Right, but I was asking principally about the 7,1 7,2 specs in OS X 10.3.5 that people are alluding to. Those that mention it generally seem (like Rhumgod above) to think it's pretty conclusive evidence against the speedbump. I just want to know why.
Right, but I was asking principally about the 7,1 7,2 specs in OS X 10.3.5 that people are alluding to. Those that mention it generally seem (like Rhumgod above) to think it's pretty conclusive evidence against the speedbump. I just want to know why.
--B
Powerbook 7,1 and 7,2 use the MacRISC4 architecture. The Powermac G5, iMac G5, and Xserve G5 also use the MacRISC4 architecture.
Powerbook 7,1 and 7,2 use the MacRISC4 architecture. The Powermac G5, iMac G5, and Xserve G5 also use the MacRISC4 architecture.
Not knowing what Powerbooks we're currently on (I assume they're 6,x--correct me if I'm wrong) is it impossible that there will be another 6,x before these touted 7s? Would those specs show alongside the 7,1 and 7,2 that have been spotted, or would a speedbumped PB not show as a seperate number--just a variant using the same number that the entire series shares?
An interesting question might be just how much faster a G5 PowerBook is going to be.
These benchmarks at http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5.html seem to suggest that if you pit a current 1.5Ghz model PB G4 against a current model 18 Ghz iMac G5, the PB holds its own pretty well.
You would expect a G5 PB to have a better graphics card than the iMac (could it have a worse one?). In fact the current choice for the iMac of the NVidia over a mobility radeon may be to help preserve the next (or even current) PB's advantage over the consumer iMac.
This could be reading too much into this decision (in fact it probably is), but Apple will have planned its G5 PBs alongside the rest of its line. Because Apple carefully hobbles its systems so they maintain their relativity, what's in one part of their line-up gives good clues to what is in another.
I don't see Apple fitting both a Mobility Radeon 9800 and a G5 in that Powerbook case (or a new case of similar size) and dealing with the cumulative heat issues, though I am sure they could deal with one or other. The laptops I have seen with the 9800 in them are all built like tanks.
Will the PB have a faster bus on it than the iMac's 600 MHz? Maybe not.
On the basis of the benchmarks, there is room for argument over how perceptiblly faster a G5 will be. But a reasonable person could still conclude that the current PB is still a very respectable performer, and will remain so.
Me? I just wanna know what a G5 PowerBook chassis would look like! )
An interesting question might be just how much faster a G5 PowerBook is going to be.
These benchmarks at http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5.html seem to suggest that if you pit a current 1.5Ghz model PB G4 against a current model 18 Ghz iMac G5, the PB holds its own pretty well.
If a Powerbook G5 had the same Radeon 9700 as the Powerbook G4, at the same clock rate, the PB G5 would have the same integer performance, 50% better FPU performance and the same AltiVec performance. So, if Apple produced a 1.8 GHz Powerbook G5, it would be 20% faster in integer apps, 50+% faster in floating point apps and 20% faster in AltiVec apps.
Where the iMac G5 loses out to the Powerbook G4 are in graphics intensive applications such as games. Having the same GPU as the PB G4 or better will solve that rather easily.
Quote:
Will the PB have a faster bus on it than the iMac's 600 MHz? Maybe not.
A Powerbook G5 would likely use a 1/3 or 1/4 FSB ratio.
Quote:
On the basis of the benchmarks, there is room for argument over how perceptiblly faster a G5 will be.
There is pretty much no room for argument. All the benchmarks show that the 970 has the same integer performance, +50% floating point performance and the same AltiVec performance per MHz as the Moto 744x/745x. The issue will be what clock rate 970 Apple can put in a 1 inch thick Powerbook and when a 1.5+ GHz 74XX will appear. If Apple can put a 1.8 GHz 970fx in there, then a Powerbook G5 will appear in Q1 05. If Freescale can produce a 1.8 GHz 7448 in Q1 2005, then Apple has good options to choose from. All signs are pointing to Freescale shipping the 7448 in late Q2 05 though.
All the benchmarks show that the 970 has the same integer performance, +50% floating point performance and the same AltiVec performance per MHz as the Moto 744x/745x.
It seems to me that the benchmarks favor the G4 since they look like rather common tasks that don't fill up completely the G5 bus. Run a test on a G5 that can do that. Run it then on a G4. Sit down and watch.
