PDA

View Full Version : G6 Rumors




MacRumors
Jul 29, 2003, 10:29 PM
MacBidouille (http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-07-30#285) claims the 980 is coming. Based on the Power5, with 3 Altivec units, 1MB L2 Cache, Hyperthreading, and are currently under testing. Supposedly, a significant performance increase over the G5.



arn
Jul 29, 2003, 10:29 PM
Page 2'd because:

- Not really that much new info. Basically similar to previous rumors floating around. Some claims of crazy performance, but hard to pin down.

- MacBidouille has been inconsistent.

Exlaxxboy
Jul 29, 2003, 10:35 PM
is the Power PC 970 the same thing as the Power5 and are they the same as the G5? :confused:

NNO-Stephen
Jul 29, 2003, 10:35 PM
MY GOD!!!!

I'm waiting on the G6. G5, I hardly knew ye.

NNO-Stephen
Jul 29, 2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Exlaxxboy
is the Power PC 970 the same thing as the Power5 and are they the same as the G5? :confused:

no, 970 is based on the Power 4 and the Power 5 is the successor to the Power 4... :D 980 is based on Power 5 apparently.

arn
Jul 29, 2003, 10:36 PM
The PowerPC 970 = G5
PowerPC 970 is based on the Power4 processor.

Power5 is the next chip after the Power4.
There is a rumored chip called the PowerPC 980 which is based on the Power5.

arn

Powerbook G5
Jul 29, 2003, 10:41 PM
I don't know...I remember when the G4 first came out there were rumors that Motorola was aggressively in works with the G5 that would be out a year later and be four times more powerful with multiple cores, etc. It's been a few years and Motorola, well, all I can do is shake my head in disappointment. I know IBM seems to be much more reliable and capable, but these rumors just to be deja vu all over again.

G4scott
Jul 29, 2003, 11:05 PM
Don't you have to have a Power5 first, before you can have the 980?

Which came first, the Power5 or the 980...

If Macbioudulle (or whatever the heck they are) is right, we may never know...

NNO-Stephen
Jul 29, 2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Don't you have to have a Power5 first, before you can have the 980?

Which came first, the Power5 or the 980...

If Macbioudulle (or whatever the heck they are) is right, we may never know...

I think I read somewhere that the 980 was developed simultaneously with the POWER 5 unlike the Power4.

applemacdude
Jul 29, 2003, 11:31 PM
At least IBM is doing more than Motorola. If this is true, this is good news. By next summer we could see G5 imacs and G6 powermacs. Maybe...

DeusOmnis
Jul 29, 2003, 11:41 PM
I have a feeling that we're going to be seeing the G6 pretty quick. IBM is kicking ass and they want to keep up the momentum. The new facility that they have makes it easy, for them at least, to make new chips asap =D

Skandranon
Jul 29, 2003, 11:50 PM
It's amazing that people are already looking for the G6 when the G5 hasn't even hit the shelves yet.... I guess we can come back to this topic when it's relevant in 2-3 years.

:rolleyes:

utilizer
Jul 29, 2003, 11:54 PM
I'd say the best thing for me to do is to get the revision B of the 17 in. PowerBook (PLEASE, make it duals Apple!), then a dual G5 XServe, and finally, a G6 workstation, but I'll definitely get one if they do indeed reach 3 Ghz by mid-2004.

Wonder Boy
Jul 30, 2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Freg3000
If the Power 5 is only going to be presented this October and available next year (as per the Page 1 story), it seems as though the G6 will be a few years off. I think that the G5 will scale past 3 GHz by in the second half of 2004, and then the G6 could introduced maybe at WWDC 2005. Then again, the 980 is vaporware as of now, and there really isn't an firm evidence confirming its development (although a derivative chip seems highly logical).

And just a friendly suggestion, Arn. The last few days there have been a lot of Page 2 stories, and in about all of them there is a question asking, "why is this Page 2 Arn?" Maybe it would be possible to clarify why the story was put on page 2 right beside or underneath the actual story itself, so people aren't trying to figure out why you made your choice as to how reliable the source was.

Leave arn alone. he does a great job.

Belly-laughs
Jul 30, 2003, 12:27 AM
When introducing the Power Mac G5 Apple did a video featuring Ive, Schiller and some chap from IBM amongst other people. He claimed that the new factory (Fishkill) was the most advanced of its kind and that they are already working on the next generation PowerPC chip. Wether he refers to the G5 replacement (G6) or the next generation G5 I don´t know, but it sure seems they´ve got great momentum!

It makes my tummy tickle.

Snowy_River
Jul 30, 2003, 12:42 AM
I, also, recall reading that the PPC980 was being developed in parallel with the Power5. So, having a G6 by next year is not inconceivable. And, it would start the PPC chips back onto their march to being the best desktop chip available.

However, all of that being said, I'd find it much more likely that the G6 will be announced more like eighteen months later. Like, around Christmas '04, or Jan '05. 'Til then, I think the new G5s are fine looking machines...

(I only wish that I could justify buying one...)

BenRoethig
Jul 30, 2003, 01:17 AM
I think the 980 may also be referred to as a G5.

Sol
Jul 30, 2003, 01:22 AM
That does it. Why buy a G5 PowerMac when we have the G6 PowerMac to look forward to?

Just kidding. It looks like the days of GHz envy are over.

If the 980 goes into Xserves and PowerMacs then chances are 970s will go into iMacs and eMacs.

With Apple sticking to dual-processor designs why don't they request from IBM a G6 with a dual core CPU? I am sure the cost of such a thing would be less than the purchase of two CPUs per PowerMac and the speed improvement would be felt across the entire line. Then again, maybe I am underestimating the effectiveness of a single CPU G5 PowerMac. If only I could see one with my own eyes...

loicl
Jul 30, 2003, 01:54 AM
I dont think the story of apple would stop with the G5. It's natural for them to prepare an after G5 since like all processors the G5 wont improve for the rest of the time. Be sure that there will be something else after. That s the law.

Remember what engeneer learn in school "it takes minimal two years of work to integrate a new idea" so it's normal for apple to "work" on it. It will be serious enough when you ll will read "apple is planning to release or G6 prototype are up"

macnews
Jul 30, 2003, 02:04 AM
Ok, what about the rumors of G5 delays due to production problems? If they are having issues rolling out the G5 in quantity (rumor, not fact) then how the hell could the G6 be even close to being released next year? Sure, they might be "working" on it but shipping next year - doubt it.

I hope I am wrong but wow, only a year to ship out G5's to get a good ROI?

crassusad44
Jul 30, 2003, 02:26 AM
During the WWDC keynote both Apple and IBM were very optimistic. Jobs claimed 3 GHz within 12 months, and IBM said they have a roadmap that would knock your socks off. Also in the promo video for the G5, IBM is claiming to already have prototypes of the next generation PPC, probably what will be called the G6 by Apple.

Motorolla had a G5 prepared for production, but they never got it out the door. They failed miserably, and that's what we all have been complaining about tor the last two to three years.

I have more faith in IBM to deliver the goods.

herr_neumann
Jul 30, 2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by crassusad44

I have more faith in IBM to deliver the goods.

That is cuz IBM kicks ARSE!!!

:D

HasanDaddy
Jul 30, 2003, 03:28 AM
MacB is inconsistent??

