With another, 90nm, 7xxx chip planned, a faster memory bus, etc, and dual cores, there's a fair bit of leg left in the "G4 as we know it."
Also, Freescale has put out I believe 3 chip iterations in the time it has taken IBM to put 2 into production, so they're not such the slouch they once were. Time will tell there, and how they handle the 90nm transition will be a make or break situation.
Magnuson, explain please how recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticibly faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?
Rather than being childish, also, I'll point you to www.arstechnica.com so that you may endeavor to educate yourself (If the G5 religion allows you to of course).
With another, 90nm, 7xxx chip planned, a faster memory bus, etc, and dual cores, there's a fair bit of leg left in the "G4 as we know it."
Also, Freescale has put out I believe 3 chip iterations in the time it has taken IBM to put 2 into production, so they're not such the slouch they once were. Time will tell there, and how they handle the 90nm transition will be a make or break situation.
Magnuson, explain please how recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticibly faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?
Rather than being childish, also, I'll point you to www.arstechnica.com so that you may endeavor to educate yourself (If the G5 religion allows you to of course).
Ahem, do you know how many friggin' processors IBM developed in the same amount of time that Freescale/Motorola has been "developing" their next great thing. POWER4, POWER5, 970, 970fx. Get a clue.
Freescale may have plans, IBM delivers on them. Sure the 970 may not be the right chip for the PowerBook, but I would bet on them delivering the next chip for a PowerBook rather than something from Freescale.
? For our relevent purposes the 970GX and 970FX. everything else has not gone to production, which is, of course, where the rubber meets the road.
And of course the "we completely dropped the ball" G3 iterations. Their track record's not as rosy as the religion would have you believe.
I'm not talking about POWER4/5 iterations because that's a different development team for a different market, and really a fairly drastically different process.
Let's not forget, the G4 as we know it is pretty much topped out speedwise. You will not be getting a faster 7xxx chip from Freescale.
Actually, we will. The question with that crew is: when? But they've been pretty good post-spinoff.
We won't see much speedwise for as long as MaxBus is the external interface, but Freescale is bringing it on die, and that will allow the core to, uh, scale freely. The downside is that we're looking at late 2005/early-to-mid 2006, which gives IBM plenty of time to answer them. On the other hand, it's more or less a given that IBM's answer will require more power than Freescale's, so Apple will have the choice of reasonable performers at low wattage, or high performance at moderate wattage.
Quote:
IBM delivers, while Freescale/Motorola is stranded in roadmap hell. Let's face it, IBM will deliver a cool G-something for the PowerBook soon enough. I say summer is a good time to look for them.
Freescale's done OK, although the next year will really be a crucible for them. They have to pull off the process and architecture improvements they're planning, on time.
IBM, if you recall, has had some trouble delivering for the past year. They failed to get first the 970 and then the 970fx to run on 1.0v of current, forcing them to retract their claim that it was a laptop CPU. They then left Steve twisting in the wind on 3GHz; instead, the dual 2.5GHz PowerMac is just now coming out of a months-long backorder.
This is not to canonize Freescale or demonize IBM; only to argue against canonizing or demonizing either. The transition to 90nm has kicked everyone's ass.
All that said, keep an eye on the ISSCC conference next week. IBM is taking the wraps off Cell...
Magnuson, explain please how recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticeably faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?
Rather than being childish, also, I'll point you to www.arstechnica.com so that you may endeavor to educate yourself (If the G5 religion allows you to of course).
That's the second time you've referred to religion. Did you want to get jiggy in a Biblical sense or do you hear angels sing when you think you're testifying?
"How is recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticeably faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?" It's not. With the current reviews I can see that using a PB G4 could be slightly more beneficial for the most part over a G5 imac. BUT, this is not your overall message. You also failed to listen to the extremely valid responses as to why (in defense)...
What is the title of this thread? "I've decided I Don't want Apple to release a G5 PB."
"SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe."
"I betcha (nay, hope) Apple will come/already came to the same conclusion. Can the G5 spell Run?" This "is" your thread...
