PDA

View Full Version : Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?


mystixman
Aug 12, 2002, 02:09 PM
I mean, that would be a great and wonderfull thing to get one, but is it really necessary? High end G4s are already better than Pentium, so whats the big deal? Im sure we will get one soon, but Apple will probably only realease it when competition gets better chips going.

topicolo
Aug 12, 2002, 02:21 PM
I agree. I couldn't care less if the they don't switch to a 64bit chip for another 2 years. As long as we have a 32bit chip that can scale to insane speeds, I'll be happy--well, until i need more than 4gbs of ram anyway.

edesignuk
Aug 12, 2002, 02:21 PM
The competition allready does have 'faster' chips (in most cases, AMD more so than Intel), so YES we DO NEED a G5 sooner rather than later to come out and kick some x86 a$$!!!

iH8Quark
Aug 12, 2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by mystixman
High end G4s are already better than Pentium

Waiter, I'll have what he's having. :rolleyes:

topicolo
Aug 12, 2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by verbose101
The competition allready does have 'faster' chips (in most cases, AMD more so than Intel), so YES we DO NEED a G5 sooner rather than later to come out and kick some x86 a$$!!!

Yeah, but 64bit doesn't = faster. You have to wait forever for the software to be updated

Mr. Anderson
Aug 12, 2002, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by mystixman
High end G4s are already better than Pentium, so whats the big deal?

What planet are you on? Apples (with the Motorola G4) cannot go head to head, processor to processor and win against the top of the line Intel or AMD chips. Apple has to put 2 - two CPU in their top of the line machines to even stay somewhat competetive!!!! And they still loose in rendering, after effects and some photoshop filters.

I do 3D animation and I won't be happy until I can do realtime radiosity at dv resolution - that will most likely require 3 or more generations of processors from now, min. Or a new way to stick 32 CPUs in one machine.

D

Liamcow
Aug 12, 2002, 02:59 PM
no, we don't need G5 chips, as long as windows is still crashing all the time PCs will still be inferior (with few exceptions). so i'd say we'll need the G5 chips after hell freezes over and elvis shows himself.

Sherman
Aug 12, 2002, 03:01 PM
I say just faster clock speeds. Which is why apple should switch to IBM for their chip needs.

IBM after all is the one researching all sorts of new designs, not motorola.

ftaok
Aug 12, 2002, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Sherman
I say just faster clock speeds. Which is why apple should switch to IBM for their chip needs.

IBM after all is the one researching all sorts of new designs, not motorola. Just to defend Motorola here, where's IBM's 1ghz PPC chip??? To my knowledge, the 1ghz Sahara isn't even out yet.

Motorola was the 1st company to ship a 1ghz chip based on the PPC architecture. That's a fact.

Just wait a couple of weeks to see what the updated PowerMacs will be sporting. I'm thinking dual-1.25Ghz G4 (7470) with 2x166mhz bus and DDR. Would that satisfy the "pro" community?

Edited for breaking news from Mac-Minute.

Hemingray
Aug 12, 2002, 03:39 PM
I say we need the G5, if even only in a pure marketing sense. Eventually the consumer is going to say "they've been using the same processor in that thing for [insert high number] years!" Sure, there's improvements made to the same generation chip itself, but the average joe schmoe doesn't know that. All they see is "G3" and "G4", because that's where Apple puts the most emphasis on the processor. Keep in mind, these are the type of people who are wooed by GHz and Pentium 2, 3, 4, etc. and don't know jack about pipeline or cache.

snoopy
Aug 12, 2002, 06:24 PM
Most PowerMac Applications don't need a G5, but those high-end video applications do I believe. Apple wants to replace SGI workstations with Macs. There may be a new high-end Mac for the G5, or the whole PowerMac line could get it. No software needs to change, since a G5 will run 32 or 64 bit applications normally. Over time, some applications will take advantage of 64 bits when run on a G5. Like altivec, the application uses it only when the processor has it. This is a huge advantage of the PPC family.

Mr Jobs
Aug 12, 2002, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by snoopy
Most PowerMac Applications don't need a G5, but those high-end video applications do I believe. Apple wants to replace SGI workstations with Macs. There may be a new high-end Mac for the G5, or the whole PowerMac line could get it. No software needs to change, since a G5 will run 32 or 64 bit applications normally. Over time, some applications will take advantage of 64 bits when run on a G5. Like altivec, the application uses it only when the processor has it. This is a huge advantage of the PPC family.

funny i never know developers made applications for the Powermac i always thought the made it for the Mac OS. And 'those high-end video applications' like Final Cut Pro you mean...what you saying i cannot install it in an imac???? i think not

Ibjr
Aug 12, 2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by mystixman
I mean, that would be a great and wonderfull thing to get one, but is it really necessary? High end G4s are already better than Pentium, so whats the big deal?

