“Announced yesterday (a gargantuan five months after AMD and Intel) and a month after Apple announced it had officially kicked IBM to the curb in favour of its new girlfriend Intel, the PowerPC line has eventually gone dual core. Cue little fanfare for the 970MP, the expected upgrade to the single core 970FX, more commonly known to Apple owners as the G5 processor,” Gordon Kelly writes for TrustedReviews.
“It will be available in speed increments of 1.4GHz to 2.5GHz and has 1MB of L2 cache. Power consumption is said to be roughly 13W when trundling along at the bottom end of the scale, so it seems the company has finally gotten over the well documented problems it has had in this area. Clearly moving to a 90nm fabrication process has helped no end,” Kelly writes. “And yet with the metallic rumblings still heard in the distance from the Apple/Intel wedding car and the confetti yet to settle who will buy these long overdue processors?”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
IBM introduces dual-core PowerPC G5 chips up to 2.5GHz, could be used in Apple Power Mac G5 – July 07, 2005
IBM exec: we could have made a mobile G5 for Apple PowerBooks – June 30, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005
noone
that simple?
Well if IBM doesn’t care enough to compete for Apple’s business (while they were hitched) then they won’t mind Apple’s absence, right?
Seriously.. As cliché as it is to say “Steve made a smart move” the switch away from IBM looks very wise here..
Ummm, wake up people, Apple is no match for Sony.
I bet Apple was making too many demands and IBM said screw it.
The Cell Processor is going into the PS3, you do the math. Obviously it will outsell the Mac in terms of quantity and $$$.
…if they will make money for Apple between now and the Intel models.
I doubt it, but maybe so.
The only bad thing about the Tntel move is no Cell switch in the future, or at least not for a very long time. However, if Cell proves to be usefull in the desktop/server space, the architecture can mature, and maybe in 10 years or so we’ll see Apple and IBM reuinte and introduce Cell based Macs.
Right up until the day the Intel switch was announced, all you Apple zealots and Mac trade press were all talking about the superiority of the IBM chip. They’ll never change, blah, blah blah.
Now, less than a month after the announcement, IBM are suddenly “gargantuan amounts” behind AMD and Intel? Guess what, they were behind the day before the announcement as well.
I’m a long time “un-blinded” Mac user and have known for awhile that we were behind, AMD at least. Especially in the notebook sector. AMD have had a mobile 64bit chip in “shipping” notebooks for sometime. Intel are still behind AMD. I hope we see an Athlon64 based Mac in the future.
I sure would like to hear from all of you “I can’t wait for my quad cell G6” PowerMac people now…
Ignoring Jerry T,
I can’t wait to see how a dual core, dual processor PowerMac blows the sh1t out of anything available in the wintel world. Intel may be our future but we still need IBM to motivate them to make chips worthy of our beloved operating system.
Egarc,
Why ignore me? I only say the truth…almost everyone on MDN were saying the Intel switch wouldn’t happen because IBM are terrific and have a great product line and roadmap. “The PPC is far more scalable and just beginning, x86 is dead”.
Now less than a month later IBM are wankers and behind AMD and Intel by “gargantuan amounts”. How could they fall so far behind in 3 weeks? Fair weather friends is all I can say.
Jerry T,
I think you need to cool it a bit on us “zealots”. We have rightfully lambasted x86 for its failure to lead (albeit a small lead by IBM). You don’t even know what Apple intends on putting in the new Macs, no one does.
Until it’s a plain vanilla Intel processor like all the other trash boxes out there (in which case I’ll be thoroughly disappointed and will apologize), we can still call the Dells and HPs out there “x86 TRASH”.
Jerry T. I see your take on the situation as a bit pessemistic, but I am in that boat with you. The Intel and AMD processors both pulled away from the 970FX by a good measure. Many people don’t want to admit it, but as it is now the direction we are heading will be great with the upcoming hardware from Intel. As for AMD, there are reasons Apple didn’t go with them even though they have a lead on the market at the moment. Apple can get motherboards and processors both from Intel, not so with AMD, therefore giving Apple an easier time with components and pricing on said components. Intel’s processor line seems to scale from PDA to Itanium powered scientific data clusters, giving Apple numerous options to expand it’s line of offerings at a price that no other company can beat (Intel really does offer better bulk pricing to their buyers than AMD can because they are so huge)
Don’t forget the new multi-core offerings forthcoming from Intel. Many are saying that if AMD doesn’t change it’s current lineup significantly, the upcoming Intel multicores will steamroller them in performance. I don’t like to say such things about products that we as the consumer haven’t seen on the market yet but in this case the information is NOT scarce.
