CONFIRMED: G5 enters volume production! - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by vr6:
<strong>Here's a short list to refresh your memory: GUI, Color monitors, multitasking, RISC architecture, built-in ethernet, SCSI, Wireless networking, Gigabit ethernet, Firewire. Do you think we'll be adding multi-core processors to that list soon? I sure hope so.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hope so, I have some money saved that's burning a hole in my pocket. Don't get your hopes up, though. If you're slightly pessimistic as to what will come out then you'll be happier when you're proven wrong.

[quote]Originally posted by vr6:
<strong>
The real issue as you point out later is price. However, the high price of a processor like this is actually a function of amortizing the very high fixed costs of design and manufacturing capability rather than the actual variable costs of a little bit of copper and silicon.

In fact, the change in your pocket contains more commodity value (copper, tin, nickel etc.) than would a power4 processor (I'm assuming you have change in your pocket). IBM has to charge a ton for each processor because the only system they can put it in is their server system, of which they only sell thousands or tens of thousands of units (not hundreds of thousands or millions).

Manufacturing this chip in high volume would bring the per chip manufacturing costs (including R&D and equipment amortization and depreciation) to levels comparable with the G4.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now I thought I read that somewhere that the 32 Megs of L3 DDR cache per core were on the die (though that doesn't make much sense). That would raise the price a smidgen. Plus being such a big chip it probably takes the wafer space of 2-3 G4s at least, right? It would seem to make sense for IBM to get its money's worth for its fab efforts even if the design costs could be spread out.

Regarding Programmer's post, we already have news reports (not rumors) of IBM making custom variants of chips for valued customers (which was not their practice before). So it certainly is plausible it could happen (though I'd wager it'll be a distant cousin to the Power4).

All this talk about the Power4 is really exciting. Its single chip performance will be equivalent at its current clock speed to future Pentium 4s; however, Power4's currently being fabed on an old process. It would be wonderful to have parity once again, and it seems to me that the Power4 has a lot of room to grow.

Did anyone notice that the Power4 jumped from 700 to 1300MHz at one time? That's a really wonderful performance spike; who's to say Apple isn't working with IBM right now to boost 1300MHz to 2500MHz or so? It would be a wonderful change from the 500MHz quandry we were in for such a long period of time. It's important note that the Power4 sports a 17 stage pipeline, which is what gives it such great MHz mobility. (I never thought I'd be touting deep pipelines. ) Deep pipelines are also a marked departure from IBM's traditional stance of high IPC throughput.

Maybe the G5 is actually going to be Power4 at an advanced process. Perhaps instead of G5s we'll have Power5s at MWSF. Please Apple, please?

The POWER4 was only ever available in 1.0 and 1.3GHz variants.

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>These aren't the G5's you're looking for... move along.</strong><hr></blockquote>

yay mokis back!

Yes, lets use the Power4.

Introducing the new PowerMac G5, starting at $11,999.

Anyone who seriously thinks the Power4 is a viable alternative is on something.

Oh, and moki knows nothing.

[quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:
<strong>Oh, and moki knows nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

I don't think the G5 will show up this summer. A friend of mine works at Moto in one of the chip design divisions(he's like a mid level manager). Anyway, over a year ago he told me that Apple cancelled their contract with Moto for the G5. The reason had to do with the instruction set that the chips use. Apple wanted to use somthing called Apple Pi (or something like that) but the original design used somethign else (don't ask me because I don't know and frankly don't understand). Moto did a cost analysis and determined that they simply couldn't affort to make the changes that Apple wanted. The result - the contract was cancelled and Apple took their business to IBM. I asked about Altavec and he said he didn't know, but that he had heard some money had been exchanged inorder for IBM to develop a chip that used it. Now keep in mind that this was a year ago and I haven't spoken to the guy about it since because it's sort of rude to ask him about company secrets.

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

I find your lack of faith disturbing...</strong><hr></blockquote>
moki, i'd like a nice slice of apple 3.1415
wonder if you know the significance of that.

[quote]Originally posted by pjn23:
<strong>I don't think the G5 will show up this summer. A friend of mine works at Moto in one of the chip design divisions(he's like a mid level manager). Anyway, over a year ago he told me that Apple cancelled their contract with Moto for the G5. The reason had to do with the instruction set that the chips use. Apple wanted to use somthing called Apple Pi (or something like that) but the original design used somethign else (don't ask me because I don't know and frankly don't understand). Moto did a cost analysis and determined that they simply couldn't affort to make the changes that Apple wanted. The result - the contract was cancelled and Apple took their business to IBM. I asked about Altavec and he said he didn't know, but that he had heard some money had been exchanged inorder for IBM to develop a chip that used it. Now keep in mind that this was a year ago and I haven't spoken to the guy about it since because it's sort of rude to ask him about company secrets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
whoa! jinx on the pi thing. yes, your story exactly corresponds to what i've heard. exactly! ibm's project should be in volume production right now.