Pure processor-wise, the proportions indeed seem to be what you already said. But in reality the differences can be huge.
i remember the exact same debate going on in oct/nov/dec 2000 about whether apple would update with a powerbook G4.
only the nieve, or daft or those not wanting to tempt fate, would deny it is highly likely. SFMW is when powerbooks are revised, and no-one can deny how overdue that line is for a revamp.
we were told we would not see powerbook G5's for some time, however that was SOMETIME ago!
The question of most concern is whether apple will have anything to update the powerbooks with come january. I think we all know that the 7448 is not going to be ready by then, and I am quite unsure of a 970m being ready either. It seems IBM has been having a lot of trouble with their new process and even the 2.5Ghz towers are barely shipping. If apple does somehow release new PowerBooks at MWSF I doubt they will ship until february or something. Most likely we will have to wait till march to see PowerBook updates. Of course, if IBM has been working on a 970 low power for over a year now or longer I suppose it is possible that they could have it ready by jan. Does anybody know anything in this respect? Here's to hoping...
The question of most concern is whether apple will have anything to update the powerbooks with come january. I think we all know that the 7448 is not going to be ready by then, and I am quite unsure of a 970m being ready either.
this is exactly my thought. i'm with rhumgod that 7,1/7,2 indicate prep for the G5 book. but as i recall, rhumgod first posted that insight many months ago (can't remember which X update). and apple tech probably added those version profiles at least a month or two before then.
ie: maybe at a time when apple expected low-power, high-yield, book-ready G5s by this timeframe.
i does seem possible that, with IBM's slips, a change of plan has been forced, leaving apple to decide whether to just stall until the 7,1 machines are ready, or slide out a 6,(n+1) stopgap.
that said, i won't be too disappointed in another G4 bump. i've been waiting a very long time to upgrade my PB, pending resolution of G5 options. but fact is, the current 15" is a pretty solid package for everything except intense-FPU apps. and for that you'd want a dual G5 desktop anyway.
i have money allotted for post-MWSF PB purchase, but am with the camp that will be very wary of the first rev of G5 books.
we all know the tech hurdles (heat, battery life, etc...) involved in producing such a book, and that IBM is pushing the silicon's limits already. as such, apple tech may not have much breathing room in safety margins, so there's no guarantee they will get it right the first time. producing 10 prototypes that work reliably is much different than producing 100,000 shippable machines that all work reliably.
moreover, there will likely be a case redesign, increasing the variables for QA to cover. with apple's recent track record of casing glitches (eg: screen warps, dark spots, corroding wrist rests, etc...), it seems precarious to assume they will nail all the bases on the first shot.
so, for my part, if MWSF just brings a G4 bump, i'll probably sniff it a couple times, then snap it up. if MWSF does bring a G5 PB, i'll sniff extra hard and wait for some early user reports. if there's any sense of risk, i'll look for discounted closeouts of the current G4. less speed, but more peace of mind til the G5 PB architecture is proven reliable.
I was down playing with a 15" PB next to a new iBook yesterday, as I also have some cash to drop on a new PB when I think the time is right.
The 15" was no more snappy than the iBook at the variety of everyday tasks I threw at them. So I wasn't really feeling harked back to the days when Apple PBs were cutting-edge, killer machines.
I have to agree that a further G4 revision could be nice - in fact it could be a chance for Apple to roll out a reliable, very comfortable to use laptop in advance of chancing their hand with the new G5s.
If Apple was serious about it (and they may not be if a G5 PB is close at hand) there are a lot of things they could do to make a G4 PB a very nice little machine indeed.
Me? All I'm waiting for right now is a Radeon 9800 mobility or better, and I'll be sold! )
I too will be suspicious of the first revision of a new machine. Let's hope Apple has used the extra time on its hands (and there's been lots of it!) to iron out any unforeseen defects.
I am not suspicious of a Rev.A PowerBook G5. I think Apple will have the glitches worked out. I had a Rev.A PowerBook G4 Titanium and had NO problems with it.
I am not suspicious of a Rev.A PowerBook G5. I think Apple will have the glitches worked out. I had a Rev.A PowerBook G4 Titanium and had NO problems with it.
I also have a Rev. A PBG4 which has worked flawlessly, but I would very hesitant to buy a first generation PBG5. Not exactly sure why -- maybe because there's a lot of pressure on Apple to get one out as soon as possible.
