PDA

View Full Version : If Apple was still trying, could they make a PowerBook/iBook G5 by now?




Ariii
Mar 28, 2012, 09:18 PM
Apple said that they were trying to do so for a long time by now, and I heard of a chip called POWER7 (Not sure if it's PowerPC but I'm pretty sure) running in a laptop. I even heard somebody say (like 6 years ago) that Apple's shift to Intel would be temporary(I was skeptical of that). I mean, those G5 iMacs were good computers. I always thought that if Apple could've found a way to make a G5 notebook, the performance would've been okay even for today's standards, even though I guess its performance would probably be more like something you would find in a cheaper laptop. I'm not saying that they should've or that it would've been better, just wondering.



r.j.s
Mar 28, 2012, 09:20 PM
Not unless there were vast improvements to the G5 ...

Intell
Mar 28, 2012, 09:21 PM
There was a company called PA-Semi that was nearing completion of a lower power, low heat output version of the G5 chip in late 2005. But of course by that time Apple had already started its switch to Intell chips. I wouldn't call the G5 iMacs good computers. They, along with the PowerMac G5's, where plagued with problems throughout their life. No doubt a Powerbook G5 would have had similar problems.

Koodauw
Mar 28, 2012, 09:26 PM
I was able to check out an early prototype of one once.

Ariii
Mar 28, 2012, 09:31 PM
Not unless there were vast improvements to the G5 ...

I think there was some now campaign for the new PowerPC chips called PowerFICIENT or something, wasn't there? Sorry, I've used G5's, but not as my main computer and I've never taken one apart, so I probably wouldn't know many of the flaws in them.

r.j.s
Mar 28, 2012, 09:33 PM
I haven't heard anything about that.

Ariii
Mar 28, 2012, 09:35 PM
I was able to check out an early prototype of one once.

Is that actually a prototype? That looks so cool! Actually, I always thought the thing the Mac Minis had on the top would look so cool in an actual laptop. But yeah, to carry that around would be horrible, so it wouldn't be very convenient as a laptop.

r.j.s
Mar 28, 2012, 09:36 PM
Is that actually a prototype? That looks so cool! Actually, I always thought the thing the Mac Minis had on the top would look so cool in an actual laptop. But yeah, to carry that around would be horrible, so it wouldn't be very convenient as a laptop.

No, that's not an actual prototype - it's just a mockup of the rumored PBG5

tayloralmond
Mar 28, 2012, 10:43 PM
I was able to check out an early prototype of one once.

and when it breaks, you can use it as a weapon to beat someone to death! lol

zen.state
Mar 29, 2012, 01:07 AM
The G4 7448 (Freescale e600) was being engineered when Apple decided to go Intel. It was too far off for them but it certainly would have solved the underpowered PowerBook issue that pushed them onto Intel. Apple announced the Intel switch in summer 2005 and the G4 7448 wasn't even ready and available for sale to computer makers till late 05. The 7448 upgrades didn't surface till late 06.

A dual 1.8GHz 7448 could have easily been put in PowerBooks and only have the power consumption of a single 1.7GHz 7447.

A G4 7448 in many ways is more advanced than G5's with a single core.

Ariii
Mar 29, 2012, 10:19 PM
No, that's not an actual prototype - it's just a mockup of the rumored PBG5

Oh, I wonder if a picture of the prototype was ever released... a Google search returned nothing.

r.j.s
Mar 29, 2012, 10:21 PM
Oh, I wonder if a picture of the prototype was ever released... a Google search returned nothing.

I really, really doubt it. Corporations are really strict about photos of unreleased products.

goMac
Mar 29, 2012, 10:30 PM
Oh, I wonder if a picture of the prototype was ever released... a Google search returned nothing.

There was never a G5 Powerbook prototype.

Apple probably sampled the newer G4s, but the Core Duos had quite a few advantages like PCI Express support, a system bus more than three times faster than the 7448, far faster clock rate, a faster SIMD processor than Altivec, and Windows compatibility. Plus the Core Duos gained 64 bit a revision later.

Apple likely compared against the 7448, did the math, and decided to switch. PowerPCs were also very expensive and difficult to develop, and with Intel Apple offloaded most the hardware design to Intel, who had some of the most solid chipsets in the industry.

I'm not sure even if the G5 was still in production it could have caught up. The G5 had a lot more in common with the Pentium 4 (raw horsepower no matter what the heat/power cost) than the Core Duo, and the Pentium 4 ended up being a dead end on the Intel side.

SkyBell
Mar 29, 2012, 11:02 PM
PPC technology has certainly progressed a lot since the time Apple discontinued their use, but as far as I know not a whole lot of development has been done on the consumer side, it's mostly used for very powerful business and research machines.

mabaker
Mar 30, 2012, 01:36 PM
And ARM noebook is far more likely than the comeback of PowerPC architecture. Sadly.

Drew017
Mar 30, 2012, 04:30 PM
Sure they could but they won't. Intel is a faster and more compatible CPU. I'd like to see it, though! Perhaps they could make a modified PowerPC version of Lion while they are at it!

Hrududu
Mar 30, 2012, 05:00 PM
The G4 7448 (Freescale e600) was being engineered when Apple decided to go Intel. It was too far off for them but it certainly would have solved the underpowered PowerBook issue that pushed them onto Intel. Apple announced the Intel switch in summer 2005 and the G4 7448 wasn't even ready and available for sale to computer makers till late 05. The 7448 upgrades didn't surface till late 06.

A dual 1.8GHz 7448 could have easily been put in PowerBooks and only have the power consumption of a single 1.7GHz 7447.

A G4 7448 in many ways is more advanced than G5's with a single core.
I think the MPC8641D which was the dual core version of the e600 would have been right on par with the Core Duo chips that were in the first Intel systems. I think Apple probably looked at the kind of cash Intel was sinking into R&D vs what Freescale could afford and what IBM simply didn't seem to want to do and chose Intel. It could have had something to do with the 64bit Core 2 being closer to market than any sort of 64 bit G4 or mobile G5 chip as well. In another world, I would like to see what would have been if Apple had given Freescale the bid.

burnout8488
Mar 31, 2012, 01:07 AM
Is that actually a prototype? That looks so cool!

It's a joke! No laptop would have ever been able to cope with the amount of heat a G5 creates... hence the fake huge enclosure.

zen.state
Mar 31, 2012, 10:20 AM
I think the MPC8641D which was the dual core version of the e600 would have been right on par with the Core Duo chips that were in the first Intel systems. I think Apple probably looked at the kind of cash Intel was sinking into R&D vs what Freescale could afford and what IBM simply didn't seem to want to do and chose Intel. It could have had something to do with the 64bit Core 2 being closer to market than any sort of 64 bit G4 or mobile G5 chip as well. In another world, I would like to see what would have been if Apple had given Freescale the bid.

