Apple, IBM and 64-Bit CPU [Archive]

MacRumors

Sep 19, 2002, 12:17 PM

eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,543317,00.asp) has further reports of an Apple-IBM partnership for upcoming PowerPC processors (called GPUL -- GigaProcessor Ultralite)

Some observers say GPUL -- which shares technology with IBM's server-focused Power4 chip -- will double Mac performace. However, they caution that the chip probably won't reach Apple's consumer systems for more than a year at the earliest

The article indicates that the processor will incorporate other advances as well, including a 0.13 process, SOI, and a multicore design.

This article echos some rumors reported by MacEdition (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/09/20020915215539.shtml) which indicated that prototype machines were currently under testing. Their target date for these machines was also Late 2003.

eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,543321,00.asp) keeps hope alive for upcoming Motorola processors with this quote about the G5: Meanwhile, sources said, the long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003.

Tiauguinho

Sep 19, 2002, 12:26 PM

Excelent! Next year a new Mac! Bring it on!

I wonder if it will be a 8 Way Superscalar? but i sure do like the name... GigaProcessor Ultralite!! yeah!

PROZAKY

Sep 19, 2002, 12:30 PM

That's good news.

...Yet, another year!!!:confused:

Hemingray

Sep 19, 2002, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by PROZAKY
That's good news.

...Yet, another year!!!:confused:

Yeah... ain't that always the way? We forever have a carrot (or in this case, an apple) dangling in front of us. Oh well, I can definitely wait. :) Already waited three years, what's another year. :D

P.S. Welcome to MacRumors.

rugby

Sep 19, 2002, 12:44 PM

I am glad I'm not waiting, and just getting a computer now. By the time I am ready to purchase again (2 years or so) they should have all the bugs ironed out and speed ramped up a bit.

barkmonster

Sep 19, 2002, 12:45 PM

maybe if I start saving now I could get the mid range next generation powermac from apple late next year, all the software I'm stuck with OS 9 for will be OS X compatable and my next mac will be 64bit, 2 generations ahead of my current one and blazingly fast.

right now my hopes are that there's still some dual Ghz Quicksilvers to be had for quite a while at mail order companies and then I can get one of those next year sometime and then wait a full 18 months before I get a new mac so I'm not missing out on any software by being OS X only and I've got a way faster mac than my 300Mhz G3.

Mr. Anderson

Sep 19, 2002, 12:46 PM

That is fantastic - can't wait to see them in action, even if we have to wait a year or more. A 1GHz GPUL is twice as fast as a 1GHz G4 - so if they had a 4 core 2GHx GPUL it would be >8x the speed of the current dual 1GHz G4. Not bad, and it would probably be even faster since the bus memmory will be upgraded as well. Nice :cool: Now if they could put a dual 2GHz 4 core GPUL that would scream!

And on the second page, there was an interesting bit

'Meanwhile, sources said, the long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility, though Motorola has provided few additional details. '

So we're going to see the G5 in January????? This ought to be interesting....

D

Snowy_River

Sep 19, 2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by PROZAKY
That's good news.

...Yet, another year!!!:confused:

Read carefully:

However, they caution that the chip probably won't reach Apple's consumer systems for more than a year at the earliest.

Consumer systems, meaning the iMac and eMac. But I'd guess that means we'd see the Pro systems with this processor much sooner.

And this comment you've just gotta love:

Sources said that benchmarks and applications tests demonstrate that a 1GHz GPUL processor doubles the performance of the 1GHz Motorola PowerPC G4 processor in current Macs. Even so, they said, the first run on GPUL processors should range from 1.4 to 2GHz, depending on yield.

2GHz=4xperformance of a 1GHz G4

:D :D

[edit: I just found page two where they say:

Perhaps the most disappointing news for Mac fans, sources said, is that IBM does not expect to be finished with GPUL project until late summer 2003.

Oh well.... ]

chubakka

Sep 19, 2002, 12:47 PM

At the end of the article is this little tease...

"Meanwhile, sources said, Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility, though Motorola has provided few additional details. "

what the hell does "break cover" mean?

But perhaps this is the reason it's OS X from now on.

Long live the PowerPC.

technocoy

Sep 19, 2002, 12:48 PM

This is great.... my sources were right!!

now i can buy my powerbook next month, and that will hold me over till i buy a new desktop next year!!

perfection.

later:)

ajkandy

Sep 19, 2002, 12:54 PM

Hey, why not both?

Right now the only Apple product that still uses the G3 is the iBook (and the super-cheap Original iMac). It's great for low power use...*if* you're using OS 9....

There may very well be a three-tiered CPU plan in Apple's future.

At the "budget pro tower", portable and consumer end, the G4 as we know it now with iterative evolutions.

In the standard pro towers and XServe, the G5 (Moto)

At the high end (scientific workstations, supercomputers and enterprise servers), the G6 (IBM GigaProcessor UltraLite)

PROZAKY

Sep 19, 2002, 12:56 PM

So... it is likely that we'll see a new Power Mac in Jan.

However, is there a possibility that apple will change the dual line up of Power Macs that they have now in Oct.
I mean, what's the shortest time period that apple has waited to change their Power Mac systems in the past?

ddtlm

Sep 19, 2002, 12:57 PM

Oh great, just the rumor I wanted to see. Not only, according to them, does Apple get one 64-bit processor, but they get two. Sheesh. Unless Moto's hypothetical G5 is designed for iBooks, iMacs and the like, I just don't see how Apple's tiny marketshare can make it worth while for Moto AND IBM to crowd in.

arn

Sep 19, 2002, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by PROZAKY
So... it is likely that we'll see a new Power Mac in Jan.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I don't expect new PowerMacs in Jan at all.

arn

PROZAKY

Sep 19, 2002, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet

And on the second page, there was an interesting bit

'Meanwhile, sources said, the long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility, though Motorola has provided few additional details. '

So we're going to see the G5 in January????? This ought to be interesting....