I am not suspicious of a Rev.A PowerBook G5. ... I had a Rev.A PowerBook G4 Titanium and had NO problems with it.
my thoughts there:
there are many people who have perfectly working Al books. and then there are those who have dark spots, screen warpage, etc... there will always be a few "bad apples" in a production run. key is what the odds are on getting a lemon, and then having to deal with apple support to resolve the issues.
re: Ti.A vs G5.A, been a long time, so i don't recall off-hand what hurdles were involved in the G3 to G4 migration. but my sense is that the G4 to G5 migration is a steeper slope. subthoughts there:
(a) compare the heatsink on the current G5 towers to the equiv on the last round of G4 duals. the 90nm 970FX runs cooler than the original 970, and powertune will help. but unless i missed something recently (quite possible, been busy), clock-for-clock a 970FX is still hotter than the 7447A, right?
(b) both CPU and bus are being upgraded, each subsystem being hotter than the corresponding system in the G4, right?
if G5 hotter, plus increased bus heat, and apple (steve) wants to maintain the current sub-1" thickness, then apple engineers have had some tough decisions to make re: heat dissipation. they already went with liquid cooling in the desktop G5, so they're clearly willing to explore new options. question is, how many unexpected issues will arise from the options they choose?
apple has had "energy-based" tech glitches before. eg:
(a) factory recall on batteries that might "explode."
(b) how hot some of the TiBooks were (plus "endless fan" issue).
(c) the noise of the "wind tunnel" dual G4 model.
for clarity, i have no inside info on issues or how apple is addressing them. just my sense from the collective info available and extrapolation of past experience.
i have no doubt that apple is working hard to assure decent quality control. but there are a few lemons in every run, and with the design issues posed by G5+bus, they may have thinner safety margins than usual in the push to get the 7,1 model out the door (eg: marketing pressure).
in the end, it all comes down to the probability of getting one of the lemons. if MWSF does bring the PB G5, i may take the risk if it passes the following checklist. but if any of the points below feel iffy, i'll stick with a stopgap G4, and upgrade when the SMT, dual-core, etc... wave of goodness breaks on the beach.
apple (or ars/xlr8yourmac/etc) provides compelling explanation for how apple solved the heat issues.
i can try one at the local apple store, run a ton of apps to spike CPU load for 5 minutes, and verify the keyboard won't fry eggs.
the initial reports from early adopters don't raise any/many red flags.
the case size/weight doesn't bloat much. (fwiw, i highly doubt steve would let this happen, but it may be a last resort in a panic.)
Comments
Most folks presume this means the 12PB will get one final bumped G4.
We'll see.
--B
Originally posted by bergz
Right, but I was asking principally about the 7,1 7,2 specs in OS X 10.3.5 that people are alluding to. Those that mention it generally seem (like Rhumgod above) to think it's pretty conclusive evidence against the speedbump. I just want to know why.
--B
Powerbook 7,1 and 7,2 use the MacRISC4 architecture. The Powermac G5, iMac G5, and Xserve G5 also use the MacRISC4 architecture.
Originally posted by quagmire
Powerbook 7,1 and 7,2 use the MacRISC4 architecture. The Powermac G5, iMac G5, and Xserve G5 also use the MacRISC4 architecture.
What do the current G4 iBooks and PowerBooks use?
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
What do the current G4 iBooks and PowerBooks use?
MacRISC2PE. Just change the 2 to 4 and you have the G5 architecture.
Originally posted by quagmire
Powerbook 7,1 and 7,2 use the MacRISC4 architecture. The Powermac G5, iMac G5, and Xserve G5 also use the MacRISC4 architecture.
Not knowing what Powerbooks we're currently on (I assume they're 6,x--correct me if I'm wrong) is it impossible that there will be another 6,x before these touted 7s? Would those specs show alongside the 7,1 and 7,2 that have been spotted, or would a speedbumped PB not show as a seperate number--just a variant using the same number that the entire series shares?
--B
These benchmarks at http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5.html seem to suggest that if you pit a current 1.5Ghz model PB G4 against a current model 18 Ghz iMac G5, the PB holds its own pretty well.
You would expect a G5 PB to have a better graphics card than the iMac (could it have a worse one?). In fact the current choice for the iMac of the NVidia over a mobility radeon may be to help preserve the next (or even current) PB's advantage over the consumer iMac.
