Question 3ghz g5's?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Does anyone have a link to the G5 intro at last years WWDC? I recall steve saying that the g5 is great, and that by next year they would be 3ghz, but what he didn't necessarily say anything about it being in a powermac... did he? I'm thinking there's a possibility we're in for a surprise, that its not going to be in a powermac, but something else. anyone? sorry if this could have been somewhere else, but this was sort of an epiphany while looking around, so I thought I'd post my collected thoughts as fast as i can as I have a lot going on?



So any takers?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kraig911

    Does anyone have a link to the G5 intro at last years WWDC? I recall steve saying that the g5 is great, and that by next year they would be 3ghz, but what he didn't necessarily say anything about it being in a powermac... did he? I'm thinking there's a possibility we're in for a surprise, that its not going to be in a powermac, but something else. anyone? sorry if this could have been somewhere else, but this was sort of an epiphany while looking around, so I thought I'd post my collected thoughts as fast as i can as I have a lot going on?



    So any takers?




  • Reply 2 of 24
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Oh stop it. How many times do they have to say they had problems and have had to cut back on their roadmap projections.



    The link to the keynote:



    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc03/



    I don't know exactly where the "one year" statement is, maybe someone else can find it. And IIRC, a statement came out from someone else later that said "by the end of next summer" rather than "within a year." Maybe someone else can find that too.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kraig911

    Does anyone have a link to the G5 intro at last years WWDC? I recall steve saying that the g5 is great, and that by next year they would be 3ghz, but what he didn't necessarily say anything about it being in a powermac... did he? I'm thinking there's a possibility we're in for a surprise, that its not going to be in a powermac, but something else. anyone? sorry if this could have been somewhere else, but this was sort of an epiphany while looking around, so I thought I'd post my collected thoughts as fast as i can as I have a lot going on?



    So any takers?






    *sigh*.....some mac fanatics will never give up, will they?
  • Reply 4 of 24
    rolorolo Posts: 686member
    The 3 GHz G5 is delayed because it took so long to get decent yields from the new 90nm (.09µ) process. We're not even sure IBM can get 3 GHz out of the 970FX so that may have to wait for the next chip iteration like maybe the 975.



    The earliest we could see 3 GHz seems to be January, maybe at MWSF, but that's only a 20% increase in speed.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    The way I see it is that Apple doesn't see any reason to spend money to get to 3 GHz which, to me, means they have something better up their sleeve...



    DC-DP-IMC-SMT here we come (lets hope)...
  • Reply 6 of 24
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    eh its just a thought. I mean if they can't go in a powermac but maybe somethen else? all I want is a pro case with pro video card support I wish apple would hook up with somebody and write the drivers... c'mon it can't be THAT hard.
  • Reply 8 of 24
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    The way I see it is that Apple doesn't see any reason to spend money to get to 3 GHz which, to me, means they have something better up their sleeve...



    DC-DP-IMC-SMT here we come (lets hope)...




    What does spending money and IBM getting to 3GHz have to do with each other?
  • Reply 9 of 24
    dfryerdfryer Posts: 140member
    Question 3GHz? I certainly do :P



    Honestly, by the sounds of things IBM truly expected the 90nm transition to pay off more than it actually did. Perhpas the "975" is architecturally different enough to get to higher clockspeeds, perhaps not. We might still see 3Ghz in something (most likely a power mac of some description) by the end of 2004. Still, in the time that IBM has gone 2Ghz->2.5Ghz, Intel has barely made a 500mhz improvement to their chips, which can only mean we're gaining ground As rolo mentioned though, 2.5->3Ghz is only a 20% increase in speed, not a huge bump.



    I with some of the others posting that if Apple is to make a "ridiculous performance" oriented machine, it'll have to branch out into multiple processors (or multicore processors), fast graphics cards (with PCI-Express, they should be able to pipe data *back* quickly as well, making them more useful for general purpose use) and maybe even really fast I/O (some funky hard drive config?)