I’m rambling, my point is that while I was okay with Apple using IBM even though it was obvious that the 970 line was being put to sleep by the new stuff on the other side of the fence, I am also okay with Apple making this change. I didn’t expect it by any measure, it was completely a surprise to me; The thing is that it WILL give Apple a brighter future if everything rolls right. To be frank, as much as I didn’t want the change, if it boosts Apple and gives us better offerings (possibly at better prices since Intel CAN offer great bulk sales) then I’m all for it. The architecture we had was good, it served it’s purpose. I say we move on to what’s next, and this seems to be it. Lets not dwell on the past here, in computing terms there is no such thing as the past. Computing is foundationally new better faster cheaper cooler and that’s the way it always will be. Time for Apple to keep up!
Jerry, stop using my last name. You are embarassing me with your un-blindedness. It has been a common lament for the last couple of years that Apple has no successor to the G4 in laptops, IBMs roadmap hasn’t panned out like it promised Apple several years ago. If IBM could have kept up with its roadmap, we’d singing the praises of IBM in the T family.
You’re the white sheep of the family. Go away.
Ye gods. will this story never go away and rest in peace…
Did Apple really make unreasonable demands of IBM? Or – to continue the surreal prom date metaphor – did IBM promise much (3GHz by Summer 04, anyone?) and then fail to put out?
Personally, my guess is the latter – I know that the games console market is a bigger market than Apple could ever hope to deliver, but there is such a thing as honouring your commitments or, at the very least, being seen to try to honour those commitments without suddenly reshuffling priorities to suit your new best friends like Sony, Toshiba and Microsoft.
In an ideal world, IBM should have remembered that – whilst it couldn’t make a decision over which chip architecture to use – Apple continually flew the flag for PPC in the mainstream IT universe. Additionally, it should also have remembered that Microsoft screwed it once in the mid-80s and, like the frog with the scorpion on its back, there is more than an even money chance that it will do it again at some point in the future.
As things stand, we will – in two years time – get to see some things that are, quite unusually, interesting in both a practical and an academic sense: firstly, is Mac OS X running on an Apple designed Intel platform faster than Windows whatever running on an Intel-referenced, commodity built Dell? And then, even more interestingly, is Windows whatever running on a Apple box quicker than the same platform running on a Dell?
Now I fully expect the former to be true, so I can only be disappointed in the result; but if the latter is true as well, Apple has the potential to become the pre-eminient supplier of the only hardware capable of acting as a universal OS X/Windows/Linux client. The big question after that is whether that potential has any commercial worth in the marketplace.
I have to agree with Jerry T we apple users have for a long time been very one eyed – lets face it people none here knows what jobs/intel plan for apple it could be a processor it could be the same crap thats out now – through remember the main hobbler to the x86 is windoze – they do perform a lot nicer under redhat or any linux favour. Lets just wait and see what the plans are before jumping on the wagon
Speaking of being “un-blinded”, I think all of us are blind to what drove Steve to make the decision he did. So until we know what he knows, I think any blasting of one chip platform or the other is unwarranted.
That being said, Steve has demonstrated good use of the information he does have to bring us great products in the past (as opposed to other CEOs in Apple’s past) and I for one am willing to bet my money on the choices and products he offers us. Like others have stated, I’d rather have OS X running on any fast hardware than Windows on anything at all.
It seems to me that there are not enough new products to talk about.
This used to be the time of year that Macworld announcements would create a tizzy of rumours and speculation then there were weeks of discussions about it followed by a few more anxiously awaiting the shipping product. I miss those days.
there is a difference between “superior architecture” and “superior performance”
no one with intelligence regarding which is better – the clean, smooth, and scaleable PPC or the decrepit, ancient, and utterly convoluted x86 architecture – would argue that the PPC is a superior architecture.
this is – finally, despite all previous analogies – the next VHS vs. Beta. Beta was technically superior, and had a architecture that would have allowed much better performance over the long haul.
