Dual 1.8gigs by end '03?

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 85
    spookyspooky Posts: 504member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:

    <strong>I am here with a personal request aimed at all applicable persons.



    Please refrain from using the term "megahertz myth" to defend apple/ibm/motorola in the present, as if the current line of powermacs were in any way faster than current intel/x86 processors in all of the important calculations that really count. You look stupid to me.



    When you bring up that dastardly term, it sends a pang of grief through me. If you are truly intending to do a good thing for Apple, please don't misrepresent their products as superior in the respect of speed. Saying that wretched Myth is the only thing that makes people stick to PCs is an insult to Apple, because its defenders are of low intelligence and considerable ignorance when fact is concerned. And that means that Apple must be a company of brainwashers. It's not good to support brainwashers.



    PCs have more hardware and software variations. PCs have better framerates and overall graphics performance. PCs can render 3d graphics faster. PCs have hundreds of games. PCs are understood by a larger group of people.



    Macs are not faster computers overall. They are not cheaper to own. They do not outperform PCs. Please stop saying that 2 1.25ghz PowerPC G4s are actually faster than, or as fast as, a single 3.06ghz Pentium 4. The MHZ really do matter, whether you want to deem it as a falsehood or not. You know this is true, deep in the back of your mind. You know that when you comment about the "MHZ Myth," you are essentially suggesting to those people you talk to, that "It's really Only a myth, and it's not at all true that the Intel processors are faster. Apple is faster." And this makes you stupid, because you know it's wrong and you say it anyway, whether intentionally meaning to mislead and be loyal to apple (in an unconscious, backstabbing kind of way), or by sheer accident of ignorance.



    This is my plea for the day. I hope noone takes it personally; it's my opinion, and though only an opinion, I feel that for you to think about it for yourself would be a good thing for you. You may learn something new about your own views. If you throw it by the wayside, then that would say something about your being less open-minded than perhaps you ought to be, for optimal interpretation of your world, and in consequence, for your own good. But it's not just because I say it's that way that it really is that way; I'm only interpreting the world that I see.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I have to admit that lemmingway has posted the best, most honest sounding and realistic post ever on appleinsider. if the rest of us in the mac community started from this position then perhaps we might be more able to influence apple rather than the current trend towards sicophancy (is this a real word?)
  • Reply 42 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    Oh, and the core the 970 is derived from belongs to the POWER4, which ships with four of 'em on die. So if the design is relatively faithful to its parent's, IBM could easily roll out a dual-core variant of the 970, too. When they went to 90nm, say.



    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Great as alwasy, Amorph, but to be accruate, the POWER4 has two cores on-die, not four. Then four dice are placed onto an MCM (multi chip module), so 8 cores for the whole thing.



    Which is, sort of, 4 of 'em (dice) in a package. Maybe that's what you meant.
  • Reply 43 of 85
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:

    <strong>

    I remember reading about those 970 processors being potentially very expensive, and warranting Apple's raising the prices and considering computers based on these processors to be more of a Workstation class (So it will be more in competition with the Xeon than the standard P4). Accompanied by this rumor in my memory is the suggestion of a mainstream, less powerful processor being the primary competitor against things like present-day P4s and Athlons. This isn't encouraging to me; Apple doesn't even have a comparable processor to the standard, consumer-class X86 processors.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I share your concern. I don't think the fact that Apple has not announced its intentions to the use 970 is as important as the price of these chips. The top of the line P4 is more expensive than the top of the line G4 (times two for the duals of course). Apple has extremely high margins, so if this chip is more expensive than the G4s, which I have a sneaking suspicion it will be, than the prices of the Powermacs will go up, which is not good.
  • Reply 44 of 85
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>



    I have to admit that lemmingway has posted the best, most honest sounding and realistic post ever on appleinsider. if the rest of us in the mac community started from this position then perhaps we might be more able to influence apple rather than the current trend towards sicophancy (is this a real word?)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    I have to admit that if something that belongs on Ars Battlefront, complete with factual inaccuracies (Macs still win on reliability and TCO - look it up), misdirection (identifying the factual, if unfortunately named "MHz myth" with an irrational claim that Macs are faster), and an unholy fixation on FPS in shoot 'em up games as the ultimate measure of a PC's worth, is "the most most honest sounding, and realistic" post evar[sic] here, we might as well close up shop and go home.



