Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MWNY predictions by MOSR

mmmdreg

mmmdreg

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 14, 2002
1,393
0
Sydney, Australia
Mac OS Rumors gives us what they expect at MWNY..this includes PowerMac: The PPC 7500, which is expected to power the new PowerMac G4s that will ship at Macworld, operates at clock speeds of 1GHz-1.4GHz, and will most likely be available in configurations of 1GHz, 1.26GHz, and 1.4GHz. All will sport Double Data Rate SDRAM memory running at 166MHz (333MHz effective clock), USB2 and 800Mbps Firewire. A new enclosure has also been discussed, but may be put off until the premiere of the G5....as well as speedbumped iMacs with other enhancements...
They also talk of more Jaguar testing..
 
Catfish_Man

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
2
Portland, OR
Bull****

As far as I know Motorola is using the x5xx name to indicate that it uses the e500 integer core (like the 8540). Since the 8540 uses RapidIO and an integrated DDR controller I'm assuming that anything that shares its core will too (why bother making a whole new memory subsystem when you already have a better one?). So if a completely new (64 bit) integer core with an integrated DDR controller and RapidIO isn't the G5, I don't know what is. There just aren't that many other things they could do to improve that right now. I think the MPC 7500 IS the G5.

MPC 7xxx = desktop/high end embedded (according to moto)

MPC x5xx = e500 integer core (educated guess based on e500 name and the MPC 8540)

Therefore: MPC 75xx = e500 based desktop chip, or, G5.

Calling it the G5 is really up to Apple, but I think NOT calling it the G5 would be crazy. btw, I expect the 7500 (G5) at MWSF 2003. Right now I'm guessing we'll see the 7470 at MWNY, but that's just a guess.

Here's my guess as to what the number of each chip means (I'll use the G4+ [7451] as an example)

7 = desktop chip
4 = 4th generation
5 = type/major releases. This number applies to major revisions (7400 -> 7450) or different types of the same chip (7440 is a low power 7450).
1 = bug fixes/minor releases (7450 -> 7451 fixed bugs, 7451 -> 7455 changed the cache slightly and used a new manufacturing process [which is major, but not a design change]).

Therefore
7 = desktop chip
5 = 5th generation (e500 based)
0 = first release/major version
0 = first release/minor version

This didn't apply to the G3 and earlier because they used a 3 digit numbering scheme then (601, 603, 604, 740(G3) , 750(G3)).

<disclaimer> Much of the above information is a complete guess. Use at your own risk. </disclaimer>
 
3rdpath

3rdpath

macrumors 68000
Jan 7, 2002
1,860
47
2nd star on the right and straight till morning
i was reading mosr earlier today and thought that was interesting.

they seem to be pretty accurate in the rumor dept-though they rarely predict anything too far in advance......

sounds more reasonable than some of the other stuff floating around( 3 dual processor configurations and such...). i'd be very happy with a 1.4 dualie.:)
 
G4scott

G4scott

macrumors 68020
Jan 9, 2002
2,225
5
USA_WA
I don't really see how Apple can call it a G5. It's still a G4 at heart, just what a DDR controller and maybe a few other features. The G5 (by Motorola) is almost a completely different chip than the G4. I think it would be bad for Apple to call this a G5. It's like Intel putting a level 3 cache on a celeron and calling it a Pentium 2... Oh, wait, they already did that. Well, If they did it, then Apple should be able to do it too...
 
G4scott

G4scott

macrumors 68020
Jan 9, 2002
2,225
5
USA_WA
Re: weak...

Originally posted by tjwett
sounds like MWNY is gonna be a real snoozer. i better bring a book.
Click to expand...

You never know if Steve will have "one more thing" up his sleeve...
 
dongmin

dongmin

macrumors 68000
Jan 3, 2002
1,709
5
what about 7470? 7460?

Isn't the next step in the G4 family the 7470, the 7460 being the lower-power version for laptops. Will the 7470 go directly into the iMacs and not make a stop with the Powermacs?

After Spymac, MOSR is the least credible source, in my opinion. For much of the time, they make up most of their rumors. And then, when it gets near a major announcement, they just pick up on whatever everyone else is saying and pass it off as THEIR rumor.

I'd be happy with a dual 1.4 ghz system with 166 mhz bus and DDR Ram.

USB2, FW2, and whatever else would just be gravy.
 
I

iH8Quark

macrumors 6502
Jan 17, 2002
344
0
Big Shoulders
Re: Bull****

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


Calling it the G5 is really up to Apple, but I think NOT calling it the G5 would be crazy. btw, I expect the 7500 (G5) at MWSF 2003. Right now I'm guessing we'll see the 7470 at MWNY, but that's just a guess.
Click to expand...


The G5 will be different. It supposedly has multiple cores on a single chip bridged by a superfast link. The chip discussed on MOSR would be an "almost" G5. But without these multiples cores, they can't (and shouldn't) call it a G5, IMHO. ;)
 
Catfish_Man

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
2
Portland, OR
Re: Re: Bull****

Originally posted by iH8Quark



The G5 will be different. It supposedly has multiple cores on a single chip bridged by a superfast link. The chip discussed on MOSR would be an "almost" G5. But without these multiples cores, they can't (and shouldn't) call it a G5, IMHO. ;)
Click to expand...

Motorola took multiple cores off its roadmap last I heard. Don't get your hopes up. Also, to the guy who said this was like adding L3 cache and calling it a new chip, you're completely wrong.

1) No intel x86 chip I've ever heard of has had L3 cache.

2) the e500 is A COMPLETELY NEW CORE. You can't get more changes than completely new.

Also, what should they call it? It's not a G4 (since it's completely new), and according to you it's not a G5, so what should they call it? Eh!...
 