But the maker didn’t deliver, was woefully behind in their commitements, didn’t allow widespread manufacturing from 3rd parties, and simply didn’t perform as well as the poorer architected format.
While IBM can claim all this carp all they want, they never got us the chips, they never showed us that they would continue to scale at a reasonably priced level, and simply weren’t up to the task of chasing Intel and AMD across at least 3 processor groups – but more like 5.
Intel, for all it has to contend with its crappy chip history, is making faster, more powerful chips, and has far superior power control in their laptops at performance levels that make our current products seem Model-T in comparison.
Have no fear that if IBM actually decides it wants to keep us, i’m 1 mea culpa away from letting the world know that we’ll keep the PPC on he high-end/server-end.
but with IBM having suitors that make us irrelevant (today), they will probably come to regret their decision to slow roll and over price PPC chips to us. that was their call to make.
Why ignore me? I only say the truth…almost everyone on MDN were saying the Intel switch wouldn’t happen because IBM are terrific and have a great product line and roadmap. “The PPC is far more scalable and just beginning, x86 is dead”.
—–
God you’re so ignorant.. no one here was privy to the IBM or Intel roadmaps before the announcement.. Still to this day, SJ likes IBM’s current offerings. Where’s the double standard?
For WinXPers…
PPC
Current Stuff = Good
Future Stuff = Weak
Intel
Current Stuff = So so
Future Stuff = Great
The only double standard is when you get into this stupid “You’re supposed to stick with one supplier until the end of time” crowd. This is not the first time Apple has been through changes like this. Hence, the ‘OS X double life’
I’ve read all these comments and agree with both sides. I only feel stupid because I just spent $3,760.oo on a G5 2.7 w/ 3.5 gig ram and feel maybe I made a mistake and should have waited until next year. But a year seemed a long time to do without one and my G4 450 is too slow.
I guess I’m saying that NO ONE TOLD ME. This all came about as a shock.
DID I make a mistake?
“…who will buy these long overdue processors?”
Me!
I’m going to continue to upgrade, buying the newest/latest/greatest Apple PPC-based computers until they finally discontinue PPC, and then I will discontinue buying new Apple computers. I hope that day will never come.
you clowns were cryin’ about how intel sucked just a few months ago.
now you’re sittin’ on Intel’s d!ck, spinnin’ round and round…
funny how fickle we mac fans are…
as for me, I’ll be buying a dual processor-dual core PowerPC mac in a nano-second if they release one. screw intel. I’m not waitin two years…
Would it not be safe to say that we can’t really know where x86 or other Intel offerings can go when released from the yokes of Microsoft’s heavy, lumbering operating systems? I mean, most of the world only knows what in Intel processor does through the use of Windows. And Intel has designed their processors primarily for use with Windows. Could there be more there than we’ve been let in on?
VM don’t despair, you made the right choice, your machine is amazing and will be for years to come. Apple is still using IBM chips and will be for two more years. Frankly be glad you didn’t wait for the Mactels, remember OSX 10.0 and 10.1 were pretty flakey, as will the new machines be until the transitional bugs are worked out.
Darn, now I have G5 envy I want one to replace my G4 400, on second thought you should get rid of your G5, can I make you an offer… ; )
I don’t see why Apple got into business with IBM in the first place. IBM has always been about the Big Machine – mainframes, supercomputers and the like. I guess Apple didn’t do a good enough job of convincing Big Blue to make small, cold chips, or IBM was just too inflexible to be able to accomidate such a request. I guess that’s why IBM is expanding into the consulting arena?
I wonder when these will be available in Powermacs. I just got my 2.7 GHz one and can already see the handwriting on the wall. Oh well, the river of technology is always flowing and you gotta jump in sometime. I think these will sell fine.
Oh and even if they come out with a G5 Powerbook now, I don’t think I will ever own one. I am waiting for the Intel Mac Powerbooks and the possibility of a dual boot syste (AND the possibility I can talk my company into footing the bill because it is dual boot)
Mike,
I’m so ignorant…because no one here was privy to Intel’s roadmap, so they made up their own facts. How does that make me ignorant? You ass clowns were saying x86 was dead without seeing anything. That was all in your minds, completely made up. And I’m ignorant…Fsck you.