D

I will believe... :p
All we need is hope.

chubakka

Sep 19, 2002, 01:09 PM

Both Moto and IBM ARE making chips for Apple...
There is already room for both...
that's what the whole PPC alliance is about.

And apple's hardware market share is only a few percentage points behind
HP/Compaq (16%) and Dell (15%)... People are always confusing Apple's OS market share (5%) versus the actual number of computers it sells (11%).

mischief

Sep 19, 2002, 01:19 PM

we hear Steve utter those fateful words at MW: " Oh... And there's just 1 more thing..."

We have absolutely NO way of knowing what the time frame is here or IF the Moto G5 will be in Macs at all. Most of these pundits are simply assuming that a Moto G5 will replace the Moto G4... Most evidence points AWAY from this conclusion: There are FAR more stories floating around about Moto stepping out of active participation in consumer PPC R&D.

The Chip to be announced by IBM may be a lot closer to full production than anyone knows. If ever there were 2 companies that could keep a secret it's Apple and IBM.

jettredmont

Sep 19, 2002, 01:46 PM

eWeek may seem a more "credible" source, but I see no evidence that this article is anything more than a sanitized copy of the Gay Blade article in MacEdition last week, with the sole exception of the final "Moto G5 early 2003" rumor. While eWeek obviously has a wider audience than MacEdition, I don't think any new "facts" (ie, facets to the rumor) have been given here.

PrettyMan

Sep 19, 2002, 01:54 PM

Where can I buy 1 unit of that CPUs to change my old 400G3 iMac SE ?

Better, when can I buy half unit of that CPU to change my new 2,4 PIV ?

;) ;) ;) ;)

Kethoticus

Sep 19, 2002, 02:30 PM

I would love to believe that by Jan 2004 or perhaps even sooner, we'll have these magnificent CPUs in our Macs. They do not sound like they'd leapfrog the x86 world, but they would certainly close the gap (taking into consideration that we'll likely see 4GHz chips late next year). However...

Whenever I criticize peoples' approaches to handling information like this, I am told "I don't take it seriously. I know it's just a rumor." Or, "Yeah, but I *want* to believe it!" Almost everyone here is already making purchasing plans for something that, until officially announced and released, is just vaporware.

Folks, this cynical doubter (in Mac-related rumors) is encouraged by this. But c'mon. We're not going to see anything for quite sometime. In fact, nothing is written in stone, except that both companies are *planning" on such-n-such next year.

If this is to happen, let's assume that it will probably be later than next summer/fall (these things usually do happen) and that we'll still be behind the x86 world, although perhaps much closer than we are now.

It's (possibly) good news. But let's not lose our minds just yet.

chubakka

Sep 19, 2002, 02:46 PM

I don't care how supposedly fast the PC chips are... they have to to run windows.

Seriously... we all just read the article where a 2.4 GHz Profile did NOT smoke an 800 MHz iMac... not even close. The iMac wasn't 50% slower... wasn't 30% or even 20%... it had like 4 more frames per second in Quake!

Even if the PC is at 4GHz... and the IBM PPC is at 2 GHz I'm still gonna be happy. People need to get over the megahertz envy. It's pointless... a PPC chip in not a slower x86 chip. AND stop begging for the Mac OS on x86... that too is pointless.

big

Sep 19, 2002, 02:50 PM

Only something amazing will prompt me to buy, thhis may be it...4 gz? WOW that would flame my current G3 (450 mhz)

AmigaMac

Sep 19, 2002, 03:13 PM

I think some people keep forgetting that Apple is not the only computer maker to build PPC desktop computers! Amiga is going to unleash a new Amiga with 'PPC Inside' and 2 other companies are releasing new desktops with PPC technology as well, so IBM and Motorola will have orders to fill!

:D

123

Sep 19, 2002, 03:41 PM

chubakka

Sep 19, 2002, 03:49 PM

An AZcentral article attempts to determine which desktop PC -- the Apple iMac or the Gateway Profile 4 -- bests the other in performance, ease of use and reliability. According to the independently conducted testing, neither machine is able to declare outright victory. Both machines are built around 15-inch flat-panel displays. While the $1000 Gateway has larger RAM and storage allotments than the $1300 iMac, it narrowly edges the iMac in performance, despite including a CPU with a megahertz rating nearly three times that of the iMac. The machines' Quake III benchmarks differed by only four frames per second; Photoshop results revealed the 2.8GHz Gateway was only marginally faster.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/etech/etechmain.html?gannet_story=http://www.gannettonline.com/e/gear/18000324.html

dongmin

Sep 19, 2002, 04:20 PM

I don't know, this article seems to be repackaging a lot of rumors that have been floating around recently, like the MacEdition report where we first saw the mention of the GPUL and ApplePI. Some of it is almost a direct quote of the MacEdition report.

And I'm skeptical of some of the time frame these reports claim. Example:
However, they caution that the chip probably won't reach Apple's consumer systems for more than a year at the earliest.
That's a fairly vague statement. A year at the earliest could mean 12 months, 18 months, or 2 years. It's hard to get excited when things are so shifty. Great, this thing sort of exists, but how long do we have to wait for them? And by "consumer systems" I don't think they mean iMacs; rather, it's consumer as opposed to server/enterprise systems.

ddtlm

Sep 19, 2002, 04:53 PM

chubakka:

In case you didn't know, you're a foaming at the mouth, out of control, "Macs are perfect" freako.