"apple pie"?

The only thing Moki knows is how to rip off Star Wars dialogue.

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

I find your lack of faith disturbing...</strong><hr></blockquote>

awesome man! I like you.

but...."your sad devotion to that ancient religon has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clarvoyance enough to find the location of the hidden rebel fort-uh"

[quote]Originally posted by Shanny:
<strong>The only thing Moki knows is how to rip off Star Wars dialogue.</strong><hr></blockquote>

hey being "good at[ ripping of star wars dialogue] is one thing but, good against the real...thats something else"

[quote]Originally posted by Wrong Robot:
<strong>

hey being "good at[ ripping of star wars dialogue] is one thing but, good against the real...thats something else"</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, It's "good against the living" not "good against the real".

As pjn23 and admactanium stated above, I also heard that Apple had turn down Moto's proposed G5. The reason I heard was that the memory scheme was not what Apple wanted. I had assumed that was RapidIO instead of HyperTransport. But if IBM is building the new chip, are they not committed to RapidIO for powerPC chips?

:cool:

[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: AusTex ]</p>

I read in February I think about 'looking to someone rather then MOTO for Apple's next chip". Basically saying IBM was going to do it. So there seems to be a lot of sharing of the same sentiment that IBM will be doing Apple's next chip.

Dare I say it's CONFIRMED that IBM is doing Apple's next chip

[quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:
<strong>Yes, lets use the Power4.

Introducing the new PowerMac G5, starting at $11,999.

Anyone who seriously thinks the Power4 is a viable alternative is on something.

Oh, and moki knows nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nobody is suggesting that the POWER4 will suddenly appear in the PowerMac G5. The existance of the POWER4, however, demonstrates that IBM knows how to build faster processors with the POWER/PowerPC instruction set. The long pipelines, wide superscalar design, and 0.13 micron process are directly applicable. The multi-core design may also be applicable. The enormous caches and fast+wide buses are not applicable -- and this (along with massive I/O subsystems) is where most of the cost of the POWER4 comes from.

Moki may very well know nothing, but he's clearly having fun at it.

Now if it takes 3-5 years of full bore effort to design a chip and they just had this falling out last year isn't MWNY 02 or MWSF 03 a little optimistic?

Of course if there is a new uber PowerPC coming from IBM then my guess that the XServe's chipset was the trailblazer not for the next PowerMacs but for the next iMac may be borne out.

I think I'm good either way as long as something good is coming . Coming soon

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

[SNIP]

Moki may very well know nothing, but he's clearly having fun at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Everything I know about moki makes me believe he wouldn't trifle with us. He obviously wouldn't divulge anything he couldn't legally state - what would be the incentive there? He's a responsible head of a prominent Mac shareware company. I'm not going to swear by any testimony I hear around here, but what moki says does have credence, IMO.

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>

I just don't think there is going to be a G5 this summer and the reason is because all the Apple execs are filing to <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/t/a/aapl.html" target="_blank">sell stock</a>. That tells me that the iMac sales have flattened out and that they don't expect to see a significant boost from the power mac line (which they would if the G5 was released). And don't you think they would have held the release of the Xserver if the G5 was just around the corner?

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: pjn23 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Shanny:
<strong>

Actually, It's "good against the living" not "good against the real".</strong><hr></blockquote>

ya know...I was debating that when I posted it...thanks for the clarification..

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>These aren't the G5's you're looking for... move along.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Haaa Hoooo Hooooo Hooooo
[translate]Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me![/translate]

Im a BiG MAC fan but youve got to see what the PC types are up to
You'll checkout
<a href="http://www.worldssmallestpc.com" target="_blank">http://www.worldssmallestpc.com</a>
this baby flies

DR APPLE, do you know DR DOS?

[quote]Originally posted by DR APPLE:
<strong>Im a BiG MAC fan but youve got to see what the PC types are up to
You'll checkout
<a href="http://www.worldssmallestpc.com" target="_blank">http://www.worldssmallestpc.com</a>
this baby flies</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple could do a better job of it, if there were a sizeable market for such a thing -- its pretty niche.

[quote]Originally posted by pjn23:
<strong>I just don't think there is going to be a G5 this summer and the reason is because all the Apple execs are filing to <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/t/a/aapl.html" target="_blank">sell stock</a>. That tells me that the iMac sales have flattened out and that they don't expect to see a significant boost from the power mac line (which they would if the G5 was released). And don't you think they would have held the release of the Xserver if the G5 was just around the corner?

