or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple Unveils Faster, More Affordable PowerBooks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple Unveils Faster, More Affordable PowerBooks - Page 5

post #161 of 198
Quote:
I watched the transition to PowerPC as it happened. The transition to PowerPC was about as smooth as they go, and given that Apple and Motorola engineers were both involved in the effort to define PowerPC, they made sure to do what they could (within reason) to make the transition painless.[/B]

I also watched it happen, and I had both a 68040 and a PPC apple at the same time. I didn't have any problems, and neither did anyone I know.

The whole transition was much easier than all the things windows users put up with on a daily basis.

But, I'll admit, things were a bit slow when you emulated 68040 on the PPC.

At the time I was using Photoshop, KPT, Bryce, word processors, and games. Maybe people doing video editing had a really hard time or something, because of the slowness of emulation?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #162 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by shidoshi
...I purchased my TiBook back in early 2002, when it ended up being replaced by a new line of TiBooks. Thus, my 550MHz TiBook, at that point, was already an old model. Three years later, the G4 has only gained just over 1GHz of speed.

So in three or four years, clock speed has tripled. Is that so bad? I understand your frustration but it is what it is. Personally, I think PowerBooks are so fast and hot, you can't even use them on your lap anymore. That's what I'd like to see fixed.
post #163 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
You forget perhaps Core Image/Video and Quartz 2D Extreme coming with Tiger in a matter of months. It is apparent that Apple will soon try to "discover" the GPU as a co-processor for graphics manipulation and push its capabilities as much as it takes. The presence of a PCIe interface will be very beneficial in this context. I don't think for this reason alone that Apple can afford to remain AGP only for more than one update from now in the professional lines.

In the context of this update with the included graphics chips, does it really matter? I don't think so. Maybe when, FX 6800 and Radeon 9800 class chips are the norm in laptops, but not today. Also, I'm not convinced that graphics bus speed is the limiting factor in Core Image/Video and Quartz Extreme. The amount of graphics memory certainly, but graphics bus speed from memory and CPU, no.
post #164 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Existence
You have not been looking at benchmarks. Dothan's big cache and fast FSB does translate into 1.4-2x the performance of the G4 per clock. I'd agree with you if the G4 had the same size cache and a similar FSB. But they don't.

For example, a (133MHz FSB) 1.467GHz G4 7455 at Cinebench rendering gets about 130. A cheap 1.3 GHz Dothan-Celeron with 512KB cache on a 400 MHz FSB gets 170. Even at photoshop, the G4 fails to keep up clock-to-clock parity with 2MB cache Dothans.

Cinebench is a FPU bench and FPU is very sensitive to memory bandwidth. It's no surprise that the G4's FSB reduces G4 Cinebench performance.

On the other hand, what does the Photoshop (PS7) benchmark (mostly scalar/SIMD integer) from the same website say? Do they support your conclusion? No:
Code:


MHz System PS7
1600 Centrino IBM T40 250
1330 17"PowerBook OSX 10.2.8 240
1250 15"Powerbook OSX 10.3.3 240
1600 Centrino Dell D800 236
post #165 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
No biggie - moving to the Intel chips would not be a problem. They did it before when they moved from 68040 to PowerPC. All you need to do is:

1. Include an emulator of the old instruction set
2. Package things as fat files that include both binaries
3. Phase out the old hardware from support after a few years.

The PPC was such a leap in performance that emulating 68K code via PPC wasn't too bad a performance trade-off.

Emulating a PPC via x86 would be horrible, probably akin to the current miserable performance of Virtual PC trying to do that same trick the other way around.

There would also, of course, be a raft of apps that for one reason or another would be buggy or completely non-functional under emulation, there'd be a big learning curve for software developers and the need to develop and purchase new software development tools...

No, not a "biggie" at all.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #166 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The PPC was such a leap in performance that emulating 68K code via PPC wasn't too bad a performance trade-off.

Emulating a PPC via x86 would be horrible, probably akin to the current miserable performance of Virtual PC trying to do that same trick the other way around.

There would also, of course, be a raft of apps that for one reason or another would be buggy or completely non-functional under emulation, there'd be a big learning curve for software developers and the need to develop and purchase new software development tools...

No, not a "biggie" at all.