Better than the i586, but the g3 was that generationís competition. The i686 the G4 gets killed in with compile, rendering, and encoding times. With Apple is buying up Video editing companies and forcing the users to switch to Mac, they will need a much better chip.

kaneda
Aug 12, 2002, 07:09 PM
Are you smoking CR@ck? High End G4 is faster than Pentium 4...maybe Pentium at 1.8 ghz...but not 2.5 ghz...PC already have a dual 2.4 ghz w/ DDR...We are falling further behind every 6 month...By the end of this year PC could reach to 2.8ghz and even closer to 3 ghz...and we are all sitting in our comfortable ergnomic working chair using our dual 1.25 ghz...oh, wait.. 1.24ghz... WOOOHOOOOO SPEED DEMON!!
Anybody is interest in Powermac will desire more faster computer! becoz, we are all professionals designer, filmmaker, etc... We use our MAC 24 hours a day...We want faster computer so we can get things done quicker, so we can have a freaking life then sitting there waiting for our MAC to slowly processing or rendering our works.....MORE POWER!!

If G4 is faster than Pentium why is there rumor about Apple switching to Intel??

Apple should consider using Intel or AMD chip now! all they will kiss their 5% market goodbye!

By they way, Jaguar is freaking awesome! and again we need hardware to run it...

C ya guys tomorrow...:)

alex_ant
Aug 12, 2002, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by ftaok
Just to defend Motorola here, where's IBM's 1ghz PPC chip??? To my knowledge, the 1ghz Sahara isn't even out yet.
It's been out for at least six months. It's not in any Apple systems, but it's available, according to IBM's website.

ftaok
Aug 12, 2002, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

It's been out for at least six months. It's not in any Apple systems, but it's available, according to IBM's website. Alex,

I've seen that you've posted that the 1ghz G3 has been out, but you've never said who's using it. Don't you find it strange that IBM never mentions who the users are?

Besides, that doesn't change the fact that Motorola was the 1st to ship a 1ghz PPC chip. And they'll be the first to ship a 1ghz+ chip as well.

alex_ant
Aug 12, 2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by ftaok
I've seen that you've posted that the 1ghz G3 has been out, but you've never said who's using it. Don't you find it strange that IBM never mentions who the users are?
Not really, that would be like Hershey mentioning who eats its candy bars, or Levi's releasing the names of certain customers of its 501s.
Besides, that doesn't change the fact that Motorola was the 1st to ship a 1ghz PPC chip. And they'll be the first to ship a 1ghz+ chip as well.
I think this is true, unless you count the IBM Power4, which is a superset of a PowerPC. The Power4 was available and running at 1.3GHz last fall.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make here - just posting meaningless and inconsequential comments I guess. :)

mymemory
Aug 12, 2002, 08:30 PM
We do not need G5, some people do, depending of your work. If you are in to gamimng, word procesing, audio or photoshop stuff with the actual speed you are just fine, just need some ram.

Now, if you are in to video and 3D animation, we are about there, I would asume we are 60% there just because of the rendering needs. My computer (dual 500 with 320ram) takes some 24 hours to do a 2D render 30fps, 720x480, 5 minutes animation. And 3D may take longer.

Yes, some people and there is a lot of room in the industry for G5, the thing is that most of the design areas are furfill, at list until some developer require more from your computer.

mcrain
Aug 12, 2002, 09:16 PM
I don't know about you weak *ss video, music, etc. editors with your fancy final cut pro and your music editors and mixers, but I'm a lawyer and damnit, I need more processing power. There's nothing more frustrating than when you're pecking away with two fingers on the keyboard and you decide to save your pleading, and open quicken or something else, and it takes more than a few seconds. That just annoys the heck out of me, so damnit, I don't just want, I need more processing power for my power computing.

snoopy
Aug 12, 2002, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Mr Jobs


funny i never know developers made applications for the Powermac i always thought the made it for the Mac OS. And 'those high-end video applications' like Final Cut Pro you mean...what you saying i cannot install it in an imac???? i think not

You are half right. Developers write for Mac OS and compiled for the PPC. Even if a Mac OS were ported to an Intel processor, it could not run applications made for the Mac computer. Another version would need to be made for Intel. You're point about my use of PowerMac is well taken; I should have said Mac.

