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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Assuming any of this is remotely true (and I'm not placing bets) then I see two possibilities:
1) IBM has a competing design that is superiour.
2) Apple bought the design work from Motorola and is having IBM complete it (if necessary) and produce 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?"<hr></blockquote>
Unless something has changed since last October, the MPC8540 is not shipping and will not begin sampling until the 2nd half of 2002.
[quote]"Samples of the MPC8540 are expected to be available in the second half of 2002."<hr></blockquote>
Me personally, I say so what. The MPC8540 is for embedded use.
I believe the G4 does have much room to grow.
The upcoming die shrink will allow a faster clock speed. Surely, Apple/Motorola will implement DDR capability. Surely, Apple/Motorola will beef up the fp performance(re: maybe an additional fp unit?).
Extending the pipelines in the core would allow additional clock increases. The current G4 has what 7 stages? Increasing to 9-10 should allow significant increases, no.
I just don't expect the more advanced tech to appear in a chip for Apple for a while(re: rapid I/O, switched fabric interconnects, etc.). And I still say so what.
A G4 clocked to 1.8GHz.,with DDR would absolutely rock. The question is will it happen.
Ok, what we have to think is what's happening to apple's pro market. At the moment machines aren't selling as much as they did a couple of quaters ago, because of the speculation that G5s are just around the corner. So apple should (hopefully are) be working its ass off to bring the "G5" out.
If they name a G4 the G5 as a marketing ploy, it still won't get them out of the deep, as pro users will know the difference. Unless new chips bring a massive performance boost, then apple's pro line is doomed. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Apple may be finding a way out or being pushed out of the prosumer hardware market and shifting that focus and energy to what it is good at (and can do 100% in house):
Develop a great OS.
Hasn't Jobs been trying to do this all along? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
There could be a reason Apple went with the moniker "Velocity Engine" Instead of using Motorolas name "Altivec". If Apple decided to go with a vector unit designed by IBM that could make use of normal Altivec optimised code, then they could just append the name "Velocity Engine II" and the average user would be none the wiser.
<strong>The purpose of an OS, at the end of the day, is to control the hardware.
If Apple doesn't control the hardware, it'll be hard for them to write a killer OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then how can an OS like Linix, FreeBSD, etc. be so awsome and work on most wintel machines. Isn't quality control more a questions of good drivers? ...Plus currently Apple doesn't control all of it's hardware (CD Burners etc.), and it can't seem to control the timely release of a really fast setup.
Sorry about being a little off topic Mr. Moderator Amorph, but what the hey.
"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."
Performance matters. Yes.
And I think a 1.2 gig G4 with DDR ram will be a lame attempt at £2,500 quid. Throw in a mobo revision and an extra floating point unit...and you'll be almost even for about half a year...and miles behind in price...before the Hammer lands in January. Apple to offer 1.6 gig G4 next January at this rate of going? I can't believe Apple won't have an architectural PPC revision answer to counter the Hammer.
It's clear that putting that right up against the 64 bit 'Sledgehammer' in workstation markets is suicide. Even a tweaked G4 in a revised mobo is going to get the kicking of its life against the 'Hammer'.
That's the disaster scenario for me.
I'm excited by the prospect of:
1. An IBM chip.
2. Mobo revision.
3. Raycer chipset.
4. It being the 'G5.
All the 'net voodoo whispers of things. What's that about no smoke without fire?
JD. Your post was bang on.
Apple have got to do something to really shake up their pro' hardware. They've got to take more responsibility for their 'guts'.
I find it hard to believe that Steve Jobs can 'take it' when he finds the Mac crawling to 1 gig. I'd imagine him, behind the scenes, pulling heads outta asses to get something done about it.
The idea of Moto doing the design and IBM fabbing sounds interesting. It would explain the confused smoke signals...re: 'G5'. The whole debate is tinged with 'weirdness.'
