Maybe an kick arse IBM chip instead of a moto G5? This seems like a move to get apple back into the market, and spur moto into developing the G4 or something better. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Maybe apple wanted something that was more than a single core 10 stage pipelined cpu that was little more than a mhz'd G4? I didn't hear of any additional fpus.
But that this 'G5' would have the benefits of an improved mobo. Which basically gives us a bumped Apollo (which is clocking higher than Moto expected...) in rapid io set up. This reduces the need for the G5 that Moto envisaged replacing the Apollo. ie cheaper to just push the G4 on if you've found it has legs. (Look at what Intel have done to push their chips over the last few years...ie bolting things on and engineering more mhz from them when they were supposed to 'hit the wall' years ago.)
Apollo, a chip that was to enable the G4 to get to just over 1 gig. Maybe Moto has found it can clock higher so their original G5 needed to be re-thought, cancelled or improved. ie was it worth the cost of developing a new chip when their were few advantages over the old one?
Whether Moto' gets the contract for the successor to the G4 or IBM gets it... Well, nobody seems to know for sure. But the chip we think of the original 'G5' may have had its chips, mate. Perhaps what we want to be the 'G5' had to be redesigned to be accepted by the market. ie, more than merely mhz, more fpu, more MHZ, more integer, more simd, multi-core and architectural improvements. Apple and moto and even IBM haven't had an easy ride cpu rise over the last few years. Perhaps we can expect the next 'true' next gen' processor to be something special.
...if Motorola had this G5, then why isn't it here now? Perhaps Moto's vision of the G5 was the same 'cheap shot' gimmick that took us from G3 to G4? ie the G5 would have been a G4 but with more mhz and a ten stage pipeline. Which... is...er...what Apollo will be this Summer at Macworld New York..? (minus the ten stage pipeline?) But at San Fran, maybe the G4 pipeline will be stretched to 10 stages with Rapid Io and then be what the G5 would have been anyway.)
Surely Apple would ship the fast chip they could instead of make do with shrinking Powermac sales and a g4 that has clearly struggled to keep apace with the x86 side of the competition.
I'm beginning to think the '7500' chip will be nothing but an Apollo+ with a rapid io architecture. Clocked at 1.2 - 1.6 (if all we see at Macworld New York is a 1.2 gig Apollo with DDR mobo.) This is effectively the G5 chip, by proxy, that Moto would have shipped. It's not THE G5 that would have shipped...but it's effectively the same in all name. And they didn't have to waste money getting the same product.
I heard the G5 was going to be single core from a poster who used to post here called Motoman.
That being the case...if all Moto's G5 was...some glorified G4 ie longer pipeline with no real benefit...then what we have is...is...bumped Apollo ala Macworld New York.
Maybe IBM bid with a multicore g3 with it's own simd unit which would more than take on Moto's version of the 'G5'.
Take away the altivec unit and the G4 outside of the embedded market doesn't seem that impressive to me.
Maybe Apple wanted more and hence the delay for any G5 type chip worthy of the mantle.
With Maya and Digital Video markets becomging more important to Apple then it's realistic to assume, long term, Apple know the cpu and performance issue has to be addressed...
We'll have to see if the chips Apple has coming in the next half year deliver compelling performance reasons to make me get out the wallet.
Theses rumors are coming from the bad mood on theses board concerning the future of the PPC chips.
The last year, the rumor was saying that Apple will go with IBM, but we see now that IBM has nothing more interesting to propose (in fact their PPC chips are slower than the MOt one : dont speak of the power chip), so people think that the only solution is that Apple schedule is own chip.
So this rumor have nothing to do with real insider info : it's just the result of some people's brainstorm around here.
Actually if anybody recalls moki, before people drove him away, I remember reading him suggesting the next processor wouldn't be a G5 so much as a G4.5.
That was a long while before anybody was ever considering evolved G4s before G5s.
I HAVE noticed that he hasnt posted in a while... but since when did we drive him away?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He got sick of people attacking him because the people he had spoken to hadn't mentioned super fast G5s and things that ran 10 times the speed of PCs. So in the end he just got sick of it and gave up and left.
