Without .3 anything you transmit to a platform other than a Mac will be unrecognizable without human intervention.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't exactly true. A good/smart computer would just tack that on whenever the .3-less file tried to leave your machine (via e-mail let's say....)
<strong>personally i think the mods should LOCK this thread. i stopped reading it all on page 14.
their are like 6 specific ppl having a specific conversation now and no one else even reads all of this post.
LOCK THIS THREAD!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
?How would you know if you stopped reading after page 14
I'm reading it and would like the thread to remain active. This is a great repository of GPUL info.
What I want to know is on a Point to Point Bus...is each Proc/Core getting guaranteed bandwidth? Assuming 6.4GBps throughput would each proc see 3.2 Maximum
I’m not sure but isn’t optimizing OS X’s speed the biggest roadblock to overall Mac performance right now? I have a 733MHz G4 (introduced January 2001, shipped two months later) and I can’t tell it’s any slower than a dual 867MHz mirrored drive door model.
This isn't exactly true. A good/smart computer would just tack that on whenever the .3-less file tried to leave your machine (via e-mail let's say....)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I remember reading somewhere that the fact that the 'net seems to relie so much on .suffixes does not mean that those are in fact needed at all.
For example, Apache should be able to tell your browser that jenna_jameson_bends_over is a Jpeg picture even without the .jpg or .jpeg suffix. I'm not so sure though, if somebody can confirm this...
Back on topic, could we have a scenario like this for the desktop?
Workstation: PowerMac G6 (GPUL)
Prosumer desktop: Cube II G5 (85xx from Mot)
Consumer desktop: iMac/eMac G5
It'd really be a huge leap forward, also from a marketing POV! The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that the GPUL will be for the desktop only (at least for the time being) and that it will fit nicely in a high-end workstation-class PowerMac (maybe ranging from ? 6k to 10k?). Another thing, if all this GPUL talk is true, is that we need something a little bit more competitive than the current G4 for the rest of the lineup. Could this be an 85xx CPU from Moto? Or a revised G3+VMX+fasterbus from IBM? Or a .09µ G4 on RIO/HT/ApplePI?
What's a prosumer? A consumer that needs more performance? Well, the iMac G4 has delievered on that.
Any PowerPC which starts with an "8" (85xx, 82xx, 8xx) is a COMMUNICATIONS CPU.
The High End Embedded G5, the 7500, was probably cancelled.
The eMac is there for value.
eMac G4 (130nm - 7470?)
iMac G4 (130nm - 7470?)
Power Mac GPUL
A year or two after the Power Mac GPUL, the iMac goes GPUL (when it's low power enough). A year or so after that, the eMac goes GPUL (when it and associated tech become cheap enough).
Question: IBM has said the GPUL will be (in a marketing excersize) part of the PowerPC line, not the POWER line. So, what designation will it have? The Power3 had the PPC630 designation, so will this be the PPC640 or 6400?
I don't see the 'GPUL' being 'High end Workstation' only. Not going to happen.
A 1.6 .13 G4 Rio, IF this 'G5' by Moto' is released by San Fran Jan' 2003. It makes Apple 'competitive' for about half a year.
The PC side isn't standing still. The 'Claw' Hammer will be in standard PCs next year also. Apple will have to compete with that.
A GPUL will, I think, come to the POWERMac line next Summer.
IF the talk about multiple cores is true then it is this that gives Apple marketing leverage to create a 'High end' workstation bracket.
Dual core for the 'PowerMacs' and Quad Core etc for 'Uber'Macs.
In short, I think the GPUL is Apple's opportunity to re-establish the 'flagship' POWERMac brand's performance while opening up a new workstation class bracket Mac. Gives the chance to sell plenty of digital video, shake and Maya premium bundles. I can't see Apple not doing this IF the GPUL offers the 'multi' core latitude of dual to quad core formations.
As Amorph(?) has pointed out...some rumours say single core only. And that's the cpu needed to make 'power'Macs competitive next summer.
Though, even in 'single core' formations , a quad processor GPUL could be used as a workstation machine. Duals for 'power'Macs and Quads for the workstation.
I think GPUL will give Apple options to spread out their product line and really let it breath and compete in all areas. It looks far too narrow, spec' wise (re: cpu) at the moment.
