# IBM G5 Dual-Core 2.5 ghz



## MacFreak (Jul 7, 2005)

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/07/07/dual.core.g5.chips/

IBM today introduced a dual-core version of its PowerPC 70 (a.k.a, "G5") processor, which could find its way into Macs in the coming months. In a presentation at the Power Everywhere Forum 2005 in Japan, the company also annnounced new low-power versions of the PowerPC 970FX, which are currently used Apple's Power Mac G5 desktops and iMac G5 systems. According to IBM, the dual-core G5 chips will be made available in speeds ranging from 1.4GHz to 2.5GHz, which could find their way into forthcoming models of its Xserve server and/or Power Mac G5 desktops.

The 64-bit dual-core PowerPC "G5" 970MP chips, code-named Antares, contain two processing units per chip, each with their own execution core and 64K of Level 1 cache. The chips also offer 1MB Level 2 cache for each unit, making the chips more than twice as efficient as IBM's current 970FX PowerPC G5 processors, according to the company. The new dual-core chips also feature power consumption features to dyanmically regulate frequency and voltage as well as the ability to completely turn off one core for added power savings.

The 970MP chip offers SMP functions, enabling it to seamlessly integrate with other dual-core processors to improve performance without increasing processor speeds. In addition, IBM says it has integrated a power saving function to manage the electric power of the system dynamically.

The new family of low-power PowerPC 970FX chips will be available in speeds up to 1.6GHz. They will feature a 512K Level 2 cache. PowerPC 970FX chips are currently used in Apple Power Mac G5 and iMac G5 systems.

IBM also touted its "Power" architecture, noting that IBM processors are used in six of the top 10 supercomputers in the world an that 51 percent of the systems in the top 500 list are using IBM chips, which translates to 57 percent of the global supercomputer processing power.

IBM made the official announcement in Japanese and had yet to update its US website with information on the new chips.


----------



## MacFreak (Jul 7, 2005)

970MP based PowerMacs have been expected for later this year. Despite Apple's recent announcement for plans to switch to Intel based Macs, at least one or two more PowerPC based PowerMacs are due before the switch.


----------



## fryke (Jul 7, 2005)

I find the low-power 970FX more interesting, as I'm a notebook user. Maybe the second revision of a G5 PowerBook _might_ make me change my sig. The first one won't, though.


----------



## Mikuro (Jul 7, 2005)

I'd like to give a big "I told ya so" to the the "IBM can't deliver" crowd now. They've been keeping up with Intel just fine for the past two years, _regardless_ of whether they hit their own growth targets.

This is as expected, and pretty much in line with what has been expected for the past year (although it was hoped that they'd be ready for the _last_ revision).

I'd like to hear more about the low-power version. They don't make any specific claims of 'Book-worthiness. Low-power doesn't necessarily mean low-_enough_-power. If they really can be crammed into PBs, that would be yet another shot to the "Intel's chips are faster" theory of Apple's switch. Hmm.

I still think Apple's decision to switch was not about performance.


----------



## fryke (Jul 8, 2005)

Actually, no, isn't. The dualcore parts don't go above 2.5 GHz, and the low power variants at only 1.6 GHz? It's nice that they didn't sleep and do nothing at all, but a "big i told ya so" is not necessary at this point in time. Because also none of the slides said when the things'd be released.


----------



## Viro (Jul 8, 2005)

Not many dual cores go beyond 2.5 GHz. The Intel P4s are able to hit higher clock speeds due to the way the architecture is designed, for clock-speed and not necessarily performance.

But I agree a low power variant at 1.6 GHz isn't that exciting. It's going to be barely faster than the 1.67 GHz G4 in the current Powerbooks. So if people were expecting a big jump in performance if/when the Powerbooks are moved to G5, this ain't it.


----------



## fryke (Jul 8, 2005)

About the dual cores: Yes. Okay. But that means that the PowerMacs need _two_ of those to gain performance. A single processor dual core 2.5 GHz PowerMac would probably run cooler, but won't necessarily perform better than a dual processor single core 2.7 GHz PowerMac... So: If Apple actually gives us dual processor dual core PMs, that's okay...


