PowerBook To Get Dual-Core G4?

[MacRumors]

The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/18/dual-cores_detailed/) posted a story today that outlines a previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/04/20040429114542.shtml) new G4 chip from Freescale, a wholly-owned division of Motorola. Alongside AMD, both processor companies are expected to debut their new dual-core chips at the Microprocessor Forum (http://www.mdronline.com/fpf04/index.html) this October in San Jose, California. From The Register:Freescale's dual-core PowerPC is expected to sport an on-board memory controller, this one capable of supporting DDR 2 SDRAM, along with a Gigabit Ethernet controller. It is also expected to use the Rapid IO bus, according to past Motorola pronouncements, though MPX bus support is also anticipated to maintain backward compatibility.

The dual-core PowerPC may also mark the next major leap in Mac notebook G4 processors before Apple gets G5 chips from IBM that are capable of integration into a top-spec portable computer.

According to the MPF schedule, Freescale's dual-core chip will scale beyond 2GHz. The chipmaker's roadmap indicates that the part will be a member of the e600 series. It is also working on a G5-style e700 processor that combines 32-bit and 64-bit operation.

Freescale also has a faster successor to its top-end G4, the MPC 7447A - used in Apple's PowerBook G4 notebooks - in the works.

IBM's dual-core 'Antares' CPU, possibly set to ship as the PowerPC 970MP, will be available around the same time, as will Intel's Smithfield dual-core Pentium 4, it is believed. Neither IBM nor Intel are set to discuss their dual-core plans at MPF, but Intel is likely to reveal more at Intel Developer Forum in early September.

[jhu]

don't hold your breath

[narco]

Prepare yourselves for the no powerbook G5 whine-fest in 3, 2, 1...

.narco

[jamesfowler2k]

that would be wicked

[toughboy]

lets see the specs and the benchmarks

[keysersoze]

that would be wicked

64-bit? What's Motorola's deal? Is Apple sticking with them for laptop solutions?

[Mudbug]

lets see the specs and the benchmarks

let's see the chip first...

[stoid]

Apple works with Motorola, and IBM starts doing neat stuff whilst Motorola spins in the toilet. Apple jumps ship. IBM goes into a tailspin. Motorola starts doing neat stuff. :eek: Murphy's law. You switch lanes in traffic, the faster lane you switched to will grind to a halt and the lane you just got out of starts moving.

[Darwin]

Well I guess not every Mac will be getting a G5 at the moment so this would be a good idea

But as it is Motorola that is doing this it seems to good to be true, the G4 has been touched for ages and when it was the best we could get development on it was slow, but since the PowerBook G5 is a bit far away this seems to be a way to keep the G4 going

Lets hope it gets here before the G6 comes along ;)

[toughboy]

let's see the chip first...

yeah sure... but there should be a beta tester somewhere out there who tested the chip and could tell us the difference..

[stoid]

How does dual-core compare to dual processors?

[toughboy]

Prepare yourselves for the no powerbook G5 whine-fest in 3, 2, 1...

.narco

Let me be the first...


I WANT MY POWERBOOK G5!!!! :p

[chuckzee]

It's the G4.5!

[Laslo Panaflex]

1. When will they be released?
2. How much will they cost?
3. Will it have the new Radeon 9800 with 256vram?
4. Will it be liquid cooled?
5. Will it be fuel cell powered?
6. How much can I get for my old toilet seat tangerine?

Etc, etc, etc . . .

I guarantee there will be a thread on this soon, too soon.

[edesignuk]

If they can't fit a G5 in there, then this sounds ok, 64bit is next to useless at the moment anyway :rolleyes:

[stoid]

Let me be the first...


I WANT MY POWERBOOK G5!!!! :p

Here's the only Powerbook G5 you are going to find for awhile. (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?userid=18793) ;)



http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=18793&dateline=1078679227

[henryblackman]

How does dual-core compare to dual processors?

Usually better - faster interconnects between the processors. This is a really good thing - the G4 has plenty of life in it should Freescale actually breath it back in. It's a pity it couldn't be sooner.

[maddav]

So it's dual core G4 Powerbook next Tuesday, and the G5 Powerbook Tuesday after :p

Seriously though, i wonder how a dual core G4 (it rhymes) would compare to a single processor G5.

[maxvamp]

According to the MPF schedule, Freescale's dual-core chip will scale beyond 2GHz. The chipmaker's roadmap indicates that the part will be a member of the e600 series. It is also working on a G5-style e700 processor that combines 32-bit and 64-bit operation.

Assuming to be based on power consumption ( if the G4 holds true as an embedded proc ),

If at 30W you could have a dual core G4 2 GHz, or a single G5fx 1.8, what would you want in your Powerbook?

** Note** These spec are based on nothing but speculation. I am not trying to say that these numbers are real, but instead trying to see what people's perception of performance is or would be.

Max.

[Xerocs]

there will be dualcore-dualboards manufactured by gigadesign and others for the mdd/quicksilver too? (2x 2core 1,6ghz g4s?)

[FuzzyBallz]

If you can't take it to the next level (G5 PB), just double the current offering and make it like it's fresh. Wonder how many G5 PBs they melted in the test lab.

[KingJobs]

Finally, Motorola is going back to work...woohoo my hometown of San Jose, California...

[mikeyredk]

You guys don't give the g4 enough credit. Its a great chip!!! all its missing is the massive bus speeds if it had a 400 bus it would rock. but, it doesn't it has a 167 bus and it stinks. :(

hopefully this bus isn't like the old p4s and be 200 bus double pumped

[titaniumducky]

That would be awesome! Imagine - a dual 1.8 GHz (starting) PowerBook! Yeah, dual core is different than dual processor, but it's close.

[1macker1]

I'm getting a powerbook next year, G5 or dual core G4. As long as it's fast and able to handle the new OS apple is planning to release. A 2.5G dual Core PB sounds nice to me.

[musicpyrite]

I think that this is good news, but well have to wait to see the specs, benchmarks, and how it compairs to a 1.6 and 1.8 single processor G5.

Here come the "I want a PB G5, or I'm leaving Apple!" :rolleyes:

[Wash!!]

Whaaaaaa!! :( where is my Powerbook G5!!!! (stumps feet, and roll on the floor)....

Sorry guys I had to do it... :D

[mikeyredk]

I think that this is good news, but well have to wait to see the specs, benchmarks, and how it compairs to a 1.6 and 1.8 single processor G5.

Here come the "I want a PB G5, or I'm leaving Apple!" :rolleyes:

barefeats compares several processors including dual g4s with g5s (http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html)

i predict the dual g4 will be faster than the g5

[rendezvouscp]

Wow, this is going to push the PB G5 even further back, for at least two more releases. But, this sounds like a pretty good chip if used and executed correctly by Freescale and Apple.
–Chase

[nagromme]

How does dual-core compare to dual processors?

As I understand it, it can be FASTER than dual processor. You get the same power as two chips--even dual Velocity Engines--but faster communication between the cores.

As for which is faster, a dual-G4 or a single G5, obviously more details and tests would have to be known. So I'll happily settle for whichever is most power-efficient and runs coolest!

My single-1.25 G4 seems pretty fast to me still.

[gekko513]

How does dual-core compare to dual processors?
Very interesting question. I hope someone else can shed more light on this, but I will give my thoughts.

Dual-core advantages:
* Much faster look-up on the other core's cache, or the two cores could possibly even share cache. This will give a similar dual-core setup twice as much available high-speed cache as a dual processor setup.
* Dual-core chips share some circuitry between the cores and take up less space on a silicon wafer in general than two separate cores. This makes a dual-core chip cheaper than two single-cores.
* Dual-core requires less components on the motherboard which also makes dual-core cheaper than dual processors.

Dual-core disadvantages:
* Must share the system bus between the two cores. This could lead to slower memory access. However, the way I understand this, the current dual G5 setup with dual channel memory controllers is only able to put through 2xDDR400 which would only fill a single 800MHz bus anyway. So in reality the bus will be wide enough for two cores.


Conclusion:
Dual-core gives more cache to each core and is cheaper.

[swissmann]

If IBM has a G5 class chip that will be dual core I don't see any reason why this G4 class dual core would last long in the Apple product cycle (unless the G5 and powerbook case can't coincide due to heat and power consumption). Once those things are sorted out I see no reason why anything would be G4 class which would lead to an all 64 bit OS and applications (eventually).

[dizastor]

Here's the only Powerbook G5 you are going to find for awhile. (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?userid=18793) ;)
http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=18793&dateline=1078679227

I'd rather buy a G3 iBook off of eBay. :p

[gallagb]

i have no prbm w/ apple taking their sweet time releasing a G5PB- knowing that the first Rev will have prbms...so long as the physical design goes along well w/ that new display i've got...

a dual G4 would be cool- it'd be something unique-
u know- they could be developing this tech for the ibook- and gonna pop a G5 in the PB anyhow round the same time? just a thought.

either way- they aren't gonna release anything along these lines in the next week so let's get over it-

[goof_ball]

I think this is good news. If Apple has two processors to choose from, that means they have options....and they like options!

If the G4 didn't have a pathetically slow bus, it's quite comparible to the G5 performance.

I personally have more confidence in IBM, and I am glad to see Apple using them.

[stingerman]

This dual G4 has an onboard memory controller, so the FSB issue goes away. Super low-latency full speed memory access. The processor to processor bus would be 1:1 full speed, leaving the FSB for the other busses in the system, like PCI-E, USB2 etc. I understand that even the Ethernet controller is in the die. So Apple would not only be able to have very fast dual core Powerbooks, but also reduce power consumption and make them even thinner and lighter.

[dongmin]

IF, and yes I know this is a big if, Freescale can ship these things on schedule, then this may be a perfect near-term solution (maybe a year) before the G5 debuts. If this thing is being unveiled in early October, what's the lag time to full-scale production???

With dual cores, on board memory controller, DDR 2, faster FSB, AND scaling up to 2.0 ghz, this G4 'Extreme' could beat a similarly-clocked G5.

The other issue is heat. With dual cores, can this thing fit into a Powerbook?

A brand PowerBook is right around the corner, in the September-October timeframe. It seems too soon for a dual-core PB to make its debut then, but perhaps a single-core version of the same chip (essentially a higher-clocked G4 with possibly improved bus and memory) could debut.

[HasanDaddy]

*peeing in pants right now*

[edesignuk]

*peeing in pants right now**didn't need to know that* :p

[tex210]

90nm or 130nm?

[G4-power]

However, the way I understand this, the current dual G5 setup with dual channel memory controllers is only able to put through 2xDDR400 which would only fill a single 800MHz bus anyway. So in reality the bus will be wide enough for two cores.

Conclusion:
Dual-core gives more cache to each core and is cheaper.

I do agree to your conclusion, though, a minor note, 2xDDR400 makes 800 MHz, and since it is double data rate, that makes 1600 MHz. Also I'm not so sure about the G5 having dual-channel memory even though you do have to install it in pairs. Does someone know is it actually dual-channel?

Eager to see what turns up. Dual-core G4 will still take more space than a single G5, IMHO. A probable solution to this is having a single-core one on 12" models but dual-cores on 15" and 17". Who knows...

[eric_n_dfw]

Ah competition! Gotta love it! :D

Also, this makes me glad I decided to settle for the refurb iBook I bought last week, instead of shelling out for a PowerBook. (I had a feeling something like this might happen) My plan is working too; as predicted, my wife is now addicted to the iBook- giving me the "need" to buy a PowerBook when the next gen ones finally come out so I don't have to take "hers"! :cool:

[csubear]

90nm or 130nm?
My guess is 130. If IBM, and Intel still can't do 90 well, moto will not be able to touch it.

[Elmy]

If its being announced in October we could definetly be seeing this in early Q1 2005.

I don't think we'll be seeing it before the New Year though.

Remember Dual Cores are only good for single applications if they are written with multiple processors in mind (30% increase). They are also good for running two CPU intensive applications at the same time. However if they aren't clocked significantly higher (I'm presuming they are going to be released in 1.33Ghz to 1.8Ghz models) you won't see a massive speed up in individual applications.

That FSB hike will be great for media encoding applications though :)

[mrsebastian]

the g4 is going buh-bye as far as apple is concerned (except for the emac for now). we will have a g5 pb soon enough, especially since the new imac will feature a g5. with the imac's new design and i'm assuming from the rumors, a much more compact form factor, they would have had to figure out the heat issues. this will mean liquid cooled g5 powerbooks, i'm guessing in spring/summer of next year.

[nagromme]

we will have a g5 pb soon enough, especially since the new imac will feature a g5. with the imac's new design and i'm assuming from the rumors, a much more compact form factor, they would have had to figure out the heat issues.

iMac work is all good R&D and a step in the right direction, I agree.

But an iMac doesn't solve the PowerBook's heat issues. A PB is MUCH smaller and thinner than a 17"-20" iMac, has a battery and keyboard built in, has to use fewer/smaller fans for the sake of battery life (and size, and people's noise perception with a portable vs. desktop). And it's used in different orientations and less-controlled situations that affect cooling. It even has to run (ideally) with the lid closed.

Plus PowerBooks have strict power-consumption needs. iMacs don't.

[The Red Wolf]

All companies at one time or another suffer. Motorolla has had some bad times. Just as Apple did in 1997 under Amelio's (sp) rule. Currently we're facing the very real possibility of a shortage of G5s and further delays of both the new iMac and the PowerMacs. Having an update to the PowerBook with a dual core chip which keeps cost low and maintains performance would be grand. Like other's have posted, choice for Apple is a good thing. If IBM can't deliver the amount of G5s Apple needs, it is in their advantage to have a second chip manufacturer. It also creates innovation between companies as they try to outthink and outdo each-other. Good for future PowerBooks and Apple as a whole. Saying "Motorolla sucks" or "G4? I would rather use an abacus" are not wise in a G5 vacuums. That and the new G4 dual core could keep battery life up over a single G5. It's advantageous.

On a side note: Anyone think that M$ bought up all the G5s from IBM (for a few hundred million in untraceable notes) for their next generation X-Box? (Isn't it rumored to use 3 of them?) Forcing a G5 shortage for Apple to bring them down?

[jhu]

Apple works with Motorola, and IBM starts doing neat stuff whilst Motorola spins in the toilet. Apple jumps ship. IBM goes into a tailspin. Motorola starts doing neat stuff. :eek: Murphy's law. You switch lanes in traffic, the faster lane you switched to will grind to a halt and the lane you just got out of starts moving.

except that the really interesting stuff is coming from ibm. too bad they don't use ibm's 750 chip anymore.

[daddy-mojo]

Ah competition! Gotta love it! :D

Also, this makes me glad I decided to settle for the refurb iBook I bought last week, instead of shelling out for a PowerBook. (I had a feeling something like this might happen) My plan is working too; as predicted, my wife is now addicted to the iBook- giving me the "need" to buy a PowerBook when the next gen ones finally come out so I don't have to take "hers"! :cool:

well played rogue...well played indeed :)

[wPod]

think i could pop one of these chips into my rev A PB?!

[Steamboatwillie]

If they can't fit a G5 in there, then this sounds ok, 64bit is next to useless at the moment anyway :rolleyes:

Unless you have a need for a laptop with 8gb's of ram! :)

[Porchland]

If its being announced in October we could definetly be seeing this in early Q1 2005.

I don't think we'll be seeing it before the New Year though.



Possible announcement for the January keynote? With refreshes of some of the more processor-intensive applications to optimize performance of, say, rendering in FCP?

[Maxx Power]

You guys don't give the g4 enough credit. Its a great chip!!! all its missing is the massive bus speeds if it had a 400 bus it would rock. but, it doesn't it has a 167 bus and it stinks. :(

hopefully this bus isn't like the old p4s and be 200 bus double pumped

I wouldn't say G4 is a GREAT chip. It's a standard PowerPC ISA chip with AltiVec. That's pretty much the make up. They could spruce it up a lot more by first strengthening the normal floating point unit, which is per Mhz weaker than the P4's, and then double the float pipe. Then give it a better branch prediction unit with a bigger table entry as well as a fast bus, and perhaps built-in memory controller, add in clock throttling, clock gating, and L2 quadrant access to conserve power, we'd have dual core G4's smoking the DOthan's and consuming less power perhaps due to the nature of simpler PowerPC ISA. Then manufactur this baby on 65nm with SOI, Low-K, and Strained Silicon, and take cores only from the center of the wafer..... A man can dream though... A man can dream....

[Darwin]

90nm or 130nm?

This is a chip with two cores so I doubt it will be 90nm

think i could pop one of these chips into my rev A PB?!

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of those :D

[applekid]

Would you recommend buying stock in Freescale though?

I'm wondering if they have any future at all with Apple or any other company.

