MOSR's report is total bull$#!%. I'm getting to where I can spot these puppies a mile away. The MHZ estimates are waaay too starry-eyed. Given the past 5 years we've had with Motorola, I had a good belly laugh when I read the estimates going all the way up to 20 GHZ in short order! Yeah, rite! And if you remember the press reports from 1998, the PowerPC was supposed to be the first chip to break the GHZ barrier; we are now dead last.
The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.
<strong>The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.
Maybe the two processors are not related, but it still doesn't seem to promising.
Hope I'm wrong, because come January I'm buying the best machine I can afford.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me too.
If that is the G5, that's pretty damning evidence. Still, it also means that it's at least a year away from market, and that page also says that it's "projected to be 600MHz - 1GHz, with power consumption expected to be 6.5W at 800MHz." That doesn't make it sound like a G5. Maybe the portable version, or (more likely) the embedded version?
The G4 introduction was a complete suprise if you will remember, so the lack of real information on the G5 is the only credible evidence that I see (or don't) that would point to a possible introduction.
As far as mosr's most recent prognostication, I doubt any person that closely associated with the G5 development would have lips that loose. They wouldn't last two weeks in the Apple Gestapo.
The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.
How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably >=2 times as expensive as the PC?
A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen? The version of Quake, 1.3, I think is Altivec aware.
The above are not impressive in the least.
I recognize that gaming isn't everything (I'm not a gamer). But, winning contrived "bake offs" between Mac and PC using Photoshop isn't going to get junior to plead with ma and pa to get an Apple. The Apple "experience" can overcome small deltas in price and performance - it is next to impossible to convince PC'ers to switch for less performance in important arenas and more $$.
[quote] How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably >=2 times as expensive as the PC?
<hr></blockquote>
There is not a game you can play on a Mac that won't play like a dream on a DP800. It will handle all games adequately for the next three (give or take) years. What's the problem? Maybe you should leave the numbers at the door and step inside and try the computer out yourself? It's true that the DP800 is not quite the "BigDog", but it's certainly big enough.
My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.
So what? It is my belief that this is a large, untapped market for Apple. If you cannot convince these young people to at least consider a Mac then it will be doubly hard to get their parents to consider a Mac.
But, these issues aside: those tests were singularly unimpressive for the Macs.
I just read that MOSR article.....lol that would be some funny sh!t if Steve actually said something like that.......does anyone remember the stuff about Steve throwing a phone when he was talking with Moto? Oh boy.....I'd have a heart attack if I saw that.
I believe Apple is being aggresive in getting the G5 out. The low-end 7460s are an interesting concept, and unfortunately could be true. However, the G5 prices stated at The Register were lower than that of the P4. Hopefully Apple realizes what us consumers want, and makes a big bang at MWSF.
[quote]My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.<hr></blockquote>
If Apple tripled the game performance of their machines tomorrow, there still wouldn't be sufficient incentives for most: All the theoretical performance in the world doesn't count for much if the games aren't there. By going with DirectX, MS has successfully tied 99% of all game development closely to Windows, and the effort required to port over to the Mac relative to the market (and the diminished appeal of a game that's released 6 months later) makes it worth the effort only for some A-list titles. There are some (Half-Life) that will never make it to the Mac.
Faster machines won't lure game developers, either. Believe it or not, the iMac looks great to a game developer. But porting is still a daunting and expensive project. The initial development budgets tend to consume whatever resources the company has.
To try to bring this back around to topic, the G5 - even if it boasts astonishing gaming performance - will appeal primarily to graphics artists of various kinds, engineers, people working in TV and film, scientists, musicians and producers - the people who have always shelled out for the most powerful Macs. That is who Apple will target. Unless there is a radical change in the way games are made for the PC - which is highly unlikely at this point - the Mac games market will remain in the shape it's currently in until Apple commands a much larger market share than it does now.
I have tried to say before that we should be looking at as much evidence as we can find and then, using what we know, draw some reasonable conclusions.
We have heard that Job's has been quoted as saying the MHZ gap would be over by the end of this year....given his slight underestimation of timelines (such as 10.1 in September...that was a close one), this could reasonably mean January's MacWorld. Why does this point to a G5? Well, it would be highly unlikely for the G4 to go from 867mhz to say, 1.6ghz in one fell swoop. Even though 1.6 isn't really there, it is much closer, and would, from what we know, detroy a Pentium chip in terms of performance. I think this is a resonable indicator. I don't think Apple is any happier than we are at the perceived gap....and they want to fix it. This, IMHO, points to a G5 release at SF or Tokyo.
