Will the faith in Motorola be restored if G5 really comes?

I was thinking pollux,

even if we do see a 1.6ghz g5, how much is it going to scale? We might be stuck at 1.6 for a couple of years. In the PC world, at least they (Intel/Amd) kind of guarantee that chips get faster/more powerful linerally every year. G5 might be the dogs when it comes out, but so was G4 in comparison to a P3 600mhz at the time, look at the state now. Im not trolling, , Just looking at the history. Are there any indications g5 might scale above the 2ghz of moto's roadmap.

Well, unless Adobe bloats the rest of their apps I think 1.6 will be fine for the majority of people for a while. 3D and some video is really the only place you'd need that raw power to keep increasing. I'm still on a G4 450 so when I get a new computer the power should do me well for a while. The ave Joe won't have any use for anything over 800mhz mac wise. I guess that's why the iMacs will remain G3.

I don't see myself complaining about being stuck at 1.6 ghz in a few years unless the apps and OS X bloat up.

[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>I was thinking pollux,

even if we do see a 1.6ghz g5, how much is it going to scale? We might be stuck at 1.6 for a couple of years. In the PC world, at least they (Intel/Amd) kind of guarantee that chips get faster/more powerful linerally every year. G5 might be the dogs when it comes out, but so was G4 in comparison to a P3 600mhz at the time, look at the state now. Im not trolling, , Just looking at the history. Are there any indications g5 might scale above the 2ghz of moto's roadmap.</strong><hr></blockquote>


1.) with the exception of the G4 7400 chips usually have a lot of room to grow over the initial speeds. 604 went from 180 up to 350. g3 has gone from 233 to 733 and 1Ghz soon. Revisions will likely be needed but a good design should have much room to grow.

2.) Dual processors

Why do we need a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one? I hate having to follow two threads on the _exact_ same thing

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Why do we need a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one? I hate having to follow two threads on the _exact_ same thing </strong><hr></blockquote>

This topic is about restoring faith in MOT if the G5 does come out in Jan. I don't see any other threads about restoring faith in MOT

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Why do we need a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one? I hate having to follow two threads on the _exact_ same thing </strong><hr></blockquote>

This one really is different, otherwise I would've closed it.

The ave Joe won't have any use for anything over 800mhz

Except the future of the iMac is the digital hub and you need power video work. I think DVD burning is going to be bigger than CD-R's and we know the size of that market.

[quote]Originally posted by JW Pepper:
<strong>The ave Joe won't have any use for anything over 800mhz

Except the future of the iMac is the digital hub and you need power video work. I think DVD burning is going to be bigger than CD-R's and we know the size of that market.</strong><hr></blockquote>

True, but that's the future. I meant if a 1.4 G5 comes out, it will hold for a while until new chips come out. I don't think we will be in a major rush to get to 2.0+GHZ when it took us 2 years to increase by 500mhz or so.

I think there is a speed barrier line here, anything over say 1.4 will not make much differnece to most people for a while (except for the bloat ware)

I agree, I think it is rather ironic that like PC's the people who need the power a consumers for their power hungry games and in our video.

For most of us we really don't need the power for Dreamweaver/Quark/Office/Illastrator etc.

We like the power but usually don't need it.

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

True, but that's the future. I meant if a 1.4 G5 comes out, it will hold for a while until new chips come out. I don't think we will be in a major rush to get to 2.0+GHZ when it took us 2 years to increase by 500mhz or so.

I think there is a speed barrier line here, anything over say 1.4 will not make much differnece to most people for a while (except for the bloat ware)</strong><hr></blockquote>


BULL

until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".

Well the whole 1.2-1.6 GHz G5 story is from the register, right? And if I remember correctly, the register also reported that Moto is fabbing G5s at up to 2.4 GHz! So if the Register's mole is legit, then the next 18 months or so should be very interesting for Apple.

My faith would be restored in Moto even if they were to put out a nice speedbump, to around 1.1 or 1.2 GHz for the G4. That would be a respectable speed bump, and it would keep Powermacs in about the same speed range as a Pentium 4, at least for a few months.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>


BULL

until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".</strong><hr></blockquote>

BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.

That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.

I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.

I just don't understand why Apple can't speed bump and reduce prices without expos. Like use the latest chips available and bump up the RAM without a MWNY style launch. I think expos should be reserved dramatic improvements or totally new products only.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>


BULL

until everything on a computer occurs instantly computers are not fast enough. there will not be a point in the forseeable future where computers will be "fast enough".</strong><hr></blockquote>

BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.

That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.

I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.

That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.

I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>


so I guess 5 years ago with 603 and 604 processors you thought you would need nothing more ever as they did word processing, web browsing and e-mail fine.

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.

That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.

I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And I must respectfully disagree with you on this point.