[virividox]

yeah right.

[Cannibal]

If they can't fit a G5 in there, then this sounds ok, 64bit is next to useless at the moment anyway :rolleyes:

is it that the G5 won't fit? because i had been under the impression that it was a heat issue. not everybody wants 2nd degree burns on their laps you know...
:)
personally... it's all too up in the air for me to go one way or another on it. let me see it render in Bryce, Poser, or Maya then we'll know what it can do...

-Cannibal-

[macridah]

What does this mean: no G5 powerbook for even a longer time?

[edesignuk]

is it that the G5 won't fit? because i had been under the impression that it was a heat issue. not everybody wants 2nd degree burns on their laps you know...When I said "won't fit" I ment for any reason, physical or otherwise, in this case heat.

[unsigned]

On a side note: Anyone think that M$ bought up all the G5s from IBM (for a few hundred million in untraceable notes) for their next generation X-Box? (Isn't it rumored to use 3 of them?) Forcing a G5 shortage for Apple to bring them down?

This might be kinda true, except for the part where microsoft gives any type of notice whatsoever to Apple. If they cared, they would have bought Apple long ago.

IBM has announced that they are producing the chips in all three next generation consoles. All of these would presumably have to be made in fishkill, on the 90nm process. Even the iMac sells in "quaint" amounts compared to a console from Nintendo, not to mention Sony's 100 Million PS2's.

If IBM had to ramp three more, very complex lines, we could see how a G5 delay could happen. They are limited in their production capacity, talent, etc. And these console chips are, if anything, more advanced than the 970.

[rendezvouscp]

What does this mean: no G5 powerbook for even a longer time?

It doesn't mean a longer wait time, but just improving what we have in the meantime. The G5 PB will take as long as needed, but while improving the G4 PB now. Unless this dual core G4 outpreforms the G5 at the same clock speed, then that complicates the matter (but what are the chances of that, especially if it's not 64-bit?).
–Chase

[sethypoo]

I think this is a step in the right direction. Apple is still probably scratching their heads in trying to figure out how to get a super-hot G5 chip into an enclosure that's less than an inch thick (a PowerBook)!

Go Apple. Go Motorola. Go IBM. I hope Apple takes their sweet time in getting a PowerBook G5 out; remember, the longer it takes, the more design flaws can be found and fixed. :)

[wide]

Can somebody explain to me what dual core means? Will a dual core G4 with faster RAM, better video card, and a higher clock speed see major improvements than the current top of the line PowerBook in games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty?

What is the difference between dual core and dual processor? thx

[rendezvouscp]

Can somebody explain to me what dual core means? Will a dual core G4 with faster RAM, better video card, and a higher clock speed see major improvements than the current top of the line PowerBook in games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty?

What is the difference between dual core and dual processor? thx

In short, processors typically have one core for each processor. The core is in charge of doing the computing. This core makes up the processor. Having dual core processors is like having two processors in one-except that they are within a processor, so they can communicate faster and usually use the same resources. So, on the clock, they are faster, but in real life it all depends on what you are doing. High end apps like FCP and Motion will run faster, but most games will not just because the processor is dual core. However, adding faster RAM, a better video card, etc. will speed up your games. If I'm wrong about anything, please correct me. This is just from my own knowledge.
–Chase

[SiliconAddict]

OK. I want to know more before I harp on Freescale.

First and foremost though I consider any hardware that comes from Moto to be vaporware until it actually ships. Period. Screw their roadmaps. Screw their marketing BS. There is no history with Moto that suggests that their hardware availability timeframes can be trusted at all. They talk big but deliver crap. Their CPU's as of late look backwards in the extreme compared to IBM, AMD, and Intel's Pentium M. (Lets be honest everything looks sweet compared to the P4.) I want to see an Apple release date for a device before I'm going to consider any Freescale system legit.
Beyond that I have reservations on the hardware. First and foremost Apple has been optimizing its Apps and OS for the G5. (Note I said G5 not 64-bitness.) Anything G4 based could become obsolete before it even ships. Also I want to know what speed Rapid IO bus is and what does to the system bus which is one of the bigger hang-ups in the entire G4 architecture. I'm sorry but something has to be done with the 167Mhz system bus. Every other portion of the system is being slowed down because of this. I mean for god sake the memory bus is 333Mhz. WTH?!?!
Also I find it telling that Moto is out in front bragging about their chips and everyone else isn't. I've generally found the people who are slapping themselves on the back and saying here is what we are doing are generally the ones who are the most FOS. Take Microsoft and Longhorn for example.

[Blue Moon]

Just means a long wait til' I upgrade...I'm not buyin' another Powerbook til' I see G5's in 'em. Sounds pretty sweet though.

[rendezvouscp]

90nm or 130nm?

I'm guessing from a Motorola roadmap I saw a little while ago that it will be 90nm. Suprisingly, this chip is debuting ontime. On another note, dual core Intel chips are supposed to ship mid-2005. Interesting...
–Chase

[PPC970FX]

HAHAHA this can not be right. If moto of all people can make a dual core CPU 2Ghz in a PB. It will beat the **** out of all the other laptops, and that I don`t think can happen. But IF it happens I will jump up and down for 3 h, screaming I am a bugger.

So time will tell. But will we then have a dual core G4 in the iMac?

[ZildjianKX]

Man, I want a dualcore G5 POWERMAC... forget all this dual processor stuff...

[whooleytoo]

This dual G4 has an onboard memory controller, so the FSB issue goes away. Super low-latency full speed memory access. The processor to processor bus would be 1:1 full speed, leaving the FSB for the other busses in the system, like PCI-E, USB2 etc. I understand that even the Ethernet controller is in the die. So Apple would not only be able to have very fast dual core Powerbooks, but also reduce power consumption and make them even thinner and lighter.

Now that's interesting.. my first concern was that the power consumption for a dual-core CPU would be an issue. This sounds promising.

[LEgregius]

If Freescale (moto) can be successful in making a dual core G4 WITH a real memory controller, I'm all for that. I think one of the main issues with the G4 currently is the memory controller. I know they could do things like better branch prediction, better floating point, etc, but just having faster memory would make them more competitive by far, especially at 2GHz. I'd buy a dual core 1.6GHz G4 powerbook with DDR2 and faster IO.

[rendezvouscp]

Man, I want a dualcore G5 POWERMAC... forget all this dual processor stuff...

I think that Steve really liked saying Dual Dual DVI, he's going to have a blast saying Dual Dual G5 :D.
–Chase

[jhu]

I wouldn't say G4 is a GREAT chip. It's a standard PowerPC ISA chip with AltiVec. That's pretty much the make up. They could spruce it up a lot more by first strengthening the normal floating point unit, which is per Mhz weaker than the P4's, and then double the float pipe. Then give it a better branch prediction unit with a bigger table entry as well as a fast bus, and perhaps built-in memory controller, add in clock throttling, clock gating, and L2 quadrant access to conserve power, we'd have dual core G4's smoking the DOthan's and consuming less power perhaps due to the nature of simpler PowerPC ISA. Then manufactur this baby on 65nm with SOI, Low-K, and Strained Silicon, and take cores only from the center of the wafer..... A man can dream though... A man can dream....

that's the most number of buzzwords i've ever seen in a post with coherent sentences. as for the ppc 74xx having a weaker fpu/mhz vs. the p4, i would say no. perhaps you mean athlon or pentium m. practically any modern processor today has a better fpu/mhz vs. the p4.

[GFLPraxis]

All companies at one time or another suffer. Motorolla has had some bad times. Just as Apple did in 1997 under Amelio's (sp) rule. Currently we're facing the very real possibility of a shortage of G5s and further delays of both the new iMac and the PowerMacs. Having an update to the PowerBook with a dual core chip which keeps cost low and maintains performance would be grand. Like other's have posted, choice for Apple is a good thing. If IBM can't deliver the amount of G5s Apple needs, it is in their advantage to have a second chip manufacturer. It also creates innovation between companies as they try to outthink and outdo each-other. Good for future PowerBooks and Apple as a whole. Saying "Motorolla sucks" or "G4? I would rather use an abacus" are not wise in a G5 vacuums. That and the new G4 dual core could keep battery life up over a single G5. It's advantageous.

On a side note: Anyone think that M$ bought up all the G5s from IBM (for a few hundred million in untraceable notes) for their next generation X-Box? (Isn't it rumored to use 3 of them?) Forcing a G5 shortage for Apple to bring them down?

I doubt it was to bring Apple down. If Apple dies, Microsoft is suddenly a COMPLETE monopoly, the only competition being *free* Linux not owned by any company.

Since MS will be the only OS company, and control the market, they'd get antitrusted to death by the US courts.

I do recall, though, the PowerMac purchases from Apple by Microsoft. How much you wanna bet those were for XBox game development for the XBox 2 that will have G5's?

[Lord Blackadder]

I doubt that the PB G5 will be held up in any way by the use of more advanced G4s (It's doing a pretty good job of taking forever all by itself). And what does the consumer get in the meantime? The fastest portable Mac yet I'm sure.

Of course, THIS poor grad student doesn't exactly ride the leading edge of technology (cf. my sig). Wish I could worry about the G5 PB coming out, but I couldn't buy it anyway so Apple can take as long as it wants as far as I'm concerned

[DakotaGuy]

too bad they don't use ibm's 750 chip anymore.

Why? The 7447A is a MUCH better processor. I have had G3 based machines and they were fine, but in NO WAY do they compare to the newest G4's. Everyone complains about the 167Mhz FSB speed...um the 750 ran at 100Mhz. It did not have Alti-Vec which makes a huge difference especially on the newest applications and OS from Apple. Last, it never came close to clocking as high as the G4 has gone, 1.5Ghz. Look at benchmarks anywhere (ie. iBook G3 vs. iBook G4) and you will see the current G4's kill the old IBM G3's. The G3 was a good processor, but WAS is the key word.

[neutrino23]

There may be more than just heat issues affecting the G5. The report from IBM engineers posted around a month or so ago referred to wide variations in power demand per chip. It may be that they can make a few good ones that could go in a PB but they can't make them consistently. There may be other issues related to PB use that haven't been made public. It could be that there is not just one killer problem but that overall the G5 puts too much demand on the battery and the heat dissipation limits.

The G4 has been designed for low power use from the start. A dual core CPU seems great for a laptop. You get bursts of computing power when you need it and when idling you just shut down the second core to conserve battery power.

According to the Bare Feats report cited earlier a dual processor 1.42MHz G4 did not trail too far behind a 2.0GHz dual g5. A dual core G4 running at 1.6MHz or better would be a wicked fast laptop.

[TomSmithMacEd]

Really all of you G5 powerbook! now people are built into thinking the g5 is amazing. I do think a dual core g4 would be quite faster than a single g5.

[afields]

I think apple could easily call this a g5 by name. G5 mobile, or "mini" or something. This wouldn't just be a minor improvement to the g4, they mine as well call it a g5.

[titaniumducky]

In short, processors typically have one core for each processor. The core is in charge of doing the computing. This core makes up the processor. Having dual core processors is like having two processors in one-except that they are within a processor, so they can communicate faster and usually use the same resources. So, on the clock, they are faster, but in real life it all depends on what you are doing. High end apps like FCP and Motion will run faster, but most games will not just because the processor is dual core. However, adding faster RAM, a better video card, etc. will speed up your games. If I'm wrong about anything, please correct me. This is just from my own knowledge.
–Chase

So Intel's "HT-technology" (HyperThreading) is just their name for dual-core P4s, right?

[Maxx Power]

that's the most number of buzzwords i've ever seen in a post with coherent sentences. as for the ppc 74xx having a weaker fpu/mhz vs. the p4, i would say no. perhaps you mean athlon or pentium m. practically any modern processor today has a better fpu/mhz vs. the p4.


Thanks for commenting on my logical reasoning unit and sentence creation shareware. I read that the fpu on the G4 is per unit weaker than that of the P4 from www.arstechnica.com the link is:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q4/p4andg4e2/p4andg4e2-3.html

and i quote "The P4's FPU hardware is a little beefier than that of the G4e, but a little less beefy than that of the PIII or the Athlon. The P4's designers slimmed down the FPU and weakened it a bit, banking on increasing clock rates and the widespread replacement of x87 code for SSE2-optimized code to take up the resulting performance slack. A closer look at the P4's FPU will show just how it has been weakened."

[Analog Kid]

If this chip happens I don't see any need for a G5PB until you can reasonably put more than 4GB of RAM into a Powerbook...

[eric_n_dfw]

So Intel's "HT-technology" (HyperThreading) is just their name for dual-core P4s, right?
No, I believe that HT is having a single core with the ability to do some instructions in parallel. Dual core chips would actually have the equivilent of two full CPU's on one chip. (very over simplified there, but I think that's the difference)

An Ars' link on HT: http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperthreading/hyperthreading-1.html

[CmdrLaForge]

I think that it would be really great to get powerbooks with dual core G4s. I would buy one in a second. Of course the fsb is important, but the article says it has a fast one.

At 2GHz I would definitly prefer a dual core G4 over a single core G5.

[Matrix9180]

How much you wanna bet those were for XBox game development for the XBox 2 that will have G5's?

I seem to recall MS saying the XBox2 SDK was going to be for OS X... something about a custom NT kernel it would run on

[eric_n_dfw]

I seem to recall MS saying the XBox2 SDK was going to be for OS X... something about a custom NT kernel it would run on
What does the NT kernel have to do with OS X?

AFAIK, MS has shipped the beta XBox2 dev stations as G5's with that custom NT kernel on them. I'm sure OS X is nowhere to be found on those machines. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they put big XBox logo stickers covering the Apple ones.)

[jettredmont]

No, I believe that HT is having a single core with the ability to do some instructions in parallel. Dual core chips would actually have the equivilent of two full CPU's on one chip. (very over simplified there, but I think that's the difference)

An Ars' link on HT: http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperthreading/hyperthreading-1.html

Hyperthreading (aka SMT to the less eXtreme Intel folks out there) does not do anything in parallel, except in some very special cases (which aren't generally described as "in parallel" but which are close enough).

HT allows two thread's instructions to exist in the CPU's instruction flow at the same time. They will not get done in parallel, but one will get done then the next. Where this is a benifit is that a side effect of classical threading design on CPUs is that going from one thread's instruction to another thread's instruction causes latency because they can't both be in the flow at the same time.

Since a modern OS will be constantly switching the CPU from one thread to another, hyperthreading allows for a significant performance boost, and it allows one thread to be using the FPU of the chip while another is using the Integer units (kinda sorta in parallel, but from the CPU perspective these are serial tasks).

[jettredmont]

If its being announced in October we could definetly be seeing this in early Q1 2005.

I don't think we'll be seeing it before the New Year though.

Remember Dual Cores are only good for single applications if they are written with multiple processors in mind (30% increase). They are also good for running two CPU intensive applications at the same time. However if they aren't clocked significantly higher (I'm presuming they are going to be released in 1.33Ghz to 1.8Ghz models) you won't see a massive speed up in individual applications.

That FSB hike will be great for media encoding applications though :)

Given that you will always have quite a few processes running in OS X, you will always get a performance boost from dual CPUs or dual cores. At the minimum, all OS X overhead (window management, disk management, UI control and responsiveness, etc) can be shuttled off to one of the two CPUs while your main app has the other CPU all to itself.

One can, in fact, argue that the UI responsiveness bought by having the "other" CU doing that is worth the price of admission all on its own!

On the other hand, you may be surprised at how many of your apps are actually multi-threaded in non-trivial ways. It's not just FCP and ProTools!

[shawnce]

So Intel's "HT-technology" (HyperThreading) is just their name for dual-core P4s, right?

No. HyperThreading is Intel's name for making a single core CPU appear to be a dual core CPU from the POV of an HT aware OS.

Basically P4 (and G5) have the ability to have hundreds of instructions in flight on the CPU core and it can be difficult for a single code stream (aka thread) to fully leverage this ability because of data dependencies between instructions in the stream and/or the instruction make up of the stream. So HyperThreading (known generally as SMT or simultaneous multithreading) allows instructions from multiple threads (currently 2 in the case of HT IIRC) to be intermixed on the CPU core with the goal being to better utilize the CPU execution units/pipelines.

This is done by the CPU and OS cooperatively maintaining state/context per thread for the instructions in flight.

IBM has PPC970 based cores with SMT capabilities in the works as well as dual core CPUs (rumored to be a better implementation of what Intel has). Note you can use SMT per core on multi-core CPUs to better leverage the capabilities of the individual cores (dual core CPU appearing to be a quad core CPU, etc.)

For more detail... Arstechnica has an article (http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperthreading/hyperthreading-1.html) on SMT / HT written a little while back.

