Ok, I see new G4's, Where are the G5's?

[MacManiac1224]

Ok, I see new G4's, Where are the G5's?
That's my question. What is going on here? I am seeing articles all over the place about updated G4's, but they are going to use those G4's for the iMac's, right? So, if they are going to use those processors for the iMacs, then what about the towers? Would they continue to use G4's in towers alongside iMac's for longer then six months? I am not sure, but I am not Steve Jobs. All I can think, is Apple is going to try to update to G5's at least by MWNY. I think that would be perfect, becasue let's face it: there is really not much of a difference between the Powermac's and the iMac's. Besides the screen size available to the Powermac's and the video card, what is really the difference? Expandability? I think not, I am not forking over another $1000-$1500 for a bigger monitor, and the option for a new video card. Well, if you were Apple, what would you do?

[ftaok]

If I were in charge, I'd put G5's into the towers ASAP. They may already be ready, but maybe Apple is waiting for a redesigned motherboard.

I'd put the fastest available G4 in the TiBook.

I'd put G4s in the iMac that were just a tad slower than the TiBook.

And I'd put slower G4s (but faster than 600 mhz) in the iBooks.

Plus I'd give myself a pat on the back for a job well done.

[mymemory]

The most spoiled people ever you both, we just got 2 1GHz G4 and you want more?

[AlphaTech]

Besides being able to update the video cards, increase the RAM (beyond 1GB), you can also add up to three (additional) hard drives. You can also go with SCSI if you feel the need, simply add a PCI SCSI card and you are golden.

While there may not be all that much of a processor speed difference between the new iMac and the G4 tower, that will change.

I am also hoping that the G5 will be released, or at least announced at MWNY. I will be looking to get a new tower before the end of the year (selling the current G4 that I own). I have learned to not hold my breath when it comes to waiting for Apple to release or announce hardware changes. While it is true that they typically do so at the expo's and large shows, it is not always the case.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by mymemory
The most spoiled people ever you both, we just got 2 1GHz G4 and you want more?

Uh, YES? Woohoo, so they finally broke the gigahertz barrier! Just by a thread, and it only took a little over two years since they introduced the G4! Way to go Apple! :D So great, we have a dual gig machine that's stuck on a 133 motherboard! Up a whole 33MHz from the first G4!

Get the point? Not a whole friggin' lot has happened on the mobo and it's due for an overhaul. You think a dual 1-gig is going to turn the head of PC users that have 2.4's around them? Nope. Sorry.

[Doraemon]

I think it's a very smart move of Apple not to release the G5 until it's available in large quantities. Imagine, Apple releases the new G5 at say MWTokyo and is unable to cover the high demand until mid 2002. Now, that's bad for business. Remember that guy who posted on Macrumors who said that because the shipping of this LCD iMac would take another 2 or 3 weeks he canceled his order and bought a PC? Although, 2-3 weeks delay is hardly an argument for acting like he did, delayed shipping caused major commerical problems for Apple (e.g. G4 500).
And since Apple doesn't want people to listen to rumors about the G5 but want them to buy a Mac now they released the new G4 and said that there won't be new hardware in the next few month.

I strongly believe that we'll see the new G5 in July at MWNY.

[germanknee]

I think we'll see the MPC7500 4mb DDR L3 with 500mhz RapidIO and support for DDR SDRAM. Newer ATA. All this at MWNY. I think this will be called the G5. Maybe not. If not, then later on in 2003 (not at MWSF). It will be a modified MPC85xx chip. If we don't see MPC7500 at MWNY, then we'll see the MPC7470, and the MPC7500 at MWSF 2003.
Just speculation, but that's what I've come to think.

[Catfish_Man]

...except I think we'll see the 7470 first with a 266MHz bus and DDR RAM. It will be replaced with the 7500 (which as far as I can tell is a desktop version of the 8500 or G5) with a 500MHz RapidIO bus and all that cool stuff. It's gonna blow everything out of the water. I have no clue when it will be released, but the 7455 (not even a big enough upgrade to get a full 10's digit number increment) is already at it's 1GHz limit, so any >1GHz G4s will be 7470's/7460's.

[Kethoticus]

Next MWSF, perhaps. Stop dreaming folks. Enough already with the G5.

