Why Dual Ghz 2.7 ?? , Why not Dual Ghz 3.0 ?

Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
205
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Ireland
Your Mac's Specs
15" Macbook Pro (2010) 2.4Ghz, 4GB RAM
I really thought the next power mac G5 was going to be a Dual Ghz 3.0, why get rid of the Ghz 2.5 drop it to Ghz 2.3 and release a Dual Ghz 2.7 ??

Anyone know where i can get good cheap hard drives for my powermac Ghz 1.6 G5 ????
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
105
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Apple said 3 ghz yes, but unpredicted results meant the processor speed has "hit the wall" as steve jobs put it. Basically they predicted processors would get faster and faster using their current methods but they didnt. Its not just with IBM but with intel and AMD aswell. Dont worry 3 ghz will come, just not as soon as expected.
 
OP
robbiemullen
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
205
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Ireland
Your Mac's Specs
15" Macbook Pro (2010) 2.4Ghz, 4GB RAM
What if AMD made processors for Apple, instead of IBM. there mite have been Dual core processors and then two Dual core processor in the machines, so it would be like having 4 single processors !!! sweet
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
442
Reaction score
15
Points
18
Location
Sweden
Your Mac's Specs
2GHz C2D macbook
apple systems are based on power PC processors. its not as simple as it sounds to "take AMD and put it in apple"
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
3,378
Reaction score
61
Points
48
robbiemullen said:
then two Dual core processor

There is a dual core G5(970MP) but they haven't implemented it yet. I haven't seen the Dual Core AMD processors for sale yet. I want to see a dual core, dual processor Xeon HT machine, thats like 8, kind of...
 
OP
robbiemullen
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
205
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Ireland
Your Mac's Specs
15" Macbook Pro (2010) 2.4Ghz, 4GB RAM
its like two processors in one. a processor is a single chip,this will be like two chips on the one processsor,its because they can get the semi conductor material so small, it goes into mad physics and stuff, like crystal lattices and crap.thats why in the production of processors everything has to been so perfect and clean. you really are dealing with nano measurements.if something is off by an amazing little difference like .01% it can make a big difference. like pentium "celron" chips are basically pentium chips that have some sort of defect that happened at the production stage,and Intel sell them off cheaper,its just the exact same chip,but with some very tiny defect.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
6
Points
18
> Apple said 3 ghz yes, but unpredicted results meant the
> processor speed has "hit the wall" as steve jobs put it.
> Basically they predicted processors would get faster and faster
> using their current methods but they didnt. Its not just with
> IBM but with intel and AMD aswell. Dont worry 3 ghz will
> come, just not as soon as expected.

The companies have hit the wall with-regard-to frequency speeds for their current chip technologies. I think that PPC is at
130 nanometers. The next shrink would be at 90 nanometers.
AMD is ramping up at 90 and Intel is working on 65 so Intel is
leading the pack here.

There were some benchmarks on AMD's new Venice core and
they were very impressive in terms of power consumption and
performance and top end. AMD can make faster chips with the
process shrink to 90 nm.

> What if AMD made processors for Apple, instead of IBM.
> there mite have been Dual core processors and then two
> Dual core processor in the machines, so it would be like
> having 4 single processors !!! sweet

AMD has their own production constraints and there have been
some talk in that they have some problems making enough of
the highest-performing parts.

AMD's chips top out at 2.6 Ghz though I think that they're
going to get a little more headroom with 90 NM. But dual-core
will be very, very nice. The AMD K8 architecture was designed
as a multi-core architecture which gives it an advantage over
MC chips from Intel. I don't know the history of PPC very well
and can't comment there.

> apple systems are based on power PC processors. its not as
> simple as it sounds to "take AMD and put it in apple"

Digital ported VMS from VAX to Alpha and HP took it and ported it to Itanium. Microsoft ported Windows-32 from x86 to PowerPC, MIPs and Alpha. And ported Windows to Itanium and
x86-64. Sun ported Solaris to x86 and x86-64.

It isn't easy to do but it's been done. Many times.

AMD chips are cheaper because they have the advantage of
more volume so per-unit costs are lower. Can PowerPC gain
there? I think that would be hard to do unless Macs become
a lot more popular.

> There is a dual core G5(970MP) but they haven't
> implemented it yet. I haven't seen the Dual Core AMD
> processors for sale yet. I want to see a dual core, dual
> processor Xeon HT machine, thats like 8, kind of...

There's an article at http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=115129046&forumid=1 saying that Sabre has 145 of them and is using them for their online airfare search system.

I saw a web page at hp's site where they are selling AMD DUal Core systems. I don't have a link handy though. My next system will probably be a dual-core AMD notebook system. Not sure what I'm going to run on it though.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top