how long before g5 Powerbooks? - Page 3

From Dete at Ars about the power saving features of the ppc970
(presumably info gathered at WWDC):

This is a good indication that IBM allready has in place the power saving features needed for laptop use at the core of the G5. The bigger energy culprit seems to lie in those high throughput point to point buses and the areas of silicon devoted to them in the processor and companion chip. It seems reasonable that the missing pieces are an integrated memory controller and a process shrink.

The thing is, you can't really predict a company on the ropes. It's possible they'll just go out with a whimper, especially if there's a pure capitalist in charge (better, in that mindset, to simply liquidate the assets). But if the company has any sense of self-preservation, it'll start taking risks that most companies wouldn't, because no matter how far out the risk is, it's more likely to pay off than just coasting into irrelevance. So Ford sunk $3 billion into the Taurus and Sable, Apple unveiled the iMac, and Gateway is branching out into, uh, non-computer devices (this last example is just to underscore that this strategy is risky, and it can indeed fail ). I'd read enough to figure that Mot might be trying something like that, not despite the fact that they're smaller and poorer, but because they are. If you're looking at possibly going out of business, why not try to leapfrog Intel? In the worst case, you fail, and you go out of business, which you were going to do anyway.

Well, let's hope Moto can really pull an IBM on us, so that the new PowerBooks can kick serious Centrino ass! The keyword here is hope. Even though hope springs eternal, I'm not holding my breath.

Amorph: How realistic (or naive) is it to hope for a 90nm PPC 7457 from Motorola? What kind of evidence do you have that makes you believe in such a surprise?

Escher

I'm a bit confused with the clamor for the 970 in the Powerbook.

I guess because right now its the only sight we see of higher clockspeeds but the whole 64 bit aspect of the chip will never be utilized in a Powerbook.


Is it possible that IBM and Apple could be working on a different chip for portables?

Oh, I think it will, but it's gonna be more than 12 months before they do, I think it's gonna take a year and a half before we see PB G5's. And we WILL NOT see iMac or iBook G5's for a long time yet.

Why so?

The 9 fans make people assume it's white hot, I think they are for quietness and dual 3GHz+ future proofing.

I know it's too keep it quiet and cool, but the numbers for the 2Ghz part are high, as they are for the 1.6, and ATM, that might be all there is, the other numbers were projections, there's the mobo and controller chips to think about, I think it's a lot more work than anyone imagines to get the whole system down to acceptable levels both in terms of heat and cost. Apple cannot afford to make their laptops any more expensive, they've just now reached a competitive level.

Not only higher clock, but better performance clock-for-clock, and much better bandwidth, FP performance and SIMD performance.

Apple has sold a boatload of laptops to people who do music and video in the field. A G5 laptop is the wet-dream for music and video on the go.

Apple has also sold the laptop as a more than capable replacement for the desktop (remember the "year of the laptop"), which now seems very slow and much less capable in comparison to the non-shipping G5. Its only marketing, but its either time to change the message or change the hardware.

97 Watts of heat output per 2 GHz G5 processor ... that's why there are so many fans.

Compare that to approximately 22 Watts per 1 GHz G4.

Yup, but iMacs would be 1.6GHz or less, with no hot 7200rpm SATA drive. I thinks it's doable - 1.2GHz 970s are 19W.

Yes, maybe, but consider the following:

Think Secret have posted benchmark results for the Dual 2 GHz G5 versus a single 1 GHz G4.

---------------- 1 x 1 Ghz G4 --- 2 x 2 GHz G5 --- Increase

Integer ------------ 100 ------------ 172 ----------- 72%
Floating Point ----- 100 ------------ 270 ---------- 170%
Vector ------------- 100 ------------ 208 ---------- 108%

Now as far as I know Skidmarks GT doesn't take advantage of the 2nd CPU when benchmarking, although Apple may have recoded it to correct this. Let's assume for now that the benchmarks above only show results for one 2 GHz G5.