NO WAY!!!

The dudes were DEAD ON about the G5!

visor
Jul 30, 2003, 04:36 AM
Even Steve Jobs and Dr.IBM vice president announced 3 Ghz Processors and the next generaton on the WWDC within 12 month of of the G5.
Now - the G5 is not beeing delivered yet - so that 's another 12 Month+ delay

According to Murphy, we should be getting 4 GHZ Machines in only 18 Month - so there's nothing notable in this 'rumour'

pretentious
Jul 30, 2003, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by HasanDaddy
MacB is inconsistent??

NO WAY!!!

The dudes were DEAD ON about the G5!

Not exactly, from the WWDC Wrapup (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030625043530.shtml)
Subsequent rumors, however, were ambitious with claims that low-end (1.4 GHz) 970-based PowerMacs were rolling off assembly lines in May 2003, and implied immediate availability of the 970-based PowerMacs at WWDC. This information turned out to be incorrect.

vwcruisn
Jul 30, 2003, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors
MacBidouille (http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-07-30#285) claims the 980 is coming.

Haha here we go again! We waited forever for the g5, its not even out yet and now we await the g6.. :p

DamnDJ
Jul 30, 2003, 06:07 AM
I'd believe that they would still be called a G5; it's a bit to early to jump to G6.

Introducing the new PowerMac G5.1.2

That'll work!

burntoutjoy
Jul 30, 2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by herr_neumann
That is cuz IBM kicks ARSE!!!

:D

Haha, you wouldn't have said that if they didn't make the 970s:
They were also the ones that gave birth to the PeeCee ;)

Mr. Anderson
Jul 30, 2003, 07:39 AM
Sounds too good to be true. With the number of orders of dual 2.0 G5s exceeding Apple's expectations, probably causing a delay, I can't imagine that we'd see the G6 until 2005. But hey, if we get them a year from now, fantastic.

And the hinted performance sounds scary fast. Good news indeed :D

D

e-coli
Jul 30, 2003, 07:56 AM
Good golly Miss Molly!!!!!

What a change from the Moto camp. Those losers are still trying to get a G4 chip off the lines.

With the G5 ship dates being pushed to late Sept, this rumor seems a bit ambitious. But, hey, I would love for this to be true. ;)

Fender2112
Jul 30, 2003, 08:15 AM
G6! Man, I haven't even moved to a G4 yet.

I would assume that IMB, Intel, AMD are always working on designs that are at least one and two generations beyond whatever is currently in production. I would include Motorola, but they seem to have had a brain spasm that skewed their sence of reality.

Vintage System:

Power Computing, Power Center Pro 240 (604)
Xlr8 G3 400 Mhz upgrade w/ 1MB cache
60 Mhz bus
256 MB RAM

Custom Added Features:

2-Port PCI USB adapter
ATI Exclaim VR 128 video card
Yamaha 16x40x16 CD burner
17 GB IBM Ultra SCSI hard drive

Maybe I should wait for a the G10's to show up.

slightly
Jul 30, 2003, 08:40 AM
I can't believe Apple has kept us waiting so long for a G6! I'm going into high school in the first week of September and I need that tri-processor 4Ghz G6 PowerMac for my classes!

*sigh*

I guess Apple is going to screw us again and not release it until the second week of September. That does it, I'm buying a Dell.








;)

Mr. Anderson
Jul 30, 2003, 08:46 AM
I know you're being a bit sarcastic - but in all honesty, what would you do with a G6 in school?

I have a dual 1.25 and I wait overnight and hours during the day for it to render animations. I could use a couple dual G5s and would love to have something like a G6 now.....

and I'd still be complaining that it would be too slow. I really won't be happy until I can do realtime radiosity at HDTV resolutions....and that won't happen for another 5 years or more at least!

D

slightly
Jul 30, 2003, 09:06 AM
Sadly, my school days are long gone.

Just wanted to set up the bandwagon for the inevitable hordes of kids with rich parents to leap onto.

*gently shepherds dozens of mewling teens onto the bandwagon *

* realises I'm not entirely sure what a bandwagon looks like *

* makes tea instead *

Lanbrown
Jul 30, 2003, 09:11 AM
Some companies are working on two to three chips at the same time. You have the upcoming one, it's successor and possibly it's successor all be worked on. You have more development staff on the upcoming one, as soon as that is completed; you shift most of the staff to the successor with some going to its successor. As soon as a new chip is out, they just don't sit there and wait for something to do, they are working on the next one. IBM probably has some development work going on for the Power6.

idea_hamster
Jul 30, 2003, 09:50 AM
I remember reading (somewhere here at macrumors, I believe and would appreciate someone backing me up if I'm not entirely crazy) that the actual production cost of the G5 was less than the G4.

If that's true and indicative of IBM production versus Moto, then Apple is going to want to have their two-tiered chip choices (currently, G3/G4; soon to be G4/G5 we expect) be both from IBM. That would suggest a jump to G5/G6 as soon as possible, rather than waiting around for the G5 market to saturate.

Brother Mugga
Jul 30, 2003, 09:57 AM
Don't even *think* about holding off for a G6.

See my ritual slaughtering here...

http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/2003_06_29_archive.htm

...in the Tuesday entry.

The git.

I'd have him...you know, if I could afford the airfare.

And wasn't quite such a spineless coward.


Needless to say, the shame has driven me into ordering a dual 2.0 Gig G5. With a Radeon 9800.

Which was pretty onerous, obviously.

Always nice to 'switch' into the fast lane.;)


Brother Mugga

PS: I also heard that the '980' and the Power 5 are in simultaneous development. Still, I would have thought they'd get the G5 down to 90nm first (that's probably the '3Gig by next year' reference, as the 130nm G5 isn't supposed to go much over 2.6 Gig), so probably a late 2004 or early 2005 slot for the 980.

I suppose it all depends on what Ned Flanders (the IIIrd) from IBM meant by 'already working on the next generation of chips': 970 (at 90nm) or 980?

Mr. Anderson
Jul 30, 2003, 10:17 AM
I'm not going to hold out for G6 - I need the G5 now - its just somewhat nice to know that we have a decent future ahead...:D

D

kenaustus
Jul 30, 2003, 10:26 AM
It is nice to see IBM being successful with new lines of chips - an unusual situation for Mac users, but one we can get used to.

I read that the G5's were basically ready, but that were on hold while burning new CDs after 2 bugs on the OS were fixed. They will be flying out the door as soon as they can be packed.

BTW - ordering a dual now might entail a bit of a wait (mid to late Sep) as, according to a note on Bidouille, there were 65,000+ orders for the dual - way above expectations. Now Apple is going to go work their @ss off to get them out the door before the Sep 30 end of quarter, which should impact their profits (and stock price) in a very nice way.

I also read an interesting comment that with IBM providing the chips the upgrades will come a lot faster, which will cause Mac users to be in a position of upgrading to new Macs as fast as wintel users. This fits very with the notes of the 980 and I believe we're going to be surprised at how fast the Macs in the future will be delivered.

Ain't it nice to see the light at the end of the chip tunnel!

iStream
Jul 30, 2003, 11:15 AM
edit: oops.. quoted the wrong guy :)

I don't think a Dual G5 Xserve will come out anytime soon since they are already having cooling issues in a standard-sized case, and the Xserve fits in a 1U enclosure. Unless of course.. they make the Xserve bigger.

