Across the board G5 desktop transition?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    mikemike Posts: 138member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by snoopy

    I think we'll see the G5 in PowerBooks and iMacs, but likely not in iBooks or eMacs. The G5's primary design goal is performance, and there is a limit to how low the power and cost can go.



    I *thought* the G5 was cheaper for Apple when compared to the G4. Now, does the whole package (memory controller, memory, etc) still come-in cheaper? Who knows!
  • Reply 22 of 44
    IMO, Apple wants to move to a 64 bit OS. It would be unwise to support both for any length of time. So all the product lines pro and consumer would have to upgrade. Would that not be a great 20th anniversary surprise, all the lines are moved to the g5 and then on dec 1, 2004 apple releases the new 64 bit OS for people to buy. Create a buying frenzy on the machines and then create another on the OS frenzy.



    Where was it that I read Apple had inquired about how many super bowl commercial spots are left. Oh yeah right here. They just can't buy the spot till the last minute to keep us rumor mongers at bay.



    One last note is that Apple has been paying IBM too design and develop two generations of chips at the same time, G5 and G6, so that Apple could catch up.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Apple stagger their hardware through the year. The PM's need upgrading now obviously but the real straggler at the moment is the iMac. With 20" screen its a mid-range SOHO machine and desperately needs a performance boost to match. I would expect a single 2gig G5 with the PM's at all dual 2, 2.4 and 2.6. The Powerbooks can wait until 3rd quarter and will undoubtedly need new form factors with the G5. The only question marks are the iBooks and eMac. I would just expect to see faster G4's for the moment but I think there is room for a new machine under the eMac. A headless PVR/Media Machine in 'living room' brushed aluminium maybe? I'm also really hoping for the fabled X-Station quad G5 at the top end, 90nm G5's may make that more likely.
  • Reply 24 of 44
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mike

    Apple could do it if they are not held-up with technical issues.



    Imagine the following:



    iBook - G5 1.2/512Mb RAM max

    PowerBooks - G5 1.6/1.8/2.0/2Gb RAM max

    PowerMacs - G5 2.6/2.8/3.0/8Gb RAM max

    iMac - G5 1.4/1Gb RAM max



    With marketing it is all about relative price/performance. The more G5's that Apple can get out into the market the better!



    If Apple came out with G5 iBooks and PowerBooks today I would order a G5 PowerBook. Why? I am willing to spend ~$3,000.00 and I want to give my 17" PowerBook to one of my guys. I also want another 17" screen laptop. I don't care if I could get a G5 iBook...it's still and iBook!




    Imagine a life free from your addiction to crack.



    NO WAY THAT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW.



    Expect faster powermacs. Hope for faster iMacs. G5 Powerbooks are a dream. G5 iBooks are a sign of pure insanity.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    philbyphilby Posts: 124member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TrevorD

    There's no reason to keep the iMac tremendously slower than the PMs. Even if the PowerBooks are a bit slower, who cares? PowerBooks are portables, and iMacs are desktops... it's generally accepted that portables are slower.



    well, I'd care, for one. I'd feel even more ripped-off than usual (PowerBook 17" is US$ 3850 over here... a cool $850 more than in the US) if a PowerBook G5 was slower, had a smaller screen, and still cost significantly more, than an iMac G5.
  • Reply 26 of 44
    smalmsmalm Posts: 677member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wizard69

    I mean lets face it the transitor count on this chip is very low and the die size is tiny, they are not using any more resources that a chip did 4 or 5 years ago.



    A 90nm process on a 300mm wafer that has cost a mountain of money?
  • Reply 27 of 44
    mikemike Posts: 138member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Yevgeny

    Imagine a life free from your addiction to crack.



    NO WAY THAT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW.




    What's happening tomorrow? Did you have a dream?
  • Reply 28 of 44
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mike

    I *thought* the G5 was cheaper for Apple when compared to the G4. Now, does the whole package (memory controller, memory, etc) still come-in cheaper? Who knows!



    The G5 may be cheaper than Motorola's current G4. Some say it is. The IBM Mojave should cost less than a G5, however. Mojave is surely a smaller, simpler chip than the G5, yet should be built on the same, 90 nm production line. The G5 is not inherently cheaper than the current G4, but IBM makes chips cheaper than Motorola can.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by snoopy

    The G5 may be cheaper than Motorola's current G4. Some say it is. The IBM Mojave should cost less than a G5, however. Mojave is surely a smaller, simpler chip than the G5, yet should be built on the same, 90 nm production line. The G5 is not inherently cheaper than the current G4, but IBM makes chips cheaper than Motorola can.