If we scale down those G5 results from 2 Ghz to 1.2 GHZ (by multiplying the results by .6), we are left with the following:

---------------- 1 x 1 Ghz G4 -- 1 x 1.2 GHz G5 -- Increase

Integer ------------ 100 ----------- 103.2 --------- 3.2%
Floating Point ----- 100 ------------ 162 ----------- 62%
Vector ------------- 100 ----------- 124.6 -------- 24.6%

Nice, but certainly not what I'd expect. I'm sure there would be increases in performance due to improved architecture that cannot be calculated by my simple ratio, and we have no idea how much performance is to be gained by using Panther. The results are quite depressing if you calculate a 1 GHz G5 using a ratio, with the only appreciable gain to be seen in Floating Point performance.

As I mentioned above, older versions of Skidmarks GT only benchmarked 1 of the CPU's in a dual system. After seeing these results, I sure hope so. What I'd like to see are Skidmarks GT benchmarks for the single 1.6 and 1.8 G5's so I had a better idea of the performance gains.

Of course I'll be buying a G5 laptop as soon as they're available, but I don't see that happening for another 12 months.

I'll answer the second question first. See this article:

http://www.electronicstimes.com/tech...G20030623S0089

which flat out announces things that Motorola was "planning" to do. The plan appears to have worked.

Barring disaster (and remember, this is Motorola!) we are getting a 90nm PPC next year from Motorola. Whether it's a 7457 or something else is open to question (although the '57 is an obvious candidate for migration to 90nm).

Couldn't find anything that described Skidmarks GT. How is it testing performance? I really would be loath to make any speed comparison without knowing how this benchmark works. For instance does it make scheduling adjustments based on the processor profile (G3 vs G4) and was it updated for the G5? What is Skidmark GT compiled with (GCC, CodeWarrior)? Those are relevant questions no?

Maybe all it shows us is that for code that was optimally tuned for the G4, that took in account all the latencies and the number of cycles needed to complete an integer calc and etcetera optimally, that the G5 will still be able to run G4 tuned code at a decent pace. But what do I know, couldn't find any info about Skidmarks GT.

I am not sure I am clear with my point above so here is another angle: if you bother to find out what SPEC is, you know it measures not hardware performance but system performance (that is a compiler's ability to extract integer and floating point performance out of a certain piece of hardware). That makes sense to me. But if someone tells me Skidmarks is a hardware only test, I say bullocks! How can you test only hardware when you are using software on it to do so? So again, while Skidmarks might be relevant to test the performance differential of two G4s, is it relevant at all for the G5?

I know what SPEC is, and I'd like to see independent lab-tests that show benchmarks against various other chips using the most efficient compiler for each chip.

I'm sure we'll see more telling results in the next few weeks.

Didn't mean to come off so aggressive with my SPEC remark (I phrased that poorly), but since you quoted the Skidmarks bench, do you know anything about it?

I know little about the inner workings of it, but Skidmarks GT is an benchmark which Apple bizarrely claims is purely processor based. Personally, I find that hard to believe - a point which you raised in an earlier post.

Here's a link to Apple's page on it.

http://developer.apple.com/tools/performance/

Grab the CHUD tools. Seems to have been updated to 3.0 on the 25th.

I'd download the newest version and tell you what's changed, if I weren't stuck on a PC right now. I assume they just included some G5 specific migration tools in the package and bumped the version number.

Hello everyone, first post...

Apple seems to use promotions to clear out inventory. This promotion seems to point to a September AL PowerBook 15.4 release...

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...dle_terms.html

This bundle features an iPod plus PowerBook combo and it runs through September.

PowerBook G5 in 12 - 18 months --> MWSF 2005

F No! Apple better not wait until Sept to update the PB G4. That would suck! That would mean the TiBook would have been languishing for 10 months w/o a refresh. Major suckage. Bring me the new Al15 now!!!

A comrade in arms...

It's sad to realize that never again will a PowerBook come close to the speed of a Mac tower. I wonder how this will affect sales. Apple seems to be proud of their portable sales numbers but I expect those numbers will drop now that the portables will seem so slow when compared to the PowerMacs.

