apple should get rid of dual g5

[jhu]

the two g5 chips should be replaced with a power4+ instead. of course, that would cannabalize ibm's high margin systems. never mind.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

No, But it would be nice to see a single G5 2Ghz at a much better price point.

 

[helpme]

So the point of this thread is?

Just like they'll replace the G4 in my iBook with a G5

 

[jhu]

the point is that the power4 is a dual core design. so 1 power4=2 cpus.

 

[boyz]

why should they get rid of the g5? why spoil the fun? I 8te mac any ways

 

[jhu]

i said dual g5

 

[Acanthus]

The power4 is also a $4000 chip.

 

[jhu]

that's because ibm sets the price that high. they could have done the same for their ppc 970 chip but didn't. it's kind of like how xeons cost more than p4 which cost more than celerons. it's the same silicon, just more cache.

 

[addragyn]

Has no SIMD unit.
Hella huge & expensive, 417 mm2 vs 121 mm2 for .13 PPC970 & 60mm2 for .90 PPC970FX
Slower for our purposes.

So you'd have a slower tower that was more expensive. Miss the G4?

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: jhu
that's because ibm sets the price that high. they could have done the same for their ppc 970 chip but didn't. it's kind of like how xeons cost more than p4 which cost more than celerons. it's the same silicon, just more cache.

You're misinformed.

 

[boyz]

Originally posted by: jhu
i said dual g5

i know, so i forgot to mention dual 5

 

[boyz]

Originally posted by: jhu
i said dual g5

i know, so i forgot to mention dual 5

 

[Eug]

Has no SIMD unit.
Hella huge & expensive, 417 mm2 vs 121 mm2 for .13 PPC970 & 60mm2 for .90 PPC970FX
Slower for our purposes.

So you'd have a slower tower that was more expensive.

Plus the POWER4 is built for high-end servers. The chip tolerances are way beyond what is needed for desktops, and thus it again is very expensive. (The PPC 970FX is built to have similar tolerances to an Opteron or Xeon, both of which are not anywhere near as big-iron-ish as the POWER4.)

A POWER4 Power Mac makes no sense whatsoever. A POWER4 doesn't even make sense for Apple servers, since Apple isn't in the high-end server market. The closest thing they'd market for now is clustered low-end servers - ie. the G5 Xserve in clusters.

Also, any POWER5 derivative for future Macs, even if dual core, will still require a substantial redesign and the addition of Altivec SIMD.

No, But it would be nice to see a single G5 2Ghz at a much better price point.

Probably we'll get that after the next several weeks I think, with 2.5 GHz at the top end. But who knows? Apple is too secretive about their roadmap.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jhu
that's because ibm sets the price that high. they could have done the same for their ppc 970 chip but didn't. it's kind of like how xeons cost more than p4 which cost more than celerons. it's the same silicon, just more cache.

The power4 is an enterprise class server chip capable of incredible FPU, its a dual core chip that can do as much work as 16 3.06 xeons... It is NOT just more cache.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: jhu
that's because ibm sets the price that high. they could have done the same for their ppc 970 chip but didn't. it's kind of like how xeons cost more than p4 which cost more than celerons. it's the same silicon, just more cache.

The power4 is an enterprise class server chip capable of incredible FPU, its a dual core chip that can do as much work as 16 3.06 xeons... It is NOT just more cache.

i highly doubt that. going by spec it looks like itanium2 is faster. besides, a ppc 970 is essentially half of a power4 with altivec. that's what this says.