Capt Underpants
Jul 30, 2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Skandranon
It's amazing that people are already looking for the G6 when the G5 hasn't even hit the shelves yet.... I guess we can come back to this topic when it's relevant in 2-3 years.

:rolleyes:

Alot of people seem to think that the PPC 980 is the chip that will get us over 3GHz in one year. The PPC970 Probably will only make it up to 2.6 -2.8 GHz. That makes it in the time frame of one year.

DGFan
Jul 30, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Sounds too good to be true. With the number of orders of dual 2.0 G5s exceeding Apple's expectations, probably causing a delay, I can't imagine that we'd see the G6 until 2005. But hey, if we get them a year from now, fantastic.

And the hinted performance sounds scary fast. Good news indeed :D

D

The article mentioning the G5 delays referred to channel delays. It could be that Apple is delivering pre-orders first and filling the channel later. Hopefully that means a ridiculous number of pre-orders for the duals (says the Apple shareholder :D)

But the G6 has nothing to do with G5 production. A chip in development is not going to be held up by capacity problems at a production plant.

jettredmont
Jul 30, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I don't know...I remember when the G4 first came out there were rumors that Motorola was aggressively in works with the G5 that would be out a year later and be four times more powerful with multiple cores, etc. It's been a few years and Motorola, well, all I can do is shake my head in disappointment. I know IBM seems to be much more reliable and capable, but these rumors just to be deja vu all over again.

Big differences:

1) IBM makes seriously huge money off their Power* line. The Power5 is not a myth; it has been talked about publicly by IBMers for at least six months, and is set to be discussed at the mocroproc forum this Fall.. Power5 development won't be swept under the rug on a whim as is the case with Moto's "we're pissed at our only client for reasonably powerful chips" kindergarten attitude.

2) IBM has other uses (besides Apple) for their desktop variants of the Power* line. Yes, if the 970 completely flops and IBM starts getting hate mail from buyers asking how IBM could ever have sold them such a machine ... yeah, maybe then the desktop variant program will lose steam. But, right now (and we have very few hard numbers to go by), the desktop variant program looks to be a real winner, profitable both from Apple sales and from IBM machine sales.

3) IBM is a mature and businesslike company. I really can't say the same about Moto.

jettredmont
Jul 30, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Brother Mugga
I suppose it all depends on what Ned Flanders (the IIIrd) from IBM meant by 'already working on the next generation of chips': 970 (at 90nm) or 980?

Ah, but now you see the absolute beauty of such statements ... :)

jaedreth
Jul 30, 2003, 12:51 PM
While Hyperthreading and 3 Altivec cores would be enough to rate a chip as next gen, hence G6, I still remain skeptical about seeing this chip in Apple products anytime soon. Unless they are exclusively for servers and as yet unannounced high end workstations.

Jaedreth

Ensoniq
Jul 30, 2003, 02:40 PM
G5 vs. G6 ... it's simple...

Any incremental enhancements of the G5, including die size, cache size, and even tweaking of some of the Int/FP/Altivec units will be considered "G5". Those are nice enhancements, but will still be based on the Power4 design the PPC 970 comes from.

If any new chip is based on the Power5, it will be the G6. That's it, end of story. I don't know what the differences are between the Power4 and Power5, and I don't need to know. What I know is whether it's 1 year or 3 years from now, any "light" version of the Power5 sold by Apple will be marketed as a G6. Because the timeline between when the two chips ship is irrelevant. If it's a whole new chip based on a different IBM generation (Power4 vs. Power5) then Apple is going to call it a G6 and market the hell out of it to compete with constant upgrades in the PC world.

The only reason we're still using G3 chips and the only reason why it took 3 years to go from G4 to G5 is Motorola. We need to snap out of that thinking. If a significantly different G6 is ready a year from now, it will be introduced. The idea that Apple must thoroughly milk the G5 for any specific timeframe is not true. And a G6 a year from now, with G5 chips in every single line (including consumer) is far better for Apple than taking 3 years to get the G4 into the iMac and still NOT in the iBook.

Let's hope Apple has learned from the past and that IBM won't become another (if slightly more likeable) Motorola.

jaedreth
Jul 30, 2003, 03:23 PM
If any new chip is based on the Power5, it will be the G6. That's it, end of story. I don't know what the differences are between the Power4 and Power5, and I don't need to know.

-----

Sir, you don't know enough about Microprocessors to be making this assertion so definitely. You admitted you don't know the differences between Power4 and Power5.

Power4 and Power5 are NOT PowerPC Processors!

PowerPC is a totally different family, a different architechture.

Apple's use of G5 DOES NOT EQUAL IBM's use of the term G5.

IBM's use of G5 is its MOST POWERFUL processor it makes, *period*, far more than Power4 OR Power5, is used only in Supercomputer Mainframes that are ONLY sold to the US Government.

Power4 is NOT G5. IBM designates Power4 as Power4, and designates the 970 chip as a PPC that is a Power4 Derivative.

That means that this chip is *used* as a PowerPC though it is technically not a PowerPC class chip, it has PowerPC instructions, but it uses Power4 technology.

Apple computers are compatible with PowerPC chips, thus a Power4 derivative had to be made "PowerPC Like" to work with Macs.

Power5 has no relation to G6 as Power4 has no relation to G5. Apple's G5 nomenclature is not based on what IBM's codename for the chip, but for the fact that it is a generation beyond the G4.

Get your facts straight before you make absolutes you don't have the info to back up. IBM released it's G5 processor last year, and the Mainframe G5 they sell is currently the *fastest and most powerful supercomputer* on the planet. It's used for such tasks as rendering hurricanes, tornadoes, and atomic blasts in real time...

It has nothing to do with Power4 or Power5.

A Power5 derivative may or may not be called the PPC 980. And if it is, Apple is *no way shape and form* forced to call this chip G6, nor forced to call any machine it would be included in as G6.

IBM isn't calling it G6. Why should Apple?

If the PPC 980 is being desgned, it will likely be a replacement for the 970, and used in the Professional products, so that *eventually* the consumer products can be upgraded to the 970.

This is good news for Apple customers.

But let go of that stubborn uninformed idea that Power5 has anything to do with G6. (The IDEA is uninformed and stubborn, I'm not calling you any names, this is not an insult. You're simply wrong. Sorry if you're offended, but you can ask IBM yourself, and they will tell you the exact same thing. I have.)

Jaedreth

Awimoway
Jul 30, 2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
Leave arn alone. he does a great job.

Dude, what the first guy said wasn't some huge criticism you need to get your nose brown in defense against. This is the best Mac site, bar none, and the page one-page two distinction is a very good idea, but I agree that it's getting so predictable that people want to know why a story merits page two demotion that it should just be standard in the first post. Of course arn does a great job, but any successful enterprise is run by people who are never satisfied with the status quo and know that constructive crtiques are always worth listening to.

Apologies for the off-topic rant.

Brother Mugga
Jul 30, 2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by jaedreth
PowerPC is a totally different family, a different architechture.

Apple's use of G5 DOES NOT EQUAL IBM's use of the term G5.

