or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The G5 and what it means for future Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The G5 and what it means for future Macs - Page 9

post #321 of 357
While this is just me speculating...

I have a funny feeling Dorsal might not return...

[I was going to list the reasons but as I wrote them I felt like I was providing info that might really out him. So they have been removed]

The date of his last post is about the only clue I can give. I sure hope I'm wrong but if he works for the company I think he does... Dorsal will not return.

Dave

P.S. If you do figure it out please don't post it.

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #322 of 357
Disappointed?

I thought the G5 was going to be released in a '32 bit' version first...then 64 bit some time later?

So that's 'two' G5s...but...

But it looks as if there's going to be at least one more round of G4s before that.

So it's Apollo 2nd round of G4s at 1 gig to 1.6?

Then 7500 (G5?) at 32 bit flavour first...

...then 64 bit flavour 2nd.

So...Apollo bump at Newyork this year.

7500 introduced at San Fran 2003.

64 bit flavour at New York 2003?

Just guesses.

What further complicates these issues is the rumoured IBM chip and talk of Moto's 'G5' being supposedly 'rejected'.

A recent 'news' item at the register indicated IBM is to ready some PowerPCs that are multicore with Rapid IO...and G3s at up to 2 gig with SIMD unit?

Are Moto's and IBM's paths converging after the Somerset rift?

I'm dying to see how the processor thing plays out over the next year.

The AMD/Intel slugfest is indirectly piling on the pressue for the AIM alliance to do 'SOMETHING'!!!

Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #323 of 357
I think there will be some more updates to the G4 processor. Why did they call the Apollo6 the 'MPC7455' instead of 'MPC7460' ? If you continue in steps of 10 this would only have left space for 3 future versions (7470, 7480 and 7490).

I've heard that Apple and Motorola intend to use a strategy similar to the OS strategy after the Copland fiasko. Instead of one big update they will use technology from the next generation and implement it into the current G4 using time intervals of about 6 months.

The next G4 version shall get a DDR interface borrowed from the MPC7500 and can be expected for mid year (SOI 0.13 @ about 1.5 Ghz). Then, in early 2003, the G4 will get a 10 stage pipeline plus 512kb on-die L2-cache and reach 2 Ghz.

This might also explain the rumors about the G5 being 'killed' by Apple. The first MPC using RapidIO should then officially be called 'G5' by Apple.
post #324 of 357
"I think there will be some more updates to the G4 processor."

Groan. I think most of us are resigned to this.

"Why did they call the Apollo6 the 'MPC7455' instead of 'MPC7460' ? If you continue in steps of 10 this would only have left space for 3 future versions (7470, 7480 and 7490)."

..and if the G4 remains, fundamentally the same processor...then Apple are going to look laughably out of date and ridiculously overprice even with a superior mobo revision.

"I've heard that Apple and Motorola intend to use a strategy similar to the OS strategy after the Copland fiasko. Instead of one big update they will use technology from the next generation and implement it into the current G4 using time intervals of about 6 months."

Using technology from the next revision is a fair idea. Guess it keeps to a bare minimum things that can go 'wrong'. However, the G4 fiasco has left us wanting more than a few things borrowed. Some Apple watchers are happy with a mobo G4 revision. I think that's the least we should have had at San Fran this year and overdue at that!

"The next G4 version shall get a DDR interface borrowed from the MPC7500 and can be expected for mid year (SOI 0.13 @ about 1.5 Ghz)."

That would have been a 'good' (but not excellent ...) machine at this year's San Fran'...but now it's painfully over due...

"Then, in early 2003, the G4 will get a 10 stage pipeline plus 512kb on-die L2-cache and reach 2 Ghz."

Yeah. But even if that were to be delivered at Mac New York this year. It's still catch up. It aint leap frogging the opposition. Apple customers are still paying over the odds for catch up performance.

"This might also explain the rumors about the G5 being 'killed' by Apple. The first MPC using RapidIO should then officially be called 'G5' by Apple."

The first G4 in a Rapid IO framework will be called 'G5'? I think that's fraudulent. It's a con.

Unless...something's done to boost the G4's performance fundamentally.

It's FPU is a joke compared to the Athlon. Take away Altivec and the jumped up G3/G4 is a joke.

I hope your scenario is the worst case. Good post by the way.




Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #325 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by haderach:
<strong>I think there will be some more updates to the G4 processor. Why did they call the Apollo6 the 'MPC7455' instead of 'MPC7460' ? If you continue in steps of 10 this would only have left space for 3 future versions (7470, 7480 and 7490).

