Here's some REAL info already. G5, and LCD imacs

aqua os xaqua os x
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
1) Here it is... the G5...ok:

<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8540&nodeId=03M9430304504 67M98655" target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/s ps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8540&nodeId=03M9430304504 67M98655</a>



Rapid I/O, 333mhz ddr, Apple's book "e" design. 600mhz to 1ghz. Although Apple might get something faster. Moto tends to hold off on info for 3rd parties future products.



2) Here is the next gen I/O connect technology that is ALSO done (version 1.03) and has been ready to be used with the G5's Rapid I/O. Note, it would not really make sence to use this with G4 since the g4 only supports a slow 133mhz bus.

<a href="http://www.hypertransport.org/newsroom/pr_121001_html"; target="_blank">http://www.hypertransport.org/newsroom/pr_121001_html</a>;



3) Quanta is producing new a new LCD toy for Apple... odds are it is the new iMac.



<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23248.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23248.html</a>;



4) Morgan Stanley seems to be reporting that apple has ordered 100,000 new 15in LCDs for desktop iMacs. Morgan Stanley's analists tend to be fairly credable...thanks to, gasp, research.



<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23198.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23198.html</a>;



-bout time someone posted some non-half-a** information again. I'm getting a bit tired of the "I think this...." BS .



[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Aqua OS X ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Isn't the G5 the 8500? The 8450 doesn't scale higher then the G4.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    bobthetomatobobthetomato Posts: 665member
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>Isn't the G5 the 8500? The 8450 doesn't scale higher then the G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    looks like the link is referring to the

    8540
  • Reply 3 of 15
    jwdawsojwdawso Posts: 389member
    I think Aqua OS X's point is that the G5 is not vaporware because Motorolla is giving out details and is selling the 8540. The idea is that Motorolla is holding back info on the G5 due to Apple's desires. The higher powered (watts) non-embedded (desktop) versions would scale higher speed wise than the 600-1000Mhz 8540 lower powered embedded versions.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    aqua os xaqua os x Posts: 49member
    that was the 8540...not 8450. You are right though, apple is going to use the 85xx... you must've just read that too fast or something.



    The g5 should scale higer then the g4. But who knows what apple is actually going to slap together. They may get faster CPU and moto pay be posting stats for some other company that is using the 8540; Apple may be doing SMP again; G5's might be kind of expensive right now, lower clocked versions could be more reasonable. Who knows.



    But this is the more or less the chip. I mean, come on, Apple is really the only client moto has that would by the 8540, and all of the "g5s" (ie the 82xx and 8xx) have specs for intergrated devices. Th 8540 has specs for a personal computer.



    But don't forget, a 64 bit processor with rapid I/O and 333mhz ddr is really going to smoke. Apple's mhz myth will actually mean something this time around. Furthemore, the g5 will be the fastest clocked 64 bit processor on the market for desktop computers when it comes out. Intels Itainium is stuck in a mhz rut like the g4 was (and it sucks at 32bit processing).



    [ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Aqua OS X ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 15
    aqua os xaqua os x Posts: 49member
    stupid back button... sorry. double post



    [ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Aqua OS X ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 15
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Well, either way, I hope your assumtion is correct. I for one, have my credit card ready for the announcment of the G5.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    jwdawso - "is selling the 8540."



    No, the MPC 8540 will begin sampling in the 2nd half of 2002.(re: this was stated in a Motorola press release, I believe in April 2001)



    Aqua OS X - "Apple is really the only client moto has that would by the 8540, and all of the "g5s""



    Apple will never buy the MPC 8540 it is exclusively designed as an embedded processor. Whatever model 85XX Apple buys, if it buys one, will in all probability be used in some embedded systems. Just like the G4 is used in routers manufactured by CISCO.



    [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]



    Not April, October 17th, 2001



    <a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>;



    [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 15
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aqua OS X:

    <strong>But this is the more or less the chip. I mean, come on, Apple is really the only client moto has that would by the 8540, and all of the "g5s" (ie the 82xx and 8xx) have specs for intergrated devices. Th 8540 has specs for a personal computer.

