You can't convince me until you tell me the other differences between the 750 and the 7400 are.
Why should the 750VX be called a G3, when it has all it takes to be called a G4?
One difference, that I havn't seen mentioned on the contrary, is the lack of multiprocessor ability of the 750vx. This will be one key feature difference. The VMX (altivec) will most likly be based closer to the 970. Another difference will be the bus (60x vs maxbus, DDR vs SDR, 200 vs 167). And finally the L2 and L3 cache differences (the 750vx has more of each). So all in all ther are probably as many differences as there are similarities. What is odd is that IBM is calling this the 750vx, rather than starting it down another line (800, 850, etc). What would be intersting to know would be power consumption numbes on the 750vx vs a similarly clocked 7457...
In the end, Apple will call this whatever they see fit. Maybe they will call it the G5M, G4+, or just simply Trogdor (because it burninates the G4). It is a very safe assumption that it wont be called a G3 however.
One difference, that I havn't seen mentioned on the contrary, is the lack of multiprocessor ability of the 750vx. This will be one key feature difference. . .
Amorph makes a very good point, that IBM has not yet given this processor a part number. The 750VX designation appeared in the first rumors of this chip, along with the code name 'Mojave.' The 750VX may be the result of early thinking that it is a G3 with AltiVec added. The real part number will come when IBM publicly acknowledges its existence.
Also, early rumors of Mojave spoke of multiprocessor capability along with AltiVec. However, lack of this feature only affects Apple and how Apple can use the chip in a product. The ability to use a Motorola G4 in multiprocessor configuration does nothing for a G4 that is running in a single processor Mac.
If I had to pick between a G4 with multiprocessor capability, or a G4 with a much faster bus, I would pick the one with the faster bus. If I need the speed and power of dual processors, I'll get a G5. Oh, I forgot. I already have one.
this is pointless if you see it as one house which you can buy off the shelves (like it's the point with processors). if you just buy one of those and put it down the street and another one an put it up the street - the house could be put anywhere but will stay the same
You can't convince me until you tell me the other differences between the 750 and the 7400 are.
Why should the 750VX be called a G3, when it has all it takes to be called a G4?
If it had what it takes to be a G4 (in the design) then it would not be a 750. As it seems the 750vx is just a roumered name. IBM may release it under a new name. If they do then that would change a lot. Like what we would call it...
If it is released as a 750xx model then it will be a G3 in my mind no matter how Apple marketing spins it.
This post got way off topic...lol...I just wanted to say that I don't think that the G5 will make the jump from 2.0 GHz to 2.8 GHz like the original post says...that is just an insane leap. And just because Apple is rumored to have G5's running at 2.5 GHz or faster, does not mean that these processors are ready to be shipped, it just means that they are being tested!
And come on people, the new processor in the iBook will have to be called a G4...they aren't going to relase a G4 iBook, and then back track and say "Haha, just kidding! We are back to the G3 now!"
I do not think Apples CPU leaps will be dictated my "insanity" or sanaty of the same
The G4 started with letting the AMD and Intel get at twise the clock speed, and during the following 4 years have showed no signs at closing the gap. With this as a starting point there is plenty of room to grow in for the the IBM 970. If IBM can produce and sell enough of very fast 970 Apple will use the fastest they can get. The only thing sopping that would be that if they know about a hard speed limit ahead untiel the 980 or something so they would pace the speed bost until that CPU arrived.
Would AMD hold back a 4 GHz Athon as the speed bump is to great?
... Remember, the G4 is just a G3 with MPX-bus, enhanced FPU, and Altivec. The 750VX is easily the IBM version of the G4.
The 750VX doesn't have the enhanced FPU, the pipeline is different, and it won't support multiple CPUs. It's a G3 with Altivec. Likely Apple will call it the "G3 Extreme"
The 750VX doesn't have the enhanced FPU, the pipeline is different, and it won't support multiple CPUs. It's a G3 with Altivec. Likely Apple will call it the "G3 Extreme"
I appreciate your concern for design details, but few Mac customers will care what's inside the chip. Most are interested in how it performs and whether it will run software with 'G4 or better' printed on the box under system requirements.
