or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Across the board G5 desktop transition?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Across the board G5 desktop transition?

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
http://macosxrumors.com/
Quote:
Follow-up on the G5 production : The year of the G5?
At the end of August I had posted a rumour that IBM was going use 0.06 process for its PowerPC 970 production by late 2003. My (known to be sure) source admited that he was a bit too optimistic about this information which was based on "very excited" sales IBM sources. IBM, indeed, started testing 0.06 process before the end of 2003 but had actually never intended to start mass production of such processors before late 2004!

However, there is another bit of interesting information in my later reports: according to reliable sources, Apple has ordered more than 500,000 0.09 G5 processors from IBM this quarter and it plans to order even more units per quarter throughout the year.

An Apple source confirming this report, added that we can expect Apple to get rid of the G4 processor sooner than expected. Another part of Apple's line of computers will switch to the G5 by next quarter and the whole line could be G5 based by early to mid 2005.

I think we can suppose that new PowerMac's and a new iMac will be released soon and will both be based upon the new PowerPC 970FX. Some rumour sites have reported imminent releases of either of these products and my sources tend to confirm this.

Another source pointed out that this move is supposed to reduce production costs of G5-based Macs and will even allow Apple to lower the pricing of it's products without having to reduce it's margins.

Several sites reported something big is coming as soon as on Monday. if it's true what's coming will probably be G5 based. Frankly I could not have any very sure information about that, but some reports have indicated Apple would release a 20th anniversary Mac or a new G5-based iMac with a special design soon. Anyway, I'm sure Apple will improve a lot the performance of its products during the year and I can't wait to see what my sources have missed

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #2 of 45
i can understand apple's haste to get rid of mot and their badly scaling G4s.

what I can't understand is why they would introduce their pro (say: "beeeeeeefcaaaaaaake") chip in a consumer desktop within 6 months of its introduction in the pro machines. That to me just sounds plain stupid marketing wise. The PMG5 hasn't even had it's first revision yet !

I still think they'll introduce a new IBM chip for the consumers to bridge the gap between MOT G4s and IBM G5s. Like that G3 kinda chip I heard things about to which they added altivec. Hell they can even keep calling it the G4 and just finally have it scale from 1.4 -2.2 or something.
that would help. problem solved, call it G4+ for all I care.

from my perspective, the only reason why they'd introduce a G5 into the consumer models is if the PMG6 release was just around the corner.....
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
post #3 of 45
if the G5 is much better than the G4 (and it is) and it is the same price or even cheaper than the G4 (at 500,000 a quarter it likely is cheaper than the G4), apple would be insane not to offer it in every machine they can...

the difference between pro and consumer models can be (like on the pc side) expansion and speed (pro getting fastest G5 chips, consumer getting slower G5 chips) and dual processors for the pro models while only single processors for the consumer models...

if apple wants to increase market share (or hold on to market share) it must offer attractive computers for all markets (and by attractive i mean both attractive in design and attractive in specs)...

g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #4 of 45
Back in the beginning of the Power PC adoption there was a need for 2 processors, and development money was spread across them to cover that. There was also a "potential" market from Apple, Mac Clones, and third party "CHRP" manufacturers (never fully realized).

Today we dont have the clones, and there is no garuntee of third party box's coming to market. IBM only has one anounced model for the 970 so far. Basically this is an Apple chip.

It is probably better for Apple to push development of the next generation chip than to split their efforts on two chips. If a market for the 970 emerges outside of Apple's and IBM's offerings, or IBM is successfull enough with their 970 servers and see's an intereset in mobile 970's then we may see a dual chip strategy again. But for now a relatively quick transition to a new chip, coupled with improved manufacturing and process shirinkage will probably suite Apple's needs for the next 24+ months.
post #5 of 45
hhhhmmmm.....

yeah well first of all Apple is and will remain a niche market company in the foreseeable future. this is not a bad thing, this is what keeps apple alive. they are "elite" puters if you will.

now, ever since I've been using apple puters since the first introduction of the G4, they've had the G3 for consumer products and G4s for pro products. That, for me worked really well because it boosts the awe factor of the pro machines. You are getting a system with a processor that only pro machines have, the consumers have an inferior chip.

slowly, when the G5's introduction was imminent G4s were starting to get introduced into the consumer&prosumer machines.
and then there was the G5, to regain the trust from the pro market which the badly scaling G4 had lost.
this worked very well.