IBM's use of G5 is its MOST POWERFUL processor it makes, *period*, far more than Power4 OR Power5, is used only in Supercomputer Mainframes that are ONLY sold to the US Government.

Power4 is NOT G5. IBM designates Power4 as Power4, and designates the 970 chip as a PPC that is a Power4 Derivative.

That means that this chip is *used* as a PowerPC though it is technically not a PowerPC class chip, it has PowerPC instructions, but it uses Power4 technology.

Apple computers are compatible with PowerPC chips, thus a Power4 derivative had to be made "PowerPC Like" to work with Macs.

Power5 has no relation to G6 as Power4 has no relation to G5. Apple's G5 nomenclature is not based on what IBM's codename for the chip, but for the fact that it is a generation beyond the G4.

Get your facts straight before you make absolutes you don't have the info to back up. IBM released it's G5 processor last year, and the Mainframe G5 they sell is currently the *fastest and most powerful supercomputer* on the planet. It's used for such tasks as rendering hurricanes, tornadoes, and atomic blasts in real time...

It has nothing to do with Power4 or Power5.

A Power5 derivative may or may not be called the PPC 980. And if it is, Apple is *no way shape and form* forced to call this chip G6, nor forced to call any machine it would be included in as G6.

IBM isn't calling it G6. Why should Apple?

If the PPC 980 is being desgned, it will likely be a replacement for the 970, and used in the Professional products, so that *eventually* the consumer products can be upgraded to the 970.

This is good news for Apple customers.

But let go of that stubborn uninformed idea that Power5 has anything to do with G6. (The IDEA is uninformed and stubborn, I'm not calling you any names, this is not an insult. You're simply wrong. Sorry if you're offended, but you can ask IBM yourself, and they will tell you the exact same thing. I have.)

Jaedreth

Er...am I missing something, or is this not actually what Ensoniq was saying? Surely he wasn't talking about the IBM G5 (etc.), but rather suggesting that there might be sufficient architectural changes between the Power4 and Power5 to merit a 'lite' version of the later ('980' or whatever) being called a G6 (in Apple's terminology).

Of course, he might be wrong on this (I personally think it'd be quite amusing to try and harmonise the Power/G numeric nomenclature by marketing a 980 as a G5+, if you see what I mean), but I'm not sure you aren't attacking a straw man, Jaedreth?

Sorry if I've completely missed the point on all of this, but then, no change there, eh...?

Brother Mugga

PS: r.e. jettredmont's post: Indeed I do, mate...indeed I do...

jaedreth
Jul 30, 2003, 04:12 PM
He is stating that the not yet announced or named PPC 980, the supposed but not announced Power5 derivative necessarily is and has to be G6. (an Apple G6 or an IBM G6, makes no sense either way)

I'm correcting that statement. That is not so.

All PowerPC-like PowerX derivatives could be considered a "generation" and will be by Apple until something is released that *deserves* the nomenclature G6, which isn't likely for 4 years or so.

I'm not saying this 980 doesn't exist, I'm saying it isn't G6, and neither is Power5.

Jaedreth

(again, ask any IBM employee...)

iLilana
Jul 30, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Big differences:

1) IBM makes seriously huge money off their Power* line. The Power5 is not a myth; it has been talked about publicly by IBMers for at least six months, and is set to be discussed at the mocroproc forum this Fall.. Power5 development won't be swept under the rug on a whim as is the case with Moto's "we're pissed at our only client for reasonably powerful chips" kindergarten attitude.


There is info on the power5 on IBM's site.

iLilana
Jul 30, 2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by jaedreth


Power4 and Power5 are NOT PowerPC Processors!

PowerPC is a totally different family, a different architechture.

Apple's use of G5 DOES NOT EQUAL IBM's use of the term G5.

IBM's use of G5 is its MOST POWERFUL processor it makes, *period*, far more than Power4 OR Power5, is used only in Supercomputer Mainframes that are ONLY sold to the US Government.

Power4 is NOT G5. IBM designates Power4 as Power4, and designates the 970 chip as a PPC that is a Power4 Derivative.

That means that this chip is *used* as a PowerPC though it is technically not a PowerPC class chip, it has PowerPC instructions, but it uses Power4 technology.

Jaedreth

970 is based on Power4 technology according to IBM. When you do a search on thier website there is a picture of the two side by side. Power4 being twice the size physically as the 970. G5 is a PPC970 with Altivec added. From other stories I am guessing that this was not an easy task. It's my guess that the Power5 will not be the parent chip to the the 3.0 chips but will probably show up in the 4.0 chips.

side note:
RAM manufacturers are probably loving this because they can hike up prices for all the new kinds of ram.

Ensoniq
Jul 30, 2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by jaedreth
He is stating that the not yet announced or named PPC 980, the supposed but not announced Power5 derivative necessarily is and has to be G6. (an Apple G6 or an IBM G6, makes no sense either way)

I'm correcting that statement. That is not so.

All PowerPC-like PowerX derivatives could be considered a "generation" and will be by Apple until something is released that *deserves* the nomenclature G6, which isn't likely for 4 years or so.

I'm not saying this 980 doesn't exist, I'm saying it isn't G6, and neither is Power5.

Jaedreth

(again, ask any IBM employee...)

With all due respect to you, Jaedreth, your statements are no more accurate or factual than mine are. We simply have differing opinions.

Your claim is that Apple could release the Power 5 Lite/PPC 980 and still call it a G5. Theoretically, that is true.

My claim is that if Apple were to release a Power 5 Lite/PPC 980, that it would probably be a significant enough difference that it would warrant the monicker G6. Theoretically, that is also true.

What am I using to base my claim on?

1 - If the Power4 and Power5 are essentially the same generation, then WHY is it called the Power5? Why not the Power 4++? (The Power4+ came first.) Do you have any evidence to support that the Power5 is NOT a significant upgrade from the Power4? Quoting from IBM's own web site:

"Talk about my generation: POWER5-based servers spring to life

IBM has announced that the first servers based on its next generation POWER5 microprocessors are up and running in IBM's Poughkeepsie labs. Initial internal performance tests indicate that POWER5 based eServer systems are expected to offer four times the system performance over the first POWER4 based servers."

Right there, in IBM's own words...the Power5 is GENERATION beyond the Power4.

2 - The claims that Power5 is 4 times faster than Power4 certainly seem to indicate that it is a significant redesign. So if a Power5 is a new generation from Power4 (which IBM clearly states it is) then a Power5 Lite/PPC 980 would be a new generation from the Power4 Lite/PPC 970. And thusly, Apple would MOST LIKELY call it the G6, because it would NOT be the same as a G5.

3 - By your definition, the G4 chip is really same generation as the G3 chip. (And in many ways I agree with you...the original G4 was a glorified G3 with Altivec tacked on.) BUT Apple called it the G4 because it was different ENOUGH to warrant a new monicker.

4 - Today's G4 chips are very different from the original 7400...but still based on the 7400. So every new version has been called the G4. (By Apple...I never claimed these Gx monickers have anything to do with Motorola or IBM.) BUT the G5 is a whole new ballgame, and Apple is shouting "Hey guys, this is really new!". They used "G5" as the machine name to clearly say "this is the next generation...it's not a G4".

