so what does eWEEK mean with "Meanwhile, sources said, the long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility"?
is this moto's 85xx nobody expects or want anymore?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 85xx is the communications G5 family. Useless for Apple. A "High-End Embedded" G5 would be a 7500. Which was removed from the roadmap a year ago, presumably cancelled at the same time.
eWeek is no Time magazine. Heck, it ain't even a C|Net
The 85xx is the communications G5 family. Useless for Apple. A "High-End Embedded" G5 would be a 7500. Which was removed from the roadmap a year ago, presumably cancelled at the same time.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
but what if apple pushed moto to remove the 75xx from the roadmap? is that actually possible? if we knew back then (november 2001) there would be a moto G5 anytime soon (summer 2002/ late 2002/ early 2003) would you buy a G4 quicksilver or G4DDR for a reasonable price? is it possible apple didn't want the same dissaster as with the G4 stuck to a 500Mhz ceiling, and because they didn't know when the G5 will be ready for "mass production" they kept it quiet (it was awfully silent after mwsf about any G5 except for the not very usefull 85xx embedded proc)
There was no reason for Motorola to take the 7500 off the roadmap. The only thing the Moto road-map said about the G5 was 32 and 64-bit CPUs, BookE cores. The G4 is sold to many companies, the 7500 would be too. Apple doesn't own Motorola.
IBM is announcing a chip which won't be in Macs until 2003 next month. Why is Apple letting IBM do that? Whoever has the best chip will get into the 2003 Macs.
The 85xx did a better job than the G4 for high-end comms customers.
The 75xx would have done a better job than the G4 for desktop PPC customers (eg Apple).
I'd bet the farm at this stage that THERE IS NO G5 (made by Motorola for Apple computers).
<strong>[jackass mode] LOCK this thread already! There's already a 50 page thread on the EXACT same topic on pages 33-42 inclusive! WTF, why don't you go read those 50 pages and then write a reply based on the background text in that thread? ARe you stoopid? Why can't you read? HUH! Mods, LOCK THIS THREAD!!! [/jackass mode]
GPUL doesn't excite me one bit, you know why? Because it won't be out for over a year and a half! By that time the GPUL may be just enough to keep up with Intel's performance. Sure if it debuted at MWSF2003 it might be something to write home about, but 2004? Who cares?
If Apple has to limp along on the G4 for another year and a half, I hate to think of what will happen. The G4 already get's slaughtered by x86 on any computationally intensive tasks, and Intel/AMD aren't STAGNATING at 1.25 GHz. So if we're lucky, Motorola MIGHT give Apple 1.5 GHz sometime in the next year, on the same damn 166 MHz FSB.
If the GPUL isn't ready sooner than this article is predicting, I fear Apple will lose significant market share in the very niches they are courting: multimedia and graphics, 3d animation, etc.
Now here's what I don't understand...perhaps someone with more tech knowledge can answer it. Why will it take IBM so damn long to get their sh!t together on the GPUL? The fab is up and running, they are manufacturing test CPUs that Apple is using to run OS X, so what is the holdup? Why is it going to take a year to go from working prototypes to full scale production?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yawn. Dude, I've been listening you blab about apple will lose market share if blah bblah, if apple doesnt do this it will be the end, blah blah. Give it up. Apple is alive and well, and they will be for as far as we can see. Deal with it.
We have too much good news. What a switch from just two months ago. A 64-bit PPC from IBM is confirmed, and the odds are extremely good that Apple has been in on this project for a while. Motorola getting partners who know how to manufacture fast processors and have the 0.09 process is also confirmed. Making fast chips in quantity has been Motorola's biggest problem, and that is solved. Nice to speculate about the details, but the future looks bright.
So, 0.09 G5s from IBM and 0.09 G4s from Motorola? PowerMacs will be all 64-bit within 12 months? G3 will be replaced with low power 0.09 G4s? Apple PI will be the new bus on all Macs, starting with the first G5 PowerMacs?
<strong>There was no reason for Motorola to take the 7500 off the roadmap. The only thing the Moto road-map said about the G5 was 32 and 64-bit CPUs, BookE cores. The G4 is sold to many companies, the 7500 would be too. Apple doesn't own Motorola.
IBM is announcing a chip which won't be in Macs until 2003 next month. Why is Apple letting IBM do that? Whoever has the best chip will get into the 2003 Macs.
The 85xx did a better job than the G4 for high-end comms customers.
The 75xx would have done a better job than the G4 for desktop PPC customers (eg Apple).
I'd bet the farm at this stage that THERE IS NO G5 (made by Motorola for Apple computers).
