OMFG DONFIRMED!!!!!!1: Fake Powerbook news

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Just want to be the first on record to say FAKEFAKEFAKE



http://homepage.mac.com/dzweben/pr/jun/pbg5.html



Quote:

The 1.8 GHz, 12-inch PowerBook G5, for a suggested retail price of $1699 (US), includes:
  • a 1440x900 HD widescreen LCD;

  • a Combo (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) optical drive;

  • 512MB of 400MHz DDR2 SDRAM;

  • ATI Radeon Mobility x300 64MB video card;

  • AirPort Extreme wireless networking and internal Bluetooth 2.0;

  • DVI, VGA, S-video and composite video support;

  • two USB 2.0 ports, two FireWire 400;

  • optional backlit keyboard with ambient light sensor; and

  • an 80GB Ultra ATA/100 hard drive.



The 2.0 GHz, 15-inch PowerBook G5, for a suggested retail price of $1,999 (US), includes:
  • a 1680x1050 HD widescreen LCD;

  • a Combo (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) optical drive;

  • 512MB of 400MHz DDR2 SDRAM;

  • ATI Radeon Mobility x600 128MB video card;

  • AirPort Extreme wireless networking and internal Bluetooth 2.0;

  • DVI, VGA, S-video and composite video support;

  • three USB 2.0 ports, two FireWire 400, FireWire 800

  • backlit keyboard with ambient light sensor; and

  • an 80GB Ultra ATA/100 hard drive.

The 2.3 GHz, 15-inch PowerBook G5, for a suggested retail price of $2,299 (US), includes:
  • a 1680x1050 HD widescreen LCD;

  • a 16x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±R/CD-RW);

  • 512MB of 400MHz DDR2 SDRAM;

  • 128MB ATI Radeon Mobility x600 video card (256MB optional);

  • AirPort Extreme wireless networking and internal Bluetooth 2.0;

  • DVI, VGA, S-video and conposite video support;

  • three USB 2.0 ports, two FireWire 400, FireWire 800;

  • backlit keyboard with ambient light sensor; and

  • an 80GB Ultra ATA/100 hard drive.

The 2.3 GHz, 17-inch PowerBook G5, for a suggested retail price of $2,899 (US), includes:
  • a 1920x1200 HD widescreen LCD;

  • a 16x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±R/CD-RW);

  • 1GB of 400MHz DDR2 SDRAM;

  • 256MB ATI Radeon Mobility x600 video card;

  • AirPort Extreme wireless networking and internal Bluetooth 2.0;

  • DVI, VGA, S-video and conposite video support;

  • three USB 2.0 ports, two FireWire 400, FireWire 800;

  • backlit keyboard with ambient light sensor; and

  • an 100GB Ultra ATA/100 hard drive.




Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    It may be fact but the bottom line is a G4 based machine is very outdated. Apple will be releasing a G5 Powerbook because it must and the B.S. of the thermal challenges is just that B.S. Pc makers have been using much hotter chips. Apple is milking its user base with G4s. They will come out with a G5 powerbook just as Powermac will hit 3.0. Steve will announce and then they will ship a month or two or three after in typical Apple fashion.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Just want to be the first on record to say FAKEFAKEFAKE



    http://homepage.mac.com/dzweben/pr/jun/pbg5.html




    They could at least have gotten the date right
  • Reply 3 of 15
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    They also could have realized Apple quit using the Garamond font quite some time ago.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    kenaustuskenaustus Posts: 904member
    A fast read on where Intel is heading at:



    http://news.com.com/Intel+spills+bea...9925&subj=news



    provides a good guess where IBM/Apple are heading for a bump in PBs.



    So when is IBM delivering the 65 nm G5 chips? That looks like the time that the PB will get a bump.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    sigh, apple's in a bit of a bind, because i believe them when they say there's just not any current way to get a g5 AS WE KNOW IT into a powerbook shell. but, i think they can change the rules. they can either use a different chip and CALL it a g5, or they can invent a different moniker altogether (god help me, they could callit the gX or somethign equally as groanworthy -- but the buying public would probably eat it up).
  • Reply 6 of 15
    garypgaryp Posts: 150member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    They could at least have gotten the date right



    They could also have spelled Availability right.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    I've been a Powerbook G5 advocate for so long, ever since the 1st gen Power Mac G5s came out, that I'm beginning to wonder if its becoming a complex for me.



