[workerbee]

... but if the numbers that the Register shows are true: nnniiccce!

That would be great if it were true. Unfortunately, I've learned to take information from the Register with a grain of salt. Their reputation is really no better than MOSR or Appleinsider, etc.

I also wish I knew a little more about the specifics of the architecture to see if it were even theoretically possible. I also wish I knew when these chips will be available.

Right now, I'm planning on upgrading this spring. G5s would be nice, but I figure Apollo based G4s are a safer bet.

Steve

[gumby5647]

Workerbee!!!!!!

hey? are you the original?

[workerbee]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
<STRONG>Workerbee!!!!!!

hey? are you the original?
</STRONG>

Original?

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
<STRONG>Workerbee!!!!!!

hey? are you the original?
</STRONG>

you know he's not. just check out his join date. From what I remember of the real 'workerbee' he was just unregistered.

[gumby5647]

bummer

4 Reasons these #'s are suspect:

1.) It's the Register for crying out loud.
2.) It's outperforming IBM's Power4...
3.) As far as I know there's no version of SPEC2000 compiled for the PPC platform.
4.) The register has SPECFP scores for 1.2GHz, 1.4 and 1.6 -- If you divide the score by the MHz you'll notice that the performance per clock actually goes up with the higher clocked processors... which doesn't make any sense for identical processors (the IPC _should_ be decreasing).

[Leonard]

I noticed today that MacNN has run this story as well - so you can't say "it's the register " or "it's MOSR ". MacNN is a reputable news site.

Of course we all know, all companies exagerate this numbers, though, so I agree they are suspect until a third party can validate the numbers.

Originally posted by Leonard:
<STRONG>I noticed today that MacNN has run this story as well - so you can't say "it's the register " or "it's MOSR ". MacNN is a reputable news site.

Of course we all know, all companies exagerate this numbers, though, so I agree they are suspect until a third party can validate the numbers.</STRONG>

You've lost me. Both MOSR and MacNN were just quoting The Register, right?

[Rickag]

&lt;kel&gt;
You've lost me. Both MOSR and MacNN were just quoting The Register, right?

Not really.

MOSR
On many occasions in the past year, we've heard from a particular source who has also spoken to the Register and others and had some very interesting things to say. His latest report is a whopper, and as we have in the past, we would like to share it with you unedited aside from minor HTML formatting:

MOSR apparently received the same information as the Register
a minor point but....

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by Rickag:
<STRONG>

MOSR apparently received the same information as the Register
a minor point but.... </STRONG>

Well that's what they say. They would never admit to ripping off rumors from another site.

I don't think The Register has been so bad in the past. What rumor were they wrong about?

[SteveTech]

test

[JLL]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>

Well that's what they say. They would never admit to ripping off rumors from another site.?</STRONG>

It's just that MOSR had the story first - it appeared on TR the next day.

[flyhigher]

Here's a look back at what the Register had to say a few months ago:

June article

They had noted the upcoming PowerPC 7440, with the expectation that we'd see it in Macs this coming January. The 7440 is here, now, in the new powerbooks.

I think this bodes well for their prediction of the G5 being on track. (As for the performance of said chip, well that's probably another story)

By the way, our 550 and 667 powerbooks are actually using 600 and 700 MHz parts:

Cnet on the 7440

So Apple has downclocked them a little. It makes sense that they would do this for the 700Mhz chip to get it to run on a 133Mhz bus. But why are we getting a 600Mhz chip downclocked to 550? That one makes no sense to me.

[SkiBikeSki]

I doubt its a 600 downclocked to 550, but more likely the last ounce of performance that Motorola could squeeze out of the 7410. So I bet it is a more like a 500 not overclocked, but "enhanced" to 550.

[SMacSteve]

Originally posted by SteveTech:
<STRONG>test</STRONG>

Nice catch phrase!

[KidRed]

Well, now MACOSRUMORS and The Register both have new articles about the G5, man, I hope this "Motorola Mole" is real and thruthful

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>

It's just that MOSR had the story first - it appeared on TR the next day.</STRONG>

It's actually been both ways, sometimes the reg gets it first, then MOSR posts it later on as well. Seems like whoever is emailing them is CCing one of them; and depending on who's awake at that time gets to post it first.

The Reg has also posted blindingly false rumors in the past not related to the mac as well; their track record is just as bad as MOSR's.

[Matsu]

Originally posted by flyhigher:
<STRONG>
By the way, our 550 and 667 powerbooks are actually using 600 and 700 MHz parts:

Cnet on the 7440

So Apple has downclocked them a little. It makes sense that they would do this for the 700Mhz chip to get it to run on a 133Mhz bus. But why are we getting a 600Mhz chip downclocked to 550? That one makes no sense to me.</STRONG>

yep, they're the 7440's. Both the 550 and 667 have 256KB L1 Cache. 7410 = 512K L2. I guess if the yields get a little better we might see 600 and 733 as a minor bump in the new year. Apple probably played it safe for reliability and power consumption reasons.