G5 Rumors

[macaddict]

To open up FH, let us discuss the new G5 rumors circulating.

I say I want one. You?

[Synotic]

[quote]Originally posted by MacAddict:
<strong>To open up FH, let us discuss the new G5 rumors circulating.

I say I want one. You?</strong><hr></blockquote>I want one as well.

[macaddict]

Phew that makes two of us.

[Bodhi]

I would have to say that the "source" at MOSR has a big head now. He likes that his stories have made it to the front page, so he has become a little overzealous. G6 & G7? C'mon.

And the info seems a little detailed for a mole. Giving exact times of when things arrived and that he was there on a Saturday?

MOSR is at it again.

[Logan Cale]

[quote]Just three weeks ago, Steve Jobs said "I am going to sue the ass of those guys at Motorola. At the last minute, they f*cked us up. They told us we would have 1Ghz G4's, and days before Macworld, the ****ers told us there was a defect which would cause them to fail above 900Mhz." <hr></blockquote>

That sounds a bit fake to me. :p

[macaddict]

Is this from MOSR? :rolleyes:

[Fran441]

I'm still chugging away here on my PowerBook G3/500. :p

[macway]

I'm not expecting the G5s anytime soon, I believe Apple is aiming for a July 2002 introduction. The G4 has more juice in it still.

[Logan Cale]

I'm one of the believers. I think the G5 is coming out January. In fact, I even posted about it when AI was up before. I'm so sure it will be released then, I'll bet my post count. :)

[Cipher13]

I say January; they COULD be out by then. It really depends on whether Apple wants the power out there, or whether they wanna milk the G4 for all the cash they can. I don't think they'll sell many more with the advent of the G5 possibly so close.

[Jonathan]

agree with Cipher.

[macway]

I say they're milking it for a while longer. Although introducing a 1.2GHz G5 - breaking the 1GHz barrier - has a special ring to it.

[jutus]

Regarding:

[quote]Just three weeks ago, Steve Jobs said "I am going to sue the ass of those guys at Motorola. At the last minute, they f*cked us up. They told us we would have 1Ghz G4's, and days before Macworld, the ****ers told us there was a defect which would cause them to fail above 900Mhz." <hr></blockquote>

I take it that mosr's "source" is sitting under Steve's desk, privy to all his most private conversations.

Some say that mosr's source is actually Apple non-employee Mea D. Ersass.

Anone else have confirmation on this rumor?

[Nebrie]

Well, hopefully we'll see the G5 in January with speeds well above a ghz if MacEdition is right; they've had an amazing track record for rumors so far.

[Amorph]

The only smidgen of truth in that whole mess, as far as I can tell, is the aggressive processor revision strategy. That was the original strategy behind the PPC. It allows for more elegant chip designs than, say, the P4, which made some bizarre compromises in the name of long-term scalability. Think about how quickly AIM went from the 601 to the 604ev.

Not having to support a bizarrely-designed CISC ISA doesn't hurt, either.

Other than that, it looks like a lot of handwaving. That Steve "quote" is painfully fake, notwithstanding the attempt to make it sound authentic by peppering it with cuss words.

[G4ME]

I say it will be out n january with an entirely new mobo because we have been stuck with 133 SDRAM for over a year now this is going to be like staying at the 500 mark. If we are so inovative than wh the hell don't we have PC 2100 or RDRAM? this would also bost the performace of either the G4 or G5 just lilke the 1.2 tbird with RDRAM that thing flys. WE NEED better ram and Mobo arcitechure more than a ghz.

[Mac The Fork]

My sources report that it is more likely that the G5 will be delayed until Apple is done creating their Raycer graphics processor.

[DigitalMonkeyBoy]

G5, xmas 2002! Watch it happen.
The prediction was for late 2002, and it makes sense. Apple will want to run the G4 up to 1GHz and a little further and then start the G5s up at around 1.2 GHz.


Does anyone know any details about its data or address buses?

Nice to be back, but all the blasted prestige is gone.

[Addison]

There is a strange assumption in this thread.

"Apple wants to milk the G4 for a bit longer"

Two problems with this:-

1. You must make hardware sales

2.I don't believe that a faster chip will cost more to fabricate. It is the yeild that will largly determine the price.

If they can manufcature a range of faster processors at similar yeilds they will do so without uping the price.

One caveat, if the roumers at MOSR were true, a 2.4GHZ G5. Apple would want to milk a premium price for the fastest desktop for a while. But volume is what is needed and without volume sales Apple will die. It is as important to Apple to provide the fastest processors as it is to us.

Apple will sell the fastest kit it can make.

[Nebrie]

[quote]Originally posted by JW Pepper:
<strong>There is a strange assumption in this thread.

"Apple wants to milk the G4 for a bit longer"

Two problems with this:-

1. You must make hardware sales

2.I don't believe that a faster chip will cost more to fabricate. It is the yeild that will largly determine the price.

If they can manufcature a range of faster processors at similar yeilds they will do so without uping the price.

One caveat, if the roumers at MOSR were true, a 2.4GHZ G5. Apple would want to milk a premium price for the fastest desktop for a while. But volume is what is needed and without volume sales Apple will die. It is as important to Apple to provide the fastest processors as it is to us.

Apple will sell the fastest kit it can make.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, they may not want to just to try to avoid the whole 500mhz fiasco; saving some room to grow.

[Godzappa]

I dont think Apple are (nor should they be) comfortable with releasing a G5 model so late next year.
If they release a 1.2, or even 1.6gig G5 next xmas, who's to say the standard intel will run at over twice that in clock speeds, and even if the G5s can hold their own fine with the intels, is that good enough for our computer of choice?

When the G4s came out, they were MHZ wise close enough to the wintel world that the G4s architecture and altivec capabilities really made the word PowerMac mean something again.. now although a 866 can outrun a 1.4 wintel in certain tests, and it will also cost you as much as buying a couple of said wintels for one Powermac.

What I'm saying is that Apple NEEDS to have a new system that not only stands up next to wintel boxes quite well, but one that hands down kicks the living crap out of the competition and that deserves the PowerMac name. I want to see a Macworld where the Mhz Myth ISN'T explained, because the evidence that the new Macs are faster will be so crystal clear that Michael Dell will be dropping bunny turds for months on end.

Although I don't like having to wait for months (Ti Book) after a Macworld hardware announcement to get the gear in my hands, its still better than not knowing when Apple will release its "Next Big Thing"

[EmAn]

I hope the G5's come in January, but I think they'll be announce at earliest at MWNY 2002.

[Max8319]

i'm thinking MWNY 2002, but hoping MWSF.....i just hope that they continue with DUAL PROCESSORS......atleast, hopefully, in the high end model

[SMacSteve]

Welcome back AI, it's been a long time. Maybe too long. People don't seem to be rushing back too soon.

As far as the G5 goes, I'm selling my G4/450 now in anticipation of the G5 in January.... I hope. Here's what I'm looking for:

G5 Chip starting @ 1.2 Ghz, mid range 1.4 and hopefully topping out at 1.6 Ghz as the Mot updates have been reporting.

DDR 266Mhz memory bus speed.

Fire Wire @800Mb and USB 2.0 as well. We can't be left out of the latest.

Hopefully the return of ATI with the Radeon 8500 64 MB DDR Memory.

That's all I can think of right now. I hope the price point is lowered like the PB's have been to remain competitive. It seems that they're going to be updating the LCD panels at this time as well. Whether or not it's just a cosmetic change to compliment the new G5 look or the larger size offerings.... Like a new 18" and 24" cinema display that had been talked about. This would be interesting to see if they could replace the 22" at the same price point would be the telling issue. Well, the ball is in your court. Any thought's?

[DigitalMonkeyBoy]

Godzappa, the Mhz myth is very well explained.

If the public does not want to believe that processor efficiency is the generally important factor then thats life unless Apple is going to release a string of advertisements going through that.


Apple's G4 line currently stands up to the Pentium 4 as well as it needs to. The G4 is more efficient by a large margin being that the P4's behemoth pipeline depth squanders every single piece of special gadgtery they shoved in it.

The P4 is a makerting tool, and not as efficient as the P3! As long as Intel can lap up the masses with the MHZ myth, and Apple keeps falling over itself...we'll see whats up now that Motorolas outta the way....the fest will continue.


How does one stupify the messgae of efficiency enough so that the public would buy it?

[TigerWoods99]

Well, Im holding my breath for the G5 to be introduced at MWSF, and Im with those of you who believe it will.

Here's what I'm looking for:

1.2 SP, 1.6 SP, 1.4 MP GHz G5
128, 256, 512 MB DDR RAM
60, 80, 100 GB hard drive
DVD/CD-RW, DVD-RW, DVD-RW
GeForce3 Ti 200, GeForce3, GeForce3 Ti 500
Firewire 2 and USB 2
new glossy black enclosure with 2 full drive bays
$1699, $2499, $3499

[Ifok5]

G5's in March 2002
in 1.2, 1.6, 2 GHz speeds
Wait and See

[bradbower]

[quote]<strong>Originally posted by Steve Jobs (iCEO):

YAY G5s!!! They are teh win! My G5s eat Pentium 4s for LUNCH! Intel has got vacuum pow4r, AND I WHIPE MY ASS WITH PENTIUM 4s DOOD!!!!1</strong><hr></blockquote>

A shocking and cryptic message from Steve himself. :eek: :eek:

[Godzappa]

Monkey, I agree with you. My point wasn't that the MHZ Myth isn't real, but that the G5 is our best hope of giving Apple the boost it needs.

My 2 year old G4 is still going strong after friends' PCs bought at the same time are being used as door stops, but we're preaching to the preachers here...

Steve explaining the Myth at every macworld isnt helping anyone, 99% of the people watching know this already. But we also know that even though the G4 (and G3) processors are much more superior in their architecture, they are also suffering in development of faster chips, mainly due to minute developing funding when compared to say Intel, who have much deeper pockets than Apple, and who do not need to rely on third parties such as IBM or Moto to develop the chips.

But another reason we need the G5s is to gain access to current standards in high end PCs (high end as in those over the 1000 buck mark) such as 400mhz system buses and heaven forbid even DDR ram

Many of those who have seen and used OSX realize the power of the OS and the Mac itself, but when looking at prices, don't find many of the standards found in the PC world available for the Mac and usually at much less $.
I really think we wont see a major architectural change in the Powermac until the G5, so its certainly a case of the sooner the better...

P.S. I WANT ATI CARDS AGAIN! Why the Radeon hasnt been a BTO in months is incredible.. I know that Steve got peeved at ATI, but their cards are proven superior in many areas (mainly 2D = Macs are huge in what field?) and we should at least have them as an option to the GeForce's...

[Nebagakid]

gimmie my G5 :D

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

[quote]P4's behemoth pipeline depth squanders every single piece of special gadgtery they shoved in it.
<hr></blockquote>

Nonsense.

[quote]The P4 is a makerting tool, and not as efficient as the P3! As long as Intel can lap up the masses with the MHZ myth<hr></blockquote>

The P4 is far superior to the P3. It is accurate to say it lags in IPC on legacy code, but the P4 wasn't made for legacy code or the .18 micron process it is being manufactured on.

[pfflam]

i'll take two . . .

under the hood


:cool:

[Whistler007]

Heh - get tired of the ArsTechnica boards JFW? ;)

BTW, while there are some real kludges in the P4, JFW is correct that it's not like Intel's been throwing the billions in R&D into a hole you know - the G4 design is over three years old, and needs to be refreshed soon. It is getting humiliated in the SPEC benchmarks, and while not a bad design at the time, Moto's sh**y manufacturing tech has really held it back from its potential. Hopefully Moto will get its act together for the g5...

[quote]Originally posted by JFW:
<strong>

The P4 is far superior to the P3. It is accurate to say it lags in IPC on legacy code, but the P4 wasn't made for legacy code or the .18 micron process it is being manufactured on.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[trumptman]

Anyone waiting for a G5 out needs to be slapped. They haven't even finished revising the chip and somehow it is going to be out by January? Yeah right...

You guys are going to be profoundly disappointed in January then because Apple has produced nothing but incremental improvements for ages now.

Here is what I predict will happen.

Duel 1 gig G4 high end
933 g4 mid range
867 g4 new low end

more screaming and cursing from Mac masses as Apple refuses to give a nickle anyplace in their line up and decide to still leave the 867 with no level 3 cache. First two levels have superdrives and benevolet Apple decides to finally give low end a DVD/CDR drive which everyone immediately complains has a slow write speed.

Because of the terrible economic climate, slowing sales, and everyone screaming that their 30%+ profit rate, Apple finally lops $100 off the entire line which has everyone singing gloriously because the Pro line now starts at a whole $1599 again.(Still no DDR and still GF2mx card though they bump them to 64 megs and twin view across the line)

The iMac line has abysmal sales but Apple refuses to give up the 15 inch model because they know it would bite into the sales of the ridiculously overpriced towers. There are some small concessions however in an attempt to bring up sales.

iMac@700, 800 and 900 (yes still 100 mhz bus)
15inch monitor (yes, still no lcd)
32 meg gf2mx200 (lower speed MX)
cd-r with dvd/cd-r option available

In a move to boost iMac sales, Apple will finally allow video out and not just mirroring on the iMac. The Gf2mx card supports this natively and Apple looks like a genius for shipping it. Steve Jobs declares another innovation because now the entire line has duel display support.

Pricing is $699 (low end education version)$899,999, and $1099 with $125 more being charged for BTO combo DVD,CD-R drive. Everyone is a little pissed because Apple is overcharging for the drive, some declare that Apple is justified, other declare they will buy a firewire enclosure and drive at their local computer show.

Trumptman

[murk]

To quote a wise man at MOSR:

… so as with all rumors, trust no one ;)

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: murk ]</p>

[KidRed]

But aren't most rumors based on in-the-ball-park info? These rumors are not only saying that the G5 will debut in jan but also that they will be high ghz speeds.

Well, it's nice to dream, I hope it's based on some evidence.

[BostonMJH]

If Steve Jobs can get a G5 out at MWSF he will. It would kick start the desktop sales. You could see following for Pro desktop, top dual 1.4GHz G5 ($$$$) single 1.6GHz G5 ($$$) dual 1GHz G4 ($$) and the low end Pro desktop a 1.2GHz G4 ($). This would allow them promote a new generation of chips and still use the G4 until it moves to the consumer line.

As far as the post about the iMac.....you will see a LCD iMac......Steve is probably fuming that Gateway is selling a compleate pc with lcd for $999.99. You will probably see three imac 700 Mhz to 1GHz....may be SE with a G4 w/ SuperDrive.

I just think Apple needs to moving desktops....

[SMacSteve]

[quote]Originally posted by BostonMJH:
<strong>If Steve Jobs can get a G5 out at MWSF he will. It would kick start the desktop sales. You could see following for Pro desktop, top dual 1.4GHz G5 ($$$$) single 1.6GHz G5 ($$$) dual 1GHz G4 ($$) and the low end Pro desktop a 1.2GHz G4 ($). This would allow them promote a new generation of chips and still use the G4 until it moves to the consumer line.

As far as the post about the iMac.....you will see a LCD iMac......Steve is probably fuming that Gateway is selling a compleate pc with lcd for $999.99. You will probably see three imac 700 Mhz to 1GHz....may be SE with a G4 w/ SuperDrive.

