Re: G6 Rumors
Haha here we go again! We waited forever for the g5, its not even out yet and now we await the g6..
Haha here we go again! We waited forever for the g5, its not even out yet and now we await the g6..
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
G6 Rumors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by herr_neumann
That is cuz IBM kicks ARSE!!!
Haha, you wouldn't have said that if they didn't make the 970s:
They were also the ones that gave birth to the PeeCee
Sounds too good to be true. With the number of orders of dual 2.0 G5s exceeding Apple's expectations, probably causing a delay, I can't imagine that we'd see the G6 until 2005. But hey, if we get them a year from now, fantastic.
And the hinted performance sounds scary fast. Good news indeed
D
And the hinted performance sounds scary fast. Good news indeed
D
Good golly Miss Molly!!!!!
What a change from the Moto camp. Those losers are still trying to get a G4 chip off the lines.
With the G5 ship dates being pushed to late Sept, this rumor seems a bit ambitious. But, hey, I would love for this to be true.
What a change from the Moto camp. Those losers are still trying to get a G4 chip off the lines.
With the G5 ship dates being pushed to late Sept, this rumor seems a bit ambitious. But, hey, I would love for this to be true.
G6! Man, I haven't even moved to a G4 yet.
I would assume that IMB, Intel, AMD are always working on designs that are at least one and two generations beyond whatever is currently in production. I would include Motorola, but they seem to have had a brain spasm that skewed their sence of reality.
Vintage System:
Power Computing, Power Center Pro 240 (604)
Xlr8 G3 400 Mhz upgrade w/ 1MB cache
60 Mhz bus
256 MB RAM
Custom Added Features:
2-Port PCI USB adapter
ATI Exclaim VR 128 video card
Yamaha 16x40x16 CD burner
17 GB IBM Ultra SCSI hard drive
Maybe I should wait for a the G10's to show up.
I would assume that IMB, Intel, AMD are always working on designs that are at least one and two generations beyond whatever is currently in production. I would include Motorola, but they seem to have had a brain spasm that skewed their sence of reality.
Vintage System:
Power Computing, Power Center Pro 240 (604)
Xlr8 G3 400 Mhz upgrade w/ 1MB cache
60 Mhz bus
256 MB RAM
Custom Added Features:
2-Port PCI USB adapter
ATI Exclaim VR 128 video card
Yamaha 16x40x16 CD burner
17 GB IBM Ultra SCSI hard drive
Maybe I should wait for a the G10's to show up.
Come on!
I can't believe Apple has kept us waiting so long for a G6! I'm going into high school in the first week of September and I need that tri-processor 4Ghz G6 PowerMac for my classes!
*sigh*
I guess Apple is going to screw us again and not release it until the second week of September. That does it, I'm buying a Dell.
I can't believe Apple has kept us waiting so long for a G6! I'm going into high school in the first week of September and I need that tri-processor 4Ghz G6 PowerMac for my classes!
*sigh*
I guess Apple is going to screw us again and not release it until the second week of September. That does it, I'm buying a Dell.
I know you're being a bit sarcastic - but in all honesty, what would you do with a G6 in school?
I have a dual 1.25 and I wait overnight and hours during the day for it to render animations. I could use a couple dual G5s and would love to have something like a G6 now.....
and I'd still be complaining that it would be too slow. I really won't be happy until I can do realtime radiosity at HDTV resolutions....and that won't happen for another 5 years or more at least!
D
I have a dual 1.25 and I wait overnight and hours during the day for it to render animations. I could use a couple dual G5s and would love to have something like a G6 now.....
and I'd still be complaining that it would be too slow. I really won't be happy until I can do realtime radiosity at HDTV resolutions....and that won't happen for another 5 years or more at least!
D
Sadly, my school days are long gone.
Just wanted to set up the bandwagon for the inevitable hordes of kids with rich parents to leap onto.
*gently shepherds dozens of mewling teens onto the bandwagon *
* realises I'm not entirely sure what a bandwagon looks like *
* makes tea instead *
Just wanted to set up the bandwagon for the inevitable hordes of kids with rich parents to leap onto.
*gently shepherds dozens of mewling teens onto the bandwagon *
* realises I'm not entirely sure what a bandwagon looks like *
* makes tea instead *
Some companies are working on two to three chips at the same time. You have the upcoming one, it's successor and possibly it's successor all be worked on. You have more development staff on the upcoming one, as soon as that is completed; you shift most of the staff to the successor with some going to its successor. As soon as a new chip is out, they just don't sit there and wait for something to do, they are working on the next one. IBM probably has some development work going on for the Power6.
