PDA

View Full Version : What are the specs on the G5?


MacManiac1224
Nov 28, 2001, 12:55 PM
Ok, I just saw the Register article about the G5 and it's proposed production dates, but my question is: What are the other components that will go into the machine?
---------
What is the price of the Power Mac G5's?
How many processors can fit into one machine for server usage?
Will Apple try to expand their server line and try to become a "real" competitor in the server market?
Does this mean that iMac's will start shipping with G4's?
----------
What do you guys think?

MacManiac1224
Nov 28, 2001, 12:56 PM
Also one more thing:
Will they have a new enclosure? If so, what it look like?

Falleron
Nov 28, 2001, 01:01 PM
I think that the imac will stay with the G3 because IBM has announced the 1Ghz G3. Apple needs to stick with IBM because they are developing more than Motorola as far as I can see!

The G5 should run from 1 - 1.6 Ghz with 1/2 meg of cache. There is no sign of dual processor yet because of the price I think (but we may get a dual 1Ghz G5 machine). ORR.. Possibly a 4 processor G4 running at 1Ghz for example.

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 28, 2001, 01:26 PM
What about the whole multi-core thing? I remember reading that the G5 was supposed to be multi-cored, but then I stopped seeing things about it. Oh well, that probably means it was nothing more than a rumor.

Falleron
Nov 28, 2001, 01:37 PM
I read the same thing, i am not sure though. Could be?

spikey
Nov 29, 2001, 11:42 AM
Im not sure if apple will stick with the G3 but i think they should.

The multi-core thing is quite an old rumor. I think it was just a spin-off from the multi-core G4 rumor.
By the way, what would happen to a multi-core chip heatwise?

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 29, 2001, 04:12 PM
Yeah you're probably right. And it probably would put out a lot more heat.

Catfish_Man
Dec 2, 2001, 01:30 PM
Anybody see the article on Architosh that macnn had a link to? Some pretty interesting stuff, especially about gigawire and the raycer graphics buyout two years ago.

joey j
Dec 4, 2001, 12:10 PM
Falleron> I think that the imac will stay with the G3 because IBM has announced the 1Ghz G3.

There's no guarantee that Apple will use the 750FX. They might, in
laptops, but I can't see Apple having G3 and G5 in their desktop line to
the exclusion of the G4, particularly when the G4 is faster at the same
clockspeed, with Altivec,


> Apple needs to stick with IBM because they are developing more than Motorola as far as I can see!

Apple would probably not be able to continue PPC development on their own
(should Moto want out), so a design partnership would be necessary. Less
partners is probably better and IBM strikes me as a better partner due to
its commitment to the POWER line and advanced technologies which can seep
down into PPC development, meaning less speculation and a more solid
foundation for future plans; if Apple knows what IBM's already done, then
Apple should be able to count on IBM being able to incorporate those
finished technologies into the PPCs; this is not possible with motorola
(conflicts with their embedded focus in any case; relatively low-tech). So
roll on IBM, at least for a design partnership, foundry partnerships are
another game altogether.

OTOH:

1) Motorola has still done an admirable job of designing the G4 in spite
Apple's insane turnovers (~18-24 months? the P6 is still around and that's
~95, for example).

2) IBM is in the hole further than Motorola is, although I'm not sure as
to the financial health of their processor design unit specifically. IBM
seems to be coping well enough with their insane debt load by the looks of
things (add salt to opinion).




ThlayliTheFierce> What about the whole multi-core thing? I remember
reading that the G5 was supposed to be multi-cored, but then I stopped
seeing things about it.

The latest MOSR has a few lines on it.


> Oh well, that probably means it was nothing more than a rumor.

... as if the increase in the number of execution units (7410 -> 7450) and
the multicored power4 wasn't a less-than-subtle reminder of the PPC's
shift towards increased thread-level parallelism.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/1999/microprocessor99.pdf




spikey> Im not sure if apple will stick with the G3 but i think they
should.

... not that you ever provided any convincing reason that they shouldn't
switch to the 7460 (apart from the 400 Mhz frontside bus that wasn't).


> The multi-core thing is quite an old rumor. I think it was just a spin-off from the multi-core G4 rumor.

Altivec was intended toward the G3 and multicoring toward the G4, as
rumour had it; I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's strict timetabling
forced certain things to be dropped.


