Can we assemble quotes for credible (or wait, somewhat credible) sources about the G5? Everyone expects it to come soon but the only info I saw was from mosr.cm (HA!). What makes you believe that they are coming soon? Besides speculation.
<strong>Can we assemble quotes for credible (or wait, somewhat credible) sources about the G5? Everyone expects it to come soon but the only info I saw was from mosr.cm (HA!). What makes you believe that they are coming soon? Besides speculation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All depends on your definition of "soon". I think it is unlikely you will see a G5 until very late 2002.
When I saw "soon" I am really reffering to most other people's deffinitions of the word. Personaly, I don't think that it will be soon but then again I have an attention span of a rat.
Now that the iMacs are at 800MHz, I think we ought to see new G4s with DDR RAM at MWT, or hopefully PowerMac G5s. It seems to me that Apple either did not want the PowerMacs to steal the iMac's thunder or was waiting for the G5s.
An Oct. 17th press release from Motorola stated that the MPC8540(re: an embedded processor that lacks even the basics for a desktop CPU), based on the E500core WILL NOT BE SAMPLING UNTIL THE 2ND HALF OF 2002.
A Motorola representative was quoted, by MacWorld I believe, as saying the next G4 processor will have SOI incorporated, no mention of the 0.13µ process. Without the 0.13µ process this processor will have a very limited speed boost. People more knowledgable than me can speculate as to its' speed.
This quote would also indicate that the Apollo, which rumor mills speculate has both SOI and 0.13µ(re: MPC 7460??) won't come out until after this modest speed bumped G4.
That reasoning would indicate TWO modifications to the G4 BEFORE the G5 comes out. I don't know but I'm guessing that Apple would have to make @ least some modifications to the motherboard for each revision.
I have also read here and on other boards that that DDR may only increase speed 5 - 10% so Apple hasn't incorporated it to save money on their computers???? I don't expect DDR ram and faster bus speeds for a long time, late 2002 to conincide w/ the G5, maybe Apollo @ midyear(this would give them time to evaluate/test it before using it with the G5.
Also, the new iMac only uses a 100 MHz bus, just guessing, but if DDRsdram for the PowerMac was imminent, wouldn't Apple have incorporated the 133MHz bus? Cooling issues here would seem bogus, since the G4 generates most of the heat.
Because the MPC 8540 WON'T EVEN BE SAMPLING UNTIL THE SECOND HALF OF 2002(THIS ACCORDING TO MOTOROLA & NOT SOME RUMOR SITE), I personally won't be expecting the G5 until very very late 2002 or early 2003.
By then who knows what speeds AMD and Intel will be at. Will AMD and Intel have their 64 bit processors in desktops by then? I don't know, but when Steve Jobs said Apple will be closing the MHz gap, he was wrong, way wrong. It's now a GHz gap and widening.
Motorola doesn't give one rats a$$ about desktop CPU's and it's time Apple realized this. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying Motorola is a bad engineering company, it's just that they design embedded processors and they obviously think it's in their best interest NOT TO CONCENTRATE ON DESKTOP CPU'S and this has been apparent for a very long time. Apple desperately needs to change suppliers for their cpu's and they for some reason haven't done anything about it.
Apple will be pushed completely out of the desktop publishing business and what 3d business that they had will be lost if they don't do something FAST. Hasn't Adobe optimized their software for SSE?? Next they will lose the home user completely when the speed gap and price get ssssssoooooooo outragous, if it isn't already, that even the macaddicts can't justify buying their computers.
It's too bad too, I had enough confidence in Mac OS X ,its' UNIX underpinings and server capabilities that I bought $10,000 worth of stock @ $19/share. I'm still holding out hope, but am getting discouraged.
Steve Jobs is obsessed with the idea that consumers buy computers like appliances(or least he thinks they should), like a dishwasher or refrigerator. When it outlives its' usefullness, buy a new one. Hence, the iMac all in one. This is a BIG BIG blind spot. Appliances ARE NOT OUTDATED 6 MONTHS AFTER YOU BUY THEM AND DO NOT COST $1800(not including the software), and most people can not afford to buy a new computer every year or two.
I'm surprised Steve doesn't give thoughts to splitting the line. Have his 'sumer/appliances running on PPC, and port the pro stuff to alternative platforms. What do WE CARE what chip it runs on? Just that the apps and integration and to some STYLING is omnipresent.
<strong>An Oct. 17th press release from Motorola stated that the MPC8540(re: an embedded processor that lacks even the basics for a desktop CPU), based on the E500core WILL NOT BE SAMPLING UNTIL THE 2ND HALF OF 2002.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. Note, however, that it is usual for the desktop processors to appear before the embedded ones.