The article you linked with those "performance tests" was bullcrap. Yeah, at a high res where the iMacs better video card matters the iMac barely looses, and yeah in Photo-****ing-Shop (AKA a Photoshop Bakeoff) the iMac barely looses, but those tests are both hand-picked to favor the iMac. They brush aside Quake3 at resolutions where the Gateway's better CPU help it as irrelevant. They discuss no other tests. They do not state why Gateway's tests are irrelevant, they simply talk around it like a slimy used-car dealer would.

The iMac's 800-megahertz G4 sprinted through the tests in 49.6 seconds. The Gateway's 2.8-gigahertz Pentium 4 completed the same tasks in 44.7 seconds.
Holy crap batman, talk about a pro-iMac slant! Apparently the iMacs "sprints" slower than the Gateway "completes."

People need to get over the megahertz envy. It's pointless... a PPC chip in not a slower x86 chip. AND stop begging for the Mac OS on x86... that too is pointless.
Holy crap batman, what planet does this being named "chubakka" come from? It's not earth...

And apple's hardware market share is only a few percentage points behind
HP/Compaq (16%) and Dell (15%)... People are always confusing Apple's OS market share (5%) versus the actual number of computers it sells (11%).
Holy crap batman, you need to start thinking. Market share is the number of "personal" computers that are sold by Apple divided by the number that are sold total. That number is around 3%-4%.

Sheesh. Anyway you are off your rocker.

chubakka

Sep 19, 2002, 05:06 PM

azcentral is not a mac centric site... that article was even and it favored the mac. You want to believe Gateways interpretation of its benchmarks. Go right ahead. Go ahead and believe the Gateway looks better too.

oh and neither is cnet and they gave the iMac the nod in thier review too.

And I'm not making up the percentage of computers sold that are Apple.
Apple is the 3rd largest manufacturer behind Compaq/HP and Dell...
and it sold 11% of the computers purchased last year. They sell more than IBM and more than Gateway.

and by the way ddtl... you a freak.

Capt. Obvious

Sep 19, 2002, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by AmigaMac
I think some people keep forgetting that Apple is not the only computer maker to build PPC desktop computers! Amiga is going to unleash a new Amiga with 'PPC Inside'....

Sorry, I just don't see it happening.

I bought one of the original Amiga 1000s, then a 2000 (right before they announced the 3000:mad: ), upgraded it, and in general spent about 12 years waiting w/ increasing frustration for something to actually happen to move the platform forward.

In early '99, after enduring endless spirals of Amigoid hysteria (platform advocacy so thick you could choke), I realised that the Amiga would never be frankensteined out of its grave for one last lurch around the yard. I bought a brand-new G3 PowerBook, and never looked back.

Now, 3.5 years later, rumours of Apple's demise still circulate, as do rumors of Amiga's recrudescence.

Only difference is that I'm a confirmed Macophile now, about to replace my wheezing-yet-still-able laptop w/ a Dual-Gig DDR + 17" Apple display!

As for the Amiga, I wish 'em well...but at this point, I'm vastly uninterested in how that turns out.

reyesmac

Sep 19, 2002, 05:44 PM

I think that we should see some killer imacs in Jan 2004 or maybe a little before. Once their Powermacs are acceptably fast compared to the rest of the industry, the iMacs will be next on the upgrade block just so they will be able to run OS X at a fast speed.

The cool thing about having a Mac that can run OS X fast is that most of the programs that will run on it will go even faster.

With all the hype that is being talked about this new processor, if it can not resize a full iPhoto window in realtime, I will be pissed. The same goes for browser windows. Apple wouldnt need to be in such a hurry to speed up the processors if all finder and window features were as fast as OS 9. I don't here too many people complaining about not being able to do work stuff fast, just finder and browser functions. So if this chip makes the finder as fast as OS 9, this will be a chip that will do for the Powermacs what the Original iMac did for them. That is unless they pull a Cube and raise prices on this model or just have it on the top one or two configs, which you know they will do anyway in its first rev.

3G4N

Sep 19, 2002, 05:51 PM

a little rootin around found some of the following...

http://ssadler.phy.bnl.gov/adler/sc2k/sc2kpg0.html
(scroll 1/2 way down.)
intersting quote from 2000:
"IBM is show off their power4 architecture.
They are developing either a dual or quad PPC system
on a single chip. The IBM'er here is hold up a model
of the CPU chip. He told me that a group of engineers
worked on the system for a week to get Linux up
and running"

and a whole website for
http://linuxppc64.org/

A little Power4 light reading, note title of page 2.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT101600000000

Now for a little apparent-fact that Motorola ISN'T dropping out
of the high-performance computing market. They aren't focusing
*entirely* on the small embedded processor market.

(no direct url)
http://www.motorolacareers.com/
>> semiconductor
>> search jobs
>> Location: USA-Southwest , City: Austin TX
>> search jobs button

_PowerPC Microprocessor Designer_
_______Austin, TX, USA -Southwest_

Scope of Responsibilities/Expectations:
Design and development of **high-performance microprocessors**.
Will be responsible for circuit design portions of microprocessors.
Specific Knowledge: Should have good knowlede & experience in
circuit design skills. Logic design skills and knowlege of
microprocessor skills is a plus.
Motorola is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
We welcome and encourage diversity in our workforce.

and immediately above it...

_Logic Designer_
_______Austin, TX, USA -Southwest_

Scope of Responsibilities/Expectations:
Logic Designer - Responsibilities will include logic design
of **high-performance microprocessors**. Specific Knowledge:
Knowledge in microprocessor architecture. VHDL experience.
Understanding of system-level operations is desirable.
Experience in PowerPC architecture is desirable.
Motorola is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
We welcome and encourage diversity in our workforce.

(my **'s)

Does that **high-performance microprocessors** mean what
I think it means? I'm not thinking faster cell phones.