I have heard of the dual core e600's and would love to get my hands on one. Sadly they were never used in Mac CPU upgrades. I would still like a dual single core 7448 one day but for now I am happy with my single. It out computes my old dual 1.42 MDD or any single G5. Only consumes 19 watts @ 1.8GHz vs. the 36 watts a single 1.8GHz 7447 consumes.

If the 7447 wasn't such a power hog they could have possibly gotten away with a dual in the PowerBook. Even the newer 65 watt laptop power adapters wouldn't have been enough for that as a dual 7447 @1.8GHz would have consumed approx. 70-75 watts on it's own before any of the other hardware got power.

goMac
Mar 31, 2012, 03:02 PM
I think the MPC8641D which was the dual core version of the e600 would have been right on par with the Core Duo chips that were in the first Intel systems. I think Apple probably looked at the kind of cash Intel was sinking into R&D vs what Freescale could afford and what IBM simply didn't seem to want to do and chose Intel. It could have had something to do with the 64bit Core 2 being closer to market than any sort of 64 bit G4 or mobile G5 chip as well. In another world, I would like to see what would have been if Apple had given Freescale the bid.

It wouldn't have been. The problem is it still had the slow system bus meaning you never would have actually been able to feed the second core enough information to keep it running well.

It's the equivalent of putting some high end factory on an island, and the only way to get materials to the island is by canoe.

The Intel chips eventually ran into the same problem where their 800 mhz/1066 mhz weren't fast enough to keep up with quad cores. Kind of puts the 167 mhz system bus on the G4 into perspective.

zen.state
Mar 31, 2012, 03:09 PM
It wouldn't have been. The problem is it still had the slow system bus meaning you never would have actually been able to feed the second core enough information to keep it running well.

It's the equivalent of putting some high end factory on an island, and the only way to get materials to the island is by canoe.

The Intel chips eventually ran into the same problem where their 800 mhz/1066 mhz weren't fast enough to keep up with quad cores. Kind of puts the 167 mhz system bus on the G4 into perspective.


All your arguments ever do is obsess over numbers like bus speed etc. There is this thing called real world performance that you don't seem to comprehend.

I work with many G5 clusters on a weekly basis and you can't tell me that their 800MHz+ bus speed translates into real world gains. Live in the numbers cloud as long as you want but those of us that understand the real world results will almost always disagree with your arguments.

For the record.. the e600 (7448) was engineered to run on a 200MHz bus so if Freescale made boards for Apple I'm sure they would have been 200MHz+.

Koodauw
Mar 31, 2012, 03:09 PM
No, that's not an actual prototype - it's just a mockup of the rumored PBG5

Don't listen to r.j.s. He never got to play with one. ;)

r.j.s
Mar 31, 2012, 03:18 PM
Don't listen to r.j.s. He never got to play with one. ;)

You're right, I was busy working on the G6

goMac
Mar 31, 2012, 04:51 PM
All your arguments ever do is obsess over numbers like bus speed etc. There is this thing called real world performance that you don't seem to comprehend.

I'm a computer scientist who works on multi core design/programming, and I also did software development on the G4, but do go on...

I work with many G5 clusters on a weekly basis and you can't tell me that their 800MHz+ bus speed translates into real world gains. Live in the numbers cloud as long as you want but those of us that understand the real world results will almost always disagree with your arguments.

It transfers into huge gains, actually. Why do you think Apple went through the trouble of licensing HyperTransport from AMD for the G5? They did it because the bus on the G4 was so poor, and they wanted to correct it.

If the G4 had a faster system bus, the G5 wouldn't have been necessary, and Apple wouldn't have bothered with it.

For the record.. the e600 (7448) was engineered to run on a 200MHz bus so if Freescale made boards for Apple I'm sure they would have been 200MHz+.

Until you get to the 400 mhz-600 mhz range you're just not fast enough for dual core. The bus speed limits the speed of the memory on the machine. So no matter how fast of memory you put into the G4, the e600 limited the memory speed to 200 mhz or slower. At that rate, you just can't get information out of RAM fast enough to process it. It's barely fast enough to pull from RAM fast enough to feed one core. Two cores is flat out a waste.

Again, the G5 fixed this problem and really did a great job. The HyperTransport bus it used was better than anything Intel had until the Core i7. But the G5 had other issues.

666sheep
Mar 31, 2012, 05:07 PM
^^^GB comparison (G4 1.8 DP vs G5 1.8 DP) quite well illustrates what you say about bus speed difference: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/488235/561887 - memory and stream sections.

Hrududu
Mar 31, 2012, 06:30 PM
I'm a computer scientist who works on multi core design/programming, and I also did software development on the G4, but do go on...



It transfers into huge gains, actually. Why do you think Apple went through the trouble of licensing HyperTransport from AMD for the G5? They did it because the bus on the G4 was so poor, and they wanted to correct it.

If the G4 had a faster system bus, the G5 wouldn't have been necessary, and Apple wouldn't have bothered with it.



Until you get to the 400 mhz-600 mhz range you're just not fast enough for dual core. The bus speed limits the speed of the memory on the machine. So no matter how fast of memory you put into the G4, the e600 limited the memory speed to 200 mhz or slower. At that rate, you just can't get information out of RAM fast enough to process it. It's barely fast enough to pull from RAM fast enough to feed one core. Two cores is flat out a waste.

Again, the G5 fixed this problem and really did a great job. The HyperTransport bus it used was better than anything Intel had until the Core i7. But the G5 had other issues.
Actually the dual core version of the G4 had a system bus that would run at 600MHz & use DDR2 RAM.
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRPPCDUALCORE
And I totally agree that the system bus is HUGE reason the G4 really fell out of ranks later on in life. When you consider how the CPU ranged from 350MHz to 1.67GHz but system bus speeds only increased from 100MHz to 167MHz you really begin to see where the G4 began to struggle for bandwidth. Had the G4 made it up to 400MHz or even 333MHz in bus speed, later PowerBooks and iBooks may have not felt so long in tooth by the end.

zen.state
Mar 31, 2012, 06:46 PM
I'm a computer scientist who works on multi core design/programming, and I also did software development on the G4, but do go on...

Are you trying to start a credentials measuring contest with me? Okay.. I'll bite.

-21 years as a hardware tech (17 as Apple Certified) with a specialty in Mac based super computer cluster setup and maintaining the health of the hardware and software on multi-year contracts since 1998. I have setup everything from Beige G3 tower clusters to modern day Mac Pro clusters.

-24 years as a BSD user.

-OpenBSD developer for both PowerPC and x86.

