To me it seems like you can read anything you want into that quote (which is what happens most of the time anyway).
I wasn't there, but the way I understand it this quote is a response to someone asking about further optimizing of the OS - this wasn't in response to anything about future processors or how happy Apple currently is with their Mot lineup. This quote was said by a geek to a bunch of geeks (not that there is anything wrong with that!) in what I would imagine was a rather informal setting. Any real geek is disappointed in the legs of the G4 as far as the desktop environment is concerned (I know I am), and that is a great comment, but it isn't a PR announcement from Apple.
I personally think GPUL is coming, and I think there is a tiny chance Mot is working on a G5. The only thing I KNOW is I have no real knowledge of what is going to happen. But you can just as easily take this quote and use it to say Apple will stick with Mot as drop them.
Actually, there is a something keeping IBM from making G4's, its a Moto chip. While IBM has fabed G4's when Moto couldnt keep up with production, this was due to contract agreements that Apple had with Moto, and it limited IBM to fabing chips at or below speeds that Moto could fab. IBM can build a G4 compatible chip, but not with Alti-Vec, which as I understand it is Moto's propiatory version of the VMX SMD in the PPC architecture.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to reinforce what Telomar said, IBM already has their version of the Velocity Engine in the new 64-bit PPC chip. Add this engine to a G3 and voila', we have a G4 from IBM.
Be careful how you use that word WE... The truth is WE (as in the AI community) did know about GPUL before that MPF announcement. It was mentioned right here in future hardware before the MPF announcment and a much much smaller subset of WE knew about GPUL long before that but chose not to speak of it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm, yes. I should have used "most of us." Now that you mention it, we did hear of the GPUL in cryptic ways from several people, but it got lost with all the wild speculation going around. But the GPUL is a high profile project. A small project like adding the IBM SIMD engine to a G3 could easily go unnoticed.
<strong>There is nothing to stop IBM from making a G4 too. It is the GPUL that is getting the attention, but who can say that there are not other processors in the works? A faster G4 with a better bus would not rate a discussion at the Microprocessor Forum, so we wouldn't hear about it. We would not know about the GPUL either, except for the announcement.
(BTW, the topic startled me at first. I thought it said Hubbard takes a job at Motorola.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Funny. I remember seeing a Next demo years ago where Steve drew material into a Framemaker document from several different platforms. As he waited for the Mac's component to arrive, he made an offhand remark about the Mac's speed....
Based on some of the above comments, does this mean that Motorola will hire Hubbard, and he'll end up running the place?
Yes, that is the obvious way IBM would make a G4 and not infringe on Motorola.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't forget they'd also need to modify the FPU to be double precision (the G3 one is only single precision right now), and especially a new front side bus (the G3's 60x Bus is far slower than even the G4's MPX Bus). And unless I'm mistaken, the G3 also lacks some of the G4's SMP capabilities.
Don't forget they'd also need to modify the FPU to be double precision (the G3 one is only single precision right now), and especially a new front side bus (the G3's 60x Bus is far slower than even the G4's MPX Bus). And unless I'm mistaken, the G3 also lacks some of the G4's SMP capabilities.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. A little more work than I figured. If IBM did make a G4 for Apple, I bet they would use the same front side bus as the GPUL. That would make the processors consistent. And yes, SMP operation must be there too. Is the FPU of the G4 that much better than the G3? I don't know, but heard that Motorola compromised on that part of the chip.
The only difference between the G3 and G4 FPU is the G4 has a 3 cycle latency for double precision ops while the G3 has a 4 cycle latency for double precision ops. Everything is is virtually the same. The difference is almost zero.
If Motorola fabs a G4 on a 0.13 micron process, it will be an excellent processor for iBooks, iMacs, eMacs and Powerbooks for the next 2 years.
The only reason 'we' started to hear about GPUL when we did is because it's close to being done and usually the closer a project is to being done the more people who have to know about it.
D
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa! This means it's CLOSE TO BEING DONE! In other words, MWSF or MWNY at the very latest!
<strong>The only difference between the G3 and G4 FPU is the G4 has a 3 cycle latency for double precision ops while the G3 has a 4 cycle latency for double precision ops. Everything is is virtually the same. The difference is almost zero.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Still the point remains that the G3 does not have a full DP FPU, and this can make a difference in FP-intensive code.
(Besides, I think DP latency only is 3 cycles for the original 7400 and the 7410, not for the later G4 processors - those actually have a higher latency for most FP ops. Not sure if and how much FP latency differs between the original 750 and the latest ones.)