Now for a little rumor swirl. A buddy who works there told
me a few months ago that ~"Moto was going to step back for a
little while, Let IBM take the Apple reigns for a little while,
then Moto is coming back with the G7,"~ which they apparently are
starting on now with the above job positions.. .?. (This was
before the current IBM-Power4Lite-GPUL-PPC rumors started.)

In that same conversation he talked of their last chip for
a while. He called it the "Apollo7" and said it was just
taped out. Now I doubt this is the "fabled" MotoG5, and is rather
either the currently shipping 1.25's, or the next round of
7470's to hold us over til we can get our hands on the
wipe-drool-from-face IBM PPC-64's.

Telomar

Sep 19, 2002, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by chubakka
And I'm not making up the percentage of computers sold that are Apple.
Apple is the 3rd largest manufacturer behind Compaq/HP and Dell...
and it sold 11% of the computers purchased last year. They sell more than IBM and more than Gateway.

Not sure where your figures are coming from but they are just plain wrong. Apple had a market share in the last financial year of 3.4%, where market share is defined as number of Macs sold divided by total units sold overall. They came in 5th or 6th due to the HP/Compaq merger.

The only positive in their figures is they were on the increase.

Capt. Obvious

Sep 19, 2002, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
I don't know, this article seems to be repackaging a lot of rumors that have been floating around recently, like the MacEdition report where we first saw the mention of the GPUL and ApplePI. Some of it is almost a direct quote of the MacEdition report.
Well, it's kind of an open secret that NMR / TGB are (is?) Matthew Rothenberg; given that, the similarity between the two pieces is hardly a surprise.

Hell, it's not even the first time this has happened (ie, MR repeating the NMR in eWeek).

Originally posted by dongmin
And I'm skeptical of some of the time frame these reports claim. A year at the earliest could mean 12 months, 18 months, or 2 years. It's hard to get excited when things are so shifty. Great, this thing sort of exists, but how long do we have to wait for them?

On the contray, I find the whole thing reassuring. I find that the current crop of PowerMacs suit my needs just fine right now - and right now, I need to get the machine & make the money. I'm reassured, because it reinforces my confidence in buying a Mac now, because I can be reasonably assured that my next will be as big an improvement over the DDR Duals as the DDRs are over my current Mac (G3, 266/66mHz).

Originally posted by dongmin
And by "consumer systems" I don't think they mean iMacs; rather, it's consumer as opposed to server/enterprise systems.

Agreed - this points to "retail", IMO, not "low-end". However, don't forget that Apple managed to migrate the top-end Quicksilver tech to the iMac in just one year (astonishing!). Even so, I'd expect to see the new mobo/syscon designs make into the iMacs long before the next-gen chip do!

e-coli

Sep 19, 2002, 05:59 PM

why 2 different "G5" chips? that doesn't seem to make sense.

chubakka

Sep 19, 2002, 06:07 PM

I was confusing a spymac article with the IDC numbers...
Apple is like 4.1% domestically and 2.9% internationally.

foaming at the mouth mac lover

foniks2020

Sep 19, 2002, 06:44 PM

Regarding the imac vs Profile benchmarks.... it wasn't the $1000 profile 4 they tested against the $1300 iMac, it was the $1999 version with the 2.8 ghz P4. The $1000 Profile or even the $1300 Profile would have been seriously whipped by the iMac.

Billy_ca

Sep 19, 2002, 07:37 PM

why 2 different "G5" chips? that doesn't seem to make sense.

Think Pentium and Celeron.

The Power4Lite will likely consume too much power and run too hot for notebooks and the small footprint iMacs. Apple will need a low power/high performance/low cost CPU for these purposes and Moto is just the company to make it for them.

barkmonster

Sep 19, 2002, 07:56 PM

Going off the benchmarks on their site I've concluded that the Gateway PC is worthless.

I've worked the Mhz into the results and it really shows how fast the P4 has to spin to even scrape together little over 10% more speed than the G4

PSB = (Seconds / Mhz) x 1000

800Mhz G4 : 49.6 sec (62 PSB)
2.4Ghz P4 : 44.7 sec (18.6 PSB)

This is very impressive from the mac's point of view but then again, photoshop tests are the only "realworld" tests where the mac really shows it's true colours unlike those meaningless RC5 number crunching tests.

scem0

Sep 19, 2002, 08:36 PM

Sources said that benchmarks and applications tests demonstrate that a 1GHz GPUL processor doubles the performance of the 1GHz Motorola PowerPC G4 processor in current Macs. Even so, they said, the first run on GPUL processors should range from 1.4 to 2GHz, depending on yield.

That is very fast. If a 1GHz current mac is 2x slower then a 1 GHz GPUL then the 2GHz one will be 4x the speed of the current 1 GHZ. That is really fast. If this comes out by this time next year then I think apple will be on top. But nobody knows what the processors will look like in the PC world a year from now.

scem0

Sep 19, 2002, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Billy_ca

Think Pentium and Celeron.

The Power4Lite will likely consume too much power and run too hot for notebooks and the small footprint iMacs. Apple will need a low power/high performance/low cost CPU for these purposes and Moto is just the company to make it for them.

Thats what I think will hapen:

IBM = High end
Moto = low end + laptops

Sorry for double posting... :confused:

:D

Hawthorne

Sep 19, 2002, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
chubakka:

In case you didn't know, you're a foaming at the mouth, out of control, "Macs are perfect" freako.
...
Sheesh. Anyway you are off your rocker.

Am I missing something? When did using "holy crap batman" as a discussion point become a mark of intelligence and dignity?