I've always remembered his mention of hearing about a G4.5 as the next evolution because it went so far against what everybody was thinking at the time.
People were so sure that the G5 was to be a completely radical shake up of the PPC and a ditching of the G4. Everybody seemed fragmented into G5 or G4 nobody was saying their might be something in between.
Anyway I ramble. I'd say we will know how good his sources were soon enough but what he suggested certainly sounds a lot like <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/24018.html"; target="_blank">The Register's predictions</a> and he posted it long before the Register made their story.
If you're wondering I think he posted it to the MacNN boards.
Ahhrg, it's just so hard to get a straight answer from people. What I wanted to know is where was this reported, like on what website, and could we have a link please. So I had to spend some time searching posts to see where I'd seen these references. And the guilty parties were no less than Lemon Bon Bon (Lemon Bon Bon?-ok , it's your choice, but if we're supposed to infer somethiing about AI members based on their call signs...) and Haderach, both posts to this <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001420&p=9"; target="_blank">Dorsal topic</a>.
Come one, let's get some serious scholarship going here. How are we to believe what you say unless you provide your sources? Even if it's your neighbor's brother-in-law you should tell us. (Who know's , I might know him.)
BTW, I did do a search of the Register, since a couple references to the G5's rejection mentioned that site (there were other references besides LBB's and H's, but I can't find them). I didn't find anything there on this topic, but I did find <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/20576.html"; target="_blank">this web page</a>. What, a100mhz? What would we say then?
This is the Ambrosia Software "Just Tech" board. Their president, Andrew Welch, goes by the name "andrew" in his posts but his nickname is moki. I think they may be the same people.
<strong>Come one, let's get some serious scholarship going here. How are we to believe what you say unless you provide your sources? Even if it's your neighbor's brother-in-law you should tell us. (Who know's , I might know him.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
why would someone even allude to a source? it can only mean bad things for everyone involved. either you believe the person or you don't. what difference does it make if the person says that their source is their second cousin or whatever? some people have inside information and they're not likely to tell you who told them just because you asked.
i'll tell ya, the rumor is true. apple killed moto's g5 project. so the fact that the news is out is not really surprising. it could have come from a number of difference sources.
the reason why we are all waiting for an apple g5 is because we want to beat the pc's
because most apple users are fanatics ,and i am one to.
but why are we waiting for those chips.
is it realy gonna effect the way we computer?
apple is faster anyway but pc users just dont admit it, well we know better.
i even bet that almost none of us have the fastest g4 so it is not gonna change the way you computer ,when the time is there apple will introduce an 2 ghz machine you wil be computering with an 933 so lets wait for a real anwser to this question.
Well, I think that powerdoc has hit the nail on the head. No one is able to actually verify Apple nixing the G5 - "the rumor is true" isn't exactly research, now, is it?
there may be no "research" to bear out the truth. if there's not, then you can just choose not to believe the rumor. your choice. i mean, if you can't find it on the internet then it must not be true, right?
<strong>A say a Power4 with silicon geranium process. Not going to happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I doubt that IBM has turn into a "green" company using plants in his process. Anyway the geranium process if more poetic than the germanium one.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I doubt that IBM has turn into a "green" company using plants in his process. Anyway the geranium process if more poetic than the germanium one.
PS : just nitpick you for fun, great post however </strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like Apple's processor roadmap is about as murky as it has ever been. At least with the insanely smooth transition from 68k to PPC we knew where the hell things were headed.
Anyway you interpret things, it looks like IBM and Moto's processor development goals have both diverged from Apple's, leaving Apple no choice but to go with a best fit instead of being able to selectively choose a best of breed.
IMHO making predictions at this point is for fools. It looks like anything could happen. According to the rampant speculation on these boards the next-gen Mac processor could be any of:
- Intel Merced
- AMD fabbed Moto G5's
- IBM fabbed Power4 derivatives
- a Transmeta chip that speaks PPC
- a 5 gHz StrongARM
- a 2 gHz 68090 with SuperFPU? technology
- Tiny little green people using nanotech abacuses inside a matchbox.