Your credentials don't change the fact that you don't seem to understand real world performance. All you have really done is list your personal specs and name a technology or two. How about some real world examples and definitions rather than tech babble?


It transfers into huge gains, actually. Why do you think Apple went through the trouble of licensing HyperTransport from AMD for the G5? They did it because the bus on the G4 was so poor, and they wanted to correct it.

If the G4 had a faster system bus, the G5 wouldn't have been necessary, and Apple wouldn't have bothered with it.

Using the word "huge" to explain the gains does not reflect the clock speeds the busses run at. I'm not saying the bus doesn't outperform the G4 because it does but in the real world it is no where near the increase the clocks speeds are. The 1 GHz G5 bus is over 5.9x the speed of the fastest G4 bus (167MHz) but in the real world it only works about 2.5 - 3x faster and not everything in real world computing is directly dependent on bus speed.

A head researcher at one of the labs I do work in and I even did a very thorough real world number crunching test. The results showed that in the very bus dependent calculations we were running that the 1 GHz G5 bus only equated to about a 300-400MHz G4 bus if one existed. This test was done with a 34x dual 2 GHz G5 (dual 1 GHz bus) cluster vs a cluster of 40x dual 1 GHz G4 Quicksilver's (133MHz bus) and 5x dual 500MHz GE G4's (100MHz bus). The G5 cluster was capable of about 603 gigaflops vs. the G4 cluster that came close at about 532 gigaflops.

I will admit that bus speed makes a much bigger difference in x86 hardware generally.


Until you get to the 400 mhz-600 mhz range you're just not fast enough for dual core. The bus speed limits the speed of the memory on the machine. So no matter how fast of memory you put into the G4, the e600 limited the memory speed to 200 mhz or slower. At that rate, you just can't get information out of RAM fast enough to process it. It's barely fast enough to pull from RAM fast enough to feed one core. Two cores is flat out a waste.

Again, the G5 fixed this problem and really did a great job. The HyperTransport bus it used was better than anything Intel had until the Core i7. But the G5 had other issues.

My direct experience tells me the G4 could have taken away the need for the G5 if it was able to get the bus up to just the 300MHz range. From everything I understand it was a lack of investment from Apple over several years that held back the limits of the G4. They only had enough resources to focus on the CPU while the logic boards were massively neglected for a few years. Luckily the boards were well engineered enough to do the job for a long time with few real modifications.

My single 7448 on a 100MHz bus will smoke any single G5 and is about on par with a dual 1.5GHz 7455. Please use your number philosophy to explain to me how a single G4 on a 100MHz bus can noticeably surpass a single 1.8G5 with a 900MHz bus? Please



^^^GB comparison (G4 1.8 DP vs G5 1.8 DP) quite well illustrates what you say about bus speed difference: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/488235/561887 - memory and stream sections.

Thats a dual 7447 (note the 512K L2) in that test which is a gutless chip vs the 7455 or 7448 yet it still scores only about 200 less in the overall score (which actually reflects the real world a bit) than a dual 1.8GHz G5 with a dual bus thats 5.39x faster and a next gen chip.

Any dual 1.25GHz+ MDD owner was silly to buy those Sonnet MDD upgrades as a 7455 tends to be the same speed as a 7447 thats 400MHz+ faster.

Ariii
Mar 31, 2012, 11:49 PM
I'm a computer scientist who works on multi core design/programming, and I also did software development on the G4, but do go on...



It transfers into huge gains, actually. Why do you think Apple went through the trouble of licensing HyperTransport from AMD for the G5? They did it because the bus on the G4 was so poor, and they wanted to correct it.

If the G4 had a faster system bus, the G5 wouldn't have been necessary, and Apple wouldn't have bothered with it.



Until you get to the 400 mhz-600 mhz range you're just not fast enough for dual core. The bus speed limits the speed of the memory on the machine. So no matter how fast of memory you put into the G4, the e600 limited the memory speed to 200 mhz or slower. At that rate, you just can't get information out of RAM fast enough to process it. It's barely fast enough to pull from RAM fast enough to feed one core. Two cores is flat out a waste.

Again, the G5 fixed this problem and really did a great job. The HyperTransport bus it used was better than anything Intel had until the Core i7. But the G5 had other issues.

Sorry, but I don't know much about this. Can you increase the speed in a processor without making it a whole different type of processor? And what would differentiate one generation of processors from another? Is there any clear way to define that? Sorry, what I'm saying must be pretty stupid. I've gotten the -1 on every single one of my posts :confused:.

G51989
Mar 31, 2012, 11:59 PM
Sorry, but I don't know much about this. Can you increase the speed in a processor without making it a whole different type of processor? And what would differentiate one generation of processors from another? Is there any clear way to define that? Sorry, what I'm saying must be pretty stupid. I've gotten the -1 on every single one of my posts :confused:.

I'm a simple camera man for CBS, I can't speak a TON. But here's what I do know.

A processor can be faster or slower than another, weather it be a G5, a G4, a Pentium II, Pentium 4, Core Duo 2, or a Xeon or a monster AMD Optron.

But system performance takes a whole lot into account, Hard drive space/performance, bus speed/ memory/ video card. speed of your chipset, as well as your processor itself.

Sure, a Pentium 4 Running at 3.2 gzh will be faster than a Pentium 4 running at 2.39gzh. But That same P4 running at 3.2gzg is slower than a G5 running at 2gzh or a AMD Athlon running at 2.2gzh.

So much more than clock speed matters to a computer, and so much more than the processor matters in any computer. A good computer will have a fast processor, lots of ram, a big hard drive, and a beefy video card. You can get a I7 Processor, a bigass 1TB hard drive, running windows 7 on a ATI 6 series. But if you give it 2 gigs of ram, nothing is gonna happen :P

TSE
Apr 1, 2012, 12:20 AM
The fact is: For awhile, PowerPC processors were superior to Intel and AMD. Up until the G5. The G3 and G4s matched or at times outperformed the PIIs and PIIIs they were up against. The G5, while certainly powerful, wasn't anywhere close to being ready to be put into a notebook, and Apple, along with the rest of the industry, knew that notebooks were a greater source of revenue than desktops.

I kind of miss the PPC days; they were unique and the hardware wasn't just a fancy PC like it is nowadays. But at the same time, Intel has some great processors and it is understandable why Apple moved on.

Don't be surprised if Apple moves to ARM next, but at the same time, don't be surprised if Apple stays with Intel. Intel has really picked up it's game against ARM, especially in the energy saving department.