So if the PPC 980 is up to 4 times faster than the PPC 970, with other benefits, you are correct that Apple COULD sell it as the G5 if they wanted to. BUT I can't see why Apple would do so. It would be AT LEAST as big a jump from the PPC 970 to the 980 as the G3 to G4 transition was.

So I stand by my assertion that any chip based on the Power5 that Apple sells will be called a G6. I don't care what IBM calls it internally. If IBM felt the Power5 warranted a whole number increment vs. calling it the Power4(something), then Apple's marketing team is just as likely to increment the G5 to G6. They'd be foolish not to.

And to quote Dennis Miller: "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong..."

jaedreth
Jul 30, 2003, 05:11 PM
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/news/pressreleases/2003/jun/milestone.html

Interesting note, IBM has had a contract to supply increasingly fast supercomputers on a factor of 10, contract with the Gov't that is...

The IBM G5 was used in the previous Supercomputer, promised to reach 10 Teraflops, whereas this new Power5 will be replacing the IBM G5 chips in ASCI Purple designs to produce 100 Teraflops.

(And the Power5 was listed by other sources as more than four times the processing power as Power4 on an individual chip basis. Further note, IBM must, in order to complete the contract, develop a 1000 Teraflop supercomputer within the next few years. Most likely will be a Power6, and thus may have a derivative. That derivative, which is increasingly hypothetical, could be used in a G6 mac.)

Power5 is coming next year, which means greater boots to power and speed on G5's, in the form of a possible PPC 980.

Jaedreth

cb911
Jul 30, 2003, 05:24 PM
that would be really good if the G6 was out sometime in the next year. as well as keeping the momentum going, which will change peoples general view of Apple, if they bring out the G6, or release a "G6" labelled Mac that will only be good for competition.

for example switchers will look at PC's and think "OK, that's got a P4" then they'll look at the Mac and go "whoa, that things got a G6!!"

jaedreth
Jul 30, 2003, 05:54 PM
Well, I've been arguing for a while now that this supposed 980 chip will *not necessarily* be called G6 by Apple Marketing.

Now let me say this: I hope they do. :)

Because if they release the 980 in 2005, and then a 990 based on a theoretical Power6 that I speculated on in another post, in 2007, cutting the generation gap in half, and providing cutting edge technology constantly, IBM and Apple can do nothing but win.

So now I'm just gonna shut up. :)

Jaedreth

Adobe75
Jul 30, 2003, 05:58 PM
It seems to me that the G3 was only around for one and a half years before the G4 came out mid '99. And seriously, a jump from a 450 B&W G3 to a 450 G4 was not that great to warrant a G* change IMO. The G4->G5 is seeming like it will be a far greater increase in not just clock speed, but architecture and performance.
I'm betting that this so-called PPC980 will be the same 970 core with a few tweaks and a 90nm process. And, it will still be called G5, coming about next summer at 3GHz.
I think the Power5-derived chip will be like a PPC9700 or something different like that. We might see it in a year and a half to two years and it *might* take the G6 name in apple's line.

Snowy_River
Jul 30, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by jaedreth
... cutting the generation gap in half...

It continues to amuse me when people think that what's happened with the G4 is the absolute precedent for what will happen in the future.

Eighteen months between G5 and G6 is not cutting the generation gap in half. It is bringing it back to what it should be.

Consider:

(G1) 601 March 1994
(G2) 603/604 April/May 1995
G3 November 1997
G4 September 1999
G5 May 2003

Thus, since the release of the PPC line, we've seen G# upgrades once every one to two years (with the glaring exception of the time taken between the G4 and the G5). I think that it's not unreasonable to guess that we'll continue to see this, and that the debut of the G6 is due some time between next summer and the following summer. Personally, I tend to plant myself in the middle of that range and vote for Winter '04/'05.

BrandonRP0123
Jul 31, 2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by DamnDJ
I'd believe that they would still be called a G5; it's a bit to early to jump to G6.

Introducing the new PowerMac G5.1.2

That'll work!

Think about what's hot on the rumor plate now; the latest rev to the G4 chip that Motorola is dragging their feet on. Take a look at the original ``G3'' versus the one in the latest iBooks. while the numbers might not increment by 1 (7455, 7456, 7457, etc), it still probably signifies a revised processor (cooler, more efficient, bigger cache, you know).

Consider the following:

Out of all the chips, ``Power PC'' is the only naming convention that has stuck with them all.

You had your 601, 603, 604, G3, G4, and now G5. It's highly doubtful that the G6 will be called the PowerPC 9anything.

Remember, the G stands for generation.

Think about the G3. When it debuted in (1998?) it was the hottest, fastest Apple processor to date at a massive 233Mhz. That was the original revision of the generation 3 processor. Here we are now, mid-2003 and the ``G3'' still exists in a 900Mhz form. Though, even the producer of the chip (was Motorola, now IBM) has changed, it's still called a G3 because deep down inside it's apples third generation of technology. The G3's popularity grew quickly because of the introduction of the backside cache. It wasn't until the Altivec addition to the G4 happened (and correct me if I'm wrong on my Apple history here) that the G4 had a massive performance enhancement over the G3.

BrandonRP0123
Jul 31, 2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by cb911

for example switchers will look at PC's and think "OK, that's got a P4" then they'll look at the Mac and go "whoa, that things got a G6!!"

Isn't the original Intel Pentium classified as a P5? The code name for one of them, I know for a fact, was P55C, and then P55C-MMX, the Pentium Pro was the P6, and so forth.

Numbers, numbers, numbers. IMHO, Intel has dragged the Pentium name out too far. In theory, the Pentium 4, is what, a 786? 886?

If Apple kept the 68K chip names, what would the G5 be? 070? :D

nichrome
Jul 31, 2003, 07:21 AM
Sensationalism aside, what's the point of labeling this bit of hear-say as a "G6" rumor?

Think about it for a minute. The G3 family consists of a number of 700 series chips. The G4 family consists of a number of 7000 series chips. Why would the G5 family be limited to one lousy chip model, and why on Earth would Apple name an incremental upgrade of the design "G6"?

Yes, the 980 implements design changes from the Power5, but that doesn't make it a new chip generation. Heck, even IBM acknowledges this by not making it, say, "9800".

C'mon. Be sensible.

Snowy_River
Jul 31, 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by nichrome
Sensationalism aside, what's the point of labeling this bit of hear-say as a "G6" rumor?

Think about it for a minute. The G3 family consists of a number of 700 series chips. The G4 family consists of a number of 7000 series chips. Why would the G5 family be limited to one lousy chip model, and why on Earth would Apple name an incremental upgrade of the design "G6"?

Yes, the 980 implements design changes from the Power5, but that doesn't make it a new chip generation. Heck, even IBM acknowledges this by not making it, say, "9800".

C'mon. Be sensible.

While you make a good point, I'd say that I see only one flaw in your logic. It's the rumor boards that have dubbed the Power5-Lite the "980", not IBM. If we had it on good authority from IBM that this was going to be called the 980, then, maybe, I'd agree with you.

The other side of the coin, however, is that going from Power4 to Power5 is considered a generational step. So, why wouldn't the Lite versions of these processors also go through a generational step, as well, regardless of what IBM chooses to number the chip as?

Food for thought...