    [ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Aqua OS X ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Correction, it was reported both CISCO and SGI are looking at the G5 - CISCO for it's high-performance routers and SGI for a MIPS replacement in its pro workstation lineup.



    EDIT: typos



    [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: xype ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 15
    little newtonlittle newton Posts: 51member
    So is no one excited about this because they figure the 84xx specs are being trotted out again and not the 8540XX...



    These specs, despite clock speed, seem very good particularily power consumption at 6-7 watts...think Ti Book



    This chip is Mhz per Mhz 18 - 20% faster than G4 7451. 8540 1385 MIPs @ 600mhz vs 7451 1324 @ 733mhz. 6.5 watts est vice 14 watts typical for 7451.



    [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Little Newton ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 15
    gnomgnom Posts: 85member
    [quote]Originally posted by Little Newton:

    <strong>These specs, despite clock speed, seem very good particularily power consumption at 6-7 watts...think Ti Book</strong><hr></blockquote>





    this is just not the chip for computers, read the website again, ethernet onchip, come on.





    bye.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]So is no one excited about this because they figure the 84xx specs are being trotted out again and not the 8540XX...<hr></blockquote>NO. Its for specialized applications.



    from Moto PR flacks:

    [quote]Balancing processor performance, I/O system throughput and lower power consumption, the MPC8540 is a powerful control element for network routers and switches, storage subsystems, network appliances, and print and imaging devices.<hr></blockquote>Clear enough...
  • Reply 12 of 15
    little newtonlittle newton Posts: 51member
    [quote]Originally posted by cowerd:

    <strong>Clear enough...</strong><hr></blockquote>





    No its not clear enough......



    "Motorola's MPC7451 host processor is a high-performance, low-power, 32-bit implementation of the PowerPC architecture with a full 128-bit implementation of Motorola's AltiVec(tm) technology. This microprocessor is ideal for leading edge computing, embedded network control, and signal processing applications"



    ok so throw out 1/3 of exitsing G4's because most of them were intended for signal processing and embedded applications...fsks sake this is the G5 dual gigabit on die faciliates integrated on board 802.11a/b and wired ethernet.



    • Signal Processing APU

    – Aimed at convergent Integer and DSP

    applications

    – SIMD unit with 222 new instructions

    – 64-bit GPRs overlaid on existing GPRs

    – Accumulator for single-cycle MAC

    wankers



    [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Little Newton ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 15
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote] Accumulator for single-cycle MAC

    wankers <hr></blockquote>



    I hope no trolls see that, I don't think I can handle being called a "Mac Wanker"



    Isn't wanker English for jack-off?
  • Reply 14 of 15
    little newtonlittle newton Posts: 51member
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>Isn't wanker English for jack-off?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    oops quotes and sign-off run into eachother...



    <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/MPC8540E500RPT.pdf"; target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/MPC8540E500RPT.pdf</a>;



    have a look and see if you would not agree that wih an altivec unit bolted on as an APU this processor would make a dandy cpu. The elegant use of SOC would result in very elegant compact mother boards that could releive the heat dissipation anxiety of current g4's
  • Reply 15 of 15
    mmicistmmicist Posts: 214member
    [quote]Originally posted by Little Newton:

    <strong>



    oops quotes and sign-off run into eachother...



    <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/MPC8540E500RPT.pdf"; target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/MPC8540E500RPT.pdf</a>;



    have a look and see if you would not agree that wih an altivec unit bolted on as an APU this processor would make a dandy cpu. The elegant use of SOC would result in very elegant compact mother boards that could releive the heat dissipation anxiety of current g4's</strong><hr></blockquote>





    I've looked at it, long ago. It does'nt have the integer units of the G4, it would be slower on most ordinary code. It doesn't have an FPU, 99% of Mac PPC software would'nt run on it because of that. You can't just bolt on an Altivec unit, it has to be integrated into the memory architecture, decode units, etc. Integrating these units would also push the power rating way up. It tops out at 1GHz, what would be the point?



    Answer, it could be made a decent processor, but the effort would be pretty much the same as producing a new design.



    Learn a little bit about chip architecture, or at least the architecture of the G4, before you start saying what should be able to replace it.



    Michael
Sign In or Register to comment.