G5

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by macaddict123k, Aug 21, 2001.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    #1
    I found some intresting info on the G5 and the 1 and 1.1 ghz g4@ http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm

    It says the 1GHZ g4 is expected sometime in Q1, and the G5 sometime in Q3, starting @speeds of 2GHZ.
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #2
    That is interesting but I'd like to know the source on this one. They say it like fact, but as far as I know it's all rumor at this point. The 2 Ghz speed is surprising. Doesn't really give much new information, except time frame. I hope they're wrong, I don't want to wait a whole year for the g5!
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    US
    #3
    WHAT!?!??!

    Noo please! This cant be true. Why would apple divulge such info!! 1 year for the G5!! I wanted to skip generations, as in, I bought the G3, I wannto skip the G4 and get the g5 but I cannot wait till 2003 Jan!! AAARGHHHHHHH!. 2002 Feb should be the release date. Or get the G4s upto 1.4 Ghz and stuff.
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    mnkeybsness

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Location:
    Moneyapolis, Minnesota
    #4
    why would they move the chip down to 64 bit?? that would be dumb-might as well buy a pentium
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #5
    Dose of realism, dose of reality, dose of information

    1) They are not moving "the chip down to 64 bit." The G4 is a 32 bit chip. Before you start flaming me and talking about 128 bit and all that nonsense, go check your information (or rather, your misinformation). What is 128 bit on the G4 are its vector registers; its addresses and integer registers are 32 bits. By contrast, those numbers are 128, 64, and 64 on the G5. The bigger marketing ploy on the "G4 is 128 bit" has to do with AltiVec -- but what AltiVec really does is run data in 4 32-bit streams simultaneously.

    2) You won't see a G5 in February. No one expects a release date that soon; right now, it's still experimental, so there's absolutely no way it's going to come out that soon. A year from now would be a somewhat optimistic forecast.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    evildead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    WestCost, USA
    #6
    Re: Dose of realism, dose of reality, dose of information


    unfortunatly i am with johh123. I would like them to be comming sooner but It's not going to happen.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    US
    #7
    Apple should...

    Is it feasable to say that Apple should work on a windows emulation program like for example, "eMulation" or "iMulator" which is as good or better than VPC but actually uses the GeForce Cards for graphic acceleration. By this move, it could gain more market share as all PC programs including high end games can work nice on the new G4s. Just imagine, all macs could be PCs (if some freak wanted to do that) but not a single PC could be a mac.

    ---------------------
    "Don't innovate, immitate"
    -Bill Gates
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    #8
    Re: Apple should...

    No. That isn't even logical. Say they did implement some way to use the GeForce cards through VPC or your Apple windows emulator, how could that run high end PC games? You're still using software to emulate hardware. And why would a PC want to be a Mac? So it can play games at lower framerates, have less overall software, or slower clock speeds?
     
  9. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #9
    come again?

    Less overall software? What are you talking about? There's a lot more software for PCs than for Macs. I know, it sucks, but that's what we have to live with.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    #10
    Re: come again?

    You obviously didn't understand my post. I shall break it down for you. First I asked "Why would a PC want to be a Mac?" I then answered by saying "So it can play games at lower framerates, have less overall software, or slower clock speeds?" What I was saying is that why on earth would a PC want to be a Mac because Macs have lower framerates, LESS OVERALL SOFTWARE, and slower clock speeds.
    You do realize that Macs don't get the framerates PCs do and also that a 1.8Ghz is a higher clock speed than 867mhz. So by that knowledge alone, you easily could have figured out I wasn't talking about PCs, or you could have just read my post correctly.
    But thanks for restating what I already said.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #11
    okaaay...

    I assume you are taking Joe Windows User's point of view. In actuality, you would have MORE software, because you could run both Mac and PC software on the same machine. However, I believe that Kela was trying to make the point that Mac users would have access to all software and games, while PC users would become limited. As far as frame rates, from what I'm reading newer games, optimized for OS X, are getting much higher framerates than on Windows. And of course Joe Windows thinks that Macs are slower because they have lower clocks. So why would a PC want to be a Mac? So it COULD have more software! We're talking about emulation, not turning one machine into another. I guess that's where you lost me. Wasn't this thread about the G5?
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    #12
    Re: okaaay...