Also, my fault for being too vague about high-end video. I was not speaking of things like Final Cut Pro, which runs fine on present day Macs. I was referring to those high-end companies Apple has been buying. These applications are used by the film industry to make special effects in movies like Lord of the Rings. Right now they use heavy duty workstations. The Mac cannot run this stuff yet, at least not well enough for professional use. I think that may apply to Maya too.

sparkleytone
Aug 12, 2002, 09:38 PM
|
|
|
|
V

eirik
Aug 12, 2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet

I do 3D animation and I won't be happy until I can do realtime radiosity at dv resolution - that will most likely require 3 or more generations of processors from now, min. Or a new way to stick 32 CPUs in one machine.
D

Originally posted by mymemory

Now, if you are in to video and 3D animation, we are about there, I would asume we are 60% there just because of the rendering needs. My computer (dual 500 with 320ram) takes some 24 hours to do a 2D render 30fps, 720x480, 5 minutes animation. And 3D may take longer.


Dukestreet and Mymemory each raise a point very near and dear to me: REAL WORLD BENCHMARK OBJECTIVES!!! While I too would like a Mac that indisputably kicks the ass of any x86 machine, I fancy myself a practical person.

So, what does one need the speed for????? Well, our two colleagues, and others too, have just raised two examples. If you guys would be interested in differentiating macrumors from ALL OF THE OTHER WEBSITES on the web, we should open a thread whereby we post our real world benchmark objectives. For example, MYmemory may state realistically that he wants to complete his 2D render specified above in six hours while also running email, web browsing, and other light applications. When we've collected and perhaps voted on these objectives (with target dates), Arn can publish them on a separate page somewhere.

On a similar line, we could also quantify the opportunity cost of "slow" computers to certain professional folk as Dukestreet and Mymemory.

I'm a product manager in a different industry. My decisions, and the decisions of my superiors, are heavily influenced and ideally driven by such quantified figures: objectives and opportunity costs for customers. If you really want Apple to FEEL YOUR PAIN, doing this would yield positive results!!!

Some have noted in many threads here that we tend to whine quite a bit. With macrumors posting objectives and opportunity cost figures, it and we would stand head and shoulders above all other mac sites/forums as a group of folk that are damned serious about their computing and don't just whine about being slower than x86 computers. We've got some pretty smart and knowledgeable folk here that can contribute.

Now, I don't do 2D graphics or anything of the sort. When I return to the Mac, soon I hope, I will take up these things as a hobby (Tivo-like stuff big time). So, I have no objectives or figures to contribute to help get the ball rolling. But I would hope that Arn and others would take up the challenge and grip Apple by the short-hairs with facts and figures!

funkywhat2
Aug 12, 2002, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by snoopy
Most PowerMac Applications don't need a G5, but those high-end video applications do I believe. Apple wants to replace SGI workstations with Macs. There may be a new high-end Mac for the G5, or the whole PowerMac line could get it. No software needs to change, since a G5 will run 32 or 64 bit applications normally. Over time, some applications will take advantage of 64 bits when run on a G5. Like altivec, the application uses it only when the processor has it. This is a huge advantage of the PPC family.

the xmac?

big
Aug 12, 2002, 11:14 PM
>Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?

yes, and it should kick ass, so there is no PC user who can tought the authority of the macintosh....

I remember when my B&W G3 WAS the fastest thing around, how quickly we lost that one

topicolo
Aug 13, 2002, 11:46 AM
well, it looks like you're right, since the new powermac releases show that Mot's crappy G4s obviously can't be scaled high enough for our demands. Hopefully IBM can do better with their G3s and G5s.

macsurfer
Aug 13, 2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by mystixman
I mean, that would be a great and wonderfull thing to get one, but is it really necessary? High end G4s are already better than Pentium, so whats the big deal? Im sure we will get one soon, but Apple will probably only realease it when competition gets better chips going.