Did Maya come out on the macintosh platform just because OS X was made? I don't think that is the whole story. I think that Maya came out because the G5 will be targetted at the 3d market, I mean don't you think Mr Jobs would like to see his company Pixar to use 2Ghz macs instead of SGI stations? ome on people.
Also doesn't motorola's contract end with apple by MWNY? If so, we could see the "G5" produced by IBM, and a co-processor developed by Raycer which would yield the second "velocity Engine"
Then how can an OS like Linix, FreeBSD, etc. be so awsome and work on most wintel machines. Isn't quality control more a questions of good drivers? ...Plus currently Apple doesn't control all of it's hardware (CD Burners etc.), and it can't seem to control the timely release of a really fast setup.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
a] open source OS's are not that awesome, they just fit the needs for a cheap unix-alike server/workstation. many "commercial" unix versions are much better engineered and also work better. linux is so popular because it is free. Apple can't abandon it's hardware business to give away MacOS X for free - they need to make a profit, you know.
b] the market of linux is not what Apple is targeting (apart from a few Linux geeks that can afford Apple machines). Apple targets consumers and the graphics/DTP/multimedia market - and can live as long as it keeps exactly like it is. making any change like allowing clones, starting to use x86 can kill it faster than you say "microsoft". linux, *BSD and the like are far away from competing on the desktop OS market.
c] quality control a question of good drivers? there is more than drivers to quality control. stabiliy, user experience, etc.
d] of course apple controls it's hardware. who do you think is deciding which CD-ROM drives get into a PowerMac? IBM?
<strong> Also doesn't motorola's contract end with apple by MWNY? If so, we could see the "G5" produced by IBM, and a co-processor developed by Raycer which would yield the second "velocity Engine"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually you could see the Raycer guys doing some or all design work of Altivec 2. With Book-e out anyone could add a "unit" to an existing PPC. What makes more sense is to have the Raycer guys add instructions to Velocity Engine 2, or to add their own execution unit to the PPC G5 chip. Why have a dedicated co-processor that requires more wiring something else to cause supply constraint if not now maybe sometime on the future, when they could just add new capabilities to the PPC itself in the form of a new instruction unit or add new capabilities to the Velocity Engine.
And I think a 1.2 gig G4 with DDR ram will be a lame attempt at £2,500 quid. Throw in a mobo revision and an extra floating point unit...and you'll be almost even for about half a year...and miles behind in price...before the Hammer lands in January.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is completely free speculation. For one thing, the rumors have tended toward 1.4 or 1.6 GHz this summer. For another, we'll see what the performance is when the board rolls out. Apple seems to be working on an unconventional board design, and there is a distinct possibility that it will more than catch Apple up. Or it might not. We don't know. Any guesses are not "way off" or "spot on." They're guesses.
[quote]<strong>Apple to offer 1.6 gig G4 next January at this rate of going? I can't believe Apple won't have an architectural PPC revision answer to counter the Hammer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PPC 7500, according to an admittedly less than reliable source, lands this winter, about in time to compete with the Hammer. To the extent that Apple will release anything that competes with Hammer, actually - they didn't sweat Intel's 64 bit architecture either. That's a different market than Apple's in.
[quote]<strong>
1. An IBM chip.
2. Mobo revision.
3. Raycer chipset.
4. It being the 'G5.
All the 'net voodoo whispers of things. What's that about no smoke without fire?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's plenty of smoke without fire as far as rumors are concerned.
As for IBM, they seem to have gotten really good at making incredibly small, efficient G3s and gigantic CPUs destined for gigantic mainframes. They're also really good at announcing products many long months in advance of delivery. What, exactly, are you hoping for from them? They reached 1GHz with their G3 after Mot did with the G4, after all. Raycer chipset? Not gonna happen. The Raycer engineers still at Apple are apparently working on OpenGL. G5? Why? Nobody knows what it is! For all we know, it'll be a 32 bit G4 (upward compatible to 64 bits) reengineered to meet the Book E spec!
