 |
 |
IBM G6 with 5.6 GHz in 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
According to two German IT Sources, IBM is going to announce a 5.6 GHz G6 on the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) 2006.
http://www.macnews.de/news/73953
http://www.golem.de/0602/43184.html
So, are we going to see Apple switching back ?
Given that the current Intel outperforms a Dual 2.5 GHz, a 5.6 GHz G6 could be the Intel killaaaaar.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: adequate, thanks.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, we have reached 3 GHz last summer, right? Rrrright…
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, this is the Power6, not a G6. The Power series is designed for servers. The G5 (970) was a Power4 derivative. But we can always dream.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chillin' at the back of the Falcon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andreas_g4
Well, we have reached 3 GHz last summer, right? Rrrright…
Wasn't that supposed to be 2 summers ago?
|
"Barwaraaawww"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
No "G6" mentioned. It's POWER6, the replacement for POWER5. A "G6" would be a replacement for the PowerPC 970 series.
Anyways, if it's another chip that's going for clock speed and not performance per clock, then one could say they've already hit 3.5 GHz, which is the speed of Cell. One could argue Cell isn't really out yet, but then Xenon's CPU is 3.2 GHz, and it is triple-core. Neither are G5 replacements either, but the argument is about as valid as alling POWER6 a G6.
Given that the current Intel outperforms a Dual 2.5 GHz
No it doesn't, if you're talking 2.0 GHz Core Duo. It might beat a dual 2.5 in a couple of things, but on average a 2.5 PPC 970MP is faster.
(Last edited by Eug Wanker; Feb 7, 2006 at 02:39 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Try putting a 'G6' as you say in a laptop. Yeah... right....
|
|
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: adequate, thanks.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee
Wasn't that supposed to be 2 summers ago?
Don't make things worse… 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
You mean a Power6?
Power Macs are already expensive enough. The last thing I want is to pay $10,000 for something under my desk that's going to be as loud as a lawnmower and require half the power usage of mainland China to run and cool itself.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status:
Offline
|
|
Would be funny if Apple never intended to use Intel chips in the Power Macs, but was planning on using some version of the Power6 thing mentioned here.
I doubt it would be true but would still be funneh.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chillin' at the back of the Falcon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by greenamp
Would be funny if Apple never intended to use Intel chips in the Power Macs, but was planning on using some version of the Power6 thing mentioned here.
I doubt it would be true but would still be funneh.
I'm not so sure developers would be laughing.
|
"Barwaraaawww"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee
I'm not so sure developers would be laughing.
Nah they wouldn't be. I thought the compiling thing was a non-issue though? (speaking as someone who knows nothing about programming and app development) I thought Apple's latest XCode compiler compiled both PowerPC and x86 at the same time?
OT PS: for those who care, Blizzard released a UB ( or UA, universal application as Apple seems to wanting to call it now ) patch today which makes WoW run native on Intel Macs. Early reports are showing FPS performance on the iMac Core Duos at nearly the same as higher end PowerPC PowerMacs.
(Last edited by greenamp; Feb 7, 2006 at 02:59 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status:
Offline
|
|
a Power6 would be a lil insane to put in a Power Mac.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Salty
a Power6 would be a lil insane to put in a Power Mac.
So true. I bet that thing would require a liquid nitrogen cooling system 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by greenamp
Nah they wouldn't be. I thought the compiling thing was a non-issue though? (speaking as someone who knows nothing about programming and app development) I thought Apple's latest XCode compiler compiled both PowerPC and x86 at the same time?
Development is almost never really that simple. Source-compatibility can take most of the headaches out of cross-platform development, but it can't get rid of all of them.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status:
Offline
|
|
Call me when it's shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Status:
Offline
|
|
wow , imagine if apple did switch back... or have an option for a powerpc macand an intel one.... then we could say wintel again in an abuse...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