[quote]<strong>
A Motorola representative was quoted, by MacWorld I believe, as saying the next G4 processor will have SOI incorporated, no mention of the 0.13µ process. Without the 0.13µ process this processor will have a very limited speed boost. People more knowledgable than me can speculate as to its' speed.
This quote would also indicate that the Apollo, which rumor mills speculate has both SOI and 0.13µ(re: MPC 7460??) won't come out until after this modest speed bumped G4.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Without a redesign, SOI gives about 30% increase in clock rate, or reduction in power at a given clock rate. The Apollo is the 7460, which is SOI 0.18 micron, and contains various other improvements, such as increased internal bus widths to increase both the clock rate and the processing speed. Expect it to perform at a level about 50% higher than the 7450 in total at introduction.
[quote]<strong>
That reasoning would indicate TWO modifications to the G4 BEFORE the G5 comes out. I don't know but I'm guessing that Apple would have to make @ least some modifications to the motherboard for each revision.
I have also read here and on other boards that that DDR may only increase speed 5 - 10% so Apple hasn't incorporated it to save money on their computers???? I don't expect DDR ram and faster bus speeds for a long time, late 2002 to conincide w/ the G5, maybe Apollo @ midyear(this would give them time to evaluate/test it before using it with the G5.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The increase in speed that DDR gives is very dependent on the application and the motherboard. At the moment, there would be no point in introducing DDR, as the mamory bandwidth would be limited by the processor's front side bus. I would expect the 7460 to have a double pumped bus and new motherboard to allow it to take advantage of DDR.
[quote]<strong>
Also, the new iMac only uses a 100 MHz bus, just guessing, but if DDRsdram for the PowerMac was imminent, wouldn't Apple have incorporated the 133MHz bus? Cooling issues here would seem bogus, since the G4 generates most of the heat.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In fact, DDR memory generates less heat than SDR memory, the front side bus drivers in the chip do generate a fair bit of heat, and reducing the frequency helps, but not that much. It's possible Apple are using iBook chipsets in the iMac to reduce power consumption and share the development cost, hence the frequency limit.
[quote]<strong>
Because the MPC 8540 WON'T EVEN BE SAMPLING UNTIL THE SECOND HALF OF 2002(THIS ACCORDING TO MOTOROLA & NOT SOME RUMOR SITE), I personally won't be expecting the G5 until very very late 2002 or early 2003.
FWIW, I think that I'm largely responsible for the widespread belief that the G5 will be released in the same timeframe as Apollo.
Several months ago there was a public comment by a Motorola spokesthing about Apollo, which mysteriously noted that Apollo chips would be a good choice for Apple's portables, but neglected to say anything about desktops. Since it's widely reported that SOI brings >20% more speed to a given CPU design, I cautiously speculated that perhaps desktops weren't mentioned because an even faster chip would be available for desktops in the same timeframe. A G5, one presumes.
There you have it. Probably just a slip of the tongue, or perhaps a quote that seemed remarkable only because it was reported out of context. Who knows? The only thing that seems certain is that the towers will get a significant speed bump soonish, whether we call the source of that speedbump a G4 or G5.
There is no evidence of the G5 coming any time 'soon', but I expect it by this time next year. The Apollo chips should be ready for Macs by the end of February, if not sooner.
Next Power Mac bump will be to the Apollo chip, and we will finally be above 1 GHz. I don't think we'll see a new Power Mac with a G5 sooner than MWNY, but I'm thinking even that is optomistic.
ZDNet says that we may not even see the Apollo until MWNY, though. I sure hope they are wrong.
[quote]The Cupertino, Calif.-based computer maker had been rumored to be planning a new Power Mac professional system with Power G4 "Apollo" processors in excess of 1GHz. But sources close to Apple and the company's chip supplier, Motorola, said the Apollo processors would not be available until sometime later in the first half of the year. <hr></blockquote>
From what has been posted on this board in the past few hours, it seems that the G5 is mostly rumor gone wild.
This is not meant as a rhetorical question, but, does it really matter in the short term? I have a VERY limited understanding of chips, but it seems to me that the main thing is for Apple to get as close to 1.5 Ghz as it can.
I dont know what chips can do this, but if a G4 can be made to clock that high, I think it would accomplish Apples PR objectives.
<strong>This is not meant as a rhetorical question, but, does it really matter in the short term? I have a VERY limited understanding of chips, but it seems to me that the main thing is for Apple to get as close to 1.5 Ghz as it can.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the main reason to hope for the G5 is that it has a better chance of reaching higher clock speeds. You're right though, if a G4 could double up to 1.5 Ghz that would be good enough for the time being. It seems that most people have just given up on the G4 since it hasn't given us much in the past two years.
