What If There's No More G4s or G5s?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Those hippy folks at AMD have recently stopped declaring processor speeds in an attempt to stem the mind tide against Mega/Gigahertz and Intel. So now, if you buy an Athlon, you can get an 1800+, which running at <cough> 1.53GHz </cough>.



So what's the possibility of Steve and Friends dropping the G4 (or G5) from the PowerMac nomenclature? Then they're free to market whatever processor Mot makes up (providing there's still someone in <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/23453.html"; target="_blank">their plant</a> to make the things). That could mean an Apollo low end, with a G5 high end. After all, the high end usually comes out weeks after the keynote, giving them time. They've already tried attacking the Megahertz myth, so they could try backing off on marketing the processor altogether. &lt;sarcasm&gt; Everybody already knows they have a supercomputer &lt;/sarcasm&gt;. Merthel, quick! Super-duper glue another heat sink on that processor!



And remember, EMC engineers do it until it Megahertz.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 36
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    Even if they did do what AMD has done, why would they drop the neams of the chip?
  • Reply 2 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>Even if they did do what AMD has done, why would they drop the neams of the chip?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So they can simply call it "PowerMac" without using G4 or G5. Then they can make a mix of it. G4 for the low end, G5 for the upper. They may do the same for iMac, for example, if they want a mix of G3 and G4 (if SuperDrive equipped).



    This frees up the marketing quandry of "G3 is a consumer chip," "G4 is for Professionals," etc. They'll just say, "Buy a PowerMac-- don't worry what's inside," "Buy an iMac-- it's good for you."



    "G5, schmeeefive, it runs all the Aqua goodness you need! Buy one now! Buy two!"
  • Reply 3 of 36
    Bring back 603s
  • Reply 4 of 36
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    There is a big big difference between hiding the clock speed of the chip and hiding what the chip itself is.



    Intel don't advertise a PIII as a PIV nor AMD an AthlonXP as an Athlon (Thunderbird).



    Similarly Apple shouldn't even attempt to pass off a G4 as a G5 and hiding it would just make a PR disaster.
  • Reply 5 of 36
    Perhaps this is changing the topic slightly, but I've been wondering about this whole topic of measuring processor speeds. Now, as we know, the speed of a processor = Clock Speed x Instructions per Cycle. Easy, right?



    Well, that tidy little formula is obfuscated somewhat by the fact that the actual instructions per clock will vary (due to mispredictions, etc), and also because of the differences between instruction sets.



    It has suited Intel to simply use MHz as their marketing tool, and the mainstream press has been amazingly compliant in this regard. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    Nothing new here, so far. So here's my suggestion: we should draw some inspiration from the way that sound systems measure their power to come up with a better measurement. You know how when you see a cheap-arse ghetto-blaster in a store, it will often have some insane power level listed on it in PMPO. This is just the peak power level, so it has little bearing on the power output across the full range of frequencies.



    Respectable sound equipment will instead cite RMS figures, which is Root Mean Squared. RMS will give a much more conservative and realistic figure for the power output of a system. (I'm not an electronics engineer, I had this stuff explained to me several years ago--apologies for any errors.)



    It should be straightforward enough to construct a broad suite of relatively low-level integer and FP operations that all processors do, and take some sort of mean (harmonic? geometric? I'm not a mathematician) of the results.



    I suppose that the old Bytemarks were a little bit like this. I recall that the windroid crowd used to complain that Bytemarks were biased towards PPC because they gave too much weight to certain operations that PPC did really well. Perhaps there's some truth to this, perhaps there isn't. But it should be possible to smooth out these sorts of idiosyncrasies with the right kind of averaging, perhaps in conjunction with some measure of the amount of deviation around this mean. (Variance? Volatility? whatever.)



    e.g. Chip A scored 1900 AImarks with a variance of 30%, whereas Chip B scored 1700 AImarks with a variance of 50%. So for a mythical "typical" user, chip A would be faster for most tasks, but chip B might be better for some specialised applications.



