A 1.6GHz G5 chip might have about the same scores as the 1.67GHz G4!
So the megahertz myth lives on. I don't have much time to look up those benchmark tests so I'll take your word for it.
You sure the low power FX on has 512 K of memory? I'm sure IBM would do better than that on a shipping processor.
I know the performance gain wouldn't be astronomical, but there should be some boost.
Also no one has officially said if or when Apple would use Merom.
Either way in few weeks Apple needs to announce laptops that don't use a G4.
Quote:
If I recall correctly Freescale still has an agreement with Apple that will last a year or two and it's for delivery of G4 chips.
Yes Apple and Freescale have a contract into 2008 for G4 chips. More than likely that is for repair and maintain warranties on the millions of current G4 computers around the world.
If I recall correctly Freescale still has an agreement with Apple that will last a year or two and it's for delivery of G4 chips. Apple is going to have to do something with those chips and hopefully it will be a dual core.
I can see a dual core G4 in the PB even if the Mac mini and iBook go Intel as the first Mactels - assuming that the dual core G4 outperforms the initial Intels. This would give Apple and Intel time to work on the Meron chips for both the PM and PB.
Without a G4 in the line Apple would probably have to pay out a significant cancellation fee to Freescale, which they probably won't do.
There is also the potential for Apple running dual lines (G4 and Intel) for a while - just like they did when they introduced the G5 PM. Lots of people still needed the G4 PM and, until major software (Adobe, MS, studio equipment companies, etc.) come out with Mactel versions the G4 and G5 lines will still be viable.
So the megahertz myth lives on. I don't have much time to look up those benchmark tests so I'll take your word for it.
You sure the low power FX on has 512 K of memory? I'm sure IBM would do better than that on a shipping processor.
I know the performance gain wouldn't be astronomical, but there should be some boost.
Also no one has officially said if or when Apple would use Merom.
Either way in few weeks Apple needs to announce laptops that don't use a G4.
Yes Apple and Freescale have a contract into 2008 for G4 chips. More than likely that is for repair and maintain warranties on the millions of current G4 computers around the world.
The problem is that it's NOT a myth. It becomes problematical when comparing performance across vastly different chip lines, such as PPC, x86, POWER, SPARC, Itanium, OPteron. etc. But when comparing chips within the same family, the situation is different.
Other than the fact that the G5 is a 64 bit chip, they are pretty much the same as the G4. Just like the G4 is pretty much the same as the G3, but for Altivec.
So the comparisons are valid. That doesn't mean that there aren't differences, there are. Certain programming optimizations for the G4 will actually slow down code run over a G5, and visa versa.
With all the talk of super speed memory bus's over the older G4's, faster memory, etc., it all comes down to one thing - GHz.
Yes I see your point. If nothing else perception wise people would buy a G5 Powerbook quicker than the aging G4.
Quote:
what abut intel Imacs? there have been rumors of duel G5 Imacs or intel imacs as early as january. I do not no weather to hold of or go for a new imac g5 now?
My betting money would be placed on a dual core G5 iMac before the iMac goes intel.
I can't see Apple moving the iMac back to 32 bit especially since there is a dual G5 chip.
The other reason is if Leopard is a full 64 bit OS it doesn't make sense to sell brand new 32 bit machines. Your effort should be to move all your machines to 64 bit.
Apple hasn't said anything about it, because IBM hasn't said much about it. They announced "on paper" a new low power g5. When is the expected ship date? How do we even know it's in production?
Didn't IBM announce the low power G5s at the same time as the dual core units (750MP?) ? I don't think Apple or IBM talked about about the MPs much until the recent PowerMac bump.
Still, I don't think a G5 laptop is all that likely when the Intel transition is done because of laptop chip issues and that at least some Intel models will be available before WWDC '06, I think it would make sense that at least one of the portable lines will make the transition before then.
One significant problem with the LP G5 is that IBM claimed that it could run from 1.4 to 1.6GHz. In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah that many other laptop providers will have, and that is a better chip all-around. From what I understand, the G5 only bests the G4 clock for clock in a few circumstances, so it wouldn't be much better than the current G4 iterations if the low clock is used, and redesigning the laptop around the G5 doesn't make sense if the Intel transition is imminent. Upping the clock beyond IBM's ratings doesn't make sense as it would reduce the battery life and increase the heat generation.