Azcentral.com is the online version of The Arizona Republic, the paper of record for Phoenix, and in my opinion, is as close to an impartial (albeit technically limited) judge as there is for the average user. That they failed to mention the overwhelming stability of OS X (reboot? what's that?), the sheer ease of use of iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD and only mentioned briefly mentioned the DVD-R capabilities of the iMac as advantages and STILL judged the iMac equal or better to the Profile 4 says a lot. All computers are equal. It's just that some are more equal than others. ;) :D :p

Now, bring on the Power4 Lite so we can end this discussion once and for all! ;)

robguz

Sep 19, 2002, 10:43 PM

I'll believe it when I see it.

3 things to keep in mind:
1-Trimedia-the alleged Phillips chip which was supposed to be the hardware solution to PCs MMX instruction set, and would blow MMX away by a factor of 10. Never materialized (and honestly never did altivec with it's supposed 16X acceleration of a multitude of functions-you'll get 2X, 5 years later if you're lucky).

2-The Bi-CMOS chip, what was the name of that short lived company that was supposed to bring us to 600 Mhz back in 1997? All the rumor sites told us anyday now. Sure it ran hotter than an easy bake oven. But wow! 5-600 Mhz in the day when that seemed impossible! Even Macworld was reporting on this nonsense. The G3 was out and was faster and this company disappeared as did the need for a generator and a fuel line to run your mac.

3-the original PowerPC promise. I remember reading in MacWorld in 1994 how the 604 would be 3X faster than the 601 at the same clock speed. It ended up being 20% faster, and no faster unless programs were "triple fat", meaning 68K, 601, and 604 code optimized. The 620 was also around the corner being yet again 3X faster than the 604. I don't even think the G4 is anywhere near 3X faster at the same clock speed than the 601. Maybe 2X at best on non-altivec functions.

Ok, here's your bonus one, ok, bonus 2.
The Apollo chip. Promised 2 years ago as "any day now" and supposed to bring 30% more speed at the same clock speed. In January, with the DP 1Ghz, Motorola said, yes this is the Apollo. Turns out it's really slower than even the original G4 at the same clock speed because of the small L2, and greater number of pipeline stages. And the 2nd bonus, the infamous G5. It's been 3 years since the G4 came out. Last year we all heard the G5 was coming out in early 2002. Now we hear 2003 if we're lucky. Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

Take all of these rumors with and ocean full of salt. It has been a long, long, long time since Apple pulled a trick out of it's hat.

Oh, wait, yet another bonus! The G4, even in non-altivec functions was also supposed to be about 30% faster than the G3! It of course was never true and some benchmarks showed it was actually slower. And we have proof with the 700 Mhz G3 iBook on a 100 Mhz bus with no L3 beating a Ti 800 G4, on a 133 Mhz bus with a 1MB L3 on non-altivec benchmarks.

Basically, none of these "the great new processor that will save us" rumors ever come true. Instead we get something named what we were promised 3 years late with minimal speed gains. Thanks a lot Apple/Motorola/IBM. You jerks are turning into the 3 stooges of processory design.

Billy_ca

Sep 19, 2002, 11:54 PM

And we have proof with the 700 Mhz G3 iBook on a 100 Mhz bus with no L3 beating a Ti 800 G4, on a 133 Mhz bus with a 1MB L3 on non-altivec benchmarks.

Can you provide a link to that? I'd like to read it. Thanks.

nuckinfutz

Sep 20, 2002, 12:22 AM

1. Trimedia- Too expensive. Killed

2. That company was Exponential with the X704. Intel bought up their rotting carcass of assets two years ago.

3. There probably was alot of hype about the 604. But amazingly so it's STILL used in IBM's lowest end Server.

I figured Apollo would be slower clock for clock. 3 more pipes and Soi will allow them the be clocked higher but I never thought that would add up to a %30 advantage.

Remove Altivec from a G4 and it should be roughly identical to a G3 in Integer performance. The FPU is better but only on Double Precision math. No Altivec puts the G4 in trouble.

pimentoLoaf

Sep 20, 2002, 12:26 AM

Hmmm -- what to wait and hope for...

A 19" iMac or a non-integrated g5 w/o display?

Wonder if there'll be a quad-processor g5 (or a dual-processor iMac)??

MacBandit

Sep 20, 2002, 12:32 AM

I'm sure glad I just bought my new Dual Ghz/DDR I'll have at least 2 years to enjoy this before they come out with the new chip by which time maybe I'll be ready to buy a new computer. You can wait and wait and wait and wait....... Or you can enjoy and enjoy and enjoy and enjoy......

Kid Red

Sep 20, 2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Telomar

Not sure where your figures are coming from but they are just plain wrong. Apple had a market share in the last financial year of 3.4%, where market share is defined as number of Macs sold divided by total units sold overall. They came in 5th or 6th due to the HP/Compaq merger.

The only positive in their figures is they were on the increase.

I will have to disagree here. In quarter one or two of this year Apple sold more computers then Gateway. Won't argue anything else as I don't know any numbers.

MacBandit

Sep 20, 2002, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by robguz
3-the original PowerPC promise. I remember reading in MacWorld in 1994 how the 604 would be 3X faster than the 601 at the same clock speed. It ended up being 20% faster, and no faster unless programs were "triple fat", meaning 68K, 601, and 604 code optimized. The 620 was also around the corner being yet again 3X faster than the 604. I don't even think the G4 is anywhere near 3X faster at the same clock speed than the 601. Maybe 2X at best on non-altivec functions.

How much of any of what you said can you back up with personal experience. I personally had an 8500/120 that I upgraded the 601 to a 604e at 200Mhz. The difference was a lot more then the 80Mhz difference. In most cases it was 3 times faster but when it came to FPU operations which the 601 did poorly it was more like 10 times faster. In fact my 604e at 200Mhz was in some cases as fast at FPU operations as my friends G3 266/Beige that he had at the time.