I've heard that Apple and Motorola intend to use a strategy similar to the OS strategy after the Copland fiasko. Instead of one big update they will use technology from the next generation and implement it into the current G4 using time intervals of about 6 months.

The next G4 version shall get a DDR interface borrowed from the MPC7500 and can be expected for mid year (SOI 0.13 @ about 1.5 Ghz). Then, in early 2003, the G4 will get a 10 stage pipeline plus 512kb on-die L2-cache and reach 2 Ghz.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a reasonable assumption. Look at nVidia and how their strategy allows for 6 month intervals between updates. This also keeps them ahead of the competition.

Regarding the L2 cache, I believe we'll see 512kb cache this summer as the standard G4 7460?? migrates to the .13u HiP7 process.

I'm expecting dual 1.2Ghz systems on the same MOBO this summer at the minimum. Anything beyond that will be more than expected and long overdue. Dual 1.4 Ghz systems with DDR are certaintly possible and would be more than expected.

Steve
post #326 of 357
I think Apple has got to come out with much faster hardware soon if they want pros to buy Shake for OS X. It was announced that Shake 2.5 will be the last for Windows. They will still do Irix and Linux.

DDR mobo with a 2 GHZ 7460 would be about right. MWSF 03?

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: CodeWarrior ]</p>
post #327 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by haderach:
<strong>I think there will be some more updates to the G4 processor. Why did they call the Apollo6 the 'MPC7455' instead of 'MPC7460' ? If you continue in steps of 10 this would only have left space for 3 future versions (7470, 7480 and 7490).

I've heard that Apple and Motorola intend to use a strategy similar to the OS strategy after the Copland fiasko. Instead of one big update they will use technology from the next generation and implement it into the current G4 using time intervals of about 6 months.

The next G4 version shall get a DDR interface borrowed from the MPC7500 and can be expected for mid year (SOI 0.13 @ about 1.5 Ghz). Then, in early 2003, the G4 will get a 10 stage pipeline plus 512kb on-die L2-cache and reach 2 Ghz.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, the G4 is going to get technology from the G5. It will "trickle down" to the G4, as a way to keep the G4 modern and maintain its clockspeed.

As Apple's consumer chip, the G4 will still need to be under development so that it's clock speed remains competitive. But this does not mean that the G5 no longer exists. On the contrary, it means that the G5 is the chip that will implement Motorola's newest technologies.

As these new technologies are implemented in the G5, they will then be employed in the G4's design. But the the G5 will still have a new and improved architecture.

A key development is that Apple has turned to Motorola for virtually all of their CPUs. Imagine how much money is now flowing into Motorola from their desktop PPC sales! Only a year ago, Apple was buying only G4s for their Powermac lineup from Motorola, now Apple is using Motorola CPU's in all of their Macs except the iBook (which will soon get a G4).

Would Apple give Motorola so much business if they had dropped the ball on the G5? If they had nothing promising for Apple? If they couldn't supply Apple with competitive CPUs? I think not. I believe what is happening is that Motorola are reaping the rewards for their recent commitment to PPC development, and that Apple will soon be buying ALL of their CPU from Motorola, including the G5.

It is an exciting time for Powermac development, and we are going to see the shift to a new PPC architecture and a new high-bandwidth mobo in the near future. Apple is once again going to own the professional high performance hardware market...the new powermacs will be the envy of the Wintel world. Hold onto your butts 'cause it's going to be HUGE!!!
post #328 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>A key development is that Apple has turned to Motorola for virtually all of their CPUs. Imagine how much money is now flowing into Motorola from their desktop PPC sales! Only a year ago, Apple was buying only G4s for their Powermac lineup from Motorola, now Apple is using Motorola CPU's in all of their Macs except the iBook (which will soon get a G4).</strong><hr></blockquote>

what so many seem to forget is that the embedded market presents much greater sales numbers than the desktop market. compared to many other parts of their business, motorola makes very little money selling chips to apple. there are probably 30 times as many embedded chips in my car than their are in my computer.
post #329 of 357
True, but Motorola is now selling over twice as many G4 chips to Apple. While this may not be a great number in comparison to moto's embedded chip sales, it's still a significant increase in desktop PPC sales that have a positive impact on Moto's commitment to the G5.