I remember reading (somewhere here at macrumors, I believe and would appreciate someone backing me up if I'm not entirely crazy) that the actual production cost of the G5 was less than the G4.
If that's true and indicative of IBM production versus Moto, then Apple is going to want to have their two-tiered chip choices (currently, G3/G4; soon to be G4/G5 we expect) be both from IBM. That would suggest a jump to G5/G6 as soon as possible, rather than waiting around for the G5 market to saturate.
If that's true and indicative of IBM production versus Moto, then Apple is going to want to have their two-tiered chip choices (currently, G3/G4; soon to be G4/G5 we expect) be both from IBM. That would suggest a jump to G5/G6 as soon as possible, rather than waiting around for the G5 market to saturate.
See - I *told* Moltz this would happen...
Don't even *think* about holding off for a G6.
See my ritual slaughtering here...
http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/2003_06_29_archive.htm
...in the Tuesday entry.
The git.
I'd have him...you know, if I could afford the airfare.
And wasn't quite such a spineless coward.
Needless to say, the shame has driven me into ordering a dual 2.0 Gig G5. With a Radeon 9800.
Which was pretty onerous, obviously.
Always nice to 'switch' into the fast lane.
Brother Mugga
PS: I also heard that the '980' and the Power 5 are in simultaneous development. Still, I would have thought they'd get the G5 down to 90nm first (that's probably the '3Gig by next year' reference, as the 130nm G5 isn't supposed to go much over 2.6 Gig), so probably a late 2004 or early 2005 slot for the 980.
I suppose it all depends on what Ned Flanders (the IIIrd) from IBM meant by 'already working on the next generation of chips': 970 (at 90nm) or 980?
Don't even *think* about holding off for a G6.
See my ritual slaughtering here...
http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/2003_06_29_archive.htm
...in the Tuesday entry.
The git.
I'd have him...you know, if I could afford the airfare.
And wasn't quite such a spineless coward.
Needless to say, the shame has driven me into ordering a dual 2.0 Gig G5. With a Radeon 9800.
Which was pretty onerous, obviously.
Always nice to 'switch' into the fast lane.
Brother Mugga
PS: I also heard that the '980' and the Power 5 are in simultaneous development. Still, I would have thought they'd get the G5 down to 90nm first (that's probably the '3Gig by next year' reference, as the 130nm G5 isn't supposed to go much over 2.6 Gig), so probably a late 2004 or early 2005 slot for the 980.
I suppose it all depends on what Ned Flanders (the IIIrd) from IBM meant by 'already working on the next generation of chips': 970 (at 90nm) or 980?
I'm not going to hold out for G6 - I need the G5 now - its just somewhat nice to know that we have a decent future ahead...
D
D
We're getting there!
It is nice to see IBM being successful with new lines of chips - an unusual situation for Mac users, but one we can get used to.
I read that the G5's were basically ready, but that were on hold while burning new CDs after 2 bugs on the OS were fixed. They will be flying out the door as soon as they can be packed.
BTW - ordering a dual now might entail a bit of a wait (mid to late Sep) as, according to a note on Bidouille, there were 65,000+ orders for the dual - way above expectations. Now Apple is going to go work their @ss off to get them out the door before the Sep 30 end of quarter, which should impact their profits (and stock price) in a very nice way.
I also read an interesting comment that with IBM providing the chips the upgrades will come a lot faster, which will cause Mac users to be in a position of upgrading to new Macs as fast as wintel users. This fits very with the notes of the 980 and I believe we're going to be surprised at how fast the Macs in the future will be delivered.
Ain't it nice to see the light at the end of the chip tunnel!
It is nice to see IBM being successful with new lines of chips - an unusual situation for Mac users, but one we can get used to.
I read that the G5's were basically ready, but that were on hold while burning new CDs after 2 bugs on the OS were fixed. They will be flying out the door as soon as they can be packed.
BTW - ordering a dual now might entail a bit of a wait (mid to late Sep) as, according to a note on Bidouille, there were 65,000+ orders for the dual - way above expectations. Now Apple is going to go work their @ss off to get them out the door before the Sep 30 end of quarter, which should impact their profits (and stock price) in a very nice way.
I also read an interesting comment that with IBM providing the chips the upgrades will come a lot faster, which will cause Mac users to be in a position of upgrading to new Macs as fast as wintel users. This fits very with the notes of the 980 and I believe we're going to be surprised at how fast the Macs in the future will be delivered.