I thought that they were saying that the Pentium M was twice as fast? The "move to the pentium" scenerio will only take place if the gap widens.

Not a very good comparison with Virtual PC - in Virtual PC everything, including the operating system, is emulated. In the transistion scenerio, the operating system would be native, and only legacy applications would be emulated, and the main application developers would have advance notice, so they would supply re-compiled updates along with the new native OS.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #167 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Also, I'm not convinced that graphics bus speed is the limiting factor in Core Image/Video and Quartz Extreme. The amount of graphics memory certainly, but graphics bus speed from memory and CPU, no.

What is important with PCIe, and I think it will find its way into Core Image/Video, Quartz 2D Extreme or whatever, is the capability to talk back to the CPU very fast.
post #168 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by shidoshi
Here's the problem that I have - if this were a recent thing, Motorola being worthless when it comes to pushing the G4, I'd be able to accept the current situation just fine. But this has been going on for YEARS now.

I don't know exactly what Apple could have done, because I'm not in that business. But I have trouble believing that their ONLY option was to wait around for the processor that would become the G5. Is there no way that they could have worked with Motorola to at least improve some factors of the G4, such as the bus speed?

If all else fails, and there really was no other hardware options out there, then Apple should at least price the PowerBooks properly, in my opinion.

I have had the same feelings when the G4s stagnated at 500 MHz and Intel and AMD where scaling into the GHz as if there was no tomorrow. Speedwise, the stagnation threw Apple's desktop line back almost 2 or 3 processor iterations.

The introduction and further development of the Pentium M (and AMD's soon to be released notebook processor) worsened Apple stand in the mobile market. Their offerings are not neccessarily obsolete, but the price/performance ratio gets worse everyday: You can now buy decent Centrino (rather Celeron M based) notebooks for the price of an iBook (which I still like better).

And the knowledge made by developing the M-series processors will finally make it into Intel's desktop line.

I still wonder why Apple is unable to put enough pressure onto their suppliers to improve certain aspects of their CPU designs (faster FSB in Freescales case, dynamic power and speed adjustments Ã* la Pentium M in both cases).

Realizing that the rate of improvements and innovation in the field of CPU development (which is much higher than in the beginning of personal computing and the beginning of the PC revolution in the mid 90s) is justified by the economics of scale coming from the high volume of the market and looking at Apple's ever decreasing share of that market should give the answer to why things are like they are: Neither IBM nor Freescale have any interest in producing the kick-ass high performance processors which on the other hand have the power conservation features neccessary for mobile applications because due to the comparably low volume of chips they would be able to sell they would never be able to recoup the cost of developing such a chip.

They basically face the same chellanges that Intel does in developing a chip (well, due to Patents held by Intel on the power conservation features of the Pentium M they are facing even bigger problems or licensing fees) but have on a budget (= marketable price of chip x number of sellable chips) far smaller than the competition's.

This is also the reason why Apple has to keep the pricepoints where they are; a Mac's costs of production (at least on the CPU side of things) cannot be lowered any further. The other option would be a chip as capable as the competition's leading to a significantly higher pricepoint.

The IBM G5 was made possible partly by IBM plans to use them in sever blades. I guess they did not sell to well due to the same supply problems that affected Apple. So one has to wonder how much effort IBM still puts into the development of the "low power" POWER processors. But there is hope coming from the fact that MS as well as Sony will be utilizing PPC technology in their upcoming game consoles as well as the development of PPC based Cell technology.

Where does that leave Apple? I don't really know. They can stick to the PPC platform and be subjected the crumbs that fall of the table of the next gen game box development and the scaling abilities of Cell. Or they can jump ship to the X86 platform (that, altough in need, will never change due to backwards compatibility needs) and deal with yet another complete transition and all its consequences.

Considering they really take the X86 plunge, they would only be able to offer the same as everyone else (for some, this sounds like an improvement, see above). And porting OS X to X86 would ultimately open the platform to other PC assemblers leading to the same problems Windows has due to the loss of control over the complete solution (hardware, OS, software) which I doubt Apple could handle (look at the problems every .-release of OS X even causes today).