Kethoticus

Sep 20, 2002, 01:12 AM

....Thankyouthankyouthankyou for being the voices of reason. These continued rumors of amazing new breakthroughs coming the Mac's way are like Saddam Hussein's promises of allowing unconditional weapons inspections. I love the Mac, folks, but am weary of the nonsense. You should be, too.

Anecdoter

Sep 20, 2002, 01:31 AM

First, before anyone gets too excited, has anyone bothered to look at what IBM charges for a RS/6000 based system (PowerPC based)?

Check out this link: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/

The price starts out at nearly $9,000 (not including monitor) for a 250 mhz PowerPC 604E processor, 128 mb of RAM, 9.1 GB of hard drive space (SCSI) and a 10/100 ethernet card.
The 450 mhz Power3-II (64-bit, copper, one processor) starts at $13,000 (monitor not included). That includes 512mb of RAM and up to 4mb of L2 cache.

Now, who actually believes this new Power4 chip will be inexpensive enough for even the highend Power Macs? My GUESS (and I make no claim to have any insider information) is that if Apple uses these chips, they will be for a new tier of workstations aimed a video animation/production and priced accordingly. The current G4 Power Mac line will probably be retained to serve as the consumer desktop line and will have incremental updates, possibly even the G5.

For more information on the Power4 chip, here's the IBM link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html#chip

vniow

Sep 20, 2002, 01:46 AM

arn

Sep 20, 2002, 02:19 AM

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Power4+group:alt.internet.talk.haven&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=PM0003A93596C67FB8%40minion.nashville.comcast.net&rnum=1

Interesting gossip....

hardly a credible source... but interesting read.

arn

gotohamish

Sep 20, 2002, 04:14 AM

The word GIGAWIRE springs to mind...

anyone?

TheCat

Sep 20, 2002, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by rugby
I am glad I'm not waiting, and just getting a computer now. By the time I am ready to purchase again (2 years or so) they should have all the bugs ironed out and speed ramped up a bit.

Good for you!!:D

(though i wish i could afford a new mac every two years, u lucky plucker!):p
Steve

TheCat

Sep 20, 2002, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by chubakka
I don't care how supposedly fast the PC chips are... they have to to run windows.

Seriously... we all just read the article where a 2.4 GHz Profile did NOT smoke an 800 MHz iMac... not even close. The iMac wasn't 50% slower... wasn't 30% or even 20%... it had like 4 more frames per second in Quake!

Very true! and there's nothing more demanding on the whole of a computers hardware than a game. The mhz war is a joke & also people whinning on about apple "only" releasing 1.25ghz dual systems is also a pita! This is more than enough power for 99.99% of users.

</moan>
Steve

TheCat

Sep 20, 2002, 04:47 AM

iwantanewmac

Sep 20, 2002, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by big
Only something amazing will prompt me to buy, thhis may be it...4 gz? WOW that would flame my current G3 (450 mhz)

He meant pc's are close to 4 GHZ.
Don't expect to see macs at that speed any time soon. (4 years).
Aplle will continue with the speed upgrades they are doing now.

iwantanewmac

Sep 20, 2002, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by TheCat

Very true! and there's nothing more demanding on the whole of a computers hardware than a game. The mhz war is a joke & also people whinning on about apple "only" releasing 1.25ghz dual systems is also a pita! This is more than enough power for 99.99% of users.

</moan>
Steve

Yeah we all know that not all the people use that "power".
It also has a pricetag of over $3000.......
Wich is way to much.

robguz

Sep 20, 2002, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit

How much of any of what you said can you back up with personal experience. I personally had an 8500/120 that I upgraded the 601 to a 604e at 200Mhz. The difference was a lot more then the 80Mhz difference. In most cases it was 3 times faster but when it came to FPU operations which the 601 did poorly it was more like 10 times faster. In fact my 604e at 200Mhz was in some cases as fast at FPU operations as my friends G3 266/Beige that he had at the time.

This makes no sense since the 8500 120 was a 604. I had a 7500/601/100, upgraded to 604/165(overclocked 120), a 604e225 which I ditched after a week because it was too small a gain, then a G3 308(overclocked 220), then a G4 375 (overclocked 350). So I have real world experience and am also basing my conclusions on my overview of reviews and benchmarks over the years at sites like macspeedzone, barefeats, and xlr8yourmac. You'be hard pressed to be able to back up your claims of 3-10 greater performance going from a 604/120 to a 604e/225.

For the other person who asked for links regarding the ibook, here they are. Remember I was just talking about those that focus on non-altivec, processor only functions. Other things like scrolling and disk copying have more to do with the ibooks slower hard drive and video card so those don't make a fair comparison. But things like Bryce, in which the ibook wins show the advantages of the newer G3 with the 512kb L2 cache. So the one to focus on at macspeedzone is code analysis. It's a hair behind the Ti800 and beats an emac 700.

http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/comparison/all/master_list_9.html

http://barefeats.com/pb8.html

Shrek

Sep 20, 2002, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by dukestreet

So we're going to see the G5 in January????? This ought to be interesting....

I told you so. See. I knew something was going to happen. You know it's coming soon, especially when something is way past due such as the G5; it could then make it's debut at anytime. It's takes a lot of patience, dukestreet. Must have patience! :p

solvs

Sep 20, 2002, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by arn
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Power4+group:alt.internet.talk.haven&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=PM0003A93596C67FB8%40minion.nashville.comcast.net&rnum=1

Interesting gossip....

hardly a credible source... but interesting read.

arn

Read the From: part.

Jøhnny Fävòrítê (it means "Japanese Sandman")
this.is@totally.fake.com

Probably a joke. And I doubt we'll see a G5 or Power4Lite in Jan. 2003, especially since the 1.25s are just now shipping. But I hope I'm wrong. We'll see.

dongmin

Sep 20, 2002, 06:10 PM

To all you believers out there who're expecting Apple to introduce the G5 this January AND release IBM-based systems later in the year: Get a grip, it ain't gonna happen. And please, don't go crying bloody murder when Apple doesn't fulfill your crazy fantasy.

