G5 Trinity @ WWDC

18911131425

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 492
    I didn't realize that the link from my original post isn't working. I should have put the actual URL in the body. Well, yes it's a reprint, but would IBM put something on their site that wasn't true about their own product? Possibly...but I couldn't see why. But the URL also lists it as a "special report" which to me suggests extra credibility.



    I suppose I'm a pie in the sky dreamer, and I don't even have the money to buy any new mac let alone the top end model.
  • Reply 202 of 492
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    I find Kasper's comments quite interesting. And it is obvious, more or less, that Croquer is copying rumors here and there. As most representative case, I would mention the last updates in the Powerbook line. AppleInsider posted in the News Comments the exact model numbers, just to see them the next day in Croquer presented as a genuine source information .





    A bit off topic, but I couldn't resist: Croquer strikes again. They have a carbon copy of the AppleInsider rumor on the new addition in the iBook line.
  • Reply 203 of 492
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    A point that many seem to mis. I really don't believe that Apple / IBM had any intention of using the 970/FX as a high performance processor for more than part of last year. This rev of the processor is simply not cut out for it. The FX variant is very nice processor for Apples low end though. What is missing is the top end processor.



    So some may not like this idea but something has to be ready for debut very soon now. Don't call it the 975 if you don't like that, just realize it is foolish to believe that the FX could provide good results at 3GHz.



    As to Apple / IBM hitting 3GHz, well who knows for sure. The one thing I can be sure about is that 3GHz has been the prmary focus at IBM & Apple since the turn of the year. There is to much riding on the prestige of both companies not to have a lot of energy focused on correction of this issue.



    Will they make it. One can only note that no back pedaling has taken place from either company. So that seems to be a good sign.



    Thanks

    Dave





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    AFAIK there is no official word from IBM of any POWER5 derivative, so everything we "know" about 975 could be fabricated. On the other hand did Steve say at WWDC'03 that "the next generation G5" would run at 3 GHz "a year from now" and i really don't think that 970FX constitutes a next generation.



  • Reply 204 of 492
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Not ridiculous at all I'm affraid. We aren't talking servers here with rack mount hardware, even though it is possible to get close with that sort of equipment.



    What we are talking about is building a tower to run Linux on. There is no reason to use server grade hardware on such a machine, it really does not need to be anymore reliable than any other desktop you make use of. It is not silly it is just a matter of going SMP for your desktop as opposed to a single processor machine.



    You would not accuse the average person of being silly if he puts a $600 computer on his desk if it does the job as opposed to a $1700 computer. Yes I know this is a Mac forum and economics doesn't always come into play. the point is if you can get a SMP do do what you need for $1200 it makes little sense to go out and buy a $2400 machine just because it has supposedly better hardware.



    Many people can make use of SMP even if it is not classical server type work. Programmers can make use of SMP for example to very good effect as a productivity enhancer. It truely would be silly to saddle such people with server hardware when they don't need it.



    Thanks

    Dave







    Quote:

    Originally posted by mattyj

    I think you'll find that those who buy Dual Processor Opteron or Xeon machines will not buy them at $1000. This is just silly. They want their hardware to be reliable. No one I've known with Dual proc machines has gone the cheap route, it's too expensive in the long run. If you're going to get a reliable Dual proc system, you're easily spending more than twice that. Remember, you not only want it to be more reliable but you also want the hardware to be well matched against eachother. In the examples shown here they are not. The G5s come like this out of the box, with the exception of the poor GeForce 5200.



    Also, to get a decent spec system here in the UK (which I know is more expensive), I'm talking Athlon 3200 XP, Radeon 9800 SATA, DDR400, and the rest of the system to match you're talking about £1300 from building it yourself and without a screen. I admit the Powermacs are no way near on it for price, but a dual proc machine at the price some of you have suggested is ridiculous.




  • Reply 205 of 492
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    to Support Programmer a bit:



    IBM has had years of experience concealing things from the public. Remember IBM is a huge government contractor and has had many a classified hardware delivery.



    What many people don't realize is that one of IBM's loading docks is huge. What is even more surprising is that the trucks (tractor trailers) are LOADED INSIDE to keep prying eyes away. We aren't talking one or two bays either, this is a huge facility to load trucks.



    If IBM wants to it can keep secrets with the best of them.



