New G5 early next year or just a updated G4

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
from <a href="http://www.macosrumors.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.macosrumors.com/</a>;



Our friends at the PowerPage have joined the chorus in projecting specifications for a new PowerBook G4. We agree with them on most points, although our sources concur with one comment poster on the PowerPage's article in seeing 1.2GHz processors in an early 2003 update to the PBG4 (when smaller, cooler, cheaper, and faster G4s which drain less power are available - based on newer .13 or .10 micron SOI processes), rather than in the more immediate update slated for 3-6 weeks hence based on PPC 7455 CPUs. In the nearer term we expect 1GHz processors (933MHz conservatively), portable Superdrives, maybe built-in Bluetooth support, and ATi Radeon Mobililty 9000 graphics acceleration.



\tThere is more to the article but this is enough for the point I am going to make.



\tNow in the above article they speak of new G4's being ready next year with the .13 or .10 SOI processes. If this is indeed correct would apple not call these updated G4s the G5. They most likely would have a faster bus, and obviously would scale to a much higher Mhz maybe 1.8Ghz or so. A G4 with a faster buss and a higher Mhz rating would bring us up to par with the PC side. Apple would then have faster chip to but in their powermacs.

\t

\tI still think we will see the GPUL from IBM come end of next year or early 2004. I would like to see it come january this year, but even the most optimistic predictions point to it being at least 8 months away. And if apple had this super chip it would make the iMacs look like a bad deal and the G4 would have been run out by then anyway. Apple would have a super 64bit chip for their PowerMacs and nothing for their iMacs.



\tTherefore, based on the Macosrumors information and the eweek article last week I think I have enough "Rumor" to begin speculating on a turbo charged G4 in january. I do imagine apple will call this G4 a G5 sense the current G4 has been around to long and this new G4 would have enough advantages to justify a new name.



\t This scenario makes sense for apple. They would ketch up to the PC side early next year in their PowerMacs, and then at the end of the year they would have a super chip from IBM to bring them home. This is just what apple needs to bring in the 10% market share over the next few years.



\tTherefore based on the outstanding evidence toward the GPUL from IBM. The need of a chip to take the place of the G4 when this super IBM chip comes out. The small amounts of evidence toward a updated G4 from Motorola, and the need of this Motorola chip in the next few months. I think it is logical to predict that we will see this "G5" early next year.



\tFeel free to beat the other thread that has fallen apart...that was umm about the G5 from IBM. And please if any one has any info please post wether it is against or for my prediction.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    I think we need to get off the "G4"-"G5" trip. I guess the original G3 was the third generation of Motorola's chip and the G4 is the 4th generation. These are truths that Apple latched onto with their marketing, calling each Mac a PowerMac G3 and a PowerMac G4.



    But if we are trying to look forward, wouldn't it be better to imagine that Apple is going to call the next generation machines something new and different. I certainly hope so.



    [ 09-26-2002: Message edited by: clonenode ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 59
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    I agree with you. I imagine that the updated G4 will be called a G5. However, the IBM chip would be called something new. A little bird told me that X1 or similar naming would be placed on this GPUL. Any one have any other ideas?
  • Reply 3 of 59
    The G4 becomes a G5 only if the Core changes significantly IMO.
  • Reply 4 of 59
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>The G4 becomes a G5 only if the Core changes significantly IMO.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There was already a significant change when the G4 went from 4 to 7 stages. That combined with what else has been discussed, mix in 3+ years and you've got a new name. The nomenclature is not really tied to anything but marketing. Intel needed a PIII to compete with a G3, but if I remember correctly the core of the PIII was not significantly different than the PII.
  • Reply 5 of 59
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    If Apple rolls out computers built around a G4 migrated to a .13 or .09 micron process it'll be a G4. In purely marketing terms, that way they won't dilute the punch of the "G5" moniker when they really do roll out a next-generation platform later next year (if the rumblings around are right).



    Part of me is mumbling that we didn't expect G4s until later than they were actually introduced either, though. Then again, Apple should probably have waited a few months that time...
  • Reply 6 of 59
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    You see I don't think that the real G5 will be called a G5, but rather something like X1.
  • Reply 7 of 59
    [quote]Originally posted by Algol:

    <strong>You see I don't think that the real G5 will be called a G5, but rather something like X1.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The X1 was a prototype jet wasn't it? Wasn't it the first to break the sound barrier (that is a wild guess).



    X1 is a horrible name for a new chip - G(x) stood for "generation" x. What does the X in X1 stand for? Xtreme? Enough X already - I am part of the "X" generation - you know, the generation that didn't want to work and then all of a sudden started working 80 hours a week to fuel the Dot Bomb? Screw X - gimme a name that means something!