And who knows, the chip may have a few surprises in store for us. It may have a fine FPU. Rumors from over a year ago were saying this chip is a complete redesign. These early rumors mentioned a new and much faster front side bus, about which the latest rumor gives more details.
The Appleinsider report mentions the L2 cache on a 750FX. I wonder whether they mean to say 750GX, which I think has a 1 MB L2 cache. Or maybe it will be 512 KB to keep power dissipation down.
If it's starting at 1.8 gig. It's ahead of moto's 'attempts'.
If it doesn't arrive until the 3rd quarter of next year? Then it seems academic. It'll be bunged into an eMac/iBook. Depends on when it arrives.
I like the idea of calling it a 'GX' (Hey, it's better than 'Celeron'. And Intel still stuck with something you toss in a salad...) Something that you can stick in cheap headless business and edu' Mac desktops and consumer laptops...
Sure, IBM will no doubt rub it in 'Hey lamerola...here's how you toss together a 'G4'. A 'jacked up G3'...easy, see?'
For me, the sooner the nightmare designation 'G4' is eradicated for all time from Apple's line up? The BETTER!
Half a year on that. But...where does that leave .09 G5s at 2.2-2.8?
Doesn't that interfere with a WWDC intro' of a 980? Shipping in September?
If .13 G5 in Jan'...then where do the 0.09 G5 go?
Especially with 980 following Sept 04? Unless Apple refresh more often?
2.6 and 2.8 G5 in July 04?
3 gig 980 in September? But that leaves bumped G5 on market for only 3 months?
Jan' will prob' set tone for what to happen. 2.4 isn't half way in progress on road to '3 gig' promise 'in one year' from WWDC?
Logically, I can't see why Apple hasn't added a 2.2 gig Christmas G5 Tower. They must have loads of stockpiled .13 2.2 and 2.4 G5s. They had 2.5 gig half a year ago.
And there's talk of the 'swift transition to 0.09.'
So, 2.2-2.8 would surely be in offing...if Apple is serious about Tower momentum. Leaves road way clear for 980 and 3 gig plus in Summer. Remember 'fud' before 970 launch at WWDC? Then dual 2 gig and jaws drop!!!
In half a year with IBM, I'd have thought 2.4 would be the least that could be delivered and rather a shocking 2.2-2.6/2.8 (shipping in March!) four model range could be on cards! 0.09 is imminent. Why only 2.4? Dual 2 gig didn't ship until two months after announcement. A dual 2.6 gig would be on for end of Feb'/early Mar'.
Fud?
Lemon Bon Bon
And...spring. ATi's new card that throws around Half Life 2? That would be a nice keynote demo. More likely Doom 3?
As I said... the 750xx a G3 based core and a G3 by name. Third generation baby!
That's a Motorola term not necessarily an Apple term. Apple can call a PPC750 a G4 if they want and I rather expect a PPC750 with a Velocity Engine would be enough for them to do so.
Comments
Originally posted by Zapchud
You can't convince me until you tell me the other differences between the 750 and the 7400 are.
Why should the 750VX be called a G3, when it has all it takes to be called a G4?
One difference, that I havn't seen mentioned on the contrary, is the lack of multiprocessor ability of the 750vx. This will be one key feature difference. The VMX (altivec) will most likly be based closer to the 970. Another difference will be the bus (60x vs maxbus, DDR vs SDR, 200 vs 167). And finally the L2 and L3 cache differences (the 750vx has more of each). So all in all ther are probably as many differences as there are similarities. What is odd is that IBM is calling this the 750vx, rather than starting it down another line (800, 850, etc). What would be intersting to know would be power consumption numbes on the 750vx vs a similarly clocked 7457...