5 years ago, your computer was plenty fast already for word processing, e-mail, and most mundane tasks - heck, it was probably fast enough 10 years ago for that stuff. However, web browsing was slow, 3-d graphics rare (and incredibly slow), and video playback (let alone streaming video on the Web) were barely within reach of the best PCs.

It is important for computing power to keep increasing because the applications which become practical or even possible keeps increasing as a result. There are a gazillion (pardon the technical language ) things a desktop computer could do in principle, but doesn't because the computing power required is too much for current hardware.

5 years from now, your computer will be powerful enough to do things that we can't even imagine right now. We'll look back on a 1.6 GHz G5 and be amazed we ever got anything done with such a snail of a processor. 7 years ago, I thought my 6100 with a 60 MHz PPC 601 processor was way cool. I can't even use it, now.

No computer will ever be "fast enough", IMHO. I can't wait for what's coming next!

Tom Moyer

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

BULL
&lt;snip&gt;


I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I've been using pc's since the TRS-80, and almost every technological advance has had its share of "I honestly don't see..." statements and detractors. And no, this isn't one of those "I walked 10 miles through snow uphill to school" posts.

Just go back 2 years and tell me that you would have believed that &gt;512MB ram would be commonplace and 40+ GB drives would be considered low end. For a majority of people, this configuration is a "base" level system, due mainly to the digital media iMovie and other consumer technologies that are starting to catch on.

Let's look forward a bit... how about an upgraded ViaVoice, one that was smart enough to put in the punctuation on its own, could transcribe meetings, lectures etc, and be able to identify each different speaker by the tone of their voice? What a boon this would be for students and businessmen/women! Being able to actively listen and participate in class without worry of taking complete notes. More complete learning, the ability for real-time assistive learning devices.

True voice control of your pc, true handwriting recognition, far better compression technologies that make video conferencing viable at lower bandwidths, real-time image recognition. The list can go on and on, ad infinitum.

All of this becomes a reality when the speed of the pc processor is such that it can handle those tasks as a background process.

Yes, in todays terms the average user simply does not tax their system. At the same time, it isn't fast enough to do the type of truely useful things the average person can benefit from (see above).

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Hi Ho Quicksilver ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

BULL
I disagree. Checking your email, writing out some letter and surfing the net will not require or benefit from a 2.0+ghz chip. I have a 450 now, and the dual 800 will only save me a few seconds in PS and maybe a few tasks in the finder. So once those few seconds are made up there is no current need for more speed. If you aren't waiting it's pretty instant.

That's why I said mainly 3D and video editors will constantly want the speed increases.

I honestly don't see how I would need a 10+ ghz computer 5 years from now barring the apps and OS's don't get bloated.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are right, for your average Joe, as things stand right now, even a 600 MHz G3 is fast enought for most any Mac application. Now, let's look at what Steve had said last year. He wants DVD Burning (aka SuperDrive) to be brought to the consumer in Q1 2002. Now in order for that to take place, a person needs to have a 1 GHz if not more in the G4 range to do the effectively. Also, they need to improve the speeds of the SuperDrive.

However, as things stand now, a G3 in the 600 - 800 MHz is plenty fine for the average Joe Blow.

Yeah, but this "average joe blow" normally buys a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 system so he can play the latest games and/or brag about how big his MHz is to all of his buddies.

I think the "average joe blow" doesn't really care about what he NEEDS. This average blowhard drives an oversized SUV so he can successfully navigate paved roads, he likes to brag about the horsepower of his SUV, and he will talk on and on about how many WATTS his stereo has. And none of it means a damn thing to the guy because he doesn't drive offroad, he rarely redlines his engine, and he doesn't know jack squat about music (or even like music, he mostly likes the IDEA of himself driving around to a kickin' bass theme).

So this same jackass doesn't care about what he NEEDS, it's about what he wants, and what he wants is based on IMAGE, ultimately, the image he thinks it takes to get laid. And more MHz somehow fits into all this to make him a better, bigger man.

So it's in Apple's best interest to get this Pentium-stomping G5 into their powermacs so they can brag about how much faster it is than a 2 GHz Pentium.

[quote]Originally posted by Hi Ho Quicksilver:
<strong>

Just go back 2 years and tell me that you would have believed that &gt;512MB ram would be commonplace and 40+ GB drives would be considered low end. For a majority of people, this configuration is a "base" level system, due mainly to the digital media iMovie and other consumer technologies that are starting to catch on.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

2 years ago, did photoshop require 150+megs? That wouldv'e been, what OS 8.0? That used about 40megs if I remeber correctly. So, you see my point, apps and the OS have bloated due to extra features, effects, drop shadows, etc. But I think we are close to being as far as we need to be.