[mac512pbg4]

just call the dual core g4 a "g6 mobile", a "leap-frog" improvement

fits easily into SJ's reality distortion field

[Sun Baked]

]IBM has PPC970 based cores with SMT capabilities in the works[/B] as well as dual core CPUs (rumored to be a better implementation of what Intel has). Note you can use SMT per core on multi-core CPUs to better leverage the capabilities of the individual cores (dual core CPU appearing to be a quad core CPU, etc.)

For more detail... Arstechnica has an article (http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperthreading/hyperthreading-1.html) on SMT / HT written a little while back.The new CPUs (the GR-UL) with SMT are NOT based on the PPC970.

The PPC970 (GP-UL) is a Power4-based chip, the next major chip -- the Power5-UL/GR-UL -- with SMT is a Power5-based CPU.

[gekko513]

I do agree to your conclusion, though, a minor note, 2xDDR400 makes 800 MHz, and since it is double data rate, that makes 1600 MHz.
Nah ... DDR400 runs at 200MHz and the double data rate gives it the name DDR400.

The first DDR ram was DDR266 which was double data rate PC133 RAM.

[shawnce]

(kinda sorta in parallel, but from the CPU perspective these are serial tasks).

Actually from the POV of the CPU execution units they are done in parallel (all modern CPU can execute instructions out of order, etc.). They are only serial from the POV of a given execution stream. In the case of SMT capable CPUs multiple stream can have multiple instructions in flight on the same core, executing in parallel relative to each other but still serially relative to the execution stream (thread) they came from.

Of course a given execution unit can only be executing a single instruction for a given stage in the units pipeline (the P4 / G5 have several stages in their various execution units), so at that level of granularity you can say things are done serially.

[Mord]

there will be dualcore-dualboards manufactured by gigadesign and others for the mdd/quicksilver too? (2x 2core 1,6ghz g4s?)

i'd like one of those in my cube muhahahaha (i'd bet money that if it is possible powerlogix would do it first but half of them wont work right.

[Frobozz]

MacOSRumors.com has already reported on this stuff. No new news here. But it's nice to see more than one publication say it. My only gripe is the terrible track record of the Register. Then again, MOSR isn't particuarly accurate, either.... :-)

I am willing to bet that there is a huge hunk of truth to this rumor either way. I don't see any problem with a dual core G4 in a powerbook as opposed to a G5. We all know the 970mp will probably be the next G5 chip, which means it won't be ready for portables soon. The dispersing of heat concentration will help the 970mp, and the FreeScale chip, though.

[Ibjr]

their CPU's as of late look backwards in the extreme compared to IBM, AMD, and Intel's Pentium M. (Lets be honest everything looks sweet compared to the P4.)

Drop the buzz words. The G4 beats the P3 at the same clock speed. The P3 is the PentiumM.

Advice: Instead of buzzwords lets stick to the facts.

[Frobozz]

I think that it would be really great to get powerbooks with dual core G4s. I would buy one in a second. Of course the fsb is important, but the article says it has a fast one.

At 2GHz I would definitly prefer a dual core G4 over a single core G5.

I totally agree. More speed is always a good thing, and aside from the marketing spin I think a dual core g4 would be better than a single core, single g5 in the current crop. Also, it helps Apple diversify their supply chain and use those G5 chips for desktops with different power and heat dissipation limits.

[gekko513]

Drop the buzz words. The G4 beats the P3 at the same clock speed. The P3 is the PentiumM.

Advice: Instead of buzzwords lets stick to the facts.
The Pentium M has more in common with the P3 than the P4, but it more than just a P3.

And the current G4 has more pipeline stages than the G4 had in the days of the P3, so we don't really know if the G4 still beats the P3 at the same clock speed.

[Ibjr]

The Pentium M has more in common with the P3 than the P4, but it more than just a P3.

And the current G4 has more pipeline stages than the G4 had in the days of the P3, so we don't really know if the G4 still beats the P3 at the same clock speed.

Given that the P3 beat the P4 at similar clockspeeds for most uses, i thought the Pentium M's changes were purely for power to insure stablity at the higher clock speeds.

The addition to stages doesn't really matter because Intel would have to do similar tasks.

[JoePike]

Now we're talkin' turkey. G5 or no G5, the day they put a 2+ ghz anything in a powerbook is the day I abandon my beloved and trusty prismo.

-Joe

[gekko513]

Given that the P3 beat the P4 at similar clockspeeds for most uses, i thought the Pentium M's changes were purely for power to insure stablity at the higher clock speeds.
The Pentium M has among other things a deeper pipeline, improved branch prediction, and enlarged instruction window compared to the PIII. It also introduces macro-ops (fused micro-ops) and a stack execution unit. (source is arstechnica)

[MacsRgr8]

Hmm.. rumored Dual Core 970 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=81146) , now Dual Core G4....

All boils down to: "can't get the MHz or GHz up".
:p

Still, gr8 news if true.

[jhu]

Given that the P3 beat the P4 at similar clockspeeds for most uses, i thought the Pentium M's changes were purely for power to insure stablity at the higher clock speeds.

The addition to stages doesn't really matter because Intel would have to do similar tasks.

the pentium m has more pipeline stages than the p3, but it also has a higher ipc than the p3. now that's some snazzy engineering.

[jhu]

Hmm.. rumored Dual Core 970 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=81146) , now Dual Core G4....

All boils down to: "can't get the MHz or GHz up".
:p

Still, gr8 news if true.

why not just graft an altivec unit to the power4 chip?

[Corozive]

I hope we dont see these for a while yet :(

i have just bought a new 17" PB

want to have a while with it being the top one available

[AliensAreFuzzy]

Well, whatever chip is in the Powerbook in a year is probably the one I'm getting. I'm hoping for a G5 for all of the G5 optimized programs run to their full potential.

[Sun Baked]

why not just graft an altivec unit to the power4 chip?All those extra units/transistors not needed on the desktop version that make it more expensive (ie, extra real estate) to produce -- Fabric Controller, Inline L3 cache controller, Massive L2 Caches, etc.

Just adding Altivec units to the Power4 would basically make the CPU more expensive than the Power4, because suddenly there are fewer CPUs per wafer.

[jhu]

Thanks for commenting on my logical reasoning unit and sentence creation shareware. I read that the fpu on the G4 is per unit weaker than that of the P4 from www.arstechnica.com the link is:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q4/p4andg4e2/p4andg4e2-3.html

and i quote "The P4's FPU hardware is a little beefier than that of the G4e, but a little less beefy than that of the PIII or the Athlon. The P4's designers slimmed down the FPU and weakened it a bit, banking on increasing clock rates and the widespread replacement of x87 code for SSE2-optimized code to take up the resulting performance slack. A closer look at the P4's FPU will show just how it has been weakened."

i read that article too. i just can't help but feel that on a clock-for-clock basis, the ppc 74xx's fpu is better than the p4's. perhaps it's the shorter pipeline that gives it that advantage.

[itsa]

Like notebook sales are not hurtting enough!
Even more reason to NOT buy one. Man... I am soooooo glad I waited.

[Muzukun]

I remember reading that if you just got rid of sound in games for a mac you'd get a major performance boost. Considering this could act as a dual CPU system would it be possible that companies (if they cared enough to do so) could write patches for games enabling them to leave sound processing to one core and the rest to another? IE would we be seeing much better performance on mac gaming with all this?


any chance of this coming to the ibook? (yeah worth asking that as practically no info has been released from apple and it's all happy guessing and all at this point in time -.-)

[drsuse]

Well, whatever chip is in the Powerbook in a year is probably the one I'm getting. I'm hoping for a G5 for all of the G5 optimized programs run to their full potential.

similar, i'm getting whatever's shipping in 6-10 months depending mainly on cash flow. originally i was hoping for the g5, but i'm actually more keen on the dual core g4 now.

[adamcoop]

And no one has even considered that this, instead of a G5 processor, will be going into the next iMac? I mean, Apple didn't actually say that the iMac will be a G5. And if the components are to be mounted behind the screen (as per previous rumours), you'd think some sort of low heat solution would be needed.

[drsuse]

And no one has even considered that this, instead of a G5 processor, will be going into the next iMac? I mean, Apple didn't actually say that the iMac will be a G5. And if the components are to be mounted behind the screen (as per previous rumours), you'd think some sort of low heat solution would be needed.

I understood that the iMac was likely coming out at the end of august, if that's true, and freescale isn't releasing the dual core g4 until october at the very earliest, i don't think the imac will be dcg4.

[MikeBike]

The G4 at 1.5 vs. the G5 at 1.6:
The G4 130 / G5 145.
The G4 having a 15 point disadvantage, but also a 100mhz slower clock.
Had the G4 shipped with a 7200 rpm hard drive it's disk scores would be much better, possibily passing the G5.

So, a Dual core G4, with memory controller looks great.

Also, the new GCC optimizations coming in 3.4 will benefit both the G4 and G5 processors.

With a dual core, some apps would see a 100% performance improvement.
Folding@home for one.

Apple's Java virtual machine would also benefit.
Aside from ALL java applications and development tools:
JBuilder/JDeveloper/JEdit/and Oracle database and mgmt tools.

A truly AWESOME tool for java developers.

Note: I didn't take a knife to all non-essential services,
so, your scores might be better. Also, test was run with Energy setting:
Highest Possible Performance.

The only disadvantage the G4 currently has is there would be no 64bit Registers. It would be great to see Apple's JVM with true 64 bit longs.


My XBench scores for a 1.5ghz Powerbook,
128meg video memory, 1Gig ram:
Results 130.47
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerBook5,5
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.50 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.50 GHz
Bus Frequency 167 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV360M11
Drive Type TOSHIBA MK8026GAX
CPU Test 167.56
GCD Loop 173.87 6.79 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 133.02 481.04 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 183.36 5.33 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 181.83 2.82 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 177.99 7.12 Mops/sec
Thread Test 129.13
Computation 92.26 1.25 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 215.08 2.70 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 132.96
System 145.84
Allocate 913.07 595.60 Kalloc/sec
Fill 148.32 1180.59 MB/sec
Copy 78.53 392.67 MB/sec
Stream 122.18
Copy 121.07 885.06 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 125.92 929.31 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 124.25 795.22 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 117.78 719.63 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 180.47
Line 149.27 3.80 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 155.11 10.91 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 166.68 3.84 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 175.52 1.91 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 349.42 5.70 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 111.61
Spinning Squares 111.61 78.10 frames/sec
User Interface Test 219.88
Elements 219.88 70.72 refresh/sec
Disk Test 74.80
Sequential 92.01
Uncached Write 81.66 34.04 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 73.46 30.08 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 198.45 31.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 79.51 32.12 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 63.01
Uncached Write 51.68 0.78 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 62.56 14.11 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 67.25 0.44 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 75.31 15.50 MB/sec [256K blocks]


;)

[stingerman]

i read that article too. i just can't help but feel that on a clock-for-clock basis, the ppc 74xx's fpu is better than the p4's. perhaps it's the shorter pipeline that gives it that advantage.
The P-M's macro-Ops are just a fused load or store operation with a math op. The P-M still is the same old narrow processor compared with the G4e.

[stingerman]

The G4 at 1.5 vs. the G5 at 1.6:
So, a Dual core G4, with memory controller looks great.

Also, the new GCC optimizations coming in 3.4 will benefit both the G4 and G5 processors.

With a dual core, some apps would see a 100% performance improvement.
Folding@home for one.)
Actually Apple is jumping right to GCC 3.5 (in Tiger, maybe a point release for Panther too.) It is significantly improved with a completely new PRE-SSA, auto-vec and auto-parallezation, inner loop optimizer, etc. It will allow for another major performance jump for all Macs, but the G5's should fly.

[dongmin]

MacOSRumors.com has already reported on this stuff. No new news here. But it's nice to see more than one publication say it. My only gripe is the terrible track record of the Register. Then again, MOSR isn't particuarly accurate, either.... :-)Normally I wouldn't give a rat's ass about Register rumors, but it's confirmed: Freescale will present the dual-core e600s at the upcoming Microprocessor Forum in October.

[dizastor]

I hope we dont see these for a while yet :(
i have just bought a new 17" PB want to have a while with it being the top one available

If this were the case, there would never be an upgrade to any product.
Admittedly it feels crappy to buy something and see the upgrade product that is x-amount faster, for the same price... but if it does what you need what does it really matter.

[aswitcher]

With Apple's G5 supply problems for desktops it might just be that G4s get a new lease on life with what could be a very powerful chip...but I dont see production until next year...

[dizastor]

All boils down to: "can't get the MHz or GHz up".

They make a pill for that don't they?

[mikeyredk]

look at the xbench (http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=75399) emac somone over-clocked on this forum.

over-clocked to 1.6 ghz from 1 ghz. if it had a better gpu it would have scored so much better. but think about over-clocking the newer 1.25 emacs to 1.6+ with there improved internals.

[dongmin]

And no one has even considered that this, instead of a G5 processor, will be going into the next iMac? I mean, Apple didn't actually say that the iMac will be a G5. And if the components are to be mounted behind the screen (as per previous rumours), you'd think some sort of low heat solution would be needed.It's possible but a recent discovery (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=83647) has indicated that the imac will have a G5. Why? Because there's a bit of code in 10.3.5 that works with the 970fx's PowerTune feature.

<dict>
<key>PowerBook7,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

<key>PowerBook7,2</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

<key>PowerMac8,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

<key>PowerMac9,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

The PowerMac8,1 refers to a consumer-grade G5 Power Mac, i.e. the new iMac. Using this same logic, the next PowerBooks will probably be G5 based.

[szark]

I mean, Apple didn't actually say that the iMac will be a G5.

Yes, they did (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=553).

I think a dual-core G4-based Powerbook would be a screamin' machine, as long as they increase the system bus speed or use an on-board memory controller.

[shawnce]

And no one has even considered that this, instead of a G5 processor, will be going into the next iMac? I mean, Apple didn't actually say that the iMac will be a G5. And if the components are to be mounted behind the screen (as per previous rumours), you'd think some sort of low heat solution would be needed.

Actually Apple explicitly stated that the new iMac will be G5 based during last quarters earning meeting.


"We normally don't talk about unannounced products, but we feel you need to know about the current situation. The iMac is based on the G5 processor. We could not secure the necessary supply of G5 processors to launch our new iMac on schedule, and as we indicated a few weeks ago, we now to plan to announce and ship it in September... We believe that IBM has placed enormous resources on improving the situation, and based on what they have told us, we expect the supply problems to be behind us by the beginning of Apple's fiscal Q1 05."

[AidenShaw]

If Apple dies, Microsoft is suddenly a COMPLETE monopoly, the only competition being *free* Linux not owned by any company.

Since MS will be the only OS company, and control the market, they'd get antitrusted to death by the US courts.

There is nothing illegal about being a monopoly - the charges against Microsoft were that Microsoft used its position as a monopoly in illegal ways to leverage and pressure.

Note that nothing that Microsoft did would have been illegal for a smaller company, in fact Apple does many of the same things.

The antitrust laws try to level the field by requiring monopolies to "play nice" - in effect they can fight, but with one hand tied back.

So, if Apple dies on its own (say due to chip supply problems), there would be no change in the status for Microsoft. A monopoly while Apple was alive, a monopoly after Apple's demise.

For Microsoft to kill Apple by stealing all the PPC970s would be legally very, very bad for Microsoft - of course.

[rdowns]

the g4 is going buh-bye as far as apple is concerned (except for the emac for now). we will have a g5 pb soon enough, especially since the new imac will feature a g5. with the imac's new design and i'm assuming from the rumors, a much more compact form factor, they would have had to figure out the heat issues. this will mean liquid cooled g5 powerbooks, i'm guessing in spring/summer of next year.

Going bye-bye. Not so fast. Even with a G5 iMac, Apple will still sell hundreds of thousands more G4 systems than G5 systems in a year.

[FYA]

If Apple gives us a dual G4 PB, what would happen when they eventually release the G5 PB ?

Dual processors are much faster rendering and better for most design applications. So going from a dual G4 to a single G5 could mean a drop in performance. Right ?

[Sun Baked]

Dual-core G4 on the way (http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040818-4112.html)

While the Mac users of the world are hoping for a dual-core G5, Freescale (formerly Motorola SPS) is gearing up to unveil a dual-core version of the G4 at this year's upcoming MPF.

I don't know about that whole dual-core G4 + PowerBook thing. Right now, the G4 is still a nice laptop chip, and a dual-core G4 might make for a really sweet laptop. However, a dual-core G4 laptop would mean one of two things: 1) a hack design that uses the aging MPX bus, thereby starving what would be a very bandwidth-hungry chip; 2) a completely new PowerBook design using RIO. Option 2 probably isn't going to happen, because when Apple does a complete PowerBook overhaul it'll be because they're moving the line to the G5. As for option 1, I guess it's possible, but it would clearly be a stop-gap measure that wouldn't really be able to exploit the dual-core G4 to its fullest potential.