    I haven't seen much sycophancy around here as relates to the PowerMac's performance. Yes, the new ones are blazing fast. No, they're not quite as blazing fast as the best of the Intel-based PCs right now. That's common knowledge here and elsewhere. It hasn't reached Apple marketing yet, but that's marketing for you.



    If anything, this forum is much harder on Apple - and specifically, on the G4 - than most of the general-audience and technical press is.



    Not that any of this has anything to do with the thread subject.
  • Reply 45 of 85
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:

    <strong>The initial topic of this thread doesn't really seem like it's impressive; it's saying that, assuming the 970 is what Apple uses (there still has been no confirmation), by the end of next year Apple will only be Half as slow MHZ-wise.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think unless someone comes out with real world benchmarks we wont be able to say whether that's a good or a bad thing.
  • Reply 46 of 85
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    [quote]Originally posted by progmac:

    <strong>i think something overlooked in the fantasizing about the 970 is that while it may meet the speed of a 3.x Ghz P4 at the end of the year, all it means is Apple has caught up with speed to the PC world at that particular time. Intel certainly has something in development, that, when released, will put the P4 and 970 to shame, and then the whole cycle starts over...</strong><hr></blockquote>





    True, but it's not like IBM and AMD aren't working on faster chips. All three companies have something better coming down the pipe. All you'll see from Intel in 2004 is a 0.09-micron Pentium 4 with 1MB L2 cache and a 800MHz FSB. Impressive considering the Athlon 64 will start with 512K L2 cache and a 400MHz FSB. If you factor in the Athlon's integrated memory controller and higher IPC however, things even out. AMD will tweak their design further once they move to 0.09-microns.



    The PPC970 with its lower power consumption, Altivec, 900MHz FSB, and insane number of execution slots looks like a real winner. If IBM decides to go dual core once the chip transitions to 0.09-microns, the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will be left in the dust.



    It's really to early to worry about the Pentium 5 and Desktop Itanium. Whenever they're released, AMD won't be far behind with the K9 and IBM has the POWER5. What Mac users should be worried about is how the PPC970 stacks up to the Hammer and Pentium 4. Based on the available specs for all three chips, it stacks up nicely.
  • Reply 47 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by jdbon:

    <strong>



    I share your concern. I don't think the fact that Apple has not announced its intentions to the use 970 is as important as the price of these chips. The top of the line P4 is more expensive than the top of the line G4 (times two for the duals of course). Apple has extremely high margins, so if this chip is more expensive than the G4s, which I have a sneaking suspicion it will be, than the prices of the Powermacs will go up, which is not good.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I doubt that IBM has the fiinal cost worked out yet. It will be an equation based on the material cost, the R&D, and the potential market base that they can reach. The first of these is directly related to the size of the processor, which is slightly larger than the G4. The second may be partially offset by the R&D that has been barrowed from the Power 4, which could bring the sale price per unit down to the G4's. The third is anybody's guess. I would imagine that IBM wants to sell them to Apple, plus use them in thier own product line, so conservitevly say 7-10% market share. This is also designed with MP systems in mind, so they will make it as cost effective to build MP systems as possible, which is more of an incentive for IBM to get the price down to at or lower than current G4 prices.



    The wild card here is how successfull do they want to make a 970 line, and its descendants? IBM could sell these chips at a loss to build up a market for third party Unix boxes based on a descendent of the CHRP motherboard. Why would they do this? First off they are putting profit into Intel's coffiers every time IBM sells an X86 system. More profits in the hands of Mircrosoft, who after bailing on the joint development of OS 2, released an OS which effectively killed IBM's new OS. IBM is developing the Power line already, it just make sense for them to try to make it into a line-up that can compete in the desktop market so that they can make more profit from their processor designs.



    In fact, as I see it, as A chip maker it just makes sense to try to get as many computers as possible made, either by you or "cloners", with your processor design. You make a bit off of every chip sold, you can make a bit off of every mother board sold (if you license the motherboards as well). And if IBM cuts their margins to a bare minimum, or even sells at a loss, to get the platform selling at viable levels, then they will do more for their long term profitability than if they lived with the status quo...it is a risk but the rewards are out there.



    [ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: @homenow ]</p>
  • Reply 48 of 85
    The MHz Myth simply says that you cannot compare computers on the basis of MHz alone. This is a very true statement. It does not state that Apple PowerPC machines will always be faster than x86 machines, regardless of what hardware specs are. The current Apple machines suffer from a few problems that really have them at a disadvantage -- considerably lower clock rates, a processor core that is several years old, a shared processor bus which maxes out at about 1 GB/sec, a new and unoptimized OS (10.0/10.1) and (in some cases) immature compilers that don't generate particularly good code.