Apple will be pushed completely out of the desktop publishing business and what 3d business that they had will be lost if they don't do something FAST.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm, no offence but a dual 800 on OS X is nothing to sniff at. You have 1.6 ghz of processing power at your command and the G4 is aproximately 1.4 times faster per Mhz over intel. I realize the processors are not 100% utilized, but there certainly is a huge speed boost over 800 Mhz with two processors.
As long as Apple can:
1) bring out 1.2 or 1.4 Ghz G4s in dual processor conifgurations and
2) Revise the motherboard to 233 and the ram to DDR, then there will NOT be an GHz speed gap. In fact, I'd wager the macs will kick some ass.
As long as these machines sell roughly for the same price as today, I'd say these new macs will be on par and in most cases, faster than similarly priced pentiums. Yes, it's not fair to compare two G4 1.2 Ghz chips against one pentium 2.2, but who cares. If they cost nearly the same amount, and the performance is close too, what's the dif?
I work as a graphic designer and I can tell you no one I know with a mac is considering switching over a little speed gap. We don't use our macs for drag racing.
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>
Next they will lose the home user completely when the speed gap and price get ssssssoooooooo outragous, if it isn't already, that even the macaddicts can't justify buying their computers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's nothing outrageous about a 1299 G4 WITH an LCD and with OS X, Appleworks, imovie, itunes, iphoto, quicken deluxe, games and more. A 700 Mhz G4 will give you roughly the same performance as a 1 Ghz penitum. Sometimes a lot better.
If you're really that concerned about price, you're using the wrong platform, unfortunately.
I agree it would be nice to have cheaper systems, but to suggest they are uncompetitive or not a good value right now is just nuts. Try using Windows 2000 for a while. You'll come running back...
That ZDNet article and the quote from the Apple rep concerning the 0.18µ G4 using SOI leads me to believe if there is any speed bump prior to MWNY it will be less than spectacular and will not incorporate DDRsdram. Early Feb?
mmicist
"In fact, DDR memory generates less heat than SDR memory, the front side bus drivers in the chip do generate a fair bit of heat, and reducing the frequency helps, but not that much. It's possible Apple are using iBook chipsets in the iMac to reduce power consumption and share the development cost, hence the frequency limit."
Your probably right, but we now know the new iMac has a fan so any heat from the front side bus can' t be used as an excuse. "Share in development cost" would be the paramount reason, but if Apple is to be moving to DDRsdram why not try it out in the new iMac, get some experience. What about backside cache, wouldn't want to upstage the low end PowerMac that lacks it??
mmicist
"Without a redesign, SOI gives about 30% increase in clock rate....... The Apollo is the 7460, which is SOI 0.18 micron, and ..........such as increased internal bus widths to increase both the clock rate and the processing speed. Expect it to perform at a level about 50% higher ....."
30% is the high end of the estimates posted in the rumor mills and in the quote from the Motorola rep. We shall see in the next revision, but I don't expect a G4 w/ SOI & @ 0.18µ to exceed 1.1GHz.
The Mactivist
"dual 800 on OS X ...... aproximately 1.4 times faster per Mhz over intel."
Maybe you can tell me, since I'm not in the graphics industry, When will dual processor AMD chip sets be introduced at a competative price to Apples $3500 dual 800? Will the dual G4 800 Apple computer still be competative with a dual 1.6GHz AMD? I honestly don't know.
The Mactivist
"If you're really that concerned about price, you're using the wrong platform, unfortunately."
"Try using Windows 2000 for a while."
I'm not concerned about price right now, I have $1700 cash in hand that I've been saving up for quite some time. What I'm concerned about is the price/value relationship.
I don't want to try Windows 2000 @ all, but that still doesn't mean I shouldn't consider the value of what I'm buying.
[quote]It's too bad too, I had enough confidence in Mac OS X ,its' UNIX underpinings and server capabilities that I bought $10,000 worth of stock @ $19/share. I'm still holding out hope, but am getting discouraged.<hr></blockquote>
Why not pull out of the market then? If you have that much invested in Apple, and the shares of Apple are currently $23 a share, why not cash out now? You'd make about $2000. $10,000 is a lot of money (to me at least), so why risk losing any of it if you're not sure Apple's stock will stay above $19?
[quote]I'm not concerned about price right now, I have $1700 cash in hand that I've been saving up for quite some time. What I'm concerned about is the price/value relationship.<hr></blockquote>
Well, I know you should buy a computer based on what you WILL do with it, not what you CAN do with it. Why buy a $4000 G4 if you only want to browse the web or write a word processing document or email?
$1700 is almost enough to buy the new iMac. What can't it do that you want it to?