This may ultimately come down to an issue of timing for Apple. The company is going to want its entire line to go 64-bit as soon as possible, so that the base of 64-bit applications can be more easily expanded. The power consumption on the 90nm G5 is pretty decent, if only IBM could produce enough of them. And the 970's inevitable core revision will improve power consumption ever further, especially when the 970 gets its own on-die DDR controller. (The power consumption of the dual-core G4 is an unknown factor, but it's probably pretty good). So it's really going to be a matter of whether or not Apple decides to wait on IBM to improve yields and/or power consumption. It's either wait on IBM, or hack together a dual-core G4 laptop that's going to be something of a dissappointment.

[KindredMAC]

I don't know about everyone else, but a newer G4 chip in a laptop sounds good to me. Am I the only one that doesn't want my thighs to receive 3rd degree burns if they tried to squeeze a G5 into a laptop ahead of the bell curve to please all the little whiners out there??????
I like the idea of having the G5 only in the Power Mac and iMac for the time being. Granted, the PowerBook has always kept pretty good pace with the PM, but hey, change is a GOOD THING!!!!

Oh yeah, by the way, I love my wife very very much.
(She thinks I'm a dork for posting on these boards)
:D

[zelmo]

If this were the case, there would never be an upgrade to any product.
Admittedly it feels crappy to buy something and see the upgrade product that is x-amount faster, for the same price... but if it does what you need what does it really matter.

I just got my 1.33 PB 15" and I love it. I debated waiting to see what would happen in the next six months or so, but if I waited another six months for a G5, then I'd want to wait another 4-5 months for the 2nd rev, then another few months for the prices to drop, then the dual G5 PB or whatever would be six months away, and I'd never get a freakin' computer ever again, always waiting for the next faster thing to hit. My little aluminum beauty does everything I need, and plenty fast enough for me. To heck with the waiting game.
Besides, if I can just get my wife hooked on using wireless internet in the next year, I might need to get another one.... :D :D

[MikeBike]

- Does Apple want more marketshare and the fastest laptop possible:
Dual Core G4.
- Does Apple want to depend upon Hype: 64bit chip, but, only slightly faster. 2ghz G5 single, with more power and heat demands.

I'd vote for the DualCore G4.
I don't believe we will see a G5 in a Powerbook till the 65 nanometer process is perfected.

[sord]

If Apple gives us a dual G4 PB, what would happen when they eventually release the G5 PB ?

Dual processors are much faster rendering and better for most design applications. So going from a dual G4 to a single G5 could mean a drop in performance. Right ?

PB will have dual core 2.0ghz g4 and the iBook will have a single 1.6ghz g5.

[zelmo]

Oh yeah, by the way, I love my wife very very much.
(She thinks I'm a dork for posting on these boards)
:D

and you are...so am I, and so does my wife [and yes, I love her very very much - my wife, not yours ;)].

Where's my damn pocket protector? :D :D :D :D

[zelmo]

PB will have dual core 2.0ghz g4 and the iBook will have a single 1.6ghz g5.

G5 in the iBook and G4 (even a dual-core) in the PowerBook??
That's just crazy talk. :)

[macsrus]

How does dual-core compare to dual processors?

The best answer would be...... IT depends!
There really isnt a right way to answer your question... because depending on how the dual core is implemented it could be much better than dual processors... to in the worst case actually slower....
While most likely somewhere in the 5 to 20 percent performance gain...

It depends on.... Level 2 and 3 cache sizes on die...
It depends on memory and data transport between the processor cores
It depends on whether or not both cores can be feed by the memory/data bus...
And a whole host of other factors...

[nek]

At first I thought that this was good for the PowerBook when FreeScale anounced their e600 and e700 plans months ago. But in order to take advantage of the RapidIO Apple will need to make a motherboard redesign and therefore likely stick with these chips for the PowerBook for a while (1-2yrs). Which means that the G5 will have to wait for a while.

I don't know a lot about these things but RapidIO is an improvement but a lot slower than Hypertransport that the G5 uses. RapidIO is about 1.25GB/sec and Hypertransport is 22.4GB/sec.

But since the current G5 chips will likely be too hot anyway, Apple might as well commit to FreeScale for its laptops. Single core chips in the iBook and dual core in the PowerBook. The dual core e600 will undoubtedly be faster than a single G5 at the same clockspeed. I think it will be introduced at 130nm, then move to 90nm to get beyond 2GHz based on this info (http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=02VS0l72156402).

[stuepfnick]

that's the most number of buzzwords i've ever seen in a post with coherent sentences. as for the ppc 74xx having a weaker fpu/mhz vs. the p4, i would say no. perhaps you mean athlon or pentium m. practically any modern processor today has a better fpu/mhz vs. the p4.

Hello! It is true that the G4 has a weaker floating point unit then the P4 or the G3.

In Cinebench a P4 with 800 Mhz would get 80 CB, a G4-800 gets 65 CB and G3 has about 84 CB.

But the Altivec unit is stronger as the one on the G5, although it has less memory latency and some other stuff.

A Dual Core G4+ with fast IO and some other advantages could blast a same clocked Dual G5 in some things. (mainly Altivec heavy stuff)

[wide]

If Apple reclocated their HQ to Florida, and then declared bankruptcy, could they still keep their HQ in FL? I know that is the case when an individual declares bankruptcy in FL.

[fabsgwu]

Don't put all your eggs, er chips, in one basket. Apple would be wise to look for more than one option here. we'll see...

[macsrus]

- Does Apple want more marketshare and the fastest laptop possible:
Dual Core G4.
- Does Apple want to depend upon Hype: 64bit chip, but, only slightly faster. 2ghz G5 single, with more power and heat demands.

I'd vote for the DualCore G4.
I don't believe we will see a G5 in a Powerbook till the 65 nanometer process is perfected.

That could mean probably never....
Noone realized how much trouble the 90 nm process was going to be...
And at 65 nm the hurdles to overcome are 10 times as bad.

[Frobozz]

While speculative, that article you quited was interesting. He has some very valid points.

[stuepfnick]

I don't know a lot about these things but RapidIO is an improvement but a lot slower than Hypertransport that the G5 uses. RapidIO is about 1.25GB/sec and Hypertransport is 22.4GB/sec.


Can't be! The actual G4 has something like 3 GB/sek, so Rapid IO MUST be faster then this...

Also if this goes to the powerbook it could be followed by the dual core G5 or the dual core e700 (64 and 32 bit, very G5-like) form Freescale.

But I guess: It gets an improved G4 at first: 1.8 Ghz and faster IO - like 400 Mhz FSB - then single or dual e600 (G4+) then single or dual G5 or e700 (G5 mobile maybe? ;-) )

[Frobozz]

Hello! It is true that the G4 has a weaker floating point unit then the P4 or the G3.

I think you mean integer performance, not floating point. Floating point math is what AltiVec does.

A Dual Core G4+ with fast IO and some other advantages could blast a same clocked Dual G5 in some things. (mainly Altivec heavy stuff)

It could beat the 970 or 970fx if, in this highly theoretical situation, the G4 was even capable of getting to the frequencies the G5 class processors can. It's been widly reported that the AltiVec implementation in the next G5 generational chip (980?) will outperform a G4.

[AidenShaw]

I don't know a lot about these things but RapidIO is an improvement but a lot slower than Hypertransport that the G5 uses. RapidIO is about 1.25GB/sec and Hypertransport is 22.4GB/sec.


http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html

The HyperTransport protocol integrates the Power Mac G5 I/O subsystems and connects them to the system controller.

Serial ATA, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, USB 2.0 and optical digital and analog audio are all integrated through two bidirectional 800MHz HyperTransport interconnects for a maximum throughput of 1.6GB per second.

[jjmaximum]

The G5 won't show up in PBs until the heat-resistant gloves are made small enough to allow typing on the keyboard while wearing them ;)

[mikeyredk]

The G5 won't show up in PBs until the heat-resistant gloves are made small enough to allow typing on the keyboard while wearing them ;)


don't you mean heat resistant thigh pads ;)

[Jo-Kun]

let's hope the iMac G5 sells very good (and they are able to MAKE it fast enough... since G5 desktops are lagging behind in delivery...) so more people will get a 64bit processor at home... so we need a fast release of panther... to finally feel the speed of these babies... because I read a thread of someone mentioning his PowerBook G4 1.5Ghz being faster than the G5 1.6Ghz... I guess 64BitOSX will change that... because sometimes my 2x1.8Ghz feels like it's a bit sleepy... ok it's my fastest Mac ever (before this one I had iBook G3 266, iMacDV G3 400, B&W G3 300,Ti-Book G4 400) but sometimes I get the impression it not running as fast as it could...

maybe the 32/64Bit FreeScale DualCore G4 for PowerBooks and the 32/64Bit IBM Dual processor and/or DualCore G5 for Desktops (both SingleCore in the i-series...?

J

[AidenShaw]

...because I read a thread of someone mentioning his PowerBook G4 1.5Ghz being faster than the G5 1.6Ghz... I guess 64BitOSX will change that...

64-bit is not faster than 32-bit. It can address more memory, but that can actually cause a slight slowdown.

Don't believe in the "64-bit myth" - unless you have more than 4 GiB of RAM in your 'book, you almost certainly won't benefit from 64-bits!

[joeboy_45101]

With Apple unable to get sufficient supplies of the G5's for the PowerMacs and the Xserves I don't really see how they are going to easily deliver an iMac G5. The way I see it the iMac G5 will probably have a 130nm G5 chip inside, this makes sense since IBM is ABLE to produce those in good quantity. It also boggles my mind as to why anybody is holding on to the idea that a PowerBook G5 is just around the corner, a dual-core G4 is just fine for that platform. If FreeScale is able to pump-up the G4 then this is going to be one awesome chip. The G4 is a damn fine processor for normal computing, and with the addition of dual-core shouldn't we call it the G4 Pro.

[h'biki]

. because I read a thread of someone mentioning his PowerBook G4 1.5Ghz being faster than the G5 1.6Ghz... I guess 64BitOSX will change that... because sometimes my 2x1.8Ghz feels like it's a bit sleepy...


The 1.5ghz G4s are very close in speed to the single 1.6 G5s. Clock for clock, the G4s and G5s are of a roughly similar speed. The G5s have a number of advantages which do allow them to scale better than the G4s - not only are they able to reach higher clock speeds, but the speed difference between clock speeds is maintained... e.g. a 2.5 Ghz G5 is 25% faster in clockspeed than a 2.0ghz G5, and works roughly 25% faster.

MOTOs problems with the G4s FSB and scaling the G4 does not, in itself, make the G4 bad. Its a very good chip. An elegantly designed chip.

Tell you what. If I could get a choice between a dual G4 running at 3ghz tomorrow and a dual G5 running at 2.5ghz, I'd certainly consider the G4 - especially given its better altivec performance.

[macsrus]

64-bit is not faster than 32-bit. It can address more memory, but that can actually cause a slight slowdown.

Don't believe in the "64-bit myth" - unless you have more than 4 GiB of RAM in your 'book, you almost certainly won't benefit from 64-bits!

WHILE This is true and can actually slow down the results because of the way registers are used.... during OS and code testing we found the the opposite results


Using 32 bit code with OS X as our baseline


64 bit code on OS X 3.1% performance gain over baseline

32 bit linux... 32 bit code... 3.8% performance gain over baseline

32 bit code on 64 bit linux 4.9% performance gain over baseline

64 bit code on 64 bit linux 7.9 % performance gain over baseline

Because of these results we are dropping OS X on our cluster and switching to LINUX

[macsrus]

Tell you what. If I could get a choice between a dual G4 running at 3ghz tomorrow and a dual G5 running at 2.5ghz, I'd certainly consider the G4 - especially given its better altivec performance.

I dont know where you got the idea.... That the G4 has better altivec performance than the G5... Because every bench mark and Document I have every seen has showed the G5's altivec to be from same to slightly superior to the G4

[adamcoop]

Actually Apple explicitly stated that the new iMac will be G5 based during last quarters earning meeting.

Yeah - I knew I'd be flamed for that one... :p

[mikeyredk]

couldn't they rebrand the chip from freescale with the g5 name? it will be confusing for us but they could ;)

[macsrus]

couldn't they rebrand the chip from freescale with the g5 name? it will be confusing for us but they could ;)

LOL maybe they will call it the G4 squared

[gerrycurl]

The pentium m processor came out after the pentium 4's, but actually used the pentium 3 processor core and added things like a faster bus, more cache, simd (Single-Instruction Stream Multiple-Data Stream, SSE1,SSE2,SSE3, MMX, MMX2, think altivec) instruction sets, and they lowered the voltage requirements and form factor to 130nm which dropped the power requirements greatly. This pentium m chip although based on the pentium 3, outperformed or rivaled the pentium 4 in many tests. it's actually a fabulous processor for notebooks because it's low on energy consumption and was almost as fast as the best desktops. Of course for things like multimedia such as divx encoding, pentium 4 HT with 800MHZ FSB's blew these out of the water. But whenever the pentium m hits higher clock speeds and higher bus speeds, it will once again rival the pentium 4's.

As to the dual cores, the proximity of the cores will obviously allow for faster context switches, shared L3 cache and overall just lower cost of production. And if freescale can get the form factor down to about 90nm, this could be a really compelling chip for apple. it will be freescale's pentium m. The g4 really isn't a bad chip, it's just that the architecture doesn't allow the clock cycles to be scaled up as high as say pentium 4's
or G5's. But there are other determining factors to lead to performance gains such as on board memory controllers, larger bus, more cache, etc.

The dual core g4 may not be a bad chip afterall, lower power consumption, upgraded speeds, but I'd most certainly wait for the dual core g5's for my next purchase. ~1-2 years.

[Maxx Power]

Why? The 7447A is a MUCH better processor. I have had G3 based machines and they were fine, but in NO WAY do they compare to the newest G4's. Everyone complains about the 167Mhz FSB speed...um the 750 ran at 100Mhz. It did not have Alti-Vec which makes a huge difference especially on the newest applications and OS from Apple. Last, it never came close to clocking as high as the G4 has gone, 1.5Ghz. Look at benchmarks anywhere (ie. iBook G3 vs. iBook G4) and you will see the current G4's kill the old IBM G3's. The G3 was a good processor, but WAS is the key word.

Woo, hold on a second. G4 runs on a 167 Mhz bus because that's what it's spec'ed to do. The G3, according to IBM's papers can run on any speed between 100 to 200 mhz. Apple decided to cripple the processor to not outshine the G4 in any way. By the way, the G3 has a more powerful FPU unit per mhz than the G4 any day, as well as lower power consumption. The G3 running at 1.2 Ghz with at 200 mhz bus will smoke any G4 crunching float/integer non-altivec code.

[Maxx Power]

I think you mean integer performance, not floating point. Floating point math is what AltiVec does.


No, he means Floating Point, as well as I originally started this comment in this thread, and I mean Floating Point as well. You missed a few posts in which we discussed the FPU issue in this thread.

To keep you updated i quote from earlier in this thread "that the fpu on the G4 is per unit weaker than that of the P4 from www.arstechnica.com the link is:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q4/p4a...4andg4e2-3.html

and i quote "The P4's FPU hardware is a little beefier than that of the G4e, but a little less beefy than that of the PIII or the Athlon. The P4's designers slimmed down the FPU and weakened it a bit, banking on increasing clock rates and the widespread replacement of x87 code for SSE2-optimized code to take up the resulting performance slack. A closer look at the P4's FPU will show just how it has been weakened.""

[Maxx Power]

i read that article too. i just can't help but feel that on a clock-for-clock basis, the ppc 74xx's fpu is better than the p4's. perhaps it's the shorter pipeline that gives it that advantage.

One feels that way because the perceived Floating Point Arithmetic is good on the G4 since the only way we use that processor is with Apple's pre-compiled/optimized code. Apple optimizes very heavily in AltiVec since they spend a lot of marketing dollars on that technology. G4 is designed with the vector unit in mind since number one bulk customer of the processor is Cisco, who needs the vector units for lots of network processing that would benefit from this. Apple leverages this as well, but the traditional FPU is the way to go for most code, it is used regardless of VMX optimizations. I also feel the P4's design is inefficient like north american vehicles.

[MacQuest]

This might be kinda true, except for the part where microsoft gives any type of notice whatsoever to Apple. If they cared, they would have bought Apple long ago.

Never could/would happen. Shareholders would never allow it.

