only thing i worry about is how expensive the power mac's have gotten. granted their for the "proffesionals" but what about gamers? we cant use an Imac. you cant upgrade the vid card, EVER! we have to get powermacs unless the only thing you wanna do with a computer is mp3, text, webpages.
i disagree. if they do that they need to make a third tier for "proffessionals" right now gamers hve to get powermac's cause imac vid cards cant ever be upgraded. and no legit gamer would ever play on an LCD. pixel refresh rated just arnt their yet for FPS'ers.
and dont say gamers dont use mac. i have a PC right now.. next computer i get will be a mac. and every single game i play on my PC is available for mac. most of them were released same day as PC's. (q3a, D2, SC, WC3, red alert, UT, max payne)
I will say this: Apple knows there is a performance gap between their machines and the Wintel world. Some of it is perception, some of it is real. They also know that they will be dead in the water if by this time next year, they aren't equalling or surpassing the Wintel boxes of the time in performance.<hr></blockquote>
One could argue that by this time this year, Apple would be dead in the water if they don't offer something that can compete with Wintel box performance. And how long did it take Apple to catch on to the CDRW bandwagon? 2 years? Not exactly a business that has it's hand on the pulse of the American consumer.
[quote]Make of it what you will; Apple knows there is a performance issue, and they've known it for some time. You can argue that they just have their head in the sand and will be using G4s slowly bumped by MOT until they dwindle into oblivion.<hr></blockquote>
Like they have been doing for about 3 years or so? I see absolutely no evidence that Apple is doing ANYTHING about their dire CPU situation, except for rumors of a Moto G5 last year and now the GPUL from IBM. And even these RUMORS aren't predicting a competitive PPC CPU in Powermacs for over a year from now. So much for you "dead in the water" prediction....I sure hope you're not right about it.
[quote]Or, you could realize that Apple is not stupid. Not only are they aware of all of the issues people here are raising, but they also are (and have been) actively doing something about it.<hr></blockquote>
Hopefully we see the fruits of this labor sooner than "late 2003", or else Apple will be "dead in the water" as you put it.
[quote]It doesn't take a genius to notice these things, and to believe that Apple isn't going to do something about it as soon as they possibly can is to believe that Apple wants to fade into the background, and fend off a litany of share holder lawsuits.<hr></blockquote>
The fact that Apple let the performance gap widen to its current proportions suggests that someone was asleep at the helm when important decisions were being made about the G4 and its future in Macs.
[quote]It isn't a question of IF Apple is going to deliver killer new systems based around a new processor architecture, but rather when. Like any self-respecting technology company, Apple has a number of research projects in the works, some of which will make it to market, some of which won't.<hr></blockquote>
Ok. So as you said, if a year from now Apple is still limping along on Moto's G4, then they will be "dead in the water". Not very reassuring.
[quote]The microprocessor forum in October will provide for ample rumour and speculation, not to worry. <hr></blockquote>
We know this already. GPUL in 2004 or whatever. Too little, too late.
Sorry Moki, but if the GPUL is the soonest that Apple can pull a rabbit out of their ass, then they may as well not even bother. If it's late 2003 and Apple is still trying to dump dual 1.5 GHz G4 Powermacs on Mac users (with the iMac stalled at 1 GHz), they are going to begin losing market share that will not easily be regained, even with a $999, 10 GHz, quad-core GPUL Powermac.
Remember, Intel and AMD are not going to stand w/ their backs against the wall, dicks in hand, while Apple dorks around with the GPUL. x86 performance will continue to march on to a steady rhythm while Moto flounders endlessly.
Where will x86 be in 2004? 5 GHz? 7 GHz? Will a 2 GHz GPUL be able to keep up with a 5 GHz Pentium 4? I'm not so sure...and neither should you--unless of course you know something you would like to share with us.
We know this already. GPUL in 2004 or whatever. Too little, too late. </strong><hr></blockquote>
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.
no legit gamer would ever play on an LCD. pixel refresh rated just arnt their yet for FPS'ers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please! I've played Quake 3 Arena on a 15" LCD iMac and the refresh rate was FINE. Framerates are important, but refresh rate isn't as long as it's CONSISTENT. Well if it were too slow it would matter, but that's not so on any Apple LCD.
Ok if Apple is developing a new Processor Interconnect Bus they it's reasonable to assume that. GPUL will not come with the first generation of the ApplePI bus. This wouldn't make sense as I doubt Apple would want to debut a new PI bus AND processor. That's a recipe for disaster.
