"unleashing" the G3

japhjaph
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
When the 970 arrives, it could free up the G4 for the consumer line, assuming the 970 is available in sufficient supply.



With at least 1.25 and 1.42GHz G4s in consumer models, could Apple use the more advanced G3s that we know IBM has(without making the G4 look bad in certain respects)?



It could even be a possibility for a low-cost headless home computer, or a sub-1U Xserve. Maybe add a product grid for SOHO workstations and servers...



Anyway, just a thought.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by japh:

    <strong>...the more advanced G3s that we know IBM has...

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't know if they have. Are you honestly suggesting that IBM has advanced CPUs which they developed at cost but refuse to sell, or even tell anyone about?



    Barto
  • Reply 2 of 45
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    Remember when the 1 GHz Sahara was officially announced? Yes, at a time when 733 MHz G4s were the high end. Apple couldn't sell iMacs with 1 GHz while the PowerMac was at 733 MHz. Even worse for the portables: 550 and 667 MHz G4s and 1 GHz G3s... So, yes, IBM _was_ developing faster G3s that didn't make the G4s look too good. And no, they didn't hide them. Only Apple didn't WANT them.
  • Reply 3 of 45
    rampancyrampancy Posts: 363member
    [quote]Originally posted by fryke:

    <strong>Remember when the 1 GHz Sahara was officially announced?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    IIRC, IBM said it could *scale up to 1 Ghz*, not that 1 Ghz Sahara's actually existed. If anyone knows any better, feel free to correct me.
  • Reply 4 of 45
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Hell ..just shelve the G3. Once the 970 hits it should be 970=Pro G4= Consumer.



    There's not need for Apple to support 3 different processors. Finally we'd have 100% Altivec enabled lines.



    The "expanded" G3 has been a poor Albatross that has instilled too much hope in the faithful. Let it pass.
  • Reply 5 of 45
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by rampancy:

    <strong>



    IIRC, IBM said it could *scale up to 1 Ghz*, not that 1 Ghz Sahara's actually existed. If anyone knows any better, feel free to correct me.</strong><hr></blockquote>You are correct. They were supposed to scale up to 1Ghz by the end of 2002, though. I'd bet the 1Ghz chips will be in the iBooks this Spring.



    fryke: The Sahara was announced when Apple had dual 800s and a single 867 in the PowerMacs, and it started being used in iBooks when we had a dual Ghz.
  • Reply 6 of 45
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Well, by now the 1 GHz Sahara G3s have been developed, and they support a 200 MHz bus. So once the 970 comes out with the 800 MHz bus or whatever it is, they can immediately bring the G3 iBook up to a 200 MHz bus and it'll be much more powerful and it still wouldn't compete too bad.
  • Reply 7 of 45
    blablablabla Posts: 185member
    Uhm, just what advantage would a G3 give compared to a G4? Ok, its probably somewhat less energy-consuming, but it still doesnt support Altivec and never will.



    The G3 will be about 6 years old when the 970 arrives. While age itself is not a big argument, 6 years is a long time keeping the same basic CPU design.



    If the G3 wont die this year, just when will it die?
  • Reply 8 of 45
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Well, if you'd like to still call it a G3, go ahead and do so, but it's really more like a G3 mk 2... somewhat like the Pentium vs. Pentium 2. Same name, new revision that keeps it alive. I mean, Intel's not exactly "behind" despite still having Pentiums which have been around since the early to mid 90s.



    My argument for the next generation G3s is that 1) I think it's possible to add altivec to them although I'm not sure and 2) supporting a 200 MHz bus is pretty good, as right now the P4 and Athlon XP both just use double or quad pumped buses. They are better than single buses but they are truly 133 or 167 MHz buses. A true 200 MHz bus is an advanced feature that currently isn't being implemented on a whole lot of computers.