I just think Apple needs to moving desktops....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but gateway has sold a all-in-one lcd model before and it was a flop. And poor quality at that. Apples will actually be in demand.

[SMacSteve]

I don't think there is any doubt in my mind... We will see a G5 at MWSF. And we will see a LCD iMac. These two rumors I'm certain.

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

Whistler said:
[quote]Heh - get tired of the ArsTechnica boards JFW?<hr></blockquote>

Funny as it sounds, most of the people I get tired of are probably here as well ;) &lt;jest&gt;

Actually, my account on AI goes back to December 99, before I registered with Ars.

[FormerLurker]

[quote]Originally posted by Cipher13:
<strong>I say January; they COULD be out by then. It really depends on whether Apple wants the power out there, or whether they wanna milk the G4 for all the cash they can. I don't think they'll sell many more with the advent of the G5 possibly so close.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>agree with Cipher.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agree with Jonathan! :D

I also believe that the iMac (or the iMac 2) will move to the G4 at the same time. Apple will refresh the entire desktop line at once, when this happens.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>

[BRussell]

My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much.

BTW, I have a PowerMac with a single G4 800Mhz, with a vestigial appendange of another G4 800Mhz. It doesn't run my software any faster, but it lets me keep the thermostat down in my office.
*ducks and runs*

[gumby5647]

Overclocked 733mhz?

[KrazyFool]

what do you think one of those puppys would run you? G5 that is, with all the options. desktop and laptop. $3,000 and $4,000?

[Amorph]

There is no way the G5 will appear in a laptop any time soon, if the rumored specs are anywhere near accurate. If MOSR is right (and that's a big if) then the earliest we'll see one is late fall 2002/MWSF 2003, when a lower power version of the G5 rolls off the lines. If the desktop G5 appears this next MWSF, I'd say that's optimistic, but not impossible.

As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[AlbertWu]

[quote]Originally posted by Cipher13:
<strong>I say January; they COULD be out by then. It really depends on whether Apple wants the power out there, or whether they wanna milk the G4 for all the cash they can. I don't think they'll sell many more with the advent of the G5 possibly so close.</strong><hr></blockquote>

woah! ::rubs eyes::

cipher? a junior member?

:D

[KrazyFool]

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>There is no way the G5 will appear in a laptop any time soon, if the rumored specs are anywhere near accurate. If MOSR is right (and that's a big if) then the earliest we'll see one is late fall 2002/MWSF 2003, when a lower power version of the G5 rolls off the lines. If the desktop G5 appears this next MWSF, I'd say that's optimistic, but not impossible.

As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

well damn it, my birthday is in February and I wanted to get a fresh new PB, not a G5 but the fastest one :(

[FormerLurker]

[quote]Originally posted by JW Pepper:
<strong>There is a strange assumption in this thread.

"Apple wants to milk the G4 for a bit longer"

Two problems with this:-

1. blah

2. blah blah

If they can manufcature a range of faster processors at similar yeilds they will do so without uping the price.

One caveat, if the roomers at MOSR were true, a 2.4GHZ G5. Apple would want to milk a premium price for the fastest desktop for a while. But volume is what is needed and without volume sales Apple will die. It is as important to Apple to provide the fastest processors as it is to us.

Apple will sell the fastest kit it can make.</strong><hr></blockquote>

One problem with this: -

You're assuming a perfect world where decisions are made based on engineering and technical data like chip yield alone.

That's not the case. Sometimes, the marketing department determines the release schedule.

I see it happening this way - G4 desktops get bumped in Jan. and break the GHz barrier before they are phased out of the PowerMac line. Meanwhile, the MHz bump in the G4 allows them to bump the iMac up to 9xx MHz at the top of the line.

Then in the summer, they can bump the PowerMac to G5 and the iMac to G4 (and LCD of course - ten thousand rumors can't be wrong)


[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>I want to see a Macworld where the Mhz Myth ISN'T explained, because the evidence that the new Macs are faster will be so crystal clear that Michael Dell will be dropping bunny turds for months on end.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

LOL
Well said! This is exactly what I expect/hope if the rumors of the G5 raw processing power are even halfway true.


[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>My sources report that it is more likely that the G5 will be delayed until Apple is done creating their Raycer graphics processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now CUT that out, Knife... uhhh, I mean "Fork" ;)

You're probably kidding, but you're making me drool on my keyboard anyway! :D

Mmmmmmmmmm... Raaaaaacer Graaaaaaphics Chiiiiiiiip.. &lt;/homersimpson&gt;

[quote]Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy:
<strong>Godzappa, the Mhz myth is very well explained.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you are missing this forest for the trees.

The MHz Myth is very well explained... to 90% of the non-trollers on this board. It's very well explained... to people like us.

It's explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and/or based on whose commercial they just saw on TV and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them. Apple said it best themselves at the launch of the retail stores... 95% of the people who bought a Windows computer instead of a Mac, never even considered a Mac as a prospective choice.

[quote]<strong>
If the public does not want to believe that processor efficiency is the generally important factor then thats life unless Apple is going to release a string of advertisements going through that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We would all cheer and high-five each other if Apple/Chiat made a commercial to "to through" that. But unless they produce a 30-sec. masterpiece, they will just be preaching to the choir yet again.

Try to keep in mind - commercials don't educate, they create brand awareness.... they (subliminally) make you ("you" being an average consumer, as opposed to someone posting to AI on the first night of AI's return) want go check out ("check out" meaning not buying something today, but maybe bringing the spouse by to see what a Mac can do on your next mall trip) the Apple Store when you are wandering through your city's newest mall this holiday season.

[quote]<strong>
Apple's G4 line currently stands up to the Pentium 4 as well as it needs to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

NO it does NOT (except for Altivec-enhanced apps), and never will from a markeing standpoint because the majority of the public is not educated in regards to the Myth. It doesn't stand up to retail competitiveness and marketshare growth any more than the iMac's 15" monitor on a $1499 computer does in a 17" PC system for $899 marketplace.

Apple has paid (and is paying) big bucks to Marketsource to supply Apple Reps to Circuit City and CompUSA to keep display models in running orders and educate the sales staff. They have done a decent (and in many stores outstanding) job of educating the StuporStore sales reps on the Myth. I've even seen a few of these reps sell their PC to buy a Mac!

But, if you are a commissioned sales rep, are you going to bother telling the story of the Myth and the Mac Advantages to someone who wants to buy a 900 MHz or 1.1 GHz PC, or are you just going to shut up and make the sale of a Windoze machine?

95% of the people who buy a Mac from Circuit City or chumpUSA, do so ONLY because they came into the store intending to buy a Mac, and the sales rep managed to serve them well enough (thanks to the work of marketsource) to keep them from running home screaming to their MacWarehouse catalog.

All too seldom (but it does happen), the customer mentions an interest in digital video, and the well-trained sales rep shows them a quick demo of iMovie, and someone not intending to buy a Mac ends up with one anyway.

These "superstores" are not, and never will, grow marketshare.... hence the Apple Stores.

Unlike the last Grand Experiment to grow marketshare (see Power Computing and the Clone Fiasco), this one has not been rushed out, will grow rather than slash sales, etc. We are in it for the long term, and we have the cash reserves in place to support a year or so of little/no retail store profit (as long as overall we are profitable), especially in the current climate where the majority of PC box maakers are "beleagured".

If anyone is wondering, I know the retail arena very well, having been paid by Marketsource to be an Apple rep for over 3 years now (and sold for a mom-pop Apple Specialist for 5 years before that). If anyone from Apple Legal happens to be paying attention, I am quite sure that the above statements do NOT violate my NDA, as it is not Apple Confidential Information, but purely my own opinion and NOT the opinion of Marketsource and/or Apple Computer..... :D

[quote]<strong>
The G4 is more efficient by a large margin being that the P4's behemoth pipeline depth squanders every single piece of special gadgtery they shoved in it.

The P4 is a makerting tool, and not as efficient as the P3! As long as Intel can lap up the masses with the MHZ myth.....

How does one stupify the messgae of efficiency enough so that the public would buy it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are exactly right. I said it before and I will say it again because it bears repeating.....

The MHz Myth, and the associated concepts of pipelines, etc, is explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and based on whose commercial they just saw on TV, and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them.

Ignoring the fact that the last sentence of your post directly contridicts the first one, :D here's what I believe is happening:

Apple is basically coasting on their core user base (thus the "milking" comments on the first page of this thread), and will do so until at least mid-2002....the G5 will not explode on the scene till Apple has at least 40-50 retail stores open... that's when "5 down and 95 to go" gets really serious!!!

Meanwhile, a large percentage of the creative, power-user crowd will buy whatever Apple has in the latest Power Mac every year or two, as long as the (perceived AND real) performance increase is there. The Power Mac line is currently rebounding from a most ugly stagnation.

Think about it - if you owned a G3/400, how anxious were you to upgrade to a G4/450 a year ago? OTOH, today, if you own a G3/400, you can replace it with a 733 or 867 - now THAT is a reason to upgrade!! And so, that is a reason for Apple to milk the G4 for another 6 months minimum.

I don't see the message of the MHz being "stupified" enough to make a difference till we see the G5, and until Apple Stores are widespread enough to get the message to the masses like TV commercials and superstore sales reps never will do. See Godzappa's post above....

[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>
My 2 year old G4 is still going strong after friends' PCs bought at the same time are being used as door stops, but we're preaching to the preachers here...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

E X A C T L Y !

WHEW - this went WAY longer than I intended... but then there are so many thoughtful posts to reply to here... "welcome back" to AI, and "C-ya" to a good night's sleep!

Final random thought for the night - Jobs should give an Apple board seat to John Lassiter, to help secure Apple's place as THE computer for creative/showbiz people.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>

[Whisper]

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd, but I bet they could get away with selling MP G5s as servers.

[FormerLurker]

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>

Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd.....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope.

The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!

Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.

ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>

[Whisper]

[quote]Originally posted by FormerLurker:
<strong>

Nope.

The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!

Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.

ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense? :)

[FormerLurker]

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>

My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense? :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes it does, as what I said seems to, for you. ;)

Furthermore, I'm not looking to flame anyone I disagree with - I very much like the tenor of intelligent discussion on these revived boards so far - AI always had it, MacNN never did and never will...

Gotta go get some sleep now, but I'll leave you with this agreement to disagree...

<strong> [quote]
For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thought One:

"Why Be Normal?" bumper sticker = "Think Different"
Perhaps you should re-think your use of the term "normal" in this context :D

Thought Two:

Your theorized "Prosumer/low-end Pro" market was the target market for the G4 Cube.

I own a Cube, and I'm incredibly thrilled with (and emotionally attatched to) it, but I understand that not enough people Thought as Different as I did...

[BerberCarpet]

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much</strong><hr></blockquote>

Weeellll....

I would love to have dual or even quad engines to run my web servers on.

Now that Lasso comes with an embedded MySQL db and speed is possible, I want as much as I can get.

Oh...

And rack sized.

[ZO]

hell, whatever ships in a new enclosure better frikken have 2 full bays instead of 1.5 have we have now. Thats just the stupidist thing in the world.

Regarding G5s in January... I would love to believe it, but I don't think it will happen.

What they could do, to get rid of G4 stock, is offer dual G4s as entry, then faster and fastest as G5s for the early adopters.

But then again, why would they have to get RID of G4s. I can only logically think that G4s would FINALLY be used in iMacs as soon as the G5 goes mainstream in the Pro line.

[Ender]

To address those dual processor posts:

Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. My dad got a G4 500 in May 2000 and I got a G4 500 DP in July 2000. Right now, both are running OS X.1 and mostly the same software, and mine is definately far superior. In everything.

While I agree that some of the other machine improvements have something to do with it, the dual processors are the main factor. Ripping a DVD in the background while listening to iTunes 2 while compiling a new Java 2 Applet (thanks for the Dev Tools Apple) works without missing a beat on my machine, his becomes nearly unusable and typing is sporadic at best.

No, with the increasingly popular OS X, dual processor systems need to stay. Finally dual processors are really twice as fast.

$0.02

-Ender

[caffeine]

It came to my mind that MacOS X 10.2 is more or less programmed for a 2002 March release.
So, wouldn't it be logic to release both an adapted OS with the new G5.
This scenario would match the predicted timeframes for release of both products.
Only some ideas.

[DigitalMonkeyBoy]

Releasing the G5 is only part of what Apple needs. Apple also needs smarter ads...cuz "Up to twice as fast" and "hahahah, there is no step 3" don't work as well as they should in this market.

They need to alter Steve Jobs psychopathic rage so that he doesn't throw hardware out the window while people are working on it.

They also need to dump "Power" and "i" cuz its cheap.

[D]

[quote]Originally posted by Ender:
<strong>Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I'd totally agree. Sadly, for many pro users, the apps are still in 9. I find it pathetic that FCP is still not carbonized/cocoa-ified... Although I'm pretty sure it's DP-capable in 9 anyway.

This may not be logical, but I think a lot of people would update based on software concerns: once photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, FCP, After Effects, etc. are running natively in X, you'd want whatever new hardware you could get your hands on.

Nice to be back... although I've changed my username since then.

[Escher]

[quote]Originally posted by jutus:
<strong>Some say that mosr's source is actually Apple non-employee Mea D. Ersass.</strong><hr></blockquote>

ROTFLMAO. :)

MOSR is falling ever lower in terms of journalistic integrity. (I'm giving MOSR the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they had journalistic skills at some point.) Think Secret is well-written and reliable, but the news are usually not quite groundbreaking. I'm really curious to see how the "new AI with the same old sources" stacks up. But regardless of front page news, we now have stable and active AI boards once again. &lt;crosses fingers&gt;

Escher

[Powerdoc]

The G5 line is due for junuary 2002.
At this time there will be a new i mac line based on G4 chip with no L3 cache. Probabily there will be a new case, and why not a lcd screen, considering that all apple's screen are lcd at this time.

[sawtooth]

Mosr's source is Santa, and his toy factory is in Calafornia: <a href="http://www.mosr.com/" target="_blank">http://www.mosr.com/</a> :eek:

[Mr.Potatohead]

MOSR's report is total bull$#!%. I'm getting to where I can spot these puppies a mile away. The MHZ estimates are waaay too starry-eyed. Given the past 5 years we've had with Motorola, I had a good belly laugh when I read the estimates going all the way up to 20 GHZ in short order! Yeah, rite! And if you remember the press reports from 1998, the PowerPC was supposed to be the first chip to break the GHZ barrier; we are now dead last.

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

[quote]we are now dead last. <hr></blockquote>

Not really, the MIPS is at what?

500mhz?

[rickag]

Just my uninformed opinion

The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.

<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>

[quote]"Samples of the MPC8540 are expected to be available in the second half of 2002."<hr></blockquote>

Maybe the two processors are not related, but it still doesn't seem to promising.

Hope I'm wrong, because come January I'm buying the best machine I can afford.

[gumby5647]

[quote]Originally posted by AlbertWu:
<strong>

woah! ::rubs eyes::

cipher? a junior member?

:D </strong><hr></blockquote>


Woah! ::rubs eyes::
AlwertWU? a junior member? Say it ain't so.