    Things are getting better, however. Mac OS X 10.2 and the new compiler gcc 3.1 have already made a significant improvement on the software side of things but this may take a bit of time to trickle down into the already released applications. On the hardware side the 970 promises to provide a new faster core at 50% higher clock rates with 3-6 times the bus bandwidth. A 970 ought to run your Lightwave example at 1.5 - 3 times the speed of the current 1.25 GHz G4. All in a package that is smaller and less complex (therefore less expensive & cooler) than Intel's Pentium IV. IBM has a clear plan to reach 0.09 microns and industry news seems to indicate they'll get there first and with a proven SOI technology. There are also hints at follow on products to the 970, and only IBM has a track record with dual core designs.



    Also, IBM said they'll hit full production in 2H '03, which is not the same thing as "end of '03". Apple has in the past introduced machines as soon as the processor hit production, so a summer release of these is not out of the question.



    The truth is somewhere between "doom & gloom" and "wild optimism".
  • Reply 49 of 85
    Everybody seems to think that the 970 will be more expensive than the current G4's but what if they were less expensive? Robotically manufactured on 300mm wafers and moving rapidly to .9nm they might be significantly cheaper, opening the way for speed improvements and lower prices.
  • Reply 50 of 85
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:

    <strong>





    True, but it's not like IBM and AMD aren't working on faster chips. All three companies have something better coming down the pipe. All you'll see from Intel in 2004 is a 0.09-micron Pentium 4 with 1MB L2 cache and a 800MHz FSB. Impressive considering the Athlon 64 will start with 512K L2 cache and a 400MHz FSB. If you factor in the Athlon's integrated memory controller and higher IPC however, things even out. AMD will tweak their design further once they move to 0.09-microns.



    The PPC970 with its lower power consumption, Altivec, 900MHz FSB, and insane number of execution slots looks like a real winner. If IBM decides to go dual core once the chip transitions to 0.09-microns, the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will be left in the dust.



    It's really to early to worry about the Pentium 5 and Desktop Itanium. Whenever they're released, AMD won't be far behind with the K9 and IBM has the POWER5. What Mac users should be worried about is how the PPC970 stacks up to the Hammer and Pentium 4. Based on the available specs for all three chips, it stacks up nicely.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So essentially what you are saying is that the 970 will basically skip the current AMD Athlon / P4 Generation and go straight for what is the long-term goal of all the manufactures? I hope it lives up to the hype.



    Lots of talk about FSB in here. Is it really that important?
  • Reply 51 of 85
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by progmac:

    <strong>Lots of talk about FSB in here. Is it really that important?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The faster you want to process data, the faster you have to get it to the CPU. The faster the bus (FSB) the faster the CPU gets the data. One of the problems of the G4, for example, is a slow FSB.
  • Reply 52 of 85
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>



    The faster you want to process data, the faster you have to get it to the CPU. The faster the bus (FSB) the faster the CPU gets the data. One of the problems of the G4, for example, is a slow FSB.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    but isn't it true that a lot of the other components (particularly ram) are slower as such that the benefits of the FSB are negated?



    [ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: progmac ]</p>
  • Reply 53 of 85
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by progmac:

    <strong>

    but isn't it true that a lot of the other components (particularly ram) are slower as such that the benefits of the FSB are negated?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The RAM used in the currend towers can run at (I think) 333 mhz, but the CPU bus does so at 167 mhz. So the RAM could handle twice the speed of what the CPU (G4) currently supports. The same is true for AMD Athlon CPUs, where these have a 266 mhz FSB interface, yet you get motherboards that support 333 mhz and some even 400 mhz RAM.
  • Reply 54 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by progmac:

    <strong>Lots of talk about FSB in here. Is it really that important?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    It depends on your system architecture and the kinds of tasks your chip will perform most frequently. In applications like manipulating video (with a great deal of random motion, say) moving bits over the bus fast enough to keep an Altivec processor fed becomes very important.



    But that assumes you are using the Altivec unit a great deal, that the functions in your software can and do take frequent advantage of it.
  • Reply 55 of 85
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    [quote]Originally posted by progmac:

    <strong>Lots of talk about FSB in here. Is it really that important?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It is in a _dual_. It makes a Quad substantially less useful/possible.



