Some vague MOT information
Where the info comes from: A good friend of mine that is also a coworker happens to be good friends with a MOT person in the PPC division (how about vaque). Also my friend knows little about Macs and even less about hardware than I do (we both do software). I gave my friend questions on the G4/G5 to get answers to in December (still not answered). However he did recently get this information for me.
Information: MOT is concentrating resources on the performance of their existing lines (that would be the G4). Although this does not discount a G5 any time soon, this does reduce the probability.
Take this however you want, but those holding their breath for a G5 to appear soon may want to take another breath.
Also on the MOT rumor front, a rumor was going around MOT about becoming sole-source for AAPL (I do not think this is very likely).
Information: MOT is concentrating resources on the performance of their existing lines (that would be the G4). Although this does not discount a G5 any time soon, this does reduce the probability.
Take this however you want, but those holding their breath for a G5 to appear soon may want to take another breath.
Also on the MOT rumor front, a rumor was going around MOT about becoming sole-source for AAPL (I do not think this is very likely).
Comments
About Mot being Apple's sole supplier - that's almost true now. The exception is the iBook. So is that a hint about the iBook going G4?
It also means that the "G5" is probably just(!) an upcoming version of the G4 on a vastly improved motherboard.
If two G4s can do as well as they do on Apple's current board, imagine what they could do with 333MHz DDR attached to onboard memory controllers and RapidIO-connected ASICs.
A warmed over G4 set up.
Still got the same single floating point unit.
Like a Ford engine in a Porsche body?
So. Whooppee. Come Macworld New York, after two years or so, we finally catch up with a PC Motherboard.
Nice. Great work, boys...
Lemon Bon Bon
Currently preparing to take in another gulp of oxygen for another two year wait at this rate of going...yeesh.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>Hmmm.
A warmed over G4 set up.
Still got the same single floating point unit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not necessarily.
Past revisions to the G4 have introduced additional execution units; there's no reason why future revisions won't.
And don't forget AltiVec, which a) has remarkably capable FP abilities, and b) will no longer be totally starved for bandwidth on the new board, if it's anything like what I described.
A higher-bandwidth board will also make multiple processor setups more sensible, and then you have lots of FP units available.
I'm going to take this to a new Topic Thread.
Backfire. Yeah. I'd say. If your processor supplier, IBM or Moto' can't pull their finger out and deliver a better than '500mhz' processor for two years...then...yeah. 'Backfire'.
Simple. They've been playing catch up and the mhz gap has gone from .5 gig to a who gig plus! And Intel merrily announce a 500 plus Motherboard.
G'yeesh.
There's no doubting that a 'G4' plonked into a new Motherboard (rapid io if all we've heard about it...) will do much better than the current ones. Maybe surprisingly so. But until I see what processor they plonk in it...I guess we won't know whether it's 'oh. another G4.' or 'Yay, twinkie cakes, G5.'
...but bar the extra integer head or altivec unit tweak...and...erm...the longer pipelines...this is still, basically the same G4 launched years ago at heart. Yeah...and I guess the 2meg level 3 cache aint bad.
...and if a 'G5' doesn't 'exist' you have to question what the hell Apple and Moto' are playing at. 'Hey guys...we're playing Russian Roulette with our Powermac sales...'
I suspect it does 'exist' but Apple and Moto' for whatever reason are holding back on releasing it...er...because, yay...they have found re: Apollo they can prolong the agony of another year wait for a G5...so...we pootle along in 2nd gear 'catch up' (still behind...) for another year.
I dunno. Maybe Apple likes taking it up the ass with Moto'...and in turn...we take it up the ass... Well, I don't. I don't buy a Powermac until I see the mythical G5 whether it's called that or 8500.
It doesn't matter if they call it a G5 or not. Either way, we'll know if they are palming off a G4 under an undeserving 'G5' monika.
Macworld New York. It's going to be interesting.
Somethings gonna come. But what.
My deep suspicion is that, with Apollo, somehow...with die shrinks they'll take the damn thing all the way to 2 gig. So G4++++++ (plus and another plus...and another 'plus'....) So, yeah, whooppedoo, we get a 2 gig G4 at Macworld Sanfran' 2003. That's my worry.
Big deal, if the fundamental chip doesn't change.
I hear what you're saying Amorph.
But the G4 has to take on board another two floating point units just to pull even with the current Athlon. And...pull another .5 gig gap out the fire just to be competitive.
More and more...it's looking likely that the 'true' G5 won't turn up until 'Itanium' or 'Sledgehammer' are already mainstream.
Shakes head.
To me. And I'm sure alot of analysts/apple watchers see the G5 as 'sticking it to the wintel'. Next July. 'So what'.
This July..?
Fighting talk. That's what I want to hear.
That's what I and alot of Powermac users want to buy.
...and looking at the Powermac sales...maybe they agree.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yeah. I guess I'm whinging.
<a href="http://www.macmart.com/rammart/memory/memoryspecs/sheets/ibookg4.html"; target="_blank">G4 iBook Titanium mention</a>
or it could be a typo.
MSKR
...but bar the extra integer head or altivec unit tweak...and...erm...the longer pipelines...this is still, basically the same G4 launched years ago at heart. Yeah...and I guess the 2meg level 3 cache aint bad.</strong>
The difference between the 7450 based G4s and 7400 based G4s is greater than the difference between the 7400 based G4s and the 750 based G3s.