I understand the desire to see these chips in Macs. I'd love to see the Mac come out with these sooner rather than later. I can only imagine how fast OS X would be on a dual-G5. But guys, let's look at the past for a few moments and you'll understand why I see this speculation as nothing more than dwelling on fantasies. How many times in the past have we had crazy hopes for quad-G4s, DDR memory, 1.6 gbps firewire, 2.4GHz G5s out by Jan 7th, LCD iMacs, etc, etc, etc, and none of them were realized, or if they were, they were only about half of what we had hoped, or they were a year later than rumored.

I'm only saying that we should take rumors, wishful thinking, etc., divide it by 5, and that will be what will really happen.

[iH8Quark]

No chance we'll see the G5 until MWSF 2003. Not until they put a G4 in the iBook. Think logically, people. There's no chance Apple will distribute 3 generations of processors simultaneously. No way. That's my call.

Ti Powerbook upgrades
iBook to G4

THEN G5.

[Doraemon]

Disagreed. Apple released two or more products simultaneously in past. And therefore, it is very likely that Apple releases both G5 and G4 iBooks.


Besides, Kethoticus, the G5 is real and from what I learned its developement is finished. Therefore, there is no reason for Apple NOT to release it, except for the limited availability.

[abe]

I think we'll gonna see the following configurations for the pro models real soon:

Fast: G4, 266 MHz bus

Faster: dual G4, 266 MHz bus

Ultimate: G5, 500mhz RapidIO

This baby rocks: dual G5, 500mhz RapidIO

...

[OSeXy!]

Originally posted by Doraemon
... the G5 is real and from what I learned its developement is finished. Therefore, there is no reason for Apple NOT to release it, except for the limited availability.

I think another major reason for not releasing the G5, even if it is 'ready', is not to piss off the software developers who would have to recompile and test everything again for 64-bit to get the perfomance gains the chip offers. If they introduced the G5 now, this would be before Adobe, Macromedia and others have even caught up to the new OS. The result would be confused consumers and angry developers: not what Apple needs right now.

An overhaul of the motherboard architecture and G4s which can take advantage of it will be the next big hardware move for Apple (MWNY).

[agreenster]

We have a wide range of opinions here, some right, some dreaming.

Its good to dream, as long as you realize it is a dream.

The truth?

Here goes:

Powerbook G4 upgrades between MWNY-and end of year. processor, HD, etc.

64-bit G5 MWSF, OSX major upgrade to handle the diferent architecture of this machine.

iBook upgrade to the G4 MWSF.

*****Oh, and for the record, I hate it when people dog the dual systems. Get over the P4 2.4. We have a 2.something P4 graphics workstations at school and dual 800 G4's. We compare their speed all the time, and they are both incredibly fast, but Im willing to bet the G4 is faster. The dual system, WHEN RUNNING OSX, WHICH UTILIZES THE DUAL SYSTEM, actually acts as one processor. The two processors operate at the same time, and balance the computations. So NO, the Mac hasnt broken the gHz barrier. They've broken the 2gHz barrier.

Has the Intel chip made a dual system?

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by agreenster
*****Oh, and for the record, I hate it when people dog the dual systems. Get over the P4 2.4. We have a 2.something P4 graphics workstations at school and dual 800 G4's. We compare their speed all the time, and they are both incredibly fast, but Im willing to bet the G4 is faster. The dual system, WHEN RUNNING OSX, WHICH UTILIZES THE DUAL SYSTEM, actually acts as one processor. The two processors operate at the same time, and balance the computations. So NO, the Mac hasnt broken the gHz barrier. They've broken the 2gHz barrier.

Has the Intel chip made a dual system?

Bravo! Bravo! :D

[agreenster]

And Furthermore.............

You havent seen ***** unless you've utilized a Mac's Dual system to render 3D scenes/Animation/Video/Film.

Im talkin' 2 render-lines running full tilt frame-swappin' renderpower while the P4 is still chokin trying to parse the file. I'm serious. The Intellistation (with the P4) is adequate when it comes to editing and modeling etc, but when it comes to the render power of the G4, it doesnt even come close. A render that would take the P4 12 hours is cut to 6-8 with the G4.

Look, Im a PC user as often as I am a Mac user, but I call it like I see it. You want something rendered? Dont even THINK about using a single chip system. Just ask Pixar who uses quad-processor render farms. Mulitprocessor is DEFINATELY the way to go.