We also have been hearing from sources that the G5 is sampling well and yields are better. It sounds as if they are within weeks of finalizing the first run. More and more people are jumping on board in saying it IS going to happen. Well, when I keep hearing it over and over again from different sources, I start to take notice. We have also heard a fairly consisent story in terms of speeds, Altivec performance, etc. The source at Rumors and the Register actually seems legit to me. the info seems very plausible and, well, it just reads like a legit thing to me....I know that is subjective but I am going with my gut here as well.
As far as not having enough time, that isn't true at all. If Apple has everything else ready to go (enclosure, board, etc.), and the rumors of "1200 or so" prototypes floating around are true, then they are simply waiting on the processors. I believe that within 30-60 days of the processors being ramped up in terms of production, Apple can crank a G5 out the door. This means if the chip was deemed suitable on say one month from today, they could ship these things without a problem by February.
Other things that point to a G5 are:
1) The G4 has been around for quite awhile now. Apple could use the marketing kick.
2) The iMac is also suffering, and has been for a year. This means LCD iMac and perhaps a G4. We obviously won't have a G4 iMac AND a G4 in the towers.
All in all, I think the evidence points to a G5.
The argument for LCD iMac is even more compelling. The iMac design is three years old. We expected it last time, but it is reasonable to conclude that Apple waited due to market conditions. If Apple brought this out early next year though, I think we would see a huge upgrade cycle. If it had a G4 the cycle would be even bigger. The PC market will still be in shambles, but Apple will have a truly different and powerful machine. I think this will also happen.
Sorry this is so long. It just seems that the evidence points to both happening. anyone have other evidence in SUPPORT of these coming out?
The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.<hr></blockquote>
Two reasons that I can see:
1. Fast RAM. Those two G4s are absolutely starved for bandwidth, and until Apple puts at least PC2100 DDR RAM into their products we simply will not see the same kind of framerates that they see on the PC side of the camp. Fortunately this seems to be a hurdle that Apple will soon surmount. I hope.
2. Better drivers. I don't think anyone can argue this, and Apple just has to slog through it.
[quote]A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen?<hr></blockquote>
The GeForce2Go is a better graphics card than the mobile Radeon. The Radeon used in the G4 does not have hardware T&L while the GeForce does, and then there is the driver issue as well.
On a more general note, Altivec is of limited use in the Q3 engine. It probably provides a 15% speedup at very low resolutions and detail levels, but above that it's all about bandwidth. I am also skeptical of Apple's claims to support write combining at anything approaching the level of that in the intel architectures.
It should also be noted that the 7450 chips seem to have a lower bus throughput figure that could be a factor in both cases.
All in all, I really don't think that it matters much. Even if the Mac consistently reached 1000fps in Wolf3D and Quake3 it still doesn't have the sheer mass of games that exist for the PC, and nobody will ever buy a Mac if gaming is their sole priority.
The MOSR article stated that the price for the G5 might be too expensive to warrent its inclusion on the lower 2 or so models of the Power Macs.
My question, what would they call the new machines? Power Mac G4&5, just Power Mac, or have two semi-separate product lines called Power Mac G4 and G5.
Having 2 chips on the high-end towers would be somewhat confusing to the consumer (albeit most of the customers of the towers are pros.)
They should all be G5, or all G4, not both. Preferably G5.
If they want to appease Mot, why not have the G4 (7460s) in the iMacs, and maybe PowerBooks (if feasable).
I don't really want to see another G3 iMac.
But of course, this is an article posted on MOSR, so of course, none of what I say could matter.
Its good to see AppleInsider back up. Just noticed it today.
I believe that sources at MOSR sound legit. I think that January is very possible for the G5. Although the G4/G5 combo lineup is questionable. I think this could be a mistake. They should go totally to the G5 and use the G4 remaining in the LCD iMac when it's released. Hopefully along side the new G5 at MWSF.
I really think MWSF has gotta be good. The towers are hurting, and the iMacs are just utter crap. I can't imagine they're selling any of those awful Dalmation/Flower Power things.
They need to get back in the performance race. Don't give me any crap about the MHz myth either - these new Athlon XP procs kick the sh*t out of anything Apple's got. And the P4 is probably going to go to 3GHz *soon*. Apple still not being able to get above the GHz barrier, when backa few years ago people were speculating they'd be *first* to break it is just ridiculous. It is a joke. No one is gonna pay the $2500+ for a G4/867 when they can get a GHz Athlon for $500.
I think this is make-or-break time for Apple. They've tried to put off doing anything very impressive with their desktop line for a long time now.
Comments
Not really, the MIPS is at what?
500mhz?
The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.