G51989
Apr 1, 2012, 12:49 AM
The fact is: For awhile, PowerPC processors were superior to Intel and AMD. Up until the G5. The G3 and G4s matched or at times outperformed the PIIs and PIIIs they were up against. The G5, while certainly powerful, wasn't anywhere close to being ready to be put into a notebook, and Apple, along with the rest of the industry, knew that notebooks were a greater source of revenue than desktops.

I kind of miss the PPC days; they were unique and the hardware wasn't just a fancy PC like it is nowadays. But at the same time, Intel has some great processors and it is understandable why Apple moved on.

Don't be surprised if Apple moves to ARM next, but at the same time, don't be surprised if Apple stays with Intel. Intel has really picked up it's game against ARM, especially in the energy saving department.

I would like to agree with all of this.

Inculding the part about Intel, Intel has a big long history of always dumping a ton of money into research and product development. Sure they ahve fallen behind a bit from time to time, but Intel has always put out a great product, that performs very nicely. Apple would be wise to stick with them.

goMac
Apr 1, 2012, 12:55 PM
Are you trying to start a credentials measuring contest with me? Okay.. I'll bite.

-21 years as a hardware tech (17 as Apple Certified) with a specialty in Mac based super computer cluster setup and maintaining the health of the hardware and software on multi-year contracts since 1998. I have setup everything from Beige G3 tower clusters to modern day Mac Pro clusters.

-24 years as a BSD user.

-OpenBSD developer for both PowerPC and x86.

Your credentials don't change the fact that you don't seem to understand real world performance. All you have really done is list your personal specs and name a technology or two. How about some real world examples and definitions rather than tech babble?

I prefer to remain anonymous as sometimes I deal with insider information on here and I'd like to stay in Apple's good graces and not have things traced back to me.

But if it makes you feel better, I'm also Apple certified, and I'm a developer dealing with multi core, GPU programming, and SSE (would have been Altivec on PowerPC.)

Using the word "huge" to explain the gains does not reflect the clock speeds the busses run at. I'm not saying the bus doesn't outperform the G4 because it does but in the real world it is no where near the increase the clocks speeds are. The 1 GHz G5 bus is over 5.9x the speed of the fastest G4 bus (167MHz) but in the real world it only works about 2.5 - 3x faster and not everything in real world computing is directly dependent on bus speed.

A head researcher at one of the labs I do work in and I even did a very thorough real world number crunching test. The results showed that in the very bus dependent calculations we were running that the 1 GHz G5 bus only equated to about a 300-400MHz G4 bus if one existed. This test was done with a 34x dual 2 GHz G5 (dual 1 GHz bus) cluster vs a cluster of 40x dual 1 GHz G4 Quicksilver's (133MHz bus) and 5x dual 500MHz GE G4's (100MHz bus). The G5 cluster was capable of about 603 gigaflops vs. the G4 cluster that came close at about 532 gigaflops.

I'm going to call bunk on this. The G5 is slightly faster clock for clock than the G4, and your G5s have 4x the clock rate, yet they're only able to eak out barely a tie?

That's not a system bus problem. The G5s in your numbers are underperforming despite their great system bus.

I will admit that bus speed makes a much bigger difference in x86 hardware generally.

The system bus makes the exact same difference. x86 and PowerPC made different design decisions, but PowerPC is not made of pixie dust that allows it to violate the laws of physics and move data to the processor using magic.

My direct experience tells me the G4 could have taken away the need for the G5 if it was able to get the bus up to just the 300MHz range.

This is pretty much what I've been saying. So we're in agreement?

The entire reason the G5 exists is pretty much because the G4 had a slow system bus. Either the G4's system bus was a problem, or it wasn't and Apple released the G5 for no reason. You can't have it both ways.

My single 7448 on a 100MHz bus will smoke any single G5 and is about on par with a dual 1.5GHz 7455. Please use your number philosophy to explain to me how a single G4 on a 100MHz bus can noticeably surpass a single 1.8G5 with a 900MHz bus? Please

Dual processor machines had a system bus for each CPU. Dual core chips share the same system bus for both cores.

You're comparing a dual processor design to a dual core design when they're not the same thing. A dual core G4 would have not been functionally equivalent to a dual processor G4.

Thats a dual 7447 (note the 512K L2) in that test which is a gutless chip vs the 7455 or 7448 yet it still scores only about 200 less in the overall score (which actually reflects the real world a bit) than a dual 1.8GHz G5 with a dual bus thats 5.39x faster and a next gen chip.

Any dual 1.25GHz+ MDD owner was silly to buy those Sonnet MDD upgrades as a 7455 tends to be the same speed as a 7447 thats 400MHz+ faster.

Again, that's great and all, but the mistake you're making is comparing dual processors to dual cores.


The fact is: For awhile, PowerPC processors were superior to Intel and AMD. Up until the G5. The G3 and G4s matched or at times outperformed the PIIs and PIIIs they were up against. The G5, while certainly powerful, wasn't anywhere close to being ready to be put into a notebook, and Apple, along with the rest of the industry, knew that notebooks were a greater source of revenue than desktops.

It was a good race, but it honestly went downhill when Motorola had trouble breaking 500 mhz. That's when the clock rate troubles started. The G4's efficiency let it stay relevant for a while, but it really needed to stay at least somewhat competitive with Intel's clock rate to trounce Intel.

I kind of miss the PPC days; they were unique and the hardware wasn't just a fancy PC like it is nowadays. But at the same time, Intel has some great processors and it is understandable why Apple moved on.

The one thing I don't miss is Apple's PowerPC chipsets. Like the PowerMac 6500 which had tons of compatibility issues. Or my Power Mac G3 which would randomly corrupt drives over 10 gigs (but advertised support for drives up to 100 gigs.)

Sorry to say Apple's strength has never really been custom designed hardware internals. iPod went pretty well for the most part, and the iPhone has been strong because so much of the design has been outsourced.

Intel Macs have bee totally solid in the meantime. My Mac Pro is the best machine I've had since my old Power Mac 7300. Not a single issue aside from a dead 8800 (produced by NVidia).

Don't be surprised if Apple moves to ARM next, but at the same time, don't be surprised if Apple stays with Intel. Intel has really picked up it's game against ARM, especially in the energy saving department.

The Mac will probably die before there is any chance of it moving to ARM. ARM doesn't provide any advantages at this time over Intel for desktops.

x86 is actually moving into ARM's space, which will be interesting to watch. Traditionally, x86 has not worked well for cell phone size devices.


Actually the dual core version of the G4 had a system bus that would run at 600MHz & use DDR2 RAM.
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRPPCDUALCORE
And I totally agree that the system bus is HUGE reason the G4 really fell out of ranks later on in life. When you consider how the CPU ranged from 350MHz to 1.67GHz but system bus speeds only increased from 100MHz to 167MHz you really begin to see where the G4 began to struggle for bandwidth. Had the G4 made it up to 400MHz or even 333MHz in bus speed, later PowerBooks and iBooks may have not felt so long in tooth by the end.