I thought this was interesting because it is the first time I remember hearing an Apple exec addressing the HW problems that the AI crew talks so much about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I seem to remember a couple of occasions (usually conf. calls with shareholders) where Jobs specifically called out Motorola's ineptitude at fabbing fast chips in useable quantities. Too lazy to go looking for them though.
the 750FX G3 chip from IBM supports a 200Mhz FSB, IIRC. SO Upping the bus wouldn't be on IBM's shoulders.
what are the chances of seeing a GPUL-G3 hybrid soon? Take the book-E structure, and use it to design a G3, and add VMX that way? May we see that chip sooner than either a G5 or a GPUL? Apple may even still call it a G4, but maybe it can clock above 1.5 more easily. Just an idea to toss out there.
<strong>The G4 is a good chip, its just too far behind in clock speed to be a good enough rival to the Pentium 4.
If Motorola could just put the G4 on the .13 micron process and make it fully compatable with DDR then Apple would be sorted for about 18 months.
Just out of interest, how much is Motorola worth??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the G3 is at what, 1.ghz now with a 200 FSB, and has the VMX unit, how would that stack up too the 1.25ghz G4? Whith the Sahara and the GPUL, I really don't see a reason to keep Moto. Unless you use the G3 for the iBook and GPUL for towers & PB leaving the G4 for iMac and eMac.
Well, the G3 is at what, 1.ghz now with a 200 FSB, and has the VMX unit, how would that stack up too the 1.25ghz G4?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G3 has 25% less clock rate compared to the G4. It does have a 200MHz bus vs. the G4's 167MHz bus, but keep in mind that the G3 still uses the old 60x bus mode, whereas the G4 can operate in the more efficient MPX bus mode. I don't quite see how using the G3 rather than the G4 would be a step forward.
Comments
I wasn't there, but the way I understand it this quote is a response to someone asking about further optimizing of the OS - this wasn't in response to anything about future processors or how happy Apple currently is with their Mot lineup. This quote was said by a geek to a bunch of geeks (not that there is anything wrong with that!) in what I would imagine was a rather informal setting. Any real geek is disappointed in the legs of the G4 as far as the desktop environment is concerned (I know I am), and that is a great comment, but it isn't a PR announcement from Apple.
I personally think GPUL is coming, and I think there is a tiny chance Mot is working on a G5. The only thing I KNOW is I have no real knowledge of what is going to happen. But you can just as easily take this quote and use it to say Apple will stick with Mot as drop them.
<strong>
Actually, there is a something keeping IBM from making G4's, its a Moto chip. While IBM has fabed G4's when Moto couldnt keep up with production, this was due to contract agreements that Apple had with Moto, and it limited IBM to fabing chips at or below speeds that Moto could fab. IBM can build a G4 compatible chip, but not with Alti-Vec, which as I understand it is Moto's propiatory version of the VMX SMD in the PPC architecture.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to reinforce what Telomar said, IBM already has their version of the Velocity Engine in the new 64-bit PPC chip. Add this engine to a G3 and voila', we have a G4 from IBM.
<strong>
Be careful how you use that word WE... The truth is WE (as in the AI community) did know about GPUL before that MPF announcement. It was mentioned right here in future hardware before the MPF announcment and a much much smaller subset of WE knew about GPUL long before that but chose not to speak of it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm, yes. I should have used "most of us." Now that you mention it, we did hear of the GPUL in cryptic ways from several people, but it got lost with all the wild speculation going around. But the GPUL is a high profile project. A small project like adding the IBM SIMD engine to a G3 could easily go unnoticed.
<strong>There is nothing to stop IBM from making a G4 too. It is the GPUL that is getting the attention, but who can say that there are not other processors in the works? A faster G4 with a better bus would not rate a discussion at the Microprocessor Forum, so we wouldn't hear about it. We would not know about the GPUL either, except for the announcement.
(BTW, the topic startled me at first. I thought it said Hubbard takes a job at Motorola.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, what about a G3 Sahara with VMX?
<strong>Funny. I remember seeing a Next demo years ago where Steve drew material into a Framemaker document from several different platforms. As he waited for the Mac's component to arrive, he made an offhand remark about the Mac's speed....
Based on some of the above comments, does this mean that Motorola will hire Hubbard, and he'll end up running the place?
That was really funny, on a number of levels.