Play games? It has a 32 MB graphics card.
Internet? Built in 56k Modem, ethernet, Airport ready
Email? No problem.
Word Processing? AppleWorks or Office.
Graphics? An 800 MHz G4 is FAST. Heck, I could probably do some pretty amazing things in PS on my G3/500!
CD burning/compilation? Built in CD-RW has no problem burning CDs. It's not the fastest burner in the world, but if you really needed a faster one, you could get a 32x Firewire drive.
DVD/Movie making? What better machine than the iMac for this? It has a Superdrive, iDVD, iMovie, and two firewire ports. Also plenty of hard disk space to save your movies. Plus, you could always make a VCD with this as well.
How fast do you need a computer to be before it doesn't meet your needs?
The new iMac is an amazing machine. Sure you can't drop in a second hard drive or a new video card, but would you really need to with 60 GBs or a 32 MB graphics card?
The Specs:
800MHz PowerPC G4
15" LCD (Same viewable space as 17" CRT)
256MB RAM
60GB Hard drive
32MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
Ethernet
56K internal modem
AirPort ready
Apple Pro Speakers
I know that there's not really anything out there (besides Virtual PC) that's going to run slow on this machine. If you really think you need something faster or better, I'd like to know what it is, because I think it's pretty hard to find something wrong with this new iMac.
Well, I've owned the DP800 for the past 4-5 months and can tell you it was one of the most disappointing upgrades I ever made. For the money, the bang for the buck was minimal. I had upgraded from the DP533. For the money, the upgrade produced insubstantial speed increases. This is even after I upgraded the ram to 1.5GB, the video card to GeForce3, the HD controller to an Acard 100+ and the drive to the WD special edition 100GB drive.
The statement above about not being drag racers is only partially true. Being in the graphic arts industry, I know very few graphic designers, art directors etc that cannot take advantage of real speed increases in their systems. In fact, they NEED those increases to stay competitive in an industry that is requiring faster turnarounds and production timeframes. Make Photoshop faster? Any 3d rendering program faster?
It is not the end of the line for Apple in the professional sector. Many graphic artists are as emotionally attached to their systems as we who wander these boards are. However, as the difference in speed between these systems becomes QUANTIFIABLE, there will be no way to tell management NO when they come in and require a change for the sake of productivity increases. Will this be across the board? Maybe not. Maybe it will only start in the Photoshop and 3d rendering areas. But if they make a significant inroad there, converting the rest of the systems (page layout etc) will be easy.
Apple is currently on the wrong end of the performance curve and needs to do something significant just to stay even. I have hope given the HUGE performance increase they just handed to the consumer space. If they have a similar increase in store for the Powermacs, I think 95% of the people here will be very satisfied. As for the other 5%? They are never happy anyway.
"so why risk losing any of it if you're not sure Apple's stock will "
It is part of my retirement portfolio(the high risk possible high return part) and @ least for now I'm banking on Mac OS X. Reason: Apple can not go head to head w/ Microsoft's operating system right now, especially in the business market. But, with its' Unix underpinnings and current client licensing arrangements I think they can make inroads into servers. Windows server licensing is outragously expensive. Can't remember the name of the company but they dumped Windows for linix/unix? and saved hundreds of thousands of $$. MacOSX would have had similar savings and better ease of use, but it isn't ready for prime time.
Right now hardware is my biggest concern. Here I'm banking on a G5 style chip, Don't care who manufactures it. But I wish people would stop saying it is going to appear next week or whatever, maybe end of 2002 early 2003.
The benefits of Unix are already being touted in the industry and press. With Darwin open source that can also only benefit the platform. Hell, an enterprising soul could write their own operating system on top of Darwin. Example, small specialized operating system for say a <insert device here> that has almost instant compatibility w/ Apple.
Then there is Microsofts net strategy. Personally I think if they force this upon the public it will have a significant backlase. The whole concept to me seems unnatural. Because their software is closed then they would control, to some extent, any company writing software to their platform(change the OS lock out who they want until they control the software)
Granted, Apple is a gamble but it is one I'm staying with for a while.
"Sure you can't drop in a second hard drive or a new video card" -EXACTLY
", but would you really need to with 60 GBs or a 32 MB graphics card?" Maybe not, but a scratch disc for music, video etc would be very nice. PCI - SCSI? PCI - upgrade cards? PCI - future devices yet to be developed.
By the way, my ideal computer from Apple would be a monitorless iMac that had a 867 to 933 MHz G4 w/ 1 Mb backside cache, one, maybe two PCI slots, 4x(8x) AGP standard size graphics slot and one extra drive bay. Hense, my signature. I'm almost certain Apple will never produce such a product, but I don't think I'm alone in my desire. I'm not a professional graphics artist, nor a computer hobbiest(ie. don't like to tinker with the insides of a computer), but I do desire a couple of things.