    There you are kids. I'll wait for the lurking EE majors and statisticians to tell me why this is ill-conceived.
  • Reply 6 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:

    <strong>

    So what's the possibility of Steve and Friends dropping the G4 (or G5) from the PowerMac nomenclature? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think they're going to drop the g numbers and call it something completely new. Like the new Apple Power Granny or Super Delicious.



  • Reply 7 of 36
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Mactivist:

    <strong>



    I think they're going to drop the g numbers and call it something completely new. Like the new Apple Power Granny or Super Delicious.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I doubt they'e going to do that, but I think it's about time. the whole G thing seems old now.
  • Reply 8 of 36
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Maybe they should name it by the year it cam eout. I know it's not an original idea but it would help keep the machines in order.



    PowerMac 2002



    Or get some original names:



    PowerMac Lightning

    PowerMac Midnight Manifesto

    PowerMac Maximus

    PowerMac!
  • Reply 9 of 36
    nitzernitzer Posts: 115member
    Power Macintosh V
  • Reply 10 of 36
    I think they should come out with a PowerMac 2600. Since you can emulate an Atari 2600 on them.
  • Reply 11 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>Maybe they should name it by the year it cam eout. I know it's not an original idea but it would help keep the machines in order.



    PowerMac 2002</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was just thinking how this was a terrible idea because my Power Mac would sound so outdated. "PowerMac 1999". But then it hit me, thats EXACTLY what Apple would want! I'd probably upgrade a lot faster....hah



    Right now just saying that I have a Power Mac G4 (even though its the first one at 450) sounds like its still pretty new



  • Reply 12 of 36
    How about PowerMac X. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    tj
  • Reply 13 of 36
    [quote]It has suited Intel to simply use MHz as their marketing tool, and the mainstream press has been amazingly compliant in this regard.<hr></blockquote>



    Okay.



    Excactly where has Intel marketed product based on a Mhz number?



    What ad? What commercial? What public statement?



    Intel has actually made a public statement saying MHZ does not equal performance.
  • Reply 14 of 36
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by JFW:

    <strong>



    Okay.



    Excactly where has Intel marketed product based on a Mhz number?



    What ad? What commercial? What public statement?



    Intel has actually made a public statement saying MHZ does not equal performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, here's one from a press release-





    [quote] Intel® Xeon? Processors Reach 2 Gigahertz For Workstations <hr></blockquote>



    Need some more public statements with Intel using mhz numbers?
  • Reply 15 of 36
    Well....lets get real smart.I remember once Steve

    Jobs said,I have a notebook IBM with NeXTStep O/S

    on it.So lets get it together.Wait until Sept.

    2003 and get the G-5 at 2.5 Ghz or better and 200 Gig.,DVD-R, Hard drive etc..Lets not let the marketing hype overtake us?Like that device Ginger...give me a break.So Powermac G4 over 1 Ghz,LCD iMac,Maybe 17" short tube CRT iMac,iPod..

    big Deal...alot of free marketing hype and what a good O/S which happens to be a pleasure to look at.Business as usual.Apple Computer once again with all the clout it has it doesnt deliver. Get Real...look at the design of the iPod.My remote control from DirectTv has shape to it.The iPod is square,flat, and boring.Next year it will be a $100.00 cheaper.Word of mouth is Apples strongest marketing point.Plus their advertisement in Time

    magazine.Good photo of the their equipment at the correct angle.After a month of use it becomes

    a novelty.It is out-dated the day it is shipped.Unless you have a business which will take advantage of the technology.Which for 3-D graphics

    an NT workstation with the correct video card will blow the mac out of the water.So..please lets face the real facts.So G-4 or G-5 once again.. Apple

    Computer is behind the times.Over priced and falls

    short of the expectations of its followers.So Sept. 2002 Apple Computer Unveils G-5 slated for third quarter 2002 1.8 Ghz.....Whoopi...Goldberg.
  • Reply 16 of 36
    kidred:



    [quote]Need some more public statements with Intel using mhz numbers?



    <hr></blockquote>



    To clarify: what marketing have they done to the fact that performance == mhz?