I don't like the pc world kinda thing where pro and con (what genius pun again from my hand ) machines are only separated by specs and clockspeed, it just makes the gap and pride factor to small.
and, like I've said before in other posts, having singles for consumers and duals for pros just arouses the suspicion from me that the company just doesn't have a decent pro chip, like with the last PMG4 incarnations.

introducing the G5 into consumer machines already will have it lose respect too soon.

but then again, if apple is in trouble, they might not have any other alternatives and I'd forgive them, Hell a new incarnation of the iMac might actually make it a cool puter again. As long as they don't use those fugly anodised colours ! ! !
iPod Minihentai yuck yuck.
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
post #6 of 45
This from Maury at Railhead Design:

"Tomorrow promises to be a big day for Apple, so get your credit card balances down and your paychecks deposited"


He is ussually right about things...I wonder what is coming?
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
post #7 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by anand
This from Maury at Railhead Design:

"Tomorrow promises to be a big day for Apple, so get your credit card balances down and your paychecks deposited"


He is ussually right about things...I wonder what is coming?

Thank god there is always a tomorrow ... yeah tomorrow we'll see new stuff, tomorrow
post #8 of 45
It is in Apple's best interest to transition to an all-G5 line up sooner, rather than later. Why? Because the next big leap (some real performance and Big-time marketing) will be the unveiling of a 64-bit optimized OSX.

Before they can make this leap, they need to have a vary large installed base of G5s. I think this is still several years off, but they must be thinking of it already.

Another advantage (as others have noted) is definitely the scalability of the newer chips. The iMac is expensive enough that people will want real performance from it. I think the pro-line should differentiate itself by using duals, better cards, etc.

...IMO
post #9 of 45
What does "64-bit optimized" mean, and how would it impact 95% of the Mac's applications?

As far as I can tell, 64 bit support means that compilers support the CPU's 64-bit data types, and system libraries support 64-bit datatypes (in particular, pointers). The performance gains for software that needs to work with these types can be significant, but not much Mac software does.

The 970 speeds a lot of things up for reasons that have nothing to do with its being a 64-bit CPU and everything to do with its being designed for high performance.
"...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 #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by ~ufo~
introducing the G5 into consumer machines already will have it lose respect too soon.

but then again, if apple is in trouble, they might not have any other alternatives and I'd forgive them, Hell a new incarnation of the iMac might actually make it a cool puter again. As long as they don't use those fugly anodised colours ! ! !
iPod Minihentai yuck yuck.

Sometimes it's best not to overestimate customers. They're not looking at CPU families and motherboard specs. Let's be real superficial:
Design - Look at the pro line (Aluminum) and look at the consumer line (pretty white plastic).
Price - Look at the prices; the pro systems scale all the way up to $3000
Features - I consider the design of the Powermac G5 case a pro only feature. Superdrives used to be a pro-only feature (due to cost). Now we have TOSlink ports and fast-fast serial ATA drives for pros only (again, until the prices drop).

Lastly, I would hope Apple doesn't just "slap" in a G5 into the current iMacs (maybe they can't, thermally speaking). What with the 20th anniversary and all I think tomorrow or another Tuesday will bring us a new, new iMac with a G5.

Screed
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #11 of 45
Well, I'm not sure this is real news. But each 'crum' of rumour pie is always okay...

It's pretty obvious PowerMac speedbumps are imminent if Steve's 3 gig in one year statement is to have any hope of credibility.

The iMac is in dire need of a G5, better graphics card and a redesign.

If the iMac gets a G5 then why not bung a 1.6 G5 in both eMacs at the same time? (Unless the eMac is canned and replaced by something with a decent screen...or better, some headless box thing...)

To me, PowerMac and iMac happen in the next couple of weeks.

The eMac by next quarter.

That leaves laptops. Er. 3 quarter of this year?

It's not rocket science...

Given Apple's slip to 1.9 marketshare...(Guess 'mhz'/speed and price do matter, eh?) I could well understand Apple's urgency to G5 transition.

They should be bustin' their b*lls to get there...