I really hope that the current G4s and G5s get cheap enough for Apple to drive the cost the Mac mini down. This machine offers enough power for most markets and dependig on the price point they could (re)gain marketshare in business, education and regular households. And they should focus on the OS in order to keep it the most secure around.

Apple does however design their own I/O-ICs. They could easily implement things like SATA, PCIe, DDR2 and the like. But than again, you need a certain volume to achieve attractive price points and Macs are still compelling enough to sell with what they have to render this feasible.
post #169 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by RolandG
I have had the same feelings when the G4s stagnated at 500 MHz and Intel and AMD where scaling into the GHz as if there was no tomorrow. Speedwise, the stagnation threw Apple's desktop line back almost 2 or 3 processor iterations.

...SNIP...

Yes ... and this stagnation, which prompted Apple in desperation to offer DP's, should have been a wake-up call to Apple to lose Motorola long before the G5 PM. As a result, purchasers of the new PB will still be buying yesterday's news.

But let's cut Apple some slack. Forget the screamin' 1.67. We've still got cutting edge tech going for us in a speedy FSB, right? Not to mention a huge cache. And fast RAM. And updated displays.

What's to worry?
post #170 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Not a very good comparison with Virtual PC - in Virtual PC everything, including the operating system, is emulated. In the transistion scenerio, the operating system would be native, and only legacy applications would be emulated, and the main application developers would have advance notice, so they would supply re-compiled updates along with the new native OS.

A native version of OS X is not a trivial undertaking... even if Apple has already done some work on it experimentally, releasing it as a product is an entirely different thing.

Many apps spend a whole lot of CPU time executing their own code, not OS code.

A lot of people use a lot of software that doesn't come from "main application developers".

Creating new x86-based apps is more work that just clicking "the x86 button" and recompiling.

Do I have to list more reasons, or expand upon or defend the above, to convince you of what many people already know, that having Apple switch to x86 is a lot more than "no biggie"? Or would you rather continue to believe that Apple is stupidly avoiding the "obvious" solution that you, in your Great Wisdom, see so clearly?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #171 of 198
Quote:
Creating new x86-based apps is more work that just clicking "the x86 button" and recompiling.

Actually, at one point I was involved in an effort to port 20 million lines of pascal code from the 68000 to a RISC processor - I know what is required. For an individual, it would be hard, but you are talking about a development team of 1000+ people.

You have to re-write assembly routines, if any. You have to buy or write a new compiler. You have to deal with any endian issues - particularly wrt any binary data formats that are used for interchange with the old code (or remotely to other computers). The switch may reveal race conditions, which is to your benefit. Anything else? It just doesn't seem that hard to me.

People do stuff like this all the time in other industries. Where I work, we port code to new processors, change operating systems, change task scheduling algorithms, and all kinds of base-level stuff, and in the end we get it working.

The only real challanges here are backwards compatibility and emulation speed.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #172 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Actually, at one point I was involved in an effort to port 20 million lines of pascal code from the 68000 to a RISC processor - I know what is required. For an individual, it would be hard, but you are talking about a development team of 1000+ people.

We aren't just talking about Apple, however. We're talking about all developers, big and small, who provide software for Apple. We're also talking about time and effort that developers, no matter their numbers, might rather spend doing other more profitable things than re-issuing the same software for suddenly incompatible new Macs.
Quote:
You have to re-write assembly routines, if any. You have to buy or write a new compiler. You have to deal with any endian issues - particularly wrt any binary data formats that are used for interchange with the old code (or remotely to other computers). The switch may reveal race conditions, which is to your benefit. Anything else?

Those issues are already enough, multiplied many times over for all of the OS X software out there, to be more than "no biggie".

And you left out QA. You can't release a new version of an old app for a new processor without spending A LOT of QA time making sure that the translation didn't break anything.
Quote:
It just doesn't seem that hard to me.

I can't help that.
Quote:
People do stuff like this all the time in other industries. Where I work, we port code to new processors, change operating systems, change task scheduling algorithms, and all kinds of base-level stuff, and in the end we get it working.

The only real challanges here are backwards compatibility and emulation speed.

...And the less-than-trivial time, effort, money, and diversion of resources from other tasks that doing all of this conversion would entail. No, a switch to x86 wouldn't be conceptually difficult, nor particularly daunting in a technical sense, but those are far from the only factors to consider.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #173 of 198
Apple would go through a Q/A cycle anyway, so (except for the inevitable extra fixes and retest) no extra cost.