[mischief]

See also G5 comments above.:)

[jlambvo]

Of couse there are MP intel systems :confused: And yes with many things they have indeed blown the dual G4's out of the water. Also, multiple processors DO NOT act as a single processor in OSX. Unless the program is threaded, where each internal process can be distrubuted among processors, all multiple processors allow in OSX by default is one processor can be processing background processes and system stuff while the foreground app can have its own dedicated CPU. Roughly like this.

Of course many programs are multithreaded, including the heavy duty graphics software and Giants for instance (which is why it could best PC performance on a Dual 800... minus bump mapping and such of course ;) )

Not to say the advantage of a dual system is trivial, I wouldn't have it any other way and by running system tasks on a different CPU, especiallly with all that eye-candy in OSX, it clearly has a huge benifit, but many people sound dissapointed in the dual G4 performance with OSX because they misunderstand that, sort of like OS9, software still has to be written for MP systems even on Unix to get the maximum benefit.

[agreenster]

For Starters, I wasnt STATING that there werent dual processor systems for the PC, I was ASKING if there are dual processor sytems made by INTEL. I know SUN, and SGI, and the big dogs do, but what about a Dual system developed for consumers by intel? It was a question. Ive never heard of anyone having a dual pentium system that they havent built themselves, or have had a corporation build for them.

Secondly, Yes OSX allows the Dual system to operate as one processor all the time. Want proof? In OSX, go to your utilities and check out the "CPU Monitor." When using a dual system, both gauges register simultaneously, even in the finder, with no other apps running. Check it out yourself. OSX does it, not the apps.

[AlphaTech]

I have done some checking in the past... in order to either get, or build, a dual processor peecee, you are going to spend the same, if not more, amount of money as if you picked up a dp Mac. Then there are the cost of changing all your Mac software over to peecee (NOT a cheap item).

IF I was to do any video editing, or really needed to do some 3d/animation work fast, then I would go with a dual next. Since I don't really see myself doing enough of that to warrant the extra $$ on the tower, I will probably end up with the fastest single processor when I am ready to get my new tower (Mac of course).

I love using my Mac systems, both at home and work, and only work on peecee's because I must. At home, the peecee is used 100% for games... that is IT. Any real work gets done on the Mac, as it should be. Not to say that I don't have any games for the Mac, because I do. I usually pick up both platform versions of the better games, so that I can do a multi-person session with computers I already have.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by agreenster
For Starters, I wasnt STATING that there werent dual processor systems for the PC, I was ASKING if there are dual processor sytems made by INTEL. I know SUN, and SGI, and the big dogs do, but what about a Dual system developed for consumers by intel? It was a question. Ive never heard of anyone having a dual pentium system that they havent built themselves, or have had a corporation build for them.

Secondly, Yes OSX allows the Dual system to operate as one processor all the time. Want proof? In OSX, go to your utilities and check out the "CPU Monitor." When using a dual system, both gauges register simultaneously, even in the finder, with no other apps running. Check it out yourself. OSX does it, not the apps.

I believe that SOME of the peecee makers offer DP systems, but you will probably have to look good and hard to find them. Both AMD and intel offer DP chips, or spec that they can be used as such. My cousin built a peecee that is a DP with AMD XP processors, but I don't know how it stacks up against a Mac DP. I would venture to say that the 1GHz DP would kick it's nuts in :D.

[germanknee]

My predictions:

MPC7470 G4; 133mhz bus; maybe DDR 266mhz (rises at 133mhz falls at 133mhz: effectively 266mhz); MWNY July 2002

MPC7500 G5; 500mhz RapidIO bus; DDR 333mhz; MWSF January 2003

Anyone else agree?

[mymemory]

Originally posted by eyelikeart


Bravo! Bravo! :D

For what kind of aplication do you need more than 1Ghz today???

Photoshop??? for gue about it, with Photoshop you need ram and a bit above of 450Mgz.

After Effects??? yes, but I'm sure you do not work in video production.

Protools, it has its own hardware.

Maya??? If you are going to develop 3D in a Mac you know very little about the business.

So, for what do you need G5 processors now when the dual 1G just came out?

I'm 26 years old, I'm a graduated in audio engineer with a master in multi media 4 years ago. I have used every single video and audio system in the market (Protools, video toaster, quantel edit box, avid, soft image, alias power animator, bryce, director, flash, premiere, gamegem, silicon graphics O2, indigo 4, intergraph, etc, name one). Is the first time in history that hardware is above software requirements, I'm very experience in what works for what, that is my job. So, do not complain about the lack of speed whem I'm sure you are not getting even 50% of what you got know.