Macmaniac

Macmaniac

macrumors 68040
Jan 6, 2001
3,341
1
A tiny spec in the "Garden State", 1 square mile i
I don't think Apple will put USB 2.0 in the new Powermacs, they really don't need it, that is if Apple puts 1394b on the new Powermacs. Apple should promote Firewire and not USB 2.0. It would look silly of Apple to put USB 2.0 on the powermac before they put FW2 on.
I am looking forward to MWNY somthing tells me there is more than we think.
I am begininning to think that a 1ghz iMac is a possability;)
 
S

Str8edgepunker

macrumors 6502
Nov 4, 2001
409
0
Philadelphia, PA
Aimless Rambling

Apple probably won't put USB 2.0 on their computers. Remember that Apple is pushing Firewire and the people who are pushing USB 2.0 is Intel. Apple sees USB 1.1 used for peripheral devices such as keyboards, mice, etc. and Firewire for high-speed devices such as external CD-RW drives and external hard drives. Therefore, I don't expect that we will see USB 2.0 on Mac's unless they are on a PCI expansion card. I would probably expect speed-bumped Powermacs, with a faster bus and IEEE 1394b. I really am hoping for speed-bumped tibooks or iMacs but I'm not expecting anything that would warrant Jobs saying "Oh, and there's just one more thing." Then again, one never does know until the keynote address.
 
SPG

SPG

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2001
1,083
0
In the shadow of the Space Needle.
As much as I am a proponent of Firewire and Firewire2, I would still like the option of being able to purchase some of the mass produced USB2 peripherals. I back the FW2 movement but don't believe that we should be excluded from the benefits of USB2 either. Anyhow, all the things that really need high speeds, ie DVD, Video, (maybe even HD somehow?) will stick with FW since I've read that USB2 has sustainability issues when it comes to data throughput when multiple devices are chained.
 
S

swahilibill

macrumors 6502
Feb 24, 2002
279
0
Highlands Ranch
I hope to see some improvements in Jaguar, and I would like to see the bluetooth device available once again. And maybe something in the line of a portable MPEG player, plays quicktime!
 
job

job

macrumors 68040
Jan 25, 2002
3,794
3
in transit
I would be happy if the base line tower was $1,500 and had DDR-RAM and a faster bus. A 1Ghz. G4 (whatever model) would be nice too. :D I would buy a tower like that in a heartbeat.
 
F

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Re: Cool

Originally posted by CatFishMan
I think the MPC 7500 IS the G5.
Click to expand...

I really don't expect that we will see a PPC 7500 equiped PowerMac. The PPC 7500 does, supposedly, correspond to the BookE spec but it is designed to be an embedded processor not a general purpose CPU. Motorola is supplying them to Cisco for their routers.

The performance of the 7500 ISNT all that great. It doesn't appear to be any faster than a G4. It does, however, have on board memory controllers, on board dual channel GigEthernet... It is pretty much a system on a chip. This isn't what we need for a professional desktop machine.

If there is a 'G5' in development (I believe there is), I would expect that it would be a new processor and I would expect to see better than G4 integer and FP performance. At least I'd hope to see...

As for the analysis of the numbering scheme... remember that the numbering only holds true for the G4 line of processors.
G4: 7400, 7410, 7440, 7450...
The previous GENERATION of processor was 7x0. The G3 comes in PPC 750, PPC 740... designations.

if Motorola and/or IBM stick to naming conventions... we will something different for a real G5 processor. Perhaps a PPC 8500 or a PPC 75000. Either could be conceiveable based on past generational numbering.

I believe that the 7500 is just an extension of the 74x0 processors. I believe it has less architectural changes than many think, and I believe that it is target for the embedded market only (as Motorola has themselves said).

....stupid ffakr.
 
F

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Originally posted by Ouroboros
This is interesting don't you think:

http://www.marvell.com/Internet/News/Show_News_File/1,2410,387,00.html

I bet we might see the fruits of this labor come MWNY.
Click to expand...

The way I read the above link, the product is an embedded controller with a MIPS or PPC at the heart. I didn't read too deeply, but the huge pin-out on the "controller" leads me to believe that it is a board with various components on it... PPC, memory controller, network chip(s), PCI controller...

As far as I can tell, there is NO mention of the PowerPCs running a 366MHz double pumped bus. They do mention, over and over, that the memory controller has a 366MHz bus but that doesn't mean that the processor has that bus.

I'm guessing that the configuration is something like the following:

PPC G4 <--- some bus ---> Memory Controller <--- 366MHz ---> DDR Memory

They do mention that the PPCs are on Motorola's MPX bus which (as far as I know) does not include a DDR spec. I believe they would need a RapidIO or HyperTransport bus between the PPC and the Memory controller to do DDR.

....but then perhaps I don't know as much as I think I do ;-)

....stupid Ffakr.
 
M

Mosco

macrumors regular
May 26, 2002
242
39
Re: Bull****

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
As far as I know Motorola is using the x5xx name to indicate that it uses the e500 integer core (like the 8540). Since the 8540 uses RapidIO and an integrated DDR controller I'm assuming that anything that shares its core will too (why bother making a whole new memory subsystem when you already have a better one?). So if a completely new (64 bit) integer core with an integrated DDR controller and RapidIO isn't the G5, I don't know what is. There just aren't that many other things they could do to improve that right now. I think the MPC 7500 IS the G5.

MPC 7xxx = desktop/high end embedded (according to moto)

MPC x5xx = e500 integer core (educated guess based on e500 name and the MPC 8540)

Therefore: MPC 75xx = e500 based desktop chip, or, G5.
Click to expand...


Well according to the PPC roadmap at motorola. The G5 is the 8500 not the 7500.

Click Here to See PPC Roadmap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom