View Full Version : New G4's: Other Improvements
Jul 23, 2001, 03:05 AM
This eWeek article (http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2792879,00.html) provides some interesting details that weren't mentioned at MacWorld regarding the new G4 Towers. Of note, it seems there have been slight changes to the motherboard:
the replacement of certain bridge chips should boost top throughput along the PCI bus to a maximum of 215M bps, almost twice the previous rate, representatives said.
As well, "the top-of-the-line model, which sports dual, 800MHz processors, will see a boost in actual throughput thanks to more efficient data flow between the twin chips' L3 caches (each of which are 2MB)"
Jul 23, 2001, 09:26 AM
This comes as quite the pleasant surprise to me. I had thought that it was using the exact same motherboard as the earlier 733 G4 uses. Apparently it is the same circuit layout basically, just some new components on the board. But a potential for 2x the PCI performance...that's quite impressive. The Mac's PCI implementation has always lagged that of the PC, clearly this is a narrowing of the performance gap.
Also of note that the CPU modules of the Quicksilver G4's will not work with (any) older G4 machines.
Jul 23, 2001, 10:18 AM
In an e-mail discussion regarding this ZDnet article with Mike Breeden (of http://www.xlr8yourmac.com ) recently, he point out that:
That article is linked in friday's other net news here I think -
but the comments also applied to the 2001 digital audio
G4s, which had improved PCI performance over prev. G4s
and write combining (feature) added for the PCI bus.
There may have been other changes, but the ones noted
also applied to the 2001 (MWSF announced) G4s also.
...Ahh well. Would've been a nice surprise w/ the Quicksilvers.
Jul 23, 2001, 01:45 PM
I was told by an avid Mac user and know it all, that the motherboard was changed so it could be used with the new G5 which he said will be released early 2002.
Jul 23, 2001, 01:52 PM
The only other MB change I've heard about is that someone was claiming the daughtercard voltage was different for the new machines... as the dual 800 takes more of a power drain.
The result, is it's not likely that you'd be able to use these cards in the G4 towers.
Jul 23, 2001, 01:56 PM
I'm sure they'll go DDR (hell, maybe even RDRAM) when the G5 rolls out, with a new motherboard. That's a big-enough CPU jump that it would warrant such an architectural change.
Jul 23, 2001, 02:12 PM
Whats RDRAM? i dont think ive ever heard of it.
Jul 23, 2001, 03:15 PM
RDRAM is - at least Intel thinks so - the RAM of the future. But it is a lot more expensive.
I don't want to bore you with all the details (e. g. http://www.theregister.co.uk, etc.).
Personally, I don't think, they will go for that - DDR-RAM has a much better price-performance an availability. So it won't come.
Jul 23, 2001, 09:57 PM
Damn apple and there crazy ways of thinking. Can't they just have LCD imac's with a G4 processor?? Is that SO BAD???
Jul 24, 2001, 03:17 AM
You will probably have to wait till January when they are probably announced.
The reason is pure and simple - introducing the G4 to all lines would cannibalize sales for the pro products.
Until the next gen processor, the G5, is out, there probably won't be a G4 iMac and iBook (although I do agree that this would be really cool).
Jul 24, 2001, 10:04 AM
Jul 24, 2001, 02:04 PM
students...think of the educators who cant afford LCD/G4 imacs. Think people...think. Who is Apple's biggest market now...not professionals...students!!! Only if prices come way down will we see a G4/LCD iMac. It will be a G3 at a slower clock speed than the slowest G4. They can't over lap clock speeds because people are stupid and dont realize that they are different chips. They also wont come out with say a 500mhz G4 iMac because people would see that as a speed DROP!!! So the G3 will be around for probably another year, or until the towers get the G5 and the G4 gets bumped down.
Unlikely anytime soon.
Jul 24, 2001, 02:10 PM
I forgot, I live in a good neighborhood with parents as nyc teachers and if any of you read the news the nyc tearchers are one of the lowest paid. So I'm not a rich self wanting snob. I stil run on a 233 imac. Do you know how slow Diablo2 runs on it?
Jul 26, 2001, 12:13 PM
From what i have heard about the G3's clock speed soon abou to max-out, i think it will die and the G4 will go into imacs in the way ahead in the future.
however if the G3 could have its clock speed improved then maybe apple could expand their product line to make a sub-imac product, maybe even only a web-appliance.
Anywayz the G3 aint dead yet.
Wey-hey nice too see sum1 with a 233 aswell!
i cant afford jack ****ing **** right now, never mind a new imac.
Jul 26, 2001, 03:28 PM
G3 is IBM's processor and its speed is remarkable, if Mhz is all you're comparing. G4 chips are, on balance, slower and more costly to manufacture. Howerver, G3 lacks the Altivec component, something which will probably become increasingly tied to Apple software.
Jul 26, 2001, 04:25 PM
Yeah u r right its speed is remarkable now, but if it is going to max out soon then it will be left behind and be obsolete as the G4 carries on getting faster.
the point which i am trying to make is maybe as new mac processors cum out to replace the G4 & G3 then if the G3 carries on being improved it could open up another sector of apples market.
Jul 26, 2001, 04:37 PM
A lot of Apple's and its software providers' programming (OSX, Adobe, etc.) is becoming dependent on the Altivec Engine and not having that capability will lead to the G3's demise.
Besides, Apple doesn't have room to market three processors. It did until it iced the Cube, but not any more. When the G5 arrives, say goodbye to the G3.
Jul 27, 2001, 07:59 AM
What makes u think there is no room for 3 processors?
i think there is lots of room for 3 processors if the G3 (the low cost processor) will be put in a cheap product for maybe onky internet and DTP packages.
If you think about it the G% would be a high end professional cpu, the G4 would become the imac cpu and the G3 could be put in a cheap sub-imac machine.
i think it would be popular if it is priced cheaply, especially for poor bastards like me.
Jul 27, 2001, 11:01 AM
What Apple learned from the Cube fiasco was that the product matrix is two by two - one pro line, one consumer line.
The Cube - a wonderful machine imho - was somewhere in between which killed it.
So a third 'sub-iMac' product wouldn't make much sense.
Jul 27, 2001, 02:43 PM
U dont think it didnt sell well because it woz misunderstood and aimed at a market that wasnt there?
i think a sub-imac product would hit a market that needed a cheap machine, i know lots of people who would buy one.
but maybe this is deviating too far away from the original post so i will stop there ;)
Jul 27, 2001, 06:57 PM
Well, it would hurt the iMac's sales ...
Jul 28, 2001, 10:11 AM
Jul 28, 2001, 10:29 AM
And since the imac is seling as a internet machine, hence "iMac". No one I think wants to copy of the ipac. Sure Spikey and me would buy it cause we aren't as rich as some, but the imac that i am using would be that machine. Look u can't do much with a old 233 imac. Sure I love it but that's not the point.