Not only is this good news for Motorola, but perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates to Moto that there still is good money to be made in desktop PPC sales, and that there is the POTENTIAL for a successful G5 to bring in mondo sales for Motorola. Apple's commitment to the G4 shows Motorola what might happen if they deliver on their G5 rhetoric, and surely Motorola must recognize that if Apple's marketshare improves, they will directly benefit. Apple is dangling the carrot in front of Moto--all they need to do is give Apple a bitchin' CPU and then it's wide open for OS X's market share to skyrocket.

[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
post #330 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>True, but Motorola is now selling over twice as many G4 chips to Apple. While this may not be a great number in comparison to moto's embedded chip sales, it's still a significant increase in desktop PPC sales that have a positive impact on Moto's commitment to the G5.

Not only is this good news for Motorola, but perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates to Moto that there still is good money to be made in desktop PPC sales, and that there is the POTENTIAL for a successful G5 to bring in mondo sales for Motorola. Apple's commitment to the G4 shows Motorola what might happen if they deliver on their G5 rhetoric, and surely Motorola must recognize that if Apple's marketshare improves, they will directly benefit. Apple is dangling the carrot in front of Moto--all they need to do is give Apple a bitchin' CPU and then it's wide open for OS X's market share to skyrocket.

[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

If I was running Moto than I would have to take a long hard look at our relationship with Apple. Not much sales as compared with the other chip sales. Yet Apple demands higher performance chips which pushes costs up, but Apple pays for R&D that can be transferred to other chip products. This is common sense and I write this to point out that there is a balance point. It appears to me from the outside looking in that IBM is a better fit right now. IBM already makes the Power4 which is high end, I'm not saying that Apple will use it, rather that the infrastructure to make high end chips in quantity is already there. IBM ups the capabilities of the infrastructure for themselves and for he other customers that come to them for custom chips. So why not use IBM?? Apple has a relationship with Moto and that is a business relationship. It appears to me that Moto would be better off in concentrating on developing that new communications chip technology that they have, and let IBM take over the Apple next chip development and production. Moto can still supply the G4 for the consumer market of Apple since they already are making them. IBM would take over development of the next chip G5 whatever that is. BookE said it all, "this will make it very easy for PPC development to be transferred between the the companies that are developing and manufacturing PPC chips.

That is what I see at least.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #331 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

If I was running Moto than I would have to take a long hard look at our relationship with Apple. Not much sales as compared with the other chip sales. Yet Apple demands higher performance chips which pushes costs up, but Apple pays for R&D that can be transferred to other chip products. This is common sense and I write this to point out that there is a balance point.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Embedded" doesn't mean "wimpy." There are embedded applications (high-end routers, telephone switches) that crush any desktop in terms of raw computational power. The 7455 has won accolades in the embedded-chip press, and the likes of Cisco will buy the fastest chips Mot can crank out. So it's not just Apple pushing them; there's a high-end embedded market, and Motorola's moving into it.
"...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 #332 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>

"Embedded" doesn't mean "wimpy." There are embedded applications (high-end routers, telephone switches) that crush any desktop in terms of raw computational power. The 7455 has won accolades in the embedded-chip press, and the likes of Cisco will buy the fastest chips Mot can crank out. So it's not just Apple pushing them; there's a high-end embedded market, and Motorola's moving into it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry I did not mean to imply embedded==wimpy. Good point. I agree there are very high end embedded chips. My point was that I think that Moto would be better off developing their new technology and still improve the 7xxx series. If Apple wants way beyond that, I guess I hope they do, than Moto would be better served by concentrating on what's on their own plate. If we are looking at two or three FPUs and DDR memory than Moto can handle that. I think that I am implying that Apple might be after something much more, as was eluded to earlier.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #333 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>If I was running Moto than I would have to take a long hard look at our relationship with Apple. Not much sales as compared with the other chip sales. Yet Apple demands higher performance chips which pushes costs up, but Apple pays for R&D that can be transferred to other chip products. This is common sense and I write this to point out that there is a balance point. It appears to me from the outside looking in that IBM is a better fit right now. IBM already makes the Power4 which is high end, I'm not saying that Apple will use it, rather that the infrastructure to make high end chips in quantity is already there. IBM ups the capabilities of the infrastructure for themselves and for he other customers that come to them for custom chips. So why not use IBM?? Apple has a relationship with Moto and that is a business relationship. It appears to me that Moto would be better off in concentrating on developing that new communications chip technology that they have, and let IBM take over the Apple next chip development and production. Moto can still supply the G4 for the consumer market of Apple since they already are making them. IBM would take over development of the next chip G5 whatever that is. BookE said it all, "this will make it very easy for PPC development to be transferred between the the companies that are developing and manufacturing PPC chips.