Yes, I do. We all do. SOON!!!! (It's getting a bit late *already*)

Ifeelbloated
Aug 13, 2002, 02:22 PM
Boy, the original poster sure rattled a hornets nest with that question.
For general computer users the answer is no. For office word processing and spreadsheets, todays computers are more than fast enough. But, for the people in graphics, DV, and biotech the computers won't ever be fast enough. It's just the nature of their work.
I work with 3D and I can't tell you how frustrating it is to do test render after test render to see if it looks right. It so disrupts the workflow. Look at how long it takes do a CG film, at least 4 years. In Hollywood that's an eternity. That's why only huge studios can afford to release titles like Toy Story, Men in Black, and Ice Age.
I think that's where the performance envelope is being pushed. That's why pros demand the absolute fastest. And with Steve Jobs being the head of Pixar, I can't understand why he doesn't let loose his engineers to develop some totally sick hardware for the ultra-high-end users. Even if they are out of the price range of the vast majority of us, it would be nice to know that Apple has something that is held up as a true heavy-hitter. A diadem. The Xserve is a start. Let's hope.

iGav
Aug 13, 2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
I don't know about you weak *ss video, music, etc. editors with your fancy final cut pro and your music editors and mixers, but I'm a lawyer and damnit, I need more processing power. There's nothing more frustrating than when you're pecking away with two fingers on the keyboard and you decide to save your pleading, and open quicken or something else, and it takes more than a few seconds. That just annoys the heck out of me, so damnit, I don't just want, I need more processing power for my power computing.

:p :p :p

How'd the interviews go???

mymemory
Aug 13, 2002, 03:09 PM
Look folks:

1. To play games in your computer you need video ram. so a G4 would do.

2. To do video, 2D/3D animation you have to choices:
a: A G5
b: To get used G4s and build your render farm under the cost of a new computer. You can actually get 3 dual 500 for the price of the new G4 and being more productive.

3. For get about Apple replacing SGI. The actual G4 doesn't reach half of the funcionality of the 1997 SGI O2, not even a indigo. Macs are way below any SGI machine. For those who are in to video production try to run a Flint on a Mac.

http://www.discreet.com/products/

Forget about comparing a Mac to a SGI that is like going to compete in Nascar 2003 with a 1988 Toyota Corolla.

alex_ant
Aug 13, 2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
3. For get about Apple replacing SGI. The actual G4 doesn't reach half of the funcionality of the 1997 SGI O2, not even a indigo. Macs are way below any SGI machine. For those who are in to video production try to run a Flint on a Mac.

http://www.discreet.com/products/

Forget about comparing a Mac to a SGI that is like going to compete in Nascar 2003 with a 1988 Toyota Corolla.
You do mean an Indigo2, not an Indigo, right? The Indigo was discontinued in 1993 and topped out at 150MHz, and the Indigo2 was discontinued in 1996. If the Mac can't compete with these SGIs, that's pretty sad, because you can get a used Indigo2 Max Impact (top of the line $40k workstation in its day, 195MHz R10000 CPU) on eBay for $400.

SGI workstations aren't suited to the exotic car analogies everyone gives them - the only reason they're still used is because there is highly specialized add-in hardware (and the accompanying software) available for them that's not available for PCs or Macs. If Jobs could convince the specialized technical media/video/scientific companies to develop products for the Mac, Apple could have a hell of an SGI killer on their hands.

And I'm a big SGI fan... or at least I was before marketing idiots renamed it to "sgi," took away the awesome logo, and decided NT workstations were the future.

Alex

jefhatfield
Aug 13, 2002, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by mystixman
I mean, that would be a great and wonderfull thing to get one, but is it really necessary? High end G4s are already better than Pentium, so whats the big deal? Im sure we will get one soon, but Apple will probably only realease it when competition gets better chips going.

is it really mightier than the pentium 4 with 400 mhz bus and ddr ram and processor speed at 2.53 ghz? or the athlon 2200+

wait for the benchmarks!

i think to pull ahead, a 2+ ghz g5 is completely necessary by mwsf or a month or two later at the latest (p4 will be at 3+ ghz by then so we would have to have a dualie to be comfortably ahead of the game...if we do pull WAY ahead, it will take a couple of years or more at best

i hate to say it, but p4 or athlon xp with windows xp is not a bad deal...remember windows 3.1 or windows 95a? the pc world has improved a lot

AlphaTech
Aug 13, 2002, 08:01 PM
It is time we had the next generation of Mac processor inside systems (starting with the pro/Power line first). I would gladly give my dead, step-grandmother up to get one (she was always a bitch anyway :eek: ). :D

Who here would tell Apple "oh no, we don't want to be able to beat the tar out of the fastest chip that intel has out now (and will produce for the next xx months). We also don't need to be able to do that with a single processor, you can put eight into my computer just so that I can stay competative"???

As for people that run games on their computers, who says processor power doesn't matter??? I gather you haven't bothered to play any of the new games (or those produced in the past year or two). They are ALL needing faster and faster processors, more memory and better video cards. You CAN do SOME with more memory and a better video card, but those only go so far. Without a good brain running the computer, you get crappy frame rates (higher frame rates make for smoother game performance, to a point, then the numbers are just for bragging rights).

