Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Xserve 2.3GHz Graphics Mistake?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe it was supposed to be 2.3GHz, but there weren't enough supplies of 2.3GHz chips to make it announce-able.
just looking at the source from apple's home page gave me this:
<td width="170"><a href="/xserve/" onClick="adclick('/xserve/01062004','Promo - Xserve G5 - 01062004')"><img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0"
alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz"></a></td>
look at the very last bit...
things that make you go, "hmmmm?"
<td width="170"><a href="/xserve/" onClick="adclick('/xserve/01062004','Promo - Xserve G5 - 01062004')"><img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0"
alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz"></a></td>
look at the very last bit...
things that make you go, "hmmmm?"
I *think* the first poster is technically correct. The FSB is 1/4 the proc speed, double-pumped. Perhaps I'm crazy.
Anyway, what's 1/2 of 2.3? Still a bit odd: 1150. Not as wacky as 575, but weird anyway.
I really like the 2.0 2.3 2.6 theory, it'll get them REALLY close to the 3.0 promised for July (or August or September, depending on how you figure it
) Maybe they're getting good speed out of the 90nm chips but don't want to overextend themselves AGAIN so soon after all the trouble they had getting the Dual 2.0 PMs out. I could even see Apple having a 2.6 but only putting it in the towers since I've gotten the impression that mission-critical servers don't really want to be on the bleeding edge of tech. Or at least enterprise customers tend not to want them bleeding.EDIT: oh, and the main Apple page STILL has 2.3GHz in the alt tag for the Xserve.
Re: Getting ahead for April fools day perhaps?
Yes, the current Power Mac G5s (and presumably XServe G5, though I haven't looked at the spec PDF) have processor:bus speed ratios of 2:1.
However, this is apparently not because the only bus multiplier that works with the 970 is 2:1. This is because Apple wanted to choose the fastest bus multiplier available. I'm sure if 1:1 were possible, they would have done it.
Way back when the Power Mac G5 was finally announced, the Ars Technica guys interviewed one of the IBM engineers about the 970. They asked him about bus multipliers.
His response [paraphrasing] was something like "The 970 supports more than just 2:1. It can do 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 and even 6:1, if I'm not mistaken."
So, apparently it would be possible for Apple to run the G5s at a 500 Mhz bus, or a 667 Mhz bus, or a 200 Mhz bus instead of 1 Ghz, but obviously they don't need to in a tower machine.
I'd expect to see higher (and maybe even variable) bus multipliers on the G5 PowerBooks, to conserve energy.
And, after all that, I think your assertion was really based on the fact that you find 575 to be a funny number, which I don't understand. G4s used to run at 167, 133, etc. and so on. I see no reason there couldn't be odd-speed buses..Apple will likely ship the highest clockspeed chips it can get in quantity. If it happened to fall at 2.3 (not saying it does!), well then my guess is that they'd deal with it.
Yes, the current Power Mac G5s (and presumably XServe G5, though I haven't looked at the spec PDF) have processor:bus speed ratios of 2:1.
However, this is apparently not because the only bus multiplier that works with the 970 is 2:1. This is because Apple wanted to choose the fastest bus multiplier available. I'm sure if 1:1 were possible, they would have done it.
Way back when the Power Mac G5 was finally announced, the Ars Technica guys interviewed one of the IBM engineers about the 970. They asked him about bus multipliers.
His response [paraphrasing] was something like "The 970 supports more than just 2:1. It can do 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 and even 6:1, if I'm not mistaken."
So, apparently it would be possible for Apple to run the G5s at a 500 Mhz bus, or a 667 Mhz bus, or a 200 Mhz bus instead of 1 Ghz, but obviously they don't need to in a tower machine.
I'd expect to see higher (and maybe even variable) bus multipliers on the G5 PowerBooks, to conserve energy.
And, after all that, I think your assertion was really based on the fact that you find 575 to be a funny number, which I don't understand. G4s used to run at 167, 133, etc. and so on. I see no reason there couldn't be odd-speed buses..Apple will likely ship the highest clockspeed chips it can get in quantity. If it happened to fall at 2.3 (not saying it does!), well then my guess is that they'd deal with it.
The 2.3GHz rating was just a typo. It's easy to mistakenly press "3" when you wanted to press "zero" since the keys are spaced so close to each other.
As I wrote in my earlier post, I doubt that. At least they are not next to each other. And why would they make multiple images for the same language? OK, I won't read too much in it, but I think that it's not a typo but a handling error. Far more likely that specs did change the last weeks.Originally posted by Sir_Giggles
The 2.3GHz rating was just a typo. It's easy to mistakenly press "3" when you wanted to press "zero" since the keys are spaced so close to each other.
Could be. Maybe they only had limited supplies and didn't want to face the fiasco of order it now, we'll ship it tomorrow, and by tomorrow I mean october.
I understand waiting for Mac World to announce but it would have made more sense to back off a few weeks to catch the orgy of spending required to fill the budget.
I think NeatGekko will stay quiet for a while, he is still chewing on his right hand. He just can't afford to lose the left one too.
