New 2.7Ghz G5s

[.vooDoo.]

Good for them, but I consider AMD worse than intel. Why don't you stop being a PC noob and realize it's Mac (short for Macintosh) not MAC.

lmao....Your "know it all" mentality makes me laugh Myst. Since its you here that is truly the unknowledgeable noob I will try to explain in your terminology. AMD 2.2ghz owns 3.6 Intel and AMD is truly a gamers/develepors processor.(oposed to "MAC" that is). Again...I will say to research AMD if your going to spat unresearched opinions.

BFG: the AMD Athlon 3500+ has a 1ghz FSB. Single processor=Single FSB / Dual Processor=Dual FSB


Back on Topic:

Dual Layer DVD Burners....I say about freakin time. Once MAC hits the 3.0ghz benchmark I will consider to purchase another one. Otherwise I will continue to just use my G3 powerbook.

[BTs_Mysterio]

It isn't know it all, i didn't say AMD was slower. I said I consider AMD worse. I simply don't like that company. You can't say AMD is better clock for clock than a G5 well simply because of this:


(Barefeats.com)

There is something about AMD that just annoys me, perhaps because the PC doesn't deserve a chip maker more competent than Intel.

And for the record, this is all on topic. The issue was raised by these updates of if these bumps were significant or if the G5 was behind the times.

[.vooDoo.]

O...K...for the record I never said AMD was a better chip then the G5. I just said it was the chip of choice for the gaming industy. And also for thw record your graph is putting a low end 2.1 AMD DP against the top line G5 2.5 DP. I would have to say AMD can hang with the big boy's.(ie:G5). I cant believe Im sticking up for a PC.

Anyways, why do you consider the AMD chip to be worse then intel? You must have your reasons but it goes against everyone else in the free world.

[Cobra]

Hi, Myst.

It isn't know it all, i didn't say AMD was slower. I said I consider AMD worse. I simply don't like that company.

Okee dokee.  Seems sorta funny to be antagonistic towards a company as a whole, but da's coo'.

You can't say AMD is better clock for clock than a G5 well simply because of this:
(image snipped)

Okee dokee.  And what conclusions can we jump to based on this:

(Barefeats.com)
Can I say it now?    It's pretty difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from such narrow and arbitrary benchmarks without doing so myopically.

There is something about AMD that just annoys me, perhaps because the PC doesn't deserve a chip maker more competent than Intel.

Why?

The issue was raised by these updates of if these bumps were significant or if the G5 was behind the times.

I think Apple's inability to get either
  a.) A dual-core, dual processor setup
  b.) A configuration with processors clocked higher than 2.7GHz
is making the PowerMacs risk falling behind in the near future.  As soon as they can do one of these, I'll feel much better, but from here it doesn't seem like that'll be for a while...  Intel has already released their dual-core processors, but for now it seems like there's quite a large premium on those (which keeps the dual-proc PowerMacs sitting pretty for the time being).  If they make good on their estimates to lower prices on dual-core Intel machines to the price of current single-core models, then I'll probably say the PowerMacs have fallen behind.

As it stands, I don't think Apple is behind the competition, but risks becoming so if they don't get their asses in gear.

[BTs_Mysterio]

Voo,

The diagram, also showed a Dual 2.1 AMD lower than a Dual 2.0 G5. Also, if it was the chip of choice for gaming why would the Xbox...er Xbox2? Xbox 360? be using a PPC970 at its core and G5s for game development?

Anyways, why do you consider the AMD chip to be worse then intel? You must have your reasons but it goes against everyone else in the free world.

First off, I can't get over your "Free world" reference... WTF does that have to do with anything? I consider AMD worse than Intel because they always had the option of competing with IBM for the mac contract when motorola was terminated from G5 development. I simply cannot support any chip maker that chooses to support the M$.


Cobra,

No one in any form of processor power measurement recognizes game FPS. That's very correct though, you have successfully pointed out the flaw in Macs. We have a much more complicated form of graphics integration, and to that end a much less optimized and thus slower for tasks like gaming. Apple has recognized this issue and as a result has recruited a specialized team to work on OpenGL optimization (as seen in recent news).

I don't see this update as cause for concern. I personally don't think we will see the 970MP ever in a consumer level product. The fact remains IBM is still at the POWER4 stage of PPC. With the advancements since POWER4, I wouldn't be too shocked to see the PPC980 make a debut soon. Historically, we saw a 2.0GHz G5 send a 3.6-3.8GHz Intel P4 to hell. I'm not overly worried when I see that 2.7GHz G5. AMD will be the only company to provide the Dual-dual-core Processor setup. That's the only major threat.

The fact remains that this is the first chip ever made in recent PPC Generations entirely by IBM & Apple (without motorola). This is a very impressive chip produced by that partnership. IBM admitted when the first G5 came out, to this very day, they weren't spending too much too much time on this current generation of 970. I personally think that was a mistake. When they looked ahead, they ran into the temporary roadblock of the 90nm problem. That's the only area they have dropped the ball on this Generation.

We've seen the gap close with this Generation (G5) more than ever in recent history. It's closed so much that this very discussion is possible to have. That being that we can have the G5 so close to PC system clock rates. If this Generation was impressive, I think the PPC can carry on and perhaps even pass the PC totally with the 980 version.

Whilst this leaves the present in a bit of a weird state, it could mean that all of this will be for nothing in as short as 8 months.