No way in hell is Apple gonna introduce TWO brand new processors in the same year. Yes, we have both the G3 and G4 right now. And yes, we have both Motorola and IBM making chips for us. But the G3 is how old? The G3 was on the market for two full years before they introduced the Yikes G4s. Apple is not introducing a new processor this Jan. only to have it superceded within the same year.

I'll be happy with ONE of those events happening. My best case scenario: the Motorola G5 in February 2003 and the IBM GPUL in August 2004--two years from now. That gives the systems about 18 months apart.

scem0

Sep 20, 2002, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
To all you believers out there who're expecting Apple to introduce the G5 this January AND release IBM-based systems later in the year: Get a grip, it ain't gonna happen. And please, don't go crying bloody murder when Apple doesn't fulfill your crazy fantasy.

No way in hell is Apple gonna introduce TWO brand new processors in the same year.

THey could release the GPUL powermac, and call it a g5, even if it isnt. They just need a computer, to fill the gap between the current pMacs and the GPUL pMacs.

keyword 'could'.

void

Sep 21, 2002, 08:17 AM

Did Anyone Try and play that game on the eweek link? Its helluva hard.

Anecdoter

Sep 21, 2002, 08:43 AM

edvniow:
Of course they're not putting a Power4 in the new Macs (the Power4 itself is found in $100,000 systems because it comes with 100mb of cache memory. According to the e-week article, the GigaProcessor Ultra-light systems running Linux are destined to replace IBM's AIX systems - which are mainly the RS/6000 computers I linked to.
Therefore, one can expect IBM to keep it's pricing structure on these systems similar. Also, you can expect IBM to charge Apple quite a bit for each of these chips. Don't forget that the IBM units with the GPUL will be competing with the Apple GPUL systems in the workstation markets.
The bottom line is that the GPUL systems are either going cost significantly more than the current Power Macs or Apple will get a chip so watered down that it will be nothing more than a G4 running a 2ghz.

daijones

Sep 21, 2002, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Anecdoter
First, before anyone gets too excited, has anyone bothered to look at what IBM charges for a RS/6000 based system (PowerPC based)?

Check out this link: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/

The price starts out at nearly $9,000 (not including monitor) for a 250 mhz PowerPC 604E processor, 128 mb of RAM, 9.1 GB of hard drive space (SCSI) and a 10/100 ethernet card.
The 450 mhz Power3-II (64-bit, copper, one processor) starts at $13,000 (monitor not included). That includes 512mb of RAM and up to 4mb of L2 cache.

Now, who actually believes this new Power4 chip will be inexpensive enough for even the highend Power Macs? My GUESS (and I make no claim to have any insider information) is that if Apple uses these chips, they will be for a new tier of workstations aimed a video animation/production and priced accordingly. The current G4 Power Mac line will probably be retained to serve as the consumer desktop line and will have incremental updates, possibly even the G5.

For more information on the Power4 chip, here's the IBM link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html#chip

What this really shows is how much IBM marks prices up beyond the cost of the processor. How much would a 250 MHz 604E chip cost? A pittance I would bet. $9000 for a machine built around a cheap, ol processor is milking it a bit. Taking that as an example, price wise the Power4 probably would be viable. It's not physically viable of course, which is why the chip we're hoping for is a Power4 derivative, not a Power4 itself.

Talking about mis-conceptions, the posts about Apple having 11% vs 3.4% market share are confusing two senses of market share. The calculation that 11% of all computers are Macs is based on all computers currently in use, no matter how old. I suspect this is rather high, but will go with it. The 3.4% is of course the proportion of computers sold in the last (for example) 3 months that are Macs. Which figure counts depends on what you want to establish, and both figures are meaningful: no point dissing somebody for using one or the other. The discrepancy arises because of i) falling "last 3 months" market share over time; and ii) the fact that Macs last longer than PCs, so people aren't buying replacement macs as fast as they're buying replacement PCs. The fact that you can run MacOS X on a four year old machine shows why Apple's market share is low - what chance running WinXP on a machine 18 months old, let alone 48?! Of course, Apple's refusal to design in obsolence within 18 months is one of the reasons why we love them so.

Akira

Sep 21, 2002, 12:28 PM

I guess that Apple will come up with a new line of Powermacs between June and August 2003.
January is highly unlikely I think.
But don't forget, they don't only have to be really fast (not only the CPU, but also the FSB), but also a whole lot cheaper. It'll have to be the perfect machine to use Maya, FCP and Photoshop on.

I'm planning to buy a new computer around July-August 2003 (I want a new computer for my Uni-work. I'm probably going to study Architecture, that means I have to work a lot with Maya and CAD-apps.) If Apple hasn't introduced new Powermacs after August, it's not unlikely I'll commit a sin and buy a nice Dell system with Pentium 4 with a PSB @ 533 Mhz and 1 Gb of DDR RAM and save a whole lot of money as well. A what the heck, I'll probably go to hell anyway ;)

Steve can't stand the fact that Pixar isn't using Macs, so it isn't that unlikely the upcoming Powermacs will be kicking *ss when it comes to rendering.

Or maybe there just trying to make GPUL Xserves ;)

Rocketman

Sep 21, 2002, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm sure glad I just bought my new Dual Ghz/DDR I'll have at least 2 years to enjoy this before they come out with the new chip by which time maybe I'll be ready to buy a new computer. You can wait and wait and wait and wait....... Or you can enjoy and enjoy and enjoy and enjoy......

You seem to be a practical optimist. Your post should be on the Apple home page.