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: pjn23 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is a whole thread here about this subject, and (in a nut shell) what it means is that a bunch of Apple execs are selling stock. There can be any number of reasons for this -- including that a G5 is going to be released!

And yes, the release of the Xserve has nothing to do with a new PowerMac coming. If a G5 was coming and they had a 1U G4-based rack mount to get to market, you can be damn sure that they'd want to introduce it before the G5 so that they wouldn't get slammed for using old technology.

[quote]Originally posted by DR APPLE: Im a BiG MAC fan but youve got to see what the PC types are up to. You'll checkout <a href="http://www.worldssmallestpc.com" target="_blank">http://www.worldssmallestpc.com</a>
this baby flies<hr></blockquote>

I don't think this baby flies...
And in case of we've got this:
<a href="http://www.apple.com/ibook/" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/ibook/</a>

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:
<strong>Everything I know about moki makes me believe he wouldn't trifle with us. He obviously wouldn't divulge anything he couldn't legally state - what would be the incentive there? He's a responsible head of a prominent Mac shareware company. I'm not going to swear by any testimony I hear around here, but what moki says does have credence, IMO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Quoting Star Wars one liners (and doing a decent job of it, I might add) sounds a lot like triffling to me. Dropping hints and pictures about the POWER4 is probably his way of telling us that IBM "is in" at Apple, but it doesn't say anything about what a G5 will look like or when we'll see it.

I don't care if Moki is triffling or not but. All I want like all of us - I think - is MORE bandwidth. If it's a G5 or a G4, it doesn't matter. Please Apple throw away this old mobo (if Moto could give you a better FSB).
First push the bandwidth then push the megahertz.

[quote]Originally posted by BobtheTomato:
<strong>Now if it takes 3-5 years of full bore effort to design a chip and they just had this falling out last year isn't MWNY 02 or MWSF 03 a little optimistic?

Of course if there is a new uber PowerPC coming from IBM then my guess that the XServe's chipset was the trailblazer not for the next PowerMacs but for the next iMac may be borne out.

I think I'm good either way as long as something good is coming . Coming soon</strong><hr></blockquote>

It is not unusual to have two design teams competing for a contract -- it may be that Apple asked IBM to compete right after the G4 fiasco, and both IBM and Moto have been running parallel design teams... until Moto finally gave up and conceded the race due to it drifting too far from the embedded market. Moving away from the embedded space means moving toward the server space, and since that's where IBM likes to be that would be fine by them. So while I have no evidence for a MWNY introduction, I also have no evidence against it. IBM keeps quiet about the custom projects they do for other companies (e.g. Gekko for Nintendo) so it would not at all be surprising that it is a completely secret project.

Your point about the Xserve design being better suited to the iMac is a good one. The Xserve is a small 1U enclosure with tight constraints on power and heat... exactly like the iMac/eMac. A very cool move would be for Apple to leverage this chipset & DDR in the iMac and portable lines, leaving the G5 and whatever uber-bus to the PowerMac. It would let them push the consumer clock rates as high as the G4 would allow because the PowerMac's performance would suddenly be untouchable. This would be the best lineup Apple has ever had from a marketing point of view... nobody would question the value of buying a PowerMac, and yet they could be delivering iMacs in the 1+ GHz range.

Moto would still be selling lots of G4s, and IBM would have a nice and juicy G5 contract. I'm curious about what the supposed "Apple Pi" extensions could be... HyperTransport, perhaps? More specialized graphics instructions for Quartz? Fancy DMA features for use with the on-chip memory controller? Hyper-threading? Steve's favourite recipe for apple pie?

[quote]And yes, the release of the Xserve has nothing to do with a new PowerMac coming.<hr></blockquote>

If the new PowerMac uses the same chipset as the Xserve, then it has one whole hell of a lot to do with it...

Remember, Apple likes to use the same chipset across their entire line. I suspect the Xserve is a peek at what Apple has in store for the rest of their machines for the next year or so.

[quote]If a G5 was coming and they had a 1U G4-based rack mount to get to market, you can be damn sure that they'd want to introduce it before the G5 so that they wouldn't get slammed for using old technology.<hr></blockquote>

Why? Look at all the PC rack mount servers using P3's. Server buyers are generally more intelligent than typical PC buyers, and realize that the "latest and greatest" may not be the optimum choice.

I'm not convinced that Apple set out to create a 1U server with the Xserve-- rather, I think Apple set out to build a rack-mountable server, and realized that they could squeeze dual G4's into 1U without the thing overheating. If Apple had access to the G5, I'd imagine they'd design their servers to use it, just so they didn't have to redesign them to use the new chip later, even if it did mean building 2U servers.