This is interesting. If I'm reading it right, they moved the memory controller onto the processor eliminating the need for a system bus (much like the G5.)

It's still clock for clock and clock per watt way way behind what Intel had, but it would have solved the G4s biggest problem at the time. Trying to find a release date on it.

Edit: The earliest release references I can find for the dual core G4 with the integrated system bus was in 2006, after the first Intel Macs started to ship with Core processors at dual 2.1 ghz and 4 core desktops at 3 ghz. Note that the MPC7448 did not have the fixed system bus, only the MPC8641.

zen.state
Apr 1, 2012, 03:48 PM
I prefer to remain anonymous as sometimes I deal with insider information on here and I'd like to stay in Apple's good graces and not have things traced back to me.

But if it makes you feel better, I'm also Apple certified, and I'm a developer dealing with multi core, GPU programming, and SSE (would have been Altivec on PowerPC.)

You certainly want to seem enigmatic but the end result isn't so much of a mystery. I am well aware what SSE is since as I noted above that I develop OpenBSD software for x86 and PowerPC. I use an AMD quad core machine for x86 development.


I'm going to call bunk on this. The G5 is slightly faster clock for clock than the G4, and your G5s have 4x the clock rate, yet they're only able to eak out barely a tie?

That's not a system bus problem. The G5s in your numbers are underperforming despite their great system bus.


You can call "bunk" all you like but that doesn't change the truth. Obviously the tests were run in 32-bit on the G5's to make it fair. You can't have a fair comparison with 32 vs. 64 bit. Even when running 64-bit code though the G5 cluster could only hit about 740 gigaflops which is only about 30% higher than 32-bit. Both clusters use the exact same software, switches and cables. All the software used was fully Altivec supported. The G4 cluster does have 11 more nodes also which helps that cluster a lot even though they are all clocked much slower.

Those G5's are certainly not underpowered as they match the performance of every G5 of that speed I have ever worked on.



The system bus makes the exact same difference. x86 and PowerPC made different design decisions, but PowerPC is not made of pixie dust that allows it to violate the laws of physics and move data to the processor using magic.

If you think the bus makes the exact same difference in PowerPC architecture then I have to question if you're really a computer scientist. Your mind seems lost on the drawing board and spec sheets.

All you to is talk about specs and techs and never give any real examples of anything that you draw your conclusions from. Work on that.



This is pretty much what I've been saying. So we're in agreement?

The entire reason the G5 exists is pretty much because the G4 had a slow system bus. Either the G4's system bus was a problem, or it wasn't and Apple released the G5 for no reason. You can't have it both ways.

If you actually read the words I typed you would see that I do admit that the G5 bus outperforms the G4. My experience and argument is that the overall real world gain is no where near the increase in MHz.



Dual processor machines had a system bus for each CPU. Dual core chips share the same system bus for both cores.

You're comparing a dual processor design to a dual core design when they're not the same thing. A dual core G4 would have not been functionally equivalent to a dual processor G4.

I think you're confused.. I am saying that my single 7448 (single core) in a G4 Sawtooth with a 100MHz bus outperforms a single (single core) 1.8GHz G5 tower with a 900MHz bus. I noted all that very clearly yet you're going on about duals.. It's a bit hard to argue a point when we're talking about different things. There are no dual core G4 chips available on the Mac market at all. You would need ties to a maker than can buy direct from Freescale and the ability to attach it to a Mac daughter card.


Again, that's great and all, but the mistake you're making is comparing dual processors to dual cores.

The G5 system in that test 666sheep linked to is a 2nd gen dual CPU (not dual core) G5 with a dual 900MHz bus (note the "PowerMac7,3"). It is also running 10.5 which is 64-bit at the GUI level. So the reality of that test is a dual 1.8GHz 7447 G4 on a single 167MHz bus vs. a dual 1.8GHz with a dual 900MHz bus running a 64-bit OS. The overall score is only about 20% higher. Your perspective is non-existent (at least on this topic) it would seem.

There wasn't even a dual core 1.8GHz so I'm not sure how you could have possibly thought that . Do you just invent chips in your head? I'm confused..

I am happy to debate all day long with you but it's just not very interesting when all your points are just tech babble and nothing that shows and real examples of what you mean. You also seem to have problems comprehending simple language.

goMac
Apr 1, 2012, 04:18 PM
You can call "bunk" all you like but that doesn't change the truth. Obviously the tests were run in 32-bit on the G5's to make it fair. You can't have a fair comparison with 32 vs. 64 bit. Even when running 64-bit code though the G5 cluster could only hit about 740 gigaflops which is only about 30% higher than 32-bit. Both clusters use the exact same software, switches and cables. All the software used was fully Altivec supported. The G4 cluster does have 11 more nodes also which helps that cluster a lot even though they are all clocked much slower.

Those G5's are certainly not underpowered as they match the performance of every G5 of that speed I have ever worked on.

Again, for your results to make any sense the G4 would have to be nearly 3-4x faster clock for clock than the G5, which we all know isn't true. You can tell me that those are the results you got all you want, but if they are, something is very wrong with your test.

If you think the bus makes the exact same difference in PowerPC architecture then I have to question if you're really a computer scientist. Your mind seems lost on the drawing board and spec sheets.

All you to is talk about specs and techs and never give any real examples of anything that you draw your conclusions from. Work on that.

You admit one reply down that the G4 had a slow system bus that affected performance. You're debating yourself here, even.

If you actually read the words I typed you would see that I do admit that the G5 bus outperforms the G4. My experience and argument is that the overall real world gain is no where near the increase in MHz.

You yourself said the G4 needed a faster bus to stay competitive.

I think you're confused.. I am saying that my single 7448 (single core) in a G4 Sawtooth with a 100MHz bus outperforms a single (single core) 1.8GHz G5 tower with a 900MHz bus.

And if that is true your test is very broken. No sane person would even suggest a single G4 sawtooth even at 1.8 ghz would ever outperform a G5 at 1.8 ghz.

I noted all that very clearly yet you're going on about duals.. It's a bit hard to argue a point when we're talking about different things. There are no dual core G4 chips available on the Mac market at all. You would need ties to a maker than can buy direct from Freescale and the ability to attach it to a Mac daughter card.

We're talking about the dual core e600. What are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_e600

The problems associated with the bandwidth-constrained external MPX bus interface found on the 74xx series are relieved with single (MPC8641) or dual (MPC8641D) e600 cores...

Hey look even Wikipedia knows that the system bus on the G4 was a problem!