    First, Kela's supposed point has no value. There is no way that an emulator such as VPC could run high end PC games or software at usable rates or at all. I'm not taking "Joe WIndows User's point of view", I'm taking the if you want to run PC software buy a PC and if not stick to your Mac. All this "would" and "could" let's look at what IS. PC software isn't going to become limited just because of software emulation on a Platform PC users could give a damn about, realize the fact that 90% of the industry is PC and sadly that isn't going to change anytime soon. I never said Macs were slower, just that they had lower clock speeds. And I wasn't talking literally turning one into the other, I DID lose you there I suppose. I just mean a PC user has no need or want to use Mac software. Kela's idea is illogical and just plain stupid. Read some of that individuals other posts, you'll begin to notice a pattern of idiocy.
    It is about the G5...I have a problem of not holding back when I read a post such as Kela's.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    #13
    no, u r completely wrong.

    stop talking out your ass u ****ing zealot.
    What the **** do u mean "run both PC and mac software on the same machine"? If you are on bout emulators then, a) they r **** and slow. b) there are mac emulators for the PC too.
    No the new games on OSX are not getting higher frame rates than blah PC. PC's are hitting over 200 fps right now. last time i looked macs were not near that. You got your info of a ****ing mac zealot site that kisses Jobs's ass.
    However after all ur **** ups u r right about this thread being on about the G5.
    And i dont give a flying **** if i am wrong about blah this and blah that, so piss off u bastard i dont care if u ****ing respond to this message ***** and try to prove me wrong.
    Stop being such a ****ing mac-suck up and find out sum un-adulterated info your ****ing self.

    (i dont give a **** if this message gets me banned, infact i will laugh if it doesnt)

    Go and think for yourself u dickhead and dont believe ***** from either apple or windows or any ****ing company u seem to want to shag.

    Im off to browns to get pissed now, see u when u stop believing this ***** u take in...and maybe when they stop banning me rfom coming here (if they can)
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #14
    laughs as Spikey's head explodes

    Now that's funny, I've never seen someone get so pissed off over something this minor. Joyboy, I see what you mean and I agree with most of it. But no need to bash Kela, he was just supposing. Maybe one day in the future...
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    mnkeybsness

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Location:
    Moneyapolis, Minnesota
    #15
    i thought this thread was about a G5 chip?????
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    #16
    Re: laughs as Spikey's head explodes


    You're right, bashing is just a waste of time. I don't want to end up like spikey over there.
    It's just a forum.

    Back to the subject.
    I'll be really surprised if we see the G5 before MWSF '03.
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    US
    #18
    thanks

    Thanks ThlayliTheFierce for your support. If the SYSOPS saw this kind of bashing they would ban spikey. First of all I was only hypothesizing. Secondly, SPIKEY YOU STUPID )&/§"%&"!!, you are a PC fan! I can tell by your talk. AND ALSO YOU JOyboy, you are clearly a PC fan. OS X with its multiporocessor is gettin g the HIGHEST FRAME RATES EVER for QUake 3. Faster than PCs. Secondly, I HAVE LOST ALL MY FREAKIN RESPECT FOR YOU JOYBOY after you said, "since 1.8 Ghz pentium has a higher clock speed, it is faster than the mac 867??"" OH MY GOD!! HAve you recently been hearing these key phrases, "Intel is painting them selves in a corner and their new itanium will be runing at 6oo MHz" or "THE MEGAHERTZ Myth??"


    - Kela is angry

    p.s dont use such obscene language spikey, I know it hurts that you cant afford a mac.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #19
    actually...

    This isn't right on two key levels. First off, I don't know how much opportunity you have to use lots of machines, Kela, but a 1.8 Ghz Pentium really *is* faster than an 867 Mac on a whole lot of things and most practical computer uses. Sad, but true. Second, even using a dual 533 with Quake 3's latest beta for OS X, you still aren't getting the FPS ratings you do on the PC.
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #20
    details

    How's about some details about WHAT it's actually faster at doing? I'd be interested to know. Good god, the Athlon 4 1.4 ghz beats the P4 1.7 at a whole bunch of stuff, only losing in some multimedia tasks and programs optimized for the P4. Also, why are Quake 3 framerates higher on PCs? Keyword - BETA! There are few games out there which take full advantage of the Mac's immense processing power. If the apparent upswing in Mac gaming continues, maybe this will change. Quake, B&W, Warcraft 3, who knows what's next? The Mac certainly is capable of framerates a PC couldn't even hope to reach.

