Could this mean "Powermac Extreme" at WWDC?

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 77
    anandanand Posts: 285member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Messiahtosh

    Are you people nuts? "Poor chip development" wow. The G5 @ 2.5 GHz with 1.25 GHz FSB's is absolutely screaming fast. I use a 1.5 GHz G4 PowerBook and I know it is a fast machine, one can only imagine what a 2.5 G5 feels like! Tiger will probably even be extremely efficient with it too, so there is nothing to really bitch about. Apple is coming along just fine. 500 MHz bump on the high end in a year, and 90nm with 250 MHz faster FSB's, makes this a pretty sizeable upgrade.



    Stop planning purchases on the rumors and start buying on the news and the basis of real need. If you need a G5 at this time you are lucky, because it now is a lot faster than it was yesterday.



    I am not an Apple apologist, simply a voice of reason in the chaotic and kiddie-ridden rumor world. Shut the fuck up about not getting 500 more MHz, thanks.




    That is one chip in one machine. The rest is lagging. A 1.25 G4? Are you kidding.
  • Reply 62 of 77
    mccrabmccrab Posts: 201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kormac77

    What if Steve announce New workstation class PowerMac G5 at WWDC ?





    If the new screens are kept in reserve until the WWDC, there must be a good chance that either a headless SP G5 or xStation is contemporaneously announced.



    Reminds me of the Cube, one more thing...
  • Reply 63 of 77
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Messiahtosh

    Are you people nuts? "Poor chip development" wow. The G5 @ 2.5 GHz with 1.25 GHz FSB's is absolutely screaming fast. I use a 1.5 GHz G4 PowerBook and I know it is a fast machine, one can only imagine what a 2.5 G5 feels like! Tiger will probably even be extremely efficient with it too, so there is nothing to really bitch about. Apple is coming along just fine. 500 MHz bump on the high end in a year, and 90nm with 250 MHz faster FSB's, makes this a pretty sizeable upgrade.



    Stop planning purchases on the rumors and start buying on the news and the basis of real need. If you need a G5 at this time you are lucky, because it now is a lot faster than it was yesterday.



    I am not an Apple apologist, simply a voice of reason in the chaotic and kiddie-ridden rumor world. Shut the fuck up about not getting 500 more MHz, thanks.




    I have no problems with the 2.5GHz update. The things I have issue with are lack of updates throughout the system - same video, same storage, etc... Not updating the video to "current" models but rather using kit that is 2 generations-old tech is simply inexcusable.
  • Reply 64 of 77
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rhumgod

    I have no problems with the 2.5GHz update. The things I have issue with are lack of updates throughout the system - same video, same storage, etc... Not updating the video to "current" models but rather using kit that is 2 generations-old tech is simply inexcusable.



    The price cut is significant for me
  • Reply 65 of 77
    anandanand Posts: 285member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by costique

    Kormac, just say no to drugs. Do you see where to cram 2 more CPUs with these heat sinks in these enclosures? Or do you suggest a 40kg PowerMac, twice as big as now?

    How many years from now? Will it ever become a wide-spread thing at all?




    Kormac is excited because he thinks the heat pipe in the new G5's is really a crack pipe.
  • Reply 66 of 77
    messiahtoshmessiahtosh Posts: 1,754member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by anand

    Kormac is excited because he thinks the heat pipe in the new G5's is really a crack pipe.



    go away
  • Reply 67 of 77
    ionyzionyz Posts: 491member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Messiahtosh

    go away



    You first



    You've been defensive/rude since the new PMs were released. Problems?
  • Reply 68 of 77
    Apple fans are so funny.



    Everything is always "wait until X comes out"; substitute your favorite pipedream product in for X.



    For example, we always heard "Wait until the G5 comes out. We will blow Intel away with it." Then the G5 came and we barely caught up with Intel.



    Then it was, "Oh, just wait until Jaguar is optimized for the G5. It will scream." Then, Jaguar came and went and we made no huge leaps in speed (just modest ones).



    Now, it is "Wait until Tiger comes out" and "Wait until we have 3.0 Ghz G5's" and "Wait until blah blah blah...."



    Shit. It was even "Motorola sucks....wait until we switch to an all IBM line-up." For Christ's sake, IBM is having the same problems as Motorola.



    Perhaps we all should see the writing on the wall....?



    -Dr.Bimane
  • Reply 69 of 77
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Dr Bimane. It's because they're not using the computers to earn money. Enthusiasts live for the "next big thing" so waiting in perpetuity becomes the de rigeur of their existence.