<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>;
[quote]"Samples of the MPC8540 are expected to be available in the second half of 2002."<hr></blockquote>
Maybe the two processors are not related, but it still doesn't seem to promising.
Hope I'm wrong, because come January I'm buying the best machine I can afford.
<strong>
woah! ::rubs eyes::
cipher? a junior member?
Woah! ::rubs eyes::
AlwertWU? a junior member? Say it ain't so.
All of us MacNN 'ers are junior members.....kinda sucks
G5, im still betting on january Demo and Intro, shipment in febuary type of thing. just wait and see....
What they could do, to get rid of G4 stock,<hr></blockquote>
I think that's what the new Apple Promo $500 off G4/Studio Display that has been running for the last 2 weeks and ends Dec 31st is for
<strong>The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.
<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>;
Maybe the two processors are not related, but it still doesn't seem to promising.
Hope I'm wrong, because come January I'm buying the best machine I can afford.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me too.
If that is the G5, that's pretty damning evidence. Still, it also means that it's at least a year away from market, and that page also says that it's "projected to be 600MHz - 1GHz, with power consumption expected to be 6.5W at 800MHz." That doesn't make it sound like a G5. Maybe the portable version, or (more likely) the embedded version?
Alex
That, of course, makes it an attractive notebook processor as well.
The 8500, by way of contrast, is rumored to suck down about 40W.
As far as mosr's most recent prognostication, I doubt any person that closely associated with the G5 development would have lips that loose. They wouldn't last two weeks in the Apple Gestapo.
There is a large, untapped market for Mac - gamers. To attract this population, Macs need to become faster and cheaper.
Consider the following tests:
<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pm02.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pm02.html</a>;
The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.
How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably >=2 times as expensive as the PC?
How about these results:
<a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/PowerBookG4_fall2001/powerbook_g4_667_quake3.html"; target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/PowerBookG4_fall2001/powerbook_g4_667_quake3.html</a>;
A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen? The version of Quake, 1.3, I think is Altivec aware.
The above are not impressive in the least.
I recognize that gaming isn't everything (I'm not a gamer). But, winning contrived "bake offs" between Mac and PC using Photoshop isn't going to get junior to plead with ma and pa to get an Apple. The Apple "experience" can overcome small deltas in price and performance - it is next to impossible to convince PC'ers to switch for less performance in important arenas and more $$.
My $0.02
[quote] How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably >=2 times as expensive as the PC?
<hr></blockquote>
There is not a game you can play on a Mac that won't play like a dream on a DP800. It will handle all games adequately for the next three (give or take) years. What's the problem? Maybe you should leave the numbers at the door and step inside and try the computer out yourself? It's true that the DP800 is not quite the "BigDog", but it's certainly big enough.
My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.
So what? It is my belief that this is a large, untapped market for Apple. If you cannot convince these young people to at least consider a Mac then it will be doubly hard to get their parents to consider a Mac.
But, these issues aside: those tests were singularly unimpressive for the Macs.
I believe Apple is being aggresive in getting the G5 out. The low-end 7460s are an interesting concept, and unfortunately could be true. However, the G5 prices stated at The Register were lower than that of the P4. Hopefully Apple realizes what us consumers want, and makes a big bang at MWSF.
[quote]My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.<hr></blockquote>
If Apple tripled the game performance of their machines tomorrow, there still wouldn't be sufficient incentives for most: All the theoretical performance in the world doesn't count for much if the games aren't there. By going with DirectX, MS has successfully tied 99% of all game development closely to Windows, and the effort required to port over to the Mac relative to the market (and the diminished appeal of a game that's released 6 months later) makes it worth the effort only for some A-list titles. There are some (Half-Life) that will never make it to the Mac.
Faster machines won't lure game developers, either. Believe it or not, the iMac looks great to a game developer. But porting is still a daunting and expensive project. The initial development budgets tend to consume whatever resources the company has.
To try to bring this back around to topic, the G5 - even if it boasts astonishing gaming performance - will appeal primarily to graphics artists of various kinds, engineers, people working in TV and film, scientists, musicians and producers - the people who have always shelled out for the most powerful Macs. That is who Apple will target. Unless there is a radical change in the way games are made for the PC - which is highly unlikely at this point - the Mac games market will remain in the shape it's currently in until Apple commands a much larger market share than it does now.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
We have heard that Job's has been quoted as saying the MHZ gap would be over by the end of this year....given his slight underestimation of timelines (such as 10.1 in September...that was a close one), this could reasonably mean January's MacWorld. Why does this point to a G5? Well, it would be highly unlikely for the G4 to go from 867mhz to say, 1.6ghz in one fell swoop. Even though 1.6 isn't really there, it is much closer, and would, from what we know, detroy a Pentium chip in terms of performance. I think this is a resonable indicator. I don't think Apple is any happier than we are at the perceived gap....and they want to fix it. This, IMHO, points to a G5 release at SF or Tokyo.