Phil Of Mac
Aug 1, 2003, 12:03 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable that we'll have the G6 next year. After all, the 601 only lasted one year too. Great as it is, I can believe that the G5 is a transitionary chip.

Originally posted by idea_hamster
If that's true and indicative of IBM production versus Moto, then Apple is going to want to have their two-tiered chip choices (currently, G3/G4; soon to be G4/G5 we expect) be both from IBM. That would suggest a jump to G5/G6 as soon as possible, rather than waiting around for the G5 market to saturate.

I don't think Apple wants a two-tiered chip setup. With the G3 at least, they rapidly put one chip into every product. While Apple wants a pro/consumer distinction, they don't want the consumer product to be last year's pro product. They don't want the consumer to be a second class citizen. Problem is, with the G4 as the top chip, Motorola can't produce enough for Apple's entire product line. So, Apple's held back.

The 90 nm G5 and beyond will change that.

Originally posted by BrandonRP0123
If Apple kept the 68K chip names, what would the G5 be? 070? :D

That's not the same. Apple actually changed architectures and gained IBM as a supplier. x86 didn't completely change architectures.

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I don't think Apple wants a two-tiered chip setup. With the G3 at least, they rapidly put one chip into every product. While Apple wants a pro/consumer distinction, they don't want the consumer product to be last year's pro product. They don't want the consumer to be a second class citizen. Problem is, with the G4 as the top chip, Motorola can't produce enough for Apple's entire product line. So, Apple's held back.



I don't think that's quite true. When the G3 came out Apple didn't have their product line set up with the consumer/pro-sumer lines yet. They really got there when the iMac was released, and it was released with a 233MHz processor, which was, in fact, last years product. Even when they updated it, five months later, it was only bumped to 266MHz, while the Power Mac G3 was at 300MHz-450MHz. When the G4 iMac was released, it was introduced with processor speeds roughly equivalent to the Power Mac from a year earlier.

So, I think that, while Apple may not want the overall technology of their consumer line to be last year's, they have fairly consistently used last year's Power Mac's processors.

Phil Of Mac
Aug 1, 2003, 01:13 AM
But the point was, the iMac had a G3. Same processor type, lower speed. And at the time of immediate release, it wasn't that far off the Power Mac. It would be like if the iMac had the 1.6 GHz G5 now. I'm not saying there'll be parity, but the consumer Macs are going to have faster processors to keep up with (but slightly behind) the Power Macs. That means same processor, lower frequency.

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
But the point was, the iMac had a G3. Same processor type, lower speed. And at the time of immediate release, it wasn't that far off the Power Mac. It would be like if the iMac had the 1.6 GHz G5 now. I'm not saying there'll be parity, but the consumer Macs are going to have faster processors to keep up with (but slightly behind) the Power Macs. That means same processor, lower frequency.

Well, actually, my point is that it would be like the iMac getting a 1.6GHz G5 next May. Yes, by then we might have 2.6GHz G5s in the Power Macs, but what the iMac gets is last years Power Mac processor. Not only that, but, if we are to believe what rumors this thread is talking about, the Power Macs could go to the G6 not long after that.

Dunepilot
Aug 1, 2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
But the point was, the iMac had a G3. Same processor type, lower speed. And at the time of immediate release, it wasn't that far off the Power Mac. It would be like if the iMac had the 1.6 GHz G5 now. I'm not saying there'll be parity, but the consumer Macs are going to have faster processors to keep up with (but slightly behind) the Power Macs. That means same processor, lower frequency.

I'm inclined to agree with Phil here. What we shouldn't lost sight of is that Apple had a policy (at the time of introduction of the iMac) that clearly expressed a desire to have the same processor generation (if a much lower clock frequency) in as many products as possible, consumer and professional. This obviously lowers the cost of the chips - don't forget that it was around this time that they were moving to the Unified Motherboard Architecture as well. Both strands of this policy had clear economic benefits. You make more processors , you make more motherboards of the same generation , you lower costs. Sure, you do things to differentiate them, like bus speed, and other onboard technologies, but if the products are sufficiently similar, it's all good news for Apple, and for the consumer.

Then, along comes the G4 to spoil the party. Here's a chip that promised to scale quickly, but doesn't. Then Apple have to take the marketing decision to differentiate their products on the basis of what sort of chip is inside them, so you have a period where G4 says professional user, and G3 says consumer, getting away from the unified philosophy again.

The fact that Apple wants to have the same chip generation in as many products as possible was again reiterated by the introduction of the flat panel iMac. Again, they tried to bring the best processor tech they could to the consumer table, but were forced to cripple the level of this technology on that occasion due to Moto's inability to produce sufficiently faster chips for the Pro line.

I think what I'm trying to get at really here, is that Apple knows it's a boutique manufacturer, so it's consumer products need to be seen to be close enough to the cutting edge. That they've failed in this during the G4 fiasco is clear enough from the sales of FP iMacs over the last year (which have been pretty poor, esp in the last quarter).

They have had a tough lesson from the G4 to G5 period, and I'm pretty sure they'll be pressing on with readying as many new technologies as possible in readiness for the next economic boom, which means a G6 is probably a fair way into development. If there has been an upside to all the faffing about over the G4, I suppose it's that they did get the OS sorted out, whilst focussing resources on some great new software tech (the iApps etc) to get us away from thinking about processors.

It's all turned out quite nicely actually :)

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Dunepilot
I'm inclined to agree with Phil here. What we shouldn't lost sight of is that Apple had a policy (at the time of introduction of the iMac) that clearly expressed a desire to have the same processor generation (if a much lower clock frequency) in as many products as possible, consumer and professional. This obviously lowers the cost of the chips - don't forget that it was around this time that they were moving to the Unified Motherboard Architecture as well. Both strands of this policy had clear economic benefits. You make more processors , you make more motherboards of the same generation , you lower costs. Sure, you do things to differentiate them, like bus speed, and other onboard technologies, but if the products are sufficiently similar, it's all good news for Apple, and for the consumer.

...

Well, now there's an argument that I can understand. The economics of this does make sense. Although, on the flip side, Apple can leverage tech that it's already invested in by using the same chip that it used in the Power models a year ago for the consumer models.

I think it all comes down to the economics of it, and I don't think we know enough about what's in Apple's books to do anything other than guess at what Apple's choices in this area are going to be.

Dunepilot
Aug 1, 2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, now there's an argument that I can understand. The economics of this does make sense. Although, on the flip side, Apple can leverage tech that it's already invested in by using the same chip that it used in the Power models a year ago for the consumer models.

I think it all comes down to the economics of it, and I don't think we know enough about what's in Apple's books to do anything other than guess at what Apple's choices in this area are going to be.

Yes, it does all come down to the economics of it. However, without us knowing the per-chip price of the 970, it'll be difficult to extrapolate what we can expect from Apple in terms of G5 (and later, G6) rollout, and, for that matter, dropping the G3 and the G4. Also, where will the dual-processor/dual-core strategy go? I for one won't be buying another single-processor machine because I love duals so much.

It's a very interesting time to be a Mac user.

jaedreth
Aug 1, 2003, 12:47 PM
Interesting times to be a mac user... In a chinese sense?



Jaedreth

(An old Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times...")

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by jaedreth
Interesting times to be a mac user... In a chinese sense?