    But the 970 is here, when will the Mojave be released? I have't read of any firm dates, firm specs, or firm prices. I don't even remember reading any official anouncement of such a processor, at least the one that is being described in rumours recently.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    If the rumours regarding specifications of the new line up of Power Mac G5 desktops are correct, then I think the following will be quite reasonable, and a success:



    An iMac with the following specs:

    ? A slightly different form than current, (superficial, perhaps).

    ? A single 1.6 GHz G5 for lower end, 1.8 GHz for top end.

    ? 256 MB RAM or preferably 512 MB RAM standard.

    ? 80 GB HD standard.

    ? 64 MB minimum non-permanent graphics card, (for upgradeability).

    ? 17" LCD widescreen display as minimum.

    ? Combo Drive with SuperDirve an option.

    ? Airport Extreme as standard, plus Bluetooth standard, (or an option).



    Power Mac G5 desktops:

    ? Same as now but with only dual processors starting at 2.0 GHz.

    ? Faster clockspeeds throughout.

    ? Faster FSBs, etc...



    I think the iMac in the form above will give new life to Apple's consumer line, while the eMac gets the overclocked G4 chips at 1.42 GHz as the last Power Mac G4s did. m.
  • Reply 31 of 44
    I really doubt there is going to be anything happening tomorrow or for a while yet, I dont know why I'm suddenly pessimistic but I am.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    thttht Posts: 5,420member
    Even if all of Apple's Macintosh products have 970 CPUs, it'll only be short lived. Maybe a year or less. Eventually, a next generation 970-based CPU will come out on the 90 nm node that will have 1 MB on-chip L2 cache, multithreading, and more registers.



    Apple should have started transitioning to the G5 even sooner. The iMac could have been upgraded to 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970s last Fall instead of 1.25 GHz G4. The Powerbooks in Q1 04. Apple actually still has time to announce a Powerbook G5 in Q1 04. The eMacs and iBooks in Q2 04.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Good Grief.



    I get the impression that some people here think all of Apple's offerings under $2,000 have to suck terribly so they can feel better about their $3,000+ systems. With the $3,000 Powermac moving up to Dual 2.6Ghz G5 chips, there's no reason why Apple's $1,300-$2,000 consumer desktops can't carry 1.6-2Ghz G5 chips. And given the laptop's inability to accept a G5 chip at this time is no reason to castrate their consumer desktop systems.



    It wasn't too long ago that buying a laptop meant you got half the performance of a desktop system for twice the price, and everyone was fine with that. But then Motorola dug Apple into a Mhz black hole and the desktop systems couldn't scale any faster, allowing the laptops to catch up (mostly). Well now we have the G5 chip, so there's no reason to continue allowing Apple's entire lineup to suck just because the laptops are currently stuck with G4 processors.



    Intel and AMD don't hold back their desktop systems performance just to make $3,000 laptops look more powerful. If they've got faster chips, they'll use them. If the laptops lag behind, so be it. They'll catch up eventually.



    And yes, I believe we will see Dual 2.6Ghz G5's very soon, and I believe the iMac will be the next system to sport a G5 processor. You're insane if you think the Powermacs are going to get bumped up to dual 2.6Ghz while the iMacs remain at single 1.25Ghz. Remember, the iMac used to carry the same performance as the low-end Powermac. I think those days will be returning very soon.
  • Reply 34 of 44
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    Apple should have started transitioning to the G5 even sooner. The iMac could have been upgraded to 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970s last Fall instead of 1.25 GHz G4. The Powerbooks in Q1 04. Apple actually still has time to announce a Powerbook G5 in Q1 04. The eMacs and iBooks in Q2 04.



    I'm afraid that's highly unrealistic.

    I mean, the 130nm G5's were hot, and they were brand new and needed for Powermacs.

    If my understanding is correct, if they actually had done G5 laptops, they would have had to use the highest rated G5s and downclock them.



    I think you are expecting things the technology simply can't deliver.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cory Bauer

    It wasn't too long ago that buying a laptop meant you got half the performance of a desktop system for twice the price, and everyone was fine with that. But then Motorola dug Apple into a Mhz black hole and the desktop systems couldn't scale any faster, allowing the laptops to catch up (mostly).



    what a load of crap. in march 1998 the powerbook clocked 292Mhz with a 83Mhz bus and the tower clocked 300Mhz with a 66Mhz bus. i don't know which one was faster but they where the fastest pc's available at that time.

    it was 1.5 years before the G4 and 2 years before things starting to hurt and almost 3 years before apple came out with a G4 pb. the fact that the windows laptop offering sucked bigtime allowed the powerbook to catch up. something the powermac couldn't before the G5.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by oldmacfan

    IMO, Apple wants to move to a 64 bit OS. It would be unwise to support both for any length of time. . .