It's possible Apple are using iBook chipsets in the iMac to reduce power consumption and share the development cost, hence the frequency limit.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point.
Last I checked, the tech docs for the new iMac were still waiting to be released, but it might possibly use the Pangea instead of the UniNorth / KeyLargo combo. This might limit the FSB speed to 100MHz, and might possibly even force them to use it in 60x bus mode rather than the faster MPX bus / MaxBus mode.
Pangea is being used but it's not causing the motherboard to stay at 100MHz. They didn't upgrade the low end motherboard in the iBook to 100MHz either. I think they kept the iMac at 100MHz to make the PowerMac a bit faster.
Comments
<strong>Can we assemble quotes for credible (or wait, somewhat credible) sources about the G5? Everyone expects it to come soon but the only info I saw was from mosr.cm (HA!). What makes you believe that they are coming soon? Besides speculation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All depends on your definition of "soon". I think it is unlikely you will see a G5 until very late 2002.
<strong>very late 2002.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uhh, that´s quite pessimistic don´t you think?
I hope for MWNY.
bye.
Honestly, I don't know where these G5 rumors keep coming from.
One chip at a time, kids.
SdC
A Motorola representative was quoted, by MacWorld I believe, as saying the next G4 processor will have SOI incorporated, no mention of the 0.13µ process. Without the 0.13µ process this processor will have a very limited speed boost. People more knowledgable than me can speculate as to its' speed.
This quote would also indicate that the Apollo, which rumor mills speculate has both SOI and 0.13µ(re: MPC 7460??) won't come out until after this modest speed bumped G4.
That reasoning would indicate TWO modifications to the G4 BEFORE the G5 comes out. I don't know but I'm guessing that Apple would have to make @ least some modifications to the motherboard for each revision.
I have also read here and on other boards that that DDR may only increase speed 5 - 10% so Apple hasn't incorporated it to save money on their computers???? I don't expect DDR ram and faster bus speeds for a long time, late 2002 to conincide w/ the G5, maybe Apollo @ midyear(this would give them time to evaluate/test it before using it with the G5.
Also, the new iMac only uses a 100 MHz bus, just guessing, but if DDRsdram for the PowerMac was imminent, wouldn't Apple have incorporated the 133MHz bus? Cooling issues here would seem bogus, since the G4 generates most of the heat.
Because the MPC 8540 WON'T EVEN BE SAMPLING UNTIL THE SECOND HALF OF 2002(THIS ACCORDING TO MOTOROLA & NOT SOME RUMOR SITE), I personally won't be expecting the G5 until very very late 2002 or early 2003.
By then who knows what speeds AMD and Intel will be at. Will AMD and Intel have their 64 bit processors in desktops by then? I don't know, but when Steve Jobs said Apple will be closing the MHz gap, he was wrong, way wrong. It's now a GHz gap and widening.
Motorola doesn't give one rats a$$ about desktop CPU's and it's time Apple realized this. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying Motorola is a bad engineering company, it's just that they design embedded processors and they obviously think it's in their best interest NOT TO CONCENTRATE ON DESKTOP CPU'S and this has been apparent for a very long time. Apple desperately needs to change suppliers for their cpu's and they for some reason haven't done anything about it.
Apple will be pushed completely out of the desktop publishing business and what 3d business that they had will be lost if they don't do something FAST. Hasn't Adobe optimized their software for SSE?? Next they will lose the home user completely when the speed gap and price get ssssssoooooooo outragous, if it isn't already, that even the macaddicts can't justify buying their computers.
It's too bad too, I had enough confidence in Mac OS X ,its' UNIX underpinings and server capabilities that I bought $10,000 worth of stock @ $19/share. I'm still holding out hope, but am getting discouraged.
Steve Jobs is obsessed with the idea that consumers buy computers like appliances(or least he thinks they should), like a dishwasher or refrigerator. When it outlives its' usefullness, buy a new one. Hence, the iMac all in one. This is a BIG BIG blind spot. Appliances ARE NOT OUTDATED 6 MONTHS AFTER YOU BUY THEM AND DO NOT COST $1800(not including the software), and most people can not afford to buy a new computer every year or two.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Good post rickag!
We won't see G5s this year.
And, the gap keeps widening.
I'm surprised Steve doesn't give thoughts to splitting the line. Have his 'sumer/appliances running on PPC, and port the pro stuff to alternative platforms. What do WE CARE what chip it runs on? Just that the apps and integration and to some STYLING is omnipresent.