That's what makes Apple such a great company and a pain in the a$$ to monopolysoft. :D ;)

[AidenShaw]

during OS and code testing we found the the opposite results...

Because of these results we are dropping OS X on our cluster and switching to LINUX

Were there any other variables? Same compiler used for all tests?

Did you separate 64-bit addressing from G5 scheduling optimizations (the former might hurt a bit, the latter might help a lot)?

Did you separate 64-bit addressing from 64-bit integer arithmetic?

While all your data seems reasonable, it seems that there's a good chance that the only variable isn't 32 vs. 64 bit virtual addressing.... But I'm glad to hear that you're ditching the proprietary OS - it will give you lots of options in the future.

[Sol]

It sounds like these dual-core G4s will be ready for next year's OS X 10.4 release. By that time we could even have dual-core G5s or G6s in the PowerMacs, if IBM can get on top of their manufacturing problems. Things get murky when it comes to the iMac and eMac; a G4 processor which can control Ethernet, USB, etc from the CPU would be ideal for the all-in one computers but Apple has allready gone on record about the G5 iMac. Does this mean that eMacs will also use G5s and that dual-core G4s will be exclusively in portables? Either way, it looks like a win-win situation for Mac users.

[paxtonandrew]

Is there any news weather the new chip will be able to fit inside existing computers? If possible, I will be ebaying my PB, and putting one into my PowerMac. I believe it has been said that the new Freescale chips to be pin for pin compatible with the current G4's, so maybe.

Has anybody heard anything?

[.a]

is it a bad idea to get a powerbook 17" now? when can we expect new powerbooks?
my powerbook is due to be shiped 9th of septembre (what i think is really late).
.a

[Windowlicker]

Apple works with Motorola, and IBM starts doing neat stuff whilst Motorola spins in the toilet. Apple jumps ship. IBM goes into a tailspin. Motorola starts doing neat stuff. :eek: Murphy's law. You switch lanes in traffic, the faster lane you switched to will grind to a halt and the lane you just got out of starts moving.

that's exactly what I thought when reading this.. I believe this could be a good thing. IBM's having problems with producing the current chips, and they surely will have problems producing G5's for laptops.

At the same time the iBooks start needing an update soon, but they really can't be updated to be as fast as the powerbooks. So if the powerbooks don't get a speed bump soon, both computers will be in a halt.

We don't wanna wait a year for new laptops -- we didn't wanna wait for rev B G5's for a year.

[JFreak]

You guys don't give the g4 enough credit. Its a great chip!!! all its missing is the massive bus speeds

you got that right :) clock-for-clock the G4 outperforms the G5, so it all comes down to overall throughput of the system. in some cases a 1.5GHz powerbook G4 performs equally to a single G5 1.6 powermac, so the G4 is not so bad... it's just crippled with a slow bus.

[MacFan26]

I think apple could easily call this a g5 by name. G5 mobile, or "mini" or something. This wouldn't just be a minor improvement to the g4, they mine as well call it a g5.
Yeah, even if it isn't quite as good as the powermac G5 chips, they shouldn't call it the G4, so people can stop holding out and waiting for a G5 notebook. As for me, I don't really care if it's a G5 or not, if it's progress, it sounds good to me :)

[Trowaman]

is it a bad idea to get a powerbook 17" now? when can we expect new powerbooks?
my powerbook is due to be shiped 9th of septembre (what i think is really late).
.a

This is a check the buyers guide and make you own best guess.

If I were to GUESS, and I am GUESSING, with an announcement of dual core Jobs woudl save it for MWSF and not jsut middle of the Fall, if not then, it'd be at WWDC '05, assuming the G5 is still a no go.

*money still places G5 at WWDC '05.

[CmdrLaForge]

And no one has even considered that this, instead of a G5 processor, will be going into the next iMac? I mean, Apple didn't actually say that the iMac will be a G5. And if the components are to be mounted behind the screen (as per previous rumours), you'd think some sort of low heat solution would be needed.

Sorry, you are wrong about that. Apple said that the new iMac will have the G5.

[g3ski]

don't hold your breath

That says it all.

I am guessing they have more PR people working on Freescale than engineers. tehe.

[g3ski]

Yeah, even if it isn't quite as good as the powermac G5 chips, they shouldn't call it the G4, so people can stop holding out and waiting for a G5 notebook. As for me, I don't really care if it's a G5 or not, if it's progress, it sounds good to me :)

Yeah the G4.5 is what the world has been waiting for. Or, hey, how about a quadra and a half on your desktop ; )

Seriously though, you make a good point, as Intel has been dealing with this type of issue (namely naming and consumer perception of what's inside™) for a couple of years.

If it's a blazing fast dual-core at 2Ghz that fits inside a Powerbook without heat issues, then for all we care, call it Cr@ppy Chip®. :p

[sebisworld]

So, help me to clear this up:

If a 1 THz Chip takes an hour to render a movie with a "really good" (tm) application, the dual 1 THz Chip would ideally only take 30 minutes. How long would a Dual Core take? Is it a second processor in the same enclosure or a trick to benefit more from what's alreay there?

[ac_1000]

It's possible but a recent discovery (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=83647) has indicated that the imac will have a G5. Why? Because there's a bit of code in 10.3.5 that works with the 970fx's PowerTune feature.

<dict>
<key>PowerBook7,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

<key>PowerBook7,2</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

<key>PowerMac8,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

<key>PowerMac9,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>

The PowerMac8,1 refers to a consumer-grade G5 Power Mac, i.e. the new iMac. Using this same logic, the next PowerBooks will probably be G5 based.


I think these PlatformPlugins can only be seen as a hint to the chipset (or parts of it) on the mainboard. It's not a clear sign, that the new iMac and a new PB will have the same processor. One could also split the mainboard chipset in a "common" part and one part specific for a G5 or a new G4 CPU.

[Sol]

So, help me to clear this up:

If a 1 THz Chip takes an hour to render a movie with a "really good" (tm) application, the dual 1 THz Chip would ideally only take 30 minutes. How long would a Dual Core take? Is it a second processor in the same enclosure or a trick to benefit more from what's alreay there?

It is not as simple as that. A dual processor computer would be closer to 1.5 times faster than the single processor computer. Dual-core might be closer to 2 times faster than the single processor. That is, assuming that the application doing the rendering takes advantage of a second core or processor. Roxio Toast 5's VCD rendering plug-in is a good test for this. It is dual-processor aware so you can use it for benchmarks if you have the time and patience.

[macsrus]

Were there any other variables? Same compiler used for all tests?

Did you separate 64-bit addressing from G5 scheduling optimizations (the former might hurt a bit, the latter might help a lot)?

Did you separate 64-bit addressing from 64-bit integer arithmetic?

While all your data seems reasonable, it seems that there's a good chance that the only variable isn't 32 vs. 64 bit virtual addressing.... But I'm glad to hear that you're ditching the proprietary OS - it will give you lots of options in the future.

IBM XLC and XLF were used for all tests....
The linux used was SUSE Enterprise 9 RC5
The OS X was 10.3.5 Server
Our code is all fortran 90 ... utilizing double precision...
We didnt have any single threads that addressed more than 2 GB memory per processor

Buy the way... The reason OS X was out preformed is...
OS X has very poor/slow memory management.....
We had talks with Apple and they insured us that Tiger would fix the memory management bottleneck....
While we plan to dump OS X.... we will re-evaluate it when Tiger ships....

[DakotaGuy]

The G3 running at 1.2 Ghz with at 200 mhz bus will smoke any G4 crunching float/integer non-altivec code.

The key phrase is "non-altivec code" and OSX and most of Apple's programs are designed to use alti-vec to improve performance. Day to day tasks like converting a CD with iTunes uses alti-vec to drastically improve performance. Even on non-altivec code, I think your imaginary 1.2Ghz G3 would have a hard time keeping up with the current 1.5Ghz G4. I don't even think a 750fx can clock to 1.2Ghz, maybe it can, I just don't see Apple dumping the G4 to go back to a G3.

[eric_n_dfw]

It is not as simple as that. A dual processor computer would be closer to 1.5 times faster than the single processor computer. Dual-core might be closer to 2 times faster than the single processor. That is, assuming that the application doing the rendering takes advantage of a second core or processor. Roxio Toast 5's VCD rendering plug-in is a good test for this. It is dual-processor aware so you can use it for benchmarks if you have the time and patience.FCP4 render speed comparisons between single/dual cpu machines: http://barefeats.com/fcp4.html

[kujo770]

The key phrase is "non-altivec code" and OSX and most of Apple's programs are designed to use alti-vec to improve performance. Day to day tasks like converting a CD with iTunes uses alti-vec to drastically improve performance. Even on non-altivec code, I think your imaginary 1.2Ghz G3 would have a hard time keeping up with the current 1.5Ghz G4. I don't even think a 750fx can clock to 1.2Ghz, maybe it can, I just don't see Apple dumping the G4 to go back to a G3.

Apple won't go back to the G3, but the G3 (IBM 750gx) is shipping @ 1.1GHz with 1MB L2 running @ 1.1GHz! :cool: It is available from Powerlogix for Beige, B&W, and early G4 towers breathing new life into these older units. If the mulitplier is available and enough cooling... G3 1.2GHz should be a possibility.

[G4-power]

Nah ... DDR400 runs at 200MHz and the double data rate gives it the name DDR400.

The first DDR ram was DDR266 which was double data rate PC133 RAM.

Ah, I see. Thought I might be wrong in that.

[AidenShaw]

IBM XLC and XLF were used for all tests....
The linux used was SUSE Enterprise 9 RC5
The OS X was 10.3.5 Server
Our code is all fortran 90 ... utilizing double precision...
We didnt have any single threads that addressed more than 2 GB memory per processor

Buy the way... The reason OS X was out preformed is...
OS X has very poor/slow memory management.....


Good testing. Just one question, though.

Did you test both 32-bit and 64-bit SuSe? (Or are there both for the PPC - I couldn't find much PPC info on the SuSe website)


If your threads don't need more than 31-bits, in theory it shouldn't make much difference to G5 optimized code - both 32-bit and 64-bit should be about the same. (If you app uses lots of pointers, the 64-bit could be somewhat slower than the 32-bit.)

Thanks in advance...

[peharri]

Yeah the G4.5 is what the world has been waiting for. Or, hey, how about a quadra and a half on your desktop ; )

It's Apple, so it'll probably be the "G4 Extreme", to fit with Airport Extreme and Quartz Extreme. Dude!

If it's a blazing fast dual-core at 2Ghz that fits inside a Powerbook without heat issues, then for all we care, call it Cr@ppy Chip®. :p
Agreed. This story seems immensely speculative at the moment but I seriously hope it goes somewhere. I think a dual-core 2GHz "G4 Extreme" would be an improvement on a more regular 2GHz G5 myself (and if iMac 3G rumours have any truth to them, it seems unlikely that 2GHz G5s are going to appear anywhere but PowerMacs for now anyway - the rumours have 1.6 and 1.8GHz G5s in the new iMacs.)

There's the whole issue of timing, but I would sorely be tempted to get a "G4 Extreme" PowerBook if such a thing came out.

[G4-power]

couldn't they rebrand the chip from freescale with the g5 name? it will be confusing for us but they could ;)

It would confuse consumers quite much. This far, Apple has given the G-series number to only one series, like 750-, 74xx, 970-. Excluding 601/602/603/604. I think the average Joe thinks G5 as a 64-bit processor, so a 32-bit G5 would confuse people. Wonder though what name they come up with to the dual-core processors. The Freescale (Moto) e700 could be called G5 (or G6), but hard to say what the e600 could be called. If these chips come to the Mac lineup, we'll see.

My take on the G4 vs. G5 is that both have their advantages and disadvantages. On the same clock, they're close. G5 is 64-bit and has newer architecture, but they've pumped all out of the G4 in application design. Of course there are G5 optimized aps, but their numbers are few. Though, optimising to the G5 doesn't do much over G4 optimising, IMHO.
A dual-core G4 will perform better than a single G5 at same wattages, because it was made a low-power chip from the start up.
When the G4's came up, they had the the problem that G5 to G4 has now (no 64-bit code for G5), with AltiVec. Apps that used AltiVec gained speed over the G3 wonderfully. But with non-AltiVec FPU processing, the G4 just doesn't even try to make an impression over G3. In everyday-use, a 350 MHz PM G4 outperforms an iBook G3 500 MHz easily, as in OS UI, iTunes...but apps witout AltiVec support...well, you can guess.

[SiliconAddict]

The G5 won't show up in PBs until the heat-resistant gloves are made small enough to allow typing on the keyboard while wearing them ;)

OK. This was meant as a joke and this post isn't targeting you jjmaximum.
But I'm starting to get really annoyed with people who automatically assume that a 90nm 1.8Ghz G5 is going to burn down to the earth's core. Look at the bloody specs people!! :rolleyes:
Such a chip bundled with IBM's CPU speed scaling tech that was released earlier this year and a low speed fan and heat piping should easily be able to do the job if not in the 15" PowerBook then definitely in the 17".
Personally what I think is happening is Apple went back to IBM after seeing what Intel put into the Pentium M and asked for something that is more power conservitive. Heat in a 1.8Ghz chip is a relativly minor issue right now. Battery life is another matter. The M is a solid chip when it comes to battery life conservation. The G4 is too but its performance to battery life ratio sucks butt. Apple could get a G5 in a PowerBook NOW. The issue is would people be happy with a 2+/- hour battery life on their laptop. I think by and large the answer would be no.

[Abstract]

Apple won't go back to the G3, but the G3 (IBM 750gx) is shipping @ 1.1GHz with 1MB L2 running @ 1.1GHz! :cool: It is available from Powerlogix for Beige, B&W, and early G4 towers breathing new life into these older units. If the mulitplier is available and enough cooling... G3 1.2GHz should be a possibility.

I think I saw someone post something exactly like this earlier at Macrumors .........in 2002.

And for all those people who oh so desperately need a G5 Powerbook: Why not just hope that the best mobile chip goes into the Powerbook? If Apple can announce the dual core G4 PBs at MWSF in January, and they're the best chip that can be squeezed into a PB, then why is this a bad thing? Realistically, I don't think we'll see a G5 in a Powerbook soon, not even by August 2005.

First, there are current troubles with IBM producing these chips, so they have to get production in check. Then there's the high demand from all the video game vendors who will take priority simply because Apple won't nearly be IBM's biggest customer for these 970s. To fit a decent speed G5 into a Powerbook, IBM has to do something about power consumption and heat beforehand, because there's no way they're going to fit one into a PB enclosure. And to produce these improved chips, it may be a good idea for them to get production issues on the CURRENT chips in check.

The G5 has to be improved A LOT, and with how much trouble Apple is going to have with fitting these into a PB enclosure, I'm thinking it'll come out in Paris 2005 (13 months from now).

If they can up the performance significantly, using any chip at all, then that's good enough. :)

[JoePike]

I would agree that this dual-core chip will likely get branded with something like "G4 Extreme". Calling it a G5 wouldn't be quite right, because it's not 64-bit, and I don't think it warrants a jump to the G6 name as some have suggested. G4 Extreme would make the most sense to me. And I would buy one.

-Joe

[beatle888]

Realistically, I don't think we'll see a G5 in a Powerbook soon, not even by August 2005.


that ridiculous :rolleyes:

[SiliconAddict]

Do people pull this stuff out of thin air?!?!

I think I saw someone post something exactly like this earlier at Macrumors .........in 2002.

And for all those people who oh so desperately need a G5 Powerbook: Why not just hope that the best mobile chip goes into the Powerbook?

Because then two years down the road when everything is optimized for the G5 (Note I said G5 not 64-bitness.) our laptops are going to look pathetic. Thanks but if I'm spending close to $4,000 on a laptop it isn't going to contain a CPU that in all likelihood is going to be EOLed by next summer.

If Apple can announce the dual core G4 PBs at MWSF in January, and they're the best chip that can be squeezed into a PB, then why is this a bad thing?

See above.


Realistically, I don't think we'll see a G5 in a Powerbook soon, not even by August 2005.

Apple will be screwed if they don't get a G5 in a PowerBook by summer at the latest. Realisticly Moto won't be delivering a dual core CPU anytime soon. If we are talking another year with a craptastic G4 in its current state the PC world is going to make chopped dog food out of the current G4's, and that's even if Moto can squeeze a few more speedbumps out of the current gen G4. Sorry folks but as I have harped on before the Pentium M and new AMD mobile CPUs are making Apple's mobile hardware look... :(

First, there are current troubles with IBM producing these chips, so they have to get production in check.

Which multiple news sources have stated will be rectified by 1st quarter '05.

Then there's the high demand from all the video game vendors who will take priority simply because Apple won't nearly be IBM's biggest customer for these 970s.