And of course, the GPUL will allow the 'Rio .13 G4' slip down to the iMacs and eMacs etc. Rio is/will be apparently cheaper than the current bus tech' Apple uses. Maybe allow Apple to produce more price competitive gear at each bracket.
All of a sudden, Apple's really not only back in but leading the performance game again.
<strong>What's a prosumer? A consumer that needs more performance? Well, the iMac G4 has delievered on that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, "prosumer" is a very ugly and meaningless word. What I mean is a market segment that needs/wants to upgrade the video card, install a larger HD (ok, you can do this on the iMac), change the optical drive, and continue using the same monitor.
Example: I have a Sony G500, absolutely marvelous, but I don't have the money for a windtunnel PowerMac, and I don't trust used computers. In the current Apple lineup I'm stuck with my old machine, whereas they could have my ? 1,400 for a single-CPU entry level desktop system.
Now, what is exactly this 7470 supposed to be? A simple process shrink to .13µ? Or will it at least get rid of the MPX bus? Furthermore, are there any indications that Mot will ever produce such a chip? I remember reading about it on The Register probably more than one year ago. Could it just be rumorware?
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>
Teehee.
Thank you, Moki, for such a wonderful image.
Although I rather think he'd be stalking the hallways at Motorola......
I can see it now, chip engineers, standing, frozen, like a deer in the headlights........ <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]I don't see the 'GPUL' being 'High end Workstation' only. Not going to happen. <hr></blockquote>
Lemon logic isn't on your side here. If the GPUL is dual core 64bit with performance 4x the current G4 you are seriously delluding yourself into thinking that Apple won't charge $4k or more for these boxes. Take the hint now because I'm sure most of don't want to hear the "Wrath of Lemon Bon Bon" a year from now when Apple decideds to make some bucks on this. Think about it. IBM isn't aiming for Ma and Pa Linux Desktops their aiming for Enteprise Hardware running High End Red Hat Linux. There's no way Apples going to provide the same for $2500 initially. Not going to happen.
[quote] I think GPUL will give Apple options to spread out their product line and really let it breath and compete in all areas. It looks far too narrow, spec' wise (re: cpu) at the moment.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly and there's nothing to stop Apple from utilizing 130nm G4's until the last minute. As for those that think Apple wouldn't have three processor lines.
Ummmmmm remember Exponential?
If I was Apple..which I'm not of course. I'd have the GPUL in High End boxen $4K and above and loaded to the gills(Quadro and ATI Pro cards).
I'd have G4+ or G5 Moto based Boxen in the midrange and then G4 in the low end.
Companies WILL spend $4-5k on a Workstation easily(it's tax ded) but they demand performance and that's what Apple will have with GPUL. There's no sense in leaving money on the table.
[quote] If the GPUL is dual core 64bit with performance 4x the current G4 you are seriously delluding yourself into thinking that Apple won't charge $4k or more for these boxes. <hr></blockquote>
If the GPUL doesn't surface for another year, then 4x current G4s will be right in line, or perhaps slightly ahead, of the high end PCs that will be available in a year, and those PCs will be available for $2k. If Apple is happy with their current Price/Performance ratio, then yes, they'll up the price in accordance with the performance gains; but, if they want to be in business in two years, the price of new machines will be in line with current offerings.
If eWeek is right and the GPUL is offered with quad as well as dual core chips, then that opens the door for truely workstation class machines, with 8- or 16-way architectures. Those machines would probably be introduced at 5k, and go up from there.
Multithreading is supposed to add up to %25 performance. Which is nice but far from the %300 improvement which sounds possible from the GPUL. I just have a hard time thinking that these computers would be cheaper than $3499.
Let's say a 2Ghz GPUL was $900 for Apple. What would you assume two G4+ 1.25Ghz procs cost. Probably at least $600 and this machine is already $3300.
I would expect GPUL to be a machine that initially Apple focuses on the High End market and then slowly brings it down to the Mid Range lineup as yields and market conditions improve.
GPUL will make for some nice Xserves as well and OSX Server is coming along nicely.
Multithreading is supposed to add up to %25 performance. Which is nice but far from the %300 improvement which sounds possible from the GPUL. I just have a hard time thinking that these computers would be cheaper than $3499.
