Does speed advantage mean Mac tipping point?

February 13, 2004 - 1:06pm — bmann

I'm definitely not a chip guy, but judging by what the guys at ArsTechnica are reporting about the next generation of G5 chips, this could be the year that the PowerPC architecture (and Mac platform) regain the speed crown from Intel:

Yes folks, a battle is not brewing, it's completely underway. A G5 jump to 2.5 or 3.0 GHz this year would represent a percentage speed increase likely not achievable by either Intel or AMD in that timeframe, the latter not being slated to hit 90nm until the second half of this year. Indeed, MR is betting that come late year, the G5 will be the fastest CPU of of the bunch. The real question is, if that happens, will it also be the most expensive?

ArsTechnica: G5 Power PC 970FX to hit 2.5GHz

Of course, a G4 eMac is still at $1000, and a current PC with monitor can be had for $600. Do iLife's apps tip the balance? Does immunity to viruses hold any cash value? Will a (perceived or otherwise) speed advantage make a difference?

I actually still think platform choices are interesting. Or rather, relative platform choices. I see the Wintel platform beset on all sides:

Europeans use smartphones more than desktop computers
Linux plus Intel is gaining huge ground in places like Germany and China (plus all the fanless stuff is from VIA, not Intel)
The digerati all have PowerBook G4s
Consumer electronics companies are becoming computing powers in their own right (ref. PlayStation, plus XBox2 is likely going to be PPC powered)

Wouldn't it be funny if Microsoft had a plan to port Longhorn, their next generation of Windows, to the PPC platform?!!?

Add new comment

Comments

February 16, 2004 - 4:46pm — Gaurav Rampal

No no no

Apologies if I implied that the software magically makes the machine faster. I meant to shift the point of reference from Mhz (processor task throughput) to the end users effectiveness with respect to his/her workflow.

February 15, 2004 - 8:18pm — Gaurav Rampal

Are MHz an issue?

I have two choices: a 740 MB, 1.6 Ghx, 128 MB Video PC and a G3 600Mhz iBook with a 16MB Rage Video card.

For my work (e-mail, basic surfing (200 sites a day), photo management, ripping 2-3 cds a week, some Digital Video editing) which machine will be faster?

I have found that the slower iBook is quicker as there are less "operational inefficiencies". It seems to require less clicks, better integrated, quicker help menu, faster searching built into the system OS. Plus iLife 04 is so well done, that it is probably worth 1000$ (yes one thousand)itself.

(I don't play games neither do I do "Photoshop gaussian blurs" )

February 13, 2004 - 8:20pm — gfair

That was Peter Glaskowsky

The person making that comment is Peter Glaskowsky of the Microprocessor Report, not Ars, unless Peter now writes for Ars as well.

And judging by the Advanced Preview of ISSCC 2004, IBM is really heating things up in the chip market. The 970FX will be fabbed on a combination SOI and Strained Silicon process, it will be just over half the size of Intel's Prescott, meaning 4x the chips per wafer, translating into a huge cost and yield advantage.

But the speed advantage won't be the tipping point. This G5 will only get into Apple's PowerMac systems first, or maybe PowerBooks as well because the chip has a power-stepping technology like Intel's "SpeedStep" technology, making it quite ideal for just about any Mac product right in its first iteration.

But Macs will still be more expensive, because the bus and Northbridge will need to be cranked up, these chips will be plenty expensive, and Apple continues to set price points higher than PC equivalents on just about everything except the PowerBook, where it beats just about everything else at the same screen size, particularly on weight.

Ultimately, take the 970FX and team it up with an IBM PPC compiled version of OSX, with that potentially HUGE speed improvement (50% was quoted once, as a top-end improvement at the code level).

Those two speed bumps should lead to great things, but even this G5 isn't generating enough sales of PowerMacs, will extra speed be Apple's cure?

Who knows... all I know is I'm saving up as much as I can for one of those puppies.

February 14, 2004 - 2:06am — bmann

The quote is from AT -- check

The quote is from AT -- check the link. They likely based the story on the MR report, but I copied & pasted from the AT link.

February 14, 2004 - 12:44pm — gfair

Ripped off, or "paraphrased"

Basically, they stole Peter Glaskowsky's own comments on the chip, which you can read here:

http://www.theregister.com/content/39/35537.html

February 14, 2004 - 12:46pm — gfair

Specifically...

"This 25 per cent increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD. Prescott is struggling to eke out minor clock-rate improvements, and AMD will need to wait for its own 90nm products - due in H2 - to achieve substantial speedups for Athlon 64."

February 13, 2004 - 3:09pm — smithdm3@bmannc...