    Not very long ago the better desktop boxes had interleaved memory - such that the CPU could chew through the max output of _two_ banks of memory simultaneously. With the G4's FSB, there's been no reason whatsoever to have interleaved memory. That's not necessarily a big deal for the single G4s - it does add cost after all - but once you get up to the higher end machines there's an insurmountable brick wall. There wouldn't be a perceived slowdown if Apple's 'Flagship' desktop models were Quad 1.2 GHz boxes with interleaved memory. (For, ~$2000 more than the current max priced model).



    But if Apple built a Quad _today_ on the current G4 (with its current bus) -&gt; two CPUs nearly completely starved for anything to do -&gt; nearly pointless.
  • Reply 56 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    I have to admit that if something that belongs on Ars Battlefront, complete with factual inaccuracies (Macs still win on reliability and TCO - look it up), misdirection (identifying the factual, if unfortunately named "MHz myth" with an irrational claim that Macs are faster), and an unholy fixation on FPS in shoot 'em up games as the ultimate measure of a PC's worth, is "the most most honest sounding, and realistic" post evar[sic] here, we might as well close up shop and go home.



    I haven't seen much sycophancy around here as relates to the PowerMac's performance. Yes, the new ones are blazing fast. No, they're not quite as blazing fast as the best of the Intel-based PCs right now. That's common knowledge here and elsewhere. It hasn't reached Apple marketing yet, but that's marketing for you.



    If anything, this forum is much harder on Apple - and specifically, on the G4 - than most of the general-audience and technical press is.



    Not that any of this has anything to do with the thread subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Please don't laugh at me; I don't laugh at you. Should I? Should I also bring up statistics in order to insult someone who brings up statistics, for bringing up statistics (reliability claims)? By the way, please don't forget the CRT displays dying (I had 2 of them die on me), the older iMac overheating issues, occasional TiBook optical drive failures, and the illustrious eMac DOAs, just because Apple has a high reliability ranking. Did you bring up those known issues in your argument, or did you leave them out with an intent to mislead?

    Perhaps you didn't intend to mislead; perhaps the argument simply required only certain information be present.



    When one computer performs and completes tasks faster than another computer, is it irrational to say that the first computer, the one that performed and completed the tasks faster, is actually faster than the other?



    It's too bad that you decided to become a hypocrite and make false claims against my argument; I would have very much appreciated more constructive criticism given sensibly. When you attack me by claiming factual inaccuracy about subjects which I didn't even mention (reliability), I don't think you're helping your cause. And when you say I have, "an unholy fixation on FPS in shoot 'em up games as the ultimate measure of a PC's worth," I do not see where you get this idea from. I mentioned it 2nd in an order of 5 things which, correct me if I'm wrong, are facts. I don't believe I put any extra emphasis on that specific part. Are you fabricating things to dislike about my argument, and then claiming I am doing the same with "factual inaccuracies?" I don't think your way of arguing helps Apple very much. I hope you do not claim to be on their side.



    If I misdirect in any way, that is not my intent. I posed an idea which I think is being suggested by the words, "MHZ Myth." Do you ever see someone defending Apple by claiming, "MHZ Myth?" Each time you see that, what do you think they mean when they are saying it? Perhaps it's up to the interpreter's knowledge, and the detail of the quick version of identification that slips by consciousness before something is thought about more carefully.



    Incidentally, if Apple had a processor with higher MHZ than anyone else, would they continue to use the term?



    Total Cost of Ownership...I can't say I know for sure. I only know that a top-grade Mac costs quite alot more than a medium-to-high-grade, faster, consumer PC. I know that many things, including some PCI adapters, SCSI cards, and so forth, cost more for a Mac. I know that there are certain internal optical drives which are available only for PC, and which I've heard do good burning, for lower prices than Mac-compatible CD-RWs. I think some of them are Sony. I know that some software costs more for Mac. I know that more warez are available for PC, thus cutting cost further, and for a larger number of people. I know that PCs are cheaper to upgrade and to replace with new PCs, and may be more frequently replaced because of this lower cost. I know that my brother has owned 2 PCs to my 1 Mac, and has still spent less money even though he got screwed on his last purchase (which is considerably faster than my computer). He also has a scanner and a printer which both function, As I do. Another thought, though it may not be too particularly relevant in this argument, is: Don't people often buy more of things that they like better, sometimes resulting in more money spent?