<hr></blockquote>
You're ignoring the fact that for many apps, the G4 is 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of a current P4. As I said, if Apple quadruples their speed in a year, their offerings will be right in line with the top-of-the line PCs available at that time. You can't just look at the speed of x86 and PPC independantly of one another, because potential buyers certainly won't.
Yeah that's a shame and IMO mostly due to lazy and shoddy programming. Thank God Apple is making smart acquisitions so that we can say.
"Geez Adobe why does Premiere run like crap on my G4 but Final Cut Pro smokes?"
"Geez Steinberg why does Cubase SX run like garbage when my buddy's Logic OSX flies?"
Once we have a reference to how it's supposed to be done we can get on developers. I don't necessarily think that the P4 in inately that much faster but Intels marketshare dictates that Optimizations are focused on their platform first.
[quote] If the GPUL doesn't surface for another year, then 4x current G4s will be right in line, or perhaps slightly ahead, of the high end PCs that will be available in a year, and those PCs will be available for $2k. If Apple is happy with their current Price/Performance ratio, then yes, they'll up the price in accordance with the performance gains; but, if they want to be in business in two years, the price of new machines will be in line with current offerings.
If eWeek is right and the GPUL is offered with quad as well as dual core chips, then that opens the door for truely workstation class machines, with 8- or 16-way architectures. Those machines would probably be introduced at 5k, and go up from there.
<hr></blockquote>
I think Gamblor is closer to the mark on this than hmurch.. Simply, (and I know I've said this before) Apple has tried the three tiered thing with the cube, and it flopped horribly. They will not do this again. Also, the middle market that everyone here imagines, is not well defined. There is no one person that represents it well. It includes the corp. men that Apple targeted the cube to originally, it includes gamers/tinkerers, and many other market segments. The Pro machine will be a pro machine, and a year from now it will have single core 64 bit GP-UL processors in it. Nine months after that, they will become dual core. They could be dual core from the beginning, except that will be a leap the marketing guys will not let Apple make. The XServe may get multi-core processors first. I further predict that the first GP-UL processor will be within 10% performance wise with the then-current P4. Geez, I don't see how this could be anything byt true, when you consider both what can happen and what the realities of marketing and sales are.
Comments
<strong>
Without .3 anything you transmit to a platform other than a Mac will be unrecognizable without human intervention.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't exactly true. A good/smart computer would just tack that on whenever the .3-less file tried to leave your machine (via e-mail let's say....)
their are like 6 specific ppl having a specific conversation now and no one else even reads all of this post.
LOCK THIS THREAD!!!
<strong>personally i think the mods should LOCK this thread. i stopped reading it all on page 14.
their are like 6 specific ppl having a specific conversation now and no one else even reads all of this post.
LOCK THIS THREAD!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
?How would you know if you stopped reading after page 14
I'm reading it and would like the thread to remain active. This is a great repository of GPUL info.
What I want to know is on a Point to Point Bus...is each Proc/Core getting guaranteed bandwidth? Assuming 6.4GBps throughput would each proc see 3.2 Maximum
[ 09-20-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
[ 09-20-2002: Message edited by: MacJedai ]</p>
Sorry <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 09-20-2002: Message edited by: MacJedai ]</p>
I’m not sure but isn’t optimizing OS X’s speed the biggest roadblock to overall Mac performance right now? I have a 733MHz G4 (introduced January 2001, shipped two months later) and I can’t tell it’s any slower than a dual 867MHz mirrored drive door model.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: Jaddie ]
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: Jaddie ]
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: Jaddie ]
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: Jaddie ]</p>
<strong>
This isn't exactly true. A good/smart computer would just tack that on whenever the .3-less file tried to leave your machine (via e-mail let's say....)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I remember reading somewhere that the fact that the 'net seems to relie so much on .suffixes does not mean that those are in fact needed at all.
For example, Apache should be able to tell your browser that jenna_jameson_bends_over is a Jpeg picture even without the .jpg or .jpeg suffix. I'm not so sure though, if somebody can confirm this...
Back on topic, could we have a scenario like this for the desktop?