Didn't IBM announce the low power G5s at the same time as the dual core units (750MP?) ? I don't think Apple or IBM talked about about the MPs much until the recent PowerMac bump.
Still, I don't think a G5 laptop is all that likely when the Intel transition is done because of laptop chip issues and that at least some Intel models will be available before WWDC '06, I think it would make sense that at least one of the portable lines will make the transition before then.
One significant problem with the LP G5 is that IBM claimed that it could run from 1.4 to 1.6GHz. In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah. From what I understand, the G5 only bests the G4 clock for clock in a few circumstances, so it wouldn't be much better than the current G4 iterations if the low clock is used.
That's true. I've tried to tell people this, but they don't realize it.
In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah that many other laptop providers will have, and that is a better chip all-around.
Very true. I think we all anticipated that since the G5 was "supposed" to be available at 3.0 gHz in the PowerMac within 12 months of the release of the dual 2.0, that there would be a G5 for laptops with at least 2.0-2.5 gHz in that time frame. Also, there were reports of a "980" and whatever based on the POWER 5 chip - these never materialized. Unfortunately, IBM didn't do jack.
Everyone was so excited about the 1.0 gHz FSB on the 970 that we thought surely the main clock speed would increase rapidly to take advantage of the FSB design, far outstripping what Motorola could do with 167 mHz. It never happened. Who would have thought they introduce it at 2.0 and are still at 2.7 maximum, and requiring liquid cooling?
- 64 bit is irrelevant for 99% of the users, and isn't in the OS anyway
- the G5 speed clock for clock isn't better than the G4 unless large amounts of data are being moved or the code is hand-tuned to prevent stalls
- the G5 latency is weird, and requires tuning in the compiler
- integer calculations are slower
- Altivec is slower unless the bus speed is a factor
In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah that many other laptop providers will have, and that is a better chip all-around.
I certainly understand that. My above pontifiation is about Apple's laptop line and the need to get rid of the G4 whether it be Intel or G5.
Perhaps IBM has been benevolent and over the past six months has produced a low power dual G5.
Quote:
- 64 bit is irrelevant for 99% of the users, and isn't in the OS anyway
True most people don't need 64 bit. But we are still headed in that direction irregardless. To achieve 64 bit requires the combination of OS, processor, and application. If the OS is going to support 64 bit, the chip needs to support 64 bit, so that the application will support 64 bit.
Also in a real world sense the current G4 is more than enough for what most people do with computers.
Well, that's true for consumer computers, pros would want to have something available for them to handle higher loads. I want something that's more than a G4 so I can adequately capture HDV without choking badly, my mini isn't enough to cut it, down to 1/8th real time. While some of that is the hard drive, but even with an external Firewire drive, I doubt a current Powerbook will do real time HDV conversion to Apple Intermediate Codec. My G5 handles it in real time with little trouble.
Yes, my over all point is ultimately the entire Macintosh line needs to be culled of the G4.
There are conflicting reports over whether at Mac World the laptop line will be announced as Intel or not. I'm saying if not Intel it needs to be G5.
G5 development may be moving slow, at this point the G4 is dead in the water.
Good point about Yonah being dual core. I'm sure IBM can see where the industry is headed. If Apple is to switch its laptop's to G5 and make full use the low power FX needs to have a good FSB, ample memory, and dual core.
Yes, my over all point is ultimately the entire Macintosh line needs to be culled of the G4.
There are conflicting reports over whether at Mac World the laptop line will be announced as Intel or not. I'm saying if not Intel it needs to be G5.
G5 development may be moving slow, at this point the G4 is dead in the water.
Good point about Yonah being dual core. I'm sure IBM can see where the industry is headed. If Apple is to switch its laptop's to G5 and make full use the low power FX needs to have a good FSB, ample memory, and dual core.
Hopefully IBM will respond in kind.
But there will also be a single core Yonah, unlike its replacement, Merom, which will only exist in a dual core version.
Comments
A 1.6GHz G5 chip might have about the same scores as the 1.67GHz G4!
So the megahertz myth lives on. I don't have much time to look up those benchmark tests so I'll take your word for it.
You sure the low power FX on has 512 K of memory? I'm sure IBM would do better than that on a shipping processor.
I know the performance gain wouldn't be astronomical, but there should be some boost.
Also no one has officially said if or when Apple would use Merom.