Personally, after using a PowerBook for over a year, I'll never switch back to a tower. So, I hope there is a solution to the speed, heat, power consumption problem before long. I hope by the time I'm ready to buy a new PowerBook, they'll be wicked-fast, cool and quiet compared to the 667Mhz I have now.

Great first post, backcheck. Welcome aboard.


Apple has set the deadlines for their promotions a good month or two after the eventual product upgrade before. If you read the fine print, they say they can change the date around more or less at will. They can choose a pessimistic date partly to cover their own butts in case the product hits a snag close to its intended release date, partly to throw off rumormongers, and partly to get people to actually use the promotion to buy computers instead of using it as an indicator for how long they should wait before buying.

That said, September is certainly possible, if it takes Apple that long to stockpile an adequate number of low-voltage 970s, or 7457s, or whatever ends up powering the next generation PowerBooks.

iDave: If it's any consolation, you can think of it as happening because the towers just jumped up into a previously unheard of product category for Apple (the high-end UNIX workstation), not because of any failure of the PowerBooks. Or, you can think of the PowerBook's longtime parity as a side effect of Apple's reliance on an embedded processor for their high-end hardware.

EIther way, rest assured that the PowerBooks will continue to be high-performance machines, even if they can't muster the raw power of the PowerMac anymore. (And who knows? The 970 might end up in there yet. I'm not going to bet on it, but you know Apple wants it to happen...).

There is more chances to see a 7457 in the new powerbook, than a 970 in the coming months.
Why ?
upgrading the powerbook with a 7457 is very simple : the chip is pin compatible you have just to change it. The 7457 eats less power than the 7455 : there is no heat issues, and longer battery life. Due to his larger cache the 7455 should scale ten percent more at equal mhz, thus a 1,4 ghz powerbook should perform 50 % more than the previous one at 1 ghz.

Using the G5 means change all the mobo, and perhaps the case due to heat issues. It's all a different matter.

From Mac Rumors:

New PowerBook Model ID's?
Friday June 27, 2003 01:17 AM
One user notes the following PowerBook model names




PowerBook6,2
PowerBook5,2
PowerBook6,3
PowerBook5,3

In Panther Preview (/System/Library/Extensions/AppleMacRISC2PE.kext/Contents/PlugIns/
Portable2003_PlatformMonitor.kext/Contents/MacOS/Portable2003_PlatformMonitor)

The current PowerBooks carry the following designations:

12" PowerBook -> PowerBook6,1
17" PowerBook -> PowerBook5,1
15" PowerBook -> PowerBook3,2




So it looks like four new PowerBook models are in the works. Interesting.

I'm gonna hold out for the G20 powersphere which is a ball that is powered on silverized compressed air. Its the size of a tennis ball & wirelessly transmits images into your mind. It does everything, runs on a 20000 gig chip, has 80000 gig ram and you can play tennis with it too!

2052 is gonna be so rad!

Otherwise i'm willing to wait till september only if the 970 is in effect...
Otherwise imma give Steve a Job he'll never forget...

Don't forget that they did the same with the flat panel iMac (it took a whole year from its release to see a real upgrade). I think there might be two reasons for the wait: (1) Apple is stockpiling the new processor (2) Apple wants to upgrade at the same time the three powerbooks, so they decided to wait a little more.

I just hope this puts to rest macwhispers as a rumor site.

I remember that and I thought it was stupid! So they better not do the same thing with the 15-incher!

Regaarding Mac Whispers = R.I.P.

I don't really believe it will take that long for the powerbooks, just because they are in the pro line of products. The need for regular upgrades is more strong. The iMac example is just to remind that Apple can be proved a little extreme in upgrading cycles.

I was reading through some of the messages at Mac Whispers and I even posted and asked - in a nice, polite way - what is take is on Joswiak's statement about there not being a G5 PowerBook "anytime soon" and that site's constant claims of "970 PowerBooks are being shipped and ready to go at WWDC...".



He didn't have much to say. And, as of yesterday, I noticed he removed the message boards/comments. People were kinda going to town on him. He was all defensive and dramatic, saying that he made guesses and that it's "just a rumor site" and blah, blah, blah.