Workstation: PowerMac G6 (GPUL)
Prosumer desktop: Cube II G5 (85xx from Mot)
Consumer desktop: iMac/eMac G5
It'd really be a huge leap forward, also from a marketing POV! The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that the GPUL will be for the desktop only (at least for the time being) and that it will fit nicely in a high-end workstation-class PowerMac (maybe ranging from ? 6k to 10k?). Another thing, if all this GPUL talk is true, is that we need something a little bit more competitive than the current G4 for the rest of the lineup. Could this be an 85xx CPU from Moto? Or a revised G3+VMX+fasterbus from IBM? Or a .09µ G4 on RIO/HT/ApplePI?
ZoSo
Any PowerPC which starts with an "8" (85xx, 82xx, 8xx) is a COMMUNICATIONS CPU.
The High End Embedded G5, the 7500, was probably cancelled.
The eMac is there for value.
eMac G4 (130nm - 7470?)
iMac G4 (130nm - 7470?)
Power Mac GPUL
A year or two after the Power Mac GPUL, the iMac goes GPUL (when it's low power enough). A year or so after that, the eMac goes GPUL (when it and associated tech become cheap enough).
Question: IBM has said the GPUL will be (in a marketing excersize) part of the PowerPC line, not the POWER line. So, what designation will it have? The Power3 had the PPC630 designation, so will this be the PPC640 or 6400?
Barto
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
A 1.6 .13 G4 Rio, IF this 'G5' by Moto' is released by San Fran Jan' 2003. It makes Apple 'competitive' for about half a year.
The PC side isn't standing still. The 'Claw' Hammer will be in standard PCs next year also. Apple will have to compete with that.
A GPUL will, I think, come to the POWERMac line next Summer.
IF the talk about multiple cores is true then it is this that gives Apple marketing leverage to create a 'High end' workstation bracket.
Dual core for the 'PowerMacs' and Quad Core etc for 'Uber'Macs.
In short, I think the GPUL is Apple's opportunity to re-establish the 'flagship' POWERMac brand's performance while opening up a new workstation class bracket Mac. Gives the chance to sell plenty of digital video, shake and Maya premium bundles. I can't see Apple not doing this IF the GPUL offers the 'multi' core latitude of dual to quad core formations.
As Amorph(?) has pointed out...some rumours say single core only. And that's the cpu needed to make 'power'Macs competitive next summer.
Though, even in 'single core' formations
I think GPUL will give Apple options to spread out their product line and really let it breath and compete in all areas. It looks far too narrow, spec' wise (re: cpu) at the moment.
And of course, the GPUL will allow the 'Rio .13 G4' slip down to the iMacs and eMacs etc. Rio is/will be apparently cheaper than the current bus tech' Apple uses. Maybe allow Apple to produce more price competitive gear at each bracket.
All of a sudden, Apple's really not only back in but leading the performance game again.
I'd like to see that.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>What's a prosumer? A consumer that needs more performance? Well, the iMac G4 has delievered on that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, "prosumer" is a very ugly and meaningless word. What I mean is a market segment that needs/wants to upgrade the video card, install a larger HD (ok, you can do this on the iMac), change the optical drive, and continue using the same monitor.
Example: I have a Sony G500, absolutely marvelous, but I don't have the money for a windtunnel PowerMac, and I don't trust used computers. In the current Apple lineup I'm stuck with my old machine, whereas they could have my ? 1,400 for a single-CPU entry level desktop system.
Now, what is exactly this 7470 supposed to be? A simple process shrink to .13µ? Or will it at least get rid of the MPX bus? Furthermore, are there any indications that Mot will ever produce such a chip? I remember reading about it on The Register probably more than one year ago. Could it just be rumorware?
ZoSo
<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>
Teehee.
Thank you, Moki, for such a wonderful image.
Although I rather think he'd be stalking the hallways at Motorola......
I can see it now, chip engineers, standing, frozen, like a deer in the headlights........ <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Lemon logic isn't on your side here. If the GPUL is dual core 64bit with performance 4x the current G4 you are seriously delluding yourself into thinking that Apple won't charge $4k or more for these boxes. Take the hint now because I'm sure most of don't want to hear the "Wrath of Lemon Bon Bon" a year from now when Apple decideds to make some bucks on this. Think about it. IBM isn't aiming for Ma and Pa Linux Desktops their aiming for Enteprise Hardware running High End Red Hat Linux. There's no way Apples going to provide the same for $2500 initially. Not going to happen.