    Thanks

    dave





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    You're wrong -- they can and do conceal processor development projects routinely.





  • Reply 206 of 492
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Res

    A few things: one, I am very tired of people making statements about computer pricing without ever bothering to look at the component cost of computers. I'm sorry if it upsets you that a person can build extremely powerful PCs for a fraction of the cost of a Powermac, but it is a fact that we all have to live with.



    I get a little heated too with the comparisons stories, which is hwy I don't post prices. If people are to lazy to go out and get the latest prices why should I help them!



    What people have to realize is that we are building PC's with components purchased at RETAIL. Retail can be significantly more expensive than Apple or another manufacture buying direct. Even considering the retail nature, we have to realize that the cost of the components is always going down; so what is quoted today may be expensive tommorrow.



    That is except for Apple hardware. The PowerMac has been out for almost a year now with no significant price changes! That should irritate people.

    [quote]



    That being said, I will repeat something that I have stated dozens of times before: The pricing of Apple computers should be compared to the systems of other computer manifactures, such as Dell or IBM -- not to the cost of a home built computer.

    [\\quote]

    Well to an extent that makes sense. On the other hand one can not judge hardware value without at least some understanding of the cost of the components. The issue then becomes what is an acceptable manufacture, one can purchase a very nice dual opteron from MonarchComputer for $1750, which isn't that much over the Assemble your self machines.

    Quote:

    The large PC makers are Apples competition, not the hobbyist who likes to cobble together PCs in his living room. Home built systems are still such a small fraction of the market that they are irrelevant to the pricing of the big computer makers.



    I suspect that the larger computer manufactures don't even have Apple on their mind. Well maybe when they need a good laugh they might look at Apples sales figures. From Apples standpoint I do not think that they are actually competeing with PC manufactures. Atleast they never let on that they are.

    Quote:



    Of course, it is very unfortunate that, when compared to the PCs made by Dell and other large computer makers, most of Apple's current products are extremely underpowered and/or overpriced. Something that was not true a few years ago, and I hope will be remedied with the next revision or two as the G5 scales up and moves throughout the lineup.



    While we could continue to extend the debate, the Apple Hardware performance issues is something that can not be eliminated from pricing considerations. I will allow that certain Apple hardware, such as the IMac, are not marketed to the cost sensitive markets. Like it or not though Apples pro hardware is impacted by its pricing and performance. Fortunately the G5 has helped some in regaining respectablity. Unfortuantely that is all it ahs done, the G5 is not a smashing performance machine.

    Quote:



    One thing that does worry me a bit is the recent Apple trend of putting its slowest G5 in the single processor machines. Every other manufacture has the fastest chip available in their single processor machines, so when you compare the top single processor Mac to a PC the Mac gets slaughtered.



    This doesn't bother me because I see single processor machines as a thing of the past. The bigger question in my mind is why Apple doesn't go all SMP in the pro line. Considering Apples hardware it really doesn't cost all that much.

    Quote:



    That's what I don't like about the Trinity rumor: a single 2.2GHz G5 is just not going to cut it against 3.4GHz P4 extreams. Now a 3GHz G5 should just crush the top P4s -- and that is something I would really like to see.



    Agian not a fan of singles anymore but to your issue Nothing will happen until it is made clear to Apple that their current sales slump is due to configurations as much as anything else. Good value will drive sales. Just as the 1.6GHz machine has done little for Apple the 2.2GHz could end up with the same fate. This would especially be the case if it is precieved to not have modern technology of its sister machines.

    Quote:

    [/B]



  • Reply 207 of 492
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wizard69

    Just as the 1.6GHz machine has done little for Apple



    Wrong, wrong, wrong and MAJOR wrong.
  • Reply 208 of 492
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Wrong, wrong, wrong and MAJOR wrong.



    Are you saying he is wrong?
  • Reply 209 of 492
    jobjob Posts: 420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    Are you saying he is wrong?



    Nah, he just likes using the word 'wrong' a lot.
  • Reply 210 of 492
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Please elaborate here a bit. If I'm wrong about the 1.6GHz

    G5 I certainly would like to know where my perception have been incorrectly molded.



    The 1.6GHz machine is certainly not in the same league as the rest of the Tower line up. Last I knew it's sales sucked, of course at this point that is true of the entire line. The 1.6 may pick up some of the gloss of its sister machines, but that does not mean she can hold her own on the town.