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 #12 of 45
Yep I can understand wanting to get rid of Motorola. However it is 11:46 here on the east coast and nothing has changed on Apples Web site today. My geuss is that G5 iMacs won't happen today.

Quote:
Originally posted by ~ufo~
i can understand apple's haste to get rid of mot and their badly scaling G4s.

what I can't understand is why they would introduce their pro (say: "beeeeeeefcaaaaaaake") chip in a consumer desktop within 6 months of its introduction in the pro machines. That to me just sounds plain stupid marketing wise. The PMG5 hasn't even had it's first revision yet !


This has got to be the most simple minded position I've seen on this subject. There are literally hundreds of ways to differrentiate products. Plus if the 970 does scale to 3GHz, what is wrong in offering a 2GHz iMac to the rest of the market.

When it comes right down to it, it is not the chip that makes the computer a pro machine but a combination of other qualities. Frankly the G5 Tower does not qualify as a pro machine in some circles as it comes up short on a few features. Pro is a state of the mind issue anyways, plenty of iMacs are applied to professonal use. Well back when they had a reasonable cost performance ratio they where.
Quote:
I still think they'll introduce a new IBM chip for the consumers to bridge the gap between MOT G4s and IBM G5s. Like that G3 kinda chip I heard things about to which they added altivec. Hell they can even keep calling it the G4 and just finally have it scale from 1.4 -2.2 or something.
that would help. problem solved, call it G4+ for all I care.

Yep that is a good idea form an engineering stand point but maybe not from a production economics standpoint. If Apple can push volumes high enough the g5 will become very VERY CHEAP. Cheap is exactly what the iMac or its follow on needs.
Quote:
from my perspective, the only reason why they'd introduce a G5 into the consumer models is if the PMG6 release was just around the corner.....

Nope not at all. All they reasonably need is a substantial spread in performance. Put a 2GHz 970 in an iMac, add some nice graphics and it will compete very nicely with any of the intel based consumer machines. At the same time move the G5 to 3.3GHz and Apple will be out in front with respect to any sort of "pro" equipement (single or dual SMP) from just about anybody.

I would not be surprised to find that IBM is delivering the 90nm 970 to Apple for well less than a $100 per chip maybe even less than $50. I mean lets face it the transitor count on this chip is very low and the die size is tiny, they are not using any more resources that a chip did 4 or 5 years ago. It is in Apples best interest to implement as many of these as it can in as many products as it can.
Quote:

post #13 of 45
I agree that Apple will (and definitely should) be sticking G5s into their entire product line as quickly as possible, but I don't expect to see it as quickly as some here are predicting.

For one, it would be disastrous from a marketing perspective to have a G5 in an eMac (the lowest-end consumer machine that Apple makes) before, or even at the same time as the PowerBook (Apple's top-of-the-line portable). Regardless of heat and battery life considerations, they're just not going to do it.

I see PM updates very soon, and the G5 showing up in the iMac and PowerBooks not too long after... not sure which will come first. The eMac and iBook will probably get G5s late in the year. In time for Christmas shopping almost for sure, but if they could do it in time for school shopping, that would be even better.

Keep in mind, Apple probably wants to have big news announcements throughout the entire year, being the anniversary and all. There aren't too many things that get people excited more than major hardware announcements, and I think they'll want to milk it for all it's worth.
post #14 of 45
Apple could do it if they are not held-up with technical issues.

Imagine the following:

iBook - G5 1.2/512Mb RAM max
PowerBooks - G5 1.6/1.8/2.0/2Gb RAM max
PowerMacs - G5 2.6/2.8/3.0/8Gb RAM max
iMac - G5 1.4/1Gb RAM max

With marketing it is all about relative price/performance. The more G5's that Apple can get out into the market the better!

If Apple came out with G5 iBooks and PowerBooks today I would order a G5 PowerBook. Why? I am willing to spend ~$3,000.00 and I want to give my 17" PowerBook to one of my guys. I also want another 17" screen laptop. I don't care if I could get a G5 iBook...it's still and iBook!
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
Apple could do it if they are not held-up with technical issues.

Imagine the following:

iBook - G5 1.2/512Mb RAM max
PowerBooks - G5 1.6/1.8/2.0/2Gb RAM max
PowerMacs - G5 2.6/2.8/3.0/8Gb RAM max
iMac - G5 1.4/1Gb RAM max

With marketing it is all about relative price/performance. The more G5's that Apple can get out into the market the better!