In the end, Apple will call this whatever they see fit. Maybe they will call it the G5M, G4+, or just simply Trogdor (because it burninates the G4). It is a very safe assumption that it wont be called a G3 however.
Originally posted by geekmeet
apple has had 0.13um 970's chips at 2.5 ghz for a while now.
why only go to 2.4ghz?
my hunch is we will see 2.8ghz announced at MWSF2004.
thats just my gut feeling here.
My hunch is it will go to 2.4 GHz. My hunch is also that it won't be chips manufactured on a 90 nm process.
Originally posted by kupan787
One difference, that I havn't seen mentioned on the contrary, is the lack of multiprocessor ability of the 750vx. This will be one key feature difference. . .
Amorph makes a very good point, that IBM has not yet given this processor a part number. The 750VX designation appeared in the first rumors of this chip, along with the code name 'Mojave.' The 750VX may be the result of early thinking that it is a G3 with AltiVec added. The real part number will come when IBM publicly acknowledges its existence.
Also, early rumors of Mojave spoke of multiprocessor capability along with AltiVec. However, lack of this feature only affects Apple and how Apple can use the chip in a product. The ability to use a Motorola G4 in multiprocessor configuration does nothing for a G4 that is running in a single processor Mac.
If I had to pick between a G4 with multiprocessor capability, or a G4 with a much faster bus, I would pick the one with the faster bus. If I need the speed and power of dual processors, I'll get a G5. Oh, I forgot. I already have one.
Originally posted by Krassy
this is pointless if you see it as one house which you can buy off the shelves (like it's the point with processors). if you just buy one of those and put it down the street and another one an put it up the street
You put too much thought into that.
Originally posted by Zapchud
You can't convince me until you tell me the other differences between the 750 and the 7400 are.
Why should the 750VX be called a G3, when it has all it takes to be called a G4?
If it had what it takes to be a G4 (in the design) then it would not be a 750. As it seems the 750vx is just a roumered name. IBM may release it under a new name. If they do then that would change a lot. Like what we would call it...
If it is released as a 750xx model then it will be a G3 in my mind no matter how Apple marketing spins it.
Anyways, I will call this processor a G4 no matter how IBM marketing spins it
kupan787: Very good points, forgot about those neat li'l features.
And come on people, the new processor in the iBook will have to be called a G4...they aren't going to relase a G4 iBook, and then back track and say "Haha, just kidding! We are back to the G3 now!"
The G4 started with letting the AMD and Intel get at twise the clock speed, and during the following 4 years have showed no signs at closing the gap. With this as a starting point there is plenty of room to grow in for the the IBM 970. If IBM can produce and sell enough of very fast 970 Apple will use the fastest they can get. The only thing sopping that would be that if they know about a hard speed limit ahead untiel the 980 or something so they would pace the speed bost until that CPU arrived.
Would AMD hold back a 4 GHz Athon as the speed bump is to great?
Originally posted by Zapchud
... Remember, the G4 is just a G3 with MPX-bus, enhanced FPU, and Altivec. The 750VX is easily the IBM version of the G4.
The 750VX doesn't have the enhanced FPU, the pipeline is different, and it won't support multiple CPUs. It's a G3 with Altivec. Likely Apple will call it the "G3 Extreme"
Originally posted by cubist
The 750VX doesn't have the enhanced FPU, the pipeline is different, and it won't support multiple CPUs. It's a G3 with Altivec. Likely Apple will call it the "G3 Extreme"
I appreciate your concern for design details, but few Mac customers will care what's inside the chip. Most are interested in how it performs and whether it will run software with 'G4 or better' printed on the box under system requirements.
And who knows, the chip may have a few surprises in store for us. It may have a fine FPU. Rumors from over a year ago were saying this chip is a complete redesign. These early rumors mentioned a new and much faster front side bus, about which the latest rumor gives more details.
The Appleinsider report mentions the L2 cache on a 750FX. I wonder whether they mean to say 750GX, which I think has a 1 MB L2 cache. Or maybe it will be 512 KB to keep power dissipation down.