<strong>An Oct. 17th press release from Motorola stated that the MPC8540(re: an embedded processor that lacks even the basics for a desktop CPU), based on the E500core WILL NOT BE SAMPLING UNTIL THE 2ND HALF OF 2002.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. Note, however, that it is usual for the desktop processors to appear before the embedded ones.
[quote]<strong>
A Motorola representative was quoted, by MacWorld I believe, as saying the next G4 processor will have SOI incorporated, no mention of the 0.13µ process. Without the 0.13µ process this processor will have a very limited speed boost. People more knowledgable than me can speculate as to its' speed.
This quote would also indicate that the Apollo, which rumor mills speculate has both SOI and 0.13µ(re: MPC 7460??) won't come out until after this modest speed bumped G4.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Without a redesign, SOI gives about 30% increase in clock rate, or reduction in power at a given clock rate. The Apollo is the 7460, which is SOI 0.18 micron, and contains various other improvements, such as increased internal bus widths to increase both the clock rate and the processing speed. Expect it to perform at a level about 50% higher than the 7450 in total at introduction.
[quote]<strong>
That reasoning would indicate TWO modifications to the G4 BEFORE the G5 comes out. I don't know but I'm guessing that Apple would have to make @ least some modifications to the motherboard for each revision.
I have also read here and on other boards that that DDR may only increase speed 5 - 10% so Apple hasn't incorporated it to save money on their computers???? I don't expect DDR ram and faster bus speeds for a long time, late 2002 to conincide w/ the G5, maybe Apollo @ midyear(this would give them time to evaluate/test it before using it with the G5.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The increase in speed that DDR gives is very dependent on the application and the motherboard. At the moment, there would be no point in introducing DDR, as the mamory bandwidth would be limited by the processor's front side bus. I would expect the 7460 to have a double pumped bus and new motherboard to allow it to take advantage of DDR.
[quote]<strong>
Also, the new iMac only uses a 100 MHz bus, just guessing, but if DDRsdram for the PowerMac was imminent, wouldn't Apple have incorporated the 133MHz bus? Cooling issues here would seem bogus, since the G4 generates most of the heat.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In fact, DDR memory generates less heat than SDR memory, the front side bus drivers in the chip do generate a fair bit of heat, and reducing the frequency helps, but not that much. It's possible Apple are using iBook chipsets in the iMac to reduce power consumption and share the development cost, hence the frequency limit.
[quote]<strong>
Because the MPC 8540 WON'T EVEN BE SAMPLING UNTIL THE SECOND HALF OF 2002(THIS ACCORDING TO MOTOROLA & NOT SOME RUMOR SITE), I personally won't be expecting the G5 until very very late 2002 or early 2003.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
See above.
Michael
Several months ago there was a public comment by a Motorola spokesthing about Apollo, which mysteriously noted that Apollo chips would be a good choice for Apple's portables, but neglected to say anything about desktops. Since it's widely reported that SOI brings >20% more speed to a given CPU design, I cautiously speculated that perhaps desktops weren't mentioned because an even faster chip would be available for desktops in the same timeframe. A G5, one presumes.
There you have it. Probably just a slip of the tongue, or perhaps a quote that seemed remarkable only because it was reported out of context. Who knows? The only thing that seems certain is that the towers will get a significant speed bump soonish, whether we call the source of that speedbump a G4 or G5.
Next Power Mac bump will be to the Apollo chip, and we will finally be above 1 GHz. I don't think we'll see a new Power Mac with a G5 sooner than MWNY, but I'm thinking even that is optomistic.
ZDNet says that we may not even see the Apollo until MWNY, though. I sure hope they are wrong.
[quote]The Cupertino, Calif.-based computer maker had been rumored to be planning a new Power Mac professional system with Power G4 "Apollo" processors in excess of 1GHz. But sources close to Apple and the company's chip supplier, Motorola, said the Apollo processors would not be available until sometime later in the first half of the year. <hr></blockquote>
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
This is not meant as a rhetorical question, but, does it really matter in the short term? I have a VERY limited understanding of chips, but it seems to me that the main thing is for Apple to get as close to 1.5 Ghz as it can.
I dont know what chips can do this, but if a G4 can be made to clock that high, I think it would accomplish Apples PR objectives.
<strong>This is not meant as a rhetorical question, but, does it really matter in the short term? I have a VERY limited understanding of chips, but it seems to me that the main thing is for Apple to get as close to 1.5 Ghz as it can.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the main reason to hope for the G5 is that it has a better chance of reaching higher clock speeds. You're right though, if a G4 could double up to 1.5 Ghz that would be good enough for the time being. It seems that most people have just given up on the G4 since it hasn't given us much in the past two years.
