Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Jul 2005 19:16 UTC
IBM IBM has today presented various new versions of their G5 processor at the Power Everywhere Forum in Japan. Firstly, it introduced the much-anticipated PowerPC 970MP, the dual-core version of the G5. In addition, they also announced 3 low-power G5s, ranging from 1.2Ghz at 13W to 1.6Ghz at 16W. These processors will most likely find their way into Apple's Macs.
Thread beginning with comment 1195
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Too little, too late
by ma_d on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Never understimate a Macintosh apologists ability to repeat Steve Job's verbatem.

I'm not trying to be rude or insulting; but it does start to seem like that sometimes. This is one of those times where Mac fans cried for so long about how G5 was better than Xeon (we all know anything beats Prescott) and Opteron and now that Apple is leaving it suddenly Intel is going to produce an amazing x86 chip for them? Do you guys just trust Steve Jobs implicitly?
If I had been a big Mac fan (and I was a big fan of the G5 and the G4 actually) when this happened I'd have shut-up about processor superiority and started talking about hardware quality and OS superiority.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Member since:

Don't own a Mac, never have! Never said G5 was better than Opteron! It is better than Xeon though..

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Member since:

The G5 in a Power Mac has got nothing to apologize for.

A G5 in a laptop was the problem. And IBM's time to market wasn't as good as one would hope. Had IBM started with the G4 and built it's 64bit replacement, then there might not have been this change to Intel.

I guess there are just so many good ideas when it comes to chip design.
But, it would have been interesting to see what IBM could have done had they started with the G4, added 64bit regs, and only increased the 7 stage pipeline to 10+, dual core, better Altivec...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by on Fri 8th Jul 2005 10:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Member since:

All this brow beating about "how dare mac zealots sing the praises of intel when they bagged them for so many years" is starting to get me annoyed.

Each porduct should be judged on its own merits. I am an unashamed G4 fanboy, but in the last 12 months I have been getting increasingly jealous of my centrino toting friends. The P4 is a pilo 'o crap, but the Pentium M is really sweet.

Some intel chips are good, some are bad, some PPC chips are good, some are bad. It seems to me apple is just betting that future intel chips will be the better. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge before we can make any judgement as to wether or not this was a good idea.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Too little, too late
by rayiner on Fri 8th Jul 2005 14:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little, too late"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Each porduct should be judged on its own merits.

The problem is that years ago, when Apple was spouting the "MHz myth" and "the G3 is faster than any Pentium II" the Mac fanboys bought it wholesale. They continued to believe it long after the G3's limitations became painfully apparent.

I am an unashamed G4 fanboy... but the Pentium M is really sweet.

The ironic thing is that back when the P-M was called the Pentium II, the G4 fanboys thought it was a piece of shit. If the P-M is really sweet (better than a G4, certainly), wouldn't that have made the PII "pretty sweet"? That's not what the G4 fanboys said. Nope, all I heard was "MHz myth, nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you!"

Reply Parent Score: 2