All of us MacNN 'ers are junior members.....kinda sucks :D

G5, im still betting on january Demo and Intro, shipment in febuary type of thing. just wait and see....

[KidRed]

[quote]
What they could do, to get rid of G4 stock,<hr></blockquote>

I think that's what the new Apple Promo $500 off G4/Studio Display that has been running for the last 2 weeks and ends Dec 31st is for :)

[Alexander]

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.

<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>

Maybe the two processors are not related, but it still doesn't seem to promising.

Hope I'm wrong, because come January I'm buying the best machine I can afford.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Me too. :)

If that is the G5, that's pretty damning evidence. Still, it also means that it's at least a year away from market, and that page also says that it's "projected to be 600MHz - 1GHz, with power consumption expected to be 6.5W at 800MHz." That doesn't make it sound like a G5. Maybe the portable version, or (more likely) the embedded version?

Alex

[Amorph]

6.5W dissipation targets it squarely at the embedded market, which wants processors that dissipate fewer than 8W.

That, of course, makes it an attractive notebook processor as well.

The 8500, by way of contrast, is rumored to suck down about 40W.

[Mac Glue Sniffer]

The G4 introduction was a complete suprise if you will remember, so the lack of real information on the G5 is the only credible evidence that I see (or don't) that would point to a possible introduction.

As far as mosr's most recent prognostication, I doubt any person that closely associated with the G5 development would have lips that loose. They wouldn't last two weeks in the Apple Gestapo.

[danho]

Here is my reply to the "Mhz Myth", etc. I'm not trolling, as we have 3 macs on our wireless network at home.

There is a large, untapped market for Mac - gamers. To attract this population, Macs need to become faster and cheaper.

Consider the following tests:

<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pm02.html" target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pm02.html</a>

The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.

How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably &gt;=2 times as expensive as the PC?

How about these results:

<a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/PowerBookG4_fall2001/powerbook_g4_667_quake3.html" target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/PowerBookG4_fall2001/powerbook_g4_667_quake3.html</a>

A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen? The version of Quake, 1.3, I think is Altivec aware.

The above are not impressive in the least.

I recognize that gaming isn't everything (I'm not a gamer). But, winning contrived "bake offs" between Mac and PC using Photoshop isn't going to get junior to plead with ma and pa to get an Apple. The Apple "experience" can overcome small deltas in price and performance - it is next to impossible to convince PC'ers to switch for less performance in important arenas and more $$.

My $0.02

[wormboy]

danho said:
[quote] How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably &gt;=2 times as expensive as the PC?
<hr></blockquote>

There is not a game you can play on a Mac that won't play like a dream on a DP800. It will handle all games adequately for the next three (give or take) years. What's the problem? Maybe you should leave the numbers at the door and step inside and try the computer out yourself? It's true that the DP800 is not quite the "BigDog", but it's certainly big enough.

[danho]

Wormboy,

My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.

So what? It is my belief that this is a large, untapped market for Apple. If you cannot convince these young people to at least consider a Mac then it will be doubly hard to get their parents to consider a Mac.

But, these issues aside: those tests were singularly unimpressive for the Macs.

[TigerWoods99]

I just read that MOSR article.....lol that would be some funny sh!t if Steve actually said something like that.......does anyone remember the stuff about Steve throwing a phone when he was talking with Moto? Oh boy.....I'd have a heart attack if I saw that.

I believe Apple is being aggresive in getting the G5 out. The low-end 7460s are an interesting concept, and unfortunately could be true. However, the G5 prices stated at The Register were lower than that of the P4. Hopefully Apple realizes what us consumers want, and makes a big bang at MWSF.

[Amorph]

danho wrote:

[quote]My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.<hr></blockquote>

If Apple tripled the game performance of their machines tomorrow, there still wouldn't be sufficient incentives for most: All the theoretical performance in the world doesn't count for much if the games aren't there. By going with DirectX, MS has successfully tied 99% of all game development closely to Windows, and the effort required to port over to the Mac relative to the market (and the diminished appeal of a game that's released 6 months later) makes it worth the effort only for some A-list titles. There are some (Half-Life) that will never make it to the Mac.

Faster machines won't lure game developers, either. Believe it or not, the iMac looks great to a game developer. But porting is still a daunting and expensive project. The initial development budgets tend to consume whatever resources the company has.

To try to bring this back around to topic, the G5 - even if it boasts astonishing gaming performance - will appeal primarily to graphics artists of various kinds, engineers, people working in TV and film, scientists, musicians and producers - the people who have always shelled out for the most powerful Macs. That is who Apple will target. Unless there is a radical change in the way games are made for the PC - which is highly unlikely at this point - the Mac games market will remain in the shape it's currently in until Apple commands a much larger market share than it does now.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[SDW2001]

I have tried to say before that we should be looking at as much evidence as we can find and then, using what we know, draw some reasonable conclusions.

We have heard that Job's has been quoted as saying the MHZ gap would be over by the end of this year....given his slight underestimation of timelines (such as 10.1 in September...that was a close one), this could reasonably mean January's MacWorld. Why does this point to a G5? Well, it would be highly unlikely for the G4 to go from 867mhz to say, 1.6ghz in one fell swoop. Even though 1.6 isn't really there, it is much closer, and would, from what we know, detroy a Pentium chip in terms of performance. I think this is a resonable indicator. I don't think Apple is any happier than we are at the perceived gap....and they want to fix it. This, IMHO, points to a G5 release at SF or Tokyo.

We also have been hearing from sources that the G5 is sampling well and yields are better. It sounds as if they are within weeks of finalizing the first run. More and more people are jumping on board in saying it IS going to happen. Well, when I keep hearing it over and over again from different sources, I start to take notice. We have also heard a fairly consisent story in terms of speeds, Altivec performance, etc. The source at Rumors and the Register actually seems legit to me. the info seems very plausible and, well, it just reads like a legit thing to me....I know that is subjective but I am going with my gut here as well.

As far as not having enough time, that isn't true at all. If Apple has everything else ready to go (enclosure, board, etc.), and the rumors of "1200 or so" prototypes floating around are true, then they are simply waiting on the processors. I believe that within 30-60 days of the processors being ramped up in terms of production, Apple can crank a G5 out the door. This means if the chip was deemed suitable on say one month from today, they could ship these things without a problem by February.

Other things that point to a G5 are:

1) The G4 has been around for quite awhile now. Apple could use the marketing kick.

2) The iMac is also suffering, and has been for a year. This means LCD iMac and perhaps a G4. We obviously won't have a G4 iMac AND a G4 in the towers.

All in all, I think the evidence points to a G5.

The argument for LCD iMac is even more compelling. The iMac design is three years old. We expected it last time, but it is reasonable to conclude that Apple waited due to market conditions. If Apple brought this out early next year though, I think we would see a huge upgrade cycle. If it had a G4 the cycle would be even bigger. The PC market will still be in shambles, but Apple will have a truly different and powerful machine. I think this will also happen.

Sorry this is so long. It just seems that the evidence points to both happening. anyone have other evidence in SUPPORT of these coming out?

[Fluffy]

[quote]Originally posted by danho:
The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.<hr></blockquote>

Two reasons that I can see:

1. Fast RAM. Those two G4s are absolutely starved for bandwidth, and until Apple puts at least PC2100 DDR RAM into their products we simply will not see the same kind of framerates that they see on the PC side of the camp. Fortunately this seems to be a hurdle that Apple will soon surmount. I hope.

2. Better drivers. I don't think anyone can argue this, and Apple just has to slog through it.

[quote]A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen?<hr></blockquote>

The GeForce2Go is a better graphics card than the mobile Radeon. The Radeon used in the G4 does not have hardware T&L while the GeForce does, and then there is the driver issue as well.

On a more general note, Altivec is of limited use in the Q3 engine. It probably provides a 15% speedup at very low resolutions and detail levels, but above that it's all about bandwidth. I am also skeptical of Apple's claims to support write combining at anything approaching the level of that in the intel architectures.

It should also be noted that the 7450 chips seem to have a lower bus throughput figure that could be a factor in both cases.

All in all, I really don't think that it matters much. Even if the Mac consistently reached 1000fps in Wolf3D and Quake3 it still doesn't have the sheer mass of games that exist for the PC, and nobody will ever buy a Mac if gaming is their sole priority.

[MacsKickAss]

The MOSR article stated that the price for the G5 might be too expensive to warrent its inclusion on the lower 2 or so models of the Power Macs.

My question, what would they call the new machines? Power Mac G4&5, just Power Mac, or have two semi-separate product lines called Power Mac G4 and G5.

Having 2 chips on the high-end towers would be somewhat confusing to the consumer (albeit most of the customers of the towers are pros.)

They should all be G5, or all G4, not both. Preferably G5.

If they want to appease Mot, why not have the G4 (7460s) in the iMacs, and maybe PowerBooks (if feasable).

I don't really want to see another G3 iMac.

But of course, this is an article posted on MOSR, so of course, none of what I say could matter.

Its good to see AppleInsider back up. Just noticed it today.

[KidRed]

[quote] I don't really want to see another G3 iMac. <hr></blockquote>

You kidding? The Sahara I'm sure will be a great chip when it comes out. I think we might be in a G3-G4-G5 line up.

[Logan Cale]

I too think we will see a G3 - G4 - G5 lineup for a while.

iBook: 700-1 GHz G3
iMac: 1 GHzish G4
PowerBook: 1 - 1.2 GHz G4
Power Mac: 1.6 Ghzish G5

I'm generalizing next year as one big event in that prediction. :)

[SMacSteve]

I believe that sources at MOSR sound legit. I think that January is very possible for the G5. Although the G4/G5 combo lineup is questionable. I think this could be a mistake. They should go totally to the G5 and use the G4 remaining in the LCD iMac when it's released. Hopefully along side the new G5 at MWSF.

[crayz]

I really think MWSF has gotta be good. The towers are hurting, and the iMacs are just utter crap. I can't imagine they're selling any of those awful Dalmation/Flower Power things.

They need to get back in the performance race. Don't give me any crap about the MHz myth either - these new Athlon XP procs kick the sh*t out of anything Apple's got. And the P4 is probably going to go to 3GHz *soon*. Apple still not being able to get above the GHz barrier, when backa few years ago people were speculating they'd be *first* to break it is just ridiculous. It is a joke. No one is gonna pay the $2500+ for a G4/867 when they can get a GHz Athlon for $500.

I think this is make-or-break time for Apple. They've tried to put off doing anything very impressive with their desktop line for a long time now.

[gnuami]

Apple's not milking the G4. They don't have anything else. Before MWSF 2001, all they had was 500 MHz G4s, for 2 years! That's not milking, that's scraping along with what you've got.

[Arty50]

Well we'd all better hope Moto and company get off their asses because rumor has it AMD's Hammer is going to start at 3.4 GHz sometime next year.

[Alexander]

[quote]Originally posted by crayz:
<strong>I can't imagine they're selling any of those awful Dalmation/Flower Power things.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That might be because they discontinued them back in July. :) (and went back to the solid colors)

But yes, you're right, the iMacs suck. Lots.

Alex

[Smircle]

If Moto is producing Rev 0.7 Chips now, it is very unlikely they will be at mass-production in jan. Usually this takes about 6 month from the first samples. It may be of course that they do not show samples publicly to take the world by surprise..

The mosr article seems doubtful in other respects too: the G5 as a fully 64Bit CPU? Then how is Apple going to revise the foundations of MacOS-X in 3 month time to go from 32 to 64 Bit? Sounds unlikely. Whats more: those machines would not be capable of running MacOS-9 unless the G5 could be forced to run in 32Bit "emulation"

[sawtooth]

If what MOSR has any truth, what are the chances of Apple moving away from the current low-end /high-end product grid to a more flexible line-up with a new intermediate desktop between the iMac and PowerMac...possibly a reincarnation of the Cube!?

iMac G3 (G4?) Low-end, home, small office…

*****Mac G4 Intermediate, business, design, pro-sumer…

PowerMac G5 High-end, power user, video, graphics, 3d…
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ihxo]

if there's no G5 or and G4 CPU over 1GHz in MWSF 2002 then I think steve could officialy use the F word on stage ..... :o

[kim kap sol]

i am building the plastics now

[Alpha Mac]

MWSF: Apple show oof the G5, update iMac,s OSX 10.2 out.
MWT: G4 iMac Released ,updated iPod (FW2), G5 in the Shops.
MWNY: updated iBook's ,TiPBook's ,and G5, OSX 10.3.
Apple Expo: update iMac's. OSX 10.4 or .5.


;)

[Blizaine]

[quote]MWSF: Apple show oof the G5, update iMac,s OSX 10.2 out.
MWT: G4 iMac Released ,updated iPod (FW2), G5 in the Shops.
MWNY: updated iBook's ,TiPBook's ,and G5, OSX 10.3.
Apple Expo: update iMac's. OSX 10.4 or .5.<hr></blockquote>

I like the G5 "show" prediction, but FW2 on iPod? ;) As of right now the Toshiba drive in the iPod can only right at about 8-9MB/sec (which is pretty fast) but still using less than 1/5th of FW1's theoretical speed.

Later,
Bliz

[paxan]

nice to see "kim kap sol" back also,
tell us something more bout it? :)

[rickag]

[quote]Alexander
"If that is the G5,"<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer the MPC 8540 was the G5. It is stated in the title of the press release that it is an "Integrated Host Processor" and in the article states it is an embedded processor.

My point was, it is allegedly in the same class as the G5(ie. 85XX) and uses HiP7. Motorola has been making some chip cores using HiP7, but I think the MPC 8540 will be the first processor made using HiP7, some one correct me if I'm wrong.

The G5 will be much a more complicated chip, a cpu. I ass u me d the MPC 8540 would be introduced days, weeks months?? before the G5, hence a 2nd half launch. I hope I'm wrong, but how could Motorola introduce a much more complicated cpu, the G5, 6 months before they begin just sampling a much less complicated chip, the MPC 8540?

Another thing bothers me about a Jan. introduction of the G5. If it were approved today for production, doesn't it take 50 -60 days to manufacture a chip? Would this be enough time to produce enough chips and ship them to Apple for manufacturing computers?

[Moogs]

Apple Hardware Rumors...as timeless as mother earth. :)

I for one am inclined to think we're roughly a year away, if for no other reason than it's supposed to be a 64-bit chip right? Which means all the applications have to be tweaked and recompiled. I think the same goes for OS X itself.

Hence isn't it safe to say Apple wants to give developers a chance to get all their major applications out the door for OS X first?

That is, isn't the most logical progression something like:

1. Finished OS X Apps
2. 64 bit chips
3. 64 bit OS X to run on said chips
4. Recompiled OS X Apps to run on said OS

?

[NukemHill]

I don't have any sources to quote or link, but I distinctly remember hearing, a while ago, that the G5 ran 32-bit natively, even though it is supposed to be a 64-bit processor. Thus, no recompilations necessary for OS X, or apps, classic or otherwise.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....