> By the way, what would happen to a multi-core chip heatwise?

It probably would put out close to 2x the heat, all other aspects being
equal (figuring that there's 2x the transistors and the two cores
themselves are ~identical...).

Falleron
Dec 4, 2001, 01:05 PM
You could be right! However, on http://www.maccentral.com there is a story that suggests that we could be waiting for the G5 a little longer!!! Motorola have announced their Appolo chip that will ship starting at 1Ghz +++.

That would mean that Apple is mostly likely to stick with the G3 in the iMac so there is a larger speed difference in consumer + professional!

dantec
Dec 4, 2001, 01:19 PM
Joe J - Your assumption of the G4 being slower at lower clock speeds is wrong. Yes, Alvitec does make the chip zippy on some tasks but is your daily browser, sherlock & Quicktime player optimized for Alvitec? In my opinion Alvitec is a doomed technology... No one really used it. Imagine if simple things like Omniweb where alvitec optimized how everything would be much zipper (on G4's oubiously).

The reason Apple hasn't launched faster G3's (1ghz 750MX) on their iMacs is because they know very well that it will outperform the lower end G4 (get very close on not Alvitec tasks, besides there aren't very many alvitec accelerated tasks in the average user!). Neverunderestimate the power of a G3, there is not such a huge gap between the two except for Alvitec (and megahertz, but that was before, long long ago in the past...).

In my opinion the PowerPc architecture will not be moving very quickly without the help of IBM. We could do actually quite well without Motorola.

All this means, that a really fast G3 before the arrival of Appolo G4's (I thought the G4's used in Quicksilvers where appolo!?!) is unlikely for the simple reason that they both compete too closely.

joey j
Dec 5, 2001, 09:23 AM
dantec> Joe J - Your assumption of the G4 being slower at lower clock
speeds is wrong.

Slower?


> Yes, Alvitec does make the chip zippy on some tasks but
is your daily browser, sherlock & Quicktime player optimized for Alvitec?

(does your browser, or sherlock, tax your processor? ... )

... OTOH media convergence apps do indeed tax one's system and should be
made altivec-aware.

As for the "Quicktime player", decompression could be speeded up
with altivectorisation of the codec (freeing up the non-vector units to do
other stuff).


>In my opinion Alvitec is a doomed technol ogy... No one really used it.
Imagine if simple things like Omniweb where alvitec optimized how
everything would be much zipper (on G4's oubiously).

Omniweb probably would be x times faster too, if Apple had altivec
optimisations in Quartz to speed redraw (assuming that's what's slow).


>The reason Apple hasn't launched faster G3's (1ghz 750MX) on their iMacs
is because they know very well that it will outperform the lower end G4
(get very close on not Alvitec tasks, besides there aren't very many
alvitec accelerated tasks in the average user!). Neverunderestimate the
power of a G3, there is not such a huge gap between the two except for
Alvitec (and megahertz, but that was before, long long ago in the
past...).

The G4's FPU performance is another factor separating it from the G3;
Apple probably don't want iMacs with higher clockspeeds than their Pro
line either.


>In my opinion the PowerPc architecture will not be moving very quickly
without the help of IBM. We could do actually quite well without Motorola.

Having three players is too much so I would have to agree. However handing
the whole enchilada to IBM might result in IBM neglecting it. So a joint
venture is necessary (i elaborated on this elsewhere.)


>(I thought the G4's used in Quicksilvers where appolo!?!)

The 7450 was codenamed V'Ger IIRC.

dantec
Dec 5, 2001, 01:19 PM
Read an article on MOSR... That explains it all (I think it was there... Tell me if its not!)

joey j
Dec 6, 2001, 12:01 PM
dantec> Read an article on MOSR...

I customarily refrain from doing that.



> That explains it all (I think it was there... Tell me if its not!)

Which article was this? Their archives have the past ~3 months iirc.

dantec
Dec 6, 2001, 01:15 PM
Oh well, it was quite a while ago... I'm sure it was that site...

makkii
Dec 6, 2001, 10:53 PM
400MHz bus with HyperTransport elements
DDR RAM
USB 2.0
IEEE 1394b
ATA 133

the chip prices are said to be $575 for 1.2GHz and $695 for 1.6GHz version