[quote]<strong>I find it hard to believe that Steve Jobs can 'take it' when he finds the Mac crawling to 1 gig. I'd imagine him, behind the scenes, pulling heads outta asses to get something done about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably. There's no evidence that Apple is sitting on its hands, though (nor is Mot - look at the rapid series of improvements to the G4 - or IBM), so he might not be freaking out (now, you can bet he was a couple of years ago...).
Besides, we're at dual-GHz. Multiple processors matter. And unlike Windows, the default consumer OS supports MP. And unlike Linux, the MP support doesn't suck eggs.
"This is completely free speculation. For one thing, the rumors have tended toward 1.4 or 1.6 GHz this summer."
Well, let's hope so. But that's still catch up. With a revised mobo. Still catch up. The G4 was obviously meant to compete with a Pentium III. Where's the 'G5' to compete in general Apps and 3D rendering? I haven't seen a bench for Lightwave that justifies the £1000 plus premium for a dual gig Mac over a 2.1 XP athlon?
"For another, we'll see what the performance is when the board rolls out. Apple seems to be working on an unconventional board design, and there is a distinct possibility that it will more than catch Apple up."
I hope so...or the performance gap seen with the G4 at 500mhz for two years will seem like a picnic.
"Or it might not. We don't know. Any guesses are not "way off" or "spot on." They're guesses."
Guesses. Yes. As we all are. However, I guess you know I was pulling on my 'constipated conservative Kermit' hat for this guess...which was following Apple/Moto's track record these last two years. ie They're going to have to buck previous trends to counter the increasing performance 'gap'. A leap from 1 gig to 1.6 gig this Summer? That's 600mhz. More than they've achieved in the last 3 years?
"The PPC 7500, according to an admittedly less than reliable source, lands this winter, about in time to compete with the Hammer. To the extent that Apple will release anything that competes with Hammer, actually - they didn't sweat Intel's 64 bit architecture either. That's a different market than Apple's in."
The Itanium. Different market/price. Fair enough. But the 'Hammer'? AMD have a track record of compelling price/performance. The 7500 (which I always thought was the G5 before this 8500 thing got bandied about...) will have to be delivered to compete. Even a bumped 1.6 gig G4 is NOT going to compete...at least on price. Apple will charge £2,100 ish for it exc VAT. Athlon PCs will be sub £900 for that kind of performance come the summer.
I guess I'm hoping that Apple and Moto can take 'a hit' and drive the Apollo down into the imac range as fast as possible, leaving the 7500 for the Powermacs.
This, I feel, will leave us competitive again. For a while...
"There's plenty of smoke without fire as far as rumors are concerned.
As for IBM, they seem to have gotten really good at making incredibly small, efficient G3s and gigantic CPUs destined for gigantic mainframes. They're also really good at announcing products many long months in advance of delivery. What, exactly, are you hoping for from them? They reached 1GHz with their G3 after Mot did with the G4, after all. Raycer chipset? Not gonna happen. The Raycer engineers still at Apple are apparently working on OpenGL. G5? Why? Nobody knows what it is! For all we know, it'll be a 32 bit G4 (upward compatible to 64 bits) reengineered to meet the Book E spec!"
Fair point about IBM. But if Apple have 'dropped' moto from the Powermac range then I'm sure IBM's chip making capabilities should not be underestimated. Raycer working on Open GL? Makes sense, I guess. But I don't think we can rule out a 'special' chipset/ co processor or something. I think it's about time Apple had something extra. Y'know...to cover the premium we pay? The premium...which appears ridiculous at times. What we want, we don't always get. But...I remember the Amiga offering extra value Pcs couldn't many moons ago...and Commodore was never the size of IBM...or Apple.
A G4 engineered 'Book E'? Maybe... 'Half-Son of Yikes'? Correct me if I'm wrong. But all I see is a G3 boosted chip. Sure...it's had tweaks. But take away Altivec and what have you got?