If Apple came out with G5 iBooks and PowerBooks today I would order a G5 PowerBook. Why? I am willing to spend ~$3,000.00 and I want to give my 17" PowerBook to one of my guys. I also want another 17" screen laptop. I don't care if I could get a G5 iBook...it's still and iBook!

Apple needs to get the iMac up to the performance level ratio to the PM's that they had when the iMac was released, and indeed up untill the last 2 years. This means that the high end iMac should have an equivelent processor speed to the low end PowerMac.
post #16 of 45
I can't imagine Apple's sales suffering if they went immediately to the following line-up:

PowerMacs - G5 2.0/2.4/2.6 all DP
PowerBooks - G5 1.4/1.6
iBook - G5 1.4
iMac - G5 1.4/1.6
eMac - G5 1.4

If you look at the speed ratios compared to the current line-up, it's really not that far off.

As has been mentioned, their are plenty of other ways to differentiate line-ups in addition to processor speed. The only caveat is that, even given the new power numbers, it seems unlikely that a processor faster than 1.6 GHz will work in a PowerBook at this time, and I just don't think that Apple will clock the iMac above the Pbook.

That being said, I'd love to see a 2.0 and 2.4 SP tower solution creep into the matrix. It would be especially nice if they could turn the iMac back into a consumer machine by getting the price back down in the $1,000 -$1,400 range, with a modestly expandable SP tower filling in from $1,500- $1,800 and the DP towers showing up at $2,000.
neumac
Reply
neumac
Reply
post #17 of 45
I don't think iBook will be using G5 for at least another 18 months or even 24 months.

Don't forget IBM has PPC 750VX
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
I can't imagine Apple's sales suffering if they went immediately to the following line-up:

PowerMacs - G5 2.0/2.4/2.6 all DP
PowerBooks - G5 1.4/1.6
iBook - G5 1.4
iMac - G5 1.4/1.6
eMac - G5 1.4

I think that's your product differentiation right there.
post #19 of 45
Quote:
PowerMacs - G5 2.0/2.4/2.6 all DP
PowerBooks - G5 1.4/1.6
iBook - G5 1.4
iMac - G5 1.4/1.6
eMac - G5 1.4

The iMac here is too slow. While the iMac may have started out as an entry-level consumer machine, it has graduated to being a mid-range computer, with a price to match.

If the PowerMacs ended up with those kinds of specs, the iMac should definitely get a boost. If even the low-end PM is DP (which I don't expect at this point), the SP iMac should also be at 2.0 GHz... having only one processor, no expansion capabilities, and other lower-end specs is enough of a differentiator. If, on the other hand, the low-end PM is an SP (which is more likely), the iMac would likely be slightly slower, but not by much. If the SP PM is at 2.0, the top-end iMac should hit 1.8.

There's no reason to keep the iMac tremendously slower than the PMs. Even if the PowerBooks are a bit slower, who cares? PowerBooks are portables, and iMacs are desktops... it's generally accepted that portables are slower.
post #20 of 45
I think we'll see the G5 in PowerBooks and iMacs, but likely not in iBooks or eMacs. The G5's primary design goal is performance, and there is a limit to how low the power and cost can go. Apple does not compete well where performance and iLife applications are unnecessary, and product cost is a major issue. So Apple needs an inexpensive CPU that can be used with other low cost system chips and memory. For the iBook it needs to be very thrifty with power too, so battery costs are low. The chip that may fill this need is Mojave, if it is indeed being developed at IBM.

Mojave has applications in the embedded processor market I believe, so it would not depend solely on Apple to get production quantities up and prices down. Mojave may get some of Motorola's embedded business too. Remember Gobi, the 750GX that so many were looking forward too? Well, Apple never used it, so there must be lots of other customers for such chips and price should be much better than Motorola's desktop G4 processors. Mojave is said to have AltiVec so it will run G4 applications.
post #21 of 45
I don't think we willevery see a G5 SLOWER than 1.6ghz. What will happen is that they just get faster and as they do the slower processors will find there way into the bottom of the line machines.