2 years from now, I don't think photoshop will require 500megs to run, if it does, then LOL, holy shit!

You see what I mean, it's like now that we have cars with 200+hp we really don't need much more, or at least by average.

Well, those features that "bloated" photoshop where added because the horsepower was there to run them...given the power, developers like Adobe will have the freedom to impliment features that we can't even imagine yet. The car analogy doesn't apply well since it will never be safe to drive at much higher speeds then we have now and to be able to accelerate at g forces that would make us black out wouldn't be a great idea either so higher horsepower then most cars have now probably won't happen.

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>So this same jackass doesn't care about what he NEEDS, it's about what he wants, and what he wants is based on IMAGE, ultimately, the image he thinks it takes to get laid. And more MHz somehow fits into all this to make him a better, bigger man.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In general, I totally agree with you Junkyard, but are you sure you are the same Junkyard as b4?? Just feels weird ....

[quote]2 years ago, did photoshop require 150+megs? That wouldv'e been, what OS 8.0? That used about 40megs if I remeber correctly. So, you see my point, apps and the OS have bloated due to extra features, effects, drop shadows, etc. But I think we are close to being as far as we need to be.

2 years from now, I don't think photoshop will require 500megs to run, if it does, then LOL, holy shit!

You see what I mean, it's like now that we have cars with 200+hp we really don't need much more, or at least by average.<hr></blockquote>

Then you don't use these apps to make a living. Anything to shave time in working on a 300+ meg PS file, or even getting DW to run at a decent speed. We won't even discuss 3D rendering times. There is never going to be a fast enough for Apple's pro market--and it better be coming soon, cause lots have already made the move to Win2K.

Cowerd. if apple comes out with a kick-butt machine would the people you know of come back to mac?

[quote]Originally posted by craiger77:
<strong>Well, those features that "bloated" photoshop where added because the horsepower was there to run them...given the power, developers like Adobe will have the freedom to impliment features that we can't even imagine yet. The car analogy doesn't apply well since it will never be safe to drive at much higher speeds then we have now and to be able to accelerate at g forces that would make us black out wouldn't be a great idea either so higher horsepower then most cars have now probably won't happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>


So narrow-minded! *kim kap sol shakes his head in dissapointment*

If the spec numbers The Register used from their reliable mole are even close, the G5 wouldn't need to be revised much to stay way ahead of Intel/AMD for quite some time. What were they? Twice as fast?


In Jan. I'm
Wishing for a G5 1.6
Hoping for a G4 Apollo 1.3 w/ DDRram
expecting a G4 Apollo 1.1 sDram

Computers will never be fast enough for me, For instance on a G4 400 I may set off a 3D radiosity scene that may take 5 hours to render, which is quite conservative. I would like 30 of these frames rendered per second if it was possible, so would everyone else into serious 3d. Now I don't know if faster processors or faster gpu's are the answer, I suspect both, but I don't see this kind of performance for at least 20 years.

[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>Computers will never be fast enough for me, For instance on a G4 400 I may set off a 3D radiosity scene that may take 5 hours to render, which is quite conservative. I would like 30 of these frames rendered per second if it was possible, so would everyone else into serious 3d. Now I don't know if faster processors or faster gpu's are the answer, I suspect both, but I don't see this kind of performance for at least 20 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You will certainly have suffisant power in ten years, but at this time you will need more power of calculation because you will use a rendering process more sophisticated than radiosity and you will want higher resolution.

Mot Semiconductor has an axe over its head right now, so I imagine that they're trying to restore Motorola's faith in them as well.

We'll see how well they do under the gun. Early indications look good.

It amazes me how the guys who always say how much they like their Macs because it automatically recognized their Digital Camera or their firewire drive as soon as they plugged it in, unlike Windows where they would have had to install drivers etc. are the same ones that go " Well, we don't need faster Macs, if it weren't for OS and application bloat we wouldn't even have a use for what we already have. " when some of us complain about Macs falling behind PCs in speed.

I could easily use a processor that's a hundred times faster than what is available on the market today.

I would love to render movies and 3D instantly, play 3D games that look like final fantasy.

We're still so far from decent Artificial Intelligence, how about that?

How about higher resolution screens at 300, or even 600 dpi so everything will look like print. Wait, that requires more bandwidth, and more GPU power right? What if I wanna shoot a movie at that resolution and edit it and play it back on my computer? Faster, bigger hard drives, faster CPU, more RAM?

Are you telling me I shouldn't be able to do that? Ever?

What if I wanna play an adventure game that's not retarded, that can really understand spoken english and has characters that can really respond to situations? How many TeraHertz would that take.

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: timortis ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
[QB]Then you don't use these apps to make a living. <hr></blockquote>

Wrong. I use Photoshop and Dramweaver everyday to make my pretty good living.

