1. The g3 had a slow FPU then the 604e did. So some people who had fpu intensive apps stuck with the 604e.
2. When I talked to some apple people earlier this year (about 3 months ago) Thy told me there was no way the g5 was coming out this year, that there was not even any hard core testing happing on them.
So sorry, we have to wait. 1 Guy told me that apple was laggin in putting together the mobos for the g5. But from early conversations with apple employees it is MOTO who is laggin cuz they can get the production process down.
This sucks, but what are we going to do, apple isn?t the fastest anymore, they blew it. But I don?t like apple cuz they are the fastest, though I wish they were.
Moto still sells 400Mhz 604ev processors. If they moved it to 180nm and 130nm it should scale higher than the 750. The 750FX also has a 5 stage pipeline and it's a 180nm chip that runs at 700-800MHz. A 130nm 604 would run at least 1GHz.
[QB]You're wrong saying the 604e had no L2 cache. The PowerMac 9600 used the 604e and had 512KB of L2 cache. The G3's advantage here was that its L2 cache was directly linked to the processor and ran faster.
<hr></blockquote>
The 604e doesn't have an L2 cache -- the PowerMac 9600 does. If you buy a 604e from Motorla or IBM you don't get an L2 cache.
I dunno. If I called Apple and said, "Hi, I'm the Governor of Georgia, I'd like to buy 400,000 new computers. I'd like them to be the fastest thing you've got. Do you think I could get them to tell me about a G5 which 'doesn't exist (yet)'? Or would they try to sell me off on the current G4s. What if I told him I would only order them if they were G5s, would they tell me about it then? Just curious...
Another tidbit about the G3/G4 differences that heard about a long time ago was that the G3 wasn't capable of being used in multiprocessor macs, but the G4 was able to be used in MP macs (due to architectural design differences in the chip). OSX does better with MP.
<strong>Another tidbit about the G3/G4 differences that heard about a long time ago was that the G3 wasn't capable of being used in multiprocessor macs, but the G4 was able to be used in MP macs (due to architectural design differences in the chip). OSX does better with MP.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Total MHZ being equal, does OSX really prefer MP? I mean, does OSX run better on 2x 500mhz than it does on a single 1ghz? I'd be surprised if it did.
Of course, at a given MHZ fastest chip, of course two are better than one.
Total MHZ being equal, does OSX really prefer MP? I mean, does OSX run better on 2x 500mhz than it does on a single 1ghz? I'd be surprised if it did.
Of course, at a given MHZ fastest chip, of course two are better than one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know which would be better, two 500's or one Gig in the CPU dept. Would love to have the funds to find out though. I just wanted to point out another limitation of the G3 is all.
<strong>I dunno. If I called Apple and said, "Hi, I'm the Governor of Georgia, I'd like to buy 400,000 new computers. I'd like them to be the fastest thing you've got. Do you think I could get them to tell me about a G5 which 'doesn't exist (yet)'? Or would they try to sell me off on the current G4s. What if I told him I would only order them if they were G5s, would they tell me about it then? Just curious...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a great idea! You should try it. Talk in an Arabian accent, and act like you want to buy a few racks of XServes to cluster for computing dirty bomb missile trajectories.
That's a great idea! You should try it. Talk in an Arabian accent, and act like you want to buy a few racks of XServes to cluster for computing dirty bomb missile trajectories.</strong><hr></blockquote>
YOu know the talk that'll start. "I'm posting while I'm on the phone with Apple, They're telling me all sorts of neat stuff about the 4 processor G5 for MWSF! 3 Gigahertz each! Wait there are guys in suits with guns coming up the walk!"
For the next two weeks everyone would be wondering if Apple sent some goons to silence him.
The 604e doesn't have an L2 cache -- the PowerMac 9600 does. If you buy a 604e from Motorla or IBM you don't get an L2 cache.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 604e did have a L2 cache on the mainboard (256 or 512k). Problem was, that this cache only ran with Bus-speed (which was 50MHz max.). Therefore it was slower than the L2-Cache of the G3. There was one version of the 604e which used backside-cache. This was used only in the very last revision of the 9600 ( <a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112424"; target="_blank">http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112424</a>; ).
The 604e was faster than the g3 because it had an integrated FPU. Especially the last revision (300 and 350 MHz) with 1 MB backside-cache was much faster than the G3 (and much more expensive). The G3 tried to compensate the missing FPU by using faster L2-cache. This worked well in general use, but FPU-intensive tasks are much slower. The G3 felt(!) a little more responsive than the 604e, but the 604e was overall the faster CPU.
The G3 also has an integrated FPU, but not quite as fast as the 604e. The G3 makes up for this with better integer units, better scalability, backside (and later on-die l2 cache) and the use of SDRAM (not sure if the 604e can use SDRAM)
The 604 could support any type of RAM that the memory controller could accept. Apple's memory controller needed some serious work at the time. When the G3 came around they found it easier to use a standard memory controller made by motorola.
This is slightly off-topic but both ATTO and Adaptec recently released SCSI cards that are both OS X compatible AND PCI-X compatible. A month before MWSF and shipping around that time... Something tells me the new PowerMacs will offer more than just speedbumps and DDR hacks.
<strong>This is slightly off-topic but both ATTO and Adaptec recently released SCSI cards that are both OS X compatible AND PCI-X compatible. A month before MWSF and shipping around that time... Something tells me the new PowerMacs will offer more than just speedbumps and DDR hacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
A good job of summing up the PPC.
We await the transition of Power 4 and G4 to .13.
What will this bring us?
Maybe come July we'll find out once and for all.
This has to be the longest/most anticipated wait for an update since the G4 500mhz debacle.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
2. When I talked to some apple people earlier this year (about 3 months ago) Thy told me there was no way the g5 was coming out this year, that there was not even any hard core testing happing on them.
So sorry, we have to wait. 1 Guy told me that apple was laggin in putting together the mobos for the g5. But from early conversations with apple employees it is MOTO who is laggin cuz they can get the production process down.
This sucks, but what are we going to do, apple isn?t the fastest anymore, they blew it. But I don?t like apple cuz they are the fastest, though I wish they were.
[QB]You're wrong saying the 604e had no L2 cache. The PowerMac 9600 used the 604e and had 512KB of L2 cache. The G3's advantage here was that its L2 cache was directly linked to the processor and ran faster.
<hr></blockquote>
The 604e doesn't have an L2 cache -- the PowerMac 9600 does. If you buy a 604e from Motorla or IBM you don't get an L2 cache.
<strong>I wonder what the 604e could scale up to? Anybody know?</strong><hr></blockquote>
375MHz.
<strong>Another tidbit about the G3/G4 differences that heard about a long time ago was that the G3 wasn't capable of being used in multiprocessor macs, but the G4 was able to be used in MP macs (due to architectural design differences in the chip). OSX does better with MP.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Total MHZ being equal, does OSX really prefer MP? I mean, does OSX run better on 2x 500mhz than it does on a single 1ghz? I'd be surprised if it did.
Of course, at a given MHZ fastest chip, of course two are better than one.
<strong>
Total MHZ being equal, does OSX really prefer MP? I mean, does OSX run better on 2x 500mhz than it does on a single 1ghz? I'd be surprised if it did.
Of course, at a given MHZ fastest chip, of course two are better than one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know which would be better, two 500's or one Gig in the CPU dept. Would love to have the funds to find out though. I just wanted to point out another limitation of the G3 is all.
<strong>I dunno. If I called Apple and said, "Hi, I'm the Governor of Georgia, I'd like to buy 400,000 new computers. I'd like them to be the fastest thing you've got. Do you think I could get them to tell me about a G5 which 'doesn't exist (yet)'? Or would they try to sell me off on the current G4s. What if I told him I would only order them if they were G5s, would they tell me about it then? Just curious...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a great idea! You should try it. Talk in an Arabian accent, and act like you want to buy a few racks of XServes to cluster for computing dirty bomb missile trajectories.
<strong>
That's a great idea! You should try it. Talk in an Arabian accent, and act like you want to buy a few racks of XServes to cluster for computing dirty bomb missile trajectories.</strong><hr></blockquote>
YOu know the talk that'll start. "I'm posting while I'm on the phone with Apple, They're telling me all sorts of neat stuff about the 4 processor G5 for MWSF! 3 Gigahertz each! Wait there are guys in suits with guns coming up the walk!"
For the next two weeks everyone would be wondering if Apple sent some goons to silence him.
<strong>I dunno. If I called Apple and said, "Hi, I'm the Governor of Georgia, I'd like to buy 400,000 new computers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, 400,000 computers at $2500 each (minimum)...
$1B? Governor of Georgia? No, I don't think he'd buy that.
<strong>
Hmm, 400,000 computers at $2500 each (minimum)...
$1B? Governor of Georgia? No, I don't think he'd buy that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, Georgia makes that each year in revenue from video poker alone.
<strong>
The 604e doesn't have an L2 cache -- the PowerMac 9600 does. If you buy a 604e from Motorla or IBM you don't get an L2 cache.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 604e did have a L2 cache on the mainboard (256 or 512k). Problem was, that this cache only ran with Bus-speed (which was 50MHz max.). Therefore it was slower than the L2-Cache of the G3. There was one version of the 604e which used backside-cache. This was used only in the very last revision of the 9600 ( <a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112424"; target="_blank">http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112424</a>; ).
The 604e was faster than the g3 because it had an integrated FPU. Especially the last revision (300 and 350 MHz) with 1 MB backside-cache was much faster than the G3 (and much more expensive). The G3 tried to compensate the missing FPU by using faster L2-cache. This worked well in general use, but FPU-intensive tasks are much slower. The G3 felt(!) a little more responsive than the 604e, but the 604e was overall the faster CPU.
[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: Gulliver ]</p>
<strong>This is slightly off-topic but both ATTO and Adaptec recently released SCSI cards that are both OS X compatible AND PCI-X compatible. A month before MWSF and shipping around that time... Something tells me the new PowerMacs will offer more than just speedbumps and DDR hacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
... good eye Mr. Outsider!