Seems to me like everyone saying x86 is dead we’ll have “dual quad core G6 cells before we ever go to Intel” are the ignorant ones. The switch makes very sound business sense, and I said that all along. I can’t wait to see what this dead end has to offer. And you’ll still be a prick Mike.
And the double standard is that most everyone here (including you “Mike”) said that IBM rules and Intel drools. Now IBM are a bunch of sorry wankers and Intel is the cocks walk with a gargantuan lead over IBM. All in just a fortnights time. So if you didn’t know Intel’s roadmap you should have kept your mouth shut. Speaking without knowledge is ignorant. Prick.
BTW, I don’t care for “Mike” very much…he is always a jerk.
Of course only if this is the same “Mike”. Otherwise I apologize for my rudeness.
“ibm evil
intel good”
-Steve has spoken, Steve is our lord.
Jerry T: spot on!
It is safe to say that the vast majority of fanboys here did exactly as you describe: blast Intel and claim IBM was superior and then they did a 180 and now Intel is good and IBM is hopelessly outdated.
They deny it in all sorts of ways, of course, no one likes to be shown up as a blinded little fanboy who will repeat all that the cheerleaders of MDN spout.
Don’t worry about them flaming you, Jerry. You know and I know and most importantly they themselves know what little wankers they are. They have to live with themselves, realizing they’re blind fanboys. Nothing they say can be taken seriously because of that.
And that goes for MDN, too, of course. Anything you read on this here site, be it by the cheerleaders or the fanboys, is most likely not the truth about whatever they speak about at that moment, because of their ludicrous zealousness.
Reliability, face value, expertise, anything you look for in a source you read and believe, you won’t find it here
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
ibm sucks.
my mac has ibm in it.
therefore my mac sucks.
intel rules.
Why flame each other? It’s all a bit adolescent isn’t it …
Personally I’m still disappointed that IBM failed with their product roadmap – call me misguided, but I still feel that the Power PC is a better chip with much more potential than current Intel offerings .. I’ve read a lot over the years about both platforms – ars technica has some great articles on both and gives an unbiased view of each platform’s strengths and weaknesses …
I’m nervous about the transition, but I guess that Steve is privvy to a much clearer picture than the one that trickles down to consumers. I’ll watch future developments with great interest.
And the double standard is that most everyone here (including you “Mike”) said that IBM rules and Intel drools.
Huh? That’s the best you can do? You sound like an 8 year old.
So the name IBM is good and will forever be good. And the name Intel is bad and will forever be bad. Please post a link or something to where Mac users said this.
If IBM fucks Apple, Apple should do nothing in response? No retaliation?
If Intel makes cooler and cooler chips over time, should Apple ignore them cause ‘That’s Intel.. we don’t work with them’
You obviously don’t know much about business. The case for competition means LEVERAGE for customers. In this case, Apple is the customer and having an OS that runs on X86 means they always have leverage if IBM starts to doze off.
In conclusion, Mac users have railed against ignorant PC users who think a 3.8Ghz P4 is twice as fast as a 2Ghz G5.. but that does NOT mean Intel sucks.. it just means they exploit clueless customers with marketing.
Like I said a hundred times, one of the benefits of Intel is you don’t have to keep trying to teach people(PC users) how microchips work.. and what ‘speed’ means.. Essentially Apple is throwing in the towel when it comes to promoting a chip with a ‘smaller number’
On that note, if you’re going to spend a grand of your hard earned money, you might want to do a little research. Damn.
The Macintosh is not about the processor. That said, the processor needs to keep up to support the software. IBM failed to do this.
Without a G5 Powerbook, how could Apple stay with IBM? I don’t know if we need to BLAME IBM; we don’t know why they never succeeded in getting a suitable G5 for the Powerbook. Perhaps they were trying, but just couldn’t do it.
In any case, whatever the reason, the hardware must improve to keep pace with demands of the software. Apple’s move was obvious and necessary. What was smart was that Steve had apparantly been preparing for years for the possibility that they’d need to switch chips.
Just a little note: 2 years waiting is way too much. Who told you that?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
2 years is roughly when all Mac line will have an Intel inside, not when the first one will appear. Expect announcements in January.
It’s amazing how quickly everyone forgets how they were crying about a supposed move to Intel.