This could be reading too much into this decision (in fact it probably is), but Apple will have planned its G5 PBs alongside the rest of its line. Because Apple carefully hobbles its systems so they maintain their relativity, what's in one part of their line-up gives good clues to what is in another.
I don't see Apple fitting both a Mobility Radeon 9800 and a G5 in that Powerbook case (or a new case of similar size) and dealing with the cumulative heat issues, though I am sure they could deal with one or other. The laptops I have seen with the 9800 in them are all built like tanks.
Will the PB have a faster bus on it than the iMac's 600 MHz? Maybe not.
On the basis of the benchmarks, there is room for argument over how perceptiblly faster a G5 will be. But a reasonable person could still conclude that the current PB is still a very respectable performer, and will remain so.
Me? I just wanna know what a G5 PowerBook chassis would look like!
Originally posted by spin dr bob
An interesting question might be just how much faster a G5 PowerBook is going to be.
These benchmarks at http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5.html seem to suggest that if you pit a current 1.5Ghz model PB G4 against a current model 18 Ghz iMac G5, the PB holds its own pretty well.
If a Powerbook G5 had the same Radeon 9700 as the Powerbook G4, at the same clock rate, the PB G5 would have the same integer performance, 50% better FPU performance and the same AltiVec performance. So, if Apple produced a 1.8 GHz Powerbook G5, it would be 20% faster in integer apps, 50+% faster in floating point apps and 20% faster in AltiVec apps.
Where the iMac G5 loses out to the Powerbook G4 are in graphics intensive applications such as games. Having the same GPU as the PB G4 or better will solve that rather easily.
Will the PB have a faster bus on it than the iMac's 600 MHz? Maybe not.
A Powerbook G5 would likely use a 1/3 or 1/4 FSB ratio.
On the basis of the benchmarks, there is room for argument over how perceptiblly faster a G5 will be.
There is pretty much no room for argument. All the benchmarks show that the 970 has the same integer performance, +50% floating point performance and the same AltiVec performance per MHz as the Moto 744x/745x. The issue will be what clock rate 970 Apple can put in a 1 inch thick Powerbook and when a 1.5+ GHz 74XX will appear. If Apple can put a 1.8 GHz 970fx in there, then a Powerbook G5 will appear in Q1 05. If Freescale can produce a 1.8 GHz 7448 in Q1 2005, then Apple has good options to choose from. All signs are pointing to Freescale shipping the 7448 in late Q2 05 though.
Originally posted by THT
All the benchmarks show that the 970 has the same integer performance, +50% floating point performance and the same AltiVec performance per MHz as the Moto 744x/745x.
It seems to me that the benchmarks favor the G4 since they look like rather common tasks that don't fill up completely the G5 bus. Run a test on a G5 that can do that. Run it then on a G4. Sit down and watch.
Pure processor-wise, the proportions indeed seem to be what you already said. But in reality the differences can be huge.
only the nieve, or daft or those not wanting to tempt fate, would deny it is highly likely. SFMW is when powerbooks are revised, and no-one can deny how overdue that line is for a revamp.
we were told we would not see powerbook G5's for some time, however that was SOMETIME ago!
Originally posted by Algol
The question of most concern is whether apple will have anything to update the powerbooks with come january. I think we all know that the 7448 is not going to be ready by then, and I am quite unsure of a 970m being ready either.
this is exactly my thought. i'm with rhumgod that 7,1/7,2 indicate prep for the G5 book. but as i recall, rhumgod first posted that insight many months ago (can't remember which X update). and apple tech probably added those version profiles at least a month or two before then.
ie: maybe at a time when apple expected low-power, high-yield, book-ready G5s by this timeframe.
i does seem possible that, with IBM's slips, a change of plan has been forced, leaving apple to decide whether to just stall until the 7,1 machines are ready, or slide out a 6,(n+1) stopgap.
that said, i won't be too disappointed in another G4 bump. i've been waiting a very long time to upgrade my PB, pending resolution of G5 options. but fact is, the current 15" is a pretty solid package for everything except intense-FPU apps. and for that you'd want a dual G5 desktop anyway.
i have money allotted for post-MWSF PB purchase, but am with the camp that will be very wary of the first rev of G5 books.