To me...the mythical 'G5' is, what? A 'core' upgrade I'm waiting for. I'm not paying for a G3 mark 4. It appears lots of Pro users are waiting for this 'core' upgrade to.
"Probably. There's no evidence that Apple is sitting on its hands, though (nor is Mot - look at the rapid series of improvements to the G4 - or IBM), so he might not be freaking out (now, you can bet he was a couple of years ago...)"
Improvements, granted. But, if we're honest. We're still very much behind and need a 'new chip'. What ever it's called. In general apps, we're clearly not competing with sub £1000 PCs.
So. Where's the 'Power' in 'Powermac'?
Apollo's catch up. Force it into the consumer macs as quick as possible.
"Besides, we're at dual-GHz. Multiple processors matter. And unlike Windows, the default consumer OS supports MP. And unlike Linux, the MP support doesn't suck eggs."
It looks as if the Mac has got the better dual processor support. And, if you've had a Powermac 200mhz clone for four years, the dual 1 Gig mac seems fast. Very. But if you've got an Athlon XP 1.6 gig...with 1 gig of DDR ram and an ATI 8500...then you go...
Err. So what?
Perceptionally, performance doesn't seem different between the two...yet the 1.6 Xp can be had for silly money.
If Apple is charging these kinds of premiums then they should be offering much better performance for the money.
To the extent that Apple will release anything that competes with Hammer, actually - they didn't sweat Intel's 64 bit architecture either. That's a different market than Apple's in </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I agree with that. The first of the Hammer processors, Clawhammer, will be targeted directly at the high-performance desktop/workstation market. AMD will be phasing out Duron, and Athlon will be demoted to being the budget processor.
In other words Hammer will be directly competing with the PowerMac.
Today an Athlon XP 2100+ (1.73 Ghz) pretty much runs circles around a G4 at most tasks. Now consider the fact that the first Clawhammer to come out will be given a performance rating of 3400+ by AMD. That is a pretty big jump, expected around the same time as MW San Fransisco next year.
"I'm not sure I agree with that. The first of the Hammer processors, Clawhammer, will be targeted directly at the high-performance desktop/workstation market. AMD will be phasing out Duron, and Athlon will be demoted to being the budget processor.
In other words Hammer will be directly competing with the PowerMac.
Today an Athlon XP 2100+ (1.73 Ghz) pretty much runs circles around a G4 at most tasks. Now consider the fact that the first Clawhammer to come out will be given a performance rating of 3400+ by AMD. That is a pretty big jump, expected around the same time as MW San Fransisco next year. "
Apple doesn't need a new model of CPU so much as it needs a new board. The fact that the dual GHz machine is as fast as it is when both processors are sipping data from the same 133MHz SDR bus, running code compiled with the legendarily unoptimized gcc, is frankly incredible. A faster mobo means the same processors go much faster, and it means Apple can use more processors per machine. And, of course, newer chips and compiler optimizations are coming. It's not so hard to add another FPU.
If the 7500 rumor is right, and if it's what the Register says it will be, Apple have an answer to Hammer by sometime around Christmas. Close enough.
Macs do not have to beat x86 machines in every imaginable area in order to be competitive. They use a different architecture, and different approaches, so they'll always be better for some things and worse for others. If all you need is a number cruncher, you'll always be able to build a stripped-down PC for much less than a Mac, because Apple has always emphasized the "whole widget" and high-level utility. So your budget-conscious render farm might be all Athlon even if Apple rolls out a G5 PowerMac tomorrow, but your primary workstation might just be a Mac.
If the 7500 rumor is right, and if it's what the Register says it will be, Apple have an answer to Hammer by sometime around Christmas. Close enough.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact that enthusiasts are worried whether their products will compete with a future AMD processor and not Intel gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Thanks for making my day James. I'll have to put this on my cube wall.