    I sometimes wonder how bad it'll get before Apple bites the bullet and uses an Intel or AMD chip (big, hot, cheap, scalable, CISC) in their computers. I sure hope IBM can get the PowerPC moving again. If not I don't know what'll happen. We've already waited 3 years for a G5, let's hope when we actually do get one it'll be really good.
  • Reply 9 of 45
    martianmattmartianmatt Posts: 79member
    [quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

    <strong>Well, if you'd like to still call it a G3, go ahead and do so, but it's really more like a G3 mk 2... somewhat like the Pentium vs. Pentium 2. Same name, new revision that keeps it alive. I mean, Intel's not exactly "behind" despite still having Pentiums which have been around since the early to mid 90s.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I've been thinking for a little while now that Apple or IBM should come up with a name for the 970, in the same vein as the Pentium and Athlon, etc. It would avoid them having to decide if it was a G5 or G6. The new G3s can then be a G5 (if they have VMX and are faster than the G4) or they can be called some other marketing name, similar to Celeron or Duron. For that matter, the G4 could become the Pentium/Athlon equivalent, removing some of its stigma, the 970 becomes the Itanium/Opteron equivalent.



    Suggestions anyone? I'll make a (bad) effort and propose:

    G3 -&gt; Trimina - 'Tri' = 3, 'inia' from stamina cause it's been around for ages.

    G4 -&gt; Quantache - 'Quad' = 4, 'ache' from, er, ache, cause everyone is aching for the Next Big Thing

    970 -&gt; Pentium - oops, already been done, try again. <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">

    970 -&gt; Awediom - 'Awesome' and 'idiom', a word everyone will be using from now on.



    [quote]<strong>My argument for the next generation G3s is that 1) I think it's possible to add altivec to them although I'm not sure and 2) supporting a 200 MHz bus is pretty good, as right now the P4 and Athlon XP both just use double or quad pumped buses. They are better than single buses but they are truly 133 or 167 MHz buses. A true 200 MHz bus is an advanced feature that currently isn't being implemented on a whole lot of computers.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, add VMX to G3 and it is basically a G4.



    But I don't think you can say that the P4 and Athlon busses are really *just* 133 and 167 Mhz. They have added *extra technology* to improve the throughput by 4x and 2x, respectively. Their effective clocks are 533 and 333 MHz, no question.



    [quote]<strong>I sometimes wonder how bad it'll get before Apple bites the bullet and uses an Intel or AMD chip (big, hot, cheap, scalable, CISC) in their computers. I sure hope IBM can get the PowerPC moving again. If not I don't know what'll happen. We've already waited 3 years for a G5, let's hope when we actually do get one it'll be really good.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple will not go x86 for any products while the PPC is still in development with a reasonable future. They *know* more about the future of the IBM and Mot chip lines than we do. Mot is *good* at designing chips, they just seem to have production problems and a management willing to abandon prototype products like the mysterious Mot G5 that we thought would be out in early to mid '02. (Either that or all leaks from the development program have been stopped and they are having large problems again... unlikely, I think.)



    MM



    [ 02-23-2003: Message edited by: MartianMatt ]



    [ 02-23-2003: Message edited by: MartianMatt ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 45
    poopoodoctorpoopoodoctor Posts: 143member
    This is where Apple should put the G3







  • Reply 11 of 45
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]Uhm, just what advantage would a G3 give compared to a G4? Ok, its probably somewhat less energy-consuming, but it still doesnt support Altivec and never will.<hr></blockquote>



    Because then it wouldn't be a G3 anymore ? To the consumer Altivec is The Big G3 -&gt; G4 difference, so if a 7x0 gained Altivec I think it would probably be marketed as a G4.



    The Gx naming scheme could be facing trouble as the PowerPC 970 is still a fourth generation PowerPC but is vastly different from Motorola's G4. Maybe Apple will drop the processor name from the computer's name, and just have "PowerMac" or "iMac" ranges? Nah, not nearly interesting enough...



    Although the P4/Athlon buses may have a clock of "only" 166MHz, double or quad pumping them provides much more bandwidth. Maybe not 2x or 4x, but still more than a 1/5 increase in clock speed.
  • Reply 12 of 45
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,458member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stoo:

    <strong>The Gx naming scheme could be facing trouble as the PowerPC 970 is still a fourth generation PowerPC but is vastly different from Motorola's G4. Maybe Apple will drop the processor name from the computer's name, and just have "PowerMac" or "iMac" ranges? Nah, not nearly interesting enough...