Everyone talking all this crap and now all of a sudden fanboys like Mike somehow are able to pass it off as if they always knew this is the way to go. How IBM was screwing and ignoring Apple. If that was the case and everyone knew it how come no one was brining those arguments to the table the day before the keynote as evidence to the fact that not only might the rumors be true but that they made sense?
Mike, where were you then? Obviously you currently have some well thought out and objective takes on the move but were you trumpeting the Intel roadmap as the way of the future the day before the switch announcement or were you one of the Zealots swearing to never use a Mac again because of the move. And there were PLENTY of those idiots. Although I am sure everyone has conveniently forgotten that as well.
Jerry T. is just pointing out what the “doubters turned converts” seem to forget. How quickly IBM became the bad guy and how absolutely hypocritical it makes Mac users seem now. No one wants to admit they had it all wrong. But now they want to pretend they have it all right. You can’t have it both ways chief.
And Mike..
“PPC
Current Stuff = Good
Future Stuff = Weak
Intel
Current Stuff = So so
Future Stuff = Great”
Has Steve faxed you a copy of the Intel roadmap not available for public consumption. How the hell do you know how great it is?
Just another guy talking out of his ass.
I assume it is going to be great because I trust in Apple/Jobs decision to make this move. I am sure Intel will wow us. But do I know for sure? Of course not. Could it be a mistake? Sure, anything is possible. But I have faith it will turn out just fine.
The difference is I admit that I know as much as the rest of you hypocrites did the day before the announcement, which apparently is a whole lotta nothing. So stop pretending otherwise. You don’t now, you didn’t then. And you are giving the rest of us a headache.
…and now some lot intelligents in the deebait
intel sucks
JOBS missed a major boat going with Intel. No amount of silly reviews will ever change that fact. In this article IBM is criticized –bascially–for introducing a chip that is way more powerful than anything Intel has inside—face it–the current 64 bit G5 chip is as fast and powerful as anything has and IBM just announced and even faster chip and at lower overall power. Where is INTELs 64 bit dual core chip? And Apple could have used this chip until such time as CELL technology is up and running–probably by all accounts avaiable before Mac will build its first Intelmac. (play the jingle here). I want a lap top powered by a Cell. But be that as it may–Apple now is indistinguishable from a Dell except for OSX–the logic of that is that Apple now is competing with Microsoft and not Dell–yet Apple shot itself in both feet because Apple wont even try to sell OSX to the computer makers who presently make 97 per cent of all computers. At the same time Apple is obliging itself to be competitive with Dell cost wise –sounds like a be OOPS to me. And tell me–what processor speed are the dual core 64 bit chips that Intel is dreaming about making?
These Apple users are applesauced or at least they are letting some one make apple sauce out of their brain matter—and this happens over and over again–First they trumpet motorola chips-as if they were designed by the Krell–and deride processor speeds–Then they cheer when Apple moves to IBM –at the same time dumping on Motorola as if Motorola was making their chips out of wood and twine. Apple still tells us that processor speed isnt so important even though it has arguably closed the processor speed gap (look at the speeds of intel chips inside most lap tops–really there is no gap in processor speed)–and Apple is touting tests that show the G5 as it is is faster and more efficient than the most powerful Intel chip presently available –BUT WAIT!!!!–Apple switched to INTE: (play the jingle here) and the Intel jingle magically turns brains into apple sauce and the minions come out Cheering Intel and dumping on IBM. Roadmap??? These people have been lobotomized. No other way you can get there from here.
If IBM ‘s 5 months are gargantuan , what do you call the wait for a dual core 64 bit Intel chip running at 2.5 clock speeds? Never mind the fact that over the time of those 5 months the G5 chip as it has stood for those 5 months was arguably more powerful and as fast as anything Intel is likely to introduce over the next 5 months.
It remains to be seen whether IBM can deliver those newly “announced” chips on time. Usually there is a lack time and usually is too late.
Lisa,
We will never see the Cell processor in a laptop or desktop environment. From Anandtech:
“The first thing you have to keep in mind is that Cell’s architecture is nothing revolutionary, it’s been done before. TI’s MVP 320C8X is a multi-processor DSP that sounds a lot like Cell: http://focus.ti.com/docs/military/catalog/general/general.jhtml?templateId=5603&path=templatedata/cm/milgeneral/data/dsp_320c80&familyId=44. So, while Cell is the best mass-market attempt at a design approach that has been tried before, it doesn’t have history on its side for success beyond a limited number of applications.”