Jaedreth

(An old Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times...")

Chinese curse or not, I'd honestly rather live in interesting times than boring times....

patrick0brien
Aug 1, 2003, 02:46 PM
-Gents

This thread is a terrific example of trying to apply marketing to tech.

We're trying to out-guess the marketing arm of Apple if rumors of a Power5-derived 980 chip does hit the Mac.

Would they brand it the G6? If 980 is to 970 as Power5 is to Power4, I sure as hell would.

And 12-18 months before it hits, is right back on schedule. Remember IBM was the manufacturer of the G1(601) as Moto didn't have the facilities yet. IBM set the pace, Moto had it for a while, but started losing it. I suspect they never had the facilities they claimed to.

Well cudos to IBM for taking it back and pulling through for us.

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Gents

This thread is a terrific example of trying to apply marketing to tech.

We're trying to out-guess the marketing arm of Apple if rumors of a Power5-derived 980 chip does hit the Mac.

Would they brand it the G6? If 980 is to 970 as Power5 is to Power4, I sure as hell would.

And 12-18 months before it hits, is right back on schedule. Remember IBM was the manufacturer of the G1(601) as Moto didn't have the facilities yet. IBM set the pace, Moto had it for a while, but started losing it. I suspect they never had the facilities they claimed to.

Well cudos to IBM for taking it back and pulling through for us.


Well put. I couldn't agree more...

jaedreth
Aug 1, 2003, 05:01 PM
IBM is pulling Apple out of the Fire big time here. (Motorola is the one who threw diesel on us and screamed, "Fire hazard, don't anyone throw a match...")

By IBM making a PPC-like derivative of Power4, and having plans for a PPC-like derivative of Power5 in the works simultaneously with Power5, IBM is able to produce next generation chips faster than Motorola can update their old pieces of crap.

Now even though technically they named the 970 the PowerPC 970, it *isn't* PowerPC. But it isn't Power either. It's a Power derivative with PowerPC like features. So technically it should be just called the 970, which we've been calling it.

IBM will be able to keep producing new generation chips for Apple and its lower end workstations. Now since these chips are Power based and are not PPC (thus not PPC gen 1, gen 2, gen3, gen 4), Apple can decide when to pull out the hammer label "g6", but it won't matter if it's the 980 or the 990 if they really exist.

Would a 980 labeled G5 be a worse machine than a 980 labeled G6?

Would a 990 labeled G6 be a worse machine than a 990 labeled G7?

The name isn't important. The important thing is: We are in good hands.

Get rid of Moto, no one can keep up with what IBM is doing. Why do we need a second vendor? In case IBM screws us over? Yeah right, Apple has the potential to make them *lots* of money.

In IBM We Trust.

Jaedreth

Phil Of Mac
Aug 1, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, actually, my point is that it would be like the iMac getting a 1.6GHz G5 next May. Yes, by then we might have 2.6GHz G5s in the Power Macs, but what the iMac gets is last years Power Mac processor. Not only that, but, if we are to believe what rumors this thread is talking about, the Power Macs could go to the G6 not long after that.

When the iMacs were announced in May 1998, there was a Power Mac G3 at 233 MHz. The iMacs were released in August. So the iMac gets the low end Power Mac processor of 3 months ago :)

Phil Of Mac
Aug 1, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Dunepilot
Yes, it does all come down to the economics of it. However, without us knowing the per-chip price of the 970, it'll be difficult to extrapolate what we can expect from Apple in terms of G5 (and later, G6) rollout, and, for that matter, dropping the G3 and the G4. Also, where will the dual-processor/dual-core strategy go? I for one won't be buying another single-processor machine because I love duals so much.

The per-chip cost is generally the cost of manufacturing, plus money to cover R&D, plus the profit margin.

It costs next to nothing to manufacture at Fishkill. Building Fishkill was expensive, but IBM was doing that for IBM reasons, not for Apple reasons. It's another market for IBM (manufacturing everyone else's chips). R&D on the 970 and its successsors was probably a fair amount. But if Apple orders tho 970 in enough volume to cover the entire product line, they can probably get the processors on the cheap.

Remember, IBM and Apple are partners here. It's not like the Dark Side, where Intel produces processors and sells them at a set price.

Originally posted by jaedreth
Now even though technically they named the 970 the PowerPC 970, it *isn't* PowerPC. But it isn't Power either. It's a Power derivative with PowerPC like features. So technically it should be just called the 970, which we've been calling it.

PowerPC is, by definition, a version of the POWER architecture scaled down to the personal computer. Hence the name.

The 970 is a version of the POWER architecture, scaled down to the personal computer. It's not the same as past PowerPC's, but it's still a PowerPC :P

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
When the iMacs were announced in May 1998, there was a Power Mac G3 at 233 MHz. The iMacs were released in August. So the iMac gets the low end Power Mac processor of 3 months ago :)

Uh... The Power Mac G3 was released in November of 1997. The iMac was released in August of 1998 (I was at one of the release parties :)). Yes, the iMac had the same chip as the low-end Power Mac, but it was the Power Mac that was released nine months earlier. And, the bottom end Power Mac was bumped up to 300MHz the following January (at which point the iMac was bumped up to 266MHz).

Now, I will grant that there is no simple delay of 'one year', or something similar. I'm just trying to make the point that from the time that the iMac was released, more often than not there has been more of a difference in processors than just being the equivalent of the bottom end Power Mac. So, I think that saying that this is Apple's goal is premature, at best. It may be, but it may not be.

If Apple can get a G4 class chip from IBM (750VX, aka Mohave) for less than the 970 costs, there may well be incentive for them to maintain a two tier processor structure. However, there is far too much in this situation that we don't know for us to really make even educated guesses.

Dunepilot
Aug 1, 2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River

If Apple can get a G4 class chip from IBM (750VX, aka Mohave) for less than the 970 costs, there may well be incentive for them to maintain a two tier processor structure. However, there is far too much in this situation that we don't know for us to really make even educated guesses.

...and when has that ever stopped anyone on this message board???? ;)

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Dunepilot
...and when has that ever stopped anyone on this message board???? ;)

LOL...

Too true...

(Myself included!) ;)

jaedreth
Aug 1, 2003, 08:48 PM
So for now, the desktop gets G5, iMac and PowerBook are stuck with MotoSucka's G4, and the iBooks with G3's.

Next I see the iMacs and PowerBooks getting lower end G5's.

At the same time, if not before, iBooks getting better G3's.

When that is finished, G4 will be out of the product line, and Motorola will be essentially out.

Then will come the wonderful G5/G6 980 rev, and the PowerMac and XServe will get this first.

Then later the PowerBook G5 will get the lower end of these new processors.

The iBooks will be brought up to G5 then, lower end than the iMacs, but same range as eMacs.

Then Apple can start working on making that 64 bit OS :)

But keep in mind, I don't forsee this cycle completing until a year after the release of the supposed 980.

Again, just how I think things might unfold.

Jaedreth

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by jaedreth
When that is finished, G4 will be out of the product line

Well, unless Mohave is going to be considered a G4 from IBM. Then we may see the G4 for a while longer, just not from Moto.