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    So in what way is the PowerPC970 still a 4th generation PowerPC? It is the biggest architectural change ever in the PowerPC family, and you don't think that warrants an increment of the generation number?! Considering that the generation numbering is completely arbitrary I don't think this is going to be any kind of a problem.



    Personally I hate the whole named chip thing -- Pentium? Itanium? No thanks, lets just call it a PowerPC G5. Put the "POWER" back into "PowerPC".
  • Reply 13 of 45
    os10geekos10geek Posts: 413member
    Personall, I think that having another "G" processor would sound just plain goddam stupid. Let it be the Powermac 970: a no-frills, informative name.
  • Reply 14 of 45
    hotboxdhotboxd Posts: 125member
    How about PowerMac X1?
  • Reply 15 of 45
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    Though I dont have a vote in how Apple will deal with the naming of the next processor that they use, I think os10geek idea would be best. The Gx naming convention made sense in the days of the G3, when chips were made by both IBM and Moto were sold under a common name by Apple. However that is not the case today, Motorolla is the sole supplier for the G4, and IBM will be for the 970. I think that it makes more sense to use the 970 name now becouse it shows a clear "break" from the G4 fiasco's that Apple has been living with since its introduction. Another reason is that IBM will be marketing computers using the 970's as well, as might other companies. This will allow Apple to take advantage of IBM's advertising, and succes of IBM's systems y identifying thier computers with IBM's.
  • Reply 16 of 45
    os10geekos10geek Posts: 413member
    My point exactly. But I do think that naming the next-gen Powermac after a Fighterjet and/or a spacecraft would be an attractive idea, Hoboxt...
  • Reply 17 of 45
    rampancyrampancy Posts: 363member
    Honestly, what's wrong with the G3? If you're not a Photoshop jockey or playing optimized games like Giants, the G3 is a fine processor, age notwithstanding. Have you read ThinkSecret's reports on the "GOBI" G3? I think DDR was part of the reported spec.



    The paths of the G3 and G4 have diverged far enough that a G4 is no longer a G3 + Altivec (or at least that's what I've been told here), and I'm sure that a G3 + VMX + DDR would be an ass-kicking chip for the iBook (or a tablet, if Apple decides to make one). By the time such a chip comes out though, we should be hopefully be seeing PB's with the 7457-RM or a 970.



    Or perhaps maybe even dual-processor PB's?
  • Reply 18 of 45
    os10geekos10geek Posts: 413member
    OS X itself runs faster and more dependably on a G4, even if you are not running Photoshop. It should be mandatory on any Mac (iBook shifts uncomfortably in its seat)
  • Reply 19 of 45
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    [quote]Honestly, what's wrong with the G3? <hr></blockquote>



    Two things offhand



    1. No Altivec(anyone with a G4 and a G3 will tell you there's a difference even at the OS level)



    2. Inferior FPU compared to the G4 in particular with Double Precison math(slower)



    [quote]and I'm sure that a G3 + VMX + DDR would be an ass-kicking chip for the iBook <hr></blockquote>



    Why go through the effort? The same effort to make a G3 support DDR could be added to the G4.



    [quote] By the time such a chip comes out though, we should be hopefully be seeing PB's with the 7457-RM or a 970. <hr></blockquote>



    It's never coming out. There's not point. Once Apple moves to the 970 they are at the liberty to use the 130nm G4's in everything else. Once the PPC 970 moves to 90nm Apple will be able to easily put them in Powerbooks.



    Fixing up the G3 is akin to adding a Turbo to a Civic...sure you'll get a boost in speed ..but it still ain't a M3
  • Reply 20 of 45
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,458member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>Why go through the effort? The same effort to make a G3 support DDR could be added to the G4. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    There is one very good reason: the 745x is a Motorola design. If IBM wants to compete with Motorola in the low-power high-performance PowerPC market they need to start with something. If NMR is to be believed they will take an enhanced 7x0 core, mate it to the 44x SoC design, add their VMX implementation, do some fancy power-saving stuff, and put it on an advanced IBM Microelectronics process. If the result is faster, cheaper, and cooler than Motorola's best, then Apple will use it.
Sign In or Register to comment.