----------



## DefUnct_UK (Jul 8, 2005)

The Register says... 

Well to be honest i agree with the view that one way or another new chips would appear, with or without Apple. It certainly seems like a step in the right direction for IBM, but i still think they have plenty of hurdles to overcome.


----------



## Viro (Jul 8, 2005)

Did Apple say they were going to drop shipping dual processor systems if/when the dual core Powermacs arrive? If they did, it's clearly shooting themselves in the foot. 

I always thought that they would be shipping dual processor dual core systems, so you end up with 4x processor cores in your Powermac. Which would be so sweet  This would also make them among the few consumer manufacturers who produce desktops with so many processor cores.


----------



## Mikuro (Jul 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> So: If Apple actually gives us dual processor dual core PMs, that's okay...


Of course. I mean, why wouldn't they? My assumption has always been that Apple will never go back to single-processor high-end machines. It just wouldn't make sense (unless the supply is pathetically low, which is another possible reason for The Switch).

I stand by my "I told ya so".  The only thing that potentially made IBM's high-end chips seem weak was the assumption that they couldn't get DC chips out the door. The whole "z0mg they still haven't hit 3GHz" argument was always weak, since the G5's clock speed has gone up more than the P4's since its release 2 years ago (I forget the exact numbers, but I think it's something like 35% to 20%). The only difference is that Bill Gates or Mike Dell didn't say they'd have 4.5GHz machines by mid-2004.

I said it before Apple's big announcement and I'll say it again now: The high-end PPC is looking better in comparison to Intel's offerings now than it has in the past half-decade or so.


----------



## Veljo (Jul 8, 2005)

Well, doesn't this throw an interesting spanner into the works. Although IBM have announced these new chips, I still think in the long-run Intel is still the  better option.


----------



## Viro (Jul 8, 2005)

Not trolling, but why do people insist that Intel is the better option in the long run? Are there documents that I've missed?

Unless of course Steve's "Big lie" technique. Here is what the Big Lie is:


> His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.


----------



## fryke (Jul 8, 2005)

Hm. It's also about cost. If the 2.5 GHz 970MP costs only a little more than the 2.5 GHz 970FX, that's great. Twice the power for the same money. If it costs almost double the price... What would that mean for PowerMac pricing? Let's assume it costs 1.5 times the price of a single core 970FX at the same clock rate. That'd enable Apple to actually _lower_ the price of the entry level machine by giving it one dual-core processor instead of two single core processors (but leaving performance intact at least).

Hm. We'll see.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jul 8, 2005)

Whoa Dual core!? No way!

/More like it's about !@#$! time


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jul 8, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> But I agree a low power variant at 1.6 GHz isn't that exciting. It's going to be barely faster than the 1.67 GHz G4 in the current Powerbooks. So if people were expecting a big jump in performance if/when the Powerbooks are moved to G5, this ain't it.


 
the key is the FSB. the bus speed in G4 is very bad, compared to the half core speed of the G5 - that's where a 1.6ghz screams louder than a 1.67ghz - more data getting in and out.


----------



## Viro (Jul 8, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> the key is the FSB. the bus speed in G4 is very bad, compared to the half core speed of the G5 - that's where a 1.6ghz screams louder than a 1.67ghz - more data getting in and out.



You do realize that I almost always harp on about the FSB of the G4?

The thing with the G5 Powerbooks is that they need to provide a significant boost in performance before people will stop complaining about them. In my original post, I said that I do not think that a 1.6 GHz G5 Powerbook is going to be significantly faster than a 1.67 GHz G4. It isn't going to make you go "Wow! That's earth shattering". In fact, you might see some applications take a hit in terms of performance, particularly integer heavy apps. 

Based on performance alone, I doubt Apple will bother releasing a G5 Powerbook. But then again, Apple has a habit of surprising me...