The compiler is sure to be available commercially.

I also missed memory sizes issues due to differing data bus sizes, and byte packing issues (for things that rely on 32 bit ints, for example, when you change to 64 bit ints).

How about this: if the difference in speed between the Intel processors and the G4 become large enough so that an Intel processor emulating a G4 is the same speed as a real G4, then the port would be something that Apple could easily accomplish.

That gives apple a safety valve in case things get too out of control.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #174 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I thought that they were saying that the Pentium M was twice as fast? The "move to the pentium" scenerio will only take place if the gap widens.

To, say, 10x or so.

One of the explicit design goals of the PowerPC spec, according to the tech lead, was to make it easy to transition from the 68k. The 68k->PowerPC transition really was the best possible case, held up throughout the industry as a success story. And it wasn't completely over until Mac OS X shipped.

PPC+AltiVec -> x86 would be incredibly painful. Doable, perhaps, but at great cost. The architectures are just too wildly different.

And the long-term effects would be sobering. Apple is a big fish in the high-end PowerPC market, able to have CPUs made to order, able to have high-level input into core APIs at the development stage. They'd be small fry in the x86 market, subsisting on whatever Intel decided to release for Intel's own reasons (which means that MS and Intel would have Apple by the short hairs). And given that the PowerPC is going to modular design rules now, customization has never been easier. But if you want a Pentium M, well, there are the lines Intel offers, and that's it.

Believe me. Not gonna happen. It would take tremendous pressure to get Apple off the PowerPC, and then it would transition the Mac wholesale, not just move the PowerBook over. There are many reasons besides CPU benchmark performance to buy a laptop.
"...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 #175 of 198
Apple creates a very nice, well built laptop. Consumer Reports shows that Apple beats other companies with the quality of their laptops.

In the end it doesn't really matter if other companies can build a better laptop than Apple hardware wise. Most all laptops end up running Windows - and when has that ever been a good thing?

Would you want your baby to be born with a brain tumor?
post #176 of 198
Quote:
To, say, 10x or so.

Possibly, I don't know - emulators like this are pretty rare, so I don't know anyone who has written one. The developers of Virtual PC have a pretty big incentive to make their emulator as good as possible, so their product is probably a good indicator of what is possible (anyone know how fast Virtual PC runs?).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #177 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Possibly, I don't know - emulators like this are pretty rare, so I don't know anyone who has written one. The developers of Virtual PC have a pretty big incentive to make their emulator as good as possible, so their product is probably a good indicator of what is possible (anyone know how fast Virtual PC runs?).

The most optimistic assessment I've heard is that VPC on a G4 is equal to a P3 at half the G4's MHz.
"...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 #178 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
The most optimistic assessment I've heard is that VPC on a G4 is equal to a P3 at half the G4's MHz.

And if you have a P3 and a G4 both the same speed speed (500 MHz, say), what is the operational speed difference? (sorry - I have no idea how fast a P3 is, I have only owned two PCs and they both had AMD processors)
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #179 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Apple would go through... then the port would be something that Apple... That gives apple...

Apple isn't the only software developer that matters here!

They'd royally piss off many of their developers by switching chips. Some would decide the platform was no longer worth developing for, or wouldn't bother with the effort to support new, hypothetical x86 Macs, or would make users wait quite a while for x86-capable apps while they took the wait-and-see approach. After all, if the installed base is still 95% PPC a year after the first x86 Mac, and many software developers consider the entire Mac OS X base too small to bother with, how many developers are going to bother to make a special effort for 5% of 3% of the market?

Apple would have to be sorely, sorely pressed by performance issues, MUCH more than they currently are, before an x86 switch became a smart (desperate?) move.

Still convinced this is "no biggie"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #180 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Apple isn't the only software developer that matters here!

They'd royally piss off many of their developers by switching chips. Some would decide the platform was no longer worth developing for, or wouldn't bother with the effort to support new, hypothetical x86 Macs, or would make users wait quite a while for x86-capable apps while they took the wait-and-see approach. After all, if the installed base is still 95% PPC a year after the first x86 Mac, and many software developers consider the entire Mac OS X base too small to bother with, how many developers are going to bother to make a special effort for 5% of 3% of the market?