Stick it in the Powerbook.
If it's starting at 1.8 gig. It's ahead of moto's 'attempts'.
If it doesn't arrive until the 3rd quarter of next year? Then it seems academic. It'll be bunged into an eMac/iBook. Depends on when it arrives.
I like the idea of calling it a 'GX' (Hey, it's better than 'Celeron'. And Intel still stuck with something you toss in a salad...) Something that you can stick in cheap headless business and edu' Mac desktops and consumer laptops...
Sure, IBM will no doubt rub it in 'Hey lamerola...here's how you toss together a 'G4'. A 'jacked up G3'...easy, see?'
For me, the sooner the nightmare designation 'G4' is eradicated for all time from Apple's line up? The BETTER!
Lemon Bon Bon
San Fran'. Yes.
.13? 2-2.4 gig.
Half a year on that. But...where does that leave .09 G5s at 2.2-2.8?
Doesn't that interfere with a WWDC intro' of a 980? Shipping in September?
If .13 G5 in Jan'...then where do the 0.09 G5 go?
Especially with 980 following Sept 04? Unless Apple refresh more often?
2.6 and 2.8 G5 in July 04?
3 gig 980 in September? But that leaves bumped G5 on market for only 3 months?
Jan' will prob' set tone for what to happen. 2.4 isn't half way in progress on road to '3 gig' promise 'in one year' from WWDC?
Logically, I can't see why Apple hasn't added a 2.2 gig Christmas G5 Tower. They must have loads of stockpiled .13 2.2 and 2.4 G5s. They had 2.5 gig half a year ago.
And there's talk of the 'swift transition to 0.09.'
So, 2.2-2.8 would surely be in offing...if Apple is serious about Tower momentum. Leaves road way clear for 980 and 3 gig plus in Summer. Remember 'fud' before 970 launch at WWDC? Then dual 2 gig and jaws drop!!!
In half a year with IBM, I'd have thought 2.4 would be the least that could be delivered and rather a shocking 2.2-2.6/2.8 (shipping in March!) four model range could be on cards! 0.09 is imminent. Why only 2.4? Dual 2 gig didn't ship until two months after announcement. A dual 2.6 gig would be on for end of Feb'/early Mar'.
Fud?
Lemon Bon Bon
And...spring. ATi's new card that throws around Half Life 2? That would be a nice keynote demo. More likely Doom 3?
Now with extra scenes and director's commentary.
G4 "New and Improved."
Now with whiter whites and bluer blues.
G4 "Turbo."
Now with magnesium wheels and limited slip differential.
G4 "XXXX."
Now with more hard core action and silicon.
G4 "Turbo."
An oxymoron to be sure.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
An oxymoron to be sure.
Lemon Bon Bon
Wait... for G4 "Turbo" to be an oxymoron it would have to look like this: geefourturbo
"G4 turbo-hippie edition"
Now with BBS wheels, LSD with 10 shot of nitrous....
Originally posted by whoami
it really should be
"G4 turbo-hippie edition"
Now with BBS wheels, LSD with 10 shot of nitrous....
I never knew they used Acid ("LSD") when fabing chips.
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
The IBM PPC 750xx processer is the G3 according to Apple marketing
Show me just oné document from Apple that states that G3 = PPC 750xx!
Otherwise, its G4 all the way! Yeah baby!
[Edit] And G4 =! PPC 750xx!
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Show me just oné document from Apple that states that G3 = PPC 750xx!
Otherwise, its G4 all the way! Yeah baby!
[Edit] And G4 =! PPC 750xx!
Eat it bitch!
As I said... the 750xx a G3 based core and a G3 by name. Third generation baby!
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
Eat it bitch!
<snip>
As I said... the 750xx a G3 based core and a G3 by name. Third generation baby!
That's a Motorola term not necessarily an Apple term. Apple can call a PPC750 a G4 if they want and I rather expect a PPC750 with a Velocity Engine would be enough for them to do so.