Actually, the G4 also came from the 603 branch. It borrowed the 604's FPU, but that was about it.
I'm not so sure about this.The changes found in the fpu of the 7400 as compaired to the 750 are rather minimal and involve the way in which multiplications are done if I remember right.Actually I believe later 750's starting with the cx had similar changes added.I should probably check all this but I am fairly certain the 604s had duel fpu's.
At any rate everyone seems to be forgetting that there were 2 G4s. The so called G4e (ppc 7450) line that began to be shipped with the 733 mghz tower is actually a vastly different chip architecturaly from the 7400.It is in fact as different from the 7400 as a p3 is from a p4! Yet Apple had no problem calling it a G4 as well.This should be considered when speculating on what Apple may call a 750vx,if in fact such a chip even exists.
... This is all further proved, as IBM doesn't use the G# naming for their chips or roadmaps. So when Apple got the 970, IBM didn't say "this is the G5", Apple chose to use that name.
In fact, to IBM it is a Power4 derivative, and the 980, which Apple may call the G6, is a Power5 derivative, so Apple is off by one, G vs. Power.
But who really cares? This is all marketing. I often thought that the G4 meant "fourth generation of the PowerMac", and the CPUs associated therewith, rather than being associated with any particular part numbers from any particular vendors. The Powerbooks, iBooks and iMacs are the stepchildren of the PowerMac.
At any rate everyone seems to be forgetting that there were 2 G4s. The so called G4e (ppc 7450) line that began to be shipped with the 733 mghz tower is actually a vastly different chip architecturaly from the 7400.It is in fact as different from the 7400 as a p3 is from a p4!
Umm there is a major difference between the P3 and P4. For one, it is an entirely different core. But most notable is the P4's long pipeline compared to the P3, this long pipeline is why the P4 was able to clock up so fast while the P3 hit a snag at around 1Ghz with one core and 1.4Ghz with another.
So you are saying that the 7400 and the 7450 are two completely different chips? I thought the 7450 was just a revision made at a smaller process with a slight redesign.
Quote:
Originally posted by cuneglasus
Yet Apple had no problem calling it a G4 as well.This should be considered when speculating on what Apple may call a 750vx,if in fact such a chip even exists.
Well why would apple have a problem calling it a G4? It was in the same product line... 74XX and it was still based on the forth generation tech that brought us the 7400. So if we were to "consider" this then the 750vx would be called a G3...
Umm there is a major difference between the P3 and P4. For one, it is an entirely different core. But most notable is the P4's long pipeline compared to the P3, this long pipeline is why the P4 was able to clock up so fast while the P3 hit a snag at around 1Ghz with one core and 1.4Ghz with another.
So you are saying that the 7400 and the 7450 are two completely different chips? I thought the 7450 was just a revision made at a smaller process with a slight redesign.
Well why would apple have a problem calling it a G4? It was in the same product line... 74XX and it was still based on the forth generation tech that brought us the 7400. So if we were to "consider" this then the 750vx would be called a G3...
Well yes they are completely different.I sort of thought everyone knew that.The 7400 had the same core as the 750,with a duel 4 stage ALU. The 7450 line has a quad 7 stage ALU.The FPU is also changed with much deeper pipelines.Why motorola chose to name it with a nomenclature that seems to indicate minimal change is beyond me.
In fact, to IBM it is a Power4 derivative, and the 980, which Apple may call the G6, is a Power5 derivative, so Apple is off by one, G vs. Power.
But who really cares? This is all marketing. I often thought that the G4 meant "fourth generation of the PowerMac", and the CPUs associated therewith, rather than being associated with any particular part numbers from any particular vendors. The Powerbooks, iBooks and iMacs are the stepchildren of the PowerMac.
My understanding is that the G naming fits the following:
G1 (name not used) = 601 based
G2 (name not used) = 603/604 based
G3 = 75X based (IBM)
G4 = 74XX based (Motorola)
G5 = 970 based (IBM)
When Apple decides to go with G6 for a naming convention is anyone's guess. I would imagine that the GX name came about due to marketing as well as pragmatism. With this naming convention it is possible that Apple could use the same chip from IBM and Motorola that would have a different part number from each company yet be pretty much the same chip performance wise, a good case in point is the rumored IBM 750 VX. For simplifying matters Apple could call this a G4 chip rather than a G6 or G3.5, or G4.5 or what-ever, this could confuse matters and potentially hurt Apple's sales.