But he was so CERTAIN and stirred the pot so much that he kinda asked for it. I wasn't the only one asking "care to explain?".



HUGE difference in being in the rumor site biz and, with a tone of fun and hopeful speculation, talking about what MIGHT be coming and guessing on specs, prices, delivery, etc. That's cool. And if you have REAL sources, feeding you REAL info, then that's even cooler.

But the MacWhispers and MOSRs of the world are just bullshit factories and seem to go out of their way to make stuff up, either out of ego or some sad need to appear "in the know" and get everyone in the Mac community all torqued up and anticipating things that don't even exist.



I have no respect for that site or the guy that runs it, especially after he wouldn't concede - when given the opportunity time and again - that he's just pulling crap out of the air and that he truly has no "inside sources" or whatever.

I don't know if anyone has posted this elsewhere, but in Apple's G5 Inroduction Video, John Kelly with IBM makes the statement that "We have already built the prototypes for the next generation of PPC Processor."

Presumabley he is referring to 90 nm 970's. Nothing earthshattering, in fact to be expected if they are planning on a Q1 '04 roll-out, but nice confirmation none-the-less.

Also a lot of folks have asked for evidence that the 970 is cheaper to produce than the G4. No direct information on the chips, but the 300mm fab process used by IBM has been reported by EETimes and other chip industry mags to represent a 30% per chip cost reduction in the manufacturing process. Of course this savings could be offset by increased costs elsewhere.

I think 'next generation' means the 980, as a 90 nm 970 is just a fab revision as no new features are added.

The 980 alleged offers dual core and speeds from 4GHz, but it's not on the roadmap yet it seems.

I don't want to take up the task of defending MacWhispers, but I think people have been too hard on him. He may have had some good information. The interpretation may have been over eager. No matter what prototype someone may see somewhere it isn't a product till Steve announces it.

The information MacWhispers had may have been about manufacturing of prototypes or test production runs or such. It is just really hard to be definitive.

He might have had "sources" (note the quotes), and he might not have been careful about trying to get the same news from two or more sources, or whatever. Or, he might have been misled, as MOSR has been, by people claiming to be insiders and feeding him lines.

Nevertheless, his track record on credibility has never looked that good - outside or rumormongering - his brazen statements of accuracy were off-putting, and his reaction to the rather absolute discovery of how wrong he was is not confidence inspiring.

Oh, well. At least our front page is enjoying a renaissance.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It's not the "being wrong" or "misjudging". It's the way in which he went/goes about it that is, as you say, offputting and makes you not want to leave him ANY wiggle room.

And neutrino, he wasn't talking of prototypes or "smuggled images" or whatever. He said, over and over, "970 PowerBooks at WWDC...a lock!", or words to that effect.

Yeah, he might've been misled himself (that's what I asked him in my post, essentially). I'm not out to hang the fella...I don't even know him. But since Monday, for all the reasons amorph named, he's kinda left a bad taste in my mouth.

Okay...going to get dinner now! It's Friday and I want something Mexican!

Perhaps the person at the other end didn't know the difference between a 970 and a 7457....

The Apple Online store is reflecting a change in the availability of the Titanium Powerbook (1 GHz). It was "shipping same day" for some two months, and now it has been bumped to "Shipping 1-2 days." Could mean nothing. A poster over at Macrumors (who just ordered this PowerBook model) received an email stating that there is an "unexpected delay" and it should ship on July 7th. Interesting. The supply chain is where we should be looking when wondering when there will be new PowerBooks.

That's what I was thinking. He probably had some pieces of real information. The hard part is to extrapolate from that to "shipping after the xxxx keynote". I didn't follow him that closely but he seems to have wavered over time from being rather disciplined about just reporting what he heard to slipping into more speculative reporting. Maybe he just got caught up in the excitement of the possibility of new hardware (like about 10,000 other people around here).

Or could it be that he is just trying to get people to his site to sell his stuff? Naaaahhhhh, no way.

I think you all are being too nice to Macwhimpers...