So....
I think we DO see Dual G4 .13's on a new bus. This allows Apple to test the new bus with a known commodity like the G4. They can then ascertain watch changes need to be made for GP-UL.
A new Mobo supporting this ApplePI and Firewire II plus whatever goodies Apple gives us will be able to satiate most needs until the Workstations come. Remember the rumors said Apple would not be using GP-UL in Powermacs..hheheheh who ever said these new Workstations would be "called" Powermacs.
<strong>Next year if the PowerMac gets a POWER4 derived CPU, they still need options for the PowerBook, i/eMac, and iBook. This is where an 85XX derived processor comes in that includes Altivec. Then when the POWER4 derived goes to 90nm it will fit in the PowerBook snugly and filter down from there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. It's not like Apple can sell a Pentium-slaying 3 GHz GPUL Powermac next to a 1 GHz G4 iMac that get's it's arse whooped by 2 year old low end Wintel boxes.
What I'd like to know is, how long will it take for the iMac to break through the 1 GHz barrier!??! 2003? 2004? Will the $2000 iMac be able to compete with the performance of a $599 Wintel box?
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL, thanks Moki, it's reassuring when you post things like this.
Amorph, I like your idea concerning a return of the cube and elevation of the PowerMac to true workstation status. It fills in alot areas and explains a few things in other threads (Riddles). The new cubes should really go well with corporations too, as they look for cheap, mildly expandable boxes for the masses (corporations also "cheap out" on the monitors and reuse them as often as possible). The new PowerMacs would be for the hard-core folks.
Release times would be difficult (probably have to be near simultaneous) or there would be either a serious overlap (if the cube were reintroduced first) or serious hole in the line up (if the PowerMac got GPUL'd first).
As was stated by others, gamers would like the new cube for it's video upgrade ability, lower cost, and the ability to choose which ever monitor they wanted.
It's difficult to wait for Oct 15th to get the non-rumor info. Anyone think Apple will make some kind of annoucement around Oct 15th?
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'll join him!!! HAHAHAHAHA BYE BYE DELL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Seriously you guys worry to much. Moki is trying to tell you guys that it will be ok. He just isn't giving us much information. My guess is that the PPC85xx from moto will be out at MWSF with the new applePI bus. This CPU will work until the G6 (IBM GPUL) comes out toward the end of the year. Then the G5 85xx will filter down to the consumer lines. See it makes sense...It'll all be ok...I hope
And I'll join him!!! HAHAHAHAHA BYE BYE DELL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Seriously you guys worry to much. Moki is trying to tell you guys that it will be ok. He just isn't giving us much information. My guess is that the PPC85xx from moto will be out at MWSF with the new applePI bus. This CPU will work until the G6 (IBM GPUL) comes out toward the end of the year. Then the G5 85xx will filter down to the consumer lines. See it makes sense...It'll all be ok...I hope</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that solves my release issue with the reintro of the cube. Come out with the 85XX in the PowerMac and PowerBook around Jan/Feb '03; in Aug/Sept '03 update the PowerMac to GPUL and reintro the cube with an 85XX (to fill the void).
<strong>iMacs don't have to go G5. They can always go DP. Perhaps this would even be a better option?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No because the GPUL will be dual CPU in top of line. Maybe the top of line iMac will be dual 85xx. I doubt they will keep the G4 around if they have the G5 and G6. I imagine there is one year left for the G4. These last few months will be the end of G4's in PowerMacs, however. Ummm 85xx showed off at MWSF shipping in february.
The G5 isn't even here and you guys are talking about a G6??!?!
Damn throw some ice on that woody and chill out!
The G4 has a VERY long life left, in the consumer macs. GPUL will go into the towers. As for this vague Moto G5, it's not happening. All of Moto's designs for the G5 lack Altivec, and they use a RIO bus, not the ApplePi. In other words, Motorola doesn't want to sell Apple any more CPUs besides the G4 line.
Workstation macs? Whoa! Let's wait until the Powermacs are POWERmacs again before putting the cart in front of the horse. Apple's towers are already overpriced...nobody is going to pay even MORE for some unproven 2 GHz GPUL that can't even run with a cheap Pentium.
Everyone is making out this GPUL to be some sort of Intel slayer, but let's be realistic, the GPUL is a full YEAR away. Intel is already at 3 GHz. In another year the Pentium 4 will be what, maybe 5 GHz?