No company is putting a G5 into their game system. MS is putting a PowerPC chip in but its NOT going to be a direct transplant from the Mac to the XBox and the Sony chip that is being developed won't be out until 2006 anyways. (That is the spec release timeframe for the PS3.) Sorry but that excuse doesn't fly either.

To fit a decent speed G5 into a Powerbook, IBM has to do something about power consumption and heat beforehand, because there's no way they're going to fit one into a PB enclosure.

Why? Have you EVEN LOOKED at the power requirements of a 90nm 1.8Ghz G5? Have you compaired it to the current gen G4?!?!?


And to produce these improved chips, it may be a good idea for them to get production issues on the CURRENT chips in check.

The only thing that is holding IBM back right now is the painful trans to the 90nm process. Do you think Moto is going to have any better luck in that trans? Yah right. Once IBM gets the process down and the yeilds up shipments should start flowing.

The G5 has to be improved A LOT

Where the heck do people pull this from?!?!? How so?

and with how much trouble Apple is going to have with fitting these into a PB enclosure

Ahhh you are obviously a hardware engineer who knows what Apple is going through. Please enlightening us with the specifics of the problems they are having putting a low end G5 into a PowerBook?


If they can up the performance significantly, using any chip at all, then that's good enough.

Not good enough. Not by a long shot if they have to continue with Moto's timeframes for product releases.

[idkew]

barefeats compares several processors including dual g4s with g5s (http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html)

i predict the dual g4 will be faster than the g5

mature g4 vs new g5..... hummmm

[g3ski]

So, help me to clear this up:

If a 1 THz Chip takes an hour to render a movie with a "really good" (tm) application, the dual 1 THz Chip would ideally only take 30 minutes. How long would a Dual Core take? Is it a second processor in the same enclosure or a trick to benefit more from what's alreay there?

It's about the same as dual processor G4 or G5.....except the dual core chip is more efficient than the dual processor setup. It should also be cooler.

[maxvamp]

I think we all need to digress a little here. It is getting real hard to see the forest.

In all reality, I doubt that technical performance of either a dual core G4 or a Single G5 is going to have as much of an impact on the next powerbook, as the perception that it may bring.

This is political season, and not just for politicians. Whatever goes into the next rev has to influence the Apple stock though the investing community. If Jobs came out and said (" THREE MORE YEARS OF A G4!!! " ) I think that the Apple stock would take a hit. Steve is going to at some point have to announce something that sounds like a move forward, and not stagnant.

No matter how you dice it, the G4 is yesterday's processor. The G5 is perceived to be the latest best thing. Performance, and need for 64-bitness be damned.

Now, with that said, there is the possibility that the Freescale e700 with dual cores may bring Motorolas back to the Mac. These are 64-bit, and should be dual core. This may be the chip that eventually finds it's way into the PowerBook.

Just my 2 cents. Read carefully, then flame away.

Max. :)

[RBR2]

First, there are current troubles with IBM producing these chips, so they have to get production in check. Then there's the high demand from all the video game vendors who will take priority simply because Apple won't nearly be IBM's biggest customer for these 970s. To fit a decent speed G5 into a Powerbook, IBM has to do something about power consumption and heat beforehand, because there's no way they're going to fit one into a PB enclosure. And to produce these improved chips, it may be a good idea for them to get production issues on the CURRENT chips in check.

The G5 has to be improved A LOT, and with how much trouble Apple is going to have with fitting these into a PB enclosure, I'm thinking it'll come out in Paris 2005 (13 months from now).

If they can up the performance significantly, using any chip at all, then that's good enough. :)

Agreed. Recent news items indicate the yields which IBM is achieving on G5 production may be even lower than earlier believed and there is growing doubt that IBM can supply sufficient chips (certainly in the short term) for current PowerMac sales and the believed to be G5 iMac sales. This may leave Apple in an untenable position of not being able to produce enough units to keep the retail market viable.

"Once upon a time..." Steve said that it is good to have choices. It may be that we are approaching the time when choices have to be made as to which chips will be used to keep the company afloat if IBM can not *rapidly* solve their production problems. Perhaps some dual core G4s will keep the PowerBook/iBook line going because it looks to be a long time before there will be a G5 PowerBook. Perhaps Marklar may need to surface with an AMD processor, which, by the way, has been announced as shipping from the German Fab in a 90 nm process. I sure hope Apple have kept Marklar up to date.

I have confidence that IBM will find a solution to their current problem. They have too much riding on the success of their 90 nm process to do otherwise. There is no telling when IBM will resolve their production problems though. You do not know what you do not know. They could solve it next week. It might be that they have to change the process altogether if this process can not be sorted out. There are a great many uncertainties right now.

[Maxx Power]

The key phrase is "non-altivec code" and OSX and most of Apple's programs are designed to use alti-vec to improve performance. Day to day tasks like converting a CD with iTunes uses alti-vec to drastically improve performance. Even on non-altivec code, I think your imaginary 1.2Ghz G3 would have a hard time keeping up with the current 1.5Ghz G4. I don't even think a 750fx can clock to 1.2Ghz, maybe it can, I just don't see Apple dumping the G4 to go back to a G3.

There apparently is a G3 1.2Ghz upgrade for the Pismo Powerbook now. A pismo powerbook with that upgrade was just sold on Ebay a few days ago. If you think the 1.2 Ghz G3 would have a hard time keeping pace with a 1.5 Ghz G4 on non-VMX code, think again. According to one benchmark posted here in this thread, at 800 Mhz, I quote "In Cinebench a P4 with 800 Mhz would get 80 CB, a G4-800 gets 65 CB and G3 has about 84 CB."

Take those numbers, extrapolate linearly to 1.2 for G3 and 1.5 for G4, you'll see why your statement can't remain erect.

Apple does what it can to save face, which is why when G4 was at 500Mhz and stuck at that, the ibooks were not allowed to use the faster G3's. As well as before the iBook G4's came out, G3's were never allowed to be at their full potential by capping the bus artifcially to 100 Mhz when G3 can do double that, and according to the PDF's from IBM, at 200 Mhz bus, the G3 gets a huge performance boost in SPEC benchmarks as well as other general purpose applications.

Non-AltiVec code exists in most software not developed by apple. That's the majority of the software avaliable for Mac. Besides, only certain tasks can be Vectorized and is beneficial to be managed by the VMX unit instead of the traditional FPU/Integer Pipelines. Not all code, infact, Most Compiled Code can not be vectorized, it will either slow it down, or add padding to bloat the code.

[RBR2]

This is political season, and not just for politicians. Whatever goes into the next rev has to influence the Apple stock though the investing community. If Jobs came out and said (" THREE MORE YEARS OF A G4!!! " ) I think that the Apple stock would take a hit. Steve is going to at some point have to announce something that sounds like a move forward, and not stagnant.

No matter how you dice it, the G4 is yesterday's processor. The G5 is perceived to be the latest best thing. Performance, and need for 64-bitness be damned.

Now, with that said, there is the possibility that the Freescale e700 with dual cores may bring Motorolas back to the Mac. These are 64-bit, and should be dual core. This may be the chip that eventually finds it's way into the PowerBook.

Just my 2 cents. Read carefully, then flame away.

Max. :)

What the financial community is focusing on at the moment is the lack of any product on the shelves to sell which will soon impact sales revenues. That will affect the share price and the buy/sell ratings. At the moment several of the analysts are in the "hold" mode, but have made it fairly clear that "sell" ratings are just around the corner if Apple can not get product shipping quickly.

[maxvamp]

Agreed.

Apple needs to do everything they can to keep the stock from shifting to SELL.

I just want to **buy** a new machine... but my wife says I have to many machines as it is.

Can you trade a wife for a Dual G5 2.5 GHz? <grin>

Max.

[evilgEEk]

Can you trade a wife for a Dual G5 2.5 GHz?
Probably can, but I don't know if it would be legal. ;)

[maxvamp]

She probably wouldn't go for it anyhow...

Max.

[idkew]

She probably wouldn't go for it anyhow...

Max.

you could train her to come back after the trade.

the key is repetition. keep the lessons short, and give her treats when she succeeds.

[rdowns]

Agreed.

Apple needs to do everything they can to keep the stock from shifting to SELL.

I just want to **buy** a new machine... but my wife says I have to many machines as it is.

Can you trade a wife for a Dual G5 2.5 GHz? <grin>

Max.

Do what I did. Negotiate a shoe to machine ratio. I can have one machine for every X pairs of shoes you own. Sadly, I'd need 2 more rooms to have as many machines as the ratio allows.

[cb911]

wow, this is some interesting news.... i'd been reading about the e600 & e700... dual-core G4 2GHz+ would be awesome!

i've been wondering what would happen since it looks like it will be a while yet before the G5 comes to PowerBooks... :D

[Sun Baked]

wow, this is some interesting news.... i'd been reading about the e600 & e700... dual-core G4 2GHz+ would be awesome!

i've been wondering what would happen since it looks like it will be a while yet before the G5 comes to PowerBooks... :DDon't know the Power5 has some really cool power saving features, if the Power5-UL also has them it would make a PowerBook more likely than a dual core PPC970.

The Power5 can stop clocking units when the processor thinks they won't be used, along with some thermal limit features that can automatically slow the clock down when it get too hot.

[macsrus]

Good testing. Just one question, though.

Did you test both 32-bit and 64-bit SuSe? (Or are there both for the PPC - I couldn't find much PPC info on the SuSe website)


If your threads don't need more than 31-bits, in theory it shouldn't make much difference to G5 optimized code - both 32-bit and 64-bit should be about the same. (If you app uses lots of pointers, the 64-bit could be somewhat slower than the 32-bit.)

Thanks in advance...

Enterprise Server 8 and 9 both have PPC versions....
to get 32 bit OS I modified the kernel and did a custom compile...

I got my copy of SUSE from the NOVELL developer program....
The SUSE Enterprise Server 9 is a release candidate 5


My code does need more than 2 GB's per thread but only during decomp and recomposition.....

Currently my problems are decomposed and recomposed on an the following systems.... IBM SP, Intel Itanium, AMD Opteron, SGI Origin......

After decomp we run the code on Either the IBM SP or on any of the clusters we have... the move the answers back to one of the Listed 64 bit systems....
Currently we need 13 GB ram on a single thread to do the decomp/recomp

[VIREBEL661]

Good news (if it really happens - guess we'll see in October). I still think the G4 is a really phenomenal processor that never developed into what it should've been. I still think the tech is sound and that they can push this processor forward to be a cutting edge portable processor (even though Apple's laptops rock as they are). Let's hope they're interested in doing business and not drop the ball this time.

[gskiser]

Do people pull this stuff out of thin air?!?!

Because then two years down the road when everything is optimized for the G5 (Note I said G5 not 64-bitness.) our laptops are going to look pathetic. Thanks but if I'm spending close to $4,000 on a laptop it isn't going to contain a CPU that in all likelihood is going to be EOLed by next summer.


Apple will be screwed if they don't get a G5 in a PowerBook by summer at the latest. Realisticly Moto won't be delivering a dual core CPU anytime soon. If we are talking another year with a craptastic G4 in its current state the PC world is going to make chopped dog food out of the current G4's, and that's even if Moto can squeeze a few more speedbumps out of the current gen G4. Sorry folks but as I have harped on before the Pentium M and new AMD mobile CPUs are making Apple's mobile hardware look... :(



SiliconAddict hit the nail on the head. I'm so tired of people saying "the G4 has more than enough power for anyone" and "we don't really 'need' a G5 PB yet". Maybe some of us actually look further than six months down the road when we make a $3,000 purchase. The fact is, I average 5-6 years out of my computer. I'm currently on a 400mhz G3, and have finally outgrown it. I know I don't 'need' a G5 Powerbook right now, and a G4 would suffice for the next few months. However, in <2 years, I don't see that still being the case. Apple has committed to the G5, 64-bit, Tiger, etc... The fact is, the G4 PB is probably going to be EOLed soon. I want a processor that has SOME potential down the road and that can take advantage and fit into the direction Apple is going.

The G4 is still capable of doing everything I may need today. But why in the world would I buy a chip which was introduced in 1999 and is obviously on its way out. I'd rather by a 1 rev. G5 powerbok, and get AppleCare, than I would buy a last revision G4 powerbook. While it may be reliable, its not going to be on Apple's radar in a year. They've made it clear, the G5 is their future, Tiger is on its way in early '05. Why spend $3000 on a G4 powerbook that you already know isn't going to be capable of using an already anounced operating system its fullest potential? Besides, not matter how much faster they keep making the G4, the FSB sucks.

The G4 PB is fine for people who upgrade their computers every year. However, for the average person who needs their computer to last more than a year, its a waste of money. Dual core would be nice, but it still doesn't solve the above problems. At this point and time, with the exception of the PowerMac G5, Apple's entire hardware line looks pretty pathetic when compared to the competition; especially their portables'.

I'll end with on of my favorite quotes from Apple's website where they tout the G5 and blast the 167 FSB that holds back even the fastest processors. Too bad their own G4 1.5Ghz Powerbook falls into this class; but of course they don't mention that...

"Bottlenecks in the system architecture are usually what hold back the fastest processors. PowerPC G5 features an industry-leading 1.25GHz frontside bus for each processor, offering a staggering 20GBps throughput on dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 systems. That’s a huge leap over the Power Mac G4, with a bus speed of 167MHz. That means you won’t have a bottleneck getting information to the chip for processing."

[inkster218]

Dangitt you guys.

I was about to buy a new G4 PB after Paris and now you got me thinking about the whole "$3k laptop purchase why not wait until the G5" thing.

Hornswaggle reggle flekkin schmekkin.

[pigwin32]

Currently we need 13 GB ram on a single thread to do the decomp/recomp
When I was a lad we were happy to have 256KB and in that we had to run a SMP OS, email, word processing, editor, compiler. You young people just don't know how lucky you are, 13 GB on a single thread, mutter mutter.

On a positive note, I'm pleased to see some rumour action on the G5 PB front. I'm keen to replace my TiBook, not because it's not still useful, but because I want some more speed, a superdrive, plus bluetooth, and hopefully a higher resolution LCD. But I'm not buying another G4 and I'm not leaping into Intel, I do that for a day job. I would seriously consider a dual-core G4 but it really sounds like an interim solution for Apple if they are considering it at all. Tiger is going to be tuned for the G5, I want a G5 PB. Of course if IBM were to release a G5 laptop with say Yellow Dog Linux bundled, that could work for me :rolleyes:

[MikeBike]

SiliconAddict hit the nail on the head. I'm so tired of people saying "the G4 has more than enough power for anyone" and "we don't really 'need' a G5 PB yet". Maybe some of us actually look further than six months down the road when we make a $3,000 purchase. The fact is, I average 5-6 years out of my computer. I'm currently on a 400mhz G3, and have finally outgrown it. I know I don't 'need' a G5 Powerbook right now, and a G4 would suffice for the next few months. However, in <2 years, I don't see that still being the case. Apple has committed to the G5, 64-bit, Tiger, etc... The fact is, the G4 PB is probably going to be EOLed soon. I want a processor that has SOME potential down the road and that can take advantage and fit into the direction Apple is going.

The G4 is still capable of doing everything I may need today. But why in the world would I buy a chip which was introduced in 1999 and is obviously on its way out. I'd rather by a 1 rev. G5 powerbok, and get AppleCare, than I would buy a last revision G4 powerbook. While it may be reliable, its not going to be on Apple's radar in a year. They've made it clear, the G5 is their future, Tiger is on its way in early '05. Why spend $3000 on a G4 powerbook that you already know isn't going to be capable of using an already anounced operating system its fullest potential? Besides, not matter how much faster they keep making the G4, the FSB sucks.

The G4 PB is fine for people who upgrade their computers every year. However, for the average person who needs their computer to last more than a year, its a waste of money. Dual core would be nice, but it still doesn't solve the above problems. At this point and time, with the exception of the PowerMac G5, Apple's entire hardware line looks pretty pathetic when compared to the competition; especially their portables'.

I'll end with on of my favorite quotes from Apple's website where they tout the G5 and blast the 167 FSB that holds back even the fastest processors. Too bad their own G4 1.5Ghz Powerbook falls into this class; but of course they don't mention that...

"Bottlenecks in the system architecture are usually what hold back the fastest processors. PowerPC G5 features an industry-leading 1.25GHz frontside bus for each processor, offering a staggering 20GBps throughput on dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 systems. That’s a huge leap over the Power Mac G4, with a bus speed of 167MHz. That means you won’t have a bottleneck getting information to the chip for processing."


Aside from the 64bit registers, what is APPLE exactly going to optimize for?
- Apple will improve the GCC 3.5(?) compiler with advanced features, which will benefit both the G4 and G5.
- Apple will move more code to Altivec? G4 and G5
- Apple may write better graphics drivers: Depends upon the graphics chip.