I will go one styage further I think the 970fx will have a minimium clock speed of 2ghz and I doubt that ANY laptop will have a G5 below 2ghz. By the time the iBook has a G5, the PM will be running dual 3.2ghz or more.

I have my fingers crossed for tommorow.

I hope we see DP 2.2, 2.4 & 2.6 PM's

and

SP 2ghz 20" iMac.
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 #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
I think we'll see the G5 in PowerBooks and iMacs, but likely not in iBooks or eMacs. The G5's primary design goal is performance, and there is a limit to how low the power and cost can go.

I *thought* the G5 was cheaper for Apple when compared to the G4. Now, does the whole package (memory controller, memory, etc) still come-in cheaper? Who knows!
post #23 of 45
IMO, Apple wants to move to a 64 bit OS. It would be unwise to support both for any length of time. So all the product lines pro and consumer would have to upgrade. Would that not be a great 20th anniversary surprise, all the lines are moved to the g5 and then on dec 1, 2004 apple releases the new 64 bit OS for people to buy. Create a buying frenzy on the machines and then create another on the OS frenzy.

Where was it that I read Apple had inquired about how many super bowl commercial spots are left. Oh yeah right here. They just can't buy the spot till the last minute to keep us rumor mongers at bay.

One last note is that Apple has been paying IBM too design and develop two generations of chips at the same time, G5 and G6, so that Apple could catch up.
post #24 of 45
Apple stagger their hardware through the year. The PM's need upgrading now obviously but the real straggler at the moment is the iMac. With 20" screen its a mid-range SOHO machine and desperately needs a performance boost to match. I would expect a single 2gig G5 with the PM's at all dual 2, 2.4 and 2.6. The Powerbooks can wait until 3rd quarter and will undoubtedly need new form factors with the G5. The only question marks are the iBooks and eMac. I would just expect to see faster G4's for the moment but I think there is room for a new machine under the eMac. A headless PVR/Media Machine in 'living room' brushed aluminium maybe? I'm also really hoping for the fabled X-Station quad G5 at the top end, 90nm G5's may make that more likely.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
Apple could do it if they are not held-up with technical issues.

Imagine the following:

iBook - G5 1.2/512Mb RAM max
PowerBooks - G5 1.6/1.8/2.0/2Gb RAM max
PowerMacs - G5 2.6/2.8/3.0/8Gb RAM max
iMac - G5 1.4/1Gb RAM max

With marketing it is all about relative price/performance. The more G5's that Apple can get out into the market the better!

If Apple came out with G5 iBooks and PowerBooks today I would order a G5 PowerBook. Why? I am willing to spend ~$3,000.00 and I want to give my 17" PowerBook to one of my guys. I also want another 17" screen laptop. I don't care if I could get a G5 iBook...it's still and iBook!

Imagine a life free from your addiction to crack.

NO WAY THAT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW.

Expect faster powermacs. Hope for faster iMacs. G5 Powerbooks are a dream. G5 iBooks are a sign of pure insanity.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by TrevorD
There's no reason to keep the iMac tremendously slower than the PMs. Even if the PowerBooks are a bit slower, who cares? PowerBooks are portables, and iMacs are desktops... it's generally accepted that portables are slower.

well, I'd care, for one. I'd feel even more ripped-off than usual (PowerBook 17" is US$ 3850 over here... a cool $850 more than in the US) if a PowerBook G5 was slower, had a smaller screen, and still cost significantly more, than an iMac G5.
post #27 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
I mean lets face it the transitor count on this chip is very low and the die size is tiny, they are not using any more resources that a chip did 4 or 5 years ago.

A 90nm process on a 300mm wafer that has cost a mountain of money?
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Imagine a life free from your addiction to crack.

NO WAY THAT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW.

What's happening tomorrow? Did you have a dream?
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
I *thought* the G5 was cheaper for Apple when compared to the G4. Now, does the whole package (memory controller, memory, etc) still come-in cheaper? Who knows!