    In the end, I ask again, please don't use the term MHZ Myth to defend Apple/Motorola/IBM in the present. The intent may be well and good, but the end result is simply very misleading, especially to those people who are less familiar with the exact meaning of it, and to those who may tend to take things at certain less accurate values. Also, please don't forget that I said, "In the present." If such a case occurs as the 1.8GHZ Macs clearly outperforming 3.6 or 4GHZ PCs, then I think it would be fit for use once again. But for now, it's a tired old complaint, used most often by sycophants. Don't see them? Be brutally honest. It's good for you, and better for everyone else; that way people can see where and how they can improve their own arguments and ideas.

    Help us become smarter by learning from our errors and the errors of others!
  • Reply 57 of 85
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:

    <strong>Total Cost of Ownership...I can't say I know for sure. I only know that a top-grade Mac costs quite alot more than a medium-to-high-grade, faster, consumer PC. I know that many things, including some PCI adapters, SCSI cards, and so forth, cost more for a Mac. I know that there are certain internal optical drives which are available only for PC, and which I've heard do good burning, for lower prices than Mac-compatible CD-RWs. I think some of them are Sony. I know that some software costs more for Mac. I know that more warez are available for PC, thus cutting cost further, and for a larger number of people. I know that PCs are cheaper to upgrade and to replace with new PCs, and may be more frequently replaced because of this lower cost. I know that my brother has owned 2 PCs to my 1 Mac, and has still spent less money even though he got screwed on his last purchase (which is considerably faster than my computer). He also has a scanner and a printer which both function, As I do. Another thought, though it may not be too particularly relevant in this argument, is: Don't people often buy more of things that they like better, sometimes resulting in more money spent?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    While I agree with your perception, it is your perception. If you are placed in a dark room, and someone lit a cigarette, you may interpret that spark as many different things. I feel that one's perception is very important in a purchase decision. I recently sat down at my place of business to set up 4 Dual-1.25 Powermacs. We have a couple of the typical know-it-all junior weebs around doing PC rollout in a Windows XP conversion project. They rolled their eyes when Macs came in the dept. I just merrily sat down, watch the OS X interface scream and they instantly fell in love. I showed them the typical Office.X apps, IE, Omniweb, Photoshop, etc, and they liked the interface very much. They also loved the accessibility of the Powermac case and the beautiful, crisp display of the 17" LCD. Then I showed them things like iApps and the ability to import digital media with blatant ease and then showed them how easy it is to add really cool transition effects to an iMovie, and then burn that to a DVD. They gained acclimation for the Mac and I hear them just about every day now saying that they are going to get a Powermac.



    Funny how perceptions change when actual products are involved.



    I could give a rats ass about MHz and all that crap. Show me an easier to use, more well-designed, and truely inspired products (rather than the generic Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc ad nauseum PC), then I will think about buying it. Until then, the Mac just works better.
  • Reply 58 of 85
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:

    <strong>I know that more warez are available for PC, thus cutting cost further, and for a larger number of people.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't think advertising the fact that stealing software for one platform is easier than another, makes it better. Just a thought.
  • Reply 59 of 85
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:

    <strong>When one computer performs and completes tasks faster than another computer, is it irrational to say that the first computer, the one that performed and completed the tasks faster, is actually faster than the other?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, you are correct, that's pretty reasonable.



    What is unreasonable is extrapolating to 'Since computer X is faster at task Y, computer X is faster at _everything_'. Which happens far too often (and yes, Apple is repeatedly guilty of this, duh).



    The speed/price comparisons always devolve into mudslinging. Mostly because the people involved are talking to cross purposes. Professional, performance hungry people use tools that perform well _on_the_tasks_they_actually_perform. Someone working on Lightwave which is limited by the speed of double precision floating point calcs would probably end up with Athlons. Until very recently, the AV unit was not just leading but dominating in vectorized single precision floating point. The current (independent) photoshop benchmarks aren't between $399 Sears specials and the Dual 1.2GHz Mac box - the competitors are dual Athlons and Xeons.



    But dual 1.8 GHz boxes from Apple by year's end doesn't seem like looking around with rose-colored glasses. Compare that with where Intel expects to be at the end of next year, and this all turns into a normal, cyclical period in the product cycle, and nothing to worry about.
  • Reply 60 of 85
    [quote]Originally posted by Rhumgod:

    <strong>



    I don't think advertising the fact that stealing software for one platform is easier than another, makes it better. Just a thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not better, perhaps, but probably more desireable. I'm sure having a friend or family member with Office/Photoshop/QuickBooks et al has influenced many a PC-buying decision.
Sign In or Register to comment.