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple could have it removed from the road map if they are paying for the development of the chip. MOT said they weren't building any new desktop processors, but Apple might be. If the IBM chip is a monster it will be expensive/big/hot and Apple still needs a G4 with HT or RIO. In additon if Apple is building PI they will need a chip to run it on. They ain't gonna stick an IBM Power4 in a lap top or an emac., and Apple still has to advance those other machines (with what chip?)
I hereby predict a Seybold 03 introduction. If some of you Chicken Little's would *read* the damn *eWeek* article instead of everyone's speculative poop, you'd realize it's basically slated for introduction 12 months from now, give or take.
MWNY is too early, but I think given an extra couple months it might happen next fall. Christmas buying season at worst. They won't wait till MWSF-04 if they can offer before the holidays. Sales in that case would be HUGE. Hell, 70% of the people on this board and others we know would probably buy one / get one for the holidays.
As for the G4 / GPUL / x85 product matrix, if you think that has a snowball's chance in hell of materializing, you're clueless. If Motorola keeps improving the G4 (for iMacs, eMacs and portables), and then Apple suddenly has ApplePI and GPUL for high end machines, there would be NO POINT to spending the money and resources to support x86! Use your heads...
...the only reason x86 even makes any sense as an argument is the "because we've fallen too far behind in the speed wars"concept - never mind it is technically a stupid idea from a marketing and developer POV. Regardless, once GPUL is released the speed issues go BYEBYE. What part of "twice as fast as a G4 at the same clock speed" do people not get? Even if we are at 1.6GHz GPUL (~ 3.2 GHz G4), chances are that would CRUSH a 3+GHz Pentium and equal any 4+ GHz chips they have.
If this chip is what they say it is, the battle for Hz is over for a long time. Intel would have to come up with a quantum leap in chip technology to put us behind the 8-ball in the same way we are now, and I doubt that's gonna happen given than Moore's Law is becoming less and less easy to attain as each year passes. We've already entered the world of diminishing returns in this regard IMO.
GPUL would basically make processor speed issues irrelevant in terms of choosing one platform over another. The OS and its apps would finally become the only real point that matters.
Yawn. Dude, I've been listening you blab about apple will lose market share if blah bblah, if apple doesnt do this it will be the end, blah blah. Give it up. Apple is alive and well, and they will be for as far as we can see. Deal with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's alive, no doubt about it. But if you call the present HW and SW situation "well" (and please, don't give me no crap about how cool the iApps are--I want a decent file-naming scheme, a journaling FS and live queries)... Well, some people settle for less, some for more--it's all about quality standards.
<strong>I'd bet the farm at this stage that THERE IS NO G5 (made by Motorola for Apple computers).</strong><hr></blockquote>
You could be right, but I keep thinking about the modularity of the Book-E architechture... Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than me can answer this: would it really be that difficult for Mot to produce an 85xx-based CPU with all the additional units Apple might require (AltiVec, a good/second FPU, whatever)?
Comments
<strong>
so what does eWEEK mean with "Meanwhile, sources said, the long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility"?
is this moto's 85xx nobody expects or want anymore?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 85xx is the communications G5 family. Useless for Apple. A "High-End Embedded" G5 would be a 7500. Which was removed from the roadmap a year ago, presumably cancelled at the same time.
eWeek is no Time magazine. Heck, it ain't even a C|Net
Barto
<strong>
The 85xx is the communications G5 family. Useless for Apple. A "High-End Embedded" G5 would be a 7500. Which was removed from the roadmap a year ago, presumably cancelled at the same time.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
but what if apple pushed moto to remove the 75xx from the roadmap? is that actually possible? if we knew back then (november 2001) there would be a moto G5 anytime soon (summer 2002/ late 2002/ early 2003) would you buy a G4 quicksilver or G4DDR for a reasonable price? is it possible apple didn't want the same dissaster as with the G4 stuck to a 500Mhz ceiling, and because they didn't know when the G5 will be ready for "mass production" they kept it quiet (it was awfully silent after mwsf about any G5 except for the not very usefull 85xx embedded proc)
...
IBM is announcing a chip which won't be in Macs until 2003 next month. Why is Apple letting IBM do that? Whoever has the best chip will get into the 2003 Macs.
The 85xx did a better job than the G4 for high-end comms customers.
The 75xx would have done a better job than the G4 for desktop PPC customers (eg Apple).
I'd bet the farm at this stage that THERE IS NO G5 (made by Motorola for Apple computers).
Barto
<strong>[jackass mode] LOCK this thread already! There's already a 50 page thread on the EXACT same topic on pages 33-42 inclusive! WTF, why don't you go read those 50 pages and then write a reply based on the background text in that thread? ARe you stoopid? Why can't you read? HUH! Mods, LOCK THIS THREAD!!! [/jackass mode]
GPUL doesn't excite me one bit, you know why? Because it won't be out for over a year and a half! By that time the GPUL may be just enough to keep up with Intel's performance. Sure if it debuted at MWSF2003 it might be something to write home about, but 2004? Who cares?