Ain't it nice to see the light at the end of the chip tunnel!
Re: Can't believe it.
edit: oops.. quoted the wrong guy
I don't think a Dual G5 Xserve will come out anytime soon since they are already having cooling issues in a standard-sized case, and the Xserve fits in a 1U enclosure. Unless of course.. they make the Xserve bigger.
edit: oops.. quoted the wrong guy
I don't think a Dual G5 Xserve will come out anytime soon since they are already having cooling issues in a standard-sized case, and the Xserve fits in a 1U enclosure. Unless of course.. they make the Xserve bigger.
Re: Can't believe it.
Alot of people seem to think that the PPC 980 is the chip that will get us over 3GHz in one year. The PPC970 Probably will only make it up to 2.6 -2.8 GHz. That makes it in the time frame of one year.
Originally posted by Skandranon
It's amazing that people are already looking for the G6 when the G5 hasn't even hit the shelves yet.... I guess we can come back to this topic when it's relevant in 2-3 years.
Alot of people seem to think that the PPC 980 is the chip that will get us over 3GHz in one year. The PPC970 Probably will only make it up to 2.6 -2.8 GHz. That makes it in the time frame of one year.
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Sounds too good to be true. With the number of orders of dual 2.0 G5s exceeding Apple's expectations, probably causing a delay, I can't imagine that we'd see the G6 until 2005. But hey, if we get them a year from now, fantastic.
And the hinted performance sounds scary fast. Good news indeed
D
The article mentioning the G5 delays referred to channel delays. It could be that Apple is delivering pre-orders first and filling the channel later. Hopefully that means a ridiculous number of pre-orders for the duals (says the Apple shareholder
)But the G6 has nothing to do with G5 production. A chip in development is not going to be held up by capacity problems at a production plant.
Big differences:
1) IBM makes seriously huge money off their Power* line. The Power5 is not a myth; it has been talked about publicly by IBMers for at least six months, and is set to be discussed at the mocroproc forum this Fall.. Power5 development won't be swept under the rug on a whim as is the case with Moto's "we're pissed at our only client for reasonably powerful chips" kindergarten attitude.
2) IBM has other uses (besides Apple) for their desktop variants of the Power* line. Yes, if the 970 completely flops and IBM starts getting hate mail from buyers asking how IBM could ever have sold them such a machine ... yeah, maybe then the desktop variant program will lose steam. But, right now (and we have very few hard numbers to go by), the desktop variant program looks to be a real winner, profitable both from Apple sales and from IBM machine sales.
3) IBM is a mature and businesslike company. I really can't say the same about Moto.
Re: See - I *told* Moltz this would happen...
Ah, but now you see the absolute beauty of such statements ...
Ah, but now you see the absolute beauty of such statements ...
Power5 980 G6
While Hyperthreading and 3 Altivec cores would be enough to rate a chip as next gen, hence G6, I still remain skeptical about seeing this chip in Apple products anytime soon. Unless they are exclusively for servers and as yet unannounced high end workstations.
Jaedreth
While Hyperthreading and 3 Altivec cores would be enough to rate a chip as next gen, hence G6, I still remain skeptical about seeing this chip in Apple products anytime soon. Unless they are exclusively for servers and as yet unannounced high end workstations.
Jaedreth
G5 vs. G6 ... it's simple...
Any incremental enhancements of the G5, including die size, cache size, and even tweaking of some of the Int/FP/Altivec units will be considered "G5". Those are nice enhancements, but will still be based on the Power4 design the PPC 970 comes from.
If any new chip is based on the Power5, it will be the G6. That's it, end of story. I don't know what the differences are between the Power4 and Power5, and I don't need to know. What I know is whether it's 1 year or 3 years from now, any "light" version of the Power5 sold by Apple will be marketed as a G6. Because the timeline between when the two chips ship is irrelevant. If it's a whole new chip based on a different IBM generation (Power4 vs. Power5) then Apple is going to call it a G6 and market the hell out of it to compete with constant upgrades in the PC world.
The only reason we're still using G3 chips and the only reason why it took 3 years to go from G4 to G5 is Motorola. We need to snap out of that thinking. If a significantly different G6 is ready a year from now, it will be introduced. The idea that Apple must thoroughly milk the G5 for any specific timeframe is not true. And a G6 a year from now, with G5 chips in every single line (including consumer) is far better for Apple than taking 3 years to get the G4 into the iMac and still NOT in the iBook.