Comments
<strong>
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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Assuming any of this is remotely true (and I'm not placing bets) then I see two possibilities:
1) IBM has a competing design that is superiour.
2) Apple bought the design work from Motorola and is having IBM complete it (if necessary) and produce it.
Of course rumour + rumour != truth, but it makes sense.
I for one would feel better if IBM was Apple's future Gx supplier. However, this puts 'G5' computers at a much more distant release date.
If Apple are going high end (Maya, Shake, etc) then clearly G4s are going to cut it except on hella fast busses in 4 way+ configs.
And given Apple's prices the price/performance ratio would put Intel/AMD's offering even further ahead.
"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?"<hr></blockquote>
Unless something has changed since last October, the MPC8540 is not shipping and will not begin sampling until the 2nd half of 2002.
<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>;
[quote]"Samples of the MPC8540 are expected to be available in the second half of 2002."<hr></blockquote>
Me personally, I say so what. The MPC8540 is for embedded use.
I believe the G4 does have much room to grow.
The upcoming die shrink will allow a faster clock speed. Surely, Apple/Motorola will implement DDR capability. Surely, Apple/Motorola will beef up the fp performance(re: maybe an additional fp unit?).
Extending the pipelines in the core would allow additional clock increases. The current G4 has what 7 stages? Increasing to 9-10 should allow significant increases, no.
I just don't expect the more advanced tech to appear in a chip for Apple for a while(re: rapid I/O, switched fabric interconnects, etc.). And I still say so what.
A G4 clocked to 1.8GHz.,with DDR would absolutely rock. The question is will it happen.
G4 speed bump in July and no mobo revision (hmm maybe ATA100). Mac OS X 10.2
Jan 2003-IBM PPC, Multicore, Rapid I/O, CoreConnect, SIMD Engine. (Perhaps not named G5). Completely new mobo, Rapid I/O, PCI-X, DDR.
Motorola may only supply G4's for the ibook, imac products.
Ketracel
If they name a G4 the G5 as a marketing ploy, it still won't get them out of the deep, as pro users will know the difference. Unless new chips bring a massive performance boost, then apple's pro line is doomed. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Develop a great OS.
Hasn't Jobs been trying to do this all along? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
If Apple doesn't control the hardware, it'll be hard for them to write a killer OS.
<strong>The purpose of an OS, at the end of the day, is to control the hardware.
If Apple doesn't control the hardware, it'll be hard for them to write a killer OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then how can an OS like Linix, FreeBSD, etc. be so awsome and work on most wintel machines. Isn't quality control more a questions of good drivers? ...Plus currently Apple doesn't control all of it's hardware (CD Burners etc.), and it can't seem to control the timely release of a really fast setup.
Sorry about being a little off topic Mr. Moderator Amorph, but what the hey.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: phishy ]</p>
Performance matters. Yes.
And I think a 1.2 gig G4 with DDR ram will be a lame attempt at £2,500 quid. Throw in a mobo revision and an extra floating point unit...and you'll be almost even for about half a year...and miles behind in price...before the Hammer lands in January. Apple to offer 1.6 gig G4 next January at this rate of going? I can't believe Apple won't have an architectural PPC revision answer to counter the Hammer.
It's clear that putting that right up against the 64 bit 'Sledgehammer' in workstation markets is suicide. Even a tweaked G4 in a revised mobo is going to get the kicking of its life against the 'Hammer'.
That's the disaster scenario for me.
I'm excited by the prospect of:
1. An IBM chip.
2. Mobo revision.
3. Raycer chipset.
4. It being the 'G5.
All the 'net voodoo whispers of things. What's that about no smoke without fire?
JD. Your post was bang on.
Apple have got to do something to really shake up their pro' hardware. They've got to take more responsibility for their 'guts'.
I find it hard to believe that Steve Jobs can 'take it' when he finds the Mac crawling to 1 gig. I'd imagine him, behind the scenes, pulling heads outta asses to get something done about it.