The G5 may be cheaper than Motorola's current G4. Some say it is. The IBM Mojave should cost less than a G5, however. Mojave is surely a smaller, simpler chip than the G5, yet should be built on the same, 90 nm production line. The G5 is not inherently cheaper than the current G4, but IBM makes chips cheaper than Motorola can.
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
The G5 may be cheaper than Motorola's current G4. Some say it is. The IBM Mojave should cost less than a G5, however. Mojave is surely a smaller, simpler chip than the G5, yet should be built on the same, 90 nm production line. The G5 is not inherently cheaper than the current G4, but IBM makes chips cheaper than Motorola can.

But the 970 is here, when will the Mojave be released? I have't read of any firm dates, firm specs, or firm prices. I don't even remember reading any official anouncement of such a processor, at least the one that is being described in rumours recently.
post #31 of 45
If the rumours regarding specifications of the new line up of Power Mac G5 desktops are correct, then I think the following will be quite reasonable, and a success:

An iMac with the following specs:
A slightly different form than current, (superficial, perhaps).
A single 1.6 GHz G5 for lower end, 1.8 GHz for top end.
256 MB RAM or preferably 512 MB RAM standard.
80 GB HD standard.
64 MB minimum non-permanent graphics card, (for upgradeability).
17" LCD widescreen display as minimum.
Combo Drive with SuperDirve an option.
Airport Extreme as standard, plus Bluetooth standard, (or an option).

Power Mac G5 desktops:
Same as now but with only dual processors starting at 2.0 GHz.
Faster clockspeeds throughout.
Faster FSBs, etc...

I think the iMac in the form above will give new life to Apple's consumer line, while the eMac gets the overclocked G4 chips at 1.42 GHz as the last Power Mac G4s did. m.
Killing me isn't going to help you. It isn't going to do me much good either, is it? -- The Doctor
Reply
Killing me isn't going to help you. It isn't going to do me much good either, is it? -- The Doctor
Reply
post #32 of 45
I really doubt there is going to be anything happening tomorrow or for a while yet, I dont know why I'm suddenly pessimistic but I am.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #33 of 45
Even if all of Apple's Macintosh products have 970 CPUs, it'll only be short lived. Maybe a year or less. Eventually, a next generation 970-based CPU will come out on the 90 nm node that will have 1 MB on-chip L2 cache, multithreading, and more registers.

Apple should have started transitioning to the G5 even sooner. The iMac could have been upgraded to 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970s last Fall instead of 1.25 GHz G4. The Powerbooks in Q1 04. Apple actually still has time to announce a Powerbook G5 in Q1 04. The eMacs and iBooks in Q2 04.
post #34 of 45
Good Grief.

I get the impression that some people here think all of Apple's offerings under $2,000 have to suck terribly so they can feel better about their $3,000+ systems. With the $3,000 Powermac moving up to Dual 2.6Ghz G5 chips, there's no reason why Apple's $1,300-$2,000 consumer desktops can't carry 1.6-2Ghz G5 chips. And given the laptop's inability to accept a G5 chip at this time is no reason to castrate their consumer desktop systems.

It wasn't too long ago that buying a laptop meant you got half the performance of a desktop system for twice the price, and everyone was fine with that. But then Motorola dug Apple into a Mhz black hole and the desktop systems couldn't scale any faster, allowing the laptops to catch up (mostly). Well now we have the G5 chip, so there's no reason to continue allowing Apple's entire lineup to suck just because the laptops are currently stuck with G4 processors.

Intel and AMD don't hold back their desktop systems performance just to make $3,000 laptops look more powerful. If they've got faster chips, they'll use them. If the laptops lag behind, so be it. They'll catch up eventually.

And yes, I believe we will see Dual 2.6Ghz G5's very soon, and I believe the iMac will be the next system to sport a G5 processor. You're insane if you think the Powermacs are going to get bumped up to dual 2.6Ghz while the iMacs remain at single 1.25Ghz. Remember, the iMac used to carry the same performance as the low-end Powermac. I think those days will be returning very soon.
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Apple should have started transitioning to the G5 even sooner. The iMac could have been upgraded to 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970s last Fall instead of 1.25 GHz G4. The Powerbooks in Q1 04. Apple actually still has time to announce a Powerbook G5 in Q1 04. The eMacs and iBooks in Q2 04.

I'm afraid that's highly unrealistic.
I mean, the 130nm G5's were hot, and they were brand new and needed for Powermacs.
If my understanding is correct, if they actually had done G5 laptops, they would have had to use the highest rated G5s and downclock them.