Let's hope Apple has learned from the past and that IBM won't become another (if slightly more likeable) Motorola.
Any incremental enhancements of the G5, including die size, cache size, and even tweaking of some of the Int/FP/Altivec units will be considered "G5". Those are nice enhancements, but will still be based on the Power4 design the PPC 970 comes from.
If any new chip is based on the Power5, it will be the G6. That's it, end of story. I don't know what the differences are between the Power4 and Power5, and I don't need to know. What I know is whether it's 1 year or 3 years from now, any "light" version of the Power5 sold by Apple will be marketed as a G6. Because the timeline between when the two chips ship is irrelevant. If it's a whole new chip based on a different IBM generation (Power4 vs. Power5) then Apple is going to call it a G6 and market the hell out of it to compete with constant upgrades in the PC world.
The only reason we're still using G3 chips and the only reason why it took 3 years to go from G4 to G5 is Motorola. We need to snap out of that thinking. If a significantly different G6 is ready a year from now, it will be introduced. The idea that Apple must thoroughly milk the G5 for any specific timeframe is not true. And a G6 a year from now, with G5 chips in every single line (including consumer) is far better for Apple than taking 3 years to get the G4 into the iMac and still NOT in the iBook.
Let's hope Apple has learned from the past and that IBM won't become another (if slightly more likeable) Motorola.
PPC vs PowerX
If any new chip is based on the Power5, it will be the G6. That's it, end of story. I don't know what the differences are between the Power4 and Power5, and I don't need to know.
-----
Sir, you don't know enough about Microprocessors to be making this assertion so definitely. You admitted you don't know the differences between Power4 and Power5.
Power4 and Power5 are NOT PowerPC Processors!
PowerPC is a totally different family, a different architechture.
Apple's use of G5 DOES NOT EQUAL IBM's use of the term G5.
IBM's use of G5 is its MOST POWERFUL processor it makes, *period*, far more than Power4 OR Power5, is used only in Supercomputer Mainframes that are ONLY sold to the US Government.
Power4 is NOT G5. IBM designates Power4 as Power4, and designates the 970 chip as a PPC that is a Power4 Derivative.
That means that this chip is *used* as a PowerPC though it is technically not a PowerPC class chip, it has PowerPC instructions, but it uses Power4 technology.
Apple computers are compatible with PowerPC chips, thus a Power4 derivative had to be made "PowerPC Like" to work with Macs.
Power5 has no relation to G6 as Power4 has no relation to G5. Apple's G5 nomenclature is not based on what IBM's codename for the chip, but for the fact that it is a generation beyond the G4.
Get your facts straight before you make absolutes you don't have the info to back up. IBM released it's G5 processor last year, and the Mainframe G5 they sell is currently the *fastest and most powerful supercomputer* on the planet. It's used for such tasks as rendering hurricanes, tornadoes, and atomic blasts in real time...
It has nothing to do with Power4 or Power5.
A Power5 derivative may or may not be called the PPC 980. And if it is, Apple is *no way shape and form* forced to call this chip G6, nor forced to call any machine it would be included in as G6.
IBM isn't calling it G6. Why should Apple?
If the PPC 980 is being desgned, it will likely be a replacement for the 970, and used in the Professional products, so that *eventually* the consumer products can be upgraded to the 970.
This is good news for Apple customers.
But let go of that stubborn uninformed idea that Power5 has anything to do with G6. (The IDEA is uninformed and stubborn, I'm not calling you any names, this is not an insult. You're simply wrong. Sorry if you're offended, but you can ask IBM yourself, and they will tell you the exact same thing. I have.)
Jaedreth
If any new chip is based on the Power5, it will be the G6. That's it, end of story. I don't know what the differences are between the Power4 and Power5, and I don't need to know.
-----
Sir, you don't know enough about Microprocessors to be making this assertion so definitely. You admitted you don't know the differences between Power4 and Power5.
Power4 and Power5 are NOT PowerPC Processors!
PowerPC is a totally different family, a different architechture.
Apple's use of G5 DOES NOT EQUAL IBM's use of the term G5.
IBM's use of G5 is its MOST POWERFUL processor it makes, *period*, far more than Power4 OR Power5, is used only in Supercomputer Mainframes that are ONLY sold to the US Government.
Power4 is NOT G5. IBM designates Power4 as Power4, and designates the 970 chip as a PPC that is a Power4 Derivative.
