Latest G4's running at 1.43Hhz

[MarkTime]

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

I agree wtih you, that as long as apple is warrantying the board, then from the customer perspective, its just fine.

Of course a complaint about the MDD mac's was they were extremely noisy from all the fans.  Apple has addressed that, and they say this round is much quieter...those G4's have heavy duty heat sinks already...and the G4 chips, are exposed chips, so the heatsink is place directly on top....

Moto, lists the current G4 as a 133FSB at 1 ghz.
But in the high end Mac's, they had 166FSB, which supposedly this processor doesn't support, but the math worked out good...25% increase on the FSB and subsequent 25% increase on the processor for 1.25ghz.

Who knows how they are squeezing out the last mhz in the 1.42ghz chip....

but According to moto's roadmap, the next chip is the G4 on a .13micron process with a Top speed of 1.3ghz....well...thats less than what apple is already selling...

So either moto's roadmap is way way off, or Apple is clocking these things, and they seemed commited to clocking the .13 micron chip as well, cause they are already beyond 1.3ghz!

Well, if they are reliable, and if Apple warranties them, and if the machine is quiet....and they say all these things are true....I don't see any problem at all.  But I wouldn't try to clock them further.

I have overclocked a G4 before, and they do have a bit of room....not as much as the old G3's...but usually you can get something, sometimes you need to up the voltage too.

I cannot see Amiga's beating apple on the high end though....in pure mhz...apple gets all the fast ppc's....but I wonder sometimes why a quad processor board isn't made....

[iCreate]

Seehund wrote:

Helgis75 wrote:
Maybe Eyetech should make a 1.4Ghz G4 a possibility, too?

That would of course be up to the designer and manufacturer of the boards, not a distributor like e.g. Eyetech or others.

But Iook, right there, yes, the goddamn topic of this thread, a dual 1.42 GHz G4 machine staring you in your face! Or the dual 1GHz low-end machine, for $1499, a complete and well-equipped computer, while the company you mention sells a bare motherboard built with year 1999/2000 standards with one older G4/800 for $800.

The obvious solution is to port AmigaOS to the cheaper, better, faster and more easily (and currently) available machine. So nobody's licensed to sell it with an absolutely meaningless "AmigaOne" label. Screw that.

Actualyy the entry level PowerMac is now a single 1GHz G4, not a dual anymore.

Guys, don't give into Apple's hype. Yeah, dual G4 1.4GHz sound really nice until you realize they work on 166MHz front side bus. Then you realize you have DDR333 RAM that us just a gimmick because who needs bandwidth that CPU cannot use? And digging deeper into specs of chipset that Apple uses in those PowerMacs you find that both CPU share one data bus!
It's all hype. Apple tries to go around this pifitul design by using level 3 cache but Pentium 4 can get data as fast from main memory (!) as those Power Macs from 1 or 2 MB of level 3 cache. Apple uses benchmark composed of handful of Photoshop filters heavily optimized for AltiVec to draw their conclusion of owning P4. Take a look at any independent benchmarking and you'll see that 3GHz Pentium 4, especially combined with 1066MHz Rambus and i850E chipset or dual channel DDR333 and E7205 (Granite Bay) chipset is much faster in video encoding, 3D rendering, etc. than dual G4 Macs. It doesn't matter how efficient your CPU is when it gets no bandwidth.
Are Macs pretty and OS X nice? Definitely. Are they faster than PCs? No. Sorry, I'm realist.

I use Mac at work and bought my first Amiga back in 1991.

[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?

[Desmon]

Driving a Mac that fast could be dangerous....

Lucky they have those trainer wheels.