Apple would have to be sorely, sorely pressed by performance issues, MUCH more than they currently are, before an x86 switch became a smart (desperate?) move.

Still convinced this is "no biggie"?

If the speed difference met my criteria above, then they wouldn't piss off anyone - the emulated applications would run as fast as before, and with a simple re-compile (and nothing else for most applications) you would get a big speed gain.

Anyway, forget I mentioned it - doesn't matter - don't care. I like the G4, and as soon as I get some sweet cash I am getting a 17" and a 30" - VNC should be awesome on a 30" monitor!

BTW - for those of you unimpressed by the speed bump, amazon has the old 17" for $2269 + 150 rebate + no tax + free shipping.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #181 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
BTW - for those of you unimpressed by the speed bump, amazon has the old 17" for $2269 + 150 rebate + no tax + free shipping.

Wow. I was hoping to sell mine for about $2000. Better rethink that.
post #182 of 198
I think we all agree that an x86 port ain't happening nor should it. But while we're thinking processor realignment... how much work would it take to adapt OSX to Cell?

To me that is a far more relevant question.
post #183 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by RolandG
I have had the same feelings when the G4s stagnated at 500 MHz and Intel and AMD where scaling into the GHz as if there was no tomorrow. Speedwise, the stagnation threw Apple's desktop line back almost 2 or 3 processor iterations.

And the knowledge made by developing the M-series processors will finally make it into Intel's desktop line.

I still wonder why Apple is unable to put enough pressure onto their suppliers to improve certain aspects of their CPU designs (faster FSB in Freescales case, dynamic power and speed adjustments Ã* la Pentium M in both cases).

I'm not going to question the length of time it has taken for Apple to get decent processor speeds out of their suppliers...I wonder if this will feature in a chapter of Steve Jobs autobiography

You'd have to say that this MHz gap has improved over the past 2 years...both IBM and Freescale finally seem to have realised that there is a wider market for RISC chips...and quicker ones at that. Whilst the 7447B is ok, I have a sneaking suspicion the next PowerBook will see a greater performance jump.

The 7448 (see http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit.../MPC7450UM.pdf) is a step along the way to Dothan-like performance...increased Dynamic Frequency Switching (DFS), increased cache, improvements to Altivec, and perhaps a 20% improvement in clockspeed in the move to a 90nm process.

When we see the chip, hopefully at WWDC or just after, it will face a Pentium-M/Sonoma combo that is good but only slightly better than the Pentium-M/Centrino ( with a marginal clockspeed improvement and a quad pumped bus). The gap will have closed considerably in that time between the supposed inadequacy of the PowerBook and the pretender to the notebook throne. When the 8641D arrives at Macworld 2006, everyone will be happy. Optimistic? People, things are on the up

No more limited FSB and the G5 fanboys can go back to their mothers for coke and hugs
human speech is like a cracked tin kettle, on
which we hammer out tunes to make bears
dance when we long to move the stars to
pity.
Reply
human speech is like a cracked tin kettle, on
which we hammer out tunes to make bears
dance when we long to move the stars to
pity.
Reply
post #184 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by a j stev
Whilst the 7447B is ok, I have a sneaking suspicion the next PowerBook will see a greater performance jump.

agreed. on this note, what's the group consensus on how likely 7448 is for WWDC?

yesterday, i was pretty resolved to get one of the new 15" models. only downside is the lingering 167mhz bus.

but now i'm thinking i might do better with a stopgap (cheap) ibook til WWDC, then get a 7448 PB, and resell the ibook.

thoughts?
apple gets "it."
Reply
apple gets "it."
Reply
post #185 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by imiloa
agreed. on this note, what's the group consensus on how likely 7448 is for WWDC?

yesterday, i was pretty resolved to get one of the new 15" models. only downside is the lingering 167mhz bus.

but now i'm thinking i might do better with a stopgap (cheap) ibook til WWDC, then get a 7448 PB, and resell the ibook.

thoughts?

hey, go for it, you might end up holding on to your iBook a little longer than you expect (maybe enough to upgrade when the 7448/G5 powerbook Rev B comes out)
post #186 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by imiloa
agreed. on this note, what's the group consensus on how likely 7448 is for WWDC?