I seriously don?t wan?t a G5 if it?s going to hinder the already mediocre battery life. It also seems Apple PowerBooks are already getting bigger and heavier as the CPU?s get faster, the 12 inch is already one of the heaviest notebooks in it?s class. Where are the Apple equivalent Centrino/Transmeta low powered CPUs ? Come on Apple stop focusing on cute rape the customer consumer products and give us some Professional low weight, low power professional notebooks.
It?s 2005, inexcusable for cars to get less then 60 miles to a gallon, and for notebooks getting less then 6:00 hours of charge.
It?s 2005, inexcusable for cars to get less then 60 miles to a gallon, and for notebooks getting less then 6:00 hours of charge.
There are cars that get 60 miles to the gallon. Personally, I tend to prefer the ones that get 15 miles to the gallon. In that respect, there are also people who don't really care if a laptop get 6 hrs of battery life.
There are cars that get 60 miles to the gallon. Personally, I tend to prefer the ones that get 15 miles to the gallon. In that respect, there are also people who don't really care if a laptop get 6 hrs of battery life.
Options, you're talking about options. Great, so where are my options. A 5 lb subnotebook that gets 2.5 hours is not a good option. We have IBM T40s that get 5 hours have 14 inch screens and weigh the same as the Apples 12 inch.
Options, you're talking about options. Great, so where are my options. A 5 lb subnotebook that gets 2.5 hours is not a good option. We have IBM T40s that get 5 hours have 14 inch screens and weigh the same as the Apples 12 inch.
Options nearly invariably increase the individual cost of products, which is not a competitive place to be. Which is why options on the whole tend to disappear as time goes on, only reappearing when companies are doing poorly.
It must be reiterated that at the same clock speed, generally, the G5
1. has the same integer performance as the G4
2. has 50% more FPU performance as the G4
3. has the same AltiVec performance as the G4
with the addenda of
1. the G4 will perform better at random integer code
2. the G5 will perform better at random FPU code regardless (maybe a few cases where it doesn't)
3. the G4 will perform better at random AltiVec code
The opposite will true for streaming code,
1. The G5 will perform better at complex (multiplies) streaming integer code, perhaps better at simple (adds) streaming integer code
2. the G5 will perform 50+% better at streaming FPU code
3. the G5 will perform better at streaming AltiVec code
Again, these comments are for the same clock rate. Unless there is a pipelining issue I'm not aware of on the 970 AltiVec unit, the only advantage the G4 (744x/745x chips) AltiVec unit has is being able to issue FPU and Integer instructions at the same time. Don't think that is a common case. Most PPC code is also optimize for the G4 with G4 specific prefetch instructions. These instructions kill G5 performance. Once all PPC code is optimized for both, many of the irregularities seen in benchmarks should go away.
So the advantage of a Powerbook G5 is 50% better FPU performance per clock, and whatever additional MHz it may have due to its longer pipeline. It can also make use of higher performance memory and graphics buses. The disadvantage is form factor and weight. Apple has room for both a Powerbook G4 and Powerbook G5.
SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe. Give me a 8641(D) G4 PowerBook.
You do recognize that the 8641 is not due until early 2006, do you? What should Apple do until then, sit on their laurels if a notebook-compatible 970something should be ready?
If the G5 is a viable option, performance wise, go for it. But I suspect the 8641 will beat the G5 in that regard, at least until mid-late 2006. Which is what I was saying above.
IBM Delivers? I can't get a simple 3 ghz processor. While at work they are using 3.4, 3.8 and such. Even a single 3.2 on windows is noticably "snappier" in the daily use department than my dual 2.5ghz g5. Sure my g5 can processor photoshop (about the same speed) but when browsing, loading the file manager, checking email, and other crap my work PC is faster. WHERE the hell is a blazing fast processor from IBM? 3ghz at least? Fast isnt' good enough, i want it to scream like a rocket at supersonic speeds.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Ahem, do you know how many friggin' processors IBM developed in the same amount of time that Freescale/Motorola has been "developing" their next great thing. POWER4, POWER5, 970, 970fx. Get a clue.
Freescale may have plans, IBM delivers on them. Sure the 970 may not be the right chip for the PowerBook, but I would bet on them delivering the next chip for a PowerBook rather than something from Freescale.