    I am always amazed at how interested people seem to be in what a new chip is going to be called, or what a new enclosure will look like. Then there I go an respond about the name. Doh! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    [ 09-26-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 59
    Well instead of complaining about the name why don't you give us a better one! And I don't know why they are talking about what it will be called. I am much more interested in when it the "G4/G5" will be out and what to expect.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]Apple would have a super 64bit chip for their PowerMacs and nothing for their iMacs.<hr></blockquote>



    If the GPuL goes into PowerMacs current (and beyond) G4s can be put into iMacs.



    [quote]but if I remember correctly the core of the PIII was not significantly different than the PII. <hr></blockquote>



    <a href="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990328&mode=classic"; target="_blank">http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990328&mode=classic</a>; heh.



    PIII adds over PII:
    • SSE 1: SIMD vector instructions

    • unique CPU id

    • later models in socket 370 package

    [ 09-27-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 59
    With Motorola's history, I would not predict anything too ambitious for the new year. Most likely a modified G4 on .13 process with 512K L2 Cache running at speeds of up to 1.4GHZ. If this is the case, I would predict they call it the G4e (kind of like the old 603e). I think the real G5 would be the GPUL from IBM. Of course this is purely conjecture...
  • Reply 11 of 59
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    seeing that GPuL from IBM won;t be ready for at LEAST another year (prob MWSF 2004), and the G5 was our daily bread of bantering around a year and a bit ago, its time for the G5 to appear.



    I really wish we could skip the G5 and have the GPuL at MWSF 2003.



    Dammit
  • Reply 12 of 59
    G4 to G5 is really arbitary



    If Motorola is able to make both a substantial die shrink like a 90 nm and thus a substantial clock boost and adding support for DDR it would be resonable to call a CPU that runs at about 2 GHz and has DDR support a G5.



    But look at all the diffrent permutations of the G3 that still was called a G3. The diffrence is that the G3 was a good chip that had good brand recognition, so it was a good idea to keep the name. The current 700 MHz G3 with on chip L2 cache is very diffrent from the 233 MHz G3 with separate L2



    With the G4 they should like to get away from that troubled name. The problem is that if they call a 1.25 GHz no DDR CPU a "G4" calling a 1.5 GHz CPU noDDR a G5 is plain silly.



    IB]If[/B] they will migrate to a IBM CPU they are likely to keep calling a G4 a G4 for as long as they use that CPU. On the other hand if they are not going with IBM at all they might call a feature and performance enhanced G4 a G5.



    2003 will be the year that will decide the future for Apple. OS X is here rendevous will hopefully be out in force next year. With some killer hardware Apple can grow and prosper to spur further growth. If the CPU problem persist throughout 2003 then even the fastest Macintosh that we can buy will be beaten in applications ranging from PS and video coding to Doom 3 by low end to midrange windows boxes. We are close to getting to a point were there is no point in porting demanding games to the Mac as there will be no computers that plays well. The all dual lineup helps some but only for the towers. How does Soldier of Fortune II play on a iMac?

    How will Doom 3 play on a 1.5 G4 iMac when the budget PCs are at 3 GHz or so...
  • Reply 13 of 59
    'Just an updated G4'.



    Not worthy of the Generational '5' moniker change.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 14 of 59
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    G4+ with improvements and power4 core this time next year.



    i don't think Apple will give the G4 a G5 title. Why do it? It's still a G4, Apple has a lot invested in the G4 processor and Moto has said there's a lot of tooth left in the G4. I would think power4 core will get the G5 title if we get a G5 title.
  • Reply 15 of 59
    Remember, there really is a G5 (and even a G6) on <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230"; target="_blank">Motorola's roadmap</a>.



    It uses RIO, it will have 64-bit version, it will initially be .13µ, it will be numbered 85xx, and there already are a couple of them (<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8540&nodeId=03M9430304504 67M98657" target="_blank">8540</a>, <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8560&nodeId=03M9430304504 67M98657" target="_blank"> and 8560</a>).



    These specs could change, they may not make desktop computer versions of them, and/or Apple may not use them. But I don't think they could just take a G4, put it on .13µ, and call it a G5. And I don't think Apple would call this Power4-lite a "G5" because it's a totally different chip than what Motorola calls a G5.
  • Reply 16 of 59
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    If we ever see an MPC 85** in a Mac that will the a G5.
  • Reply 17 of 59
    They can call it the processmaster3000 for all I care as long as it has a wicked fast FSB. They can even keep the same clock speed, but we all know this won't happen.
  • Reply 18 of 59
    What if it's only really fast and not "wicked" fast?
  • Reply 19 of 59
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    <strong>Remember, there really is a G5 (and even a G6) on <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230"; target="_blank">Motorola's roadmap</a>.

    ....</strong><hr></blockquote>





    You didn't happen to find that roadmap in a clay jug with the dead sea scrolls did you
  • Reply 20 of 59
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    Scott, would you please switch on your private messages, or click on the mail button above this post and send me a quick mail?



    Thank you.
Sign In or Register to comment.