Lisa, those “apple fans” cheering whatever the latest chips Apples uses are NOT true Apple fans. If one understands a bit more about Steve Jobs, one should realize Steve is hardware agnostic. He used Intel chips in his Next boxes way back. It’s the software ( OS ) that counts!
Leave it to Lisa to inject a little ‘reality distortion check’ into this debate, as only she can.
I also think His Steveness jumped ship way too quick. Intels roadmap is decidedly ordinary when compared to even it’s direct competitor AMD. So if x86 is the future of computing, the future lies with AMD.
Ars Technica’s Hannibal just wrote a piece based on ‘inside info’, where he claims this move was made based on A] Apple’s (i.e. Steve’s) petulant attitude toward CPU development and purchases an B] extremely good per unit prices on x86 and xScale processors, the latter going into some future variant of the iPod. Obviously, ‘A’ is a long standing problem at Apple, and won’t go away just because they’re at Intel. On the otherhand, ‘B’ potentially makes this move a lot more logical … IF you believe that Apple’s future rests with xScale equipped iPods.
Personally, I think that’s ridiculous. That would be analogous to Sony having said back in the 80s “You know what? This VCR-thing is so big that we don’t have to make TVs any more … and the Walkman is clearly the cornerstone of our audio future so lets stop making stereo systems too!” VCRs and portable audio players were/are great products, but they are products that require an ‘anchor product’ around which to revolve to make any money from. VCRs are worthless without TVs, Walkmans are a lot less fun without stereos … you need the latter for the former to make any real money for you.
Clearly, the iPod and Mac are in that same dynamic. Now, Sony was known for highly advanced, slightly expensive, but really great TVs. Can you imagine a Sony that had stopped putting major investments in television technology? Me neither. I think they keep that up for a reason; because becoming their type of major multimedia powerhouse (hardware, software, audio, video) requires having really good anchor products. They didn’t clip corners in ensuring that their reputation for high quality didn’t deviate too far from reality.
Now, bringing this around the horn, Apple has to do exactly the same thing if they intend to become what we all think they want to become – the next Sony. Apple’s anchor product in that quest is the computer – NOT just the Mac OS, although that’s very important, but the entire WIDGET. That means hardware which is just as cool (in reputation as well as reality) as the software.
Is there anyone who seriously believes that slow-footed, monopolist Intel is going to provide that hardware? For present day indications, one only has to look at the PC gamers. These guys have been buying the ‘best-of-the-best’ in the x86 world for years – and they’re buying 64bit, low clockspeed, AMD CPUs (hmmm, sounds like the 970). Chipsets? Independent chipset makers are the preferred option, ones that can make advanced designs that the big boys, including Intel, shun due to production cost considerations (hmmm, Apple makes their own chipsets – but probably won’t anymore with Intel).
I think Apple would be much better served sticking with what’s gotten them this far, with what’s growing their PC marketshare NOW. Switching to Intel is only going to slow sales now, and x86 won’t give them that cache of exotic hardware they been enjoying ever again. Besides, Intel would have given them good deals on xScale regardless, simply because the iPod is doing so well right now. But iPod is NOT the anchor product. It can never be that. It’s a gadget that loses usefulness the minute you take the PC out of the equation, while the PC soldiers on being the portal to the web, the productivity machine for work, the multimedia repository for play, etc ….
Apple should make the Mac the best possible computer it can be. That’s the proper foundation upon which they can build everything else. And making the best computer is not going to happen with x86 or Intel.
I didn’t understand the bluster about IBM when the Intel announcement was made. Partially that was because I recall seeing the power/performance specs for the G5 and comparing them with the AMD and Intel X86 compatible chips. It seemed like the G5 compared very favorably with them in terms of power consumption and if you believed the Apple hype on performance, it appeared that we were in good shape. So, now it all comes down to what do you want to believe from all of this.
As for being too little too late, well it is clearly too late on the low power CPU side of things. I don’t know that I will give in on the too little side since I didn’t figure we were going to get 3.0GHz and probably a 2.5GHz dual core can out perform that for some things. And potentially it could be air cooled.