If Apple has to limp along on the G4 for another year and a half, I hate to think of what will happen. The G4 already get's slaughtered by x86 on any computationally intensive tasks, and Intel/AMD aren't STAGNATING at 1.25 GHz. So if we're lucky, Motorola MIGHT give Apple 1.5 GHz sometime in the next year, on the same damn 166 MHz FSB.
If the GPUL isn't ready sooner than this article is predicting, I fear Apple will lose significant market share in the very niches they are courting: multimedia and graphics, 3d animation, etc.
Now here's what I don't understand...perhaps someone with more tech knowledge can answer it. Why will it take IBM so damn long to get their sh!t together on the GPUL? The fab is up and running, they are manufacturing test CPUs that Apple is using to run OS X, so what is the holdup? Why is it going to take a year to go from working prototypes to full scale production?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, 0.09 G5s from IBM and 0.09 G4s from Motorola? PowerMacs will be all 64-bit within 12 months? G3 will be replaced with low power 0.09 G4s? Apple PI will be the new bus on all Macs, starting with the first G5 PowerMacs?
<strong>There was no reason for Motorola to take the 7500 off the roadmap. The only thing the Moto road-map said about the G5 was 32 and 64-bit CPUs, BookE cores. The G4 is sold to many companies, the 7500 would be too. Apple doesn't own Motorola.
IBM is announcing a chip which won't be in Macs until 2003 next month. Why is Apple letting IBM do that? Whoever has the best chip will get into the 2003 Macs.
The 85xx did a better job than the G4 for high-end comms customers.
The 75xx would have done a better job than the G4 for desktop PPC customers (eg Apple).
I'd bet the farm at this stage that THERE IS NO G5 (made by Motorola for Apple computers).
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple could have it removed from the road map if they are paying for the development of the chip. MOT said they weren't building any new desktop processors, but Apple might be. If the IBM chip is a monster it will be expensive/big/hot and Apple still needs a G4 with HT or RIO. In additon if Apple is building PI they will need a chip to run it on. They ain't gonna stick an IBM Power4 in a lap top or an emac., and Apple still has to advance those other machines (with what chip?)
MWNY is too early, but I think given an extra couple months it might happen next fall. Christmas buying season at worst. They won't wait till MWSF-04 if they can offer before the holidays. Sales in that case would be HUGE. Hell, 70% of the people on this board and others we know would probably buy one / get one for the holidays.
As for the G4 / GPUL / x85 product matrix, if you think that has a snowball's chance in hell of materializing, you're clueless. If Motorola keeps improving the G4 (for iMacs, eMacs and portables), and then Apple suddenly has ApplePI and GPUL for high end machines, there would be NO POINT to spending the money and resources to support x86! Use your heads...
...the only reason x86 even makes any sense as an argument is the "because we've fallen too far behind in the speed wars"concept - never mind it is technically a stupid idea from a marketing and developer POV. Regardless, once GPUL is released the speed issues go BYEBYE. What part of "twice as fast as a G4 at the same clock speed" do people not get? Even if we are at 1.6GHz GPUL (~ 3.2 GHz G4), chances are that would CRUSH a 3+GHz Pentium and equal any 4+ GHz chips they have.
If this chip is what they say it is, the battle for Hz is over for a long time. Intel would have to come up with a quantum leap in chip technology to put us behind the 8-ball in the same way we are now, and I doubt that's gonna happen given than Moore's Law is becoming less and less easy to attain as each year passes. We've already entered the world of diminishing returns in this regard IMO.
GPUL would basically make processor speed issues irrelevant in terms of choosing one platform over another. The OS and its apps would finally become the only real point that matters.
<strong>
Apple's alive, no doubt about it. But if you call the present HW and SW situation "well" (and please, don't give me no crap about how cool the iApps are--I want a decent file-naming scheme, a journaling FS and live queries)... Well, some people settle for less, some for more--it's all about quality standards.
ZoSo
<strong>I'd bet the farm at this stage that THERE IS NO G5 (made by Motorola for Apple computers).</strong><hr></blockquote>
You could be right, but I keep thinking about the modularity of the Book-E architechture... Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than me can answer this: would it really be that difficult for Mot to produce an 85xx-based CPU with all the additional units Apple might require (AltiVec, a good/second FPU, whatever)?
ZoSo
<strong>
When an reasonable and identified source gives firsthand info, then you can take it to the bank. Not until.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like when Apple announces it.
Please use the other thread.