Is a 2 GHz GPUL going to be any faster than a 5 GHz Pentium 4? Will it even turn in performance that's comparable to a 5 GHz x86 CPU?
I don't see any of these rumored CPUs putting Apple in the performance lead, and certainly not in a workstation class. This GPUL will be JUST ENOUGH to pick Apple up out of the gutter and put them back on the road....but Macs will still lag in performance.
I find it hard to beleive that the time frame for Apple GPUL systems is late '03 or that we'll see a Mot G5 in the meantime. If it were true, then the proceeding 12 months of waiting will be very LONG- agonizingly so. And it also presumes that Mot has somehow somway reversed their chip fabrication history.
Generally, Apple updates desktops twice a year-at the beginning and again at mid-year. The iBook and PBook usually update a month or so after. So, my guess:
Consumer: Speed bumped G4s for at least two more years. The first bump will be the iMac at MWSF. and then the iBook to G4 status in August.
Professional: GPUL's announced at MWSF or a very special event right after and shipping by April. Speed bumped PBooks by May'03.
Of course I began predicting a NASDAQ crash in 1998...eventually I was right.
Junkyard Dawg I think you are right about motorola. At the bottom of the moto roadmap it doesn't say anything about the 8xxx being used in desktop/consumer computing. I guess I should be excited that motorola isn't working on any more new chips. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Hmmm. Didn't think anyone else posting here knew definitively either. It's just a name, could be Hyper-transport based, could be RIO based, could be something else altogether.
What is the Velocity Engine? A renamed Altivec. What is Altivec? one particular implementation of a specification that may also be known as VMX.
The name ApplePi does not support or refute any particular bus technology as of yet with the probable exception of the MPX bus. A new processor may REQUIRE a completely new bus technology, so rolling them out together is not a recipie for disaster
Let's all keep the discussion going, but remember almost everything we are talking about is common sense sprinkled with a lot of rumor and precious little fact. The naming schemes/codenames haven't solidified on any particular tech yet.
PS. hmurchison, I'm not picking on your post in particular, you just had the unfortunate luck to be the holder of my latest lightening rod.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So here's a thought: if ApplePI was related to a RIO implementation, and if it was supposedly ApplePI that Apple requested be incorporated into the G5 offerings of the chip competitors (when they were at least IBM, Motorola, and whomever), then why did Motorola refuse to incorporate it?
The only logical conclusion I come up with, is that ApplePI doesn't use RIO or MPX, because Motorola uses those techs.
I'm not sure, but doesn't HyperTransport's initial throughput numbers start in the 6.4 GB/s range, and isn't it coincidental that this new GPUL has throughput of 6.4 GB/s.
Maybe ApplePI is based on HT. Apple is one of the founding members, as it AMD, NVidia, ATI.
Comments
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
<strong>The POWER-Macs would probably need to be cost comprable to Dual XEON work stations but kick their rears.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i disagree. if they do that they need to make a third tier for "proffessionals" right now gamers hve to get powermac's cause imac vid cards cant ever be upgraded. and no legit gamer would ever play on an LCD. pixel refresh rated just arnt their yet for FPS'ers.
and dont say gamers dont use mac. i have a PC right now.. next computer i get will be a mac. and every single game i play on my PC is available for mac. most of them were released same day as PC's. (q3a, D2, SC, WC3, red alert, UT, max payne)
I will say this: Apple knows there is a performance gap between their machines and the Wintel world. Some of it is perception, some of it is real. They also know that they will be dead in the water if by this time next year, they aren't equalling or surpassing the Wintel boxes of the time in performance.<hr></blockquote>
One could argue that by this time this year, Apple would be dead in the water if they don't offer something that can compete with Wintel box performance. And how long did it take Apple to catch on to the CDRW bandwagon? 2 years? Not exactly a business that has it's hand on the pulse of the American consumer.
[quote]Make of it what you will; Apple knows there is a performance issue, and they've known it for some time. You can argue that they just have their head in the sand and will be using G4s slowly bumped by MOT until they dwindle into oblivion.<hr></blockquote>
Like they have been doing for about 3 years or so? I see absolutely no evidence that Apple is doing ANYTHING about their dire CPU situation, except for rumors of a Moto G5 last year and now the GPUL from IBM. And even these RUMORS aren't predicting a competitive PPC CPU in Powermacs for over a year from now. So much for you "dead in the water" prediction....I sure hope you're not right about it.