I, for one, hope that Apple is able to get the next generation processor out (and into systems) by either MWSF or MWNY (2003). I will be thinking about getting a new Mac in 2004, but only if they include the next generation cpu (and decent video card for that year, not the same one that is in the current TiBooks/PowerMacs).

AlphaTech
Aug 13, 2002, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield [/i]


is it really mightier than the pentium 4 with 400 mhz bus and ddr ram and processor speed at 2.53 ghz? or the athlon 2200+

wait for the benchmarks!

i think to pull ahead, a 2+ ghz g5 is completely necessary by mwsf or a month or two later at the latest (p4 will be at 3+ ghz by then so we would have to have a dualie to be comfortably ahead of the game...if we do pull WAY ahead, it will take a couple of years or more at best

i hate to say it, but p4 or athlon xp with windows xp is not a bad deal...remember windows 3.1 or windows 95a? the pc world has improved a lot

I have the AMD Athlon XP2100+ inside my game pc right now, and it's fast... Faster then a same rated intel processor (2.1GHz+). I might upgrade my motherboard early next year, to go from PC2100 to PC2700 (or whatever the fastest memory is at the time).

For my uses, it NEVER chokes on anything (which are games, seriously graphic intense games at that).

I just hope that Apple is able to get a processor that kicks intel's ass in the same fashion... That would be sweet... To have a Mac beat a 4GHz+ peeX (single or dual) in head to head, real world tests. Include gaming sessions in that to proove the points too. Oh, and I am talking same processor numbers/counts in both systems (dual intel against dual Mac). :D

snoopy
Aug 13, 2002, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech
It is time we had the next generation of Mac processor inside systems (starting with the pro/Power line first).


Sooner than you think, possibly. We know now that the leaked pictures were right on, the real thing. But they only had a single PPC processor, at a 45 degree angle. That could have been a test box for the IBM G5 processor. When it is in full production, the dual G4s may be replaced by a single, higher clock speed G5. Same case. Apple has to wait, and is using the best they can get out of Motorola in the mean time. I think Apple has everything lined up to switch to the G5. One G5 will not cost more than two G4s in my opinion.

AlphaTech
Aug 13, 2002, 08:38 PM
Well snoopy, if that is your real handle, ;) they COULD be negotiating the price of the next generation of processor right now... I do know that corporate legal departments can take forever to negotiate things....

It would make for a big splash if they went from the latest G4 systems (the current ones) to faster ones at MWP (Paris) and then jumped to the G5 (or whatever it will be called) at MWSF.

Imagine SJ taking the stage and with his head held low, apologizing for the wait, "but you know how lawyers are" *wink*... Then have the G5 rise to the stage (from under it, not just some stinkin pedestal). And the crowd goes wild... :D

funkywhat2
Aug 13, 2002, 09:28 PM
i can see it now, AlphaTech. however, like many have said, you need to look at the home user as well. the g4 is fine for all home users, as is the g3 (many of them don't know the difference, besides the number three and four). right now apple isn't looking for movie/music market share, they're trying to get back into the consumer and education market, where they used to thrive.

AlphaTech
Aug 13, 2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by crazy_will
i can see it now, AlphaTech. however, like many have said, you need to look at the home user as well. the g4 is fine for all home users, as is the g3 (many of them don't know the difference, besides the number three and four). right now apple isn't looking for movie/music market share, they're trying to get back into the consumer and education market, where they used to thrive.

They could leave the G4 in the consumer lines, and continue to increase the speed of those until the G6 is six months from release, then transition them to the G5. Give them the numbers that will correllate to what intel has out there (market them a celleron killers, that they are).

I could see a G4 2GHz+ in the iMac in two years, while the G5 is at x.xGHz (kicking the **** out of intel's latest pro chip too ;)).

manirami
Aug 13, 2002, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by crazy_will
i can see it now, AlphaTech. however, like many have said, you need to look at the home user as well. the g4 is fine for all home users, as is the g3 (many of them don't know the difference, besides the number three and four). right now apple isn't looking for movie/music market share, they're trying to get back into the consumer and education market, where they used to thrive.


If they are trying to get back into consumer and education markets why have they acquired Nothing Real, Prismo Graphics, Emagic and Silicon Grail over the past 6 months? To me it seems like they are making a push to the movie/music share. If true, it would seem like they would need a new processor with some balls to handle rendering, editing, graphics, etc.

:confused: