Posted on 06/09/2004 7:10:14 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple Computer Inc. rolled out its fastest-ever desktop computer on Wednesday with processors that run as fast as 2.5 gigahertz, but the company fell short of its earlier goal to offer a 3.0 gigahertz chip-based system by this month.
Apple has been counting on its chip supplier, IBM, to shrink the size of components to permit higher speeds for its microprocessors, the brains that run a computer. As more transistors are fit onto smaller circuits, the speed at which a processor can run increases.
The PowerPC 970FX processor made by International Business Machines Corp. has components that are as little as 90 nanometers across, down from the previous generation of 130 nanometer manufacturing technology. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.
"We certainly hoped that's where we would be but the entire industry has had a bigger challenge to get to 90 nanometers than people would have liked," said Phil Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing for Apple.
As a result, Apple will not this year sell a Power Mac G5 with microprocessors running at 3.0 gigahertz, or 3 billion cycles a second, he said. "As soon as we can, those systems will be out there," Schiller said.
"It's one of the rare times that IBM has let down a customer," said Richard Doherty, director of The Envisioneering Group in Seaford, New York, adding that the problem was likely that at 3.0 gigahertz, the chips produced too much heat.
When Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs announced the dual-chip Power Mac G5 last June, he said that Power PC chips, also known as the G5, running at 3.0 gigahertz would be available within 12 months' time.
"We recognize that statement was made a year ago but can't comment on our customers' product and technology plans," said IBM spokesman Chris Andrews. "If you look at the challenges others are facing in the industry with that same transition ... we'd argue that is a very significant performance boost we were able to provide."
UNEASY TRANSITION
"Both for IBM and Intel the move to 90 nanometer has been more difficult and they've been the leaders" in using the latest-generation chip-making technologies, said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at market research firm Insight 64. "Every time you make these technology transitions it's more difficult than the last time."
In January, the world's largest chipmaker, Intel Corp., said it would delay its new line of microprocessors code-named Dothan by a few months after a validation test had found problems. Intel ultimately rolled out the new chips, an update to its Pentium M line of chips, on May 10.
For IBM's part, the company had trouble producing enough properly functioning Power PC 970FX chips from a single wafer, a measure known as yield in the industry, Brookwood said. "The company hasn't been terribly specific other than to say the yields weren't where they wanted them to be," Brookwood said.
IBM has been losing money in its chip division as it seeks to bring its new $3 billion East Fishkill, New York, plant on line that uses the latest chipmaking technology.
Previously, Cupertino, California-based Apple's Power Mac models used microprocessors that ran as fast as 2.0 gigahertz. The latest models all use two processors in each computer.
Apple said it expects to ship the 2.5 gigahertz models in July, while versions with two 1.8 gigahertz microprocessors and two 2.0 gigahertz processors are now available.
The 2.5 gigahertz chip is one that Apple is currently selling in a computer server it launched a few months ago.
The company, which earlier this year said it was having problems with its supply of chips from IBM, said it believes it has gotten past those supply challenges and will be able to meet expectations for the new G5.
"We're feeling very good about our ability to supply that product in July," said Tom Boger, desktop product marketing vice president for Apple.
Apple introduced the system about a year ago and previously the least expensive model had only one 1.6 gigahertz microprocessor. The system prices now start at $1,999 and run to $2,999, while the previous range began at $1,799. (Additional reporting by Caroline Humer in New York)
Apple again claims the fastest personal computer... let the wars begin...
FAASSTTTTEEERRRR G5 released! 2.5 GHz Ping!
As always, to be included or excluded from the Mac Ping list, Freepmail me.
Read Apple's claims about the newer, faster, water-cooled G5 computer on their website:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
Macs suck, Windows PC 4-life
Why do they limit themselves to dual processors? To make an expandable system (triple, quad and so on - just install more cards) might be more feasible. I remember that there might have been quad macs (clones?), but I am not sure.
If the Mac chip is so fast, why do they have to have dual processors to compete with Intel and AMD?
Would someone please tell Santa to get the elves working on the G5 Powerbook!!!!!
They don't... see the following chart on the new G5 2.5GHz compared to other systems, in a real world (Photoshop) application, including a Dell Precision 650 using DUAL 3.2GHz XEON processers:
For more real-world application throughput comparisons click here
Here is your answer.
Santa, PLEASE, tell Jobs that we all want a G5 Powerbook under our tree this Christmas...
Amen to that one!! I've heard they are having a problem with cooling system in the laptop...but that may be old news.
sign me up. My G3 beats most of IBMs I know
Because the processor was designed from the beginning to work efficiently in multiprocessor environments, you get better bang for the buck in an SMP system.
Why do they have dual proc? So they can blow 3.4 Ghz pent. away. I use both mac-s and pc-s, each have their own strengths.
Heat, probably.
There was a 4 processor clone, back in '95 or thereabouts. Called the Genesis. Pretty cool actually, but, of course, nothing I could afford. Especially since, at that time, there were only two or three programs that could handle it. Photoshop, I think a movie program (Premier or Director?) and... something else that I don't remember.
That was the only 4 processor box that I recall. Plenty of dual processor machines, but only the one multi-processor.
Got any benchmarks from anywhere besides Apple's site? While I don't doubt those stats in those particular functions, I'm sure those are the very best examples they would have. Ideally I'd like to see a comparison of an IBM/Intel system like dual processor Intellistation you could probably get for the same cost, seems like that would be a fairer test since IBM makes the Apple chips. Just curious, if I was in the market for a new system, which thankfully I'm not, those are probably the two systems I would be interested in. Thanks for any other comparative data you may have.
Boy, does this post elevate the quality of the discussion, or WHAT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.