we all know the tech hurdles (heat, battery life, etc...) involved in producing such a book, and that IBM is pushing the silicon's limits already. as such, apple tech may not have much breathing room in safety margins, so there's no guarantee they will get it right the first time. producing 10 prototypes that work reliably is much different than producing 100,000 shippable machines that all work reliably.
moreover, there will likely be a case redesign, increasing the variables for QA to cover. with apple's recent track record of casing glitches (eg: screen warps, dark spots, corroding wrist rests, etc...), it seems precarious to assume they will nail all the bases on the first shot.
so, for my part, if MWSF just brings a G4 bump, i'll probably sniff it a couple times, then snap it up. if MWSF does bring a G5 PB, i'll sniff extra hard and wait for some early user reports. if there's any sense of risk, i'll look for discounted closeouts of the current G4. less speed, but more peace of mind til the G5 PB architecture is proven reliable.
so goes the early adopter dilemma...
I was down playing with a 15" PB next to a new iBook yesterday, as I also have some cash to drop on a new PB when I think the time is right.
The 15" was no more snappy than the iBook at the variety of everyday tasks I threw at them. So I wasn't really feeling harked back to the days when Apple PBs were cutting-edge, killer machines.
I have to agree that a further G4 revision could be nice - in fact it could be a chance for Apple to roll out a reliable, very comfortable to use laptop in advance of chancing their hand with the new G5s.
If Apple was serious about it (and they may not be if a G5 PB is close at hand) there are a lot of things they could do to make a G4 PB a very nice little machine indeed.
Me? All I'm waiting for right now is a Radeon 9800 mobility or better, and I'll be sold!
I too will be suspicious of the first revision of a new machine. Let's hope Apple has used the extra time on its hands (and there's been lots of it!) to iron out any unforeseen defects.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
I am not suspicious of a Rev.A PowerBook G5. I think Apple will have the glitches worked out. I had a Rev.A PowerBook G4 Titanium and had NO problems with it.
I also have a Rev. A PBG4 which has worked flawlessly, but I would very hesitant to buy a first generation PBG5. Not exactly sure why -- maybe because there's a lot of pressure on Apple to get one out as soon as possible.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
I am not suspicious of a Rev.A PowerBook G5. ... I had a Rev.A PowerBook G4 Titanium and had NO problems with it.
my thoughts there:
- there are many people who have perfectly working Al books. and then there are those who have dark spots, screen warpage, etc... there will always be a few "bad apples" in a production run. key is what the odds are on getting a lemon, and then having to deal with apple support to resolve the issues.
- re: Ti.A vs G5.A, been a long time, so i don't recall off-hand what hurdles were involved in the G3 to G4 migration. but my sense is that the G4 to G5 migration is a steeper slope. subthoughts there:
- if G5 hotter, plus increased bus heat, and apple (steve) wants to maintain the current sub-1" thickness, then apple engineers have had some tough decisions to make re: heat dissipation. they already went with liquid cooling in the desktop G5, so they're clearly willing to explore new options. question is, how many unexpected issues will arise from the options they choose?
- apple has had "energy-based" tech glitches before. eg:
for clarity, i have no inside info on issues or how apple is addressing them. just my sense from the collective info available and extrapolation of past experience.(a) compare the heatsink on the current G5 towers to the equiv on the last round of G4 duals. the 90nm 970FX runs cooler than the original 970, and powertune will help. but unless i missed something recently (quite possible, been busy), clock-for-clock a 970FX is still hotter than the 7447A, right?
(b) both CPU and bus are being upgraded, each subsystem being hotter than the corresponding system in the G4, right?
(a) factory recall on batteries that might "explode."
(b) how hot some of the TiBooks were (plus "endless fan" issue).
(c) the noise of the "wind tunnel" dual G4 model.
i have no doubt that apple is working hard to assure decent quality control. but there are a few lemons in every run, and with the design issues posed by G5+bus, they may have thinner safety margins than usual in the push to get the 7,1 model out the door (eg: marketing pressure).
in the end, it all comes down to the probability of getting one of the lemons. if MWSF does bring the PB G5, i may take the risk if it passes the following checklist. but if any of the points below feel iffy, i'll stick with a stopgap G4, and upgrade when the SMT, dual-core, etc... wave of goodness breaks on the beach.
My take on MWSF...but what do I know...
My Grandma will turn 50 in January. I will get her a Powerful book for her birthday.
Yep.