If you work in video production, that is something else. But if you want higer speed and performance go and get a PC if that is what you want, period! Mac give a lot more than just speed.

You are a bunch of unexperienced consumers and "I wanna be" semi pro.

And think, if Apple lunches G5 right now all what they are gonna do if create a lack of confidence in their clients. People who just bough something today by the time they get it there is gonna be something new, that piss people off. Apple is letting people enjoy the 2 dual 1Ghz for a while to give them something better later but not in two months if is not necessary. That way people would never finished buying something because in a month there is gonna be something better and would be a hudge mess with the resellers plus who knows what else.

[Pants]

Originally posted by mymemory


For what kind of aplication do you need more than 1Ghz today???

Photoshop??? for gue about it, with Photoshop you need ram and a bit above of 450Mgz.

After Effects??? yes, but I'm sure you do not work in video production.

Protools, it has its own hardware.

Maya??? If you are going to develop 3D in a Mac you know very little about the business.

So, for what do you need G5 processors now when the dual 1G just came out?

I'm 26 years old, I'm a graduated in audio engineer with a master in multi media 4 years ago. I have used every single video and audio system in the market (Protools, video toaster, quantel edit box, avid, soft image, alias power animator, bryce, director, flash, premiere, gamegem, silicon graphics O2, indigo 4, intergraph, etc, name one). Is the first time in history that hardware is above software requirements, I'm very experience in what works for what, that is my job. So, do not complain about the lack of speed whem I'm sure you are not getting even 50% of what you got know.

If you work in video production, that is something else. But if you want higer speed and performance go and get a PC if that is what you want, period! Mac give a lot more than just speed.

You are a bunch of unexperienced consumers and "I wanna be" semi pro.


as opposed to you being a 'pro'? are we supposed to be impressed by somebody that has a masters in web design?

hmm.... ever thought that people do anything other than 'multimedia' (isnt that a tad passé?) with a mac? anything maybe academic? uhh...signal processing? genetic sequencing? numerical simulations?

jeez, I hate it when some smart alec no nothing has to justify his post with "look at me! I kNo what Im T4lk1ng about as Im a L33t Web desiGn3r!! Go sUx as I knOw you are OnLy Us1Ng 31.256% of YOUR Pr0cessor!! " go on, say " AnD I NO L1nux!" just to finish it off.....


excuse me, I've had a bad day in the lab.

[Ifeelbloated]

Uh, I'm building my own G5 in my basement. Wanna buy one? It makes toast too. Pretty neat huh?

[jlambvo]

Um, we have a Dual 500 and I ran OSX on it, and I loved it. I love macs, I don't plan on ever getting a PC. I was just saying yes, there are Dual Pentium systems, they are graphics workstations not consumer models, and not only do they beat out macs in many areas (even the much slower clocked macs best them as well in some areas of course :D ) but they are also much more expensive. It seems Apple's pricing scheme is more based on pro workstations, where it is now suprisingly often the least expensive machine but still competitive.

What I said about OSX's SMP is true. There is nothing magical about Unix that can just automatically divide up calculations in a program. The reason you see activity in both bars is because the tasks are threaded. Quartz and Quicktime I assume are threaded. Even if they aren't you'll notice that draggin g a window creates a huge spike in the CPU usage in CPU Monitor. If you are running another application, as I understand it all the UI graphics are being handled by Quartz. UI, file system and application tasks are automatically distributed among the CPUs, creating a huge boost in performance (I would not want to use OSX on a single CPU system).

But again as I understand it, for a rendering to be divided between the two processors for instance, the designers would have to implement something in the application code that could allow that task to be split up between the CPUs. It doesn't just send each individual calculation to alternating processors, all it can do is divide it into segments to have each CPU in, and this comes with overhead. Unix is just much more efficient than OS9 ever was.

Also, keep in mind that even when 'nothing else is running' there ARE other things going on in the system. Open up the process viewer and look at all the background processes. File sharing and networking, if enabled, will always be running in the background (you know even in OS9 when you'd try forcequitting something but you have file sharing enabled and you have to quit File Sharing Extension before closing your app?).