<strong>My deep suspicion is that, with Apollo, somehow...with die shrinks they'll take the damn thing all the way to 2 gig. So G4++++++ (plus and another plus...and another 'plus'....) So, yeah, whooppedoo, we get a 2 gig G4 at Macworld Sanfran' 2003.</strong>
This is fine as long as the appropriate tweaks are added. All that is required are steady improvements (increased memory bandwidth, more execution units, increased pipeline depth, multithreading, etc).
<strong>But the G4 has to take on board another two floating point units just to pull even with the current Athlon. And...pull another .5 gig gap out the fire just to be competitive.</strong>
The 7450 based G4 just needs another FPU unit, better memory performance, and better compilers to compete with the Athlon architecture. That's not that much compared to creating a brand new microarchitecture, which isn't really needed that much with the G4's architecture.
<strong>More and more...it's looking likely that the 'true' G5 won't turn up until 'Itanium' or 'Sledgehammer' are already mainstream.</strong>
99.9% of the information on the PPC "G5" is based on the fantasies of rumormongers. There is zero reliable information on the G5. None.
<strong>...and looking at the Powermac sales...maybe they agree.</strong>
A lot of this has to do with the prices charges for a PowerMac, but I would agree lessor performance is part of it.
And what about the G5 currently being offered as an embedded chip? I forget the name and source, but isn't this chip currently on the market? If so, then it means Moto has a new architecture completed, but they need to add altivec units and such to prep it for desktops (Macs). How long would this take?
Furthermore, if Moto becomes Apple's sole supplier, and it seems that this will happen soon as the G3 is phased out, then how will Apple differentiate between consumer and pro macs? Will all Macs have G4s, and the Pro lines will simply have faster G4s? Perhaps this would work, but it seems like a better plan to have both G4s and G5s in Macs, to create a compelling reason to spend a tremendous amount of money on a "power"mac. Otherwise pro-hardware sales will suffer, as we see happening now with the iMac so close in performance to the Powermacs, and since the Powermacs are high margin sales, Apple sustain such a lineup for long. But a G5 would rectify the current lack of distinction in performance between pro and consumer macs and then some.
All the current info and state of affairs with Mac hardware suggests a "G5" PPC soon, as in, a new architecture.
1.8 GHz G4s would be fine, but let's be realistic, they are YEARS away. If there is no G5, then Mac hardware performance will continue to improve incrementally, but the problem is that we need a great leap in performance, not baby steps. Only a new PPC architecture can provide the sort of performance improvement that Apple needs to remain competitive, and to capture some of the new markets Apple has been targeting, such as 3d animation and special effects, and real time DV editing. Newsflash Apple: you cannot take these markets with 1.2 GHz G4s, when the competition wipes the floor with Macs at 3d animation!
Thus I believe a G5 will be forthcoming. If not, then Apple is in a precarious position that cannot be maintained indefinitely. Something will give, and it's going to be ugly for Apple.
[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
Can you elaborate on the sampling remark?
Merci.
i'm not trying to sound cloak-and-dagger. i am just concerned about the person who told me the information. you don't have to trust me, i'm just telling you what i know. but my friend knows these things without doubt.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>
1. Sell G4 imacs and ibooks for one more year or until unprofitable.
2. Phase out "prosumer" hardware
3. Pump out many must have moto embedded chip "digital hub" peripherals
4. Focus primary research, development and marketing efforts on the new, now completely processor independent hub of the "digital hub" version OSX 3 (or OSX 2???)
This strategy will finally take a major stab at the windows OS market share. Why not work with only Motorola when all you'll need are current potency g4's and great embedded chips?
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: phishy ]</p>
Whether a processor is called a "G5" or not doesn't matter. This is mostly because there are only murmurings of something that might be a "G5" that Apple could use (the 8500 ain't it, folks), and also because a name like "G5" is cooked up by marketing, not engineering. It has only nominal relevance to anything of significance.
What matters is how the computer performs. As THT points out, the G4 is not far from being a real contender. The better compiler is coming. The other two tweaks - (support for) faster memory and additional execution units - are widely rumored, and simply logical additions to the line.
Somerset has been hard at work on the G4. They obviously weren't kidding when they said it had a lot of life left in it. Is there anything wrong with this? No. What matters is performance. If Mot and Apple deliver that, it doesn't matter what Apple marketing decides to call the chip at the heart of the board.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Seems odd, that for so long Moto has been floundering and all this time there has been no work on a successor to the G4. I have a hard time swallowing such a scenario. What exactly has Moto been doing all this time, then? <hr></blockquote>
That, unfortunately, is what happens in the real world. If a company is in as big of trouble as Motorola, you go to "survival" mode. First step is to cut extraneous activities. Then you put all your eggs in one basket. Eventually, you look for a way out, the light at the end of the tunnel.
In other words, you circle your wagons before trying to fight your way out.
I'm not saying that's the right way to do it-- this is just what companies (or people who lead companies) do.
Therefore, I could see Motorola's G4 efforts increasing as a percentage of resources within the company. (Think about that for a minute.) Motorola has to stop the bleeding. How much have they lost in the last few quarters? Something like GNP of Canada + their brother?
It's not a good scenario for us. If a "G5" is imminent (MWNY), it will be due to Apple's efforts, and not so much Mot. I'd love to see a "G5" this summer (who wouldn't?), but my I'm saving my bottle deposits for after San Francisco next year.
this is definitely interesting, supposing it has any truth to it. Leveraging IBM's tech to manufacture the CPU would definitely be an advantage over relying on Moto, who's manufaturing process leaves much to be desired.
what was wrong with the next generation design moto was working with compared to the one that is supposedly going into production soon?