[minnes]

or shorty after
A 64 bit version of project builder is being released at WWDC this June, has to be for the new PPC 970 CPU.
That will be a really big deal if it is released then.


SEE HERE

 

[VertiGoGo]

<yawn> I wish Apple would just hurry up and get on with it. And they had better up the MHz too.

I know that MHz is not the be-all and end-all of the computer...but it sure wouldn't hurt! I mean...PCs are over 3GHz now for goodness sake!

 

[minnes]

The rumors suggest the max this summer would be 1.8 ghz. But remember the bus speed will be super fast, they are saying the bus speed could ramp up as high 900 mhz, I believe the fastest PCs are at 266, but I may be wrong. Ithink we will see Apple crack 2ghz in the late fall, and 2.4 ghz early in 2004.
That's my opinion
frankly, my system is plenty fast for me and will be for a long time. I would imagine a 2ghz PPC970 would be more than enough for anyone, but maybe the most demanding video needs.

 

[Kosh]

And they had better up the MHz too.

I'm afraid you're not going to get your wish - if your wish is to match Intel's GHz. The first PowerPC 970, will clock between 1.4 GHz and 2.2 GHz. The initial PowerPC 970s were reported by IBM to scale to 1.8GHz, but there has been rumour that IBM got better results than predicted. Of course again, the PowerPC 970 is supposed to do alot more than a G4 can at similar GHz. Rumor is that a PowerPC can do twice the work than a similar GHz G4.

 

[jfpoole]

minnes,

Intel currently ships Pentium 4s with an 800MHz system bus. It's been quite a while since a 266MHz system bus has been standard (my P4 from a year ago has a 533MHz system bus, for example).

 

[minnes]

jfpoole
Wow, I didnt know, hmm yes I guess Apple is behind
But then why dont the new P4s go many times faster instead of just 50 to 100% faster?

 

[jfpoole]

minnes,

What are you comparing the new P4s against? Older P4s? Apple's machines?

 

[minnes]

jfpoole
I have a dual 1,25 powrmac, and my friends p4 1.6 seems much slower
you would think a 3 ghz p4 would be more than 2.5 times as fast as the 1.4 dual g4, but I dont think it is, except at cetain apps
usually it seems to be the 3ghz P4 is about 20 to 50% faster at the same app at most.
I think there is other bottlenecks besides the bus and cpu. do they have 8 speed AGP as standard on most PCs now?
My thinking is the 1.8 ghz PPC970 should be at least as fast a 3ghz if it is as efficient as the rumors say.

 

[PosterBoy]

The older P4s (read, your friends 1.6) had as much as a 400MHz bus, but only a 256k L2 cache. Not to mention that it really isn't that much faster than 1.25.

Depending on which P4 he has, it might also use RDRAM (instead of the DDR they so quickly changed to in the primary lines) which has mondo latency issues.

The new P4s however, are running 3.06 (and even more), with as much as an 800 MHz Bus, DDR400 RAM, a 512K l2 cache, and hyperthreading (which in the simplest terms is like processing two things at once)

Apple has a lot of catchup to do. Fortuneately, the 970 will probably fit the bill quite nicely.

What I am interested in seeing is what type of RAM Apple decides to ship with these machines.
Currently the P4 has an 800MHz FSB (which I believe is DDR), but only DDR400 RAM.

The Apple on the other hand, has DDR333 plugged into a machine with a 167Mhz FSB that is only SDR (single data rate).

--PB

 

[Tomac]

Waiting... waiting for the next-gen Macs. That's all I can do -- Apple's current hardware is embarrassing (internally). I'm waiting for the REAL next-gen PowerBooks and maybe the 2nd rev too. Power management is really going to have to be worked on -- Intel REALLY/FINALLY got it right with the Centrino -- Apple's large battery life claims DO NOT CUT IT in real world usage.