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jul 8, 2005)

it would be somewhat of another U-turn to release the G5 PB. afterall, it was half the reason for the intel switch (the other being 3.0GHz), so to bring out the G5 book afterall would be steve jobs eating his words. again. and he appears to have far too much of an ego for that. these processors will be destined for last-of-line G5 models before they all go the way of intel.


----------



## ex2bot (Jul 8, 2005)

Here's my argument why Intel is probably the safest bet: 

IBM really did (as someone wrote somewhere on the net, can't remember sorry!) pull a "deus ex machina" and save Apple's rear end from Motorola's apathy when it introduced the 970.  Motorola had no incentive to up the clock speed of its PPC chips. Too expensive. Not enough demand. Not enough brainpower. IBM's move was a shocker. Quite positive. But shocking.

So, we have IBM as a supplier. But IBM has suffered Apple through **embarrassing** supply problems that plagued the launch of the iMac G5. And as we've seen, IBM really favors making console processors that don't need to be ramped up in speed.

For now, the G5 is competitive. The question is, Who will save Apple the next time?

Intel has competition, a second source, AMD. If Intel falters in a few years (unlikely), Apple will have an easy transition to AMD chips.

I'm sure Apple is weary of being a slave to IBM and Motorola in the PPC personal computing backwaters. Apple is too hungry and innovative to be dragged down by lagging tech.

Doug


----------



## fryke (Jul 9, 2005)

I think Apple will _gladly_ release a PowerBook G5 (and get some sales before switching to intel).


----------



## Pengu (Jul 9, 2005)

um. are the low-power ones dual-core? cus then a 1.6ghz g5 pbook would SH!T all over a g4 1.67ghz.


----------



## boyfarrell (Jul 9, 2005)

How much power do these 'low-power' chips use? How much to they convert to heat? Are they still cool enough for laptops?


----------



## boyfarrell (Jul 9, 2005)

I found this link after a few mins of searching:

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/07/20050707113252.shtml

970MP
Dual core
1.4-2.5GHz
Each core has 1MB L2 cache
One core can be swiched off for low power mode

Also low power 970FX processors were described:

1.2GHz at 13W
1.4GHz at 13W
1.6GHz at 16W

Can 13 - 16 Watts be disappated in a laptop? 

The original G3 in the first iMac disappated about 3 watts for example.


----------



## Mikuro (Jul 10, 2005)

I think the current G4s use about 19w at 1.42GHz, so I guess these G5s would fit in quite nicely. I might be wrong, though. I'm not quite clear on which model numbers are laptop chips and which are desktop chips. 7447A is the one used in PowerBooks right? Anyway, I'm getting this info from http://www.powerbookcentral.com/columns/hildreth_moore/g5g4.shtml if you want to check it out yourself.

And the article makes it sound like the new low-power G5 is a variant of the current G5. i.e., it has only one core. Bummer. Dual-core low-power G4s should be coming out by early next year at the latest. It'd seem silly to make a PowerBook G5 and then make a _faster_ PowerBook G4 a few months later! But I guess that's a moot point, since then they'll probably go straight to Intel by then.


----------



## fryke (Jul 10, 2005)

I guess Apple has already decided whether to go with dual core G4s or single core G5s for the PowerBooks. However: We don't really know when both FreeScale and IBM are ready to produce enough of the chips, so we even might see another round of single core G4s in PowerBooks...


----------



## opus66 (Jul 10, 2005)

Jobs never said that IBM PPC wasn't going to be a viable conrtibutor in the next 2 years... it was 3+ years down the road where the differences would become much more apparent, so why not prepare for the future starting today? 

Apple will use all of those chips in whatever configs make sense (i don't think a G5 powerbook is out of the question... although my 1st guess would have been the laptops to be the very first Intel influence)... An iMac DV with a one dual core chip would be nice if they could keep it cool enough...