That is what I see at least.</strong><hr></blockquote>

exactly.

[quote]<strong>
True, but Motorola is now selling over twice as many G4 chips to Apple. While this may not be a great number in comparison to moto's embedded chip sales, it's still a significant increase in desktop PPC sales that have a positive impact on Moto's commitment to the G5.

Not only is this good news for Motorola, but perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates to Moto that there still is good money to be made in desktop PPC sales, and that there is the POTENTIAL for a successful G5 to bring in mondo sales for Motorola. Apple's commitment to the G4 shows Motorola what might happen if they deliver on their G5 rhetoric, and surely Motorola must recognize that if Apple's marketshare improves, they will directly benefit. Apple is dangling the carrot in front of Moto--all they need to do is give Apple a bitchin' CPU and then it's wide open for OS X's market share to skyrocket.</strong><hr></blockquote>

well, twice as much of very little is still not much. add to the low sales the fact that apple is a very demanding company to work with and i can see how the relationship could have soured.

let's say you make $100k a year performing a service. i'm one of your customers and i pay you $2k a year, but take up as much time and resources as one of your $30k clients. me paying $4k the next year only makes me somewhat more tolerable, but still not a good or significant enough customer to cause you so much grief.
post #334 of 357
The G5 will appear as soon as Motorola will be able to fab efficiently in SOI 0,13 .

There is only one company now able to produce efficiently on SOI 0,13 it's IBM. AMD is not supposed to produce SOI 0,13 until the end of the year, and for the moment does not produc 0,13 micron process. Intel fab on 0,13 process but not on SOI (or equivalent).

Mot will continue to improve the G4 line (perhaps using some G5 tweaks) until he can reach o,13 SOI. When Mot will reach this limit, the G5 will appear. The architecture is ready but not the fab process. Contrary to the past where Mot was stuck at 500 mhz, Mot will not wait the new fab process without do any improvement on his chip line. We have the 7455 who add just a new gestion of the L3 cache, we will have soon the 7460 that will have DDR memory controller, but the same amount of L2 cache if still make on a 0,18 micron process. I think that the 512 L2 cache will wait until 0,13 , like the Intel chips.

So i make this statement : 7460 with ddr memory controller for MWNY. G5 in 2003 perhaps in january if Mot is not too late in the developpement of 0,13 SOI.

I am not a chip engineer, but iam ready to bet it's more simple to make an new chip architecture than to develop a new fab process.
post #335 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
I am not a chip engineer, but iam ready to bet it's more simple to make an new chip architecture than to develop a new fab process.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Could you please elaborate.

If this relates to the IBM stuff, BookE was mentioned. And IBM has manufactured the G4 for Apple when supplies from Moto were low.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #336 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

Could you please elaborate.

If this relates to the IBM stuff, BookE was mentioned. And IBM has manufactured the G4 for Apple when supplies from Moto were low.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll will say that the amount of R&D necessary for developping new fab process is more important than the amount of R&D needed for chip design. Motorola alone is not anymore rich enough to develop new fab process : that's why with Philips and other he created a new research center in France. Many companies are able to design chips, like nvidia, but very few companies are able to develop new fab process. You certainly know the Moore's law about the number of transistor included in a chip, there is an another law, fab process are more and more expansive in an exponantial way either.
post #337 of 357
The G5 and what it means for the future of Macs.

Continued stable sales and profits for Apple Computer. The company

[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: fellow722 ]</p>
Let Apple be Apple.
Reply
Let Apple be Apple.
Reply
post #338 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
I'll will say that the amount of R&D necessary for developping new fab process is more important than the amount of R&D needed for chip design. Motorola alone is not anymore rich enough to develop new fab process : that's why with Philips and other he created a new research center in France. Many companies are able to design chips, like nvidia, but very few companies are able to develop new fab process. You certainly know the Moore's law about the number of transistor included in a chip, there is an another law, fab process are more and more expansive in an exponantial way either.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Making Other Companies Chips is something that IBM does, they are just a hired gun, or manufacturer if you will. This is nothing new. Am I missing something? If you wanted to develop the PowerDoc G5 chip, and you had the money, IBM would make it for you, in quantity. It would help allot and probably be cheaper if the design were BookE compliant. This is where Apple could be. They maybe have designed a chip based on BookE, or have asked IBM to develop a chip for them based on BookE. As far as capacity is concerned IBM may have more than enough capacity. And IBM has leading technology that is shipping. Copper, SOI, Low k dielectric. I don't think that IBM would have to add capacity for Apple, is that what you are saying? I mean to be conservative IBM would need at the outside 4 Million chips to more than cover Apples orders, that may sound like allot, but I venture that 4mil is a drop in the bucket.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #339 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>