That means that this chip is *used* as a PowerPC though it is technically not a PowerPC class chip, it has PowerPC instructions, but it uses Power4 technology.
Apple computers are compatible with PowerPC chips, thus a Power4 derivative had to be made "PowerPC Like" to work with Macs.
Power5 has no relation to G6 as Power4 has no relation to G5. Apple's G5 nomenclature is not based on what IBM's codename for the chip, but for the fact that it is a generation beyond the G4.
Get your facts straight before you make absolutes you don't have the info to back up. IBM released it's G5 processor last year, and the Mainframe G5 they sell is currently the *fastest and most powerful supercomputer* on the planet. It's used for such tasks as rendering hurricanes, tornadoes, and atomic blasts in real time...
It has nothing to do with Power4 or Power5.
A Power5 derivative may or may not be called the PPC 980. And if it is, Apple is *no way shape and form* forced to call this chip G6, nor forced to call any machine it would be included in as G6.
IBM isn't calling it G6. Why should Apple?
If the PPC 980 is being desgned, it will likely be a replacement for the 970, and used in the Professional products, so that *eventually* the consumer products can be upgraded to the 970.
This is good news for Apple customers.
But let go of that stubborn uninformed idea that Power5 has anything to do with G6. (The IDEA is uninformed and stubborn, I'm not calling you any names, this is not an insult. You're simply wrong. Sorry if you're offended, but you can ask IBM yourself, and they will tell you the exact same thing. I have.)
Jaedreth
Dude, what the first guy said wasn't some huge criticism you need to get your nose brown in defense against. This is the best Mac site, bar none, and the page one-page two distinction is a very good idea, but I agree that it's getting so predictable that people want to know why a story merits page two demotion that it should just be standard in the first post. Of course arn does a great job, but any successful enterprise is run by people who are never satisfied with the status quo and know that constructive crtiques are always worth listening to.
Apologies for the off-topic rant.
Hang on.
Er...am I missing something, or is this not actually what Ensoniq was saying? Surely he wasn't talking about the IBM G5 (etc.), but rather suggesting that there might be sufficient architectural changes between the Power4 and Power5 to merit a 'lite' version of the later ('980' or whatever) being called a G6 (in Apple's terminology).
Of course, he might be wrong on this (I personally think it'd be quite amusing to try and harmonise the Power/G numeric nomenclature by marketing a 980 as a G5+, if you see what I mean), but I'm not sure you aren't attacking a straw man, Jaedreth?
Sorry if I've completely missed the point on all of this, but then, no change there, eh...?
Brother Mugga
PS: r.e. jettredmont's post: Indeed I do, mate...indeed I do...
Er...am I missing something, or is this not actually what Ensoniq was saying? Surely he wasn't talking about the IBM G5 (etc.), but rather suggesting that there might be sufficient architectural changes between the Power4 and Power5 to merit a 'lite' version of the later ('980' or whatever) being called a G6 (in Apple's terminology).
Of course, he might be wrong on this (I personally think it'd be quite amusing to try and harmonise the Power/G numeric nomenclature by marketing a 980 as a G5+, if you see what I mean), but I'm not sure you aren't attacking a straw man, Jaedreth?
Sorry if I've completely missed the point on all of this, but then, no change there, eh...?
Brother Mugga
PS: r.e. jettredmont's post: Indeed I do, mate...indeed I do...
Brother Mugga
He is stating that the not yet announced or named PPC 980, the supposed but not announced Power5 derivative necessarily is and has to be G6. (an Apple G6 or an IBM G6, makes no sense either way)
I'm correcting that statement. That is not so.
All PowerPC-like PowerX derivatives could be considered a "generation" and will be by Apple until something is released that *deserves* the nomenclature G6, which isn't likely for 4 years or so.
I'm not saying this 980 doesn't exist, I'm saying it isn't G6, and neither is Power5.
Jaedreth
(again, ask any IBM employee...)
He is stating that the not yet announced or named PPC 980, the supposed but not announced Power5 derivative necessarily is and has to be G6. (an Apple G6 or an IBM G6, makes no sense either way)
I'm correcting that statement. That is not so.
All PowerPC-like PowerX derivatives could be considered a "generation" and will be by Apple until something is released that *deserves* the nomenclature G6, which isn't likely for 4 years or so.
I'm not saying this 980 doesn't exist, I'm saying it isn't G6, and neither is Power5.
Jaedreth
(again, ask any IBM employee...)