.
It says .13µ SOI, 512k L2, 166 or 200Mhz FSB, Q2 '03, up to 1.3 Ghz ( <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ), and fantastic 7.5W typical power consumption at 1Ghz (the 800Mhz 7455 has 11W).
Get it before it's taken down!
Even 970-based sales would suffer if they (the 970 Power Macs) ended up being between $3500 and $4000, just to make a modest margin and ROI for Apple.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
<strong>Some schmo on Ars was hypothesizing them to be $1000+/part (when bought in quantity) - that would be bad for Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I would expect them to come in around half that price if that. It's a nice chip but a lot of the aspects that would make it costly have been removed.
its appearent to me that apple wants to incorporate DDR memory in its computers.
the last iteration of powermac's(including the x-serve) was a bastardized version of DDR and not a true DDR implementation.
the benchmarks of the lastest powermacs bear this out.
which leads me to think this last powermac revision was/is a stopgap measure(albiet,not a well implemented one).
the huge power supply contained in the new powermacs have been fodder for much provocative speculation.
i think the next powermac revision(i hope)will have a radically redesigned motherboard to fully utilize DDR.
im beginning to wonder about this motorla pdf file(which i have already downloaded) and the announcement of the ibm 970.
perhaps it could be disinformation,no?
who's to say the motorola is working on a chip we dont know about?
this motorola pdf file is a little to convienent for me,too overt.
apple would never allow such a thing,after all they havent in the past.
the more i think about it,the more skeptical i am
of these "rumours".
something big is coming....i feel it.
be prepared to be amazed....again.
I agree there...
Lemon Bon Bon
Motorola's proposed MPC7457-RM does as do IBM's PPC970.
Im just wontering why Apple jsut cant put both processors on separate busses to the U2-controller.. instead of sharing 1.2 GB/s, they's have 1.2 GB/s each to play with.. and the RAM-bus from U2 will be double pumped as usual.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Henriok ]</p>
<strong>the next iteration of PowerMac:s will not have fully integrated DDR-RAM since niether the current nor the next generation G4 processors support a doubble pumped system bus.
Motorola's proposed MPC7457-RM does as do IBM's PPC970.
Im just wontering why Apple jsut cant put both processors on separate busses to the U2-controller.. instead of sharing 1.2 GB/s, they's have 1.2 GB/s each to play with.. and the RAM-bus from U2 will be double pumped as usual.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would probably be too expensive.
<strong>
Senior Apple Tech Discussion
Senior General Tech Discussion
To post in these forums you will need a post count of over ~250-300, and have been a member for ~3-4 months.
Barto
[ 10-29-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What would "senior tech" have anything to do with the number of posts made? Generally speaking, the most intelligent posts I've seen have come from people with few posts. Yes, there are exceptions.
Steve
If Apple go for a 200 MHz bus how does that affect the price of RAM? The 133/266 DRR seem to be quite resonable on the PC side how about RAM that support the 200 MHz bus that Motorola will implement?
Will Apple even care about the 200 MHz bus in the towers? If the IBM 970 arrives one year later than the 200 MHz bus G4 yes probably. However, it seem like the time span is closer to 6 months (Q2 for the Motorola stuff an Q 4 for the 970)
If Apple do not implement the 200 Mhz bus I take that as sign of good things to come
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Because of "geekmeat"'s post, I would like to take this oppertunity to again ask that when the switch to vB is made, 2 new forums be created.
Senior Apple Tech Discussion
Senior General Tech Discussion
To post in these forums you will need a post count of over ~250-300, and have been a member for ~3-4 months.
Barto
[ 10-29-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too elitist, it would ruin the entire point of a rumors site.
If you want "high-level" discussion, then why not go to /. and view threads with a karma threshold of "5"? Then you can avoid base discussions amongst blathering idiots, since of course you must do so as a proud intellectual.
<strong>Memory Price and threading
If Apple go for a 200 MHz bus how does that affect the price of RAM? The 133/266 DRR seem to be quite resonable on the PC side how about RAM that support the 200 MHz bus that Motorola will implement?
Will Apple even care about the 200 MHz bus in the towers? If the IBM 970 arrives one year later than the 200 MHz bus G4 yes probably. However, it seem like the time span is closer to 6 months (Q2 for the Motorola stuff an Q 4 for the 970)
If Apple do not implement the 200 Mhz bus I take that as sign of good things to come
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's very possible that the current system controller is already designed to handle a 200 MHz FSB effectively. Currently the system controller can work with FSBs at both 133 and 166 MHz, and the DDR RAM in the Powermacs is more than fast enough to feed a 200 MHz FSB. I suspect it's merely an issue of dropping in a G4 with a faster FSB.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the current system controller could support a DDR FSB. For a part so expensive to design and implement, it seems like Apple would design it to have a life longer than a single G4 revision.