Comments
With another, 90nm, 7xxx chip planned, a faster memory bus, etc, and dual cores, there's a fair bit of leg left in the "G4 as we know it."
Also, Freescale has put out I believe 3 chip iterations in the time it has taken IBM to put 2 into production, so they're not such the slouch they once were. Time will tell there, and how they handle the 90nm transition will be a make or break situation.
Magnuson, explain please how recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticibly faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?
Rather than being childish, also, I'll point you to www.arstechnica.com so that you may endeavor to educate yourself (If the G5 religion allows you to of course).
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Rhumgod, where you been?
With another, 90nm, 7xxx chip planned, a faster memory bus, etc, and dual cores, there's a fair bit of leg left in the "G4 as we know it."
Also, Freescale has put out I believe 3 chip iterations in the time it has taken IBM to put 2 into production, so they're not such the slouch they once were. Time will tell there, and how they handle the 90nm transition will be a make or break situation.
Magnuson, explain please how recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticibly faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?
Rather than being childish, also, I'll point you to www.arstechnica.com so that you may endeavor to educate yourself (If the G5 religion allows you to of course).
Ahem, do you know how many friggin' processors IBM developed in the same amount of time that Freescale/Motorola has been "developing" their next great thing. POWER4, POWER5, 970, 970fx. Get a clue.
Freescale may have plans, IBM delivers on them. Sure the 970 may not be the right chip for the PowerBook, but I would bet on them delivering the next chip for a PowerBook rather than something from Freescale.
And of course the "we completely dropped the ball" G3 iterations. Their track record's not as rosy as the religion would have you believe.
I'm not talking about POWER4/5 iterations because that's a different development team for a different market, and really a fairly drastically different process.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Let's not forget, the G4 as we know it is pretty much topped out speedwise. You will not be getting a faster 7xxx chip from Freescale.
Actually, we will. The question with that crew is: when? But they've been pretty good post-spinoff.
We won't see much speedwise for as long as MaxBus is the external interface, but Freescale is bringing it on die, and that will allow the core to, uh, scale freely.
IBM delivers, while Freescale/Motorola is stranded in roadmap hell. Let's face it, IBM will deliver a cool G-something for the PowerBook soon enough. I say summer is a good time to look for them.
Freescale's done OK, although the next year will really be a crucible for them. They have to pull off the process and architecture improvements they're planning, on time.
IBM, if you recall, has had some trouble delivering for the past year. They failed to get first the 970 and then the 970fx to run on 1.0v of current, forcing them to retract their claim that it was a laptop CPU. They then left Steve twisting in the wind on 3GHz; instead, the dual 2.5GHz PowerMac is just now coming out of a months-long backorder.
This is not to canonize Freescale or demonize IBM; only to argue against canonizing or demonizing either. The transition to 90nm has kicked everyone's ass.
All that said, keep an eye on the ISSCC conference next week. IBM is taking the wraps off Cell...
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Magnuson, explain please how recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticeably faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?
Rather than being childish, also, I'll point you to www.arstechnica.com so that you may endeavor to educate yourself (If the G5 religion allows you to of course).
That's the second time you've referred to religion. Did you want to get jiggy in a Biblical sense or do you hear angels sing when you think you're testifying?
"How is recognizing the Fact that the G5 at similar clock speeds with the throttled down bus is not noticeably faster, and some times slower than the G4 pessimism?" It's not. With the current reviews I can see that using a PB G4 could be slightly more beneficial for the most part over a G5 imac. BUT, this is not your overall message. You also failed to listen to the extremely valid responses as to why (in defense)...
What is the title of this thread? "I've decided I Don't want Apple to release a G5 PB."
"SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe."
"I betcha (nay, hope) Apple will come/already came to the same conclusion. Can the G5 spell Run?" This "is" your thread...
What pessimism?!?!
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G5/8GB_RA....html#storytop
G5 systems with minimum ram configuration, can be as much as 4 times slower than other ram configurations.
The religion of "G5" fanatacism. And obviously I don't mean G4 for the next ten years. Just the next 1-2 while IBM gets it's act together.