Regardless... the IBM chips are a welcome site, but 'i told you so' ... i don't agree. They're a good year late.. and that's after the powermac G5 introduction fiasco and all of it's ridiculous shipping delays. Apple's concerns are obviously going to be the lowest priority with IBM, so I'm glad they're going away... and no last minute posturing will change my mind about that.

Apple gives Intel some bragging rights and the motivation to push the envelope and distinguish themselves from AMD...rather than become a commodity producer. This bodes extremely well for Apple who in a few short years will be poised to tap into the lucrative 'gamer' market segment.


----------



## Carlo (Jul 10, 2005)

whilst Intel just announced these processors to the public I doubt apple didnt know they where on the way. These companies would share road map infomation all the time.

I still think the switch is a good idea. I think intel is more focused on processor design


----------



## Shookster (Jul 11, 2005)

IBM doesn't seem very focused on anything. They've sold off a lot of their product areas, most recently their PC sales division.


----------



## Viro (Jul 11, 2005)

Shookster said:
			
		

> IBM doesn't seem very focused on anything. They've sold off a lot of their product areas, most recently their PC sales division.



If anything, selling of their PC sales divisions demonstrates that they do have a focus. And that selling PCs isn't one of them. As it stands, IBM does literally everything. They are a PC reseller like Dell, selling PCs and laptops. They make super computers, like the defunct Cray super computers and not-doing-so-well SGI. They are a database solutions developer, like Oracle. They develop a Java VM, like Sun. And they manufacture processors among other things, like Intel.

IBM is literally taking on the world, and the fact that they've sold off their PC division shows that they are starting to get their priorities right, and are beginning to focus on whatever field it is.


----------



## powermac (Jul 11, 2005)

Sounds to me that IBM is definetly prioritzing what makes a profit for them. Without Apple using the PPC chip, what reason would IBM have to continue being competitive with chip development? I only ask this because I am not sure what else the PPC chip is used for?

I accept that Apple has decided to switch to intel, although I am not pleased with it, Apple must have good reason. Some one posted that IBM's actual development, and roadmap with the PPC, when compared with Intel, is actually good. Perhaps if Jobs did not make the promise for a 3 GHZ G5, who knows. 

I am not a power user on computers, although I am concerned that with Intel, will we enjoy the stabilty we have come to expect? My understanding is the PPC chip, although clocked slower, actually performs more efficent than any Intel offering. 

Another factor that mildly concerns me is Intel is a company who mass produces chips, this is how they make a profit. For PC manfactures, this would make sense. For Apple, unless they project a significant growth in market share, are they worried about the supply demand of microprocessors?

I guess, as an average user of computers, and long time user of Macintosh, I  don't really see the reason for Apple's switch. I felt the close relation between IBM & Apple was a good one, that fueled some innovation.


----------



## Shookster (Jul 11, 2005)

I think much of the Mac's stability comes from the OS itself, not the hardware.


----------



## Pengu (Jul 11, 2005)

it comes from the marriage of well designed parts, and great software, which is designed to run on that exact hardware. a HP workstation could be just as stable as a G5, so long as the drivers were all 100% compatible with the hardware and each other, and windows wasn't 8 months into it's install-life with a registry that looks like a NYC dumpster.


----------



## Krevinek (Jul 11, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> I said it before Apple's big announcement and I'll say it again now: The high-end PPC is looking better in comparison to Intel's offerings now than it has in the past half-decade or so.



This is precisely why the high-end will be the last to switch. Personally, I wouldn't mind a mixed platform, if it makes the lower-end cheaper to produce and sell. OS X is at a point where heterogenerous product lines isn't going to hurt it... except in the gaming area, or other fields where the use too much assembly.


----------



## opus66 (Jul 12, 2005)

IBM has done nothing but underdeliver and delay product introductions and shipments for the past year... 
Regardless of chip superiority/inferiority... it's an easy choice for apple when IBM's biggest clients become Microsoft and Sony.

It would be a slow death to remain with IBM. Like being trapped in a bad job in a poor economy... I'm sure some of us can relate on some level.