Mike,
I resorted to 8 yr old schoolboy language as a way to communicate with you. Because I’m not used to talking with “unabashed know it alls” in the adult world. Most adults can admit when they were wrong and learn from the experience. Not you though, you now say the exact opposite as you said before and try to pretend you knew it all along. And that works for a lot of people. Unfortunately, you are such an arrogant vocal prick, and post such nasty remarks to people that don’t “know” as much as you. That makes it harder for you to be a hypocrite and hide on the other side of a debate.
As far as me knowing much about business, try reading the post you were responding to. I said; “The switch makes very sound business sense, and I said that all along. I can’t wait to see what this dead end has to offer.” I also (unlike you) said that in all of my posts prior to the announcement. If you need links to prove it, just look back at any post on MDN you or I made up until about 10 minutes after the keynote.
And your mother was right; those manners help a lot in life. If you are a know it all type that can’t stand to be on the wrong side, don’t be such a loud mouthed prick to those that you “think” are wrong. You never know when you’ll need to make their points of view your own.
Yonah is already being demoed in pre-release units, I’ll bet on it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/09/intel_demos_yonah/
Lisa’s typical desperate rants reeks of sheer ignorance and seriously delusional hard-headedness. In fact, her misguided assertions concerning the G5 and Intel are so far off the mark, when presented with facts she simply waits for another headline to make the same recurring, ignorant comments as if she’s stuck in her own rigid “reality distortion field”, as if refusing to accept the cold hard truth.
Of course, she knows nothing about Cell if she wants it in her laptop. She wonders where Intel 64-bit dual core chips are (she doesn’t seem to realize Intel have quietly added 64-bit support to the P4 line for some time now….more amusingly, she’s completely unaware she doesn’t even have full 64-bit support under Tiger, an aspect in which Windows 64 is clearly superior), and religiously believes Apple’s hand picked benchmarks as gospel (instead of widespread independant benchmarks showing “Wintel” ahead of any current G5).
When presented with facts, she will not post. Such as here:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6158/
She simply waits for another headline to post the same flawed drivel again, just as she will with this thread.
Sammy,
For once I agree with you!
Lisa is just a troll.
Sammy,
Just to clarify, P4’s 64bit capability is a pretty recent addition. Intel added it well after both AMD and IBM brought their 64bit CPUs to the desktop. Plus, Intel was forced to adopt AMD’s version BECAUSE they dragged their feet about it for so long. Plus, OSX’s not fully utilizing 64bit CPUs should in no way reflect badly on IBM – they have nothing to do with Apple’s OSX optimizations (or lack thereof).
Insofar as Cell in laptops (or PCs in general), obviously it would be unworkable in it’s present, multimedia optimized state. But if you look at the architecture, its simple enough to replace it’s integer challenged mother chip with something more standardized (it’s just a PPC core with a small cache and integer registers stripped out, nothing more or less). Lose one or two of the 7 (or however many) SPUs, and there’s plenty of die space to make it a ‘cellified’ version of any PPC based processor.
The trick would of course figuring out how to utilize the rest of the SPUs, but that’s a problem I’d love to see someone solve on a desktop – or even a server
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Next!!!
God, this thread makes me want to vomit. I can’t decide whether folks like Jerry T are just trolling, or if they actually believe all of MDN was “Rah rah IBM, we love IBM” prior to the announcement.
All I can remember was people constantly bitching about the lack of a G5 laptop.
Robin,
I’m no troll. I just want the fastest most powerful Mac I can get my hands on.
And I’ve felt for months that that would be with AMD. I kept seeing them move farther ahead of everyone. I’m disappointed that it’s going to be Intel. But if it gets us super fast PBs then good. I still hope to see an AMD Mac in the future.
And if “all” you remember is people wanting a G5 PB, look back at all the pre announcement “Apple moving to Intel” rumor threads. Most everyone was no way, it “ain’t gonna” happen. I won’t buy one etc. Now of course, those threads could have brought out the most vocal G5 supporters. I know that, but I remember “Mike” being the biggest prick as usual. So I’m really just taking him to task. I hate people that think they know everything and really know nothing. But when they know nothing and are pricks about what they “don’t” know, well I get a little vocal myself.
P.S.
Don’t vomit; it’s not good for you. You need to loosen up; a little tech talk shouldn’t make anyone want to vomit.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />