<strong>The Power5 has been under development for a while. If Apple realized that Moto wasn't going anywhere during the G4 debacle, theres been plenty of time for them to go to IBM and work out an arrangement for development of a cheaper, cooler Power5 derivative with an Altivec-compatible SIMD or co-processor. Subsequent iterations of this design would eventually move it into the consumer and laptop areas, thus freeing Apple from the sinking ship that is Moto.
Who knows whether this will happen or not, but it seems like the smart thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd recon that they figured that out when the G4 was stuck at 500MHz for a year.
<strong>with the power of two 64-bit cpu cores cranching the number, i really don't see the need for altivec, as i always regard it as a workaround for apple/moto. but since apple and moto promoted it for a while, i guess many developers have used this feature. so it would generate certain bad response if apple's new cpu does not have altivec.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost every processor these days includes a SIMD unit... they provide a significant performance advantage in many kinds of calculations. Even IBM seems to have come around on this one and will be including SIMD units in their future processors -- hopefully AltiVec compatible.
<strong> [quote]
power4 is compatiable with powerpc architecture with some improvement on the parts that hinders the faster cycle design. also, keep in mind, this chip is powerful and intented to be used in server. therefore, it has many features which does not exist in consumer market: reliability and fault tolerance management. if apple has its will to use it and move consumer product to server level (not everything but certain features), i am not surprisde to see a future mac can run and run and run...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it so many people insist on talking about the POWER4 being directly used by Apple? This is very unlikely. Instead we are likely to see IBM apply the POWER4 technologies to the design of a new processor which is specifically intended for Apple's use in desktop (and possibly notebook) computers. In this new processor a different set of design trade-offs can be made -- it could be single, or dual (or more) core. Its server oriented bus would be replaced with something more appropriate to Apple's machines. Caches would be resized. The supposed fault tolerant / reliability features could be removed if they don't make sense. Features like AltiVec and the rumoured Apple Pi could be added.
The key point is that IBM will likely provide a new processor to Apple, and they have a lot of existing technology to build from.
First, let mee say that this is WAY off topic, but I'll respond to vinney57's comments none the less.
Reality High is a DRAMATIC comic. Sometimes a comic only tells a story. If you're looking for humor then don't look at annother veteran poster's 'comic' either. You might have heard of him: Leonis. I wouldn not compare myself to Leonis, he/she's on a whole different level... but the comic Sanmothy (http://www.sanmothy.com) isn't funny either.
Cartooning is a meduim and it's products have been labled 'comics' since before I can remember whether or not they are funny. Jeremy is the story of a very troubbled individual who affects the lives of the people around him. Those people go on to be the main characters in the main drag which will take off in September. At that point it may not be so heavy, but for now I'm tackling a serious issue in a 'comic' and so no; it is not meant to be funny.
I also resent the fact that my age seems to have affected my credibility.
Finally, I'm not asking for allowances. I've got a story to tell through my characters and if you don't like it (although I hope that most people do) then don't read it. Simple as that.
The scariest time for Apple might be 2003, when they fall further behind with an 7455.
What will they do for 2003?
Motorola says it will switch the G4 to 130nm, but all those layoffs and dodgey fabs that we hear about must slow up development sometime (after the huge amount of 1GHz CPUs they seem to be producing).
Motorola seems to not want Apple as a customer (every major customer except for Apple is mentioned on their web site), so maybe there is a deal when IBM fabs the G4+ for 2003 (with their superior fabs) to get higher clock rates for Apple, before moving on to the Power5 in 2004.
Also, a question. Would it be possible for a version of the G4 with dual MPX buses be possible, where there would be multiple pipelines from the northbridge and ring buses connecting each stage in multiple pipelines? Then, if there was 4-8mb of cache per CPU, in a quad CPU system there would be 16-32mb of total L3 cache, which the other CPUs could access over the dual MPX buses.
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, there was a lot of buzz about Apple buyiung MOT's semiconductor division. At MWNY, Jobs said that Apple will continue to innovate and innvest. It's the invest thing that I'm wondering about...
<strong>Assuming that Apple will use the Power5 in 2004.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bad assumption.
<strong> [quote]
Motorola says it will switch the G4 to 130nm, but all those layoffs and dodgey fabs that we hear about must slow up development sometime (after the huge amount of 1GHz CPUs they seem to be producing).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That depends on who they are laying off. It is fairly normal for a company to protect its crown jewels, and Moto is headed toward out sourcing the fabbing so its possible that their G4 development team is unaffected. The first few layoffs out of a particular group tend to be culling of the weak anyhow, so they can actually improve a team until they get too deep.
<strong> [quote]
Motorola seems to not want Apple as a customer (every major customer except for Apple is mentioned on their web site), so maybe there is a deal when IBM fabs the G4+ for 2003 (with their superior fabs) to get higher clock rates for Apple, before moving on to the Power5 in 2004.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM fabbing the G4 is possible (possibly has already happened in the past..?). And again, why do you assume that the POWER5 will end up in Macs? IBM is a large company and is capable of designing more than one processor at a time.
<strong> [quote]
Also, a question. Would it be possible for a version of the G4 with dual MPX buses be possible, where there would be multiple pipelines from the northbridge and ring buses connecting each stage in multiple pipelines? Then, if there was 4-8mb of cache per CPU, in a quad CPU system there would be 16-32mb of total L3 cache, which the other CPUs could access over the dual MPX buses.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The MPX bus has a great many pins which would make such a design prohibative. Large amounts of cache provide diminishing returns. If they are going to work over the bus(es) like that, I would expect to see the bus replaced with something faster that uses fewer pins (HT or RIO). Then they could have multiple ports.
Programmer: I didn't mean that I though that Apple would start using the POWER5 in 2004, just as a theoretical senario (with any company, just replace IBM with x company), and what would happen in the meantime. "Assume" was a bad word, you're right.
Also, I was simply trying to get discussion going about what would happen if Apple choose to switch to a POWER5 or other chip not made by motorola, but with a launch date in 2004-2005. Would Apple licence the G4 from Motorola, and get a company with better fabs (like IBM) to fab it in the meantime to get higher clock-rates?
do the new cooling vents (see form on leaked photos) possibly have anything to do with a transition to a different processor... maybe a hotter one from the POWER series?
Maybe. If IBM is developing a derivative of the Power4 for Apple then that would make sense, but it doesn't make sense for a G4 on 0.13 process.
Dorsal and to a certain extent Moki have been hinting that early 2003 is the target for a bigtime power boost in the PowerMac line. I said earlier that theres been plenty of time for Apple to go to IBM to develop a derivative of the Power5 chip, well theres also been plenty of time for Apple to go to IBM for a derivative of the Power4 as well. This is maybe what we'll see.
Theres lots of people saying that the Power4 isn't going to happen because it's to costly, big, hot etc. IBM could theoretically take much of the basic design of the core processor from the Power4, slim it down significantly, lose the features that wouldn't be useful in a desktop (, and make it possible for single core versions to be manufactured. Again, Apple has had 2 years in which to organize this; that would be a decent amount of time for the development of a chip of this nature since it isn't being designed from scratch, but is merely a revising of an existing design. IBM definitely has the resources to do this (as well as the incentive, since Apple sells a lot of PowerMacs relative to IBMs server sales), all Apple would need to do would be to throw money at them, which they have plenty of. That would explain the heavily ventilated new case that has been floating around, and would also explain some of the pointers to early 03 as a big speed boost for the PowerMac line.
with the power of two 64-bit cpu cores cranching the number, i really don't see the need for altivec, as i always regard it as a workaround for apple/moto. but since apple and moto promoted it for a while, i guess many developers have used this feature. so it would generate certain bad response if apple's new cpu does not have altivec.
power4 is compatiable with powerpc architecture with some improvement on the parts that hinders the faster cycle design. also, keep in mind, this chip is powerful and intented to be used in server. therefore, it has many features which does not exist in consumer market: reliability and fault tolerance management. if apple has its will to use it and move consumer product to server level (not everything but certain features), i am not surprisde to see a future mac can run and run and run...
apple: answer is out there, please get it and fire it up and move on...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shrey?
I agree, and with gcc now able to compile 64bit apps for ppc it seems like something along these lines will happen. The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...
Perhaps Apple and IBM have worked out a low power cuonsuming POWER4 for use in the power macs and xserve.
The thing that has me questioning a new processor being rolled out is xServe. That box only just started shipping, I could understand Apple just throwing a faster processor in it, but switching to a new processor? not yet. And why would Apple ship the PowerMac line with a more powerful processor before the xServe? I could be completely wrong though...
<strong>The thing that has me questioning a new processor being rolled out is xServe. That box only just started shipping, I could understand Apple just throwing a faster processor in it, but switching to a new processor? not yet. And why would Apple ship the PowerMac line with a more powerful processor before the xServe? I could be completely wrong though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
People keep saying this, but I disagree completely. The Xserve is a 1U rackmount and shoving a brand new processor that requires a monster cooling system into such a small space just doesn't make sense. There are still lots of PentiumIII U1 racmounts around -- these servers to not have to have the latest and greatest processor. The PowerMac is Apple's flagship Pro machine and people are constantly screaming for it to be as fast as possible, so it is actually a more sensible place to roll out a new processor.
People keep saying this, but I disagree completely. The Xserve is a 1U rackmount and shoving a brand new processor that requires a monster cooling system into such a small space just doesn't make sense. There are still lots of PentiumIII U1 racmounts around -- these servers to not have to have the latest and greatest processor. The PowerMac is Apple's flagship Pro machine and people are constantly screaming for it to be as fast as possible, so it is actually a more sensible place to roll out a new processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point. I hope I am wrong, along with the many other people.
And now that i think about it, even with the QuickSilver server boxes, Apple always took longer to update them than the PowerMac...
<strong>And now that i think about it, even with the QuickSilver server boxes, Apple always took longer to update them than the PowerMac...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just have to play devil's advocate here - I think if you asked on Apple's X server board the response you would mostly get would be the slower updates on the server side comes more from a lack of focus on their server products than a need to keep their prosumers happy.
That being said throughput is obviously more important than screaming processors in the server world...
[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
I agree, and with gcc now able to compile 64bit apps for ppc it seems like something along these lines will happen. The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...
Perhaps Apple and IBM have worked out a low power cuonsuming POWER4 for use in the power macs and xserve.
The thing that has me questioning a new processor being rolled out is xServe. That box only just started shipping, I could understand Apple just throwing a faster processor in it, but switching to a new processor? not yet. And why would Apple ship the PowerMac line with a more powerful processor before the xServe? I could be completely wrong though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also, when looking for a server, you want proven, reliable tech. Taking a chance on a new mobo or CPU before it's well-tested is kinda asking for trouble.
I agree, and with gcc now able to compile 64bit apps for ppc it seems like something along these lines will happen. The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
May I remind you that the altivec has 32 128b registers, not 1?
[Added:] The altivec can do operations on all its' registers at once, that is the point with it and what makes it differ from the ordinary register bank. It is a SIMD unit, "single instruction multiple data".
Or do you mean that the new cpus will be 32 times as fast (not calculating with the possible gain of doing something else while running the altivec unit)?
Saying that the altivec is a work around is just plain false. It is as saying as an floating point unit is a work around. They speed up certain kinds of programs by utilizing silicon for certain operations.
strange 14 stage pipeline in the power 4 , the same number discribed in some previous rumors about the G5. It appears that the people who create the rumors have copied these specifications on the power 4, or the people already knews that the G5 will be based upon the power 4 core.
The new tower design has some mondo cooling capability. That tower isn't designed to cool a G4....it's designed to cool a POWER 5! Seriously, what G4 puts out the sort of heat that would need a case with that sort of cooling capacity?
I think the new Towers are going to surprise us all. Remember the new LCD iMac? What was the update just prior to that one? It was a silent iMac update that was ultra-lame, just like the last tower update. That's the pattern, we get a lame, quiet update, then BAM!!! Apple drops a new Powermac on us with a new CPU that SCREAMS!.
It all makes sense. We'll find out soon enough, but my guess is that the G5 is coming sooner than we think. Apple's kept security on this extremely tight, but it would make sense. Remember all the reports back in December and January about G5 Powermacs? If there was some hitch and they were delayed because of a bug, then NOW is the time they would come out. Apple would postpone their introduction for one more revision cycle to make sure all the bugs were ironed out, and also to ensure there were no supply problems like when they introduced the G4.
I think it's coming. Apple is going to come! One giant climax to change the face of computing. The Powermac G5 is going to eat Pentium 4s for breakfast, AMD Clawhammers for lunch....and for dinner, it's going to go hungry because there's nothing left for it to eat!! It's going to be the BEAST of all CPUs, the one that even Apple has trouble cooling.
Anyone got a better explanation for all that insane cooling capacity of the new towers?
Comments
<strong>The Power5 has been under development for a while. If Apple realized that Moto wasn't going anywhere during the G4 debacle, theres been plenty of time for them to go to IBM and work out an arrangement for development of a cheaper, cooler Power5 derivative with an Altivec-compatible SIMD or co-processor. Subsequent iterations of this design would eventually move it into the consumer and laptop areas, thus freeing Apple from the sinking ship that is Moto.
Who knows whether this will happen or not, but it seems like the smart thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd recon that they figured that out when the G4 was stuck at 500MHz for a year.
<strong>with the power of two 64-bit cpu cores cranching the number, i really don't see the need for altivec, as i always regard it as a workaround for apple/moto. but since apple and moto promoted it for a while, i guess many developers have used this feature. so it would generate certain bad response if apple's new cpu does not have altivec.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost every processor these days includes a SIMD unit... they provide a significant performance advantage in many kinds of calculations. Even IBM seems to have come around on this one and will be including SIMD units in their future processors -- hopefully AltiVec compatible.
<strong> [quote]
power4 is compatiable with powerpc architecture with some improvement on the parts that hinders the faster cycle design. also, keep in mind, this chip is powerful and intented to be used in server. therefore, it has many features which does not exist in consumer market: reliability and fault tolerance management. if apple has its will to use it and move consumer product to server level (not everything but certain features), i am not surprisde to see a future mac can run and run and run...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it so many people insist on talking about the POWER4 being directly used by Apple? This is very unlikely. Instead we are likely to see IBM apply the POWER4 technologies to the design of a new processor which is specifically intended for Apple's use in desktop (and possibly notebook) computers. In this new processor a different set of design trade-offs can be made -- it could be single, or dual (or more) core. Its server oriented bus would be replaced with something more appropriate to Apple's machines. Caches would be resized. The supposed fault tolerant / reliability features could be removed if they don't make sense. Features like AltiVec and the rumoured Apple Pi could be added.
The key point is that IBM will likely provide a new processor to Apple, and they have a lot of existing technology to build from.
Reality High is a DRAMATIC comic. Sometimes a comic only tells a story. If you're looking for humor then don't look at annother veteran poster's 'comic' either. You might have heard of him: Leonis. I wouldn not compare myself to Leonis, he/she's on a whole different level... but the comic Sanmothy (http://www.sanmothy.com) isn't funny either.
Cartooning is a meduim and it's products have been labled 'comics' since before I can remember whether or not they are funny. Jeremy is the story of a very troubbled individual who affects the lives of the people around him. Those people go on to be the main characters in the main drag which will take off in September. At that point it may not be so heavy, but for now I'm tackling a serious issue in a 'comic' and so no; it is not meant to be funny.
I also resent the fact that my age seems to have affected my credibility.
Finally, I'm not asking for allowances. I've got a story to tell through my characters and if you don't like it (although I hope that most people do) then don't read it. Simple as that.
1999-2001 G4
2001-2003 G4+
2003-2004 Still a G4+?
The scariest time for Apple might be 2003, when they fall further behind with an 7455.
What will they do for 2003?
Motorola says it will switch the G4 to 130nm, but all those layoffs and dodgey fabs that we hear about must slow up development sometime (after the huge amount of 1GHz CPUs they seem to be producing).
Motorola seems to not want Apple as a customer (every major customer except for Apple is mentioned on their web site), so maybe there is a deal when IBM fabs the G4+ for 2003 (with their superior fabs) to get higher clock rates for Apple, before moving on to the Power5 in 2004.
Also, a question. Would it be possible for a version of the G4 with dual MPX buses be possible, where there would be multiple pipelines from the northbridge and ring buses connecting each stage in multiple pipelines? Then, if there was 4-8mb of cache per CPU, in a quad CPU system there would be 16-32mb of total L3 cache, which the other CPUs could access over the dual MPX buses.
Barto
<strong>Assuming that Apple will use the Power5 in 2004.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bad assumption.
<strong> [quote]
Motorola says it will switch the G4 to 130nm, but all those layoffs and dodgey fabs that we hear about must slow up development sometime (after the huge amount of 1GHz CPUs they seem to be producing).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That depends on who they are laying off. It is fairly normal for a company to protect its crown jewels, and Moto is headed toward out sourcing the fabbing so its possible that their G4 development team is unaffected. The first few layoffs out of a particular group tend to be culling of the weak anyhow, so they can actually improve a team until they get too deep.
<strong> [quote]
Motorola seems to not want Apple as a customer (every major customer except for Apple is mentioned on their web site), so maybe there is a deal when IBM fabs the G4+ for 2003 (with their superior fabs) to get higher clock rates for Apple, before moving on to the Power5 in 2004.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM fabbing the G4 is possible (possibly has already happened in the past..?). And again, why do you assume that the POWER5 will end up in Macs? IBM is a large company and is capable of designing more than one processor at a time.
<strong> [quote]
Also, a question. Would it be possible for a version of the G4 with dual MPX buses be possible, where there would be multiple pipelines from the northbridge and ring buses connecting each stage in multiple pipelines? Then, if there was 4-8mb of cache per CPU, in a quad CPU system there would be 16-32mb of total L3 cache, which the other CPUs could access over the dual MPX buses.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The MPX bus has a great many pins which would make such a design prohibative. Large amounts of cache provide diminishing returns. If they are going to work over the bus(es) like that, I would expect to see the bus replaced with something faster that uses fewer pins (HT or RIO). Then they could have multiple ports.
Also, I was simply trying to get discussion going about what would happen if Apple choose to switch to a POWER5 or other chip not made by motorola, but with a launch date in 2004-2005. Would Apple licence the G4 from Motorola, and get a company with better fabs (like IBM) to fab it in the meantime to get higher clock-rates?
Thanks for the answers though
Barto
[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
Dorsal and to a certain extent Moki have been hinting that early 2003 is the target for a bigtime power boost in the PowerMac line. I said earlier that theres been plenty of time for Apple to go to IBM to develop a derivative of the Power5 chip, well theres also been plenty of time for Apple to go to IBM for a derivative of the Power4 as well. This is maybe what we'll see.
Theres lots of people saying that the Power4 isn't going to happen because it's to costly, big, hot etc. IBM could theoretically take much of the basic design of the core processor from the Power4, slim it down significantly, lose the features that wouldn't be useful in a desktop (, and make it possible for single core versions to be manufactured. Again, Apple has had 2 years in which to organize this; that would be a decent amount of time for the development of a chip of this nature since it isn't being designed from scratch, but is merely a revising of an existing design. IBM definitely has the resources to do this (as well as the incentive, since Apple sells a lot of PowerMacs relative to IBMs server sales), all Apple would need to do would be to throw money at them, which they have plenty of. That would explain the heavily ventilated new case that has been floating around, and would also explain some of the pointers to early 03 as a big speed boost for the PowerMac line.
<strong>
with the power of two 64-bit cpu cores cranching the number, i really don't see the need for altivec, as i always regard it as a workaround for apple/moto. but since apple and moto promoted it for a while, i guess many developers have used this feature. so it would generate certain bad response if apple's new cpu does not have altivec.
power4 is compatiable with powerpc architecture with some improvement on the parts that hinders the faster cycle design. also, keep in mind, this chip is powerful and intented to be used in server. therefore, it has many features which does not exist in consumer market: reliability and fault tolerance management. if apple has its will to use it and move consumer product to server level (not everything but certain features), i am not surprisde to see a future mac can run and run and run...
apple: answer is out there, please get it and fire it up and move on...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shrey?
I agree, and with gcc now able to compile 64bit apps for ppc it seems like something along these lines will happen. The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...
Perhaps Apple and IBM have worked out a low power cuonsuming POWER4 for use in the power macs and xserve.
The thing that has me questioning a new processor being rolled out is xServe. That box only just started shipping, I could understand Apple just throwing a faster processor in it, but switching to a new processor? not yet. And why would Apple ship the PowerMac line with a more powerful processor before the xServe? I could be completely wrong though...