The G5 system in that test 666sheep linked to is a 2nd gen dual CPU (not dual core) G5 with a dual 900MHz bus (note the "PowerMac7,3"). It is also running 10.5 which is 64-bit at the GUI level. So the reality of that test is a dual 1.8GHz 7447 G4 on a single 167MHz bus vs. a dual 1.8GHz with a dual 900MHz bus running a 64-bit OS. The overall score is only about 20% higher. Your perspective is non-existent (at least on this topic) it would seem.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but looking at the Openmark threads you've participated in your G4 can barely pull even with a G5 while pushing less than a quarter of the pixels. That doesn't sound at all even to me.

There wasn't even a dual core 1.8GHz so I'm not sure how you could have possibly thought that . Do you just invent chips in your head? I'm confused..

Hi, we're talking about the e600 and it's successors. What are you talking about?

I am happy to debate all day long with you but it's just not very interesting when all your points are just tech babble and nothing that shows and real examples of what you mean. You also seem to have problems comprehending simple language.

If you're asking why we're talking about dual core G4s... I don't think you're even on the same topic as this thread...

Why would we be talking about dual CPU systems in a thread about laptops anyway?

Goftrey
Apr 1, 2012, 04:21 PM
I'm thinking the mods should create a subforum especially for people to argue-uh, I mean debate. For the past however many weeks a good third of the thread here have turned out in arguments. Just give it a rest.

Nameci
Apr 1, 2012, 04:46 PM
Let them argue all they long if they want. Pick up information that is factual and true.

zen.state
Apr 1, 2012, 05:03 PM
Again, for your results to make any sense the G4 would have to be nearly 3-4x faster clock for clock than the G5, which we all know isn't true. You can tell me that those are the results you got all you want, but if they are, something is very wrong with your test.

Again, your brain is only looking at clock speed and the fact that it's a next gen CPU rather than how it actually performs when you sit in front of it and use it. This is a limitation you need to overcome to understand real facts.


You admit one reply down that the G4 had a slow system bus that affected performance. You're debating yourself here, even.

I posted the reason 2 posts ago.. it was because of underfunding the overall G4 engineering and the logic boards being neglected in favor of CPU improvements. Not that the tech wasn't able to. How can a neglected technology evolve? Oddly enough Freescale focussed more on the G4 after Apple stopped using it.


And if that is true your test is very broken. No sane person would even suggest a single G4 sawtooth even at 1.8 ghz would ever outperform a G5 at 1.8 ghz.

Have you ever actually sat and used a 7448 CPU? It wouldn't surprise me if you have not yet talk like you know which seems to be a popular thing for many on this forum. Once again your mind is in the numbers cloud. A single 1.8GHz G5 tower with 900MHz bus (not the 600MHz) scores about 1005 on GB vs. my average of 1120+. The worst score I have ever gotten is 1048 and that was while I had Camino open.


I'm not sure what you're talking about, but looking at the Openmark threads you've participated in your G4 can barely pull even with a G5 while pushing less than a quarter of the pixels. That doesn't sound at all even to me.

Openmark is a GPU only test hence my 5000 range score on a Geforce 6200 which is what all 6200 score other than one that got 4000~. My media center 1.83GHz C2D Mac mini with GMA 950 only scores about 1100 on the same test which is 5x worse than my 6200's score in a Sawtooth. CPU and system bus speed is completely irrelevant with Openmark.


Hi, we're talking about the e600 and it's successors. What are you talking about?

You quoted my comment on 666sheep's benchmark link and said "Again, that's great and all, but the mistake you're making is comparing dual processors to dual cores." There was no dual core CPU in that test at all. Try to keep up.


Anyway.. you're just babbling about stuff that has little effect on real world computing and my stance on that won't change till your logic does. It seems like you don't have much real varied experience with the hardware you're claiming knowledge of.

If you have any real arguments based on experience rather than specs to offer to the conversation please do. For the sake of this thread staying on topic though lets either take it to PM or make another thread. Keep in mind though that I am done till you stop babbling on about specs and share some real experience.

Regards

goMac
Apr 1, 2012, 05:07 PM
You know what... Let's just post the benchmarks?

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/488235/561887

Integer performance is a little weaker on the G5... that was known, and was made up by floating point performance, but if we look at something that strains the system bus like the memory benchmarks....

Yeah. G4 had problems. G5 is up to 6x faster in some of those memory bandwidth benchmarks, at the exact same clock speed.

Now imagine two cores on that slow bus both trying to read from RAM at the same time. Ow.

QED.

zen.state
Apr 1, 2012, 05:28 PM
My worst GB score vs a single 1.8 G5. Note that regardless of bus speed and that the G5 memory scores kick my ass that my overall is still 120 higher. Note that the G5 is running 10.5 so it has a 64-bit OS.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/501753/350369

Do we need to go on?

goMac
Apr 1, 2012, 05:35 PM
My worst GB score vs a single 1.8 G5. Note that regardless of bus speed and that it the G5 memory scores kick my ass that my overall is still 120 higher. Note that the G5 is running 10.5 so it has a 64-bit OS.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/501753/350369

Do we need to go on?

Even your own benchmarks show your machine getting beaten handily at real world benchmarks like the streaming benchmarks. The stream benchmarks indicate performance for things like video encoding and decoding, DSP work like audio, etc, and your machine gets destroyed.

Given that the pure CPU benchmarks are a wash the only reason this performance difference could exist is the bus speed.

My entire point, re the discussion about the dual core G4s, is if this handicap due to the bus speed is already bad enough with one core, it's going to get worse with two cores.

Goftrey
Apr 1, 2012, 05:35 PM
My worst GB score vs a single 1.8 G5. Note that regardless of bus speed and that the G5 memory scores kick my ass that my overall is still 120 higher. Note that the G5 is running 10.5 so it has a 64-bit OS.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/compare/501753/350369

Do we need to go on?

I thought you didn't appreciate Geekbench as it doesn't reflect ''real-world'' performance...

zen.state
Apr 1, 2012, 05:43 PM
I thought you didn't appreciate Geekbench as it doesn't reflect ''real-world'' performance...

The overall results actually have some reflection of real world performance as a computer isn't just a bus and RAM is it? There is a CPU that has to factor into that also.

----------

Even your own benchmarks show your machine getting beaten handily at real world benchmarks like the streaming benchmarks. The stream benchmarks indicate performance for things like video encoding and decoding, DSP work like audio, etc, and your machine gets destroyed.

Given that the pure CPU benchmarks are a wash the only reason this performance difference could exist is the bus speed.

My entire point, re the discussion about the dual core G4s, is if this handicap due to the bus speed is already bad enough with one core, it's going to get worse with two cores.

In the real world sitting and using both my Sawtooth vs. a single 1.8 G5 there is enough of a difference that you can feel it.