    Apple and IBM were planning to have a Powerbook G5 and 970fx chips to go into them at least in early 2004. I bet Apple wanted to release a Powerbook G5 in Summer of 2004, but alas things didn't go right at the 90nm fab.



    IBM had an application note, Thermal Considerations: PPC970FX, in early 2004 which stated that the max power consumption for a 2 GHz version of the 970fx was 39 Watts. It talked about using conventional heatsink (1 inch high) cooling methods for use on IBM's 970fx evaluation boards and 1U rack servers. That's 39 Watts at 2 GHz! 1.8 GHz would have been 35 Watts just based clock rate scaling. This version of the 970fx was likely a low voltage (1V or less) or low-k chip.



    But as has been seen, IBM's 90nm fab couldn't really produce a low voltage, low-k 970fx. Apple had to use a 2 GHz 970fx rated at ~55 Watts max for the Xserve at the time, not to mention the 2 to 3 month delay for the Xserve too. On top of that, the lack of this low-Watt 970fx probably caused the delay of the iMac G5 by those 3 months for iMac G5 board tweaks for a higher power G5, for IBM to optimize yields on the existing FSG higher power G5s, or for both.



    Of course, that also meant and means no Powerbook G5 in sight. I'm still crossing my fingers that a combination of low-k and DSL would get the 970fx down to laptop power levels, but the low GHz Xenon/Cell announcements pretty much put an end to that I think. They could re-engineer the 970fx circuitry for low power usage, but that's not very likely either.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT



    Of course, that also meant and means no Powerbook G5 in sight. I'm still crossing my fingers that a combination of low-k and DSL would get the 970fx down to laptop power levels, but the low GHz Xenon/Cell announcements pretty much put an end to that I think. They could re-engineer the 970fx circuitry for low power usage, but that's not very likely either.




    I am thinking along the same lines. If Freescale can prolong a little more the life of the current Powerbook line with the 7448 and some variant of the 8641D chips, then I don't believe IBM would fight the 970fx in order to cool it enough just for the Powerbook. Especially when the CELL architecture may probably bring something more appropriate for this purpose.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    I am thinking along the same lines. If Freescale can prolong a little more the life of the current Powerbook line with the 7448 and some variant of the 8641D chips, then I don't believe IBM would fight the 970fx in order to cool it enough just for the Powerbook. Especially when the CELL architecture may probably bring something more appropriate for this purpose.



    TANSTAAFL.



    It hasn't been ascertained that Cell is in fact more appropriate for laptop uses (let alone desktop uses). If Cell (1 PPE + 8 SPE) at 3.2 GHz is 80 Watts, and the Realworldtech SPE schmoo plot is correct, then 1 PPE + 512 kByte L2 burns 30 to 40 Watts.



    It's possible though for IBM to produce a low power PowerPC chip for laptop uses though. If Intel can produce a 2.13 GHz Pentium M 770 at 27 Watts TDP, IBM should be able to produce a 2 GHz 970fx within 5 Watts of that. Or maybe a Cell-derived chip with 1 PPE + 2 SPE at 3 GHz within 5 Watts of that. They really need to move their 90 nm fab to DSL and low-k to do that, or whatever is needed to tweak lower voltage at higher GHz out of FSG (0.9V at 2 GHz ~= 30 Watts).



    If not that, then Apple has to fall back with Freescale's 7448 and 8641D. 8641D at 2 GHz is likely to be ~35 Watts processor, so they may not have choice but to increase the thickness of the Powerbooks.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    TANSTAAFL.





    What is this supposed to mean?



    Quote:



    It hasn't been ascertained that Cell is in fact more appropriate for laptop uses (let alone desktop uses). If Cell (1 PPE + 8 SPE) at 3.2 GHz is 80 Watts, and the Realworldtech SPE schmoo plot is correct, then 1 PPE + 512 kByte L2 burns 30 to 40 Watts.