The idea of Moto doing the design and IBM fabbing sounds interesting. It would explain the confused smoke signals...re: 'G5'. The whole debate is tinged with 'weirdness.'
The next year is going to be very engaging.
Like the last. Who'd a thought we'd have a
£1,495 copy of Maya on the Mac...
Maybe 'G5' dreams can come true...
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Lemon Bon Bon
Also doesn't motorola's contract end with apple by MWNY? If so, we could see the "G5" produced by IBM, and a co-processor developed by Raycer which would yield the second "velocity Engine"
<strong>
Then how can an OS like Linix, FreeBSD, etc. be so awsome and work on most wintel machines. Isn't quality control more a questions of good drivers? ...Plus currently Apple doesn't control all of it's hardware (CD Burners etc.), and it can't seem to control the timely release of a really fast setup.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
a] open source OS's are not that awesome, they just fit the needs for a cheap unix-alike server/workstation. many "commercial" unix versions are much better engineered and also work better. linux is so popular because it is free. Apple can't abandon it's hardware business to give away MacOS X for free - they need to make a profit, you know.
b] the market of linux is not what Apple is targeting (apart from a few Linux geeks that can afford Apple machines). Apple targets consumers and the graphics/DTP/multimedia market - and can live as long as it keeps exactly like it is. making any change like allowing clones, starting to use x86 can kill it faster than you say "microsoft". linux, *BSD and the like are far away from competing on the desktop OS market.
c] quality control a question of good drivers? there is more than drivers to quality control. stabiliy, user experience, etc.
d] of course apple controls it's hardware. who do you think is deciding which CD-ROM drives get into a PowerMac? IBM?
<strong> Also doesn't motorola's contract end with apple by MWNY? If so, we could see the "G5" produced by IBM, and a co-processor developed by Raycer which would yield the second "velocity Engine"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually you could see the Raycer guys doing some or all design work of Altivec 2. With Book-e out anyone could add a "unit" to an existing PPC. What makes more sense is to have the Raycer guys add instructions to Velocity Engine 2, or to add their own execution unit to the PPC G5 chip. Why have a dedicated co-processor that requires more wiring something else to cause supply constraint if not now maybe sometime on the future, when they could just add new capabilities to the PPC itself in the form of a new instruction unit or add new capabilities to the Velocity Engine.
[ 04-21-2002: Message edited by: Brendon ]</p>
<strong>
Performance matters. Yes.
And I think a 1.2 gig G4 with DDR ram will be a lame attempt at £2,500 quid. Throw in a mobo revision and an extra floating point unit...and you'll be almost even for about half a year...and miles behind in price...before the Hammer lands in January.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is completely free speculation. For one thing, the rumors have tended toward 1.4 or 1.6 GHz this summer. For another, we'll see what the performance is when the board rolls out. Apple seems to be working on an unconventional board design, and there is a distinct possibility that it will more than catch Apple up. Or it might not. We don't know. Any guesses are not "way off" or "spot on." They're guesses.
[quote]<strong>Apple to offer 1.6 gig G4 next January at this rate of going? I can't believe Apple won't have an architectural PPC revision answer to counter the Hammer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PPC 7500, according to an admittedly less than reliable source, lands this winter, about in time to compete with the Hammer. To the extent that Apple will release anything that competes with Hammer, actually - they didn't sweat Intel's 64 bit architecture either. That's a different market than Apple's in.
[quote]<strong>
1. An IBM chip.
2. Mobo revision.
3. Raycer chipset.
4. It being the 'G5.
All the 'net voodoo whispers of things. What's that about no smoke without fire?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's plenty of smoke without fire as far as rumors are concerned.