The big advantage of the G5 was that it could scale to 2.5 ghz,
whereas the G4 is still at 1.5. But, clock for clock the G4 is more powerful.
A dual core G4, in a Powerbook, is a hell of an improvement, esp. since we probably won't see a G5 in a powerbook till the 65 nm process, and that would still be only a 25% performance improvement.
Vs. a dualcore G4 100% improvement, at least with the stuff I run.

[manu chao]

SiliconAddict hit the nail on the head. I'm so tired of people saying "the G4 has more than enough power for anyone" and "we don't really 'need' a G5 PB yet". Maybe some of us actually look further than six months down the road when we make a $3,000 purchase. The fact is, I average 5-6 years out of my computer. I'm currently on a 400mhz G3, and have finally outgrown it. I know I don't 'need' a G5 Powerbook right now, and a G4 would suffice for the next few months. However, in <2 years, I don't see that still being the case. Apple has committed to the G5, 64-bit, Tiger, etc... The fact is, the G4 PB is probably going to be EOLed soon. I want a processor that has SOME potential down the road and that can take advantage and fit into the direction Apple is going.

The G4 is still capable of doing everything I may need today. But why in the world would I buy a chip which was introduced in 1999 and is obviously on its way out. I'd rather by a 1 rev. G5 powerbok, and get AppleCare, than I would buy a last revision G4 powerbook. While it may be reliable, its not going to be on Apple's radar in a year. They've made it clear, the G5 is their future, Tiger is on its way in early '05. Why spend $3000 on a G4 powerbook that you already know isn't going to be capable of using an already anounced operating system its fullest potential? Besides, not matter how much faster they keep making the G4, the FSB sucks."

You bought your 400 Mhz G3 (if it is a laptop) in 1999 or 2000, the same year or one year after the G4 was introduced and expected it to last five to six years. And now you refuse to buy a G4 laptop one year after the G5 was introduced because you expect it to last less than two years. Interesting logic.

[wdlove]

Dangitt you guys.

I was about to buy a new G4 PB after Paris and now you got me thinking about the whole "$3k laptop purchase why not wait until the G5" thing.

Hornswaggle reggle flekkin schmekkin.

If you have a need for a new PowerBook now, then you should go ahead and purchase. These are rumors, there is no way of knowing what will happen at MWSF at this point. At least you will have about six months enjoyment before something else will be available.

[idkew]

not to mention- your g4 laptop will not suddenly decrease in speed when a g5 powerbook is released. you will not be missing out on anything. you will actually be gaining over 1ghz in clock speed if you get the g4. that is a huge jump, and i don't see how you wouldn't be happy.

you will never be able to stop progress, so why fight it?

[gskiser]

You bought your 400 Mhz G3 (if it is a laptop) in 1999 or 2000, the same year or one year after the G4 was introduced and expected it to last five to six years. And now you refuse to buy a G4 laptop one year after the G5 was introduced because you expect it to last less than two years. Interesting logic.
True, and I've learned from my mistake. Don't buy a processor that is on its last leg. Yes, I was able to make it last, though it hasn't been easy. However, you cannot compare 1999 with 2005. The G4 had altivec, was superior to the G3, but it wasn't revolutionarily different. There IS a major difference between the G4 and G5 which is far greater than the difference between the G3 and G4 five years ago. If Apple had announced in 1999 that the G4 was 64-bit and that was the direction they were heading, there would be no way my G3 machine would have lasted 5 years.

I think my logic is pretty sound, at least for my budget and future needs. Like I said though, its up to the individual. If you want a G4 PB, go for it. Its fine for now, but I don't see it being fine in 1 year. I'm just saying that I personally don't plan to get one until Apple proves it has a future. Each individual can decide for themselves though based on their needs.

[pigwin32]

The big advantage of the G5 was that it could scale to 2.5 ghz,
whereas the G4 is still at 1.5. But, clock for clock the G4 is more powerful.
A dual core G4, in a Powerbook, is a hell of an improvement, esp. since we probably won't see a G5 in a powerbook till the 65 nm process, and that would still be only a 25% performance improvement.
Vs. a dualcore G4 100% improvement, at least with the stuff I run.
<cough>fsb</cough>
I'm not sure where you get your information re the 65 nm G5, given the issues IBM appear to have had moving to 90 nm I can't see 65 nm being just round the corner. But yes, point taken and for the sake of argument if Apple did choose to use the dual core G4 the accepted PB roadmap goes out the window. Trying to both squeeze a G5 into the PB and improve performance over the dual core G4 PB is likely to be significantly more difficult than trying to get a G5 into the PB right now. Of course none of this addresses the increasingly 64-bitness of the OS, what are the implications for users of G4 machines once Apple starts tweaking for the G5/64 bit?

[AidenShaw]

<cough>fsb</cough>Of course none of this addresses the increasingly 64-bitness of the OS, what are the implications for users of G4 machines once Apple starts tweaking for the G5/64 bit?

Apple will have to support 32-bit applications with the 64-bit OS, and will have to support G4 systems with a 32-bit variant (fat images or however) of the OS. It will probably be 5 years before the G4 systems are marginalized.

Most applications have no need whatsoever for 32-bit - these will stay 32-bit so that the same images (with no extra work) will run on all Macs (G3/G4/G5...).

Your 64-bit applications will be the ones that really will run faster if you give each application 6 GiB or 8 GiB or more of RAM. That's not laptop territory for a while....

In other words, a PowerBook G5 with 2 GiB max of RAM wouldn't have any "64-bit advantage". The dual-core G4 would whomp its butt, especially on MP-aware applications.

(If nothing else, there's heat limiting memory size. I have a Dell with 2 GiB of DDR, and the memory compartment is usually the hottest part of the case - those two 1 GiB DDR SO-DIMMs are warm!)
____________________

It would be interesting for Apple to produce a Portable PowerMac G5 - a G5 in a larger laptop (say 1.7" thick, 8-10 lbs) that would have room for the cooling, and even 4 GiB or more of RAM.

Keep producing the thin G4 PowerBooks for people who want small size, lighter weight, and reasonable battery life.

But, give an option for a more powerful portable - even if it's larger and has average to mediocre battery life. Lots of media pros would snap them up - often the other equipment has to be plugged in, so who cares if the Portable PowerMac G5 only gets less than 2 hours or so on the battery?

(Note the big market for the 10 lb. 3 GHz Pentium 4 laptops....)

[Mac Dummy]

I think this might be a good stopgap until Apple & IBM work out the cooling issue with a portable G5 chip. One thought I had the other day was...find a way to use liquid cooling like is being used on the dual 2.5 PowerMac, to solve the cooling problem. :cool: Just a thought.

[spud]

Aside from the 64bit registers, what is APPLE exactly going to optimize for?
- Apple will improve the GCC 3.5(?) compiler with advanced features, which will benefit both the G4 and G5.
- Apple will move more code to Altivec? G4 and G5
- Apple may write better graphics drivers: Depends upon the graphics chip.

The big advantage of the G5 was that it could scale to 2.5 ghz,
whereas the G4 is still at 1.5. But, clock for clock the G4 is more powerful.
A dual core G4, in a Powerbook, is a hell of an improvement, esp. since we probably won't see a G5 in a powerbook till the 65 nm process, and that would still be only a 25% performance improvement.
Vs. a dualcore G4 100% improvement, at least with the stuff I run.

just like the late model G3s were "good enough", but now you they'll hardly run 10.3 (or in the case of my powerbook, won't run it at all).

if i'm going to invest in a new computer, it will need to be a g5.

[MikeBike]

In other words, a PowerBook G5 with 2 GiB max of RAM wouldn't have any "64-bit advantage". The dual-core G4 would whomp its butt, especially on MP-aware applications.

It would be interesting for Apple to produce a Portable PowerMac G5 - a G5 in a larger laptop (say 1.7" thick, 8-10 lbs) that would have room for the cooling, and even 4 GiB or more of RAM.



EXACTLY: The G5 scales up to 2.5 ghz.
But, if you're only going to put a 1.8-2.0ghz G5 in a powerbook,
then, a DualCore G4 is By Far, a Better Solution.

What you guys really want is a TRANSPORTABLE G5 IMAC.
Hopefully, the IMac rumors will be true and you guys mindlessly drooling over a G5 can get your wish, at a lower price, then a PowerBook!

Again, as far as I know, there are No G5 specific optimizations:
PowerPC assembler routines coded to use 64bit registers.
Even then, similar routines could be written for the G4.
What I believe Apple is doing is tuning the GCC3.5 compiler to product Much Better code for the G5, but, again, those improvements will also benefit the G4. A Win\Win situation.

[MikeBike]

Again, as far as I know, there are No G5 specific optimizations:
PowerPC assembler routines coded to use 64bit registers.
Even then, similar routines could be written for the G4.
What I believe Apple is doing is tuning the GCC3.5 compiler to product Much Better code for the G5, but, again, those improvements will also benefit the G4. A Win\Win situation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[MikeBike]

[QUOTE=pigwin32]<cough>fsb</cough>
QUOTE]

If you read the article you'll see talk of an on board memory controller.
i.e. better fsb.

[Sun Baked]

[QUOTE=pigwin32]<cough>fsb</cough>
QUOTE]

If you read the article you'll see talk of an on board memory controller.
i.e. better fsb.If it had an AGP port Apple probably could ditch the Northbridge and use a RIO-to-HT bridge chip and use a KeyLargo2 for I/O simplifying the chipset.

[AidenShaw]

Again, as far as I know, there are No G5 specific optimizations:
PowerPC assembler routines coded to use 64bit registers.
Even then, similar routines could be written for the G4.
What I believe Apple is doing is tuning the GCC3.5 compiler to product Much Better code for the G5, but, again, those improvements will also benefit the G4. A Win\Win situation.

The mainline compilers of interest (gcc, vc++, xl*) already support 64-bit integers as a native language datatype. When the compiler output is for a 32-bit machine, 64-bit operations generate a short series of 32-bit integer ops. When set for 64-bit architectures, a single 64-bit operation is generated.

Unless your algorithm depends heavily on extended precision integers (some crypto codes come to mind), the 32-bit code is usually good enough. Since the only visible arithmetic difference between the 74xx and the 970 is 64-bit integers, few applications will see much difference., (The 750/74xx already have 64-bit floating point and 128-bit VMX instructions.)

As far as the compiler tuning goes, the engineers look for the optimizations that help the 970 without hurting the 74xx (too much). So, as long as you stay away from 970-only stuff (64-bit) or 74xx-only stuff (little-endian compatibility) you can often come up with code that runs good (or better) on both - even though it might not be the best possible choice for either chipl

[beatle888]

You bought your 400 Mhz G3 (if it is a laptop) in 1999 or 2000, the same year or one year after the G4 was introduced and expected it to last five to six years. And now you refuse to buy a G4 laptop one year after the G5 was introduced because you expect it to last less than two years. Interesting logic.
True, and I've learned from my mistake. Don't buy a processor that is on its last leg.

i was going to respond to that post for you but you beat me to it.
by the way i absolutely agree with you. i wont buy a g4 pb. my laptop will do just fine until that beauty hits the shelves. it will be way different than comparing a g3 to a g4. FSB throughput is an important factor, not to mention the amount of ram it will most likely hold.

[pigwin32]

If you read the article you'll see talk of an on board memory controller.
i.e. better fsb.
I read the article, your comparison was G4 to G5, not dual core G4. The big advantage of the G5 was that it could scale to 2.5 ghz The big advantage of the G5 is that it doesn't have a 167MHz FSB.

Given Motorola's previous inability to deliver chips to spec why would Apple consider using the e600? Apart from memory addressing is there really no other advantage to using the G5, i.e. Apple's tuning of apps for the G5 doesn't give any greater performance than for the G4? A dual-core G4 with onboard memory controller is a tantalising prospect for PB addicts. The big question is where would a dual-core G4 PB fit into the product tree, is it part of the main trunk or a dodgy branch that will be pruned when the PB is G5-ready?

[AidenShaw]

The big question is where would a dual-core G4 PB fit into the product tree, is it part of the main trunk or a dodgy branch that will be pruned when the PB is G5-ready?

Main trunk, by necessity.


http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1587826,00.asp

Intel officials have been saying that a dual-core Itanium chip, code-named Montecito, will be released in mid-2005, followed by dual-core processors for desktops and mobile computers. The company has yet to release the code names for those chips.

Now Intel will have dual-core chips in its entire line of processors by the end of 2005....

The dual-core PB G4 will be pruned by the dual-core PB PPC9xx, competing against Intel laptops with dual-core hyper-threaded 64-bit "Pentium 4" and dual-core "Centrino" chips.

[Mord]

just like the late model G3s were "good enough", but now you they'll hardly run 10.3 (or in the case of my powerbook, won't run it at all).

if i'm going to invest in a new computer, it will need to be a g5.

look into xpostfacto it will let you run 10.3 on any g3 mac and i mean any, even upgraded early pci macs

[themacman]

Dual Core G5 Dual 3.0 Ghz Powermac They could call it.

So fast and so quite it will pounce on anything, and tiger will come standard on it

[Surreal]

apple could just add a line of nbnotebooks.

i mean, it would be a boon to their sales if they lowered the normal g4 prices...had a g5 and dual g4 line

the lowly single g4 (very fine...) would be the LOWEST...at 1.5...1.33...not low at all

as it is..an ibook is not a logical option for me...i make music ..use reason..logic..ableton live...and i make 3d animations using maxon cinema 4d (and hopefully later on maya). all this is only relevant because i need memory.

soldering the memory on makes sense in terms of crippling a line.

but since everything up the 12 pb is crippled...my lowest choice is a 15. at 2000.

now, i am a student, and if i am going to buy 2000 worth of computer, i am already out of "viable." and i plan on buying it...but if i do, i want it to have the MOST potential to last, simply because i WILL NOT be making a purchase of another computer within 4-6 years.

unless they prove to people that a dual core g4 is NOT a stop gap measure... sales wwould be bad. i would not buy it...not because i didnt think it was fast, not because i wouldnt think it could last 2-3 years, but because i KNOW it wouldnt last AS long as a g5.

[VicMacs]

Here's the only Powerbook G5 you are going to find for awhile. (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?userid=18793) ;)



http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=18793&dateline=1078679227

I'd rather buy a G3 iBook off of eBay. :p

here here!! I'll drink to that!

[manu chao]

True, and I've learned from my mistake. Don't buy a processor that is on its last leg. Yes, I was able to make it last, though it hasn't been easy. However, you cannot compare 1999 with 2005. The G4 had altivec, was superior to the G3, but it wasn't revolutionarily different. There IS a major difference between the G4 and G5 which is far greater than the difference between the G3 and G4 five years ago. If Apple had announced in 1999 that the G4 was 64-bit and that was the direction they were heading, there would be no way my G3 machine would have lasted 5 years.

I think my logic is pretty sound, at least for my budget and future needs. Like I said though, its up to the individual. If you want a G4 PB, go for it. Its fine for now, but I don't see it being fine in 1 year. I'm just saying that I personally don't plan to get one until Apple proves it has a future. Each individual can decide for themselves though based on their needs.

I think we all agree that the biggest differences between the G4 and the G5 are the 64 bit-ness and the faster FSB (plus clocking higher, but wether a G5 laptop clocks much higher than a G4 laptop could clock at the time of the announcement of the G5 laptop remains to be seen). The main difference between the G3 and the G4 is Altivec.

I believe it also a common understanding that the 64 bit do not speed up things in general (or only very little or only in specific kind of apps). The faster FSB certainly does increase speed, for some task very little for some a lot. Something similar can be said about Altivec, it speeds up things little to nothing in some apps and quite a lot in others. Interestingly, the kind of apps which are likely to profit from going 64 bit also gain from using Altivec.

I agree, in principle going from 32 to 64 bit is revolutionary, in practice however it is not.

Maybe the pace is accellerating, but I would guess that as much (or as little) as you suffer right now with your 400 Mhz G3 under Panther you will suffer in five years with a 1.5Ghz G4 under the then current OS and apps.
And as much as you would suffer with a 500 Mhz G4 laptop right now, you will suffer with a 1.8Ghz G5 laptop three and half years after it was released.

P.S.: I expect my then 3 year old 1Ghz Ti-Book to be still very 'fine' in one years time and a 1.5Ghz (w/ faster L2 cache and 2GB RAM (instead of 1GB on my Ti-Book) to be even 'finer'.

[MikeBike]

What's the usual time line after introduction at the Microprocessor Forum?
3 months or 1 year?

The difference with the G3 to G4 was Altivec.
There is no huge hardware difference from a G4 to G5.