[quote] I think GPUL will give Apple options to spread out their product line and really let it breath and compete in all areas. It looks far too narrow, spec' wise (re: cpu) at the moment.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly and there's nothing to stop Apple from utilizing 130nm G4's until the last minute. As for those that think Apple wouldn't have three processor lines.
Ummmmmm remember Exponential?
If I was Apple..which I'm not of course. I'd have the GPUL in High End boxen $4K and above and loaded to the gills(Quadro and ATI Pro cards).
I'd have G4+ or G5 Moto based Boxen in the midrange and then G4 in the low end.
Companies WILL spend $4-5k on a Workstation easily(it's tax ded) but they demand performance and that's what Apple will have with GPUL. There's no sense in leaving money on the table.
<strong>This thread is getting out of hand.
Please leave your Sexual Orientation off this thread. Thanks
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
If the GPUL doesn't surface for another year, then 4x current G4s will be right in line, or perhaps slightly ahead, of the high end PCs that will be available in a year, and those PCs will be available for $2k. If Apple is happy with their current Price/Performance ratio, then yes, they'll up the price in accordance with the performance gains; but, if they want to be in business in two years, the price of new machines will be in line with current offerings.
If eWeek is right and the GPUL is offered with quad as well as dual core chips, then that opens the door for truely workstation class machines, with 8- or 16-way architectures. Those machines would probably be introduced at 5k, and go up from there.
Multithreading is supposed to add up to %25 performance. Which is nice but far from the %300 improvement which sounds possible from the GPUL. I just have a hard time thinking that these computers would be cheaper than $3499.
Let's say a 2Ghz GPUL was $900 for Apple. What would you assume two G4+ 1.25Ghz procs cost. Probably at least $600 and this machine is already $3300.
I would expect GPUL to be a machine that initially Apple focuses on the High End market and then slowly brings it down to the Mid Range lineup as yields and market conditions improve.
GPUL will make for some nice Xserves as well and OSX Server is coming along nicely.
Multithreading is supposed to add up to %25 performance. Which is nice but far from the %300 improvement which sounds possible from the GPUL. I just have a hard time thinking that these computers would be cheaper than $3499.
<hr></blockquote>
You're ignoring the fact that for many apps, the G4 is 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of a current P4. As I said, if Apple quadruples their speed in a year, their offerings will be right in line with the top-of-the line PCs available at that time. You can't just look at the speed of x86 and PPC independantly of one another, because potential buyers certainly won't.
"Geez Adobe why does Premiere run like crap on my G4 but Final Cut Pro smokes?"
"Geez Steinberg why does Cubase SX run like garbage when my buddy's Logic OSX flies?"
Once we have a reference to how it's supposed to be done we can get on developers. I don't necessarily think that the P4 in inately that much faster but Intels marketshare dictates that Optimizations are focused on their platform first.
If eWeek is right and the GPUL is offered with quad as well as dual core chips, then that opens the door for truely workstation class machines, with 8- or 16-way architectures. Those machines would probably be introduced at 5k, and go up from there.
<hr></blockquote>
I think Gamblor is closer to the mark on this than hmurch.. Simply, (and I know I've said this before) Apple has tried the three tiered thing with the cube, and it flopped horribly. They will not do this again. Also, the middle market that everyone here imagines, is not well defined. There is no one person that represents it well. It includes the corp. men that Apple targeted the cube to originally, it includes gamers/tinkerers, and many other market segments. The Pro machine will be a pro machine, and a year from now it will have single core 64 bit GP-UL processors in it. Nine months after that, they will become dual core. They could be dual core from the beginning, except that will be a leap the marketing guys will not let Apple make. The XServe may get multi-core processors first. I further predict that the first GP-UL processor will be within 10% performance wise with the then-current P4. Geez, I don't see how this could be anything byt true, when you consider both what can happen and what the realities of marketing and sales are.
<strong>I don't see Apple developing a three-tiered strategy on the desktop, nor do I believe one is needed</strong><hr></blockquote>
you mean like emac, imac, powermac?