    Instead of being a sister machine one should think of the 1.6 as the cousins that live in the poor section of the near by city. Yeah they picked up the family genes but something go lost in the breeding.



    Thanks

    Dave





    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Wrong, wrong, wrong and MAJOR wrong.



  • Reply 211 of 492
    a j steva j stev Posts: 79member
    Here's something of interest at The Register:



    http://www.theregister.com/2004/05/26/ibm_ppc_975/



    It pours cold water on the initial article that people here have been using as 'PROOF'/***confirmed***. Ah...it is to dream



    ....though it must be said that the journo comes to the conclusion that IBM is up to something. But what? OTWT
  • Reply 212 of 492
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a j stev

    Here's something of interest at The Register:



    http://www.theregister.com/2004/05/26/ibm_ppc_975/




    That's interessting because it was the Reg (AFAIK) that gave birth to the 980 rumour way back when. If they can't keep track on their own rumors...
  • Reply 213 of 492
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,457member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a j stev

    Here's something of interest at The Register:



    http://www.theregister.com/2004/05/26/ibm_ppc_975/



    It pours cold water on the initial article that people here have been using as 'PROOF'/***confirmed***. Ah...it is to dream



    ....though it must be said that the journo comes to the conclusion that IBM is up to something. But what? OTWT






    The original article is the least interesting part of this thread. It is interesting that the IT Home paper was hosted on an IBM site... IBM is usually pretty sticky about spreading misinformation as it has gotten them into trouble in the past. Perhaps since its in Taiwan they aren't so stringent, but I doubt it.
  • Reply 214 of 492
    tfworldtfworld Posts: 181member
    Just wait and see what comes. Prepare to be blown out of the water!
  • Reply 215 of 492
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DaveGee

    That being said I do know for a fact that GPUL+ is 'for real' (regardless of the number assigned to it) and has been 'planned for' for quite some time (maybe as long - or nearly as long as the GPUL was).



    GP = POWER4, GP-UL = 970 . Keeping with IBM's naming scheme the "GP-UL+" would be the 970FX. GR = POWER5, so the processor we know as 975 would probably be called GR-UL. Actually.. There are evidence of a GR-UL also labled "PPC 97x" comming from an legitimate IBM source. Running at 2.5+ GHz no less..

    Have a look at this PDF. A link that I've posted here several times before.
  • Reply 216 of 492
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    ... IBM is usually pretty sticky about spreading misinformation as it has gotten them into trouble in the past.



    What about this one then (search for 750VX)? Not exactly the same situation, but since when IBM hosts portals to rumor sites about unreleased products of theirs?
  • Reply 217 of 492
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    ...Actually.. There are evidence of a GR-UL also labled "PPC 97x" comming from an legitimate IBM source. Running at 2.5+ GHz no less..

    Have a look at this PDF. A link that I've posted here several times before.




    Aha! Sorry I didn't spot your link before. Folks, if you haven't looked at this PDF yet, stop what you're doing and do so. Henriok, there is a debate going on over at MacRumors over whether the 975 is real. You should post this link over there.



    I suppose the only question is whether the document is real or fabricated... it looks real enough to me.
  • Reply 218 of 492
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    Henriok, there is a debate going on over at MacRumors over whether the 975 is real. You should post this link over there.



    Oooh, I have.. but it was over half a year ago. I did my best to defame the "980" as the name for the POWER5 derivative and turn it into "97X" which is supported by this PDF. Shorly thereafter "975" emerged, and I fell silent. The PDF was not that hard to find when doing some clever googling.
  • Reply 219 of 492
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    That would be pretty damn cool if Apple took one of those MCM units, and made a PowerMac Highend Workstation. Imagine a 4X 3.2GHz G5 W.O.M.P.E.R! Man I would shoot H.W.C <-(Liz Phair song) all the way to cupertino.
  • Reply 220 of 492
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    That would be pretty damn cool if Apple took one of those MCM units, and made a PowerMac Highend Workstation. Imagine a 4X 3.2GHz G5 W.O.M.P.E.R! Man I would shoot H.W.C <-(Liz Phair song) all the way to cupertino.



    Did you mean "WOPR" from wargames? If not, what the h3ll is "W.O.M.P.E.R."?
Sign In or Register to comment.