Making Other Companies Chips is something that IBM does, they are just a hired gun, or manufacturer if you will. This is nothing new. Am I missing something? If you wanted to develop the PowerDoc G5 chip, and you had the money, IBM would make it for you, in quantity. It would help allot and probably be cheaper if the design were BookE compliant. This is where Apple could be. They maybe have designed a chip based on BookE, or have asked IBM to develop a chip for them based on BookE. As far as capacity is concerned IBM may have more than enough capacity. And IBM has leading technology that is shipping. Copper, SOI, Low k dielectric. I don't think that IBM would have to add capacity for Apple, is that what you are saying? I mean to be conservative IBM would need at the outside 4 Million chips to more than cover Apples orders, that may sound like allot, but I venture that 4mil is a drop in the bucket.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with what you say , but i was speakind of Mot and not IBM. Mot own the altivec licenses. Without Altivec the PPC chips are very crappy and will loose all the benchmarks against the X86 chips. Perhaps Mot want to keep one of this biggest customer : Apple and wont let him going elsewhere. It's possible that Mot does not wanted to license altivec to anyone else to protect him.
Without altivec , i am ready to bet that all the PPC Apple chips will be fabbed by IBM.
post #340 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
I agree with what you say , but i was speakind of Mot and not IBM. Mot own the altivec licenses. Without Altivec the PPC chips are very crappy and will loose all the benchmarks against the X86 chips. Perhaps Mot want to keep one of this biggest customer : Apple and wont let him going elsewhere. It's possible that Mot does not wanted to license altivec to anyone else to protect him.
Without altivec , i am ready to bet that all the PPC Apple chips will be fabbed by IBM.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah Ha...Altivec, I see, I agree. It does seem that Apple would be interested in Altivec, but what if instead of buying Altivec Apple licenses it from Moto. That way Moto can keep making chips for Cisco, and Apple can then still have it included in the chips made for them. I think that this would be good for both. And would be much cheaper than trying to buy the entire PPC license from Moto, which I always thought was unrealistic. And I think that Apple had some hand, probably small, in developing the initial version of altivec. If i remember correctly Apple had more to do with the latest version of Altivec. There was a time, maybe a year ago maybe a little longer that Moto announced a slightly improved version of Altivec. I think that Apple had more than a passive role in bring that to market. So co-licensing Altivec could be done, and would still serve both companies. I think that Apple has the talent on board to develop their own next version of altivec.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #341 of 357
[quote]Work on the G5 (MPC7500) is progressing nicely at Motorola and I can only assume Apple had a role in the development as there are many features included that are condusive to a top-notch desktop processor capable of bring the PowerMac into the 21st centure as a real performer in the compute intensive field.
A recent development box has allowed us to open and examine some details that appeal to us as engineers and hardware designers. One of the machines is built in a G4 case with a smaller motherboard. the interesting part is that the motherboard is a cheaper 4 layer variety while the CPU daughter card is made on a more expensive 8 layer board. the reason for this is very simple and I will get to that in a moment. The CPU card itself is similar in shape and pin connector to the one used in modern G4s but is a bit larger in surface area. The reason for this is the fact that the G5 CPU has a built-in memory controller that interacts with high-speed DDR-SDRAM. This RAM runs at 133MHz DDR but the G5 documentation we have (preliminary) states that 166MHz DDR (333MHz effective) is supported. To run at these fast speeds you must utilize 2 dimensional PCB space efficiently. Apple has done this well. On the CPU daughter card you will find 3 slots for DDR-SDRAM DIMMS. They are distanced from the actual CPU core to allow for the heatsink placement, but in this configuration (since on the card the CPU is hard soldered to the PCB) you can design DIMM slots that can operate at 133, 166, and quite possibly 200MHz at DDR speeds. In fact, I believe the impedence should be low enough to allow for 4 DIMM slots. No L3 RAM is located on the card although it is fully supported under the documentation.