[Whisper]

[quote]Originally posted by Smircle:
<strong>If Moto is producing Rev 0.7 Chips now, it is very unlikely they will be at mass-production in jan. Usually this takes about 6 month from the first samples. It may be of course that they do not show samples publicly to take the world by surprise..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the MOSR article stated that if there were no further problems, the 0.8 rev would become the 1.0 rev, so that part doesn't bother me.
[quote]<strong>The mosr article seems doubtful in other respects too: the G5 as a fully 64Bit CPU? Then how is Apple going to revise the foundations of MacOS-X in 3 month time to go from 32 to 64 Bit? Sounds unlikely. Whats more: those machines would not be capable of running MacOS-9 unless the G5 could be forced to run in 32Bit "emulation"</strong><hr></blockquote>
NukemHill is right, the 64b G5 can ran 32b code at full speed, so no code changes are required. Even if they did need to make the OS 64b, it should just be a recompile (assuming that they wrote it right in the first place).

Having said all that, I feel compelled to continue the AI tradition of saying that MOSR is full nonsense, and if they say it'll happen then it's garaunteed not to, etc ;)

(Apologies if I spelled "garaunteed" or "Apologies" wrong. I'm too lazy to use the spell checker right now :) )

[Whisper]

[quote]Originally posted by crayz:
[QBNo one is gonna pay the $2500+ for a G4/867 when they can get a GHz Athlon for $500.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but the cool thing about paying only $500 for a PC is that you're only out $500. So you put up with Window's crap until you've recouped the $500, and then you get a real computer :D

No, seriously, I'm thinking about it. Depending on what software I need for my classes next semester, I might not have any choice.

[ihxo]

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>No, seriously, I'm thinking about it. Depending on what software I need for my classes next semester, I might not have any choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

kaka .. I am the crazy student who writes x86 assembly in vpc ........

[King Chung Huang]

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>Well, the MOSR article stated that if there were no further problems, the 0.8 rev would become the 1.0 rev, so that part doesn't bother me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

However, a "1.0 rev" doesn't necessarily mean that it's ready to ship. Remember, the first G4s that showed up in Power Macs in 1999 were rev 2.4.

[Powerdoc]

The G5 is the only way to not be ridiculous in the mhz war, by lenghtening the pipeline bus (14 stages in many rumors, unstead seven for the 7450), it's their only way to go above one ghz (still stuck at 867 mhz)
probabily in many aspect excepting video games (because of the bandwitch) the G5 will be slower at equal Mhz than the G4 (like the P4 versus the PIII).

Even with the G5 the mhz war is loose by Motorola the only goal is to not be too ridiculous and to find some benchmarks who will show the superiority of their chips (even if in most of the tasks the chip is slower ...)

[Moogs]

[quote]Originally posted by NukemHill:
<strong>I don't have any sources to quote or link, but I distinctly remember hearing, a while ago, that the G5 ran 32-bit natively, even though it is supposed to be a 64-bit processor. Thus, no recompilations necessary for OS X, or apps, classic or otherwise.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....</strong><hr></blockquote>


Well, that would be cool if you're right. Wonder if there would be any performance hit? Or would it more or less be like running a non PPC app on a one of our existing processors? That is to say, no speed hit until such time as there is a native app, which should run faster.

[NukemHill]

Went to the Book E spec on the Motorola site:

<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPC_BOOKE.pdf" target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPC_BOOKE.pdf</a>
quote:
Section 1.2

"Book E provides binary compatibility for 32-bit PowerPC application programs. Binary compatibility
is not necessarily provided for privileged PowerPC instructions."

Don't know if this is saying what I think it is saying, but it seems to.

[PookJP]

Cheers, FormerLurker. That final paragraph on the importance of public perception was right on. I've been arguing for over a year that Steve's explaining away MHz helps nothing. As you said, it's preching to the choir. We need to make Macs appear fast, and be able to back up that claim. Then we'll be competitive.

- Pook

[Caler]

[quote]Originally posted by PookJP:
<strong>Cheers, FormerLurker. That final paragraph on the importance of public perception was right on. I've been arguing for over a year that Steve's explaining away MHz helps nothing. As you said, it's preching to the choir. We need to make Macs appear fast, and be able to back up that claim. Then we'll be competitive.

- Pook</strong><hr></blockquote>

[Caler]

[quote]Originally posted by Caler:
<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, shakedown flub (what a way to make a bow...)

I've never been too terribly concerned with the PPC/Pentium comparisons, but when there's NO relative chip speed progress in and of itself, that's painful.

[SDW2001]

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>The G5 is the only way to not be ridiculous in the mhz war, by lenghtening the pipeline bus (14 stages in many rumors, unstead seven for the 7450), it's their only way to go above one ghz (still stuck at 867 mhz)
probabily in many aspect excepting video games (because of the bandwitch) the G5 will be slower at equal Mhz than the G4 (like the P4 versus the PIII).

Even with the G5 the mhz war is loose by Motorola the only goal is to not be too ridiculous and to find some benchmarks who will show the superiority of their chips (even if in most of the tasks the chip is slower ...)</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) The G5 will kick the shit of the G4.....I will personally guarantee that. And there will be no G4 at Equivalent MHZ.

2) The pipleline will probably not be 14 stages....

3) G4 chips will break one gig without increasing the pipeline.

Wait and see....

[crawlingparanoia]

[quote]I don't have any sources to quote or link, but I distinctly remember hearing, a while ago, that the G5 ran 32-bit natively, even though it is supposed to be a 64-bit processor. Thus, no recompilations necessary for OS X, or apps, classic or otherwise.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....
<hr></blockquote>
No, you are right. I heard the same thing, many times, from different people.

[Xool]

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>1) The G5 will kick the shit of the G4.....I will personally guarantee that. And there will be no G4 at Equivalent MHZ.

2) The pipleline will probably not be 14 stages....

3) G4 chips will break one gig without increasing the pipeline.

Wait and see....</strong><hr></blockquote>

In Valen's name, I pray that you are right!

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>

1) The G5 will kick the shit of the G4.....I will personally guarantee that. And there will be no G4 at Equivalent MHZ.

2) The pipleline will probably not be 14 stages....

3) G4 chips will break one gig without increasing the pipeline.

Wait and see....</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) I doubt that the G5 will beat the G4 at equal Mhz especially the 7410. Of course the G5 wil start clocking higher than the G4 (same as the 7450 starting at 733 vs the 7410 stuck at 533, but remember excepting altivec stuff the benchmarks of this too later chips where very similar...)

2) Have you got any info about the number of stage of the pipeline ?

3) well you are right undead the G4 will break the GHz wall, but is not able to go far beyond.

[smalM]

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
1) I doubt that the G5 will beat the G4 at equal Mhz especially the 7410. Of course the G5 wil start clocking higher than the G4 (same as the 7450 starting at 733 vs the 7410 stuck at 533, but remember excepting altivec stuff the benchmarks of this too later chips where very similar...)

2) Have you got any info about the number of stage of the pipeline ?

3) well you are right undead the G4 will break the GHz wall, but is not able to go far beyond.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/</a>

"Getting to those clock speeds [1.6 GHz] involved increasing the G5's pipeline from the 7450's seven stages to ten.

Initial benchmarks supplied by our source suggest the G5 is pretty fast indeed:
GHz 1.2 1.4 1.6
SpecInt2000 987 1151 1340
SpecFP2000 1005 1173 1359

By comparison, Intel's 2GHz Pentium 4 has recorded SpecInt2000 and SpecFP2000 scores of 656 and 714, respectively, according to <a href="http://www.specbench.org" target="_blank">www.specbench.org</a> If accurate, the G5 figures are impressive indeed. "

This compares to
POWER4 (1 core, 1.3 GHz) 814 int, 1169 fp
Athlon MP1800+(1,53 GHz) 607 int, 547 fp

If the numbers for G5 are roughly right, it runs circles around any G4!

[dorsal]

I do not know what their plans are with some of the earlier features I spoke of earlier in the year, but they must have made some big changes to their schedule.

I expect them to blow everyone away at MWSF.
The current Quicksilver' s are obviously buying them 6 months more time. More time that will be completely worth it. Those models are crippled versions of what I earlier have worked with. More on specifics later.....

dorsal

[Escher]

[quote]Originally posted by dorsal:
<strong>More on specifics later.....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Later, later, later.... always later. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

Escher

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Escher ]</p>

[Amorph]

As excerpted <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000012&p=" target="_blank">here</a> by havanas, Dorsal claimed to be working on machines with DDR RAM, ATA/100, integrated AirPort, and various other enhancements over the current offering all the way back before MWNY. The board didn't materialize, but the processors he mentioned did.

As I recall, there has also been a case redesign in the works.

[M'Ashan]

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>[...] As I recall, there has also been a case redesign in the works.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I the thread. He wrote about a case looking like the old Performa 6400... or was it the case like the MacTrashCan on following site? <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/benvp/PhotoAlbum.html" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/benvp/PhotoAlbum.html</A>

Anyway, nice to see Dorsal back on AI.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: M'Ashan ]</p>

[Fluffy]

[quote]Originally posted by smalM:

Initial benchmarks supplied by our source suggest the G5 is pretty fast indeed:
GHz 1.2 1.4 1.6
SpecInt2000 987 1151 1340
SpecFP2000 1005 1173 1359

*snip*

POWER4 (1 core, 1.3 GHz) 814 int, 1169 fp
Athlon MP1800+(1,53 GHz) 607 int, 547 fp<hr></blockquote>

Hmm. I don't know for sure, obviously, but I seriously doubt that a desktop G5 is going to come anywhere near the performance of IBM's super-hot, super HUGE ultimate floating point optimized Power4. This point alone tends to cast doubt on the veracity of the Register's claims. If true, the 1.6GHz G5 would match the performance of the Athlon 4400+ nearly a year before the Athlon's introduction. I tend to doubt this, though...

Still, I suppose that almost anything is possible.

[TheAlmightyBabaramm]

Those mythical SPEC scores for the G5 are BS. If you do the math, it's scaling superlinearly, which is totally impossible.

Just to get perfectly linear scaling, you would need to make sure that absolutely every scrap of code is housed in cache; for which you'd need a few hundred megs of it. And even then you wouldn't get linear scaling, but you'd get closer to it.

Superlinear scaling, however, could not happen under any situation in a given rigidly defined set of circumstances -- i.e. same motherboard, same hardware, same programs, same CPU revision; same everything except clockspeed.

Edit: Furthermore, you would not do a SPEC run on anything but a final production chip and motherboard, because otherwise it would potentially be unstable and ruin your run. Also, the SPEC source code isn't free.

Altogether, it's BS. My guess is the Register's "source" pulled those numbers directly from his ass without thinking too clearly about them.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: TheAlmightyBabaramm ]</p>

[Fluffy]

[quote]Originally posted by TheAlmightyBabaramm:
[Those mythical SPEC scores for the G5 are BS. If you do the math, it's scaling superlinearly, which is totally impossible.<hr></blockquote>

The linear variance is &lt; 2% which is realistic as run to run fluctuations. It is also possible and maybe even likely that these are chips from different batches with different revisions and internal tweaks.

[quote]Just to get perfectly linear scaling, you would need to make sure that absolutely every scrap of code is housed in cache; for which you'd need a few hundred megs of it. And even then you wouldn't get linear scaling, but you'd get closer to it.<hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily true at all. It depends heavily on the nature of the data that is being used for the calculations as well as the compiler used to create the code. If the data displays good temporal and spacial locality and the compiler uses pre-fetch instructions there is no reason for the processor to ever have to wait for a memory fetch. Of course we cannot know if this is the case or not, but if the benchmark number ratios are accurate I wouldn't be surprised.

Assuming that Motorola did in fact run these tests it is possible that they didn't run the entire suite and are basing the numbers on just a few of the tests. In any case I'm sure Motorola has put them into motherboards at some point at least, especially if they are shipping engineering samples to Apple for testing.

[Scheisskopf]

[quote]Originally posted by dorsal:
<strong>I do not know what their plans are with some of the earlier features I spoke of earlier in the year, but they must have made some big changes to their schedule.

I expect them to blow everyone away at MWSF.
The current Quicksilver' s are obviously buying them 6 months more time. More time that will be completely worth it. Those models are crippled versions of what I earlier have worked with. More on specifics later.....

dorsal</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's been a while since Apple "blew" anyone away with features. A few I can think of were AirPort (with the iBook), Firewire (with the B&W G3). Maybe the dual-processors, too. Design, Apple's always done well with that (love the TiBook). Features-- I won't be holding my breath.

So why did you pick "dorsal?"

[SteveS]

Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
1) I doubt that the G5 will beat the G4 at equal Mhz especially the 7410. Of course the G5 wil start clocking higher than the G4 (same as the 7450 starting at 733 vs the 7410 stuck at 533, but remember excepting altivec stuff the benchmarks of this too later chips where very similar...)

2) Have you got any info about the number of stage of the pipeline ?

3) well you are right undead the G4 will break the GHz wall, but is not able to go far beyond.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Powerdoc, how can you really comment on the relative speed of the G5 as it relates to the G4. By coincidence, you may be correct. However, without seeing the white paper on the G5 design, all speed predictions are completely guesses.

All things being equal, yes, a longer pipeline would mean slower mhz per mhz. However, if additional processing units are added to the chip, such as extra INT of FP units, then these very well offset the extra pipeline length. We don't know what affect Rapid IO will have, etc.

I don't really believe those published SPEC results for the G5, but, for the sake of argument, if they are even close to being true, then the G5 will be MUCH faster than the G4 mhz for mhz.

Also, regarding the 7410 at 533mhz and the 7450 at 733mhz... The 7450 scales proportionally against the 7410 in Altivec and Int operations. It just doesn't scale as well at FP. Of course, that's because additional INT and Altivec units were added, but FP was left the same but with a longer instruction pipeline.

Steve

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

[quote]Powerdoc, how can you really comment on the relative speed of the G5 as it relates to the G4. <hr></blockquote>

How can anyone really comment on it?

It's just a bunch of rumors. Anyone with any licence to say anything is most likely constrained by NDA's. Anyone else is just speculating or passing on third hand information.

All in all, If I had to make my own educated guess on who's predictions are right, I'd say Powerdoc's more on the right track.

Will the G5 be faster than the G4, yes.

1.2-1.6 Gighz, most probably, but you won't see it in a Powermac in January.

Will it have that kind of IPC that makes it competitive with a Power4?

Highly Unlikely. it takes more than just strapping on extra execution units for that kind of performance. You need better BP, more reorder resources, Probably a recompile on existing code to maximize new capabilities, basically large improvements accross the board in everything to get that kind of IPC boost while also virtually doubling clock-speed.

And I don't recall Motorola having a history of being able to bring something like this to table in this manner.

[PowerMac G4]

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by TheAlmightyBabaramm:
<strong>Those mythical SPEC scores for the G5 are BS. If you do the math, it's scaling superlinearly, which is totally impossible.

Just to get perfectly linear scaling, you would need to make sure that absolutely every scrap of code is housed in cache; for which you'd need a few hundred megs of it. And even then you wouldn't get linear scaling, but you'd get closer to it.

Superlinear scaling, however, could not happen under any situation in a given rigidly defined set of circumstances -- i.e. same motherboard, same hardware, same programs, same CPU revision; same everything except clockspeed.

Edit: Furthermore, you would not do a SPEC run on anything but a final production chip and motherboard, because otherwise it would potentially be unstable and ruin your run. Also, the SPEC source code isn't free.

