This is what i see

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    Eat it bitch!



    As I said... the 750xx a G3 based core and a G3 by name. Third generation baby!




    Well he did say by Apple, not MOT. By your line of thinking, we shouldn't call our current G5 a G5 since it is a 970 and not an 85XX.



    The G# stuff is all just Apple (and MOT) marketing. They never called the 601 or 603 a G1 and G2. Apple started all the G stuff with the G3.
  • Reply 42 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar

    That's a Motorola term not necessarily an Apple term. Apple can call a PPC750 a G4 if they want and I rather expect a PPC750 with a Velocity Engine would be enough for them to do so.



    For god sake...



    When did you forget that the G in G4 (G3, G5, etc..) stands for generation. This holds true for Apple, IBM, and Moto. So what sense is there in calling a chip, which model number is directly related to the third generation, a G4? Take a rat and put it in bird suit, so it looks like a rat with the features of a bird, does it make that rat appart of the bird family? NO! It is still just a rat, in a bird suit.



    If the chip is released with a model name of 750vx then is is based on the 750 core which is a third generation chip (G3).



    Apple, IMO, would have to release a prduct without using the G3 name... like Mobile PPC or something.
  • Reply 43 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    Well he did say by Apple, not MOT. By your line of thinking, we shouldn't call our current G5 a G5 since it is a 970 and not an 85XX.



    The G# stuff is all just Apple (and MOT) marketing. They never called the 601 or 603 a G1 and G2. Apple started all the G stuff with the G3.




    The 85XX was just MoTo spec... a chip that got the axe a long time ago...



    True, they never called the 601-603 by there generation names... I like it this way, but don't know why.
  • Reply 44 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    The 85XX was just MoTo spec... a chip that got the axe a long time ago...



    I agree, but am just making a point. Apple could have called the 7457 the G5, and the 970 the G6. There is nothing saying that Apple can't call the 750vx (if that indeed turns out to be the chip number) a G4. Likewise there is nothing saying that they should move from the G3 name. I just think that they shodul call it something other than either, because it is really more than a G3, can run any G4 class software, but is likely to be based more closely to the 750 line. Like I suggested above, call it the G5M (standing for G5 mobile, ala the P4M).



    Quote:

    True, they never called the 601-603 by there generation names... I like it this way, but don't know why.



    The whole G# thing started with the G3. The 601-603 would only be considered G1 and G2 because they proceeded the G3. Look on an old MOT roadmap, G1 and G2 were never mentioned until after Apple used it with the G3.
  • Reply 45 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    For god sake...



    When did you forget that the G in G4 (G3, G5, etc..) stands for generation. This holds true for Apple, IBM, and Moto. So what sense is there in calling a chip, which model number is directly related to the third generation, a G4? Take a rat and put it in bird suit, so it looks like a rat with the features of a bird, does it make that rat appart of the bird family? NO! It is still just a rat, in a bird suit.





    You're actually answering your own question. ONLY the model number of the VX is "related" to the third generation and that's only if you believe IBM's model numbers and Motorola's are fundamentally the same, and you ignore the fact that only the rumour sites are refering to it as a "750VX" (according to what I've read, IBM themselves are refering to it as just the VX at this stage.)



    In actual hardware terms, IBM's VX is physically similar to a G4. It has Altivec. It has a similar cache configuration.



    If IBM renamed their 750GX "604gx", would you call it a G2?
  • Reply 46 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    Eat it bitch!



    As I said... the 750xx a G3 based core and a G3 by name. Third generation baby!




    Eat it yourself, that's not an Apple document!



    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    For god sake...



    When did you forget that the G in G4 (G3, G5, etc..) stands for generation. This holds true for Apple, IBM, and Moto. So what sense is there in calling a chip, which model number is directly related to the third generation, a G4?




