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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
"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?
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.
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).
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).
Comments
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
go away
You first
You've been defensive/rude since the new PMs were released. Problems?
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
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
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).