    Yes, I am aware of the power dissipation issue, that's why I said "may probably bring".



    Quote:



    It's possible though for IBM to produce a low power PowerPC chip for laptop uses though. If Intel can produce a 2.13 GHz Pentium M 770 at 27 Watts TDP, IBM should be able to produce a 2 GHz 970fx within 5 Watts of that. Or maybe a Cell-derived chip with 1 PPE + 2 SPE at 3 GHz within 5 Watts of that. They really need to move their 90 nm fab to DSL and low-k to do that, or whatever is needed to tweak lower voltage at higher GHz out of FSG (0.9V at 2 GHz ~= 30 Watts).



    If not that, then Apple has to fall back with Freescale's 7448 and 8641D. 8641D at 2 GHz is likely to be ~35 Watts processor, so they may not have choice but to increase the thickness of the Powerbooks.




    What will be the processor(s) for the next two or three Powerbook updates and how is this related to the form factor, are very interesting questions indeed.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    What is this supposed to mean?



    There aint no such thing as a free lunch.



    Cell is a 200+ million transistor, 200+ sq mm microprocessor running at 3.2 GHz. The idea that it can perform to the theoretical numbers yet run cool enough to be used in a laptop sounds very much like a free lunch.



    I think that laptop CPU power budgets will grow to the 40 Watt range in the next couple of years. CPU power budgets have grown, commensurate with increased performance, very consistently since laptops were first manufactured.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    shadowxshadowx Posts: 27member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    TANSTAAFL.



    It hasn't been ascertained that Cell is in fact more appropriate for laptop uses (let alone desktop uses). If Cell (1 PPE + 8 SPE) at 3.2 GHz is 80 Watts, and the Realworldtech SPE schmoo plot is correct, then 1 PPE + 512 kByte L2 burns 30 to 40 Watts.



    It's possible though for IBM to produce a low power PowerPC chip for laptop uses though. If Intel can produce a 2.13 GHz Pentium M 770 at 27 Watts TDP, IBM should be able to produce a 2 GHz 970fx within 5 Watts of that. Or maybe a Cell-derived chip with 1 PPE + 2 SPE at 3 GHz within 5 Watts of that. They really need to move their 90 nm fab to DSL and low-k to do that, or whatever is needed to tweak lower voltage at higher GHz out of FSG (0.9V at 2 GHz ~= 30 Watts).



    If not that, then Apple has to fall back with Freescale's 7448 and 8641D. 8641D at 2 GHz is likely to be ~35 Watts processor, so they may not have choice but to increase the thickness of the Powerbooks.




    You are referring to a 'Cell' processor in general, right? Significant modifications would have to be made to the current 'Cell' design for it to function as a good general purpose processor. It is great for streaming media, but terrible for everday computing.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    ibeardibeard Posts: 11member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Just want to be the first on record to say FAKEFAKEFAKE



    http://homepage.mac.com/dzweben/pr/jun/pbg5.html




    the thing that gets me is:



    "...PowerBook G5 line of personal computers, featuring low-power G5 cores running up to 2.3 GHz, with 12, 15, and 17 inch high definition widescreen displays"



    If Apple doesn't consider the 1680x1050 20" Cinema display to be HD then I don't think they would advertise HD screens across the board when only the 1920x1200 on the 17" would be considered HD by Apple's standards.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    ichiban_jayichiban_jay Posts: 660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rok

    sigh, apple's in a bit of a bind, because i believe them when they say there's just not any current way to get a g5 AS WE KNOW IT into a powerbook shell. but, i think they can change the rules. they can either use a different chip and CALL it a g5, or they can invent a different moniker altogether (god help me, they could callit the gX or somethign equally as groanworthy -- but the buying public would probably eat it up).



    I can see that happening too... They'll call it the G5m...
  • Reply 15 of 15
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    If you notice on the top part of the page that describes how the page was "in Google's cache", you see at the bottom of the notice:



    Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.



    Hmm...I wonder whats going on here...



    Anyways...its clear that its some over zealous mac fan (look at the link...a .mac address) got a little bit to excited making up information.
Sign In or Register to comment.