Comments
<strong>I've seen mentions in a couple of posts? Where's this coming from?</strong><hr></blockquote>
paging dr. there is no g5, dr. there is no g5, you're needed in Future Hardware.
<strong>I've seen mentions in a couple of posts? Where's this coming from?</strong><hr></blockquote>
it's true. what i know is a little outdated and the rest of it i couldn't say anyway, but you're right about motorola's version of the g5.
But that this 'G5' would have the benefits of an improved mobo. Which basically gives us a bumped Apollo (which is clocking higher than Moto expected...) in rapid io set up. This reduces the need for the G5 that Moto envisaged replacing the Apollo. ie cheaper to just push the G4 on if you've found it has legs. (Look at what Intel have done to push their chips over the last few years...ie bolting things on and engineering more mhz from them when they were supposed to 'hit the wall' years ago.)
Apollo, a chip that was to enable the G4 to get to just over 1 gig. Maybe Moto has found it can clock higher so their original G5 needed to be re-thought, cancelled or improved. ie was it worth the cost of developing a new chip when their were few advantages over the old one?
Whether Moto' gets the contract for the successor to the G4 or IBM gets it... Well, nobody seems to know for sure. But the chip we think of the original 'G5' may have had its chips, mate. Perhaps what we want to be the 'G5' had to be redesigned to be accepted by the market. ie, more than merely mhz, more fpu, more MHZ, more integer, more simd, multi-core and architectural improvements. Apple and moto and even IBM haven't had an easy ride cpu rise over the last few years. Perhaps we can expect the next 'true' next gen' processor to be something special.
...if Motorola had this G5, then why isn't it here now? Perhaps Moto's vision of the G5 was the same 'cheap shot' gimmick that took us from G3 to G4? ie the G5 would have been a G4 but with more mhz and a ten stage pipeline. Which... is...er...what Apollo will be this Summer at Macworld New York..? (minus the ten stage pipeline?) But at San Fran, maybe the G4 pipeline will be stretched to 10 stages with Rapid Io and then be what the G5 would have been anyway.)
Surely Apple would ship the fast chip they could instead of make do with shrinking Powermac sales and a g4 that has clearly struggled to keep apace with the x86 side of the competition.
I'm beginning to think the '7500' chip will be nothing but an Apollo+ with a rapid io architecture. Clocked at 1.2 - 1.6 (if all we see at Macworld New York is a 1.2 gig Apollo with DDR mobo.) This is effectively the G5 chip, by proxy, that Moto would have shipped. It's not THE G5 that would have shipped...but it's effectively the same in all name. And they didn't have to waste money getting the same product.
I heard the G5 was going to be single core from a poster who used to post here called Motoman.
That being the case...if all Moto's G5 was...some glorified G4 ie longer pipeline with no real benefit...then what we have is...is...bumped Apollo ala Macworld New York.
Maybe IBM bid with a multicore g3 with it's own simd unit which would more than take on Moto's version of the 'G5'.
Take away the altivec unit and the G4 outside of the embedded market doesn't seem that impressive to me.
Maybe Apple wanted more and hence the delay for any G5 type chip worthy of the mantle.
With Maya and Digital Video markets becomging more important to Apple then it's realistic to assume, long term, Apple know the cpu and performance issue has to be addressed...
We'll have to see if the chips Apple has coming in the next half year deliver compelling performance reasons to make me get out the wallet.
I'm dying here without a POWERmac.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
The last year, the rumor was saying that Apple will go with IBM, but we see now that IBM has nothing more interesting to propose (in fact their PPC chips are slower than the MOt one : dont speak of the power chip), so people think that the only solution is that Apple schedule is own chip.
So this rumor have nothing to do with real insider info : it's just the result of some people's brainstorm around here.
That was a long while before anybody was ever considering evolved G4s before G5s.
<strong>Actually if anybody recalls moki, before people drove him away, </strong><hr></blockquote>
I HAVE noticed that he hasnt posted in a while... but since when did we drive him away?
