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

G5 Rumors - Page 3

post #81 of 484
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.
post #82 of 484
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.
post #83 of 484
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.
Eugene
Reply
Eugene
Reply
post #84 of 484
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.
post #85 of 484
[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
post #86 of 484
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"
post #87 of 484
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">
post #88 of 484
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
post #89 of 484
i am building the plastics now
post #90 of 484
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.


Because the people who are crazy enough to think thay can change the world, are the ones who do
Reply
Because the people who are crazy enough to think thay can change the world, are the ones who do
Reply
post #91 of 484
[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
wow my very own signature
Reply
wow my very own signature
Reply
post #92 of 484
nice to see "kim kap sol" back also,
tell us something more bout it?
post #93 of 484
[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?
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #94 of 484
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

?
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #95 of 484
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....
post #96 of 484
[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 )
post #97 of 484
[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

No, seriously, I'm thinking about it. Depending on what software I need for my classes next semester, I might not have any choice.
post #98 of 484
[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 ........
post #99 of 484
[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.
post #100 of 484
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 ...)
post #101 of 484
[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.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #102 of 484
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.
post #103 of 484
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
In a fast German car I'm amazed that I survived. An airbag saved my life. - Radiohead
Reply
In a fast German car I'm amazed that I survived. An airbag saved my life. - Radiohead
Reply
post #104 of 484
[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>
You can't get here from there.
Reply
You can't get here from there.
Reply
post #105 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Caler:
[QB][/QB]<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.
You can't get here from there.
Reply
You can't get here from there.
Reply
post #106 of 484
[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....
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 #107 of 484
[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.
Microsoft knows what's best for you, so keep quiet, open your wallet, and be a team player.
Reply
Microsoft knows what's best for you, so keep quiet, open your wallet, and be a team player.
Reply
post #108 of 484
[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!
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #109 of 484
[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.
post #110 of 484
[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!
post #111 of 484
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
post #112 of 484
[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>
"The only laptop computer that's useful is the one you have with you."
Until we get a 3 lbs sub-PowerBook, the 12-inch PowerBook will do.
Reply
"The only laptop computer that's useful is the one you have with you."
Until we get a 3 lbs sub-PowerBook, the 12-inch PowerBook will do.
Reply
post #113 of 484
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.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #114 of 484
[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>
post #115 of 484
[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.
post #116 of 484
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>
post #117 of 484
[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.
post #118 of 484
[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?"
Ich bin a big jelly donut.
Reply
Ich bin a big jelly donut.
Reply
post #119 of 484
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
post #120 of 484
[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.
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › G5 Rumors