[iamaboringperson]

Caelth wrote:
Guys, don't give into Apple's hype. Yeah, dual G4 1.4GHz sound really nice until you realize they work on 166MHz front side bus. Then you realize you have DDR333 RAM that us just a gimmick because who needs bandwidth that CPU cannot use? And digging deeper into specs of chipset that Apple uses in those PowerMacs you find that both CPU share one data bus!
It's all hype. Apple tries to go around this pifitul design by using level 3 cache but Pentium 4 can get data as fast from main memory (!) as those Power Macs from 1 or 2 MB of level 3 cache. Apple uses benchmark composed of handful of Photoshop filters heavily optimized for AltiVec to draw their conclusion of owning P4. Take a look at any independent benchmarking and you'll see that 3GHz Pentium 4, especially combined with 1066MHz Rambus and i850E chipset or dual channel DDR333 and E7205 (Granite Bay) chipset is much faster in video encoding, 3D rendering, etc. than dual G4 Macs. It doesn't matter how efficient your CPU is when it gets no bandwidth.
Are Macs pretty and OS X nice? Definitely. Are they faster than PCs? No. Sorry, I'm realist.

I use Mac at work and bought my first Amiga back in 1991.

a few points:
1. they do use the extra bandwidth!!! thats why its there!
2. both cpu's share the same bus??? what do you expect! that is how SMP is done! all SMP machines have the CPU's sharing the same data bus!!!!!!!! i forget the name of this architecture, would somebody please help!
3. the cpu efficiancy CAN/DOES matter when there may be a reletivly low bus bandwidth! memory bandwidth is only important when there is a lot of data to move, otherwise, if there is litte data and more processing of that data, you dont need such a huge bandwidth

"a realist", everybody uses that term on a.org!

[minator]

a few points:
1. they do use the extra bandwidth!!! thats why its there!

The system ASIC can, the CPUs can't.

2. both cpu's share the same bus??? what do you expect! that is how SMP is done! all SMP machines have the CPU's sharing the same data bus!!!!!!!! i forget the name of this architecture, would somebody please help!

Not true, they used to use this Architecture until point to point busses came along.  Athlons multiprocessing have 2 processors on 2 different busses.
PPC 970 will be the same - except it goes up to 32 processors.

3. the cpu efficiancy CAN/DOES matter when there may be a reletivly low bus bandwidth! memory bandwidth is only important when there is a lot of data to move, otherwise, if there is litte data and more processing of that data, you dont need such a huge bandwidth

True, big caches help here also.
Bandwidth on the other hand fails completely if the task is latency bound i.e. iterating over a big tree structure.  Test a P4 and a G4 on that and you'll find it'll cripple both.

"a realist", everybody uses that term on a.org!

I'm an unrealist  8-)

the lowest end mac is a total ripoff for that price...

XP 1800= $70 (retail)
EPoX 8RDA =$88
512MB DDR=$150
80gig IBM drive=$101
CDRW/DVD=$90
Antec+350 watt=$180
Gforce4Ti4200=$150


now that system I described is faster has twice the memory... 1/3 more HDD space... its got a much faster graphics card... and its much cheaper.... I dunno what would attract people to crapple hardware these days...

[machinehead]

just $1999

[Kronos]

Question:

How long did it take from the 1st (soemwhat) working ArticiaS to
actual boards being delievered to end-users ?

over 2 years !

How lon until MAI manages to satisfy the demand on those chips ?

Who knows

How many board need to be sold before they make the 1st $ profit ?

Lots more than we have seen.

Dont expect any nextgen Articia-boards which could run that CPU before
late 04 (for end users).

[Hammer]

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

Perhaps the nice MacOS X.....

I think if apple somehow got the messege that PPC sucks and is slow...and that their hardware's price/performance ratio stinks... they would start cross-processor efforts like the Amiga did... useing a PPC/Athlon for example...and slowly migrate to at least.. .'dell' level hardware.... right now 2000 from dell gets you quite a bit more then 2000 on a mac...

[iamaboringperson]

bad idea

changing cpu's all the time
they did that 10 years ago, and i dont think they would want to go through it all over again

its unfair to the developers, who must compile & test their software for both machines
and not good for the users either

its especialy bad when you consider the big-endian/little-endian compatability issue

i think the ppc is just going through a 'slump' at the moment IMHO
it will probably recover with the PPC970, then what will you say?

[strobe]

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

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.

[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.