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

DharvaBinky

Sep 22, 2002, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by 3G4N
a little rootin around found some of the following...

Does that **high-performance microprocessors** mean what
I think it means? I'm not thinking faster cell phones.

Motorola is using "High Performance PPCs" in switches and other embeded applications... not just cel phones. The 85xx series is already seeing use in Cisco Kit, I believe...

In that same conversation he talked of their last chip for
a while. He called it the "Apollo7" and said it was just
taped out. Now I doubt this is the "fabled" MotoG5, and is rather
either the currently shipping 1.25's, or the next round of
7470's to hold us over til we can get our hands on the
wipe-drool-from-face IBM PPC-64's.

I can't imagine that the "apollo7" is the current round of G4s. If you examine the specs of the 1.25 chip itself, it's a 25% overclocked 7455. Moto doesn't make a G4 with an FSB of 166MHz and Moto doesn't make a G4 at 1.25GHz... the G4 (7455) is rated for 1GHz and 133Mhz FSB... now... click both of those numbers up by 25% and voila! 1.25GHz and 166MHz. I imagine that's why the boat anchor heat sink and fans are there. the G4 even runs passively cooled in the *previous* generation of Pro Towers... so why does this new generation of 1GHz require fans? Overclocked...

:)

DharvaBinky - Hated by so many on RtCW... ;)

Telomar

Sep 22, 2002, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
If you examine the specs of the 1.25 chip itself, it's a 25% overclocked 7455. Moto doesn't make a G4 with an FSB of 166MHz and Moto doesn't make a G4 at 1.25GHz... the G4 (7455) is rated for 1GHz and 133Mhz FSB... now... click both of those numbers up by 25% and voila! 1.25GHz and 166MHz. That's absolute nonsense. The 1.25 GHz chips are fabbed and speced by Motorola to run at 1.25 GHz with a 166 MHz FSB they just aren't listed on the products page (at least not their main one).

Motorola had already announced this change previouslyand if you look you can see the chips have none of the signs of an overclocked chip. Besides which selling overclocked chips without advertising them as such is illegal.

MisterMe

Sep 22, 2002, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by daijones

What this really shows is how much IBM marks prices up beyond the cost of the processor. How much would a 250 MHz 604E chip cost? A pittance I would bet. $9000 for a machine built around a cheap, ol processor is milking it a bit. Taking that as an example, price wise the Power4 probably would be viable. It's not physically viable of course, which is why the chip we're hoping for is a Power4 derivative, not a Power4 itself.

Nonsense. The microprocessor is one (or two) component of a personal computer. The fact is that Apple's PPC 604e-based Power Macintosh 9600 had a price nowhere near $9000 despite that fact that IBM uses the same processor in a an engineering workstation at that price. In fact, you could buy two PowerMacs for that price. The Power Mac 9600 was a high-quality personal computer. It was designed, manufactured, and priced accordingly. The IBM RS/6000 is an engineering workstation. It is designed, manufactured, and priced accordingly, having a processor in common with the Apple PowerMac 9600 not withstanding.

Originally posted by daijones

Talking about mis-conceptions, the posts about Apple having 11% vs 3.4% market share are confusing two senses of market share. The calculation that 11% of all computers are Macs is based on all computers currently in use, no matter how old. I suspect this is rather high, but will go with it. The 3.4% is of course the proportion of computers sold in the last (for example) 3 months that are Macs. Which figure counts depends on what you want to establish, and both figures are meaningful: no point dissing somebody for using one or the other. The discrepancy arises because of i) falling "last 3 months" market share over time; and ii) the fact that Macs last longer than PCs, so people aren't buying replacement macs as fast as they're buying replacement PCs. The fact that you can run MacOS X on a four year old machine shows why Apple's market share is low - what chance running WinXP on a machine 18 months old, let alone 48?! Of course, Apple's refusal to design in obsolence within 18 months is one of the reasons why we love them so.

Quarterly sales are important--no doubt about it. However, it is the actual numbers of machines in use that leverage the market in other areas. It is not because M$ sells so many copies of Microsoft Word that you put your business at a disadvantage by not buying. It is because so many people use Microsoft Word that you put your business at a disadvantage by not using it. In a growing market, users track buyers fairly well so there is little harm caused by confusing the two. However, Microsoft's markets are now saturated. Sales figures give you very little information about the number of actual users.

solvs

Sep 23, 2002, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Telomar
That's absolute nonsense. The 1.25 GHz chips are fabbed and speced by Motorola to run at 1.25 GHz with a 166 MHz FSB they just aren't listed on the products page (at least not their main one).

Motorola had already announced this change previouslyand if you look you can see the chips have none of the signs of an overclocked chip. Besides which selling overclocked chips without advertising them as such is illegal.

Exactly. A lot of people have been throwing around the term "overclocked" lately without actually knowing what it means. The G4 has long been rated to run on a 166 MHz FSB. And the maps say 1 GHz +. If they said anything else, Apple would be pissed. Motorola could have 2 GHz 7500 ready to go, but they couldn't say anything until Apple says so (as far as the chips Apple uses). Anyone saying that these 1.25 GHz chips are OC'ed obviously don't understand what that means. Motorola clocked them at 1.25, therefore they are 1.25s. Otherwise Apple couldn't release them as 1.25s. End of story.

And just because the DDR is bastardized (which it is) doesn't mean it won't speed up the machine. We've been asking for DDR for awhile, and they give us DDR2700 (333 MHz). As little as it helps, it helps a little. That's something at least. Trust me, if it can speed up a Celeron, it can speed up a G4.

I just wish everything didn't seem like such a stop gap. No wonder everyone is waiting for the "next big thing".

DharvaBinky

Sep 23, 2002, 08:44 AM