Phil Of Mac
Aug 1, 2003, 09:28 PM
I'm not sure I buy into Mohave. I mean, it'll take just as long as it will to get the 970 down to 90 nm by all probablity, so why bother?

dragula53
Aug 10, 2003, 06:22 PM
heh.

you can actually put a match out in diesel.

it would be more effective of an analogy if you had said gasoline.

I will go take my nitpicking self somewhere else

Sun Baked
Aug 10, 2003, 06:33 PM
Ooops, Look's like the quote was burried in the wrong doc. :rolleyes:

jaedreth
Aug 11, 2003, 12:42 PM
Actually, you can put a match out in gasoline too. Just under certain conditions. If you're in a room with a lower temperature, and low humidity, you quickly drop the lit match in, it will extinguish. Gasoline lights off of its vapors, not off the actual liquid. The ignighted vapors make the liquid burn.

So if there are no vapors, it won't catch fire.

Jaedreth

Jagga
Aug 11, 2003, 03:14 PM
Um...
BrandonRP0123
Actually the G3 900Mhz has been either sitting in stockpile in IBM's coffers for almost 1 year 3 months, or been shipping as upgrade cards to 3rd party manufacturers. I remember reading an article back in 2001 on Maccentral about IBM's announcement of the 900Mhz G3 acheivement.....

which brings me to

Snowy River's comment....

If Apple can get a G4 class chip from IBM (750VX, aka Mohave) for less than the 970 costs, there may well be incentive for them to maintain a two tier processor structure.

Unfortunately regarding the G3 900Mhz, because of the deal with Motorola and Apple, IBM wasn't able to initially sell it directly to Apple. Obviously now that has changed. However Motorola still holds a tight leash on the "G4" chip that doesn't even allow IBM to produce it "until" that exclusive supply/production contract ends between Motorola & Apple. This is hugely unfortunate to all of Apple's customers.......remember Mr. Jobs public announcement for Motorola unable to keep up with the original demand of the G4 (400, 450, 500Mhz); which resulted in Motorola's hugely slow development of the G4 chip to current date??!!!!! I do hope that this doesn't continue to happen with IBM, though.

I do have hopes on the hypothetical 980 PowerPC chip becoming a reality G5 for next August's announcement.

mrsebastian
Aug 15, 2003, 12:14 PM
how about we get g5s out in towers and laptops first and then we can start talking about the g6, which should be here in about 3-5 years according to past history.

Phil Of Mac
Aug 15, 2003, 05:11 PM
3-5 years according to past Motorola history. As has been documented in this thread and elsewhere, for those of you too lazy to read the thread before posting to it, G1 (601) lasted one year (1994-1995), G2 (1995-1997) and G3 (1997-1999) both lasted two years. G4 is the abnormality with its 4 year span (1999-2003), but that is entirely the fault of Motorola.

Rocketman
Aug 23, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River

Eighteen months between G5 and G6 is not cutting the generation gap in half. It is bringing it back to what it should be.

Consider:

(G1) 601 March 1994
(G2) 603/604 April/May 1995
G3 November 1997
G4 September 1999
G5 May 2003

guess that we'll continue to see this, and that the debut of the G6 is due some time between next summer and the following summer.

I agree. I am in a business with a QUARTERLY technology upgrade cycle. But we are not dependent on chip shrink technology limits or their HUGE associated capital costs (entire factories for each revision).

In chips each reduction in die size and nanometer process improves processor size and complexity, reduces heat and power, and radically increases technology limits and capital costs. To me it is shocking that the size reductions offset the capital costs, and the net result is a cheaper high performance chip each generation. Someday soon each leap in technology will INCREASE cost to the consumer as we run into the technical limits of shrink technology.

Unless an entirely new optical or bio process is developed :) :) :)

Rocketman

x86isslow
Aug 23, 2003, 04:15 PM
"I would assume that IMB, Intel, AMD are always working on designs that are at least one and two generations beyond whatever is currently in production. I would include Motorola, but they seem to have had a brain spasm that skewed their sence of reality."

Its not that they had a brain spasm. Motorola just couldnt get the yields necessary to maintain profitability. Their 11 was supposedly too hot, and too few of the chips were viable. They havent abandoned their research completely, they continue to work on the g3.

we cant really be mad at them, just pity them, floundering with disasterous yields.

kenaustus
Aug 23, 2003, 07:54 PM
In the end Apple Legal and Moto Legal will determine the point in time where Moto does not have exclusive rights to fab the G4. I think the question on the table is how Moto can keep Apple from moving to IBM for all processors, leaving Moto out in the cold. After their continual low yields I think they would be wise to let IBM fab their chips so at least they can shift part of the blame on them in the future.

We don't know the terms of the Apple Moto G4 agreement (but would love to) so at this time we can only see Moto milking as much as they can from the G4, knowing that the Apple business will die at the end of the agreement. Doesn't look good for Moto long term, but that was the path they chose to take.

My money is on IBM delivering faster than their roadmap, taking over all of Apple's needs and blasting Intel out of the water on perfornamce. We are going to see a fantastic year from Apple and the one after will be better.

revenuee
Sep 20, 2003, 01:31 PM
G6 in a year?

bearly any G5's out there as it is, other then the new OS, even apple hasn't released anything optimized for the G5 yet, 3rd party developers having new architecture to deal with as to create software optimized for the G5, probably won't release anything for atleast a another month, or more.

I can't see the next generation processor being released for atleast 2 or 3 years, not for public use anyway, to much money and time invested in the current generation... i'm sure they'de like to make some money off of what they have now.

Phil Of Mac
Sep 20, 2003, 01:39 PM
A lot of the development work in the G5 processor and architecture will help in the implementation of the G6 as well. I'm predicting the Power Mac G6 for MWSF 2005 right now.

daveL
Sep 20, 2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by NNO-Stephen
I think I read somewhere that the 980 was developed simultaneously with the POWER 5 unlike the Power4.
That was either sstated during the WWDC keynote or published in one of the post-WWDC press releases. I remember it distinctly.

Phil Of Mac
Sep 20, 2003, 07:57 PM
Also, in the PMG5 intro video, an IBM rep said, "We have already built the prototypes for next generation PowerPC microprocessors."

dho
Sep 24, 2003, 08:13 PM
Is it just me or did MacB say they were going to quit doing rumors:rolleyes:

anyway...

Given their past level of moderate consistency, this could be the making of a very "good thing":cool:

bcsimac
Sep 26, 2003, 04:05 PM
I know I can't wait until the G6 comes out! I am still disappointed in the G5 being so darn late!

yamabushi
Oct 12, 2003, 08:50 AM
In 2004 Apple needs to have 980 chips in the PowerMac and Xserve and 970 chips in everything else. At the very least an all 970 lineup in 2004 is required. That way the OS can go fully 64bit in 2005.

Exlaxxboy
Nov 4, 2003, 02:42 PM
I say that Apple Should invest on making the first water-proof Computer insides than we can have a liquid cooled Dual 2.0Ghz G5 Power book.. sure its a bit stupid to do so with Intel and Pentium Leading the market with windows doesnt mean I cant dream does it?


And of course one more thing the G5 can have 8GB of ram right now (becuase of ram card limitations) how bout apple instead of making 8 Ram Slots turn 4 of them into expantion slots for 2nd Drive and more HDDs either that or more fans you can never have too many fans