We also have been hearing from sources that the G5 is sampling well and yields are better. It sounds as if they are within weeks of finalizing the first run. More and more people are jumping on board in saying it IS going to happen. Well, when I keep hearing it over and over again from different sources, I start to take notice. We have also heard a fairly consisent story in terms of speeds, Altivec performance, etc. The source at Rumors and the Register actually seems legit to me. the info seems very plausible and, well, it just reads like a legit thing to me....I know that is subjective but I am going with my gut here as well.
As far as not having enough time, that isn't true at all. If Apple has everything else ready to go (enclosure, board, etc.), and the rumors of "1200 or so" prototypes floating around are true, then they are simply waiting on the processors. I believe that within 30-60 days of the processors being ramped up in terms of production, Apple can crank a G5 out the door. This means if the chip was deemed suitable on say one month from today, they could ship these things without a problem by February.
Other things that point to a G5 are:
1) The G4 has been around for quite awhile now. Apple could use the marketing kick.
2) The iMac is also suffering, and has been for a year. This means LCD iMac and perhaps a G4. We obviously won't have a G4 iMac AND a G4 in the towers.
All in all, I think the evidence points to a G5.
The argument for LCD iMac is even more compelling. The iMac design is three years old. We expected it last time, but it is reasonable to conclude that Apple waited due to market conditions. If Apple brought this out early next year though, I think we would see a huge upgrade cycle. If it had a G4 the cycle would be even bigger. The PC market will still be in shambles, but Apple will have a truly different and powerful machine. I think this will also happen.
Sorry this is so long. It just seems that the evidence points to both happening. anyone have other evidence in SUPPORT of these coming out?
The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.<hr></blockquote>
Two reasons that I can see:
1. Fast RAM. Those two G4s are absolutely starved for bandwidth, and until Apple puts at least PC2100 DDR RAM into their products we simply will not see the same kind of framerates that they see on the PC side of the camp. Fortunately this seems to be a hurdle that Apple will soon surmount. I hope.
2. Better drivers. I don't think anyone can argue this, and Apple just has to slog through it.
[quote]A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen?<hr></blockquote>
The GeForce2Go is a better graphics card than the mobile Radeon. The Radeon used in the G4 does not have hardware T&L while the GeForce does, and then there is the driver issue as well.
On a more general note, Altivec is of limited use in the Q3 engine. It probably provides a 15% speedup at very low resolutions and detail levels, but above that it's all about bandwidth. I am also skeptical of Apple's claims to support write combining at anything approaching the level of that in the intel architectures.
It should also be noted that the 7450 chips seem to have a lower bus throughput figure that could be a factor in both cases.
All in all, I really don't think that it matters much. Even if the Mac consistently reached 1000fps in Wolf3D and Quake3 it still doesn't have the sheer mass of games that exist for the PC, and nobody will ever buy a Mac if gaming is their sole priority.
My question, what would they call the new machines? Power Mac G4&5, just Power Mac, or have two semi-separate product lines called Power Mac G4 and G5.
Having 2 chips on the high-end towers would be somewhat confusing to the consumer (albeit most of the customers of the towers are pros.)
They should all be G5, or all G4, not both. Preferably G5.
If they want to appease Mot, why not have the G4 (7460s) in the iMacs, and maybe PowerBooks (if feasable).
I don't really want to see another G3 iMac.
But of course, this is an article posted on MOSR, so of course, none of what I say could matter.
Its good to see AppleInsider back up. Just noticed it today.
You kidding? The Sahara I'm sure will be a great chip when it comes out. I think we might be in a G3-G4-G5 line up.
iBook: 700-1 GHz G3
iMac: 1 GHzish G4
PowerBook: 1 - 1.2 GHz G4
Power Mac: 1.6 Ghzish G5
I'm generalizing next year as one big event in that prediction.
They need to get back in the performance race. Don't give me any crap about the MHz myth either - these new Athlon XP procs kick the sh*t out of anything Apple's got. And the P4 is probably going to go to 3GHz *soon*. Apple still not being able to get above the GHz barrier, when backa few years ago people were speculating they'd be *first* to break it is just ridiculous. It is a joke. No one is gonna pay the $2500+ for a G4/867 when they can get a GHz Athlon for $500.
I think this is make-or-break time for Apple. They've tried to put off doing anything very impressive with their desktop line for a long time now.