Altogether, it's BS. My guess is the Register's "source" pulled those numbers directly from his ass without thinking too clearly about them.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: TheAlmightyBabaramm ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


wouldn't they be possible if the G5 were multicore with 2 cores running at the said clockspeeds?

or is the G5 no longer planned for multicore?

[Leonis]

[quote]Originally posted by PowerMac G4:
<hr></blockquote>


So what's that mean PM G4? Are you going to say something? :rolleyes:

[bunge]

Remember, the G4 as released was not the G4 that was on paper up until that point. It was missing certain features and was ultimately released as a crippled chip. If Motorola were crippling the G5 in a similar fashion, they could very well be near releasing a working chip.

When was the G4 released? January 2000 I think? Well, if Motorola just continued work on the "real" G4 for the past two years, by now they would have a G4 chip that could greatly surpass the G4 they released, and just call it a G5. I'm going to guess that the G5 as released WHEN it's released, will not be the chip that was outlined 3-4 years ago.

So a G5 in January is really just what a G4 should have been two years ago. No big deal if it's really faster in all respects.

[dr. zoidberg]

hey... PM G4 is back!!!!! excellent, excellent. ;)
but... no comments so far?

btw: scheisskopf, nice nick you have.... heh

[SDW2001]

Remember guys, we are now pretty darn sure Apple has become directly involved in development of the PowerPC. I am convinced that this is the reason we saw no increase for 18 months, then a mhz jump, followed by a modest jump later.

My theory is that jobs really DID tell MOT that if they didn't get their respective sh$t together than he was going to A) Dump them and convince IBM to make the things (legal or not) and B) Sue the hell out of them.

I think that with Apple and Job's Reality Distortion Field Energy behind development we really will see the G5 at Macworld.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[Eskimo]

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>

My theory is that jobs really DID tell MOT that if they didn't get their respective sh$t together than he was going to A) Dump them and convince IBM to make the things (legal or not) and B) Sue the hell out of them.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moto's never had a real problem with designing nice chips. Their problem is they can't produce those chips in their fabs. They've been farming more and more of their high end products out to TSMC and other foundries because frankly their fabs are dirty and their engineers have some issues. Add to that the fact that they are bleeding money and cutting costs everywhere doesn't lend itself to the most productive MPU production.

And the AlmightyBabarahm is correct, those SPEC scores are BS. Most of that MOSR article on the G5 is just laughable. My favorite quote is:
[quote]The 32 bit version of the G5 will be solely targeted towards embedded applications, as 32-bit addressing is no longer adequate for desktop applications.<hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes:

[Kommissar Rex]

[quote]Originally posted by dr. zoidberg:
<strong>hey... PM G4 is back!!!!! excellent, excellent. ;)
but... no comments so far?

btw: scheisskopf, nice nick you have.... heh</strong><hr></blockquote>

What is that, scheiss?
"Neue Rechtschreibreform" or what?

[smalM]

[quote]Originally posted by Kommissar Rex:
<strong>

What is that, scheiss?
"Neue Rechtschreibreform" or what?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's "Neuschreib"!

[Outsider]

A couple points:

That quote about 32bit addressing is laughable considering the 7450 has 36bit addressing (up to 64GB of real memory addressing) which is adequate. Why would the G5 downgrade in features? Doesn't make sense.

There are no indications that the G5 will be multicore in it's first generation but it can be very mulit-processor friendly. If you know something about the POWER4 it's that it was designed to operate with other processors at peak effeciency. You make the processors face each other in a certain way to create the shortest traces to maximum performance just the way IBM designed it. The G5 might take that into effect and also improve chip to chip performance to the point where the performance of 2 chips would approach the twice of what a single chip could do. They would need to implement a enormously fast bus though to make it happen. 500MHz SDR(for lowest possible latency) would be a good start and you would have to position the chips as close as physically possible.

If Apple had at least a 50% input on the principal design of the G5 then they would have included features on the chip primarily useful for desptop applications (workstations). They would not want to lag in MHz so a 10-14 stage pipeline is a must. L3 cache is getting more expensive as the core processor speed goes up so that would be on the chopping block, but to compensate you would need to bump up the L1/L2 cache accordingly. You might want to keep the L1 at 32/32KB or increase it to maybe 64KB data and 32KB instruction but the L2 would have to be bumped to 512KB or more if possible. A more precise branch predictor and maybe some advanced out of order excecution features. The ability to use either 64 or 32bit data and instructions on the fly (you would be able to have the OS, some 32bit apps, a few 64bit apps all running at the same time). A fast, P4 crushing, system bus. I suggest a 200MHz DDR (400MHz)bus to keep it simple and low latency running at 128 bit to processor from the main controller.

And lastly, memory controller on die! This would keep the processor feed and not starving like it is now! Especially for Altivec. Advantages of an on die mem controller would be the ability to impose a hugely fat bus to the processor (256bit?) at core speeds (either half (600-800MHz) or full core speed). Disadvantages would be bigger die (but it would eliminate the need for an external mem controller) and possibly more pin out (about 200 devoted to memory for DDR-SDRAM.

[SDW2001]

[quote] Moto's never had a real problem with designing nice chips. Their problem is they can't produce those chips in their fabs. They've been farming more and more of their high end products out to TSMC and other foundries because frankly their fabs are dirty and their engineers have some issues. Add to that the fact that they are bleeding money and cutting costs everywhere doesn't lend itself to the most productive MPU production. <hr></blockquote>

Look, I tend to think your reasoning is right, but the point is there was no clock speed increase in almost two years. Now, you and I both know that the PowerPC architecture is superior to most, but a 1.2 ghz deficit in clock speed is a bit tough to make up. From a marketing standpoint, it is a nightmare. Apple has got to know this.

Also, MOT is the supplier for Apple's CPU's (G4's). They are ultimately responsible for production, even if they outsource it. If I were Jobs I would have also "thrown the phone across the room". I truly believe they lied to Apple and screwed them HUGE. IMO, The only reason they didn't drop MOT is that there was no truly viable better option available.

This is why Apple has become intimately involved with the development of the PPC. Is there really anyone out there that DOESN'T believe Jobs told them something along the lines of "get your sh*t together or lose ALL of our business and face a lawsuit for making false performance predictions"?

I thinks not.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by JFW:
<strong>

How can anyone really comment on it?

It's just a bunch of rumors. Anyone with any licence to say anything is most likely constrained by NDA's. Anyone else is just speculating or passing on third hand information.

All in all, If I had to make my own educated guess on who's predictions are right, I'd say Powerdoc's more on the right track.

Will the G5 be faster than the G4, yes.

1.2-1.6 Gighz, most probably, but you won't see it in a Powermac in January.

Will it have that kind of IPC that makes it competitive with a Power4?

Highly Unlikely. it takes more than just strapping on extra execution units for that kind of performance. You need better BP, more reorder resources, Probably a recompile on existing code to maximize new capabilities, basically large improvements accross the board in everything to get that kind of IPC boost while also virtually doubling clock-speed.

And I don't recall Motorola having a history of being able to bring something like this to table in this manner.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks JfW, you have answer in a much better way than i can do.
For the benchmarks it's funny to imagine that a G5 can beat in FP a monster such as a power 4

:p

[Eskimo]

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
[QB]


This is why Apple has become intimately involved with the development of the PPC. Is there really anyone out there that DOESN'T believe Jobs told them something along the lines of "get your sh*t together or lose ALL of our business and face a lawsuit for making false performance predictions"?

[QB]<hr></blockquote>

I agree with what you are saying. I just don't feel the problem neccessarily lies with Motorola's inability to design a processor for Apple. It lies in their ability to effectively manufacture that processor up to the performance level it was designed for. Apple has no expertise in this area and thus has nothing to offer Motorola. If Motorola is forced to outsource to IBM for production (who happens to be the most expensive foundry in the world) they are losing nearly all profits from these chips. Therefore they lose any incentive to contribute to PowerPC for desktop processors since there isn't any money in it for them.

I'm sure some of Moto's 500+ VPs are screaming their heads off at their fab managers to figure out how to make high end chips who are yelling at their engineers to run over to AMD and beg, steal, bribe solutions from them. ;)

[Addison]

Don't you think if Apple had send out PBB with G5's in for testing, we would have heard from someone who actually had one?

[KidRed]

Not if they intent on keeping it or getting more in the future. That's what a NDA is for.

[Outsider]

Yep, I think people are finally taking NDA's seriously now, even if it's just with Apple. People are thinking twice before opening up their mouths becuase they value their job. Especially nowadays where it's so easy for your employer to monitor your phone and network activity. I know some places that scan email for key words and tags them for further inspection.

[Mac Glue Sniffer]

If you are lucky enough to be on the hardware seeding list, would you risk it just to spew forth information to a bunch like us? Maybe on a minor hardware update, but certainly not on something that might be as revolutionary as the move from 9 to X is.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Hi Ho Quicksilver ]</p>

[SDW2001]

From Rumors......

[quote] Talk is that the low end G5 model will sell for slightly more than the current 867Mhz G4. <hr></blockquote>


Wow...so I guess the high end would be like the dual 800....or more.

Although, I don't see Apple raising prices in this economy, do you?

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[Brad]

[quote]Although, I don't see Apple raising prices in this economy, do you?<hr></blockquote>
That 's just rediculous. If I understand how the new HiP fab works, there should be much higher yields thus making the chips cheaper to manufacture and sell.

The only reason Apple would have for raising prices is to pad the preofit margin even more. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[the Belgian waffle]

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>From Rumors......




Wow...so I guess the high end would be like the dual 800....or more.

Although, I don't see Apple raising prices in this economy, do you?

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, the Apple store just switched to euro's here, and prices have gone up slightly.

Furthermore, on a larger scale, I'm pretty certain that Appple powermac prices as a whole have actually gone up, for instance comparing the current line-up versus the yosemite line-up, in price. The top of the line dual 800 is over 5000 dollars here. The top of the line yosemite 400 never was that expensive. Sure now you get more for the money, but it's almost three years later so....

[Matsu]

yep, too expensive in all but the ibook line-up. You can perhaps make an argument for the mid-range Ti, and only if you really absolutely need it (the low end tower).

Apple needs to keep the current monitor promotion permanently if they want to begin approaching more respectable pricing.

[SDW2001]

Can we stick to US dollars here? I'm not devaluing (no pun intended) your currency or anything, but I have to admit my conversions are a ittle rusty.

Anyway, Mr. StarfleetX, are you agreeing with me or saying I am ridiculous? I can't really tell, though I think you are agreeing that raising prices would be insane.

As far as the PowerMac prices go, it doesn't seem they have gone up.....i don't really remember the G3's pricing but the only thing that has gone up is the entry level G4 as far as I know.....as far as the pro series is concerned.

Any other thoughts?

[Fluffy]

Prices at introduction:

Beige G3, Nov 1997: $1999, $2499, $2999

B&W G3, Jan 1999: $1599, $1999, $2499, $2999

G4, Sept 1999: $1599, $2499, $3499

G4, Jan 2001: $1699, $2499, $3499

I don't really have any beef with Apple moving the high end to $3499 and keeping it there for now. They do have some justification, the Superdrive isn't cheap and neither are dual processors. The low end needs to drop a bit more, though. In fact, if they took the current 733 and 876 and dropped them to $1199 and $1799 respectively, the G5s could start at $2299.

If Apple does go exclusively with the G5 this January I can see them pulling a "Yikes" on the low end... no DDR, no USB2, no 1394b. For $1799. That would be a mistake, IMHO.

[Leonis]

I think if G5 really shows in spring and like what MOSR said, having both G4 and G5 in the PowerMac series. Apple will just call them the Power Macintosh series. Rather than calling them G5 or G4.....

[SDW2001]

So you think:

Fast G4 733 CD-RW
No DDR
Old Bus?

Faster G4 867 CD/RW DVD
same


Fastest G5 1.2 CD/RW-DVD
DDR
USB 2
Gigawire
New Bus

Fastester: G5 1.4 Superdrive
DDR, USB 2, Gigawire, new bus

Ultimate: G5 1.6 SuperDrive
same as above


Ultimatest: Dual G5 1.4 Superdrive
same as above
Hard Drive the size of Utah


I don't know....six models.....hmmmm. Perhaps. I still think a total G5 line up would be better.

[rambo47]

If Apple gives us a G5 Power Mac (I don't think we'll see G5 PowerBooks for a year+) and it thrashed all the x86 computers across the board, not just in a few Photoshop tests, then they can pretty much charge what they want. It will sell. The caveat is that it must be the undisputed speed champ of the pc world.

How big a job is it to get OS X ready to run at 64-bit?

[stimuli]

A quick recompile. Quick meaning hella slow, but not involving lots of human intervention.

I suspect G5 will be in Powerbooks before too long. I think they'll get Apollo's at +- 1ghz, then low-clocked G5's (800mhz +). I imagine the G5s will be SOI, maybe Low-k dielectric, 0.13, so they shouldn't be too portable unfriendly.

Hopefully IBM makes them on their CMOS 9S process. Assuming they aren't already.

BTW, iBook users, have you heard about IBM's new G3? It will scale to 1ghz+, and features 512K on chip cache. Pretty sweet, if you ask me.

[Addison]

Well SDW2001,

I simply can't accept the lineup. I think that we will only see a mixed bag of G4's and G5's if the G5's are only available in one speed and short supply.

Once a range of G5's are available they will replace all G4's. The reason... they should be cheaper to produce.

That being the case if we do see G5's at MWSF we can expect the iMac to jump from G3 to G5 as well, unless they stay with G3 of course.


<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[SDW2001]

[quote] I simply can't accept that lineup <hr></blockquote>

1. Thanks Dad, I'll try to do better.
2. Yeah, what a crappy line up
3. I was basically posting what others have said, not what I wanted.

[quote]That being the case if we do see G5's at MWSF we can expect the iMac to jump from G3 to G5 as well, unless they stay with G3 of course. <hr></blockquote>

WHAT??? You think that the iMacs will be G5's???? I hope that is a typo, because if you actually think that Apple is going to put G5's in the iMac and the towers at the same time then yo' smoking CRACK, ho!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[gumby5647]

Hopefully the LCD iMac will get the new Apollo chip. That would be sweet.

[jj]

I heard my first (and most likely only) inside info this weekend. While it wasn't very juicy, I believe it to be totally accurate based on the credibility of my source.

caffine posted this on the second page of this thread:
[quote] It came to my mind that MacOS X 10.2 is more or less programmed for a 2002 March release.
So, wouldn't it be logic to release both an adapted OS with the new G5.
This scenario would match the predicted timeframes for release of both products.
Only some ideas. <hr></blockquote>

According to what I heard, caffine pretty much nailed it. Also, the production specs for the G5 machines are "for all intents and purposes" final. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Addison]

[quote] WHAT??? You think that the iMacs will be G5's???? <hr></blockquote>

I think it is possible. Why would you upgrade the G3 imac to a G4 if the G4 costs more than a G5? Apple wants to make the most profit possible and that means building machines for the lowest costs with the best performance.

SJ want's DVD burning on consumer machines, G5 is the way to achieve this. Don't forget that the Original B & W G3's had the same processors as the iMacs. Different clock rates and other componants accepted.