----------



## pjeski (Jul 12, 2005)

opus66 said:
			
		

> IBM has done nothing but underdeliver and delay product introductions and shipments for the past year...
> Regardless of chip superiority/inferiority... it's an easy choice for apple when IBM's biggest clients become Microsoft and Sony.
> 
> It would be a slow death to remain with IBM. Like being trapped in a bad job in a poor economy... I'm sure some of us can relate on some level.



How is it any better to align with intel, whose biggest customers are Dell and HP? Apple is never going to be the most important customer to any major chip supplier.


----------



## opus66 (Jul 12, 2005)

thought i covered that previously.



			
				opus66 said:
			
		

> Apple gives Intel some bragging rights and the motivation to push the envelope and distinguish themselves from AMD...rather than become a commodity producer. This bodes extremely well for Apple who in a few short years will be poised to tap into the lucrative 'gamer' market segment.



Microsoft isn't exactly on Intel's Christmas list right now after switching the xbox chip...
Dell and HP are indeed large volume customers, but running an OS that demands nothing unique from it's chip design ...

Once the mac starts running both systems simultaneously, Dell no longer holds the distinction of making the highest quality PC's on the market... a position that will erode their image and make them scramble cut a deal with Macintel...

Apple is poised to make major inroads into the windows monopoly, unless other strategies and technologies (like home media units and game stations) erode the importance of the home computer significantly in the next 2 years... Longhorn already looks like it won't pose half the challenge it should...

Intel is not afraid of Microsoft, and Apple as a client is a major image boost. IBM on the other hand will wait on Microsoft hand and foot for the next few years..


----------



## Viro (Jul 13, 2005)

opus66 said:
			
		

> Dell and HP are indeed large volume customers, but running an OS that demands nothing unique from it's chip design ...



So... you are basically saying that Mac OS X is a resource hog, is inefficient and requires loads more CPU cycles than a comparable OS to accomplish the same task ?

The fact is, it isn't the OS that should tax the CPU. It should be the apps. I find your argument very odd. If OS X were to tax the CPU more than windows, it'll be obvious which OS people will run.



> Once the mac starts running both systems simultaneously, Dell no longer holds the distinction of making the highest quality PC's on the market... a position that will erode their image and make them scramble cut a deal with Macintel...



Dell isn't reknown nor is it popular for making high quality systems. They are big, because they sell cheap, and if you are a large corporate customer, you get more discounts than you can shake a stick at with some good support contracts thrown in (same day on site repairs). Apple has nothing like this, nor should they. Dell is in a completely different league, and they should stay there. 



> Apple is poised to make major inroads into the windows monopoly, unless other strategies and technologies (like home media units and game stations) erode the importance of the home computer significantly in the next 2 years... Longhorn already looks like it won't pose half the challenge it should...



And this changes things because? Panther was/is miles ahead of XP in many areas. Apple will make no major inroads into the Windows monopoly just because Longhorn is late to ship, or doesn't have all the advertised features. To claim otherwise is to show very little understanding of why Windows is installed on >90% PCs world wide, and how Microsoft has become the dominant player in the market.

In short, it isn't the quality.



> Intel is not afraid of Microsoft, and Apple as a client is a major image boost. IBM on the other hand will wait on Microsoft hand and foot for the next few years..



Given Apple's history and Jobs propensity to behave like a prima donna, how long will it be before Jobs sees Intel 'lagging' and not doing things according to his vision? Intel is larger than IBM, and Intel has way more chips customers than IBM. Intel isn't going to do what Jobs wants them to do, unless it will benefit them. Until Jobs sees that, he'll keep on wondering why people never take his company seriously at a bargaining table.


----------



## pjeski (Jul 13, 2005)

opus66 said:
			
		

> (snip)
> 
> Once the mac starts running both systems simultaneously, Dell no longer holds the distinction of making the highest quality PC's on the market... a position that will erode their image and make them scramble cut a deal with Macintel...
> 
> (snip)



Huh?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jul 13, 2005)

...in the land of fairies and Mr. Tumnuss maybe...