Perhaps I should specify "The current G5 should bend over and take it"?
but then I don't have much hope for the next iteration either unless IBM can do some serious process mojo.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Magonus,
The religion of "G5" fanatacism. And obviously I don't mean G4 for the next ten years. Just the next 1-2 while IBM gets it's act together.
Perhaps I should specify "The current G5 should bend over and take it"?
but then I don't have much hope for the next iteration either unless IBM can do some serious process mojo.
Ahhhhhh, the voice of reason. Kinda forget what it sounds like after a while in these parts.
It?s 2005, inexcusable for cars to get less then 60 miles to a gallon, and for notebooks getting less then 6:00 hours of charge.
Originally posted by Relic
It?s 2005, inexcusable for cars to get less then 60 miles to a gallon, and for notebooks getting less then 6:00 hours of charge.
There are cars that get 60 miles to the gallon. Personally, I tend to prefer the ones that get 15 miles to the gallon. In that respect, there are also people who don't really care if a laptop get 6 hrs of battery life.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are cars that get 60 miles to the gallon. Personally, I tend to prefer the ones that get 15 miles to the gallon. In that respect, there are also people who don't really care if a laptop get 6 hrs of battery life.
Options, you're talking about options. Great, so where are my options. A 5 lb subnotebook that gets 2.5 hours is not a good option. We have IBM T40s that get 5 hours have 14 inch screens and weigh the same as the Apples 12 inch.
Originally posted by Relic
Options, you're talking about options. Great, so where are my options. A 5 lb subnotebook that gets 2.5 hours is not a good option. We have IBM T40s that get 5 hours have 14 inch screens and weigh the same as the Apples 12 inch.
Options nearly invariably increase the individual cost of products, which is not a competitive place to be. Which is why options on the whole tend to disappear as time goes on, only reappearing when companies are doing poorly.
1. has the same integer performance as the G4
2. has 50% more FPU performance as the G4
3. has the same AltiVec performance as the G4
with the addenda of
1. the G4 will perform better at random integer code
2. the G5 will perform better at random FPU code regardless (maybe a few cases where it doesn't)
3. the G4 will perform better at random AltiVec code
The opposite will true for streaming code,
1. The G5 will perform better at complex (multiplies) streaming integer code, perhaps better at simple (adds) streaming integer code
2. the G5 will perform 50+% better at streaming FPU code
3. the G5 will perform better at streaming AltiVec code
Again, these comments are for the same clock rate. Unless there is a pipelining issue I'm not aware of on the 970 AltiVec unit, the only advantage the G4 (744x/745x chips) AltiVec unit has is being able to issue FPU and Integer instructions at the same time. Don't think that is a common case. Most PPC code is also optimize for the G4 with G4 specific prefetch instructions. These instructions kill G5 performance. Once all PPC code is optimized for both, many of the irregularities seen in benchmarks should go away.
So the advantage of a Powerbook G5 is 50% better FPU performance per clock, and whatever additional MHz it may have due to its longer pipeline. It can also make use of higher performance memory and graphics buses. The disadvantage is form factor and weight. Apple has room for both a Powerbook G4 and Powerbook G5.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe. Give me a 8641(D) G4 PowerBook.
You do recognize that the 8641 is not due until early 2006, do you? What should Apple do until then, sit on their laurels if a notebook-compatible 970something should be ready?
Sure 1.8-2.0 GHz with a 200 MHz bus ain't much but it's better then nothing.
Originally posted by Electric Monk
The 7448 should be out for an update in the fall.
Sure 1.8-2.0 GHz with a 200 MHz bus ain't much but it's better then nothing.
Add to that 1 MB L2 cache memory, which would result in a significant performance improvement (today we are at 512 KB).
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Ahem, do you know how many friggin' processors IBM developed in the same amount of time that Freescale/Motorola has been "developing" their next great thing. POWER4, POWER5, 970, 970fx. Get a clue.
Freescale may have plans, IBM delivers on them. Sure the 970 may not be the right chip for the PowerBook, but I would bet on them delivering the next chip for a PowerBook rather than something from Freescale.