    Just had to pick a thread to ramble in
  • Reply 10 of 24
    beigeuserbeigeuser Posts: 371member
    kraig911,



    Anything that gets the 3Ghz before the Powermacs would have to be a model that is higher up the chain. Are you talking about the sometimes-rumored xstation? I suppose that Apple can spend lots more money on developing a super-high tech cooling system that allows the 2.5 to be overclocked to 3 Ghz but that will mean significantly higher costs for little return. A quad 2.5Ghz is more likely.
  • Reply 11 of 24
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    What does spending money and IBM getting to 3GHz have to do with each other?



    Well maybe apple could pay IBM some money to add some stages and fix the 130nm 970 to get to 3 GHz if they thought it were important...
  • Reply 12 of 24
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    Well maybe apple could pay IBM some money to add some stages and fix the 130nm 970 to get to 3 GHz if they thought it were important...



    What school of thought did you get that idea from. Do you work for motorola? It's notions like that which is probably why motorola was so stuck on the G4. They would never move on.



    The 130nm G5 was done. So they moved on. It was not getting any faster. What you just mentioned was prototyped long ago along with every other possibility to make the chips as fast as possible, and failed comparatively. That's why it was not used already. If IBM could have squeezed more out of the 130nm they tried it.

    They have to move on. Sitting there going over the 130 again after realizing it's finished using the processes you have available to you is a redundant path to take. All your going to get using the same technology, and processes you are aware of again that already failed in comparison to what you were using on the same processor is like walking on a tread mill. Your doing something again, and again, but your going nowhere.

    They would be digging them selves a 6 foot hole would they have.

    90NM is what everybody is striving for, and IBM hit it first. 90NM is what got the processor from 2GHz to 2.5GHz. 130 would have left them way far behind, and there would probably have been no update just like the G4, and they would never have hit 2.5GHz. Can you say: G5 downgrade?

    They would also still have to work out these kinks in the 90nm process when they moved to that later. Now they have worked out the major bugs, and can move on to their next project which is probably trying to refine it more, then speed it up more, and then eventually cool it down enough to get it into a PowerBook. THen taking what they learned from those experiences, and use it in their supposed dual core G5 I hope.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Can't you read, like I say, if they thought it were important



    Obvioulsy neither Apple nor IBM think it is important and nor do I....
  • Reply 14 of 24
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    Can't you read, like I say, if they thought it were important



    Obvioulsy neither Apple nor IBM think it is important and nor do I....




    Yes I can read, but you leave such statements open to interpretation. As if to say: What is important to us - is not important to Apple, and IBM. With utmost certainty I don't think that's true. I think they did all they could, and Importance has nothing to do with it anyway. The processor had gone as far as it could. End of story.
  • Reply 15 of 24
    charlesscharless Posts: 301member
    Apple may have said there won't be a 3 GHz G5 anytime soon, but they said nothing about a 3 GHz 68040.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    dfryerdfryer Posts: 140member
    Watch them come out with a 3Ghz 040, and then we find out it's a 68LC040 and has *no FPU*.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    ensign pulverensign pulver Posts: 1,193member
    It's pointless, redundatnt, already-beaten-to-death, idiotic threads like this that make AI the laughing stock it is.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ensign Pulver

    It's pointless, redundatnt, already-beaten-to-death, idiotic threads like this that make AI the laughing stock it is.



    That's for sure....
  • Reply 19 of 24
    cdong4cdong4 Posts: 194member
    Honestly, the 500Mhz difference per processor isn't all that big of a deal...



    Faster RAM, PCIe, better graphics cards would be much more appreciated.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CDonG4

    Honestly, the 500Mhz difference per processor isn't all that big of a deal...



    Faster RAM, PCIe, better graphics cards would be much more appreciated.




    OMG it's risen from the grave.. What's up CD? Thought you were dead to AI.
Sign In or Register to comment.