As for IBM, they seem to have gotten really good at making incredibly small, efficient G3s and gigantic CPUs destined for gigantic mainframes. They're also really good at announcing products many long months in advance of delivery. What, exactly, are you hoping for from them? They reached 1GHz with their G3 after Mot did with the G4, after all. Raycer chipset? Not gonna happen. The Raycer engineers still at Apple are apparently working on OpenGL. G5? Why? Nobody knows what it is! For all we know, it'll be a 32 bit G4 (upward compatible to 64 bits) reengineered to meet the Book E spec!
[quote]<strong>I find it hard to believe that Steve Jobs can 'take it' when he finds the Mac crawling to 1 gig. I'd imagine him, behind the scenes, pulling heads outta asses to get something done about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably. There's no evidence that Apple is sitting on its hands, though (nor is Mot - look at the rapid series of improvements to the G4 - or IBM), so he might not be freaking out (now, you can bet he was a couple of years ago...).
Besides, we're at dual-GHz. Multiple processors matter. And unlike Windows, the default consumer OS supports MP. And unlike Linux, the MP support doesn't suck eggs.
[ 04-21-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Well, let's hope so. But that's still catch up. With a revised mobo. Still catch up. The G4 was obviously meant to compete with a Pentium III. Where's the 'G5' to compete in general Apps and 3D rendering? I haven't seen a bench for Lightwave that justifies the £1000 plus premium for a dual gig Mac over a 2.1 XP athlon?
"For another, we'll see what the performance is when the board rolls out. Apple seems to be working on an unconventional board design, and there is a distinct possibility that it will more than catch Apple up."
I hope so...or the performance gap seen with the G4 at 500mhz for two years will seem like a picnic.
"Or it might not. We don't know. Any guesses are not "way off" or "spot on." They're guesses."
Guesses. Yes. As we all are. However, I guess you know I was pulling on my 'constipated conservative Kermit' hat for this guess...which was following Apple/Moto's track record these last two years. ie They're going to have to buck previous trends to counter the increasing performance 'gap'. A leap from 1 gig to 1.6 gig this Summer? That's 600mhz. More than they've achieved in the last 3 years?
"The PPC 7500, according to an admittedly less than reliable source, lands this winter, about in time to compete with the Hammer. To the extent that Apple will release anything that competes with Hammer, actually - they didn't sweat Intel's 64 bit architecture either. That's a different market than Apple's in."
The Itanium. Different market/price. Fair enough. But the 'Hammer'? AMD have a track record of compelling price/performance. The 7500 (which I always thought was the G5 before this 8500 thing got bandied about...) will have to be delivered to compete. Even a bumped 1.6 gig G4 is NOT going to compete...at least on price. Apple will charge £2,100 ish for it exc VAT. Athlon PCs will be sub £900 for that kind of performance come the summer.
I guess I'm hoping that Apple and Moto can take 'a hit' and drive the Apollo down into the imac range as fast as possible, leaving the 7500 for the Powermacs.
This, I feel, will leave us competitive again. For a while...
"There's plenty of smoke without fire as far as rumors are concerned.
As for IBM, they seem to have gotten really good at making incredibly small, efficient G3s and gigantic CPUs destined for gigantic mainframes. They're also really good at announcing products many long months in advance of delivery. What, exactly, are you hoping for from them? They reached 1GHz with their G3 after Mot did with the G4, after all. Raycer chipset? Not gonna happen. The Raycer engineers still at Apple are apparently working on OpenGL. G5? Why? Nobody knows what it is! For all we know, it'll be a 32 bit G4 (upward compatible to 64 bits) reengineered to meet the Book E spec!"
Fair point about IBM. But if Apple have 'dropped' moto from the Powermac range then I'm sure IBM's chip making capabilities should not be underestimated. Raycer working on Open GL? Makes sense, I guess. But I don't think we can rule out a 'special' chipset/ co processor or something. I think it's about time Apple had something extra. Y'know...to cover the premium we pay? The premium...which appears ridiculous at times. What we want, we don't always get. But...I remember the Amiga offering extra value Pcs couldn't many moons ago...and Commodore was never the size of IBM...or Apple.