----------



## opus66 (Jul 13, 2005)

Ummm... and where did I say that the mac was a resource hog and inefficient?

Dude, grow up and stop trying to start a flame war. I find your entire post to be just a little too far to the side of bitter.

I really don't have time to snip and clip quotes here so i'll try and get on with it.

OK, everyone knows Dell has a fair share of detractors for it's quality... but who has a better REPUTATION for building a higher quality PC than Dell? (feel free to disagree here, but I've seen the market research and they've been rated #1 for a while). Are you arguing perception or reality?...

Apple cannot make the inroads with Panther becuase the barriers to entry are simply too high. People and Businesses alike are very afraid of the unknown... investing their money in totally different hardware is a risk they are unwilling to take because "if they're wrong" about any such decision, they know they cannot simply go back to what they had... 

When the Intel units roll out.. the potential for change is born... 
For a little more money users can invest in a high quality machine that allows the safe option of trying something new without burning any bridges behind them...
If after a year or two Dell joins the party the venue for change widens significantly.

You make really silly assumptions about Perfect Information in the consumer and business market on hardware and software... 
Consumers have no clue what the Mac OS can do, they never even make a comparison. Ignorance is widespread, and will remain as such until the barrier to entry drops. 

Small pieces of that wall can begin to come down when the switch occurs... and If apple finds some other ipod-like gimmick to maintain image and appeal, more users will be more likely to investigate.

The windows dominance will remain so long as this barrier is too technical for the average cosumer to understand. If that changes, it becomes about which system serves your needs better.

Your opinions about Jobs seem to run pretty deep, but whatever makes you happy. IBM broke the cardinal rule of business. They overpromised and underdelivered. If IBM could not be accurate, then they should have remained quiet. Steve Jobs has both good and bad traits but he's too smart to make hardware predictions without assurance from the source. IBM made him look really bad, and then couldn't deliver  2.5 gHz chips in a timely fashion. I have no doubt he made the right choice in switching... feel free to disagree. 

What I know best about Steve Jobs is that he's helming 2 different companies with pristine brand images and reputations for quality. IMO both are well deserved, and I don't think either happened without positive influence from the top, I don't care how he acts in his personal life.

If i've misinterpreted your posting, well then I apologize. Making your views known is what free exchange is all about, but poking and prodding every other sentence, and tailoring inference to meet the needs of your argument is simply antagonistic IMO.


----------



## Shookster (Jul 14, 2005)

Dell are great at making business and "non-gaming" PCs. They're managed to become really efficient at it. I heard that they make the PCs for £50 and sell them for £700-800. It would have to REALLY be worth it for them to switch, as it will take them time to become efficient at creating Macs (time = money), in addition to the initial cost of switching (e.g. new machines if necessary).

Btw, being at the top of some market research list does not mean everyone agrees with the result. I personally think Alienware machines are better quality, but I probably use different criteria to you based on my own personal preferences.


----------



## fryke (Jul 14, 2005)

opus66 said: "Ummm... and where did I say that the mac was a resource hog and inefficient? Dude, grow up and stop trying to start a flame war. I find your entire post to be just a little too far to the side of bitter."

I think it was a "conclusion". He didn't say you _said_ it was a resource hog and inefficient.

I think terms like "grow up" are rather dangerous in terms of flamewar material. So, dudes, all a'ya: Grow up and stay tame!


----------



## Viro (Jul 14, 2005)

@opus66

You are assuming that the Intel macs will somehow automatically lower the barriers to entry to trying OS X. This is false, unless Apple allows non-Mac machines to run OS X, which I doubt is going to be the case. You will still need to buy a new machine to try out OS X.

As I've said before in my post, Dell isn't No.1 because of making quality machines. They have the honors of that spot because of a) volume discounts and b) good support. Apple should never compare themselves to Dell in terms of quality. It's like getting Ferrari to compare itself with Ford (i know, beating dead horse). Different leagues, and they should stay there.