If there are sufficent G5's around then yes I expect them in iMacs. The G4's have not made it to the iMacs because they are simply too expensive for a consumer machine. G5's are said to be cheaper than G4's to produce so the gap between G5's and G3' or Apollos will not be that much.

Building the best machines in the market will bring about more sales. Team that up with the best OS and the best software and you have a winning formular.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by jj:
<strong>I heard my first (and most likely only) inside info this weekend. While it wasn't very juicy, I believe it to be totally accurate based on the credibility of my source.

caffine posted this on the second page of this thread:


According to what I heard, caffine pretty much nailed it. Also, the production specs for the G5 machines are "for all intents and purposes" final. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>


So then you are saying that the G5 and OSX 10.2 64bit will debut in February?

[rambo47]

MacEdition's Naked Mole Rat, pretty hillarious column in general and sometimes accurate, has touched upon a possibility that I have been dreading all along. To wit: The G5s being only a pumped up G4 and renamed, all in the name of marketing. We're chomping at the bit for the G5, so Steve gives it to us, but in name only. How much would that suck?! Check out the <a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20011108.php" target="_blank">Naked Mole Rat</a>

[SDW2001]

[quote]Originally posted by JW Pepper:
<strong>

I think it is possible. Why would you upgrade the G3 imac to a G4 if the G4 costs more than a G5? Apple wants to make the most profit possible and that means building machines for the lowest costs with the best performance.

SJ want's DVD burning on consumer machines, G5 is the way to achieve this. Don't forget that the Original B & W G3's had the same processors as the iMacs. Different clock rates and other componants accepted.

If there are sufficent G5's around then yes I expect them in iMacs. The G4's have not made it to the iMacs because they are simply too expensive for a consumer machine. G5's are said to be cheaper than G4's to produce so the gap between G5's and G3' or Apollos will not be that much.

Building the best machines in the market will bring about more sales. Team that up with the best OS and the best software and you have a winning formular.

</strong><hr></blockquote>


I'm sorry but I don't think that will happen. And by the way, in that context, the word is EXcepted.

But, good point about the original iMacs. That alone however is not nearly enough to make a case for a G5 iMac.

Are you telling me they would have a G3 ibook, G4 PB, G5 iMac, and G5 PM? I don't think that would make the product matrix very clear.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[jj]

There were not dates given more specific than the first half of '02. The only technical detail was that the new machines will use a true 64 bit G5 processor.

[Matsu]

If G5 was going to be such a universally applicable product, Mot and IBM wouldn't even have bothered with the Apollo and Sahara respectively. No, I think that by the end of 2002 we may indeed see altivec for the consumer lines (IBM has SIMD slated for SaharaII in H2 2002), but we won't see iMac processor parity with G5.

We won't even see 64bit procs. Whatever gets called a G5 will be 32bit. Apple just now has an almost acceptable version of it's new OS at 32 bits. They're not ready to do 64 yet, and won't be for some time. 64bit procs aren't on anyone's consumer time lines for quite awhile yet. Not AMD, not intel, not MS (from the software side). The 64 bit stuff will exist but if you think that the current PowerMacs are expensive, watch out!!! A Itanium chip alone costs more than most home computers. People are getting smoke blown up their asses about 64bit G5. Their will be something with a longer pipeline and a stronger FPU that is 32 bit, too hot for anything but a desktop, but also faster than any other PPC. It'll exist only to keep the prolines in the ball-park with 3-d, 2-D, and rendering in general. Apollo and Sahara will be frugal, and cool, enough to run in everything else. Right now, 7440 (which is basically 7450 with less transistors) is running in a laptop. 7460 will consume less power than 7450 and compare well with 7440 in heat and power consumption. Strip a few transistors form Apollo (as they did to create 7440) and you get a very good laptop chip with room to grow over the next 18-24 months.

By the end of 2002 Apple's line-up will balance itself a little more like wintels: Much faster (Mhz wise) desktops; lower (relative to desktops) Mhz laptops, and consumer models. ALL 32 bits The new cheaper chips are the Apollo and Sahara (by virtue their more advanced and higher yielding fabs)

If a G5 exists at all, it will be a pumped up G4 designed to run fast at the expense of heat and efficiency because Mhz Myth or not Apple has a marketing battle to fight. The G4/G3s for the rest of the line up will retain their focus on smaller pipeline stages for heat and power reasons. Why? because the rest of the lineup will have to go into a very finely tuned, and relatively small, heat sensitive enclosure. The towers are the only models that can get away with a big, hot, and hungry proc chugging away underneath. Well, those and some huge-big industrial enterprise class CISCO routers, SGI workstations, etc...

NO 64 bit in 2002, count on it.

[Nitzer]

I got one thing that's tickling around in my head...

Apple announcing the first shipping consumer 64 bit computer is sooooo Jobs.

Maybe that's just because I'm overdue to upgrade. :p

[Mike Eggleston]

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Other things that point to a G5 are:

1) The G4 has been around for quite awhile now. Apple could use the marketing kick.

2) The iMac is also suffering, and has been for a year. This means LCD iMac and perhaps a G4. We obviously won't have a G4 iMac AND a G4 in the towers.

All in all, I think the evidence points to a G5.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with you here. Look at all of the indicators. It is obvious that they are trying to clear their inventory of both iMacs and PowerMacs. They wouldn't offer deals like that unless they did have something up their sleeve. Also it might mean that they are going to do something with their Displays as well, but that is an unknown.

[quote]<strong>
The argument for LCD iMac is even more compelling. The iMac design is three years old. We expected it last time, but it is reasonable to conclude that Apple waited due to market conditions. If Apple brought this out early next year though, I think we would see a huge upgrade cycle. If it had a G4 the cycle would be even bigger. The PC market will still be in shambles, but Apple will have a truly different and powerful machine. I think this will also happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but I don't see a LCD iMac anytime soon. As much as the form factor would be awesome, it just wouldn't be worth the increase in price to Apple. Now, what they will more than likely do is have the iMac at a G4 running at 733, 867, and 933, and maybe a 1 GHz one (someone check my math on that one) with PC133 memory archeticure. The reason why for this is because the iMac needs this kind of boost. Design is great, but performance is even better. I think they need to do it in steps, and making the iMac a G4 is the first step.

-- Mike Eggleston
-- "If you sold cars that didn't run, could you call that a feature?"

[Whisper]

I think the G5 might be too hot for the convection-cooled iMacs. G3s consume I think about 7-8W vs I wanna say 40w for the G5. Even if the G5 does end up cheaper than the G4, I think Apple would be forced to either put the more expensive G4 in the iMacs, or ditch the convection cooling. Heck, even the G4 might be too hot for convection cooling.

[neutrino23]

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>...Heck, even the G4 might be too hot for convection cooling.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, the G4 goes into the Ti Powerbook and that is even worse than convection cooling. An iMac should be able to supply both more mass than a Ti book (for better radiative cooling) and better air flow (for convection cooling). Plus there is always the example of the cube.

[crawlingparanoia]

[quote]Apple announcing the first shipping consumer 64 bit computer is sooooo Jobs.<hr></blockquote> True... And I thought the G5 was supposedly fully 32-bit backwards compatible meaning no performance hit with 32-bit stuff? (This would make G5s w/o a 64-bit OS very plausible)

[Addison]

[quote] Are you telling me they would have a G3 ibook, G4 PB, G5 iMac, and G5 PM? I don't think that would make the product matrix very clear. <hr></blockquote>

If the G5 costs less than the G4 you will never see a G4 in an iMac. Apple will either stay with G3 IBM or otherwise or will go G4 if it is cheap enough.

Apple does not need to hold back the performance of an iMac relative to the Power Mac. iMacs will not be DP, they are not expandable, they will not support raid os scussi. In otherwords a high performing iMac will not effect Power Mac sales.

The iMac is directly compeating against Windows boxes for the consumer market. As such it's all about price and performance. If the G5 is cheap enough and there is no reason not to include it. The public want cutting edge technology and it that that sells.

I am not making a forecast here because it really depends on cost, if the G5 is cheap enough it will replace the G3.

I think it is quite likely that the IBM G3's will find there way into laptops and G5's into the rest.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Whisper]

[quote]Originally posted by neutrino23:
<strong>

Well, the G4 goes into the Ti Powerbook and that is even worse than convection cooling. An iMac should be able to supply both more mass than a Ti book (for better radiative cooling) and better air flow (for convection cooling). Plus there is always the example of the cube.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The TiBook has heat ducts running to the metal chasis, and the Cube didn't have a CRT in the same case. I don't know... it just seems like a G4 would overheat inside an iMac. I sure hope I get proven wrong in a month and a half :)

[Matsu]

There wouldn't be so much work on Apollo if G5 was going into everything under the sun.

[Addison]

Apollo = laptops

[smalM]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>There wouldn't be so much work on Apollo if G5 was going into everything under the sun.</strong><hr></blockquote>

7460 will be the next cpu for the pro line. Even if MOSR is right, the 8500 isn't in production yet. So we won't see a 8500 in a PM before the middle or end of 2002.
I wonder who said a 8500 is cheaper in production than a 7460? That's nonsense.
G4 in iMac? No, for one year it will stay G3.

It's time to become a little bit more realistic here again.

[jwdawso]

[quote]Originally posted by smalM:
<strong>

7460 will be the next cpu for the pro line. Even if MOSR is right, the 8500 isn't in production yet. So we won't see a 8500 in a PM before the middle or end of 2002.
I wonder who said a 8500 is cheaper in production than a 7460? That's nonsense.
G4 in iMac? No, for one year it will stay G3.

It's time to become a little bit more realistic here again.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is the 7460 in production? Do you have inside information? The cost is directly related to the amount of material required. If the 7460 and 8500 are both produced using the same process, then the 7460 will be less expensive. However, it may be that the 8500 will be cheaper than any other G4.

We are all wishing for the G5 this January, but it sure doesn't seem like this thread has hard evidence for 7460/8500 predictions. But Jobs says that Apple is after the other 95%, and I don't think there will be much progress there unless there are some leaps forwards, such as the G5 being available this Spring.

I agree with JW Pepper - cost will drive the processor choice. 7460's in iMacs, Sahara's in iBooks, 7460 in TiBook, and G5's in PM's in 2002. I'm hoping for January!!!

[Matsu]

If has indeed commited a team to PPC design, how long would it be before we started seeing PPC's produced with Apple's needs in mind? And what are Apple's needs? They are not basically embedded processors, which is where Mot and IBM would like to take PPC. Perhaps the PPC's Mot and IBM would like to make are good for the portable (and to an extent, iMac) lines, but the PowerMac needs something more of a desktop CPU architecture. Look for longer pipelines, huge heat, and huge power consumption from whatever becomes the PROmachine PPC. Apple wants this. Eventually, new fab techniques will make those chips small, cool, efficient enough for laptop and iMac use -- kinda the way x86 mobile chips are always slightly behind desk-top x86. Same way TiBook is behind Powermac now. There are really no heat/power issues that a heat sink and a fan can't deal with, thus a big hot & hungry proc isn't a problem for the powermac. And Apple wants a chip for it, but the rest of the line up will not get that chip.

Also, look for 7460 in the powermac. I'd put G5 closer to the second half of 2002, not the first. Hell, I'm tempted to say the end of 2002 if it is indeed a 64bit part.

Don't look for anything revolutionary in January -- it just won't happen. If any of this speculation is even remotely possible, the revolution will come when OSX reaches 12 o'clock, and NOT before. And the really good stuff will come after OSX has been default for a few months. This time next year will be huge. Expect a lot of bitching in January and for at least another 8-9 months after that.

[ZO]

I have to agree with Matsu.

Apple has "just" released the Quicksilver casing which I doubt they will renew for a while.

What they WILL hopefully do is somehow hack the latest G4 to accept DDR ram to keep us viscious Mac mongers happy for a bit until the G5 comes out. Thats the LEAST they can do.

[DrBoar]

The G3 to G4 transition have been a failure so far.
The two main advantages of the G4 the MERCI 5 SMP and the Altivec engine is not supported by the OS that most uses nor by any applications but a handful. Yes you have to think outside PhotoShop! Does anyone remember the AltiVec hype? It would enable PC emulation at Pentium speed and bla bla bla...Very easy to implement way better than MMX will give performance boost everywere!


An almost 3 years old B&W G3/450 might be an eminently upgradable machine but the leap is all of 50 MHz to G4/500....
Have the market upgraded the G3 computers to the "superior" G4 in large numbers?

The G4 would be a good CPU if it could be used over entire line so we would have more Altivec implemenetation and also th G4 really need OS X or an other OS with better SMP support than OS 8&9.

AltiVec might be a very elegant solution to many problems but frankly does not shear CPU speed work bette? Apple have to stop straddling the fence, either get G4 on all Macintoshes portable and stationary to get software developers to use AV and SMP, or admit that AV was a elegant failed idea and rip the AV unit out of the G5.

[Morte]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>
NO 64 bit in 2002, count on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe that AMD's Clawhammer, a 64-bit part with full 32-bit compatability, will be available to consumers at the end of 2002. I really wish that Apple would go to AMD and work out a pact in which they would use Clawhammers with the CISC translation unit stripped out and a PPC unit stuffed in, if it's even necessary...is there anything that differentiates PPC from generic RISC?

Besides, AMD are already fabbing G4s for Moto in their Dresden facility. :p

DrBoar: Altivec is a good solution for some things, mainly processing large contiguous blocks of data, but Apple is finding out the same thing that Intel did (and failed to learn from) with the MMX fiasco, and that AMD did from the 3DNow! bollocks. Programmers have a tough enough job without adding more crap to the pile, and most of them don't want to deal with coding in support for the SIMD unit du jour . Also, Altivec has tied Apple too closely to Motorola. Worse, the PowerMac's lack of memory bandwidth means that the Altivec unit is being mostly wasted.

General performance enhancements are always preferable to tricky instruction sets. It causes no extra headaches for programmers, applies to every program that runs on the platform, and so on. While specific instruction sets may enhance particular applications greatly, users are always happier when everything is accelerated somewhat than when one or two programs get a upwards blast of performance.

I'm suddenly getting a blast of deja vu...or is it just flatulence?

[Moogs]

[quote]Originally posted by Morte:

Besides, AMD are already fabbing G4s for Moto in their Dresden facility. :p
<hr></blockquote>

Are you sure about that? I read a lot of conjecture early this year that such a move would be good for Apple, but I don't recall hearing that it ever happened. Did it?

As long as we're all talking about existing market conditions and such that point whether or not the G5 will happen, I think it's pretty clear there are mixed conditions right now.

Just because Jobs and Apple would *love* to release a backwards compatible 64 bit chip that trounces the fastest Pentium in standard benchmarking tests (and they would), doesn't mean Motorola can given them what they need....

Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time).

Basically, all the product cycles and marketing signals point to Apple needing and wanting the G5. All the technical and business issues point to more G4's at slightly increased speeds every few months. At least until Apple doesn't something about getting their chips from someone else.

All bitching aside (I'm happy with my current machine) Apple should've ditched Motorola over a year ago in favor of IBM. Initially things would've stayed slow because IBM would've had to ramp up their production facilties for the G4, etc. But by now we'd be sitting pretty.