<strong>
Well, what about a G3 Sahara with VMX?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that is the obvious way IBM would make a G4 and not infringe on Motorola.
<strong>
Yes, that is the obvious way IBM would make a G4 and not infringe on Motorola.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't forget they'd also need to modify the FPU to be double precision (the G3 one is only single precision right now), and especially a new front side bus (the G3's 60x Bus is far slower than even the G4's MPX Bus). And unless I'm mistaken, the G3 also lacks some of the G4's SMP capabilities.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Don't forget they'd also need to modify the FPU to be double precision (the G3 one is only single precision right now), and especially a new front side bus (the G3's 60x Bus is far slower than even the G4's MPX Bus). And unless I'm mistaken, the G3 also lacks some of the G4's SMP capabilities.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. A little more work than I figured. If IBM did make a G4 for Apple, I bet they would use the same front side bus as the GPUL. That would make the processors consistent. And yes, SMP operation must be there too. Is the FPU of the G4 that much better than the G3? I don't know, but heard that Motorola compromised on that part of the chip.
If Motorola fabs a G4 on a 0.13 micron process, it will be an excellent processor for iBooks, iMacs, eMacs and Powerbooks for the next 2 years.
<strong>
The only reason 'we' started to hear about GPUL when we did is because it's close to being done and usually the closer a project is to being done the more people who have to know about it.
D
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa! This means it's CLOSE TO BEING DONE! In other words, MWSF or MWNY at the very latest!
<strong>
It's a "Jump to Conclusions Mat"! You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO!
[ 10-03-2002: Message edited by: cinder ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
"I don't want to have to stand in line with those SCUMBAGS!!!"
I don't think it's improbable that Motorola wants to offload the G4. The G4 could be one of the chips to be made at IBM's new NY plant.
Barto
<strong>The only difference between the G3 and G4 FPU is the G4 has a 3 cycle latency for double precision ops while the G3 has a 4 cycle latency for double precision ops. Everything is is virtually the same. The difference is almost zero.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Still the point remains that the G3 does not have a full DP FPU, and this can make a difference in FP-intensive code.
(Besides, I think DP latency only is 3 cycles for the original 7400 and the 7410, not for the later G4 processors - those actually have a higher latency for most FP ops. Not sure if and how much FP latency differs between the original 750 and the latest ones.)
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Motorola seems to not give a rats about the G4. They use their best chip plants for the G5.
I don't think it's improbable that Motorola wants to offload the G4. The G4 could be one of the chips to be made at IBM's new NY plant.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
New York? Well you're aren't exactly close.. How about Kuala Lumpur? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Check out this thread...
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002528"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002528</a>;
Dave
<strong>
I thought this was interesting because it is the first time I remember hearing an Apple exec addressing the HW problems that the AI crew talks so much about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I seem to remember a couple of occasions (usually conf. calls with shareholders) where Jobs specifically called out Motorola's ineptitude at fabbing fast chips in useable quantities. Too lazy to go looking for them though.
what are the chances of seeing a GPUL-G3 hybrid soon? Take the book-E structure, and use it to design a G3, and add VMX that way? May we see that chip sooner than either a G5 or a GPUL? Apple may even still call it a G4, but maybe it can clock above 1.5 more easily. Just an idea to toss out there.
If Motorola could just put the G4 on the .13 micron process and make it fully compatable with DDR then Apple would be sorted for about 18 months.
Just out of interest, how much is Motorola worth??
<strong>The G4 is a good chip, its just too far behind in clock speed to be a good enough rival to the Pentium 4.
If Motorola could just put the G4 on the .13 micron process and make it fully compatable with DDR then Apple would be sorted for about 18 months.
Just out of interest, how much is Motorola worth??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the G3 is at what, 1.ghz now with a 200 FSB, and has the VMX unit, how would that stack up too the 1.25ghz G4? Whith the Sahara and the GPUL, I really don't see a reason to keep Moto. Unless you use the G3 for the iBook and GPUL for towers & PB leaving the G4 for iMac and eMac.
<strong>
Well, the G3 is at what, 1.ghz now with a 200 FSB, and has the VMX unit, how would that stack up too the 1.25ghz G4?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G3 has 25% less clock rate compared to the G4. It does have a 200MHz bus vs. the G4's 167MHz bus, but keep in mind that the G3 still uses the old 60x bus mode, whereas the G4 can operate in the more efficient MPX bus mode. I don't quite see how using the G3 rather than the G4 would be a step forward.
Bye,
RazzFazz