I would not bet on that. And by the way, let me remind the official Freescale roadmap from the other thread that died in Temporary Insanity:

(1) 7448, single e600 core, >1.5 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache with ECC, 200 MHz system bus, less than 10 W power consumption at 1.4 GHz.

(2) 8641D, dual e600 core, >1.5 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache with ECC (per processor core), integrated MPX bus up to 667 MHz (MUCH MUCH faster than the one we have for years in the G4 as a major bottleneck) with dual 64-bit DDR and DDR-II support, PCIe interface.

Availability is scheduled for 2H-05 and 1H-06 respectively, see the SNDF presentation (page 41).

What does this mean. With some good luck, we will have a 7448-based Powerbook by this year's summer-autumn and a 8641D-based (dual-core) Powerbook by the beginning of next year, say in one year from now. Now, the 7448 and 8641D are based on the e600 core which is 32-bit. But as Freescale says, there will be a 64-bit successor to the e600, with full 32-bit support, the e700. If Apple takes the Freescale road (and with all current evidence they have no other choice), I guess this e700 would perhaps be the G5-mobile for the Powerbook. Unfortunately, there are no available details on sampling and production for the e700 (personally, I would not expect it before 2007).

For the time being though, it seems that the Powerbook will follow a smooth evolution to a very capable 32-bit dual-core portable machine, without the system bottlenecks that plagued the platform for years. It remains to see if IBM comes with a response to Freescale. It would be very interesting indeed if they did. But there is zero evidence at this moment that they would do that before 2006.
post #187 of 198
originally was going to wait till wwdc...now decided i'll be happy with the last g4 update - it won't have any rev a bugs and is more than fast enough for what i need to do.

will probably order in april/may, bit of a cash flow problem at the moment.
post #188 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
It remains to see if IBM comes with a response to Freescale. It would be very interesting indeed if they did. But there is zero evidence at this moment that they would do that before 2006.

you have not seen anything regarding a Power5-based mobile PPC that could make it into a PowerBookG5 by summer/fall 2005? just curious, not even a hint anywhere?
post #189 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
you have not seen anything regarding a Power5-based mobile PPC that could make it into a PowerBookG5 by summer/fall 2005? just curious, not even a hint anywhere?

Sorry, no. If you or anyone else found/find anything (I mean some IBM document), please feel free to let us know .
post #190 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave J
I think we all agree that an x86 port ain't happening nor should it. But while we're thinking processor realignment... how much work would it take to adapt OSX to Cell?

The answer is, that it depends on the Cell.

The first iteration of the Cell line is, according to Hannibal@Ars, not suitable for inclusion in a Mac. At any rate, as he points out, all (or at least, much) will be revealed at the ISSCC presentation by IBM.

My unfounded guess is that the PowerPC at the heart of the Cell is a PPC400 class, or equivalent.

Generally, I'd imagine that it would not be hard to get OS X to limp along on Cell, given that every Cell has a PowerPC core as far as I've read. Getting OS X to exploit Cell's capabilities... well, that's a different matter entirely, and since Cell's capabilities are not publicly known in any detail, it's hard even to speculate.

I think Power5 derivatives are more interesting possibilities for Apple in the near term. If IBM's engineers have been able to cash the rather large checks written by their PR flacks, those will be coming sooner rather than later. The claimed performance delta of a Power5 core over a Power4 core is staggering.
"...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 #191 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
you have not seen anything regarding a Power5-based mobile PPC that could make it into a PowerBookG5 by summer/fall 2005? just curious, not even a hint anywhere?

The only news I know of came from Mr. Macphisto, who said that something was in the pipeline @ IBM a couple o'months ago. But details...nope.

If you feel the need to speculate, have a look at Power4 and the revisions that were made to it before it became the 970. Then repeat the same process for the Power5.
human speech is like a cracked tin kettle, on
which we hammer out tunes to make bears
dance when we long to move the stars to
pity.
Reply
human speech is like a cracked tin kettle, on
which we hammer out tunes to make bears
dance when we long to move the stars to
pity.
Reply
post #192 of 198
A lot of people have posted a lot of positive and negative comments on the powerbook updates. Does anyone have comments/considerations on the updates in relation to film editing? Im editing in final cut pro

Tom
post #193 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by a j stev
If you feel the need to speculate, have a look at Power4 and the revisions that were made to it before it became the 970. Then repeat the same process for the Power5.