    Then show me oné single Apple (!) document that states that model number Y = Generation X!
  • Reply 47 of 69
    this thread needs to be "deaded".

    its turned into something ugly.

    who cares what the call it?
  • Reply 48 of 69
    I just hope they use it.
  • Reply 49 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by peharri

    You're actually answering your own question. ONLY the model number of the VX is "related" to the third generation and that's only if you believe IBM's model numbers and Motorola's are fundamentally the same, and you ignore the fact that only the rumour sites are refering to it as a "750VX" (according to what I've read, IBM themselves are refering to it as just the VX at this stage.)





    If they just use VX name, then yes, apple could use G4 as the name. Just using VX does not imply that it is appart of the 750 family. so I would be happy to see apple use G4 or whatever they want.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by peharri

    In actual hardware terms, IBM's VX is physically similar to a G4. It has Altivec. It has a similar cache configuration.





    Here we go again... in the spec sense, yes the chip would be similar but it is not the same chip and would be very different under the hood.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by peharri

    If IBM renamed their 750GX "604gx", would you call it a G2?



    One) IBM would never do that... because the chip is not based on G2 tech and it is not a 604 core.



    Two) No, because the 604 was never called the G2 by apple.



    --



    Would you be happy if you bought a new P4 laptop but later found out that the chip is really a P3-XX with less than a hand full of P4 like specs added to it?
  • Reply 50 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Eat it yourself, that's not an Apple document!







    So Apple (a computer company) has the final say on chips made by another company? Apple marketing often uses the code/nick names of prouducts to sell them. Like Panther. G3 is just a nick name attached to the 750 series chips made by Moto and IBM (they worked on the tech ad a team). Moto's roadmap shows this.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Then show me oné single Apple (!) document that states that model number Y = Generation X!





    Why would Apple stamp a seal on Moto's project/code names...



    Apple got the G3 name off Moto. Later they switched to IBM because there G3s were clocking higher and had some better features. Can you see how Apple marketing got stuck with the name?
  • Reply 51 of 69
    What?s with all the hostility? The ?G? nomenclature is strictly a topic for marketing types. The fact is that both the G3 and G4 are variants of G2 tech. The G3 was a derivation of the 603 branch of the G2 family, while the G4 was derived from the 604 branch. That is why the integer and FPU units differ, and why the G3 doesn?t support SMP(neither did the 603). By this logic, the G4 should have been called the G3+, etc.



    \tI don?t care if the call it the superclifragilisticexpialidocious mark 5, as long as it allows Apple to produce low cost, competitive hardware. Laptops with 6-8 hours of battery life, and entry level desktops that no longer have to trail behind the Celerons of the World.



    \tI hope that putting a double pumped 200 Mz bus will let the chip breathe enough to allow performance closer to the 970. Say goodbye to Moto and their problems, and have Apple free to build stuff they can sell. Maybe they could build something to replace the G4 tower. That would be something that I would like to see.
  • Reply 52 of 69
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wascally Wabbit

    Whats with all the hostility? The G nomenclature is strictly a topic for marketing types. The fact is that both the G3 and G4 are variants of G2 tech. The G3 was a derivation of the 603 branch of the G2 family, while the G4 was derived from the 604 branch.



    Actually, the G4 also came from the 603 branch. It borrowed the 604's FPU, but that was about it.



    The successor to the 604 is the legendary Mach 5, which was killed along with its accompanying motherboard as too expensive when the G3/Gossamer economy architecture proved to be a surprisingly good performer.



    The logical successor to the 604 is actually the 970: It's replacing the 604e in many of IBM's own machines.



    Quote:

    I hope that putting a double pumped 200 Mz bus will let the chip breathe enough to allow performance closer to the 970. Say goodbye to Moto and their problems, and have Apple free to build stuff they can sell. Maybe they could build something to replace the G4 tower. That would be something that I would like to see.