    32-bit software will run on a 64-bit Mac OS X just as well as the 64-bit applications do. Most applications will continue to be 32-bit from what I hear. Evidently only a minority of applications would benefit from 64-bit registers, and even these applications will likely run in either a 64 or 32 bit mode for many years to come.



    Also, even when OS X is fully 64 bit, Apple will no doubt have a 32-bit version. First, I understand it is not that difficult to produce both versions, and second, Apple would surely like to have the revenue from 32-bit Macs being upgraded.



    Mac users seem to be in a 64-bit frenzy. Sure, I believe the 64-bit 970 is the greatest thing to hit the Mac in many years, but it cannot provide top performance and still run as cool or be as cheap as a CPU designed for low end mass markets. The future of high end Macs looks very bright now, with the 970 and its roadmap. It is now the low end that is hurting most and needs attention.



    It is a matter of opinion as to what will help sales in the low end. Keep current prices and switch to the G5 processor, or cut prices by going to a cheaper CPU, which also works with less expensive system chips and memory? The Mojave, if it is real, is said to clock significantly higher than the present Motorola G4. So the low end would gain performance while cutting manufacturing cost.
  • Reply 37 of 44
    thttht Posts: 5,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Flounder

    I'm afraid that's highly unrealistic.



    Who knows what is realistic since we have near zero information on the engineering issues of parts in consideration let alone Apple's own motivations and resources.



    Engineering wise, I don't think it is that big of a problem. 1.4 GHz 970, single channel PC2700, 350 or 700 MHz bus, 2 memory slots, etc, all in a new G5 style iMac enclosure in Fall of 03.



    Quote:

    I mean, the 130nm G5's were hot, and they were brand new and needed for Powermacs.



    Yeah, but the some 20 to 30% of the rejects on the wafer that could only clock up to 1.4 or lower were most likely thrown into the recycle bin. I'm sure Apple could have had a use for them. Actually, the odds are that the majority of the 970 processors coming off the wafers at Fishkill could only clock up to 1.6 GHz.



    As for the heat dissipation, Apple can take of that problem with a more efficient fan system.



    Quote:

    If my understanding is correct, if they actually had done G5 laptops, they would have had to use the highest rated G5s and downclock them.



    In a sense yes. To do a Powerbook G5 with a 130 nm 970, Apple could have made the Powerbook G5 thicker (1.5+ inch) or chosen the highest quality parts that could be run at 1.1V or lower at 1.4 GHz. A 1.4 GHz 970 at 1.1V would have been approximately 35 Watts power consumption. That's Centrino territory.
  • Reply 38 of 44
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    What are the chances, if not across the board, that the G5 would actually find itself in the iMac FIRST? Would Apple actually put the model, which was first a consumer model, ahead of its pro notebooks?



    And if Apple could do the G5 wizardry more easily by using a slightly fatter case, then by all means, do it! Not a brick like the pathetic PC productions out there, but if it needs to have a little more breathing room, then let it. I know, I know -- we want them to take their time, to do this right, come out with a product off the line that doesn't have as many plaguing issues as the first TiBook.



    But c'ommon, let's re-take the throne at the top of the speed index in both notebooks and desktops again, enough waiting.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by neumac

    PowerMacs - G5 2.0/2.4/2.6 all DP



    G5 2.0 DP as the LOW END PowerMac.



    So how many users is Apple going to piss off by cutting $1200 in one price cut.



    No way. The low end PowerMac will be a single processor.
  • Reply 40 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Dave K.

    G5 2.0 DP as the LOW END PowerMac.



    So how many users is Apple going to piss off by cutting $1200 in one price cut.



    No way. The low end PowerMac will be a single processor.




    Advancement comes at a cost my friend, that cost is usually detrimental to previous generation buyers. I dont think it really matters if it is a $1,200 dollar price cut, it would make more people happy than mad, and Apple isnt in the business of carring about going too far foreward for one product revision. The faster the better, no complaints here.



    Even though it doesnt really matter, considering the unlikelyness of such a revision...Usually the rev's are incrimental enough that it doesnt bother anyone too much anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.