RapidIO is used to connect the CPU to a centralized controller that controls peripherals such as gigabit ethernet, Firewire, USB, ATA interface, audio input/output, AGP/PCI bridge, etc. The RapidIO interface operates in a 16 bit full duplex mode running at 500MHz. This bus is seperate from the memory bus and therefore asyncronous. It does not share the bus either like with the G4 and MPX. PCI-X seems to be implimented fully (it's backwards compatible with PCI 32/64) and AGP remains operating at 4X speeds.

A whole new paradigm in PowerMac design will be introduced soon and it will be a modern example in smart computer design, taking advantage of new trechnologies and foward thinking design. These are late beta machines and the finishing touches are being applied to cut out the rough edges for consumer consumption. <hr></blockquote>

Hmmm...Maybe we should discuss this again...

I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #342 of 357
"I have a funny feeling Dorsal might not return..."

Well, the 'ghost' of his 'thread past' does...keep returning.

So I guess he's here in spirit.

Bodhi. I've just looked at the 'info' to Steve jobs server pic you loaded.

Interesting. I think I see what you're getting at... The devil is in the detail...hmmmmm. Or rather, looking at the details in light of recent events.

Maybe New York won't be such a damp squib after all?

(Well, with every product line updated by the ibook or Powermac...then...well, it had better be something really special...)

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #343 of 357
If it, the G5 was in 'late Beta'.

It should be due by August?


Macworld San Fran next year at the lastest?

Lemon Bon Bon.
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #344 of 357
the g5 WILL be coming out at MWNY!
remember who told ya!
all you doubters will be humbled!!!!
post #345 of 357
I'd love to be humbled for a negative prognosis for a change, and not always for the positive ones.

Moore's law, Apple, not Murphy's

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #346 of 357
i believe we'll see it at mwny too. from what i've heard it should be sampling right about now or a few weeks ago. i'm keeping my fingers crossed as well.
post #347 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>The G5 will appear as soon as Motorola will be able to fab efficiently in SOI 0,13 .

There is only one company now able to produce efficiently on SOI 0,13 it's IBM. AMD is not supposed to produce SOI 0,13 until the end of the year, and for the moment does not produc 0,13 micron process. Intel fab on 0,13 process but not on SOI (or equivalent).

Mot will continue to improve the G4 line (perhaps using some G5 tweaks) until he can reach o,13 SOI. When Mot will reach this limit, the G5 will appear. The architecture is ready but not the fab process. Contrary to the past where Mot was stuck at 500 mhz, Mot will not wait the new fab process without do any improvement on his chip line. We have the 7455 who add just a new gestion of the L3 cache, we will have soon the 7460 that will have DDR memory controller, but the same amount of L2 cache if still make on a 0,18 micron process. I think that the 512 L2 cache will wait until 0,13 , like the Intel chips.

So i make this statement : 7460 with ddr memory controller for MWNY. G5 in 2003 perhaps in january if Mot is not too late in the developpement of 0,13 SOI.

I am not a chip engineer, but iam ready to bet it's more simple to make an new chip architecture than to develop a new fab process.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are thinking of the 7470 G4. The 7470 is the one that will be .13micron, support DDR-Ram, 512k L2, and 4MB L3.

The 7460 will be .13micron and doesn't support L3.
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 #348 of 357
As others have stated in different ways, such as,
'if you just stop buying from Apple, then Apple has to guess as to why; but if you write them, then they know what to aim for'?

We are all beckoning for the 'great G5' and we all yearn for greater overall speed. Well, how much do we want (realistically)?

How would you like to give Apple a clear idea of what it is we want as well as a means to hold them accountable to our market demand?

The answer to this is for us to publish a comprehensive list of desired performance metrics. These metrics would not pertain to some component but to results, such as how fast to render a DVD, how long to perform some operation in Photoshop (already available probably), audio/video latency, number of audio channels supported (?...for those 5.1 folks out there), etc.

I'd really like for us to put out heads together on this (start a new thread; I'm not sure if a newbie can on this forum) and publish something to challenge Apple with, something specific and results oriented.

But this is challenging for us to put together. Otherwise, we could just keep bantering about ambiguous performance desires that can seldom be boiled down into anything more than 'something that kick's the x86's worlds ass'. We could make a real impact by publishing detailed performance metrics objectives!!!