Either way in few weeks Apple needs to announce laptops that don't use a G4.
If I recall correctly Freescale still has an agreement with Apple that will last a year or two and it's for delivery of G4 chips.
Yes Apple and Freescale have a contract into 2008 for G4 chips. More than likely that is for repair and maintain warranties on the millions of current G4 computers around the world.
Originally posted by kenaustus
If I recall correctly Freescale still has an agreement with Apple that will last a year or two and it's for delivery of G4 chips. Apple is going to have to do something with those chips and hopefully it will be a dual core.
I can see a dual core G4 in the PB even if the Mac mini and iBook go Intel as the first Mactels - assuming that the dual core G4 outperforms the initial Intels. This would give Apple and Intel time to work on the Meron chips for both the PM and PB.
Without a G4 in the line Apple would probably have to pay out a significant cancellation fee to Freescale, which they probably won't do.
There is also the potential for Apple running dual lines (G4 and Intel) for a while - just like they did when they introduced the G5 PM. Lots of people still needed the G4 PM and, until major software (Adobe, MS, studio equipment companies, etc.) come out with Mactel versions the G4 and G5 lines will still be viable.
No dual core G4's. It will not happen.
Originally posted by TenoBell
So the megahertz myth lives on. I don't have much time to look up those benchmark tests so I'll take your word for it.
You sure the low power FX on has 512 K of memory? I'm sure IBM would do better than that on a shipping processor.
I know the performance gain wouldn't be astronomical, but there should be some boost.
Also no one has officially said if or when Apple would use Merom.
Either way in few weeks Apple needs to announce laptops that don't use a G4.
Yes Apple and Freescale have a contract into 2008 for G4 chips. More than likely that is for repair and maintain warranties on the millions of current G4 computers around the world.
The problem is that it's NOT a myth. It becomes problematical when comparing performance across vastly different chip lines, such as PPC, x86, POWER, SPARC, Itanium, OPteron. etc. But when comparing chips within the same family, the situation is different.
Other than the fact that the G5 is a 64 bit chip, they are pretty much the same as the G4. Just like the G4 is pretty much the same as the G3, but for Altivec.
So the comparisons are valid. That doesn't mean that there aren't differences, there are. Certain programming optimizations for the G4 will actually slow down code run over a G5, and visa versa.
With all the talk of super speed memory bus's over the older G4's, faster memory, etc., it all comes down to one thing - GHz.
Here:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/10...arks/index.php
what abut intel Imacs? there have been rumors of duel G5 Imacs or intel imacs as early as january. I do not no weather to hold of or go for a new imac g5 now?
My betting money would be placed on a dual core G5 iMac before the iMac goes intel.
I can't see Apple moving the iMac back to 32 bit especially since there is a dual G5 chip.
The other reason is if Leopard is a full 64 bit OS it doesn't make sense to sell brand new 32 bit machines. Your effort should be to move all your machines to 64 bit.
Originally posted by melgross
We had a really long, somewhat contentious, thread about that.
Well, sorry I missed it! Maybe.
My hat's off to them engineer types if they can pull it off in a 'book. It'd be cool, I s'pose.
Originally posted by chris v
Well, sorry I missed it! Maybe.
My hat's off to them engineer types if they can pull it off in a 'book. It'd be cool, I s'pose.
You didn't really miss anything.
We came to no real conclusions, as usual.
Originally posted by toneloco28
Apple hasn't said anything about it, because IBM hasn't said much about it. They announced "on paper" a new low power g5. When is the expected ship date? How do we even know it's in production?
Didn't IBM announce the low power G5s at the same time as the dual core units (750MP?) ? I don't think Apple or IBM talked about about the MPs much until the recent PowerMac bump.
Still, I don't think a G5 laptop is all that likely when the Intel transition is done because of laptop chip issues and that at least some Intel models will be available before WWDC '06, I think it would make sense that at least one of the portable lines will make the transition before then.
One significant problem with the LP G5 is that IBM claimed that it could run from 1.4 to 1.6GHz. In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah that many other laptop providers will have, and that is a better chip all-around. From what I understand, the G5 only bests the G4 clock for clock in a few circumstances, so it wouldn't be much better than the current G4 iterations if the low clock is used, and redesigning the laptop around the G5 doesn't make sense if the Intel transition is imminent. Upping the clock beyond IBM's ratings doesn't make sense as it would reduce the battery life and increase the heat generation.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Didn't IBM announce the low power G5s at the same time as the dual core units (750MP?) ? I don't think Apple or IBM talked about about the MPs much until the recent PowerMac bump.