My understanding is that the G naming fits the following:G1 (name not used) = 601 based G2 (name not used) = 603/604 based G3 = 75X based (IBM) G4 = 74XX based (Motorola) G5 = 970 based (IBM) When Apple decides to go with G6 for a naming convention is anyone's guess. I would imagine that the GX name came about due to marketing as well as pragmatism. With this naming convention it is possible that Apple could use the same chip from IBM and Motorola that would have a different part number from each company yet be pretty much the same chip performance wise, a good case in point is the rumored IBM 750 VX. For simplifying matters Apple could call this a G4 chip rather than a G6 or G3.5, or G4.5 or what-ever, this could confuse matters and potentially hurt Apple's sales.
What if IBM calls it an 850? Then what do we call it? It is a "new generation" of chip, but it shouldn't be the G6, as people would think G6 to be more powerful than G5. So what is it? The G thing is all an Apple marketing measure. Probably came about to conteract the P3 from Intel (G3 vs P3). MOT and IBM both made "G3s". IBM has never used the G naming scheme, and MOT only adopted it after the G4 and after Apple had been using it for a few years. In fact, when MOT showed the 7400 there was no mention of G4. It wasn't until Apple got the chip that it became known as the G4.
Intel had to call Banias something, and they couldn't call it a P5. So they call it Centrino. If and when this IBM chip comes out in an Apple branded machine, I think they have a few solid choices.
PPCM (PowerPC Mobile)
G4M (G4 Mobile)
G4 eXtreeme
or some random name like Centrino
G5M can't be used. Why? Because when the G5 powerbooks come out I think there would be too much confusion having a G5M iBook and a G5 PowerBook.
My understanding is that the G naming fits the following:G1 (name not used) = 601 based G2 (name not used) = 603/604 based G3 = 75X based (IBM) G4 = 74XX based (Motorola) G5 = 970 based (IBM) --snip--
You are overlooking this...
G3 = 75X based (IBM/Motorola)
Moto made G3s for apple too... but apple later switched to just IBM G3s. My iMac 333 is Moto based.
For simplifying matters Apple could call this a G4 chip rather than a G6 or G3.5, or G4.5 or what-ever, this could confuse matters and potentially hurt Apple's sales.
I agree, this could hurt Apple if they call a 750xx chip a G4. I for one would not like Apple doing this and it might be a deal-breaker if I need to choose a "G4" Mac.
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
Actually, the G4 also came from the 603 branch. It borrowed the 604's FPU, but that was about it.
I'm not so sure about this.The changes found in the fpu of the 7400 as compaired to the 750 are rather minimal and involve the way in which multiplications are done if I remember right.Actually I believe later 750's starting with the cx had similar changes added.I should probably check all this but I am fairly certain the 604s had duel fpu's.
At any rate everyone seems to be forgetting that there were 2 G4s. The so called G4e (ppc 7450) line that began to be shipped with the 733 mghz tower is actually a vastly different chip architecturaly from the 7400.It is in fact as different from the 7400 as a p3 is from a p4! Yet Apple had no problem calling it a G4 as well.This should be considered when speculating on what Apple may call a 750vx,if in fact such a chip even exists.
Originally posted by kupan787
... This is all further proved, as IBM doesn't use the G# naming for their chips or roadmaps. So when Apple got the 970, IBM didn't say "this is the G5", Apple chose to use that name.
In fact, to IBM it is a Power4 derivative, and the 980, which Apple may call the G6, is a Power5 derivative, so Apple is off by one, G vs. Power.
But who really cares? This is all marketing. I often thought that the G4 meant "fourth generation of the PowerMac", and the CPUs associated therewith, rather than being associated with any particular part numbers from any particular vendors. The Powerbooks, iBooks and iMacs are the stepchildren of the PowerMac.
Originally posted by cuneglasus
--snip--
At any rate everyone seems to be forgetting that there were 2 G4s. The so called G4e (ppc 7450) line that began to be shipped with the 733 mghz tower is actually a vastly different chip architecturaly from the 7400.It is in fact as different from the 7400 as a p3 is from a p4!
Umm there is a major difference between the P3 and P4. For one, it is an entirely different core. But most notable is the P4's long pipeline compared to the P3, this long pipeline is why the P4 was able to clock up so fast while the P3 hit a snag at around 1Ghz with one core and 1.4Ghz with another.
So you are saying that the 7400 and the 7450 are two completely different chips? I thought the 7450 was just a revision made at a smaller process with a slight redesign.
Originally posted by cuneglasus
Yet Apple had no problem calling it a G4 as well.This should be considered when speculating on what Apple may call a 750vx,if in fact such a chip even exists.
Well why would apple have a problem calling it a G4? It was in the same product line... 74XX and it was still based on the forth generation tech that brought us the 7400. So if we were to "consider" this then the 750vx would be called a G3...
Originally posted by cubist
... and the 980, which Apple may call the G6...
According to you...