I think they changed the xserve to 2.0 at the last minute to avoid hurting PowerMac sales. If they advertise a 2.3 GHz Xserve, who will still buy a 2.0 tower? Purchasers would wait for 2.3's to be released.
By the time those Xserves are shipped, nobody will complain if they're really 2.3.
By the time those Xserves are shipped, nobody will complain if they're really 2.3.
Aha, I'm not very good in spotting these things
Well, at least I had an opportunity to repeat myself Weren't the old Xserves 1.33 Ghz? Maybe they just typed over the 1 and erased the extra 3... I guess that makes the filename make more sense (the addition of G5 to the new name)
My vote is for spec deflation
I agree with the others who posted previously that they were going to announce the Xserves at 2.3GHz but due to either parts constraints or fear of killing off G5 tower sales (who would be stupid enough to buy a G5 tower @ 2GHz when you know for a fact that Apple has 2.3GHz parts?)
I would expect that the speed will get bumped along with the Tower speed bumps. And it wouldn't even surprise me if the upgraded orders to 2.3GHz if the Xserves haven't shipped by the time of the announcement (which we are all expecting soonish, eh?)
I agree with the others who posted previously that they were going to announce the Xserves at 2.3GHz but due to either parts constraints or fear of killing off G5 tower sales (who would be stupid enough to buy a G5 tower @ 2GHz when you know for a fact that Apple has 2.3GHz parts?)
I would expect that the speed will get bumped along with the Tower speed bumps. And it wouldn't even surprise me if the upgraded orders to 2.3GHz if the Xserves haven't shipped by the time of the announcement (which we are all expecting soonish, eh?)
Re: My vote is for spec deflation
Its no been several times that people have suggested that the XServes where reduced to 2 GHz to prevent damage to sales. Frankly that is bull crap.
First has anyone looked closely at the XServe configuration. Where are you going to stick your AGP card, which you will need for most desktop usage. I could go on but to put it bluntly no matter how fast the XServe ends up running it won't be competeing for the desk top market anytime soon.
I do consider that a bit of a shame as the old XServe could be applied to uses, other than server like, with a quick addition of a AGP card. From the standpoint of a server though Apple did an incredible job.
My suspicion is that Apple is waiting for IBM to announce the move to 90 nano meter formally. Once that is out of the way I think we will see faster MAC of every sort.
Dave
Its no been several times that people have suggested that the XServes where reduced to 2 GHz to prevent damage to sales. Frankly that is bull crap.
First has anyone looked closely at the XServe configuration. Where are you going to stick your AGP card, which you will need for most desktop usage. I could go on but to put it bluntly no matter how fast the XServe ends up running it won't be competeing for the desk top market anytime soon.
I do consider that a bit of a shame as the old XServe could be applied to uses, other than server like, with a quick addition of a AGP card. From the standpoint of a server though Apple did an incredible job.
My suspicion is that Apple is waiting for IBM to announce the move to 90 nano meter formally. Once that is out of the way I think we will see faster MAC of every sort.
Dave
Re: Re: My vote is for spec deflation
If the error was simply a typing mistake, then how come the graphic and the alt tag contain exactly the same mistake? The alt tag on Apple's front page still says 2.3GHz... A clear case of PS I think.
I don't think anyone is saying that people will actually purchase (2.3GHz) XServes instead of desktop PowerMacs - simply that if the XServe is released at 2.3GHz, then everyone will expect imminent PowerMac updates and delay their purchases accordingly.
If the error was simply a typing mistake, then how come the graphic and the alt tag contain exactly the same mistake? The alt tag on Apple's front page still says 2.3GHz... A clear case of PS I think.
Apple event on January 26th?
Here's another interesting little hint at something coming down the pipe pretty soon:
In the "revised" version of the "1984" ad, they changed more than just the iPod's cameo -- date on the big brother monitor, which read "01/24/84," the commerical's original airdate, has been changed to "01/26/04", the last Monday of this month... I wonder what Apple has planned for the 26th...?
Perhaps, faster Xserves, faster PowerMac G5s and updated eMacs (see previous rumors).
Keep in mind, ordering a G5 Xserve today will not get you one for 6-8 weeks... Meaning that if Apple wanted to keep faster PPC 970s under wrap, they could announce 2.0GHz Xserves, keeping faster PowerMacs in the wings and, yet ship faster models to customers without anyone being left behind for being an early adopter.
Here's another interesting little hint at something coming down the pipe pretty soon:
In the "revised" version of the "1984" ad, they changed more than just the iPod's cameo -- date on the big brother monitor, which read "01/24/84," the commerical's original airdate, has been changed to "01/26/04", the last Monday of this month... I wonder what Apple has planned for the 26th...?
Perhaps, faster Xserves, faster PowerMac G5s and updated eMacs (see previous rumors).
Keep in mind, ordering a G5 Xserve today will not get you one for 6-8 weeks... Meaning that if Apple wanted to keep faster PPC 970s under wrap, they could announce 2.0GHz Xserves, keeping faster PowerMacs in the wings and, yet ship faster models to customers without anyone being left behind for being an early adopter.