    Kela - no prob

    [Edited by ThlayliTheFierce on 08-24-2001 at 12:48 PM]
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #21
    for example

    Open MS Excel on a PC. Then open it on the Mac. Much faster on the PC. Same for running calculations (e.g., using the built-in Solver function in Excel). Up to 10x faster on the PC.

    Sure, you're right, lots of stuff isn't Mac-optimized...but that's a specious argument. Theoretical performance is a stupid thing to examine -- what really matters is both present and future *actual* performance. I don't care how many gigaflops I can churn out theoretically, etc. etc. RESULTS MATTER.
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    #22
    Re: thanks

    Okay. I took it back, but then you had to go and say that.
    1) 1.8Ghz P4 beats a 867 G4 in pretty much everything but Photoshop(according to Apple's tests). PCs are getting over 200fps in Quake3, Macs aren't.
    2) If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. I said "You do realize that Macs don't get the framerates PCs do and also that a 1.8Ghz is a higher clock speed than 867mhz. " That IS NOT the same as "since 1.8 Ghz pentium has a higher clock speed, it is faster than the mac 867??"
    3) Finally, I ask you this...If I am so obviously a PC fan, why don't I own a PC? Also, why did I just spend a good chunk of money on a new Dual 800mhz G4 and not a PC?

     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    #23
    U all suck apples cock

    (looks back at thread)
    holy ****, i didnt think i had it in me to use such ****ing language.
    Ok, enough swearing. i was pissed off, and drunk.
    I aint a PC fan, i am impartial.
    Macs do things PC's cant do, PCs do things macs cant do.
    But, it is true about PCs having better framerates than macs. It is also true about u lot being zealots (bar a few). It is also true about u lot believing anything apple says. It is also true that none of you know anything about PCs, otherwise you wouldnt compare ****** Pentiums to macs, instead of Athlons to macs.
    Athlons are by far the superior chip.
    But no, obviously u lot have to take in whatever hype apple sends you about "burning Pentiums", what bollocks.
    Athlons are the best overall chips around right now, which is why all the tests at Mac expo's are G4 Vs Pentium, instead of G4 Vs Athlon.
    All i am going to say to u right wing **** ups is this
    PC= over 200 fps
    Mac= below 200 fps

    right now gaming aint apples forte, it doesnt mean they r *****.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #24
    I have to agree with spikey...

    I grew up on Apples...first computers were a IIe by day and a IIc by night. Used the Mac Plus, Classic, SE, LC, LCII, LCIII, IIci, IIvx, Centrises, Quadras, PowerMacs, blah...you know the rest.

    But Spikey is right. If you wanna play games, the Mac just isn't your *best* machine to do it -- especially for FPS-intensive programs like Quake 3. It's getting better, but they aren't equal, and because there are more PCs than Macs, they simply won't ever *be* equal.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    menoinjun

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    #25
    oh boy...

    i hate to get involved in this crap, but I do have something to say about Spikey's last post. The reason we don't see any G4 v. Athlon tests is because people think that the P4 1.8 is the fastest chip out there because of the 1800mhz it runs at. Therefore Apple uses them in their tests. Although it may be a better comparison (and I still think the g4 would win) Stevie J doesnt use an Athlon because most people dont realize that it is faster than the P4, and they would consider that Apple was "rigging" the test by using a "slower" chip. The fact is that the public is dumb, and sometimes using their stupidity on chip speeds can lead to Apple's advantage. It is not underhanded, but appealing to the weak-minded public on their level.

    -Pete

    BTW. Dont you guys ever have anything to do better than play games? I have one game for my mac...Rogue Spear. It works great even at the 50 or so fps slower it is on my mac then a Athlon 1.21gigawatts yadda yadda yadda... I understand that games are fun and even necessary sometimes...but they are NOT what computer should be benchmarked on. A video card yes...but NOT the entire system. If a game is written fairly for both mac and pc...and the video cards are the same...then that would be a fair comparison. You can't compare games if they aren't written exactly for both platforms. Photoshop is a good test because it is written specifically for the P3/4 and the G4. Not freakin "Kill ugly dumb monsters with bad AI with big stupid looking guns to free retarded naked princess in a poorly written game" game. <<whew!>>

    [Edited by ptrauber on 08-25-2001 at 03:17 AM]
     

Share This Page