Anyway, Quartz I assume is threaded. And that was a particular feature of Giants: Citizen Kubato is that it took full advantage of MP, otherwise each 'process' in the Process Manager can only be distributed as a whole

[jlambvo]

And mymemory, its pretty obvious that in pro digital sound engineering you're going to be using offboard hardware to do the processing and mixing. But don't try to tell me you can effectively mix multiple wet channels in real time in software effectively right now. You still have to wait for simple DSP effects to render in software.

And if you are any kind of professional graphic artist it should be pretty damn obvious that every quarter second you have to wait for the computer to update is nothing but a hindrance to your workflow.

The only point at which I would agree is if you said other hardware components need upgrading first, such as memory speed and throughput, but I felt a big 'hardware is good enough for now' which is suprising coming from such an accomplished 'pro.' I don't know about you, but I still find myself waiting around on my computer for photoshop.

And whats with the comment on 3d on (in?) the Mac? Are you saying you don't think its a viable platform for 3d? Even if that were the case (seems Lightwave and Alias|Wavefront have some differences) that would only be an arguement that faster machines are even more necessary...?

[Pants]

Originally posted by mymemory


For what kind of aplication do you need more than 1Ghz today???

Photoshop??? for gue about it, with Photoshop you need ram and a bit above of 450Mgz.

After Effects??? yes, but I'm sure you do not work in video production.

Protools, it has its own hardware.

Maya??? If you are going to develop 3D in a Mac you know very little about the business.

So, for what do you need G5 processors now when the dual 1G just came out?

I'm 26 years old, I'm a graduated in audio engineer with a master in multi media 4 years ago. I have used every single video and audio system in the market (Protools, video toaster, quantel edit box, avid, soft image, alias power animator, bryce, director, flash, premiere, gamegem, silicon graphics O2, indigo 4, intergraph, etc, name one). Is the first time in history that hardware is above software requirements, I'm very experience in what works for what, that is my job. So, do not complain about the lack of speed whem I'm sure you are not getting even 50% of what you got know.

If you work in video production, that is something else. But if you want higer speed and performance go and get a PC if that is what you want, period! Mac give a lot more than just speed.

You are a bunch of unexperienced consumers and "I wanna be" semi pro.


as opposed to you being a 'pro'? are we supposed to be impressed by somebody that has a masters in web design?

hmm.... ever thought that people do anything other than 'multimedia' (isnt that a tad passé?) with a mac? anything maybe academic? uhh...signal processing? genetic sequencing? numerical simulations?

jeez, I hate it when some smart alec no nothing has to justify his post with "look at me! I kNo what Im T4lk1ng about as Im a L33t Web desiGn3r!! Go sUx as I knOw you are OnLy Us1Ng 31.256% of YOUR Pr0cessor!! " go on, say " AnD I NO L1nux!" just to finish it off.....


excuse me, I've had a bad day in the lab.

[OSeXy!]

As an architect in a small firm, I have to plan my time very carefully. Before a presentation I have to make sure there will be enough time to generate the series of particle/raytrace renderings or walk-throughs our clients expect to see. As it can take A COUPLE OF DAYS OR MORE to render these things I, for one, am looking forward to the G5 to see if this bit of hardware can make my life any easier. The longer I have to work on a design before sending it to render is dear to me.

Our margins are VERY TIGHT. We cannot afford to buy specialist rendering equipment beyond the 'pro' equipment generally available, and which most of us here seem to use. Does the fact that I use these machines every day and depend upon them to make a living qualify me as a pro? Is anyone else insulted by the suggestion that the currently available hardware is better than we know how to make use of?

[mischief]

What are you using that takes so much time to render? Chief Architect?!? Ick! Try ArchiCad 7.0, good stuff. Just don't try it outside of Classic/OS9 yet. It generates the 3d model and the FP at the same time. The model can be easily set to photo-render a 5000 SF residence with light, transparencies, and textures as a QTVR model, rendering in less than 2 Hrs.

[krossfyter]

me thinks some people wont be happy untill the DUAL 3GHZ powermac comes out.

[Catfish_Man]

...if a DP 3GHz came out now we'd be ecstatic. By the time it actually comes out we will have been expecting it for six months and be mad that it's not more. You can write a program to take advantage of just about any amount of processor power. I would imagine that when OSX is too simple for the G6 or whatever they'll introduce one with 3d lighting so that the shadows are accurate and you can change the lighting direction. As for applications, the reason we don't need more power is because all the apps are written to use the power we have now. New programs will need more power.

[germanknee]

My feelings exactly Catfish_Man.