You really try hard at twisting things to suit your agenda. Have you ever actually sat and used both these exact spec machines? I have..

Once again.. no point made by you at all. You don't live in the real world it seems. Good luck with all that.

cocacolakid
Apr 1, 2012, 05:44 PM
Do we need to go on?

Only if you want to keep changing your argument. goMac has shown repeatedly that your original argument is wrong.

vohdoun
Apr 1, 2012, 05:47 PM
Let them argue all they long if they want. Pick up information that is factual and true.

Now I know why a lot of people hated Mac users back in 2004/05 before the Intel announcement hit. zen has a real hostile problem and yet there's no need to be. He's way too brash.

Doesn't matter where you go regardless how knowledgeable you are. If you're nice to others, 9 out of 10 times in return they'll be nice. Respect works both ways.

goMac
Apr 1, 2012, 05:54 PM
In the real world sitting and using both my Sawtooth vs. a single 1.8 G5 there is enough of a difference that you can feel it.

You really try hard at twisting things to suit your agenda. Have you ever actually sat and used both these exact spec machines? I have..

Once again.. no point made by you at all. You don't live in the real world it seems. Good luck with all that.

And now we're down to personal feelings on performance...

Look, I'm sitting next to some G4s right now, one of them a high end DP. So it's not like I have some irrational hate for the G4, I used to work on G4s back in the day.

But all the hard evidence points to the G4 being a solid CPU crippled by a system bus that couldn't feed it enough. My only point has been that a dual core G4 wouldn't have necessarily saved the PowerPC in the Mac line because if you have problems feeding one core fast enough, you're definitely going to have problems feeding two cores fast enough. It was a problem the Intel chips didn't have.

(Which is far closer to the original topic of this thread.)

zen.state
Apr 1, 2012, 06:27 PM
And now we're down to personal feelings on performance...

It's not personal feelings at all. I have used countless single 1.8GHz G5 and none of them can keep up with my Sawtooth. You need to remember that the GB scores take all scores into account. The G5's score was hurt by CPU performance and my G4 by the slow memory and bus. No benchmark is perfect but GB is much better at showing overall scores that reflect real world results. Xbench is one I simply can't trust.


But all the hard evidence points to the G4 being a solid CPU crippled by a system bus that couldn't feed it enough.

Yes and my point was never that the bus didn't hold it back but rather that the G5 bus wasn't the boost that the numbers promise.

My CPU scores should at least be an example of how well a 7448 could have fared with a faster bus. Whether the scores are a "wash" or not they are the same tests run on the same clock speeds. The 7448 was 3x faster in the blowfish test.

To be fair the 7448 has 1MB on chip L2 vs. 512KB on the G5. Late G4 tech vs. early G5 tech but both CPU are 90nm.

Nameci
Apr 1, 2012, 07:02 PM
I am enjoying this thread. Lot of things learnt.

adcx64
Apr 1, 2012, 07:26 PM
This is the thread of the century!

Posted on my MacBook Air.

Ariii
Apr 1, 2012, 09:33 PM
I'm a simple camera man for CBS, I can't speak a TON. But here's what I do know.

A processor can be faster or slower than another, weather it be a G5, a G4, a Pentium II, Pentium 4, Core Duo 2, or a Xeon or a monster AMD Optron.

But system performance takes a whole lot into account, Hard drive space/performance, bus speed/ memory/ video card. speed of your chipset, as well as your processor itself.

Sure, a Pentium 4 Running at 3.2 gzh will be faster than a Pentium 4 running at 2.39gzh. But That same P4 running at 3.2gzg is slower than a G5 running at 2gzh or a AMD Athlon running at 2.2gzh.

So much more than clock speed matters to a computer, and so much more than the processor matters in any computer. A good computer will have a fast processor, lots of ram, a big hard drive, and a beefy video card. You can get a I7 Processor, a bigass 1TB hard drive, running windows 7 on a ATI 6 series. But if you give it 2 gigs of ram, nothing is gonna happen :P

Sorry, I sort of mis-worded what I meant. For processors, can you increase the bus speed without making it a whole different processor? Like, maybe another enhanced version of the G4? And if that was possible, then there would be no argument at all. And would increasing the bus speed make it a whole other kind of processor, or is there some other thing that defines it? As another poster said, the PowerPC architecture is now used in high-end business machines, definitely not consumer products, like laptops. Would that mean that the G5's are almost like a first step into this? I mean, I know that the newer PowerPC ones don't have the G- prefix, so there is probably many differences. But there's something I just noticed in the Wikipedia entry for the PowerPC architecture:

"G5 970 (2003), 64-bit, derived from POWER4...."

The G4 doesn't look like it's based off of that series, so does that mean that there's a bigger difference?

Hrududu
Apr 1, 2012, 11:59 PM
Sorry, I sort of mis-worded what I meant. For processors, can you increase the bus speed without making it a whole different processor? Like, maybe another enhanced version of the G4? And if that was possible, then there would be no argument at all. And would increasing the bus speed make it a whole other kind of processor, or is there some other thing that defines it? As another poster said, the PowerPC architecture is now used in high-end business machines, definitely not consumer products, like laptops. Would that mean that the G5's are almost like a first step into this? I mean, I know that the newer PowerPC ones don't have the G- prefix, so there is probably many differences. But there's something I just noticed in the Wikipedia entry for the PowerPC architecture:

"G5 970 (2003), 64-bit, derived from POWER4...."

The G4 doesn't look like it's based off of that series, so does that mean that there's a bigger difference?
The G3 and G4 are similar in a lot of ways, but the G5 was a totally different type of chip all around. Just like the G3 and G4 were a whole new animal compared to the older PowerPC 60x chips. The G3 was a better chip than the Mach V 603ev, the G4 improved on the G3 by adding the Altivec velocity engine for graphics computation, and the G5 was based on those IBM Power series chips which introduced the 64 bit computing with full backward 32 bit compatibility and a whole load of other changes, but still retained that velocity engine.

throAU
Apr 2, 2012, 12:45 AM
Sure they could. They could have put a G5 laptop out back in the day too, but it would be crap.


x86 has plenty of advantages:

intel has the best fabs in the world - whatever you may think of the architecture's history, fact is, it works and in terms of cpu throughput per watt, it is right up there (for cpus that have anywhere near the performance)
x86 sells way more cpus, and gets "economy of scale"
the powerpc was unfortunately not competitive in the mobile arena, and IBM/Motorola didn't care about the tiny market that apple had in that sector enough to rectify that
having cpu/architecture in common with PCs means you can do things like bootcamp, get better driver support from third party hardware OEMs who aim thair hardware primarily at the PC, etc

ihuman:D
Jul 21, 2012, 06:19 AM
There was a very power efficient dual G4 chips that could beat some G5's that apple would have been able to use in laptops - LINK (http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC8641D) and some people think g4's are more reliable and generally better than G5's.