I think you are expecting things the technology simply can't deliver.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
It wasn't too long ago that buying a laptop meant you got half the performance of a desktop system for twice the price, and everyone was fine with that. But then Motorola dug Apple into a Mhz black hole and the desktop systems couldn't scale any faster, allowing the laptops to catch up (mostly).

what a load of crap. in march 1998 the powerbook clocked 292Mhz with a 83Mhz bus and the tower clocked 300Mhz with a 66Mhz bus. i don't know which one was faster but they where the fastest pc's available at that time.
it was 1.5 years before the G4 and 2 years before things starting to hurt and almost 3 years before apple came out with a G4 pb. the fact that the windows laptop offering sucked bigtime allowed the powerbook to catch up. something the powermac couldn't before the G5.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by oldmacfan
IMO, Apple wants to move to a 64 bit OS. It would be unwise to support both for any length of time. . .


32-bit software will run on a 64-bit Mac OS X just as well as the 64-bit applications do. Most applications will continue to be 32-bit from what I hear. Evidently only a minority of applications would benefit from 64-bit registers, and even these applications will likely run in either a 64 or 32 bit mode for many years to come.

Also, even when OS X is fully 64 bit, Apple will no doubt have a 32-bit version. First, I understand it is not that difficult to produce both versions, and second, Apple would surely like to have the revenue from 32-bit Macs being upgraded.

Mac users seem to be in a 64-bit frenzy. Sure, I believe the 64-bit 970 is the greatest thing to hit the Mac in many years, but it cannot provide top performance and still run as cool or be as cheap as a CPU designed for low end mass markets. The future of high end Macs looks very bright now, with the 970 and its roadmap. It is now the low end that is hurting most and needs attention.

It is a matter of opinion as to what will help sales in the low end. Keep current prices and switch to the G5 processor, or cut prices by going to a cheaper CPU, which also works with less expensive system chips and memory? The Mojave, if it is real, is said to clock significantly higher than the present Motorola G4. So the low end would gain performance while cutting manufacturing cost.
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
I'm afraid that's highly unrealistic.

Who knows what is realistic since we have near zero information on the engineering issues of parts in consideration let alone Apple's own motivations and resources.

Engineering wise, I don't think it is that big of a problem. 1.4 GHz 970, single channel PC2700, 350 or 700 MHz bus, 2 memory slots, etc, all in a new G5 style iMac enclosure in Fall of 03.

Quote:
I mean, the 130nm G5's were hot, and they were brand new and needed for Powermacs.

Yeah, but the some 20 to 30% of the rejects on the wafer that could only clock up to 1.4 or lower were most likely thrown into the recycle bin. I'm sure Apple could have had a use for them. Actually, the odds are that the majority of the 970 processors coming off the wafers at Fishkill could only clock up to 1.6 GHz.

As for the heat dissipation, Apple can take of that problem with a more efficient fan system.

Quote:
If my understanding is correct, if they actually had done G5 laptops, they would have had to use the highest rated G5s and downclock them.

In a sense yes. To do a Powerbook G5 with a 130 nm 970, Apple could have made the Powerbook G5 thicker (1.5+ inch) or chosen the highest quality parts that could be run at 1.1V or lower at 1.4 GHz. A 1.4 GHz 970 at 1.1V would have been approximately 35 Watts power consumption. That's Centrino territory.
post #39 of 45
What are the chances, if not across the board, that the G5 would actually find itself in the iMac FIRST? Would Apple actually put the model, which was first a consumer model, ahead of its pro notebooks?

And if Apple could do the G5 wizardry more easily by using a slightly fatter case, then by all means, do it! Not a brick like the pathetic PC productions out there, but if it needs to have a little more breathing room, then let it. I know, I know -- we want them to take their time, to do this right, come out with a product off the line that doesn't have as many plaguing issues as the first TiBook.

But c'ommon, let's re-take the throne at the top of the speed index in both notebooks and desktops again, enough waiting.
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
PowerMacs - G5 2.0/2.4/2.6 all DP

G5 2.0 DP as the LOW END PowerMac.

So how many users is Apple going to piss off by cutting $1200 in one price cut.

No way. The low end PowerMac will be a single processor.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Across the board G5 desktop transition?