Actually, reading from the checks written by IBM's PR flacks, they engineered the Power5 so that a 900-class PowerPC could be derived from it immediately. The Power5 is a fundamentally different creature than the Power4, not in terms of its architecture, but in terms of its design goals: Relatively low cost, low power, etc. The Power4 was an ogre of a CPU in terms of size, cost, power consumption and (low) yields. The Power5 is not.

Again, if IBM's boffins (I love that word) have kept up with their marketing people—and I've been in the business way to long to take that for granted—then look for a PowerPC spinoff of the Power5 sooner rather than later.
"...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 #194 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Actually, reading from the checks written by IBM's PR flacks, they engineered the Power5 so that a 900-class PowerPC could be derived from it immediately. The Power5 is a fundamentally different creature than the Power4, not in terms of its architecture, but in terms of its design goals: Relatively low cost, low power, etc. The Power4 was an ogre of a CPU in terms of size, cost, power consumption and (low) yields. The Power5 is not.

Again, if IBM's boffins (I love that word) have kept up with their marketing people—and I've been in the business way to long to take that for granted—then look for a PowerPC spinoff of the Power5 sooner rather than later.

I agree. I would imagine that we will never see a 970 derived PPC in an Apple portable. The 970 has been around for quite a while. I would hope to see products based on a new processor reasonably soon (summer for PMs, maybe next Macworld for PBs).

And wasn't there always some murmurings that the 970 was a temporary measure to bring Apple up to parity (and even slightly exceed on launch) offerings from both Intel and AMD?
post #195 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveLee
I agree. I would imagine that we will never see a 970 derived PPC in an Apple portable. The 970 has been around for quite a while. I would hope to see products based on a new processor reasonably soon (summer for PMs, maybe next Macworld for PBs).

And wasn't there always some murmurings that the 970 was a temporary measure to bring Apple up to parity (and even slightly exceed on launch) offerings from both Intel and AMD?

Possibly. I think the original intent was to have the 970 trickle down into portables, but it seems to be putting up a fight. We'll see. In the worst case, it's Freescale to the rescue with the 7448, 8641D, and then 87xx "G5" (because they're 64bit capable) CPUs. PB's post above covers them well.
"...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 #196 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by maclayman
A lot of people have posted a lot of positive and negative comments on the powerbook updates. Does anyone have comments/considerations on the updates in relation to film editing? Im editing in final cut pro

Tom

Tom, i think it is best to go to 'current hardware' part of the forums and ask people there, there's definitely a lot of FCP people around, they'll tell you what they've been doing on their 1ghz to 1.5ghz powerbooks ...

I think you'll need some real-world answers rather than getting bogged down in 'my ghz is bigger than your ghz' or 'my fsb kicks your fsb's ass' type discussions

1.67ghz 15" powerbook with superdrive, 128mb vram is now Current Hardware

good luck
post #197 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
What is important with PCIe, and I think it will find its way into Core Image/Video, Quartz 2D Extreme or whatever, is the capability to talk back to the CPU very fast.

I have convinced myself that with Core Video, Apple will need the downstream capability of the graphics bus. Now the question is if PCIe provides that big of a difference compared to AGP.

If Apple needs PCIe x16 for its pro-level machines post-Tiger, then that would present a problem for G4 systems. 74xx systems are limited by the FSB. 8461 (e600) systems only have PCIe x8. The G5 systems shouldn't have a problem.
post #198 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Tom, i think it is best to go to 'current hardware' part of the forums and ask people there, there's definitely a lot of FCP people around, they'll tell you what they've been doing on their 1ghz to 1.5ghz powerbooks ...

I think you'll need some real-world answers rather than getting bogged down in 'my ghz is bigger than your ghz' or 'my fsb kicks your fsb's ass' type discussions

1.67ghz 15" powerbook with superdrive, 128mb vram is now Current Hardware

good luck

thanks for your advise..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple Unveils Faster, More Affordable PowerBooks