Informed speculation on the new PowerMacs

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
The idealogy of this thread consists on the premise that what is mostly likely and probable is probably true.



Please note that this is not based on any insider information I might have.



1. The new PowerMacs will use G4's and shall not be likely exceed 1.133GHz.

2. They will be priced competitively against the new iMacs and shall be priced similarly to the current G4 models.

3. The low-end model shall cost between $1600-$2000 and shall be similarly configured to the high-end iMac.

4. There will likely be 3 configurations.

5. There will be at least 1 dual-processor configuration.

6. Increments between PowerMac configurations shall be based on processor clockspeed, hard drive and memory, and number of processors.

7. The PowerMacs will not come standard with state-of-the-arts graphics chipsets.

8. Superdrive is likely to be standardized.

9. A radically new enclosure is not likely.

10. The 15" LCD Display shall most likely be dropped from Apple's Display line-up due to the new iMac.

11. Bus speed shall most likely move to DDR at 133Mhz (266Mhz effective).

12. The GeForce 4 is likely to be announced in conjunction with the PowerMacs, but will likely be a BTO option due to the current standing of the GeForce 3 as BTO.

13. A GeForce3-based chipset (GeForce3MX?) is likely to move into the PowerMacs. If not, the PowerMacs shall use GeForce2MX's.

14. The graphics chipset will most definitly use DDR as that is now the standard in the iMacs.

15. The ATA interface could be updated to either ATA100 or ATA133. However, there is no information to suggest that this shall or shan't occur.

16. There is no information to suggest additional USB or FireWire ports shall be implemented. However, recent information on "GigaWire" suggests the implementation of 800Mbps FireWire.

17. There is a possibility of Twin-view graphics in the high-end model as the current dual 800MP's do.



Based on the 17 points above, and extrapolating from the high-end iMacs specifications, accounting for the $200-400 cost of the LCD display, the low-end PowerMac G4 configuration shall be:



867MHz G4 w/on-die L2 cache (no L3)

133MHz bus w/DDR implemented(266Mhz effective)

256MB RAM

Superdrive

Gigabit Ethernet

NVidia GeForce2(3?)MX graphics w/ DDR

60GB Hard drive

Two 800Mbps FireWire ports

56K modem, USB 1.1 etc...

Cost: Between $1600 and $1800.



The Mid-range PowerMac G4:



1.133GHz G4 w/on-die L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache running less than 4:1.

133MHz bus w/DDR implemented(266Mhz effective)

256MB RAM

Superdrive

Gigabit Ethernet

NVidia GeForce2(3?)MX graphics w/ DDR

100GB Hard drive

Two 800Mbps FireWire ports

56K modem, USB 1.1 etc...

Cost: Between $2400 and $2600.



The High-end PowerMac G4:



Two 1.000GHz G4s w/on-die L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache running less than 4:1.

133MHz bus w/DDR implemented(266Mhz effective)

512MB RAM

Superdrive

Gigabit Ethernet

NVidia GeForce2(3?)MX (Twin-view?) graphics w/ DDR

120GB Hard drive

Two 800Mbps FireWire ports

56K modem, USB 1.1 etc...

Cost: Between $3400 and $3600



What do you think? Will this sufficiently please you?



{Edit: Grammer}



[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 116
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    You are the new president of sane elite.
  • Reply 2 of 116
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Wow. What thought-provoking insight. Lock, please.....



    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:

    <strong>Wow. What thought-provoking insight. Lock, please.....



    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 4 of 116
    Nice ideas, I think the lower end model will probably have the cdrw/dvd combo instead of the super drive. I also am betting this model will undercut the high end iMac by a couple hundred dollars, $1600 sounds like a good entry point for pro machines.



    oh yeah, whatever gigawire is I don't think we will see anything based on it any time soon. The name Firewire was kicked around for years before it actually apeared in a machine.



    And i think the price of the 17inch lcd's will nesesitate keeping the 15inch screen around for a while. If apple wants to differentiate the 15" studio display from the iMac a widescreen is a logical way to go.
  • Reply 5 of 116
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Jeeze, I hope not.
  • Reply 6 of 116
    By George, I think he's got it!



    ===



    I still *really want* quad rackmountables though.
  • Reply 7 of 116
    If those specs are correct I'll be quite pissed....
  • Reply 8 of 116
    jwdawsojwdawso Posts: 355member
    I'm not sure what "informed" means... Why would you speculate a big change to the motherboard (which DDR requires) but everything else just incremental? Also added is Firewire2 - why is that informed?



    Oh, now I get it. You just multiplied the current PowerMac lineup by 15%. What did you multiply to get the iPod?



    This post is dreary. I don't know why I responded... I guess that says something about me...



    Are you a weatherman? They also predict tomorrow based on today. I'm glad Apple isn't restricted to being so incremental. Or maybe this thread was really supposed to be in a PeeCee forum...
  • Reply 9 of 116
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    minor point: a 1 ghz PMG4 w/ 'less than 4:1' L3 cache would be an utter waste of time... if the cache is running at 250mhz, it would actually slow the system down, as the sys. bus is 266mhz. I reckon the L3 would be 400 mhz or bust.
  • Reply 10 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by stimuli:

    <strong>minor point: a 1 ghz PMG4 w/ 'less than 4:1' L3 cache would be an utter waste of time... if the cache is running at 250mhz, it would actually slow the system down, as the sys. bus is 266mhz. I reckon the L3 would be 400 mhz or bust.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ahh, but backside L3 cache holds significant latency advantages over main memory. And by "less than 4:1" I mean the ratio to be less, i.e. 3:1 or 2.5:!.