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
Umm there is a major difference between the P3 and P4. For one, it is an entirely different core. But most notable is the P4's long pipeline compared to the P3, this long pipeline is why the P4 was able to clock up so fast while the P3 hit a snag at around 1Ghz with one core and 1.4Ghz with another.
So you are saying that the 7400 and the 7450 are two completely different chips? I thought the 7450 was just a revision made at a smaller process with a slight redesign.
Well why would apple have a problem calling it a G4? It was in the same product line... 74XX and it was still based on the forth generation tech that brought us the 7400. So if we were to "consider" this then the 750vx would be called a G3...
Well yes they are completely different.I sort of thought everyone knew that.The 7400 had the same core as the 750,with a duel 4 stage ALU. The 7450 line has a quad 7 stage ALU.The FPU is also changed with much deeper pipelines.Why motorola chose to name it with a nomenclature that seems to indicate minimal change is beyond me.
Originally posted by cubist
In fact, to IBM it is a Power4 derivative, and the 980, which Apple may call the G6, is a Power5 derivative, so Apple is off by one, G vs. Power.
But who really cares? This is all marketing. I often thought that the G4 meant "fourth generation of the PowerMac", and the CPUs associated therewith, rather than being associated with any particular part numbers from any particular vendors. The Powerbooks, iBooks and iMacs are the stepchildren of the PowerMac.
My understanding is that the G naming fits the following:
- G1 (name not used) = 601 based
- G2 (name not used) = 603/604 based
- G3 = 75X based (IBM)
- G4 = 74XX based (Motorola)
- G5 = 970 based (IBM)
When Apple decides to go with G6 for a naming convention is anyone's guess. I would imagine that the GX name came about due to marketing as well as pragmatism. With this naming convention it is possible that Apple could use the same chip from IBM and Motorola that would have a different part number from each company yet be pretty much the same chip performance wise, a good case in point is the rumored IBM 750 VX. For simplifying matters Apple could call this a G4 chip rather than a G6 or G3.5, or G4.5 or what-ever, this could confuse matters and potentially hurt Apple's sales.Originally posted by @homenow
My understanding is that the G naming fits the following:G1 (name not used) = 601 based
G2 (name not used) = 603/604 based
G3 = 75X based (IBM)
G4 = 74XX based (Motorola)
G5 = 970 based (IBM)
When Apple decides to go with G6 for a naming convention is anyone's guess. I would imagine that the GX name came about due to marketing as well as pragmatism. With this naming convention it is possible that Apple could use the same chip from IBM and Motorola that would have a different part number from each company yet be pretty much the same chip performance wise, a good case in point is the rumored IBM 750 VX. For simplifying matters Apple could call this a G4 chip rather than a G6 or G3.5, or G4.5 or what-ever, this could confuse matters and potentially hurt Apple's sales.
What if IBM calls it an 850? Then what do we call it? It is a "new generation" of chip, but it shouldn't be the G6, as people would think G6 to be more powerful than G5. So what is it? The G thing is all an Apple marketing measure. Probably came about to conteract the P3 from Intel (G3 vs P3). MOT and IBM both made "G3s". IBM has never used the G naming scheme, and MOT only adopted it after the G4 and after Apple had been using it for a few years. In fact, when MOT showed the 7400 there was no mention of G4. It wasn't until Apple got the chip that it became known as the G4.
Intel had to call Banias something, and they couldn't call it a P5. So they call it Centrino. If and when this IBM chip comes out in an Apple branded machine, I think they have a few solid choices.
PPCM (PowerPC Mobile)
G4M (G4 Mobile)
G4 eXtreeme
or some random name like Centrino
G5M can't be used. Why? Because when the G5 powerbooks come out I think there would be too much confusion having a G5M iBook and a G5 PowerBook.
Originally posted by kupan787
G5M can't be used. Why? Because when the G5 powerbooks come out I think there would be too much confusion having a G5M iBook and a G5 PowerBook.
I dont think we'll ever se a 'G5' Powerbook. We will see a 'G5M' Powerbook though.
Originally posted by @homenow
My understanding is that the G naming fits the following:G1 (name not used) = 601 based
G2 (name not used) = 603/604 based
G3 = 75X based (IBM)
G4 = 74XX based (Motorola)
G5 = 970 based (IBM)
--snip--
You are overlooking this...
- G3 = 75X based (IBM/Motorola)
Moto made G3s for apple too... but apple later switched to just IBM G3s. My iMac 333 is Moto based.Originally posted by @homenow
For simplifying matters Apple could call this a G4 chip rather than a G6 or G3.5, or G4.5 or what-ever, this could confuse matters and potentially hurt Apple's sales.
I agree, this could hurt Apple if they call a 750xx chip a G4. I for one would not like Apple doing this and it might be a deal-breaker if I need to choose a "G4" Mac.