Latest G4's running at 1.43Hhz

[Hammer]

Yet another paper launch…
(At least they are following the market leader’s example i.e. Intel’s Pentium3 1GHz paper launch.)

Refer http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-982370.html

Quote from zdnet

"but consumers will have to wait about a month for the high-end model, said Tom Boger, Apple's director of Power Mac Product Marketing."

[Hammer]

MarkTime wrote:

there has been a lot of speculation that Apple is 'clocking' these chips...but then again, if its with moto's permission then, its just a redefinition of the chips tolerance....
.

IF Apple guarantees (and offer warranties) for those o/c G4s then it’s OK in my POV.

How fast could they clock with an AthlonXP2800+/ Pentium 4@3Ghz class coolers on PPC G4s?

[Hammer]

@Caelth

Who said I’m falling for Apple’s hype?

NForce 2 has a memory bandwidth of 6.4Gb/s**(with PC3200 DDR SDRAM modules in twin bank mode). But that's not the issue...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side track.

**Current Athlon XP 2700+ only talks to outside world at 2.7Gb/s and the rest of the excess bandwidth is allocated for AGP**** and Southbridge related services.

****AGP interface bandwidth can consume the following;
1050 Mb/s = 4X mode
2100 Mb/s = 8X mode

Nforce2‘s Northbridge to South Bridge (APU/DSP location) link consumes 800Mb/s of bandwidth.  

All excess bandwidth could use for the second CPU and other co-processors (GPU  and APU/DSP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If my memory serve me right, Apple's G4 1.25Ghz (non-DDR) talks to the outside world at 166Mhz x 64bits (~1328Mb/s).  

It’s just good to see Apple for increasing the clock speed for PPC G4 based market.

IF this was 1Ghz PPC G4 clocked at ~189 Mhz FSB (7.5 multiplier x 183Mhz), I wonder IF the A1 and Peggy could be o/c to such a speed.

Did anyone attempted a liquid nitrogen cooled PPC G4s yet?

[Hammer]

.... I dunno what would attract people to crapple hardware these days...

Perhaps the nice MacOS X.....

[Hammer]

Not true, they used to use this Architecture until point to point busses came along. Athlons multiprocessing have 2 processors on 2 different busses.

Note that AMD's Opterons will power Sandia National Laboratory and Cray Inc's next supercomputer...

~Ten thousand Opterons will be used for the project. This X86 based beast will be connected via AMD’s Hyper-transport technologies.  

[Hammer]

strobe wrote:
If Apple tries to compete with Windows they're dead.

Have Apple ever tried to enter X86 home world?

Microsoft mostly draws its strength from the massive clone X86 market. Producing a high-powered chip doesn’t guarantee the destruction of X86 (refer to the higher clocked Alpha AXP@700Mhz during middle 90s as example).  

It’s nice to have a strong home world. Note why MS has labeled X86 Linux as a threat…

People buy Macs because Apple works on the human<->computer bottleneck. Most of the time the CPU is waiting for the human, not the other way around. This was true when CPUs were 8mhz, nevermind 1Ghz.

Depending on the application.

[Hammer]

As for the Apple overclocking issue (from Page 1), I thought one of the things people were complaining about was the option for haveing a cool-running, very reliable system, as opposed to those "haphazard" X86 systems built to last 6 months.

Careful with that type of generalisation… IF that case were true, there would be a massive product returns (i.e. ~120 million units worth).  Sadly this is not the case.
 
X86 severs system is reliable enough for server use.

[Hammer]

strobe wrote:

Have Apple ever tried to enter X86 home world?

One word: OPENSTEP

My statement was for Mainstream Desktop context such as in Windows 98/2K/XP markets.

Plenty of development work has to be done before that product was ready for MacOS X final release
i.e.
OPENSTEP -> Rhapsody  -> MacOS X Server  -> MacOS X(with Aqua GUI).

You may shut up now

I don't see "MacOS" label on it. Try again.

[Hammer]

strobe wrote:
Oh no! It doesn't have the "MacOS" label! If only it did, then it would CRUSH Windows!

Where did I state this (in regards to "it would CRUSH Windows")?

How laughable.

What's your problem?