Specs:
CPU: Dual e600 Power Architecture core, up to 1.5GHz each, 2.3MIPS/MHz
Cache:L1: 32kB I/D L2: 1MB with ECC
Alti Vec Engine
Memory Controller: Dual 64b DDR2, UP TO 600MHz WITH ECC
Fabric Interface:Serial RapidIOŽ, 1x/4x at up to 2.5Gb/s per lane
Local I/O Interface: Dual PCI Express, x1/x2/x4/x8, 2.0Gb/s per lane
Voltage:1.1V
Reliability:10 yrs at 105°C
Technology:90nm silicon-on-insulator (SOI)
Package:1023-in HiCTE ceramic 33mm x 33mm

sos85
Jul 25, 2012, 03:19 AM
I do not think so, maybe the new product named Powerbook/iBook G4S :) as the apple do not update its powerbook name for so long years.

Lil Chillbil
Jul 25, 2012, 12:41 PM
for that to even be possible two things would have to happen
1 there would need to be great strides in battery technology
2 there would need to be great strides in microprocessor cooling technology

Bug-Creator
Jul 25, 2012, 01:00 PM
There was a company called PA-Semi that was nearing completion of a lower power, low heat output version of the G5 chip in late 2005.

Since there is now a computer with that P6T chip on sale (don't even ask unless prepared to pay serious money) we can now conclude:

- the chip never went beyond (2x)1.8GHz
- it was beaten running blender under Linux by my own 2x1.8GHz QuickSilver (with much slower RAM)

Read:
It would have been a nice DualCore version of the latest 1.67GHz (which did beat the P6T in the same tests when only 1 core was used) or even a MacMini. But this would have lastes for only 1 generation (year).
In terms of new iMacs or PMacs it would allready been a downgrade to the 2005 models.

Ariii
Jul 25, 2012, 04:12 PM
Since there is now a computer with that P6T chip on sale (don't even ask unless prepared to pay serious money) we can now conclude:

- the chip never went beyond (2x)1.8GHz
- it was beaten running blender under Linux by my own 2x1.8GHz QuickSilver (with much slower RAM)

Read:
It would have been a nice DualCore version of the latest 1.67GHz (which did beat the P6T in the same tests when only 1 core was used) or even a MacMini. But this would have lastes for only 1 generation (year).
In terms of new iMacs or PMacs it would allready been a downgrade to the 2005 models.

Wait... do you know if there was a mobile version?

Bug-Creator
Jul 27, 2012, 02:26 PM
The CPU itself might be suitable for mobile, but that actual puter is about as big as a PMac G5 (and 100% fugly...).

Lil Chillbil
Jul 27, 2012, 03:30 PM
lets just face it the g5s capabilities were way to advanced for its time period and I personaly think that a quad g3 powerbookk would have been a lot better than any g5 powerbook in terms of size and battery life.

Ariii
Jul 27, 2012, 03:59 PM
The CPU itself might be suitable for mobile, but that actual puter is about as big as a PMac G5 (and 100% fugly...).

Hmm... if that does work, it might be fun to mod one into a Macintosh Portable case :).

zen.state
Jul 27, 2012, 04:15 PM
The G5 CPU was in no way suitable for mobile use as bug creator suggests. All Apples portable power adapters at the time were 45 watts and even now they are only 65 watts. A single G5 CPU on it's own would overpower that almost and you still need a logic board and all the rest that makes up a laptop.

Also, the G5 was in no way "too advanced for it's time". It was simply a power hog and needed 500+ watt PSU's to power it. It's the most inefficient PowerPC chip ever made and possibly the all round least efficient RISC chip ever.

It really seems like you guys just make stuff up as you type.

Lil Chillbil
Jul 27, 2012, 04:40 PM
It really seems like you guys just make stuff up as you type.

I was strictly referring to the g5 chips power consumption being to advanced for the 45watt power supplys of the day

zen.state
Jul 27, 2012, 04:45 PM
I was strictly referring to the g5 chips power consumption being to advanced for the 45watt power supplys of the day

Thats not an issue of being too advanced at all. Thats an issue of a CPU being too inefficient to be used in a portable. It's actually the complete opposite of advanced.

Ariii
Jul 27, 2012, 07:03 PM
The G5 CPU was in no way suitable for mobile use as bug creator suggests. All Apples portable power adapters at the time were 45 watts and even now they are only 65 watts. A single G5 CPU on it's own would overpower that almost and you still need a logic board and all the rest that makes up a laptop.

It really seems like you guys just make stuff up as you type.

Umm.... those PA-Semis are clocked at 25 Watts ( http://www.astahost.com/info/tipffi-semis-pwrficient-processors-breaks-core-duo-65w-dual-watts.html), which isn't too much, and possibly practical for a laptop, especially when you look at many gaming laptops out there.

zen.state
Jul 27, 2012, 07:38 PM
Umm.... those PA-Semis are clocked at 25 Watts ( http://www.astahost.com/info/tipffi-semis-pwrficient-processors-breaks-core-duo-65w-dual-watts.html), which isn't too much, and possibly practical for a laptop, especially when you look at many gaming laptops out there.

You're talking about a chip that consumers never even got their hands on so no one can really confirm anything in terms of power consumption. The development of that chip obviously didn't go well since it caused Apple to back out and switch architectures instead.

To any of us this chip is a phantom so anything you guys assume is nothing but fantasy.

Ariii
Jul 27, 2012, 08:07 PM
You're talking about a chip that consumers never even got their hands on so no one can really confirm anything in terms of power consumption. The development of that chip obviously didn't go well since it caused Apple to back out and switch architectures instead.

To any of us this chip is a phantom so anything you guys assume is nothing but fantasy.

Oh, sorry! When did I assume anything?

Hmm... if that does work, it might be fun to mod one into a Macintosh Portable case .




And I thought there might've been at least a chance, as a couple of articles have given a little information about it.

Bug-Creator
Jul 28, 2012, 03:11 AM
The G5 CPU was in no way suitable for mobile use as bug creator suggests.

Huh ??? When did I suggest that ????

Was talking bout the P6T which might have been suitable for mobile (no I don't have any reallife data on power-consumption).

And yes that chip can now be "bought" within a "new" computer, but that involves >3000$ and a big part of that as a prepayment 3-??? months before delievery....

What you get is an butt-ugly tower with a full-size ATX mobo and a SW-package easliy beaten by a similar SW package running on various G4 based Macs (and a few long discontinued custom mobos).