A G4 engineered 'Book E'? Maybe... 'Half-Son of Yikes'? Correct me if I'm wrong. But all I see is a G3 boosted chip. Sure...it's had tweaks. But take away Altivec and what have you got?
To me...the mythical 'G5' is, what? A 'core' upgrade I'm waiting for. I'm not paying for a G3 mark 4. It appears lots of Pro users are waiting for this 'core' upgrade to.
"Probably. There's no evidence that Apple is sitting on its hands, though (nor is Mot - look at the rapid series of improvements to the G4 - or IBM), so he might not be freaking out (now, you can bet he was a couple of years ago...)"
Improvements, granted. But, if we're honest. We're still very much behind and need a 'new chip'. What ever it's called. In general apps, we're clearly not competing with sub £1000 PCs.
So. Where's the 'Power' in 'Powermac'?
Apollo's catch up. Force it into the consumer macs as quick as possible.
"Besides, we're at dual-GHz. Multiple processors matter. And unlike Windows, the default consumer OS supports MP. And unlike Linux, the MP support doesn't suck eggs."
It looks as if the Mac has got the better dual processor support. And, if you've had a Powermac 200mhz clone for four years, the dual 1 Gig mac seems fast. Very. But if you've got an Athlon XP 1.6 gig...with 1 gig of DDR ram and an ATI 8500...then you go...
Err. So what?
Perceptionally, performance doesn't seem different between the two...yet the 1.6 Xp can be had for silly money.
If Apple is charging these kinds of premiums then they should be offering much better performance for the money.
As always, Amorph, nice Jousting with you.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
To the extent that Apple will release anything that competes with Hammer, actually - they didn't sweat Intel's 64 bit architecture either. That's a different market than Apple's in </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I agree with that. The first of the Hammer processors, Clawhammer, will be targeted directly at the high-performance desktop/workstation market. AMD will be phasing out Duron, and Athlon will be demoted to being the budget processor.
In other words Hammer will be directly competing with the PowerMac.
Today an Athlon XP 2100+ (1.73 Ghz) pretty much runs circles around a G4 at most tasks. Now consider the fact that the first Clawhammer to come out will be given a performance rating of 3400+ by AMD. That is a pretty big jump, expected around the same time as MW San Fransisco next year.
In other words Hammer will be directly competing with the PowerMac.
Today an Athlon XP 2100+ (1.73 Ghz) pretty much runs circles around a G4 at most tasks. Now consider the fact that the first Clawhammer to come out will be given a performance rating of 3400+ by AMD. That is a pretty big jump, expected around the same time as MW San Fransisco next year. "
Ouch!
'G5'...where are you?
Lemon Bon Bon
Apple doesn't need a new model of CPU so much as it needs a new board. The fact that the dual GHz machine is as fast as it is when both processors are sipping data from the same 133MHz SDR bus, running code compiled with the legendarily unoptimized gcc, is frankly incredible. A faster mobo means the same processors go much faster, and it means Apple can use more processors per machine. And, of course, newer chips and compiler optimizations are coming. It's not so hard to add another FPU.
If the 7500 rumor is right, and if it's what the Register says it will be, Apple have an answer to Hammer by sometime around Christmas. Close enough.
Macs do not have to beat x86 machines in every imaginable area in order to be competitive. They use a different architecture, and different approaches, so they'll always be better for some things and worse for others. If all you need is a number cruncher, you'll always be able to build a stripped-down PC for much less than a Mac, because Apple has always emphasized the "whole widget" and high-level utility. So your budget-conscious render farm might be all Athlon even if Apple rolls out a G5 PowerMac tomorrow, but your primary workstation might just be a Mac.
<strong>
If the 7500 rumor is right, and if it's what the Register says it will be, Apple have an answer to Hammer by sometime around Christmas. Close enough.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact that enthusiasts are worried whether their products will compete with a future AMD processor and not Intel gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Thanks for making my day James.