<strong>
I HAVE noticed that he hasnt posted in a while... but since when did we drive him away?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He got sick of people attacking him because the people he had spoken to hadn't mentioned super fast G5s and things that ran 10 times the speed of PCs. So in the end he just got sick of it and gave up and left.
I've always remembered his mention of hearing about a G4.5 as the next evolution because it went so far against what everybody was thinking at the time.
People were so sure that the G5 was to be a completely radical shake up of the PPC and a ditching of the G4. Everybody seemed fragmented into G5 or G4 nobody was saying their might be something in between.
Anyway I ramble. I'd say we will know how good his sources were soon enough but what he suggested certainly sounds a lot like <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/24018.html"; target="_blank">The Register's predictions</a> and he posted it long before the Register made their story.
If you're wondering I think he posted it to the MacNN boards.
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
Come one, let's get some serious scholarship going here. How are we to believe what you say unless you provide your sources? Even if it's your neighbor's brother-in-law you should tell us. (Who know's , I might know him.)
BTW, I did do a search of the Register, since a couple references to the G5's rejection mentioned that site (there were other references besides LBB's and H's, but I can't find them). I didn't find anything there on this topic, but I did find <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/20576.html"; target="_blank">this web page</a>. What, a100mhz? What would we say then?
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: Ptrash ]</p>
<a href="http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=64&SUBMIT=Go " target="_blank">http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=64&SUBMIT=Go </a>
This is the Ambrosia Software "Just Tech" board. Their president, Andrew Welch, goes by the name "andrew" in his posts but his nickname is moki. I think they may be the same people.
I'm frankly rather pissed that he was hounded off the boards, and I would appreciate it if that little campaign didn't resume on his own boards.
<strong>Come one, let's get some serious scholarship going here. How are we to believe what you say unless you provide your sources? Even if it's your neighbor's brother-in-law you should tell us. (Who know's , I might know him.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
why would someone even allude to a source? it can only mean bad things for everyone involved. either you believe the person or you don't. what difference does it make if the person says that their source is their second cousin or whatever? some people have inside information and they're not likely to tell you who told them just because you asked.
i'll tell ya, the rumor is true. apple killed moto's g5 project. so the fact that the news is out is not really surprising. it could have come from a number of difference sources.
and to answer the original question, i said something about this <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000887&p=4"; target="_blank">a while back.</a> but, like always, take it for what you will.
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>
because most apple users are fanatics ,and i am one to.
but why are we waiting for those chips.
is it realy gonna effect the way we computer?
apple is faster anyway but pc users just dont admit it, well we know better.
i even bet that almost none of us have the fastest g4 so it is not gonna change the way you computer ,when the time is there apple will introduce an 2 ghz machine you wil be computering with an 933 so lets wait for a real anwser to this question.
grtz
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jonasvdl ]</p>
p-TRASH?
Ya don't say...
Lemon Bon Bon
The only thing I have ever seen is here: <a href="http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm</a>;
But this is also hearsay...seems to me everything about the G5 is an urban legend.
Most people are wanting Apple to go with IBM so they can get some supercompter chip, say a Power4 with silicon geranium process. Not going to happen.
<strong>A say a Power4 with silicon geranium process. Not going to happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I doubt that IBM has turn into a "green" company using plants in his process. Anyway the geranium process if more poetic than the germanium one.
PS : just nitpick you for fun, great post however
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I doubt that IBM has turn into a "green" company using plants in his process. Anyway the geranium process if more poetic than the germanium one.
PS : just nitpick you for fun, great post however
LMAO! Oh that's great...I am such a dumbass.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Anyway you interpret things, it looks like IBM and Moto's processor development goals have both diverged from Apple's, leaving Apple no choice but to go with a best fit instead of being able to selectively choose a best of breed.
IMHO making predictions at this point is for fools. It looks like anything could happen. According to the rampant speculation on these boards the next-gen Mac processor could be any of:
- Intel Merced
- AMD fabbed Moto G5's
- IBM fabbed Power4 derivatives
- a Transmeta chip that speaks PPC
- a 5 gHz StrongARM
- a 2 gHz 68090 with SuperFPU? technology
- Tiny little green people using nanotech abacuses inside a matchbox.