And the rest of you guys are missing the point. I don't think my mom is going to need a 10ghz machine 5 years from now to check her damn email. Thats my point!

[quote]Orig

Consider this:

Every product that ever came out went through the same product curve.

Someone identifies a problem their going to solve and build a product that poses a signifigant benifit to the user, enough to seperate his/her $ from pocket.

As the product gains acceptance other people start to copy it and the capabilitis of the product get "better" (they pose more and more benifit) to the user, the product moves through a growth cycle. This is where cell phones are right now.

In the thrid phase, the product (I mean all products that do the same thing) begins to mature, and it costs more and more to extract more benift to offer the consumer. This is where the car is.

Lastly someone comes up with a totally new solution to the problem (maybe this is Ginger, we'll find out Monday!!) which makes the current one not attractive enough to sell, and it dies off.

The computer is leaving the growth phase and is maturing. This means you've got to inovate or die. The watch did this a while ago swatch saw it and took advantage of it.

I think the important thing to consider is the "digital hub" strategy. This may be the thing that moves Apple back into the mainstream.

I don't see anyone caring how many Mhz the iPod has! It's a new solution to a problem that was not solved very well with the old system (computer type players).

They won't have to "convince" anyone to buy a "digital hub device" if they get it right. Consumers will see the benifit and act.

If Apple can ship 1-1.5 GHz PowerPC 8500-based PowerMacs a month or two after MWSF then yes I would restore my faith. If not, I question the future of the Macintosh platform. Are they really serious about performance? I don't want Apollo, I want the real deal G5.

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
You will certainly have suffisant power in ten years, but at this time you will need more power of calculation because you will use a rendering process more sophisticated than radiosity and you will want higher resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>

umm, 10 years? I dunno, how do you work that out?
Are you talking about specialist HW (ie SGI/Sun) or just desktops?

To go from 1 frame in 5 hours to 30fps is a jump of 5*60*60*30*MHZ which means 216,000,000 MHZ in the case I stated, (or 216 thousand GHZ). In the last 10 years we've seen a processor increase from 20MHZ to 2GHZ, about x100, which if applied to todays 2GHZ machines equalls 200GHZ. Notwithstanding the fact that Intel are predicting 10GHZ by 2005, I'd say we'd be very lucky to achieve even 100GHZ be 2011. Perhaps Moto's patented silicon/light process may help, but I'd say 100GHZ chips won't be fabbed at all like todays chips, unless there are 100stage pipelines.

Perhaps the performance could come from GPU's. But then apart from OpenGL realtime rendering, GPU's really are not capable/ or being utilized for any broadcast quality final output from 3d programmes at the moment, its all done on the CPU.

Just rambling...

Sorry, but a computer won't be fast or powerful enough for me until it boots up and is ready to go instantly(like in a second or 2).
A computer won't be fast or powerful enough for me until every app. opens faster than the eye can see.
A computer won't be fast or powerful enough for me until every process or task, be it what it may, no matter how complex is done in 3 seconds or less.
Sorry but I'm picky. My point is a computer will never be fast or powerful enough.There will always be something to strain its limits.
"straining the limits of machine and man...."

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Gilsch ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>

umm, 10 years? I dunno, how do you work that out?
Are you talking about specialist HW (ie SGI/Sun) or just desktops?

To go from 1 frame in 5 hours to 30fps is a jump of 5*60*60*30*MHZ which means 216,000,000 MHZ in the case I stated, (or 216 thousand GHZ). In the last 10 years we've seen a processor increase from 20MHZ to 2GHZ, about x100, which if applied to todays 2GHZ machines equalls 200GHZ. Notwithstanding the fact that Intel are predicting 10GHZ by 2005, I'd say we'd be very lucky to achieve even 100GHZ be 2011. Perhaps Moto's patented silicon/light process may help, but I'd say 100GHZ chips won't be fabbed at all like todays chips, unless there are 100stage pipelines.

Perhaps the performance could come from GPU's. But then apart from OpenGL realtime rendering, GPU's really are not capable/ or being utilized for any broadcast quality final output from 3d programmes at the moment, its all done on the CPU.

Just rambling... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to admit, MACUK i did not make any calculation, however i think the performance in 3 D rendering will increase much faster, than other tasks. The video card progress at an incredible speed. 20 years seems me very long for that, and perhaps they will be some extra strong GPU who will be able to do this sort of calculation in a much better way (by the increase of the size of the chip with multicanal, rather than the increase of the clock speed).Why not a 1024 or 2048 bit CPU ?
However, even if you have this kind of machine, and i hope we will live enough to see them and why not bough them, we will find that this computer will be still slow for certains tasks.

The better GPU's on the market today can do more calculations than the CPU's, plus they are specialized chips.