[quote]Or, you could realize that Apple is not stupid. Not only are they aware of all of the issues people here are raising, but they also are (and have been) actively doing something about it.<hr></blockquote>
Hopefully we see the fruits of this labor sooner than "late 2003", or else Apple will be "dead in the water" as you put it.
[quote]It doesn't take a genius to notice these things, and to believe that Apple isn't going to do something about it as soon as they possibly can is to believe that Apple wants to fade into the background, and fend off a litany of share holder lawsuits.<hr></blockquote>
The fact that Apple let the performance gap widen to its current proportions suggests that someone was asleep at the helm when important decisions were being made about the G4 and its future in Macs.
[quote]It isn't a question of IF Apple is going to deliver killer new systems based around a new processor architecture, but rather when. Like any self-respecting technology company, Apple has a number of research projects in the works, some of which will make it to market, some of which won't.<hr></blockquote>
Ok. So as you said, if a year from now Apple is still limping along on Moto's G4, then they will be "dead in the water". Not very reassuring.
[quote]The microprocessor forum in October will provide for ample rumour and speculation, not to worry.
We know this already. GPUL in 2004 or whatever. Too little, too late.
Sorry Moki, but if the GPUL is the soonest that Apple can pull a rabbit out of their ass, then they may as well not even bother. If it's late 2003 and Apple is still trying to dump dual 1.5 GHz G4 Powermacs on Mac users (with the iMac stalled at 1 GHz), they are going to begin losing market share that will not easily be regained, even with a $999, 10 GHz, quad-core GPUL Powermac.
Remember, Intel and AMD are not going to stand w/ their backs against the wall, dicks in hand, while Apple dorks around with the GPUL. x86 performance will continue to march on to a steady rhythm while Moto flounders endlessly.
Where will x86 be in 2004? 5 GHz? 7 GHz? Will a 2 GHz GPUL be able to keep up with a 5 GHz Pentium 4? I'm not so sure...and neither should you--unless of course you know something you would like to share with us.
<strong>
We know this already. GPUL in 2004 or whatever. Too little, too late. </strong><hr></blockquote>
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.
<strong>
no legit gamer would ever play on an LCD. pixel refresh rated just arnt their yet for FPS'ers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please! I've played Quake 3 Arena on a 15" LCD iMac and the refresh rate was FINE. Framerates are important, but refresh rate isn't as long as it's CONSISTENT. Well if it were too slow it would matter, but that's not so on any Apple LCD.
So....
I think we DO see Dual G4 .13's on a new bus. This allows Apple to test the new bus with a known commodity like the G4. They can then ascertain watch changes need to be made for GP-UL.
A new Mobo supporting this ApplePI and Firewire II plus whatever goodies Apple gives us will be able to satiate most needs until the Workstations come. Remember the rumors said Apple would not be using GP-UL in Powermacs..hheheheh who ever said these new Workstations would be "called" Powermacs.
<strong>Next year if the PowerMac gets a POWER4 derived CPU, they still need options for the PowerBook, i/eMac, and iBook. This is where an 85XX derived processor comes in that includes Altivec. Then when the POWER4 derived goes to 90nm it will fit in the PowerBook snugly and filter down from there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. It's not like Apple can sell a Pentium-slaying 3 GHz GPUL Powermac next to a 1 GHz G4 iMac that get's it's arse whooped by 2 year old low end Wintel boxes.
What I'd like to know is, how long will it take for the iMac to break through the 1 GHz barrier!??! 2003? 2004? Will the $2000 iMac be able to compete with the performance of a $599 Wintel box?
<strong>
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL, thanks Moki, it's reassuring when you post things like this.
Release times would be difficult (probably have to be near simultaneous) or there would be either a serious overlap (if the cube were reintroduced first) or serious hole in the line up (if the PowerMac got GPUL'd first).
As was stated by others, gamers would like the new cube for it's video upgrade ability, lower cost, and the ability to choose which ever monitor they wanted.
It's difficult to wait for Oct 15th to get the non-rumor info. Anyone think Apple will make some kind of annoucement around Oct 15th?