<strong>
Apple will be pushed completely out of the desktop publishing business and what 3d business that they had will be lost if they don't do something FAST.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm, no offence but a dual 800 on OS X is nothing to sniff at. You have 1.6 ghz of processing power at your command and the G4 is aproximately 1.4 times faster per Mhz over intel. I realize the processors are not 100% utilized, but there certainly is a huge speed boost over 800 Mhz with two processors.
As long as Apple can:
1) bring out 1.2 or 1.4 Ghz G4s in dual processor conifgurations and
2) Revise the motherboard to 233 and the ram to DDR, then there will NOT be an GHz speed gap. In fact, I'd wager the macs will kick some ass.
As long as these machines sell roughly for the same price as today, I'd say these new macs will be on par and in most cases, faster than similarly priced pentiums. Yes, it's not fair to compare two G4 1.2 Ghz chips against one pentium 2.2, but who cares. If they cost nearly the same amount, and the performance is close too, what's the dif?
I work as a graphic designer and I can tell you no one I know with a mac is considering switching over a little speed gap. We don't use our macs for drag racing.
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>
Next they will lose the home user completely when the speed gap and price get ssssssoooooooo outragous, if it isn't already, that even the macaddicts can't justify buying their computers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's nothing outrageous about a 1299 G4 WITH an LCD and with OS X, Appleworks, imovie, itunes, iphoto, quicken deluxe, games and more. A 700 Mhz G4 will give you roughly the same performance as a 1 Ghz penitum. Sometimes a lot better.
If you're really that concerned about price, you're using the wrong platform, unfortunately.
I agree it would be nice to have cheaper systems, but to suggest they are uncompetitive or not a good value right now is just nuts. Try using Windows 2000 for a while. You'll come running back...
That ZDNet article and the quote from the Apple rep concerning the 0.18µ G4 using SOI leads me to believe if there is any speed bump prior to MWNY it will be less than spectacular and will not incorporate DDRsdram. Early Feb?
mmicist
"In fact, DDR memory generates less heat than SDR memory, the front side bus drivers in the chip do generate a fair bit of heat, and reducing the frequency helps, but not that much. It's possible Apple are using iBook chipsets in the iMac to reduce power consumption and share the development cost, hence the frequency limit."
Your probably right, but we now know the new iMac has a fan so any heat from the front side bus can' t be used as an excuse. "Share in development cost" would be the paramount reason, but if Apple is to be moving to DDRsdram why not try it out in the new iMac, get some experience. What about backside cache, wouldn't want to upstage the low end PowerMac that lacks it??
mmicist
"Without a redesign, SOI gives about 30% increase in clock rate....... The Apollo is the 7460, which is SOI 0.18 micron, and ..........such as increased internal bus widths to increase both the clock rate and the processing speed. Expect it to perform at a level about 50% higher ....."
30% is the high end of the estimates posted in the rumor mills and in the quote from the Motorola rep. We shall see in the next revision, but I don't expect a G4 w/ SOI & @ 0.18µ to exceed 1.1GHz.
The Mactivist
"dual 800 on OS X ...... aproximately 1.4 times faster per Mhz over intel."
Maybe you can tell me, since I'm not in the graphics industry, When will dual processor AMD chip sets be introduced at a competative price to Apples $3500 dual 800? Will the dual G4 800 Apple computer still be competative with a dual 1.6GHz AMD? I honestly don't know.
The Mactivist
"If you're really that concerned about price, you're using the wrong platform, unfortunately."
"Try using Windows 2000 for a while."
I'm not concerned about price right now, I have $1700 cash in hand that I've been saving up for quite some time. What I'm concerned about is the price/value relationship.
I don't want to try Windows 2000 @ all, but that still doesn't mean I shouldn't consider the value of what I'm buying.
Why not pull out of the market then? If you have that much invested in Apple, and the shares of Apple are currently $23 a share, why not cash out now? You'd make about $2000. $10,000 is a lot of money (to me at least), so why risk losing any of it if you're not sure Apple's stock will stay above $19?
[quote]I'm not concerned about price right now, I have $1700 cash in hand that I've been saving up for quite some time. What I'm concerned about is the price/value relationship.<hr></blockquote>
Well, I know you should buy a computer based on what you WILL do with it, not what you CAN do with it. Why buy a $4000 G4 if you only want to browse the web or write a word processing document or email?
$1700 is almost enough to buy the new iMac. What can't it do that you want it to?
Play games? It has a 32 MB graphics card.
Internet? Built in 56k Modem, ethernet, Airport ready
Email? No problem.
Word Processing? AppleWorks or Office.