    The statemtnt above wasn't what I meant. Everybody releases statements on new clockspeed achievements.
  • Reply 17 of 36
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by Renan:

    <strong>Well....lets get real smart.I remember once Steve

    Jobs said,I have a notebook IBM with NeXTStep O/S

    on it.So lets get it together.Wait until Sept.

    2003 and get the G-5 at 2.5 Ghz or better and 200 Gig.,DVD-R, Hard drive etc..Lets not let the marketing hype overtake us?Like that device Ginger...give me a break.So Powermac G4 over 1 Ghz,LCD iMac,Maybe 17" short tube CRT iMac,iPod..

    big Deal...alot of free marketing hype and what a good O/S which happens to be a pleasure to look at.Business as usual.Apple Computer once again with all the clout it has it doesnt deliver. Get Real...look at the design of the iPod.My remote control from DirectTv has shape to it.The iPod is square,flat, and boring.Next year it will be a $100.00 cheaper.Word of mouth is Apples strongest marketing point.Plus their advertisement in Time

    magazine.Good photo of the their equipment at the correct angle.After a month of use it becomes

    a novelty.It is out-dated the day it is shipped.Unless you have a business which will take advantage of the technology.Which for 3-D graphics

    an NT workstation with the correct video card will blow the mac out of the water.So..please lets face the real facts.So G-4 or G-5 once again.. Apple

    Computer is behind the times.Over priced and falls

    short of the expectations of its followers.So Sept. 2002 Apple Computer Unveils G-5 slated for third quarter 2002 1.8 Ghz.....Whoopi...Goldberg.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Whatever torll. My 3 year old G4 is still rocking, so is my 3 month old iBook. My wife has no complaints about her 1 1/2 old iMac. The iBook is the exact opposite of being overpriced. The iPod? mm, the HD itself costs $300+. Outdated the day it ships? And I suppose it taking 3 years for PCs to elimibate the floppy is out-dated?



    You face the facts, if you have a problem with Mac then go snatch your self a state of the art PC and cry before you even get home because the peice of shit is outdated the HOUR AFTER YOU BOUGHT IT.
  • Reply 18 of 36
    rbaldrbald Posts: 108member
    Sure Apple dosen't want to talk mhz! Why should they? Their fastest chip runs at 867 mhz! While intel and amd are running 2200 mhz, 1500 mhz! Does anyone really believe that mhz don't count speech of steve jobs! It's not the mac faithful! It's the mac gullible! Apple computers are just plain slower! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 19 of 36
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    You MUST have just smoked 4 joints to have said that!
  • Reply 20 of 36
    rbaldrbald Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by Renan:

    <strong>Well....lets get real smart.I remember once Steve

    Jobs said,I have a notebook IBM with NeXTStep O/S

    on it.So lets get it together.Wait until Sept.

    2003 and get the G-5 at 2.5 Ghz or better and 200 Gig.,DVD-R, Hard drive etc..Lets not let the marketing hype overtake us?Like that device Ginger...give me a break.So Powermac G4 over 1 Ghz,LCD iMac,Maybe 17" short tube CRT iMac,iPod..

    big Deal...alot of free marketing hype and what a good O/S which happens to be a pleasure to look at.Business as usual.Apple Computer once again with all the clout it has it doesnt deliver. Get Real...look at the design of the iPod.My remote control from DirectTv has shape to it.The iPod is square,flat, and boring.Next year it will be a $100.00 cheaper.Word of mouth is Apples strongest marketing point.Plus their advertisement in Time

    magazine.Good photo of the their equipment at the correct angle.After a month of use it becomes

    a novelty.It is out-dated the day it is shipped.Unless you have a business which will take advantage of the technology.Which for 3-D graphics

    an NT workstation with the correct video card will blow the mac out of the water.So..please lets face the real facts.So G-4 or G-5 once again.. Apple

    Computer is behind the times.Over priced and falls

    short of the expectations of its followers.So Sept. 2002 Apple Computer Unveils G-5 slated for third quarter 2002 1.8 Ghz.....Whoopi...Goldberg.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I couldn't of said it better myself!!!!!!!!!

    <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Sign In or Register to comment.