    Folks, this is Apple and Motorola we're talking about here. Don't expect 1.6GHz G5's anytime soon, or G5's period.



    [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>Jeeze, I hope not.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    [quote]Originally posted by koldolme:

    <strong>If those specs are correct I'll be quite pissed....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why?



    [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:

    <strong>



    Ahh, but backside L3 cache holds significant latency advantages over main memory. And by "less than 4:1" I mean the ratio to be less, i.e. 3:1 or 2.5:!.



    Folks, this is Apple and Motorola we're talking about here. Don't expect 1.6GHz G5's anytime soon, or G5's period.



    [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    care to tell me your reasons other than "this is motorola we are talking about".
  • Reply 13 of 116
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    care to tell me your reasons other than "this is motorola we are talking about".</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What part of the word "Motorola" do you not understand?
  • Reply 14 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Anders:

    <strong>



    What part of the word "Motorola" do you not understand?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    what part of G4 don't you understand? the G4 is what hurt Motorola. the chip did not clock well. that doesn't mean that because of that single chip they'll never be able to clock high again or come out with another design that is great or on time.



    There was a time when Motorola made the highest clocked chips back with the 9600. but you don't go on that. the G3 clocked better than the P2. but you don't go on that. you're picking one mistake and generalizing it to the whole company.





    The G5 has been in development for several years now. the G4 is getting old now. Motorola's own roadmap STILL lists the G5 as coming out early 2002.



    I don't see why expecting a G5 is completely unrealistic
  • Reply 15 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    There was a time when Motorola made the highest clocked chips back with the 9600. but you don't go on that.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wrong. The Mach 5 350MHz 604e's used by the second generation 9600's were made by IBM.



    [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 116
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:

    <strong>



    Wrong. The Mach 5 350MHz 604e's used by the second generation 9600's were made by IBM.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    were they really only made by IBM? I thought it was still a joint venture at that point?
  • Reply 17 of 116
    1. The new PowerMacs will use G4's and shall not be likely exceed 1.133GHz.



    I think that faster speeds are possible. 1.2 GHz or even 1.267 GHz would be my guess for top speed.



    2. They will be priced competitively against the new iMacs and shall be priced similarly to the current G4 models.



    I agree.



    3. The low-end model shall cost between $1600-$2000 and shall be similarly configured to the high-end iMac.



    I disagree. Apple tends to shaft the low-end Powermac user. I'd expect a CDRW or Combo in the low end.



    4. There will likely be 3 configurations.



    I think there will be 4 configs. Some will be Apollos, some will not.



    5. There will be at least 1 dual-processor configuration.

    6. Increments between PowerMac configurations shall be based on processor clockspeed, hard drive and memory, and number of processors.

    7. The PowerMacs will not come standard with state-of-the-arts graphics chipsets.




    I agree with all of these.



    8. Superdrive is likely to be standardized.



    I don't think Apple will treat the low end Powermac any more charitably than in the past.



    9. A radically new enclosure is not likely.



    I agree.



    10. The 15" LCD Display shall most likely be dropped from Apple's Display line-up due to the new iMac.



    I don't see why this would be the case. If people want a 15", then Apple will sell them.



    11. Bus speed shall most likely move to DDR at 133Mhz (266Mhz effective).



    Lord, I hope so.



    12. The GeForce 4 is likely to be announced in conjunction with the PowerMacs, but will likely be a BTO option due to the current standing of the GeForce 3 as BTO.



    Probably, especially with the list price of GeForce 4 to be in excess of $500.



    13. A GeForce3-based chipset (GeForce3MX?) is likely to move into the PowerMacs. If not, the PowerMacs shall use GeForce2MX's.



    I think the lowend runt Powermac will get a GeForce 2MX; the rest will get GeForce 3 as standards.



    14. The graphics chipset will most definitly use DDR as that is now the standard in the iMacs.



    Seems reasonable.



    15. The ATA interface could be updated to either ATA100 or ATA133. However, there is no information to suggest that this shall or shan't occur.



    Seems reasonable to assume that Apple will notch up to ATA 100.



    16. There is no information to suggest additional USB or FireWire ports shall be implemented. However, recent information on "GigaWire" suggests the implementation of 800Mbps FireWire.



    I have no opinion on this.



    17. There is a possibility of Twin-view graphics in the high-end model as the current dual 800MP's do.



    Sounds good.



    My hare-brained guesses:



    2 Regular PM's



    SDRAM G4 867 and 933 (Current mobo)

    Combo Drives

    $1600-$2200

    GeForce 2 MX



    2 Super PM's



    DDRRAM G4 2x1 GHz and 2x1.2 GHz (new mobo)

    Superdrives

    $2800-$3600

    GeForce 3



    SdC



    [ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 116
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    were they really only made by IBM? I thought it was still a joint venture at that point?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, the 604e was a joint IBM/Motorola design. However, the advanced fab facilities used to fab the Mach 5 604e's were IBM's. IBM was a generation ahead of Motorola back then i.e. .35µ versus .25µ (now they aren't).
  • Reply 19 of 116
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Whoa Applenut I was only joking. I just hate to use these guys and <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> all the time.



    Yes the G4 was the chip that made it all go wrong for Mot and I would be the first to congratulate them when its replaced in the Pro models. BUT I really don´t see any indications of G5s in the next rev. of PMs. Hope I am wrong but unfortunetly I have a pretty good track record of predicting stuff like this. I really think Nostradamus nailed it in his predictions.
  • Reply 20 of 116
    Unless these configurations would prove themselves to be considerably faster in testing than you might think by looking at the specs, my money would stay in my pocket.



    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Sign In or Register to comment.