Sooner or later Apple will learn what a loser of a company Motorola is. Inside and out. Worst company I've ever had the displeasure of working with (if even for a short time). Thank God I wasn't an employee.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</p>

[Matsu]

I commented on consumer level 64bit chips. Intel's is/will be expensive, AMD won't undercut it buy much, if at all. And PPC certainly won't either. Oh no, 64bit remains the province of *very high end* workstations and servers for at least another year. We're talking $10,000+ boxes here; Apple has enough trouble selling a $5,000 box (Canadian prices.)

[Nitzer]

The same things would have been said about wireless networking before Apple shocked everyone with Airport.

Admittedly wishing and wanting do not get a processor fabbed. I'm still holding out a little bit of hope. :)

[Mike Eggleston]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moogs, I couldn't agree with you more. Apple really needs to rethink its Processor Strategy. I think they ought to go with IBM. I have always been a big advocate of IBM. They are professional, and (from what I have heard) have treated Apple with respect, something that Motorola hasn't done in years. Now is the time to buy out Motorola's portion of the G* Series of chips and license the plans to IBM at a REASONABLE price, if not at a loss, to bring the prices of the chips down.

[Morte]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:
<strong>
Are you sure about that? I read a lot of conjecture early this year that such a move would be good for Apple, but I don't recall hearing that it ever happened. Did it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, according to a variety of sources (C|Net and every tech site in the universe), AMD and Moto were in talks c. 1999 to have G4's fabbed at Dresden. What complicates the picture is that the Dresden fab is jointly owned and operated by AMD and Moto, so any actual decision that took place doesn't have to come out into the public view. My guess is that it did happen, but only for a short period of time.

Matsu: Consumer 64 bit will happen next year (actually, it has happened if you count Sun's $999 SunBlade 100), unless the G5 and Hammer are delayed even more than they already have been. Intel's Itanium is overpriced because Intel sunk an unbelievable amount of money into its development, found out that it sucked, and are plowing even more money into what is essentially a complete and total revision of the chip.

AMD and Apple/Moto, on the other hand, are taking existing designs and ramping them to 64-bit. The PPC was designed to transition easily to 64-bit, as was the Athlon. So, the design processes are simpler and cheaper.

Also, the Itanium is meant to compete in the high-end server market, against the Power4 and the UltraSparc iii. The Hammer, on the other hand, is meant to compete with the Xeon, and can be stripped down to make a consumer-level chip. The G5 is much the same...in fact, what I've heard about the G5 and the Hammer makes me wonder why Apple is even bothering with the G5, since both are practically the same bloody chip, instruction set notwithstanding.

I can't blame Motorola for not pressing on with R&D. Apple's marketshare is low, and, as was pointed out to me in a PM, the G4 is in the minority of the units that Apple sells. Since the G3s are provided by IBM, why should Moto care to continue development of the PPC at all? Were I them, I'd try to get away from Apple, as with all of the troubles that Moto is going through, they don't need Jobs breathing down their neck.

IBM, on the other hand, sells loads of G3s, and is actively developing the chip. But, they're hamstrung in their efforts by the Moto problem and Apple's unwillingness to make their consumer line seem faster than their Pro line.

Apple, IBM, and Moto simply need to negotiate an end to the PPC Alliance. It causes problems for all three of them, and I think that it's one of the crappy deals that Jobs referred to when he became iCEO. However, Apple can't get out of the mess until the G5 arrives, and then only if it doesn't have AltiVec. Bleh.

[KidRed]

[quote] The G5 is much the same...in fact, what I've heard about the G5 and the Hammer makes me wonder why Apple is even bothering with the G5, since both are practically the same bloody chip, instruction set notwithstanding. <hr></blockquote>

Then why doesn't/couldn't Apple have AMD make a mac chip? I've seen AMD and Apple mentioned before, how likely would it be for AMD to make chips for Apple if Moto can't?

[Powerdoc]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Eggleston:
<strong>

Moogs, I couldn't agree with you more. Apple really needs to rethink its Processor Strategy. I think they ought to go with IBM. I have always been a big advocate of IBM. They are professional, and (from what I have heard) have treated Apple with respect, something that Motorola hasn't done in years. Now is the time to buy out Motorola's portion of the G* Series of chips and license the plans to IBM at a REASONABLE price, if not at a loss, to bring the prices of the chips down.</strong>[/QUOTE

Changing processor strategy will mean have PC chips unstead PPC chips. The problem of the PPC chips is that the market is too small for the desktop. That's why PPC chips are essentially designed for the embedded market; a market that will overall in the future the desktop chip market. Remember apple barely represent 5% of the personal computer market, not sufficient to be competitive. Even AMD must do miracle each years in order to stay competitive : he have to design better and cheaper chips than INTEL.

As we have already deal many times it's very difficult to change the family line of chips.

[Outsider]

If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct that's why there is very little chance to see apple switching to the X 86 chip family.

[Amorph]

[quote]Apple, IBM, and Moto simply need to negotiate an end to the PPC Alliance. It causes problems for all three of them, and I think that it's one of the crappy deals that Jobs referred to when he became iCEO. However, Apple can't get out of the mess until the G5 arrives, and then only if it doesn't have AltiVec. Bleh.<hr></blockquote>

Motorola owns the trademark "AltiVec" and the implementation in the G4.

Apple, however, came up with the API, and for the platform that's what matters. If they wanted to go with IBM (the most expensive fab in the world, as Eskimo pointed out), IBM could design their own vector unit to meet Apple's spec, and AltiVec would be moot. In fact, word has it that IBM has designed a vector unit - although I don't know if it's compatible or not.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?</strong><hr></blockquote>


If you were responding to my post about Apple and AMD then you ididn't read it. I questioned why AMD doesn't make a MAC CHIP. I said nothing about Apple moving to x86. Why can't AMD make A MAC CHIP FOR MACS THAT ARE MAC ONLY, basically taking th place of Moto and IBM?

[Outsider]

I wasn't responding to you but to people in general who don't understand why Apple can't just switch processors.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>I wasn't responding to you but to people in general who don't understand why Apple can't just switch processors.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree, but could AMD make a mac chip? Would that be a possibilty and would it be better for Apple?

[Matsu]

Before these boards went into a coma, Rumors were that IBM had designed their own vector unit for the 750fx, and that they had agreed to use altivec or altivec type vector units. Now the the rumor is that IBM has a SaharaII planned for the second half of 2002 and that it would include a vector unit. Eventually, they'll have to include a vector unit, especially if they're planning on using PPC's in workstations. A good SIMD unit is no longer a luxury, it will be all the more essential for crunching large piles of data, video/audio encoding, applying effects to multi-megapixel print quality files... etc etc.

I hope they sort this out. I don't think Apple will drop SIMD from their plans, though the future may not be the altivec we know now.

[SDW2001]

[quote] Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time). <hr></blockquote>

Motorola had its first loss in like 15 years this year. This was due almost entirely to the sudden slowdown in the economy. Motorola, as pissed as I am at them, is a tremendously succesful company. The reason they F**cked up the the PPC is they :

1) ran into some unexpected production/fab problems.
2) Realized they were going to have to invest a lot of money to fix it and figured out that the PPC just wasn't all that profitable. Then Apple went through the roof and stuff started happening.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[ap]

[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>The G3 to G4 transition have been a failure so far.
The two main advantages of the G4 the MERCI 5 SMP and the Altivec engine is not supported by the OS that most uses nor by any applications but a handful. Yes you have to think outside PhotoShop! Does anyone remember the AltiVec hype? It would enable PC emulation at Pentium speed and bla bla bla...Very easy to implement way better than MMX will give performance boost everywere!


An almost 3 years old B&W G3/450 might be an eminently upgradable machine but the leap is all of 50 MHz to G4/500....
Have the market upgraded the G3 computers to the "superior" G4 in large numbers?

The G4 would be a good CPU if it could be used over entire line so we would have more Altivec implemenetation and also th G4 really need OS X or an other OS with better SMP support than OS 8&9.

AltiVec might be a very elegant solution to many problems but frankly does not shear CPU speed work bette? Apple have to stop straddling the fence, either get G4 on all Macintoshes portable and stationary to get software developers to use AV and SMP, or admit that AV was a elegant failed idea and rip the AV unit out of the G5.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is very true!

G4 was never a very impressing processor. I actually havent really found a reason for upgrading my B/W G3 350 mhz yet.

Another problem with altivec, is that it doesn't affect the speed of 3D rendering/ raytracing.
So a G4 equals an Atlon in 3d rendering at same mhz.

And the genneral system speed, for example Fileopening, webbrowsing, jpeg-viewing, window resizing etc, is very slow on a G4 OSX even compared to a PII 200 mhz.


Im buying a new mac when the G5 comes.

ap

[Morte]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

I agree, but could AMD make a mac chip? Would that be a possibilty and would it be better for Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It is possible, of course, since all that AMD would have to do is design a PPC compatable chip. Since the Athlon is a sorta RISC chip with two x86 translation units (which I earlier called CISC, becuase I'm a tool), I'm guessing that all that they'd need to do would be to strip out the x86 unit and replace it with a PPC translator.

Chip architecture has become pretty muddy over the past decade or so. The Pentium 4, for instance, has features of CISC, RISC, VLIW, and clockless chip design all thrown into it. Every chip out there can theoretically run any ISA, whether it be x86, PPC, or whatever. There is much to be learned from this article and others on Ars: <a href="http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html" target="_blank">http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html</A>

So, yeah, it's possible, but unlikely due to corporate politics and stupid pacts.

[IntlHarvester]

One thing about 64-bits is that it would explain the greatest mystery surrounding OS X -- Where's Photoshop?

It would fit Jobs style to introduce a 64-bit machine, fancy new case, and an optimized version of the flagship application. And PS is one of the few apps that probably would benefit from a 64-bit CPU.

[Leonis]

3D applications can be benefited with 64-bit processor. Of course they will need to recompile.

I have seen people doing rendering in Lightwave using Sun Ultrasparc stations. All I can say is - WOW :eek:

But I really wonder how much benefit Photshop will get. Too bad the IRIX version of PS is still only version 3.......so I can't make any judgement :(

[Outsider]

PowerPC = RISC
Pentium, Athlon = CISC

No matter how you slice it. RISC and CISC is just an ideology, not an IEEE standard. If it takes long instructions and processes them, then it is CISC. If it takes short instructions and processes them then it is RISC. If it takes long instructions and breaks them up internally into smaller instructions and then processes them, then it is still CISC. Being RISC or CISC (or VLiW) is a combination of ISA, core processing unit, and maybe compilers. If Intel and AMD take advantage of the confusion or add to it then that's their issue. You call a car a car and a plane a plane. If you put the car engine in a plane or vice versa, it doesn't change what we call the plane. It's still a plane.

[jutus]

[quote]ou call a car a car and a plane a plane. If you put the car engine in a plane or vice versa, it doesn't change what we call the plane. It's still a plane. <hr></blockquote>

Unless it's a <a href="http://www.moller.com/skycar/" target="_blank">carplane</a>.

[qazII]

Another piece of evidence which points to (though is not conclusive in itself) a January announcement (and a March release):
According to the <a href="http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1006215215128789480.djm" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a>, Phil Schiller said that the transition to Mac OS X is due to be completed by March 2002. This obviously means that Macs will by default boot up in X. It would make sense for the first of these to be G5's, as they will gain the biggest advantage from it.

[eliahu]

I would hope a full-time move to OS X is more about software than hardware. March should be the time Apple expects to have 10.2 ready for prime-time and a healthy chest of big name apps native in OS X.

Who gives a crap if OS X runs well on a G5 when there's no software for it.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by eliahu:
<strong>I would hope a full-time move to OS X is more about software than hardware. March should be the time Apple expects to have 10.2 ready for prime-time and a healthy chest of big name apps native in OS X.

Who gives a crap if OS X runs well on a G5 when there's no software for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do!! Hell, 9.2 would flllyyyyy on a G5 :)

[KidRed]

I just thought I'd get this topic going with some info I found -

Moto intros the G5 <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0009/27.mot.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>

Basic feature set of the G5 <a href="http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm" target="_blank">here</a>


Just some more info/juice to breath some life back into this thread :)

[Mike Eggleston]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>I just thought I'd get this topic going with some info I found -

Moto intros the G5 <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0009/27.mot.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hate to burst your bubble there, but that was dated September of 2000. Not what I would call new news.

[quote]<strong>Basic feature set of the G5 <a href="http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm" target="_blank">here</a>
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now this article was worth the read. Also it plays into the idea that the G5 will come out in January. That would be very cool!!

[quote]<strong>Just some more info/juice to breath some life back into this thread :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree. This thread needed some life in it again!!

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
I just thought I'd get this topic going with some info I found -

Moto intros the G5 here
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to burst your bubble there, but that was dated September of 2000. Not what I would call new news. <hr></blockquote>


I never said it was 'new' I just said I had found some info. A lot of people don't seem to know much about the G5 and I don't remember reading that article last year. Also, it stated that the G5 has a 10 stage pipeline, I've heard since that it has a 14 stage. So anytime I hear something difeerent it's nice to hae the actual information to compare.

Plus, I wanted to bump the thread :)

[Jonathan]

i'd just like to interject a little sense into this discussion..

G5 = not cheap, therefore, not going into iMac, also, large and very hot, therefore not going into PowerBook.

7460 "Apollo". Cool, big mhz, too expensive for iStuff. PowerBook chip.

Sahara (750FX) G3 = Cheap. Big mhz, cool. Going into iMac and iBook.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>i'd just like to interject a little sense into this discussion..

G5 = not cheap, therefore, not going into iMac, also, large and very hot, therefore not going into PowerBook.

7460 "Apollo". Cool, big mhz, too expensive for iStuff. PowerBook chip.

Sahara (750FX) G3 = Cheap. Big mhz, cool. Going into iMac and iBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>


So then are you saying that the Apollo is meant for the portables? That's my belief.

[TigerWoods99]

Apollo is .13 SOI 1-1.333 GHz and primed for the next Powerbook.

[Jonathan]

Apollo = Powerbook chip. Not iBook.. too expensive for iStuff.

Sahara = iXXX chip. Cheap, Big mhz, cool.

Apollo = .13µ, SOI, Lo-K Dielectric, etc, basically a shrunken, cooler 7450 G4. It's got Altivec. ~1-1.2 Ghz

Sahara = Revision of the G3 line. But this one's a real ass-kicker. .13µ, SOI, copper interconnects, etc. BAD ASS CHIP, and it's cheap, too. No AltiVec. ~1 Ghz

G5, who knows. 64-bit with full backwards compatibilty with 32-bit code... AltiVec. 1.2 Ghz and up.

[BRussell]

Was the 7460 on <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf" target="_blank">Moto's roadmap</a>? If it was, it isn't anymore.

And the 7460 is supposed to go to a .13 process, but the roadmap says the G4 has " .15µ copper process for initial G4 product (migrating to SOI)," and then the G5 has ".13µ process with SOI initial G5 product." Doesn't that suggest that the transition from .15 to .13 is they key to the transition from G4 to G5?

Hypothesis - the 7460 is released in January and called the G5.