    I'm through with waiting. I'm going to get a Mac and start using all the cool software that is available and let that take me where it does.
  • Reply 70 of 77
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Shit. It was even "Motorola sucks....wait until we switch to an all IBM line-up." For Christ's sake, IBM is having the same problems as Motorola.



    Maybe, if this speed bump was from 1.6, Dual 1.8, Dual 2.0 to 1.4, Dual 1.6 and 1.8. As it is, AMD, Intel and IBM are all not having much luck with the 90um transition.
  • Reply 71 of 77
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DVD_Junkie

    If the dual 2.5 is using the 970FX and the machine is running this hot, you can kiss goodbye to a dual 3.0GHz anytime soon. I would've thought the 970FX would be running so much cooler than the 970's but alas it would seem that the 90nm fabrication hasn't helped all that much. Is Apple going to have to wait for the 70nm to get a G5 in the PB's?



    Finally, PPC's have traditionally ran cooler than the Pentiums but is that no longer the case? From what I know first hand, a Pentium 4 2.8GHz uses a smaller heatsink than a single G4 1.25 so while IBM can give Apple faster processors, Apple is stuck having to work with hotter chips. A tough challenge for sure. IBM needs to get their act together. Maybe, Apple should get Intel to fab the G5




    they are cooler but remaining air cooled would require loud fans and with the future being hotter the liwuid cooler was inserted now it is also 90nm meaning the heat ids coming out f a smaller space than older chips (130nm)
  • Reply 72 of 77
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DVD_Junkie

    If the dual 2.5 is using the 970FX and the machine is running this hot, you can kiss goodbye to a dual 3.0GHz anytime soon. I would've thought the 970FX would be running so much cooler than the 970's but alas it would seem that the 90nm fabrication hasn't helped all that much. Is Apple going to have to wait for the 70nm to get a G5 in the PB's?



    Finally, PPC's have traditionally ran cooler than the Pentiums but is that no longer the case? From what I know first hand, a Pentium 4 2.8GHz uses a smaller heatsink than a single G4 1.25 so while IBM can give Apple faster processors, Apple is stuck having to work with hotter chips. A tough challenge for sure. IBM needs to get their act together. Maybe, Apple should get Intel to fab the G5




    they are cooler but remaining air cooled would require loud fans and with the future being hotter the liwuid cooler was inserted now it is also 90nm meaning the heat ids coming out f a smaller space than older chips (130nm)
  • Reply 73 of 77
    anandanand Posts: 285member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Messiahtosh

    go away



    Buddy, Crackmac has been pushing this stuff on these boards for years. And you know what, it is all crap. All of it. Every year, around this time, he comes out and spouts this stuff. Crazy. It used to be funny. Now it is just plain stupid.
  • Reply 74 of 77
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DVD_Junkie

    Actually, the article says:

    "It's actually quite simple," said Boger. "When we made that prediction, we just didn't realize the challenges moving to 90 nanometer would present. It turned out to be a much bigger challenge than anyone expected."




    Nothing here implies the current crop of duals are using 90nm chips but rather to the contrary. Had they been 90nm chips, the heat issue wouldn't have required the additional liquid cooling IMO. Could anyone confirm if any of these chips are using 90nm fabrication?



    Tnx.




    Read the white paper available at http://www.apple.com/powermac
  • Reply 75 of 77
    oldmacfanoldmacfan Posts: 501member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    Read the white paper available at http://www.apple.com/powermac



    I did go and read the white paper, and I can't find anywhere where it says that anything but the 2.5 Ghz machine is at 90 nm. The white paper is very vague about this.



    I was under the impression that the 2.0 and the 1.8 are still 130 nm except in the XServe, where the 2.0 is at 90 nm.
  • Reply 76 of 77
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    They don't mention another process besides the 90 nanometer in the paper, so perhaps they've decided to put the FX in all the Power Mac models (hence late ship date, at least for the 2.5).
  • Reply 77 of 77
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,412member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fred_lj

    They don't mention another process besides the 90 nanometer in the paper, so perhaps they've decided to put the FX in all the Power Mac models (hence late ship date, at least for the 2.5).



    Not according to the interview on MacCentral. If they are having yield problems with the 90nm chip, but the 130nm chip is now at or approaching IBM's targets, then it only makes sense to use the 130nm in the 1.8/2.0 towers (since that's what they were already using with no problems). The Xserve G5 requires the 90nm 2 GHz chip, and the 2.5 GHz tower requires the 90nm version -- both for clear heat/power reasons.



    At this point the 130nm version is probably cheaper since their yields are now good, while the 90nm yields are still being improved. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple silently switched the 1.8/2.0 towers to 90nm when the yields of that version improved beyond the 130nm yields (measured in terms of chips/wafer).
Sign In or Register to comment.