    If it's just a double-pumped 60x bus, I don't have a lot of hope for it. But it'll do.
  • Reply 53 of 69
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    I don't know. The way I see it, boxes listing requirements currently say "800MHz G4 or better". This 750vx is an equivilent of a G4 (because of altivec), so if they just call it a G4, then people wont get confused over requirements. It is hard to figure this one out, but I am sure if Apple plans on using this, their Marketing department will come up with something.



    How about a G4 Mark II?
  • Reply 54 of 69
    ringoringo Posts: 328member
    I think the answer to this discussion is obvious. The 750VX would be, to the end buyer, a low-power G4, right? They don't care what architecture generation it's based on. ALl they would care about is that it's fater than the current G4s and (especially important to laptop users) consumes a lot less battery. How has Apple named their battery-friendly CPUs in the past?



    If anything but G4, Apple will call it the G4e.



    That is what I think they'll call it. You heard it from me first!
  • Reply 55 of 69
    Quote:

    Actually, the G4 also came from the 603 branch. It borrowed the 604's FPU, but that was about it.



    The successor to the 604 is the legendary Mach 5, which was killed along with its accompanying motherboard as too expensive when the G3/Gossamer economy ar



    Thanks for heads up on that. The Mach 5 had entirely slipped my mind
  • Reply 56 of 69
    eric_zeric_z Posts: 175member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    If it's just a double-pumped 60x bus, I don't have a lot of hope for it. But it'll do.



    I think it's a safe bet to asume that it'll be able to use the 60x bus protocoll for backwards compatabillaty. And if there aren't any steep licensing costs associated with implementing a MPX bus on the VX, then there might be a fair chance of IBM doing so. If Apple wants it bad enough that is, then we'd end up having a consumer CPU with a max bus throughput of 3.2GB/s, and that is not all that bad IMHO.
  • Reply 57 of 69
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by geekmeet

    my hunch is we will see 2.8ghz announced at MWSF2004.

    thats just my gut feeling here.




    i thought it over ... i think you're right.



    dual 2.0 GHz

    dual 2.4 GHz

    dual 2.8 GHz



    i think these machines will be shipped in late february.
  • Reply 58 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    Would you be happy if you bought a new P4 laptop but later found out that the chip is really a P3-XX with less than a hand full of P4 like specs added to it? [/B]



    If the "P3-XX" was superior in virtually every noticable way to a P4, then yeah, I'd be delighted. And I wouldn't have a problem with Intel calling such a thing a P4 either if it was superior in every noticable way to a current P4 and, from a programming perspective, would be identical.



    You're surely not arguing that the VX is inferior to the current Motorola 7xxx series?
  • Reply 59 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    So Apple (a computer company) has the final say on chips made by another company? Apple marketing often uses the code/nick names of prouducts to sell them. Like Panther. G3 is just a nick name attached to the 750 series chips made by Moto and IBM (they worked on the tech ad a team). Moto's roadmap shows this.



    Why would Apple stamp a seal on Moto's project/code names...



    Apple got the G3 name off Moto. Later they switched to IBM because there G3s were clocking higher and had some better features. Can you see how Apple marketing got stuck with the name?




    That is just it, they are not doing that. Apple came up with the G# marketing name, and MOT has adopted it for use. MOT calls its chips 7400, 601, 603, etc. Apple called the 750 the G3, and the 7400 the G4. MOT adopted these names for their roadmap (perhaps to simplify?), and then added in G2 and G1 so that the roadmap looked complete. If you could find an old roadmap from MOT that only showed the 601 and 603, there would be no mention of G# anything.



    This is all further proved, as IBM doesn't use the G# naming for their chips or roadmaps. So when Apple got the 970, IBM didn't say "this is the G5", Apple chose to use that name.
  • Reply 60 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally posted by peharri

    --snip snip--



    You're surely not arguing that the VX is inferior to the current Motorola 7xxx series?




    No one here knows how the vx performs or if it will be called vx for that matter. I would guess it hands the 74XX its heart in a brown paper bag but that is just a hunch. I just want to see apple brand it as something different than G4, I mean that just makes sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.