It's alright to make assumptions, but I'm pointing out that some of the assumptions made aren't based on sound reasoning. Granted, they could be expressed in a more un-antagonistic way, but I've grown tired of rehashing what is essentially the same arguments with the Mac 'faithful'. There is no need to take offense, because none were intended. You have your opinions, and I have mine. Needless to say, discussion should be done in an adult manner, and just because I disagree with your arguments and point out why, doesn't mean it is flame bait. If you want flame bait, go hang out on some GaMerZ ForUmz and see the 1337 h4x0rs flaming each other to death.


----------



## Krevinek (Jul 14, 2005)

What opus66 was trying to say with the "special from their chip" comment is that MacOS X is a hugely different beast than Windows in terms of resources it utilizes. Using the vector unit in a lot of places helps MacOS X perform quite efficiently, but at the same time, "requires something special from the chip".


----------



## fryke (Jul 14, 2005)

Yeah, just don't mix things up. The _interface_ for example profits much more from a decent graphics card than it does from AltiVec. An iBook G3/900, for example, performs the user interface quite nicely. It doesn't compare well to a 800 MHz G4 iBook, though, if it comes to video or audio encoding. Software optimised for the Velocity Engine really makes the G3 look like a very old processor. I'm sure once a decent intel Mac comes out, we'll see how well which tasks are running. But be sure that the user interface won't lag. That's mainly the graphics card.

And Viro: An intel Mac _does_ make it easier to switch to the Mac, because it offers you a way back to Windows, should a user really consider that, without selling the Mac and buying a PC. Sure, that's not as easy an entry point as Mac OS X for _any_ PC, but for people who're looking into replacing their old computer, a Mac suddenly is much more attractive. The user can try Mac OS X, can dual boot into Windows and - should the Mac side of things really not be what he or she wanted - move back to Windows. All on one machine.


----------



## boyfarrell (Jul 14, 2005)

Will you 'allowed' to duel boot an intel mac!??

Surely, apple won't allow this!

Please explain your point further.


----------



## Viro (Jul 14, 2005)

The thing is, there hasn't been any confirmation whether you can dual boot Windows on the Intel Macs. Anything people say now is just speculation on what some Apple exec said about not officially supporting Windows on Intel Macs.


----------



## opus66 (Jul 14, 2005)

Just to be clear, I wasn't looking to get into an argument that gets personal... so I'm glad we're in agreement there...

fryke, thanks for the clarification on my entry barrier argument, as that's exactly what I was trying to explain. 

From everything I've read thus far, the Macintel machine will easily dual boot (ironically, I think Mac Os will probably have more bugs initially). 
My understanding is that any extra hardware Apple requires will be to allow and possibly enhance OSX's operation on the machine. At the same time any such hardware would simply be inactive during Windows usage... Apple simply won't be baited into fielding Windows related support issues/questions from users.

Viro does make an important point... This could also come down to how Apple positions themselves with this capability. If they avoid the issue, and thereby omit it from all media coverage and promotion of the unit... well then they won't be able to benefit from the ease of switching I tried to detail. I hadn't considered that.

All of the posters bashing Dell's quality... you're most likely correct. But just keep in mind that the vast majority of people with very crappy Dell's believe that those crappy machines are the best on the market. Those very unhappy with their Dell, still believe that a Gateway or HP would be a step down from where they are now. Sound ridiculous?  Sure, but it's also true. Others simply aren't educated enough to know they should be getting better utility and are therefore quite content.


----------



## Pengu (Jul 14, 2005)

dell have innovated exactly one thing: production line. they make lots of machines very cheaply. they offer big discounts and get lots of "bulk buy" deals. but. they're sh!thouse machines.

and i think we'll probably find the biggest difference between a "PC" and a mac with intel, will be the CMOS bios replaced by a new firmware-based bios.. 

however, apple have for a long time shipped thier "own" video cards (built using ati and nvidia chips) rather than supplying crappy third-party cards.

this will likely not change, so they probably wont "just work" under windows.