[artenman]

I heard the G5 "will" come out in March, not January. And I am currently downloading 10.2 which is 64-bit. And Mac OS 10.2 is due out in March as I heard as well. :cool:

[Rmh1572]

Is that sarcasm or real info art. Just curious.

[Mike Eggleston]

[quote]Originally posted by artenman:
<strong>I heard the G5 "will" come out in March, not January. And I am currently downloading 10.2 which is 64-bit. And Mac OS 10.2 is due out in March as I heard as well. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>

I really find it VERY hard to believe that Apple would make very single other processor out there obsolete with a 64bit compiled version of 10.2, it makes no sense. Apple has been pushing this product, and now you can't use it?? C'mon, get real.

10 will more than likely stay at 32 bit. Maybe forever. That might be a OS 11 (or is it XI) version, but NOT 10.2. Apple just would be that stupid.

[artenman]

Ok I may gone overboard :) . I will ask tomorrow or Monday about when is G5's released date just to be extra certain. And I do know the person who knows what we don't know, and need to know :) . As for the OS, I may have exaggerated a bit, who knows, it probably wont be released until 2 years from now (the whole 64-bit thing), because if it was released next year, it would suck for all Mac Users including me. So you're probably right. Maybe OS 11 or something, but not tomorrow.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: artenman ]

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: artenman ]</p>

[artenman]

Oh, and I am still downloading this so called 10.2 64-bit OS. Interesting.

[zebu]

I'm not supporting claims of the next 10 release being 64bit, I think it's way too soon and little benefit unless you're playing with a lot of data.

But the claims of a 64bit version of 10 making all other processors out of date are wrong. 10/HFS allows you to combine code for different platforms into a single FAT binary. For example I could give you a FAT version of Photoshop with both PPC and x86 code and the operating system would pick the appropriate segment to load.

It's not as simple as I make it sound. Apple would have to do some tricks with the linker for 32/64bit library calls and various other components that cross the boundary. But to sum it up it's very possible for Apple to deliver a 32/64bit OS.

-Bill

[SDW2001]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>I just thought I'd get this topic going with some info I found -

Moto intros the G5 <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0009/27.mot.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>

Basic feature set of the G5 <a href="http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm" target="_blank">here</a>


Just some more info/juice to breath some life back into this thread :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

This seems to be the most credible evdience yet for a G5 release in Jan....possibly available in March.

[SDW2001]

The other thing that is interesting is that the speeds indicated are exactly what the Register's source said: Debut at 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 and then move to 2ghz by summer.

I am starting to get giddy.

[TigerWoods99]

That Geek.com info was there before The Register and MOSR got all their insider reports on the G5 too.

I think they should announce the G5 if it can ship by March. Kinda sucks that it wouldn't ship until Febuary or March but I guess I could wait a little longer. :)

What they could do with a 10.2 is make it a 64-bit OS but make it 32-bit backwards compatible so it would basically run as a 32-bit OS on any computer that doesn't have the G5. Or maybe it will just be 32-bit and the G5 will run software 32-bit until Apple brings out a 64-bit version of X.

[Brad]

[quote]Originally posted by artenman:
<strong>Oh, and I am still downloading this so called 10.2 64-bit OS. Interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From where? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[rickag]

<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>

If the G5 is to be in the 85XX product line, as a lot of people have been posting, I thought it was interesting that the MPC8540 won't be even sampling until " the second half of 2002."

The MPC8540 is an anounced chip with the specifications fairly well outlined. The MPC85XX - G5 has not been announced and information on it is relatively speculative.

My guess is that the G5 will come out after the MPC8540, hence, would be sampling later in the 2nd half of 2002 and introduced at the end of the year. Hope I'm wrong, but .......

[Outsider]

Think about it. When Motorola puts an 8 infront of the processor numeration, it means it will be a SOC type embedded chip. This must mean that the G5 was changed from 7500 to 8500 because it will have built-in features that were normally external to the CPU core like memory controller, ethernet, and PCI controller. This should reduce latency and provide much more bandwidth.

[AirSluf]

[SDW2001]

[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>Product numbers are just so much marketing, and marketing departments can play hell with company or even industry conventions. 8500, 7500, neither really means anything until you can slap one on a board.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed. That reference above means nothing. It could be a freakin embedded chip for all we know.

[G-News]

January release can be done, but it won't.
I think Apple isn't going to release this kick-ass new chip with a 20 year old OS as a default system.
They'll surely ship it with Mac OS X preinstalled and set for default, and we all know this won't happen before March. I say we'll see G5 around 1400MHz with GeForce 4 cards at MWNY.
And forget about that Raycer thing, I doubt there will ever be a "product" based on that. Some minor chips sure, but not a graphics card or something like that.

G-news

[AirSluf]

[rickag]

[quote]SDW2001
"Agreed. That reference above means nothing. It could be a freakin embedded chip for all we know."<hr></blockquote>

The MPC8540 is an embedded chip. But so is the G4. Below is the directory for finding the G4 on Motorola's web site.

Motorola : Semiconductors : Product Catalog : 32-Bit Embedded Processors : PowerPC ISA : MPC7XXX, MPC7XX and MPC6XX Host Processors

Point is the G5 is supposed to be in the 85XX family of processors and a much less complicated chip, 8540, won't be sampling until the 2nd half of 2002.

Maybe the G5 development has been secretly accelerated beyond the 8540 and is near final design, but.........well...... this seems to be wishful thinking.

Hope I'm totally wrong, especially since I will be buying a new low end tower sometime in Jan.

[Amorph]

AirSluf wrote:

[quote]All we need from Apples raycer acquisition is that tiny little Quartz 2D chip... Let the big boys worry about 3D.<hr></blockquote>

3D acceleration is vector acceleration. Quartz is vector-based. 2D acceleration affects bitmaps.

Apple could design a chip that would accelerate Quartz, but it would be redundant. They'd be better off finding a way to rewrite Quartz to take advantage of OpenGL, and using whatever 3D acceleration the video card provides.

I have a hunch that that optimization would have less of an impact on overall performance than a few rounds of tweaking Carbon (and PowerPlant, and Finder). Quartz is already pretty efficient. On the other hand, some Carbon apps seem to spam the OS with events (AppleWorks 6.2 reportedly posts 8,000 events per second when it's idling!) and that's a performance killer right there.

[Slacker]

Don't forget that Apple doesn't like Mot releasing info about new chips, Apple likes to be the one to introduce them in their machines. If Mot released info (legit info as in Press Release) about the G5 we would all be able to see everything it would have and figure a release date.

My guess is that the 8540 (which I've looked at for a good guess of what will be in the G5) is Mots way of saying this is what we have in the pipe without giving away the G5 release for Apple.

[sawtooth]

The Register is again quoting a source as saying the G5 is now going into production:
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23078.html" target="_blank">the register</a> :eek:

[Blizaine]

[quote]The Register is again quoting a source as saying the G5 is now going into production: the register :eek: <hr></blockquote>

wow... I can only hope/wish this isn't a bunch of bull...

If that source is wrong, I hope he/she is having fun, because they will never be listened to again after Jan… However if they are right... everything they say from here on out will be held as gospel...

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> :) <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[SDW2001]

[quote]Originally posted by sawtooth:
<strong>The Register is again quoting a source as saying the G5 is now going into production:
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23078.html" target="_blank">the register</a> :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Two Words: Holy Sh*t. I don't know guys, that, in conjunction with everything else sounds legit, I just hope I have the $4k to spend when it is time.

Say your prayers for the G5.

[NeoMac]

I only have one thing to say about The Register 'source':

I'll believe it when I see it! :)

[Bodhi]

Believe it if As The Apple Turns and MacUser UK chime in with similar info. Both of those sites are batting 1000 this year.

[Slacker]

I knew the G5 would be ready in Q1-02 I just didn't think it would be in January. Guess that means no one gets a Xmas present from me this year, I'm going into full production on my G5 fund now.

So this would mean that rev 0.7 had the bugs worked out. Even if the low end is 1GHz instead of 1.2GHz I'll be very happy!!!

[SDW2001]

[quote]Originally posted by Slacker:
<strong>I knew the G5 would be ready in Q1-02 I just didn't think it would be in January. Guess that means no one gets a Xmas present from me this year, I'm going into full production on my G5 fund now.

So this would mean that rev 0.7 had the bugs worked out. Even if the low end is 1GHz instead of 1.2GHz I'll be very happy!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yeah, for real. My fund is OK right now. I have some other priorities to fund too, right around that time. But, I'm getting there.....hopefully LCD's come down a bit as well...that will help.

[sc_markt]

I've been commenting that the G5 won't be out until
later in the year. In fact, I sort of predicted that the apollo G4 would be announced at MWSF '02 with DDR and that the G5 would be released when OSX is officially the default OS.

Now I'm starting to believe that the G5 will be announced this coming MWSF. What is changing my mind is that one of the sessions scheduled for MWSF is called "This ain't your parents' Mac" and I can't see this panel discussion talking about the apollo G4 that is 20% faster than todays G4 AND when the G5 is so close to production. It makes sense to me that this panel discussion will be on the new G5/OSX with all the other powermac improvements.

These are just my thoughts...


- Mark

[Nebagakid]

it was weird when the G3 was big and i heard "G4", it joust sounded weird. now G5 sound weird! :cool:

[bernard]

If they do appear or are announced expect the clock speed for Apple to have room to grow, for sales reasons dont expect 1.6Ghz right of the bat. My guess is like the every high end machine in the past: higher clock speed G4's with a G5 anouncement that it will ship in 6 weeks. G5 will be expesive so will SOI G4's at first.

[alcimedes]

lol, all this was posted at slashdot.org a long time ago.

if you want a true geeks perspective on what the G5 means to the geek community, check out this link.

<a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/17/1421246&mode=thread" target="_blank">slashdot article</a>

lol, they're about as fanitical for linux as folks here are for Macs, for the most part. OSX has brought Apple a little respect in the Unix camp though. go figure.

[Jensen]

[quote]Originally posted by mark_19:
<strong>I've been commenting that the G5 won't be out until
later in the year. In fact, I sort of predicted that the apollo G4 would be announced at MWSF '02 with DDR and that the G5 would be released when OSX is officially the default OS.

Now I'm starting to believe that the G5 will be announced this coming MWSF. What is changing my mind is that one of the sessions scheduled for MWSF is called "This ain't your parents' Mac" and I can't see this panel discussion talking about the apollo G4 that is 20% faster than todays G4 AND when the G5 is so close to production. It makes sense to me that this panel discussion will be on the new G5/OSX with all the other powermac improvements.

These are just my thoughts...


- Mark</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Caler]

So we've got low end guesses at 9xx, 1gig,1.2 gig and high end guesses at the rumored 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 - with duals in the mix one way or another...so, if you had a choice, would you take duals at the lower speeds (better near-term supply) or single processors at the higher speeds (more restricted supply)? :p

[Leonis]

[quote]Originally posted by Caler:
<strong>so, if you had a choice, would you take duals at the lower speeds (better near-term supply) or single processors at the higher speeds (more restricted supply)? :p </strong><hr></blockquote>

Can we have both? ;)

[amidala]

[quote]Originally posted by Caler:
<strong>So we've got low end guesses at 9xx, 1gig,1.2 gig and high end guesses at the rumored 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 - with duals in the mix one way or another...so, if you had a choice, would you take duals at the lower speeds (better near-term supply) or single processors at the higher speeds (more restricted supply)? :p </strong><hr></blockquote>

DPs are faster.

Andrew

[Caler]

[quote]Originally posted by amidala:
<strong>

DPs are faster.

Andrew</strong><hr></blockquote>

I guess that's my point...Apple put the emphasis on DP models back before OS X was there to take advantage of them. Now, when OS X is shaping up nicely, why not roll out a wider roster of of DP machines using relatively cheaper current gen G4s? We'd still have the higher speed next gen chips on the high end, of course. I suppose the margins are better on single chip models?

[NeoMac]

my new signature says it all! :D

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</p>

[Caler]

[quote]Originally posted by NeoMac:
<strong>my new signature says it all! :D

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

:cool:

[rickag]

Question

The Register article claiming "The PowerPC G5 has been passed for full-scale manufacture, a source close to Apple has claimed. " was posted 11/28/01.

Some where I read that from start to finish it takes 50-60 days to manufacture microprocessors. Ass-u-me the Register article is true, then the first volume production G5's will be ready to ship when......about the end of Jan. right. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

I think the source for The Register's and MOSR's articles is having a good laugh @ the expense of the MacIntosh community.

And by the way, in the MOSR article the quoted mole claimed the G5 to be "ultrascalar".

[quote]Some people have speculated that the G5 is going to be a multicored chip. This is absolutely false! The major performance enhancements of the G5 come from a totally revamped ultrascalar core design.<hr></blockquote>

Any one know what ultrascalar means?

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: rickag ]

And another thing, a lot of people seem to believe the G5 will be 64bit. Look at Motorola's roadmap <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf" target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf</a>

"32 & 64 bit products"

Major differences between G4 & G5 will be the
1. New Pipeline
2. Rapid I/O
and maybe on-chip non-blocking crossbar switch fabric, called OCeaN (On-Chip Network))

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

[rickag]

Just went to Ars and some one(Billium) posted a link to Architosh

<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2001-11/2001a-1130-appleg5.phtml" target="_blank">http://www.architosh.com/news/2001-11/2001a-1130-appleg5.phtml</a>

Definitely worth the read. :) :) :)

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

[Nitzer]

You definitely got me drooling.... :)

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Nitzer ]</p>

[Amorph]

Da-a-a-a-amn.

If a third of that is true, it'll be great.

If the clustering rumor comes true, I called it! :D

[rickag]

Yeh, here I've been really thinking the G5 will be 6 - 9 months away, at least.

Then I noticed that the Motorola roadmap shows the G5 to be 32 bit & 64 bit parts. Basically, a G4 with a new pipeline plus Rapid I/O and HiP7 manufacturting process. Don't get me wrong, still a mean feat, but not like a 64 bit processor.

Does any one know if Archintosh has released inside type information in the past? Is this unusual for them? Seems they are more of a news format.

[Amorph]

They almost never publish rumors, as far as I'm aware. This is unusual for them.

Considering that they deal with computationally intensive software in a PC-dominated field, I can understand their excitement, though.

[AirSluf]

[SDW2001]

Again, looking at all the "evidence", it seems likely to me that the G5 is coming.

---PPC Roadmap shows Q1 release
---No official denials
---published rumors that quite frankly, seem credible.
---job's supposed statement that the MHZ gap would be closed near the end of the year 2001

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[NeoMac]

I think we are all being led around by the nose and we our having our legs pulled.

If we keep believing in these rumors, this MWSF will be the absolute biggest disappointment yet!

[cinder]

Is it a stretch to say that Raycer's 3d chip know how could be turned into a Quartz engine?

Forgive my ignorance of 2d vs 3d programming/chipset building . . .
Are there large differences between creating/designing a 2d graphics chip vs a 3d graphics chip?

It seems kinda of silly to buy a 3d company to accelerate 2d functions in Quartz. It sounds kinda like retrofitting.

I realize that 2d and 3d probably share a lot of functions or processes or whatnot - but how similar - or dissilimar are they?

Is this even a viable solution?