One difference with IBM's G5 development is a continuing cycle of HARDWARE improvements. So, no matter what you buy today, or 12 months from now, Apple is on a course of much quicker enhancements to it's chips. I remember reading that the next G5, based upon the power5, with have an more advanced Altivec engine and SMT. But, when will that come out.
A year from now, and only in a PowerMac?

The combination of software optimizations and the current single core G5
vs. a dual core G4 with the same optimizations, seems to me just isn't going to overcome the inherent hardware advantages of a dual core chip.
For many years. If Apple goes dual core G4 now, it will have to go dual core G5 in the future, in the power book.

[ac_1000]

Hi,

read there (launch is end of september):

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=02VS0llCc5pzMP286165424903

Session: Scalable PowerPC Solutions, Including the Launch of the New High-Performance, Low-Power MPC7448
Session ID: P1303
Level: Basic
Time: Tuesday, 16h45–18h15
Location: 1020–1021
Presenter: Jim Gilbert, Freescale Semiconductor Networking & Computing Systems Group
Abstract: PowerPC Host Processors from Freescale Semiconductor offer the highest-performance embedded PowerPC processors in the world and the highest performance at under 10W across the board. This allows designers to reduce overall power consumption in their systems and maximize the �MIPS per Slot� in rack equipment�whether it is a priority design, or an ATCA-based system.

[lha72]

It's an embedded processor. There's nothing to indicate it's going into the next powerbook. It could just as well go into cars, microwave ovens, washing machines, etc.

[AidenShaw]

If Apple goes dual core G4 now, it will have to go dual core G5 in the future, in the power book.

Even if Apple doesn't go dual-core G4, they'll be going dual-core PPC9xx in the future.

Once the Intel notebooks have dual-core "Centrinos" and "Pentium 4s", Apple won't have the option to stay with single cores....

Multi-core is the future, and it's closer than you think (look back a few posts to #222).

[pigwin32]

There is no huge hardware difference from a G4 to G5.

Are you trolling? I think you'll find there is substantial hardware difference between the G4 & G5, these devices are not pin compatible and the G5 requires a completely different supporting chipset. As mentioned in a number of previous discussions the issues around getting a G5 into the PB are not just about cooling the G5, but also about cooling the associated chipset. The G5 has power management features that appear to lower the thermal envelope considerably but those features don't necessarily apply to the supporting chipset which is also unlikely to be built using the 90nm process (I'm guessing).

Even a dual-core G4 is going to require some serious re-architecting of the chipset, presumably unless Apple chose to retain the 167MHz FSB which would be totally brainless but potentially an option.

[thatwendigo]

However, in <2 years, I don't see that still being the case. Apple has committed to the G5, 64-bit, Tiger, etc... The fact is, the G4 PB is probably going to be EOLed soon. I want a processor that has SOME potential down the road and that can take advantage and fit into the direction Apple is going.

The e600 is 32-bit, dual-core, on-die memory controller with (it's rumored) DDR2 support, and numerous other features - including some mutterings of 128-bit dual precision vector units. While based on the G4e execution units, it is heavily modified, higher clocked, and set on a much faster bus (Freescale RapidIO) to the off-chip compnonents. Its successor, the e700, will be 64-bit with native 32-bit compatibility and a brand new execution core and (as I've heard it) dual 128-bit dual precision vector units.

Just what are you going to be using this 64-bits for? Expecting your laptop to have more than 4GB of RAM anytime soon? Doing higher order math that requires 64-bit integers? If not, you're really not going to see much in the way of speed increase from the "bitness" of your processor.

The G4 is still capable of doing everything I may need today. But why in the world would I buy a chip which was introduced in 1999 and is obviously on its way out.

It's not the same chip.

To make an analogy:
"The PIII is still capable of doing everything I may need today. Why in the world would I buy a chip that was introduced in 1999 and which is obviously on the way out?"

The answer is that the Pentium M is more advanced than either the Penitum 3 or Pentium 4, which is why Intel is transitioning towards the Jonas line of Penitum-M based processors for the desktop. In the same vein, the e600 from Freescale uses a modified G4e core with instruction compatibility, but has an awful lot of modification that makes it a far superior chip, not the least of which is the fact that you're getting a minisculre latency second processor.

:rolleyes:

Why spend $3000 on a G4 powerbook that you already know isn't going to be capable of using an already anounced operating system its fullest potential? Besides, not matter how much faster they keep making the G4, the FSB sucks.

This.

Isn't.

The.

G.

4.

Dual core would be nice, but it still doesn't solve the above problems. At this point and time, with the exception of the PowerMac G5, Apple's entire hardware line looks pretty pathetic when compared to the competition; especially their portables'.

RTFA (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/18/dual-cores_detailed/)

The chip, as yet unnamed - at least in public - will contain two PowerPC cores with AltiVec, Motorola's SIMD engine. It will also contain its own memory controller, capable of connecting to DDR and DDR 2 SDRAM, according to documents seen by The Register.

On-die memory means that there won't be a traditional FSB, which means that at least half of what you're complaining about goes away as if by magic!

[maddav]

Grrr, this has got me all confused now, I just got a job (I'm only 16) and i was planning in buying a highest spec PB April next year, with an Apple education store discount (my english teacher said he'd write to Apple personally to allow it). I accept that by next April things would've obviously changed, but now the dual-core G4, or G5 ( next Tuesday :D ) debacle is getting me confused.

Ho-hum, I'll just save up the £2000+ and see what's out at the time!

[AidenShaw]

Ho-hum, I'll just save up the £2000+ and see what's out at the time!

You are wise beyond your years, Grasshopper.

There will always be something better coming - buy what you need when you need it. If you wait for the next rumour to be released you'll never buy.

However - do check the buyer's guide pages here, so that you don't pick up something that's expected to be replaced quite soon.

On the other hand, most changes are incremental - so even if you buy a few months before an upgrade you'll just have something that's a bit slower than the latest. Not obsolete - just a bit below the latest.

My personal tactic is to buy the model just below the top of the line. Usually the cost savings exceed the performance sacrificed, and the system's useful life is the same as the top of the line.

[Seanb23]

My personal tactic is to buy the model just below the top of the line. Usually the cost savings exceed the performance sacrificed, and the system's useful life is the same as the top of the line.

Err...last summer I shelled out $3300 for a "top-of-the-line" 1ghz powerbook. Wouldn't need another computer for years, I thought. Oops. Well, one sorry year later, I am truly aware of just how anemic this proc is for my needs (high end audio) even with 1g ram. Should have waited, should have waited...

And now that I have seen what the other side has to offer in mobile technology, I am sorely tempted to sell the thing for half of what I paid for it, and get something about three times as fast. Oh, how I loathe windoze, but at least those 2004 laptops have some 2004 hardware in 'em...

SO, if, and I mean IF these dual core G4 Powerbooks are avaliable by next summer, Apple may just soak me for another 3 1/2 grand, just because I'm personally very prejudiced in favor of OS X, but by that time, I wonder how far along the other side will be ?

I suppose you are right, and the best strategy is to get slightly under top of the line, but...even Apple's top of the line, right now, in laptops, just barely qualifies as "adequate" for many people's needs.

I'm pretty excited by this "dual core" news, though. Maybe it'll change my mind about Powerbook hardware. I certainly want it to...

[macsrus]

I suppose you are right, and the best strategy is to get slightly under top of the line, but...even Apple's top of the line, right now, in laptops, just barely qualifies as "adequate" for many people's needs.

I'm pretty excited by this "dual core" news, though. Maybe it'll change my mind about Powerbook hardware. I certainly want it to...

I just got this 15 inch powerbook... A month ago....
I really like it but....It is really very slow....
I have the chance to unload it to one of my coworkers...but I am waiting until Oct... because I have a feeling we will see a new PB announced by then

[ceo2b]

G5PB seems out of the question this year, I have woken up :p

I hope to see higher screen resolutions, dual layer dvd writer, number pad. I think a dual-core, WSXGA+ in 15"/17", 8X-DL, and a keypad are realistic upgrades that could/should occur before the end of 2004.

I yet to understand why higher screen resolutions have not been offered. I think keypads could be considered in the 17" PB line. The DVD-writer can easily be upgraded. All that leaves is the issue of the DCG4 and all the technical circumstances, which I do not wholly understand. With G5 a year or more from now, I think the upgrades I mention are a fair for the interim. Having to wait to Jan is rediculous.

I hope they can have some of these upgrades available by November!

[jeffbax]

A probable solution to this is having a single-core one on 12" models but dual-cores on 15" and 17". Who knows...
No, I'm sick of the 12" Being so weak compared to the 15" and 17"!

[macsrus]

No, I'm sick of the 12" Being so weak compared to the 15" and 17"!

Then dont buy one.... Simple as that...

[MikeBike]

And now that I have seen what the other side has to offer in mobile technology, I am sorely tempted to sell the thing for half of what I paid for it, and get something about three times as fast. Oh, how I loathe windoze, but at least those 2004 laptops have some 2004 hardware in 'em...


Intel P4 processors are not three times faster.
Divide the P4 ghz by 2 to compare to the PM, G4 and G5.
I thought everyone knew by now, the P4 was designed by the marketers to push Ghz Numbers to the Unknowing. The P4 is the 4 cylinder engine that HAS TO run at twice the RPM as the V8( PM, G4 and G5 ), relatively speaking, to get the same performance.

Actually, you should look for some kind of content creation benchmark before you go to the dark side, just to be sure you are getting a faster machine.

The problem with any new machine is you get used to the performance in about a week, and your mind gets ahead of the machine from then on.
I'm running on my new 1.5 ghz powerbook and it does not do everything Instantaneously for me. But, I've run some personal benchmarks and it really is 400% faster than my old 550mhz powerbook. My mom things the 550 is faster then her old old thinkpad.

If you want instantaneous software try running some unix scripts in the terminal window. Too bad the software we use can't be run without windowing overhead. The GUI easily adds 50% overhead to everything we do. But, do we want to go back to memorizing command line parameters for everything we run?

[Seanb23]

Intel P4 processors are not three times faster.
Divide the P4 ghz by 2 to compare to the PM, G4 and G5.
I thought everyone knew by now, the P4 was designed by the marketers to push Ghz Numbers to the Unknowing. The P4 is the 4 cylinder engine that HAS TO run at twice the RPM as the V8( PM, G4 and G5 ), relatively speaking, to get the same performance.

Actually, you should look for some kind of content creation benchmark before you go to the dark side, just to be sure you are getting a faster machine.


I'm speaking specifically about bleeding edge 2004 PC laptop stuff...M chip and AMD, not P4. These laptops are literally a year and a half or two ahead of Motorola CPU based powerbooks in terms of cpu speed, bus, memory, battery life, and everything else. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...but the ones I have seen just spank the pants off of much more expensive powerbooks running identical programs. We live in a constant "PC vs Mac" debate household here running super-complex cpu gluttons such as "Reaktor 4", on a friendly level, of course, and...well, I just can't lie to myself.

I vastly prefer OS X and many other features of the powerbooks, though. If they were nearly as fast as the "dark side" I wouldn't even entertain the thought. Hopefully later this year we will see Apple begin to implement better hardware, such as these dual core processors, and begin to catch up. Hopefully...even a nice, modern bus would be a positive start. ;)

[beatle888]

No, I'm sick of the 12" Being so weak compared to the 15" and 17"!

thats a strange reaction....they cater to different needs. think different classes. i dont think their suppose to compete with each other so why be disappointed in a lighter class when you have heavyweight options? i dont get it.

[Music-Producer]

Err...last summer I shelled out $3300 for a "top-of-the-line" 1ghz powerbook. Wouldn't need another computer for years, I thought. Oops. Well, one sorry year later, I am truly aware of just how anemic this proc is for my needs (high end audio) even with 1g ram. Should have waited, should have waited...

And now that I have seen what the other side has to offer in mobile technology, I am sorely tempted to sell the thing for half of what I paid for it, and get something about three times as fast. Oh, how I loathe windoze, but at least those 2004 laptops have some 2004 hardware in 'em...

SO, if, and I mean IF these dual core G4 Powerbooks are avaliable by next summer, Apple may just soak me for another 3 1/2 grand, just because I'm personally very prejudiced in favor of OS X, but by that time, I wonder how far along the other side will be ?

I suppose you are right, and the best strategy is to get slightly under top of the line, but...even Apple's top of the line, right now, in laptops, just barely qualifies as "adequate" for many people's needs.

I'm pretty excited by this "dual core" news, though. Maybe it'll change my mind about Powerbook hardware. I certainly want it to...

In response to your comment that your 1ghz powerbook with 1gb ram is not enough for 'high end audio' I must say that during a mobile production session, I have managed 64 tracks of audio with plug ins on each track, without any discernible lag (Digital Performer) We were using a SCSI drive of course, (spins at 10,000 rpm) This was on a 500 mhz powerbook G4 with 1 gb ram..so make sure your drive is fast enough. If you're recording on a firewire drive which spins at 7200 rpm..it won't matter if you're using a 2ghz powerbook ..your hard drive has to spin fast enough to handle all that audio. I always see people discussing or buying the fastest computers and then complaining about poor performance. Its the drive and the ram that matters, check out the latest scsi drives which spin at 15,000 rpm. I can guarantee that even a g4 400 mhz computer will work great without any problems with that kind of drive.

[Seanb23]

In response to your comment that your 1ghz powerbook with 1gb ram is not enough for 'high end audio' I must say that during a mobile production session, I have managed 64 tracks of audio with plug ins on each track, without any discernible lag (Digital Performer) We were using a SCSI drive of course, (spins at 10,000 rpm) This was on a 500 mhz powerbook G4 with 1 gb ram..so make sure your drive is fast enough. If you're recording on a firewire drive which spins at 7200 rpm..it won't matter if you're using a 2ghz powerbook ..your hard drive has to spin fast enough to handle all that audio. I always see people discussing or buying the fastest computers and then complaining about poor performance. Its the drive and the ram that matters, check out the latest scsi drives which spin at 15,000 rpm. I can guarantee that even a g4 400 mhz computer will work great without any problems with that kind of drive.

I like my computer setup to be mobile. Currently, about 3 or 4 heavy duty ensembles on R4 alone push right up on the high, arched roof of the beautiful cathedral called OS X. R4 opened as a vst under Live pushes this further and strains it.

Well, in a few years, hopefully, your setup will trickle down to us snobby powerbook people...damn, 64...s i x t y f o u r...tracks. Well...that's pretty impressive.

[AidenShaw]

thats a strange reaction....they cater to different needs. think different classes. i dont think their suppose to compete with each other so why be disappointed in a lighter class when you have heavyweight options? i dont get it.


What if you want a more powerful CPU, or a PC Card slot, or 1394b - but you feel that the 15" and 17" are just too darn big and heavy?

[macsrus]

What if you want a more powerful CPU, or a PC Card slot, or 1394b - but you feel that the 15" and 17" are just too darn big and heavy?

It doesnt matter what we want.....
The Almighty Steve decides what we want

I have been attacked numerous times on these boards for just suggesting that I would like PDA functionality added to the iPod...

And have to listen to people tell me how the Almighty God... aka.. Jobs knows and understands better what I want and need...

So If God doesnt want us to have a better 12" PB then we wont...

Your only choice is not to buy it..... But then again the Apple flock...aka Sheep.... always follow their masters voice

[beatle888]

I like my computer setup to be mobile. Currently, about 3 or 4 heavy duty ensembles on R4 alone push right up on the high, arched roof of the beautiful cathedral called OS X. R4 opened as a vst under Live pushes this further and strains it.

Well, in a few years, hopefully, your setup will trickle down to us snobby powerbook people...damn, 64...s i x t y f o u r...tracks. Well...that's pretty impressive.


Hitachi-IBM Travelstar 7200RPM ultraslim notebook hard drive.

[beatle888]

What if you want a more powerful CPU, or a PC Card slot, or 1394b - but you feel that the 15" and 17" are just too darn big and heavy?


that wasnt his point. he said he was sick of the 12 compared to the 15. in your scenario i would say lift some weights or higher a caddy :p

[beatle888]

It doesnt matter what we want.....
The Almighty Steve decides what we want

I have been attacked numerous times on these boards for just suggesting that I would like PDA functionality added to the iPod...

And have to listen to people tell me how the Almighty God... aka.. Jobs knows and understands better what I want and need...

So If God doesnt want us to have a better 12" PB then we wont...

Your only choice is not to buy it..... But then again the Apple flock...aka Sheep.... always follow their masters voice

i dont think apple is trying to tell us what we want so much as their trying to figure out what the masses want and how their going to meet that need and make a profit. you make it sound like SJ's some horrific dictator.