or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › G5 Rumors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

G5 Rumors - Page 4

post #121 of 484
post #122 of 484
[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?
post #123 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by PowerMac G4:
[QB][/QB]<hr></blockquote>


So what's that mean PM G4? Are you going to say something?
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #124 of 484
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.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #125 of 484
hey... PM G4 is back!!!!! excellent, excellent.
but... no comments so far?

btw: scheisskopf, nice nick you have.... heh
Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off of my property!
Reply
Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off of my property!
Reply
post #126 of 484
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>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 484
[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>

post #128 of 484
[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?
post #129 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Kommissar Rex:
<strong>

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

It's "Neuschreib"!
post #130 of 484
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.
post #131 of 484
[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>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 484
[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

post #133 of 484
[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.
post #134 of 484
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?
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #135 of 484
Not if they intent on keeping it or getting more in the future. That's what a NDA is for.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #136 of 484
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.
post #137 of 484
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>
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
post #138 of 484
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>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #139 of 484
[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]" />
post #140 of 484
[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....
post #141 of 484
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.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #142 of 484
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?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #143 of 484
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.
post #144 of 484
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.....
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #145 of 484
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 484
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?
post #147 of 484
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.
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #148 of 484
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]" />
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #149 of 484
[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:

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #150 of 484
Hopefully the LCD iMac will get the new Apollo chip. That would be sweet.
ICQ: 41746288
Apple Computer: The company you love to hate, and hate to love...
Reply
ICQ: 41746288
Apple Computer: The company you love to hate, and hate to love...
Reply
post #151 of 484
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]" />
überlurker since oct '99
_my backpacks got jets_
Reply
überlurker since oct '99
_my backpacks got jets_
Reply
post #152 of 484
[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]" />
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #153 of 484
[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?
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #154 of 484
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>
post #155 of 484
[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.



[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 484
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.
überlurker since oct '99
_my backpacks got jets_
Reply
überlurker since oct '99
_my backpacks got jets_
Reply
post #157 of 484
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.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #158 of 484
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.
post #159 of 484
[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?"
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #160 of 484
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › G5 Rumors