Still, I don't think a G5 laptop is all that likely when the Intel transition is done because of laptop chip issues and that at least some Intel models will be available before WWDC '06, I think it would make sense that at least one of the portable lines will make the transition before then.
One significant problem with the LP G5 is that IBM claimed that it could run from 1.4 to 1.6GHz. In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah. From what I understand, the G5 only bests the G4 clock for clock in a few circumstances, so it wouldn't be much better than the current G4 iterations if the low clock is used.
That's true. I've tried to tell people this, but they don't realize it.
Originally posted by JeffDM
In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah that many other laptop providers will have, and that is a better chip all-around.
Very true. I think we all anticipated that since the G5 was "supposed" to be available at 3.0 gHz in the PowerMac within 12 months of the release of the dual 2.0, that there would be a G5 for laptops with at least 2.0-2.5 gHz in that time frame. Also, there were reports of a "980" and whatever based on the POWER 5 chip - these never materialized. Unfortunately, IBM didn't do jack.
Everyone was so excited about the 1.0 gHz FSB on the 970 that we thought surely the main clock speed would increase rapidly to take advantage of the FSB design, far outstripping what Motorola could do with 167 mHz. It never happened. Who would have thought they introduce it at 2.0 and are still at 2.7 maximum, and requiring liquid cooling?
- 64 bit is irrelevant for 99% of the users, and isn't in the OS anyway
- the G5 speed clock for clock isn't better than the G4 unless large amounts of data are being moved or the code is hand-tuned to prevent stalls
- the G5 latency is weird, and requires tuning in the compiler
- integer calculations are slower
- Altivec is slower unless the bus speed is a factor
In the laptop space, they aren't competing with the Intel Netburst chips anymore, a 1.6 GHz single core G5 isn't going to compare very well against a dual core 2.0GHz Yonah that many other laptop providers will have, and that is a better chip all-around.
I certainly understand that. My above pontifiation is about Apple's laptop line and the need to get rid of the G4 whether it be Intel or G5.
Perhaps IBM has been benevolent and over the past six months has produced a low power dual G5.
- 64 bit is irrelevant for 99% of the users, and isn't in the OS anyway
True most people don't need 64 bit. But we are still headed in that direction irregardless. To achieve 64 bit requires the combination of OS, processor, and application. If the OS is going to support 64 bit, the chip needs to support 64 bit, so that the application will support 64 bit.
When we have dual core chips one of the chips is likely to sit idle most of the time on most computers.
In spite of the fact that most people don't need or will make use of either, we will have dual core computers and 64 bit OS.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Also in a real world sense the current G4 is more than enough for what most people do with computers.
Well, that's true for consumer computers, pros would want to have something available for them to handle higher loads. I want something that's more than a G4 so I can adequately capture HDV without choking badly, my mini isn't enough to cut it, down to 1/8th real time. While some of that is the hard drive, but even with an external Firewire drive, I doubt a current Powerbook will do real time HDV conversion to Apple Intermediate Codec. My G5 handles it in real time with little trouble.
There are conflicting reports over whether at Mac World the laptop line will be announced as Intel or not. I'm saying if not Intel it needs to be G5.
G5 development may be moving slow, at this point the G4 is dead in the water.
Good point about Yonah being dual core. I'm sure IBM can see where the industry is headed. If Apple is to switch its laptop's to G5 and make full use the low power FX needs to have a good FSB, ample memory, and dual core.
Hopefully IBM will respond in kind.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yes, my over all point is ultimately the entire Macintosh line needs to be culled of the G4.
There are conflicting reports over whether at Mac World the laptop line will be announced as Intel or not. I'm saying if not Intel it needs to be G5.
G5 development may be moving slow, at this point the G4 is dead in the water.
Good point about Yonah being dual core. I'm sure IBM can see where the industry is headed. If Apple is to switch its laptop's to G5 and make full use the low power FX needs to have a good FSB, ample memory, and dual core.
Hopefully IBM will respond in kind.
But there will also be a single core Yonah, unlike its replacement, Merom, which will only exist in a dual core version.