Graphics? An 800 MHz G4 is FAST. Heck, I could probably do some pretty amazing things in PS on my G3/500!
CD burning/compilation? Built in CD-RW has no problem burning CDs. It's not the fastest burner in the world, but if you really needed a faster one, you could get a 32x Firewire drive.
DVD/Movie making? What better machine than the iMac for this? It has a Superdrive, iDVD, iMovie, and two firewire ports. Also plenty of hard disk space to save your movies. Plus, you could always make a VCD with this as well.
How fast do you need a computer to be before it doesn't meet your needs?
The new iMac is an amazing machine. Sure you can't drop in a second hard drive or a new video card, but would you really need to with 60 GBs or a 32 MB graphics card?
The Specs:
800MHz PowerPC G4
15" LCD (Same viewable space as 17" CRT)
256MB RAM
60GB Hard drive
32MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
Ethernet
56K internal modem
AirPort ready
Apple Pro Speakers
I know that there's not really anything out there (besides Virtual PC) that's going to run slow on this machine. If you really think you need something faster or better, I'd like to know what it is, because I think it's pretty hard to find something wrong with this new iMac.
The statement above about not being drag racers is only partially true. Being in the graphic arts industry, I know very few graphic designers, art directors etc that cannot take advantage of real speed increases in their systems. In fact, they NEED those increases to stay competitive in an industry that is requiring faster turnarounds and production timeframes. Make Photoshop faster? Any 3d rendering program faster?
It is not the end of the line for Apple in the professional sector. Many graphic artists are as emotionally attached to their systems as we who wander these boards are. However, as the difference in speed between these systems becomes QUANTIFIABLE, there will be no way to tell management NO when they come in and require a change for the sake of productivity increases. Will this be across the board? Maybe not. Maybe it will only start in the Photoshop and 3d rendering areas. But if they make a significant inroad there, converting the rest of the systems (page layout etc) will be easy.
Apple is currently on the wrong end of the performance curve and needs to do something significant just to stay even. I have hope given the HUGE performance increase they just handed to the consumer space. If they have a similar increase in store for the Powermacs, I think 95% of the people here will be very satisfied. As for the other 5%? They are never happy anyway.
"so why risk losing any of it if you're not sure Apple's stock will "
It is part of my retirement portfolio(the high risk possible high return part) and @ least for now I'm banking on Mac OS X. Reason: Apple can not go head to head w/ Microsoft's operating system right now, especially in the business market. But, with its' Unix underpinnings and current client licensing arrangements I think they can make inroads into servers. Windows server licensing is outragously expensive. Can't remember the name of the company but they dumped Windows for linix/unix? and saved hundreds of thousands of $$. MacOSX would have had similar savings and better ease of use, but it isn't ready for prime time.
Right now hardware is my biggest concern. Here I'm banking on a G5 style chip, Don't care who manufactures it. But I wish people would stop saying it is going to appear next week or whatever, maybe end of 2002 early 2003.
The benefits of Unix are already being touted in the industry and press. With Darwin open source that can also only benefit the platform. Hell, an enterprising soul could write their own operating system on top of Darwin. Example, small specialized operating system for say a <insert device here> that has almost instant compatibility w/ Apple.
Then there is Microsofts net strategy. Personally I think if they force this upon the public it will have a significant backlase. The whole concept to me seems unnatural. Because their software is closed then they would control, to some extent, any company writing software to their platform(change the OS lock out who they want until they control the software)
Granted, Apple is a gamble but it is one I'm staying with for a while.
"Sure you can't drop in a second hard drive or a new video card" -EXACTLY
", but would you really need to with 60 GBs or a 32 MB graphics card?" Maybe not, but a scratch disc for music, video etc would be very nice. PCI - SCSI? PCI - upgrade cards? PCI - future devices yet to be developed.
By the way, my ideal computer from Apple would be a monitorless iMac that had a 867 to 933 MHz G4 w/ 1 Mb backside cache, one, maybe two PCI slots, 4x(8x) AGP standard size graphics slot and one extra drive bay. Hense, my signature. I'm almost certain Apple will never produce such a product, but I don't think I'm alone in my desire. I'm not a professional graphics artist, nor a computer hobbiest(ie. don't like to tinker with the insides of a computer), but I do desire a couple of things.
<strong>
It's possible Apple are using iBook chipsets in the iMac to reduce power consumption and share the development cost, hence the frequency limit.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point.
Last I checked, the tech docs for the new iMac were still waiting to be released, but it might possibly use the Pangea instead of the UniNorth / KeyLargo combo. This might limit the FSB speed to 100MHz, and might possibly even force them to use it in 60x bus mode rather than the faster MPX bus / MaxBus mode.
Bye,
RazzFazz