----------



## georgelien (Jul 23, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> I'd like to give a big "I told ya so" to the the "IBM can't deliver" crowd now. They've been keeping up with Intel just fine for the past two years, _regardless_ of whether they hit their own growth targets.
> 
> This is as expected, and pretty much in line with what has been expected for the past year (although it was hoped that they'd be ready for the _last_ revision).
> 
> ...




IBM has been "keeping up with Intel just fine for the past two years"?

Really?

If so, where is my PowerBook G5?

And where is my 3GHz Power Mac G5?


----------



## Mikuro (Jul 23, 2005)

georgelien said:
			
		

> IBM has been "keeping up with Intel just fine for the past two years"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


I was referring to desktops. The lack of a laptop-capable G5 IS a big downside (and I consider it to be a likely driving force behind Apple's switch), definitely. But as for the 3GHz thing, as I said before, the G5's clock speed has increased _more_ than the P4's over the past two years. The fact that they "missed" the 3GHz mark means nothing. Sure, it'd be nice and marketable to have a "3" in there, but that's really all it amounts to.

As far as desktops go, IBM's been doing consistently better than Intel ever since they released the G5.


----------



## georgelien (Jul 23, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> I was referring to desktops. The lack of a laptop-capable G5 IS a big downside (and I consider it to be a likely driving force behind Apple's switch), definitely. But as for the 3GHz thing, as I said before, the G5's clock speed has increased _more_ than the P4's over the past two years. The fact that they "missed" the 3GHz mark means nothing. Sure, it'd be nice and marketable to have a "3" in there, but that's really all it amounts to.
> 
> As far as desktops go, IBM's been doing consistently better than Intel ever since they released the G5.




I disagree with your "'[missing]' the 3GHz mark means nothing" remark.

If it did meant "nothing," then Steve would not mention it at this year's WWDC.

Apple today could sell twice as many--maybe even more--Power Macintosh G5 computers if the fastest processor speed matches Intel's.

When the G5 was just released, I agree that Apple once again led the race.

However, now 2 years later, the x86 camp had once caught up and passed the performance of the G5s.

If Apple doesn't do something soon, the PM G5 will not only be passed--but blown away--by the high-end PCs.

Dual core, PCI express, DDRII memory and new system bus--just for the start.

God bless the Power Macs!


----------



## ex2bot (Jul 23, 2005)

One interesting question I haven't seen answered anywhere is, Did Apple overclock the 2.5 GHz 970s to get 2.7 GHz? Seems likely. They've overclocked before.

And BTW Phil Shiller specifically said Apple would do nothing specific to prevent Windows from running on the MacIntels.

Doug


----------



## boyfarrell (Jul 23, 2005)

> Apple today could sell twice as many--maybe even more--Power Macintosh G5 computers if the fastest processor speed matches Intel's.



I'm sure you know this and that its been done to death but it's not about clock speed. Processors are complicated things you can't boil them down to number. PowerPC and AMD have clock speeds slower than Intel but they are great chips! 

A more fundamental way would be how many useful computations per clock cycle can a chip perform. And if you look this data you'll find some thing along the line that the high end AMD can process about twice as much in one cycle than some Intels. No wonder the only way out for Intel is to crank the clock speed higher and higher!

From this point of view PPC and AMD are actually better!

However, the PPC design is starting to reach it's limits, and apple has had to use water cooling etc. Intel has realised the error of there way and started paying attention to chip design and are starting to innovate and come out with some great things. The Pentium M for example; based on a P3 core but run on a smaller manufacture process (90nm I think), allowing them to bolt on a huge cache, FSB 400 MHz etc.... features not clock speed.

Chip design and features are more important than and one number.

There is a great podcast that talks about chip design and the Intel v PowerPC  stuff on iTunes 4.9. 'MacCast' the shows are a special edition released on 21-06-2005 check them out.


----------