Sorry I was unclear; I what I meant was: "The Xserve doesn't tell us anything about what the next PowerMac might be. It could be the chipset that the next PowerMac will use, or it could be the chipset that the next iMac will use... and the PowerMac will use something newer".

[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>Why? Look at all the PC rack mount servers using P3's. Server buyers are generally more intelligent than typical PC buyers, and realize that the "latest and greatest" may not be the optimum choice.

I'm not convinced that Apple set out to create a 1U server with the Xserve-- rather, I think Apple set out to build a rack-mountable server, and realized that they could squeeze dual G4's into 1U without the thing overheating. If Apple had access to the G5, I'd imagine they'd design their servers to use it, just so they didn't have to redesign them to use the new chip later, even if it did mean building 2U servers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I think they wanted a 1U server. This is an important feature of the machine, and this is the first of their servers ... and they've already said it is the low-end one. The high end might just be redundant power supplies, more drives, and slightly higher G4 clock rates... but I doubt it.

Just a question (and I don't have time enough to trawl through the previous threads), but wasn't it Moki that a few months ago was totally shooting down rumours of the G5 arriving soon?

I remember something about him saying 'no way Jose' - now has his tune changed (or at least, no further denials)?

Apple - Damn you for your silence.

IF they did lose the G5 that would explain all of the chest-thumping of late by Moto regarding how long the G4 will be around and how well it will scale. No one likes to lose.

[quote]Originally posted by DaveLee:
<strong>Just a question (and I don't have time enough to trawl through the previous threads), but wasn't it Moki that a few months ago was totally shooting down rumours of the G5 arriving soon?

I remember something about him saying 'no way Jose' - now has his tune changed (or at least, no further denials)? </strong><hr></blockquote>

About a year ago, for MacWorld NY, there were rampant rumours about a G5 coming out -- I said "don't hold your breath" and was attacked ("he doesn't know what he's talking about" yadda yadda

The same thing happened for MacWorld/SF and MacWorld/Tokyo -- literally, just rewind the video tape.

I'll say it again for this coming MacWorld/NY -- I think some very cool stuff is in the works, but you aren't going to see it in a month.

I am not under NDA for any of this stuff, and indeed, it is a mixture of water cooler talk and speculation. But still, you know people here and there, you can put the pieces together. Clearly there is no way in hell I'd state anything that could affect any NDAs with anyone.

What would seem mostly likely for the Pro line at MacWorld would be a DDR machine with USB 2, 800mbs FireWire, and a fairly nifty feature (which will be used only by a very few engineers): mini DSPs sitting on the memory controller, allowing things like MPEG4 to be done with close to zero overhead.

This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested.

As for the G5, waiting for it may be a lot like waiting for Godot... but that doesn't mean Apple doesn't have other plans in the works (and who knows, they may label whatever the next processor is the "g5" just for marketing purposes).

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

I am not under NDA for any of this stuff, and indeed, it is a mixture of water cooler talk and speculation. But still, you know people here and there, you can put the pieces together. Clearly there is no way in hell I'd state anything that could affect any NDAs with anyone.

What would seem mostly likely for the Pro line at MacWorld would be a DDR machine with USB 2, 800mbs FireWire, and a fairly nifty feature (which will be used only by a very few engineers): mini DSPs sitting on the memory controller, allowing things like MPEG4 to be done with close to zero overhead.

This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cool! Not earth shattering but a worthwhile upgrade (at the same prices as the current machines).

Edit: I'll write "I will not space and click the "post" button before typing anything" 50 times on the blackboard.

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: BobtheTomato ]</p>

If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it. They are now rapidly approaching a point where they will do irreparable damage to their professional market-share and ability to penetrate demanding markets like 3-d, HD video production/post-production, engineering, and simulation. x86 is gonna put a big hurting on them when budget x86 boxes start outrunning DP powermacs that cost 3X as much.

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it.....</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it. They are now rapidly approaching a point where they will do irreparable damage to their professional market-share and ability to penetrate demanding markets like 3-d, HD video production/post-production, engineering, and simulation. x86 is gonna put a big hurting on them when budget x86 boxes start outrunning DP powermacs that cost 3X as much.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not if they incorporate custom DSP ASIC into the Northbridge. Dedicated hardware runs orders of magnitude faster than any high-performance processor can. It's like the difference between having a 3D card versus trying to do OpenGL in software.

If this becomes a reality, then no PC or Workstation currently in the market can even touch the Mac in Video Processing and Effects work, probably audio as well.

Of course, apps would have to be coded to take advantage of this new hardware. Which, when you consider Shake and Final Cut Pro makes a lot of sense.