I must wait while my favourite company (Apple) gets itself together -- I'm not shelling out premium coinage for inferior/outdated hardware anymore. I can't wait for the WWDC announcements!!! Apple's in a transition right now -- my thoughts -- hopefully setting themselves up for a more performance oriented future. I hope Panther and the IBM 970 (shoe-in) help strengthen/stabilize Apple's products and (obvious) restless/curious users.

"This is clearly going to be the year of the notebook for Apple" -- Steve Jobs

Screw that. This is clearly going to be the year of Apple Computer, Inc.

I know it.

 

[jfpoole]

The first generation P4s (1.4GHz to 1.6GHz) were unimpressive; Intel has tweaked the P4 design a number of times since its release, as well as improved the processes used in actually manufacturing the P4.

Don't forget that dual-processor machines tend to feel more responsive than single-processor machines. I've got a dual-processor PIII at work that feels quite zippy (even though when it comes to flat-out number crunching it's a bit on the slow side).

Oh, and the latest and greatest P4s use dual-channel DDR RAM, which provides twice the memory bandwidth that single-channel DDR RAM does (with lower latency to boot). As far as I can tell, the PowerMacs use single-channel DDR RAM.

 

[PosterBoy]

They do use Single Channel DDR Ram! I mean, why would you need the extra bandwidth that Dual Channel offers when the processors slow SDR bus can barely saturate a wet sponge as is?

--PB

 

[jfpoole]

If Apple used dual-channel DDR RAM, then they could say they used dual-channel DDR RAM. I mean, they're using DDR RAM now, even though the processor can't take advantage of it.

 

[PosterBoy]

Yeah, but who else knows the difference between Single and Dual channel DDR?

Intel doesn't even mention the difference on their site, at least in any of the sections the average consumer is willing to go devling through.

--PB

 

[mycatsnameis]

The time seems ripe for a little rumour-mongering (from MOSR tonight):

If you think the POWER4-based PowerPC 970 is impressive, just wait for its cousin from the POWER5 family -- the IBM PowerPC 980. It will reach 4.5GHz-5.0GHz+, support system busses even more incredible than the 970's 6.4GB/s FSB, include a much more powerful Altivec unit, a high-performance on-board memory controller, and countless other improvements that will mean performance levels well in excess of ten times today's. The best part is, the 980 is currently scheduled for only a little over a year from now. Of course that could very well slip...but so far, IBM has executed its timetables for the 970 extremely well -- no more opposite a story could be imagined from what we have seen out of Motorola for the past five years. Expect IBM to deliver very well on its promises to Apple to lift the company out of its hardware performance quagmire in the next two years. There can be no question, based on the very happy mood we've seen in Cupertino recently....the performance equation is going to be tipping quite rapidly and quite clearly in Apple's direction post-haste.

Speaking of Motorola, reliable sources there have said that Apple is now expecting to deliver at least two different Macs that use 200MHz DDR memory and 200MHz SDR frontside busses in the near future with the company's G4 processors. This may mean that Motorola is still having trouble with its PowerPC 7470 chips which support a DDR Frontside Bus (FSB) that could take full advantage of the DDR SDRAM memory Apple has been putting in its systems to little performance benefit (thanks to the PPC 7455's Single Data Rate FSB, which Apple runs at either 133 or 167MHz currently) for over a year now -- and are planning to ship 7455-based systems on slightly faster FSB's for the iMac or perhaps the Powerbook.

 

[8thDegreeSavage]

From reading the review at www.Arstechnica.com the single 1.4 GHZ 970 will outperform a 3GHZ P4.

 

[jfpoole]

I poked around ArsTechnica, but couldn't find the review[1] you mentioned. Could you provide a link to it?

[1] How can they review something that hasn't been announced (let alone released)?

 

[PosterBoy]

He is probably taking about Hannibals recent in depth look at the 970, which you can read here. Get comfy before you do though, it is quite long.

--PB

 

[jfpoole]

I found that article after I posted my last comment, but for the life of me I couldn't see anything in there that indicated the PPC 970 would outperform the P4.

Did I miss something?

 

[PosterBoy]

I dont think so, but I am only about half way through the article.

--PB