Eirik <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #349 of 357
-----------Nudge--------------


According to recent rumors, it appears that a 1.5 GHz G5 may make an appearance at MWNY. If it does, then we can expect a RapdiIO bus and that the bandwidth problem on Powermacs will be solved.

The question is, why hasn't Dorsal posted recently?

When Dorsal has new prototypes that are a generation ahead of the G5 he describes here, then we will know the G5 is about to be released. For example, if Dorsal suddenly got a test mule with PC2700 RAM in place of PC2100 RAM, then that would be a good sign that the first G5 Powermacs are ready.
post #350 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>For example, if Dorsal suddenly got a test mule with PC2700 RAM in place of PC2100 RAM, then that would be a good sign that the first G5 Powermacs are ready.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is his/her last post:
"A whole new paradigm in PowerMac design will be introduced soon and it will be a modern example in smart computer design, taking advantage of new trechnologies and foward thinking design. These are late beta machines and the finishing touches are being applied to cut out the rough edges for consumer consumption.
An undisclosed amount of time ago we received 2 new PowerMacs for testing. These were in generic G4 cases but were painted another color (black). I doubt this is indicative of future case but an attempt to obfuscate what the real case will look like.
These 2 systems are similar to the last one we received. Both are G5 based running at speeds of 1.33GHz and 1.66GHz. As you can tell from these speeds, the RapidIO bus has been upgraded from 500MHz to 667MHz, most likely, in my opinion, to be more syncronous with a DDR-333 RAM option, although this is not as necessary as those to busses are not shared as they were with MPX. I beleive this processor also is limited to processing 32bit integers but memory addressing has been increased to the 40-48bit area. In the documentation it shows the motherboards having support for 64GB but that processor can access more in future motherboard implementations. Possibly as high as 4TB (42bit addressing). The heatsinks are minimal with no active cooling so higher speed processors are likely down the pipeline. These units have full support for PC2700 DDR-SDRAM and contain 3 slots on the card. AGP remains 4X (GeForce4 MX) and the standard 4 PCI slots are all operational. Testing will begin sometime today. I hope to have more details soon."

PC- 2700 you see
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #351 of 357
post #352 of 357
When did Dorsal make that post? It is strange thet he hasn't told us what he has found about the machine he describes. Has he been rumbled, I would have thought we would have heard something, as we have when other insiders have been caught.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
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 #353 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>-----------Nudge--------------


According to recent rumors, it appears that a 1.5 GHz G5 may make an appearance at MWNY. If it does, then we can expect a RapdiIO bus and that the bandwidth problem on Powermacs will be solved.

The question is, why hasn't Dorsal posted recently?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hint ... Look at the date of Doral's last post, then go back to "the road to MWNY" thread and ready some of the posts on May 27th.
post #354 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>When did Dorsal make that post? It is strange thet he hasn't told us what he has found about the machine he describes. Has he been rumbled, I would have thought we would have heard something, as we have when other insiders have been caught.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that was his last post, the first part of April (3rd?? maybe).
post #355 of 357
C'mon guys, what does it take? A sledgehammer? "Early April"... come on, think about it. April 1st would be in early April, wouldn't it? And what's April 1st again?

Don't make me call Captain Obvious.
- Apple certified service tech
- Mac user since 1985
- All around Mac dork
Reply
- Apple certified service tech
- Mac user since 1985
- All around Mac dork
Reply
post #356 of 357
Did a search for Dorsal stuff earlier, was his last post not at the end of April? 23rd or something? Can't remember, might be wrong, but I don't think it was early April - who posts April fools joks on the 3rd of April anyway?
Graeme D Warren
Reply
Graeme D Warren
Reply
post #357 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Graeme D Warren:
<strong>Did a search for Dorsal stuff earlier, was his last post not at the end of April? 23rd or something? Can't remember, might be wrong, but I don't think it was early April - who posts April fools joks on the 3rd of April anyway? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Unless I missed it, 4/3/02 in this thread was his last. There were 3 in March (19, 20, 21) in this thread. And his lack of posts afterwards, most likely, wasn't connected to April Fools day.

Back to subject though, these late beta prototype machines that Dorsal has been "play'n" with, sure seem to fit with a bunch of other rumors suddenly showing up from 'other' sources. Makes one wonder whether things are loop'n back (as others have posted), or . . . on the more optimistic side, Are they validating things? One thing is for certain, Apple knows how to keep a lid on things, and their partners have seen what happens when they spill the beans.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The G5 and what it means for future Macs