<strong>
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thankyou Moki
<strong>
2004? If Apple isn't using a radically spiffed up processor by the end of the 2003 calendar year, Mr. Jobs is going to finally lose his zen-like control and bring an Uzi into work, going out in a blaze of glory and heated metal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'll join him!!! HAHAHAHAHA BYE BYE DELL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Seriously you guys worry to much. Moki is trying to tell you guys that it will be ok. He just isn't giving us much information. My guess is that the PPC85xx from moto will be out at MWSF with the new applePI bus. This CPU will work until the G6 (IBM GPUL) comes out toward the end of the year. Then the G5 85xx will filter down to the consumer lines. See it makes sense...It'll all be ok...I hope
<strong>
And I'll join him!!! HAHAHAHAHA BYE BYE DELL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Seriously you guys worry to much. Moki is trying to tell you guys that it will be ok. He just isn't giving us much information. My guess is that the PPC85xx from moto will be out at MWSF with the new applePI bus. This CPU will work until the G6 (IBM GPUL) comes out toward the end of the year. Then the G5 85xx will filter down to the consumer lines. See it makes sense...It'll all be ok...I hope</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that solves my release issue with the reintro of the cube. Come out with the 85XX in the PowerMac and PowerBook around Jan/Feb '03; in Aug/Sept '03 update the PowerMac to GPUL and reintro the cube with an 85XX (to fill the void).
<strong>iMacs don't have to go G5. They can always go DP. Perhaps this would even be a better option?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No because the GPUL will be dual CPU in top of line. Maybe the top of line iMac will be dual 85xx. I doubt they will keep the G4 around if they have the G5 and G6. I imagine there is one year left for the G4. These last few months will be the end of G4's in PowerMacs, however. Ummm 85xx showed off at MWSF shipping in february.
Damn throw some ice on that woody and chill out!
The G4 has a VERY long life left, in the consumer macs. GPUL will go into the towers. As for this vague Moto G5, it's not happening. All of Moto's designs for the G5 lack Altivec, and they use a RIO bus, not the ApplePi. In other words, Motorola doesn't want to sell Apple any more CPUs besides the G4 line.
Workstation macs? Whoa! Let's wait until the Powermacs are POWERmacs again before putting the cart in front of the horse. Apple's towers are already overpriced...nobody is going to pay even MORE for some unproven 2 GHz GPUL that can't even run with a cheap Pentium.
Everyone is making out this GPUL to be some sort of Intel slayer, but let's be realistic, the GPUL is a full YEAR away. Intel is already at 3 GHz. In another year the Pentium 4 will be what, maybe 5 GHz?
Is a 2 GHz GPUL going to be any faster than a 5 GHz Pentium 4? Will it even turn in performance that's comparable to a 5 GHz x86 CPU?
I don't see any of these rumored CPUs putting Apple in the performance lead, and certainly not in a workstation class. This GPUL will be JUST ENOUGH to pick Apple up out of the gutter and put them back on the road....but Macs will still lag in performance.
Generally, Apple updates desktops twice a year-at the beginning and again at mid-year. The iBook and PBook usually update a month or so after. So, my guess:
Consumer: Speed bumped G4s for at least two more years. The first bump will be the iMac at MWSF. and then the iBook to G4 status in August.
Professional: GPUL's announced at MWSF or a very special event right after and shipping by April. Speed bumped PBooks by May'03.
Of course I began predicting a NASDAQ crash in 1998...eventually I was right.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
Sanity check. What EXACTLY is ApplePi?
Hmmm. Didn't think anyone else posting here knew definitively either. It's just a name, could be Hyper-transport based, could be RIO based, could be something else altogether.
What is the Velocity Engine? A renamed Altivec. What is Altivec? one particular implementation of a specification that may also be known as VMX.
The name ApplePi does not support or refute any particular bus technology as of yet with the probable exception of the MPX bus. A new processor may REQUIRE a completely new bus technology, so rolling them out together is not a recipie for disaster
Let's all keep the discussion going, but remember almost everything we are talking about is common sense sprinkled with a lot of rumor and precious little fact. The naming schemes/codenames haven't solidified on any particular tech yet.
PS. hmurchison, I'm not picking on your post in particular, you just had the unfortunate luck to be the holder of my latest lightening rod.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So here's a thought: if ApplePI was related to a RIO implementation, and if it was supposedly ApplePI that Apple requested be incorporated into the G5 offerings of the chip competitors (when they were at least IBM, Motorola, and whomever), then why did Motorola refuse to incorporate it?
The only logical conclusion I come up with, is that ApplePI doesn't use RIO or MPX, because Motorola uses those techs.
I'm not sure, but doesn't HyperTransport's initial throughput numbers start in the 6.4 GB/s range, and isn't it coincidental that this new GPUL has throughput of 6.4 GB/s.
Maybe ApplePI is based on HT. Apple is one of the founding members, as it AMD, NVidia, ATI.