<strong>The thing that has me questioning a new processor being rolled out is xServe. That box only just started shipping, I could understand Apple just throwing a faster processor in it, but switching to a new processor? not yet. And why would Apple ship the PowerMac line with a more powerful processor before the xServe? I could be completely wrong though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
People keep saying this, but I disagree completely. The Xserve is a 1U rackmount and shoving a brand new processor that requires a monster cooling system into such a small space just doesn't make sense. There are still lots of PentiumIII U1 racmounts around -- these servers to not have to have the latest and greatest processor. The PowerMac is Apple's flagship Pro machine and people are constantly screaming for it to be as fast as possible, so it is actually a more sensible place to roll out a new processor.
<strong>
People keep saying this, but I disagree completely. The Xserve is a 1U rackmount and shoving a brand new processor that requires a monster cooling system into such a small space just doesn't make sense. There are still lots of PentiumIII U1 racmounts around -- these servers to not have to have the latest and greatest processor. The PowerMac is Apple's flagship Pro machine and people are constantly screaming for it to be as fast as possible, so it is actually a more sensible place to roll out a new processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point. I hope I am wrong, along with the many other people.
And now that i think about it, even with the QuickSilver server boxes, Apple always took longer to update them than the PowerMac...
<strong>And now that i think about it, even with the QuickSilver server boxes, Apple always took longer to update them than the PowerMac...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just have to play devil's advocate here - I think if you asked on Apple's X server board the response you would mostly get would be the slower updates on the server side comes more from a lack of focus on their server products than a need to keep their prosumers happy.
That being said throughput is obviously more important than screaming processors in the server world...
[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
<strong>
Shrey?
I agree, and with gcc now able to compile 64bit apps for ppc it seems like something along these lines will happen. The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...
Perhaps Apple and IBM have worked out a low power cuonsuming POWER4 for use in the power macs and xserve.
The thing that has me questioning a new processor being rolled out is xServe. That box only just started shipping, I could understand Apple just throwing a faster processor in it, but switching to a new processor? not yet. And why would Apple ship the PowerMac line with a more powerful processor before the xServe? I could be completely wrong though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also, when looking for a server, you want proven, reliable tech. Taking a chance on a new mobo or CPU before it's well-tested is kinda asking for trouble.
<strong>
I agree, and with gcc now able to compile 64bit apps for ppc it seems like something along these lines will happen. The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
May I remind you that the altivec has 32 128b registers, not 1?
[Added:] The altivec can do operations on all its' registers at once, that is the point with it and what makes it differ from the ordinary register bank. It is a SIMD unit, "single instruction multiple data".
Or do you mean that the new cpus will be 32 times as fast (not calculating with the possible gain of doing something else while running the altivec unit)?
Saying that the altivec is a work around is just plain false. It is as saying as an floating point unit is a work around. They speed up certain kinds of programs by utilizing silicon for certain operations.
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: jerk ]</p>
<strong>The POWER4 has an impressive core, even if it was single. It has a 14 stage pipeline second longest only to the P4 and lots of room to grow.
[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
strange 14 stage pipeline in the power 4 , the same number discribed in some previous rumors about the G5. It appears that the people who create the rumors have copied these specifications on the power 4, or the people already knews that the G5 will be based upon the power 4 core.
I think the new Towers are going to surprise us all. Remember the new LCD iMac? What was the update just prior to that one? It was a silent iMac update that was ultra-lame, just like the last tower update. That's the pattern, we get a lame, quiet update, then BAM!!! Apple drops a new Powermac on us with a new CPU that SCREAMS!.
It all makes sense. We'll find out soon enough, but my guess is that the G5 is coming sooner than we think. Apple's kept security on this extremely tight, but it would make sense. Remember all the reports back in December and January about G5 Powermacs? If there was some hitch and they were delayed because of a bug, then NOW is the time they would come out. Apple would postpone their introduction for one more revision cycle to make sure all the bugs were ironed out, and also to ensure there were no supply problems like when they introduced the G4.
I think it's coming. Apple is going to come! One giant climax to change the face of computing. The Powermac G5 is going to eat Pentium 4s for breakfast, AMD Clawhammers for lunch....and for dinner, it's going to go hungry because there's nothing left for it to eat!! It's going to be the BEAST of all CPUs, the one that even Apple has trouble cooling.
Anyone got a better explanation for all that insane cooling capacity of the new towers?
Barto