PPC 970 (G5..?) due in September?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by MacsRgr8, Jan 19, 2003.

  1. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #1
    Well, according to MacOSRumors:
    quote: *In its quarterly financial results conference call, Apple executives noted that big things were going to happen for the PowerMac this year. Can anybody say G5? We knew you could.... PowerPC 970 processors in up to four-way configurations, 900MHz front side busses, HyperTransport motherboard architecture with up to 6.4GB/s chip-to-chip bandwidth, USB2, Firewire 800, Airport Extreme, 8X AGP, PCI-X, 10GB Ethernet, and even more. When, you might ask? September, if Apple's plans hold firm, we'll see the first incarnation with most of these features.

    http://www.macosrumors.com/

    What do you think, just a conclusion of other rumors? Or are they really on to something? :cool:
     
  2. macrumors member

    josepht

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Location:
    Southeastern United States
    #2
    Re: PPC 970 (G5..?) due in September?

    It would be nice if they would come in September. My birthday is in September. ;)
     
  3. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #3
    that site is such a joke... dual G4s on powerbooks at "no less than 1.2 GHz..." the powermac march update predictions are really hopeful too. they will have the radeon 9700 pro, of course, but the GeForce FX hasn't even come out for PCs, much less macs. you'll be waiting longer than that. they're also not going to do quad processors in sept. hell, go buy a freaking IBM server. nobody seriously needs quad processors, and that would make the powermac cost at least $6000-$7000. as for the architecture and the DDR, they are probably right--considering that they are, i believe, already running ppc970s with 900 MHz FSBs. certainly it's pretty generally accepted that they will be using that by the advent of the 970 on the consumer market. september sounds like the earliest for the PPC 970, but that doesn't discount it. who knows? but i wouldn't believe it if it was just macosrumors saying it, lol.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #4
    to josepht:

    Too bad I will have spent all my money on holiday going to your part of the US :p
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #5
    One thing I don't like about MacOSRumors is how they mix real information, rumors and pure speculation all together so that the reader can't tell what's what. On MacRumors, at least in Arn's stories, he is very careful to separate rumor from speculation, and IMHO that is a very important distinction to make.

    The "september" date seems logical, but only because it's a popular speculation. The rest sounds like common speculation, too, except for the four-way part. They've predicted it before and been wrong, and will continue to be. I doubt we'll see more than 2 central processors in any Apple before 2005 - and that one will be an Xserve. Mr. Four-way ought to give up.

    I notice that later in their article they try to keep the tablet story alive (they had predicted it for MWSF); this is probably just face-saving. A shame, too, because I'm really getting to like my Newton.

    If I sound crabby, look at MacOSRumor's predictions in the past and consider their track record.
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #6
    Ofcousre not, or any other rumor site for that matter....
    But there is no problem Apple using a quad 970 in a (ultra) high end Mac, and duals for Pros. Wouldn't it be nice if you could say "go buy a freaking Apple Server" ? Tell Pixar and they'd buy one....
     
  7. macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #7
    Will apple support usb 2.0 like mac os rumors says? It seems like
    if apple were to put usb 2 in their machines they would have done
    so by now.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #8
    i know your aware of your over generalization.
    i just finished a truck graphic on a single
    processor g4, i was practically insane at the
    end of the day...due to too much caffiene and
    way too much progress bar. the vendor decided
    to supply us with NEW specifications so we had
    to rebuild the file......well, it wa obvious that
    the system i was using couldnt handle the load
    so we handed it off to the studio manager who runs a duel gig.....she even had to wait
    for rotations scaling copying and pasting etc.

    so dont tell ME no one needs a quad. :D
    there will always be someone out there pushing
    the latest systems.....just be glad your not
    one of them :D

    but there ARE people doing it.


    oh and about the post topic.

    it seems to soon for something so new....
    i would say next january at the earliest....
    just a morons guess. but i try to be realistic
    about these things now days. september
    does seem better though:D


    .


    .
     
  9. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #9
    oh, don't fret, i DO push the latest and greatest. i am just saying, imagine how EXPENSIVE that would be. Powermacs are pseudo-pro, intended to basically be low to midrange workstations, right? i mean, like i said, get an IBM 64 bit mission critical server if you want those 24-hour renders to go by in 2 hours or less. that's what you get for spending 50,000$ on a computer. of course. my point is that, this is not that kind of line. i think dual 1.8/2 GHz ppc970 boxes would be unprecedentedly fast, particularly with the buses they run. quad processing is a nice idea, but it's just outrageously expensive, or you'd have quad G4s now. seriously, the way motorola has screwed apple, the best workaround would have been quads. but then Powermacs would probably nearly double in price. doubling your processor count IS NOT A DROP IN THE CAN. it's a HUGE change. this is not about whether a few people need it. of course they do. when i said nobody, i meant apple's market. shoot, powermacs aren't even rack optimized. if you need a supercomputer, get a rack of Xserves and do network rendering or what have you. now ask me if they should put quads on a high end XServe. did you ask? YES. that should be a super machine. as it is, you're better off getting a powermac, for god's sake. i don't know what they are doing there.

    no hostility intended, i'm just saying, you shouldn't push that kind of power in their powermac line, because everyone and their dog already thinks they are outrageously expensive. quads would only aggravate that.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    #10
    Well, if they go with hyper-transport as is widely rumored, it's a lot easier to scale than other architectures. This doesn't eliminate the cost issue however, as you rightly point out.

    I'm not so sure Apple wouldn't want an ultra-high end machine selling for $5000-$6000 to sell to video pros/3d renderers/etc. That market is willing to pay that much for workstations (that's even kinda cheap, depending on what the additional specs are), and it would be a great feather in Apples cap to beat up on x86 PCs.

    Of course, it might be another step in the SGI-ification of apple as well.

    Who knows?

    Cheers,
    prat
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    UnixMac

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #11
    The Mac line up should look something like this.... whether it's in September, I don't care, but this year for sure: Otherwise the forthcomming P4 at 4Ghz will keep top rains for Wintel....

    ibook - G4 based - 133mhz bus, PC 133 RAM ATI 7500 w/32 mb DDR

    PowerBooks - PPC970 1.8-2.2Ghz. 1 CPU, 900mhz FSB, DDR (512MB Min, 2GB Max), 12,15.2, 17" screens) Radeon 9000 pro w/64MB DDR

    iMac - Single PPC970 1.8 - 2.2 Ghz, 900mhz FSB, 80, 120 Gig 7200RPM ATA 133 Drives, 256MB - 512MB RAM to 1.0GB RAM max, Radeon 9500 w/64 MB DDR

    PowerMac:

    Low:
    dual 970, 1.8Ghz - 512MB - 2GB RAM, ATA 133 120GB 7200RPM HD, ATI 9500 with 64MB DDR

    Mid:
    dual 970 2.2Ghz, 768MB - 2GB RAM, ATA 133 200MB 7200RPM, ATI 9700 Pro w/128MB DDR or best available at the time

    Top end:
    quad970 2.2Ghz, 1.0GB - 4GB RAM, 2X133 ATA 200GB 10,000RPM HD in RAID, Radeon 9700PRO 128MB or best availble at time..

    All with 900mhz bus, DDR, Gigabit Ethernet, v92 modem, 4 X USB2, 3 X Firewire 2, AGP 6X and Nvidia options etc...
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #12
    Wow..... i think we all wish for that....
    Only a G4 in an iBook.
    No interest in an eMac running a G4? It would be nice to have a really cheap > 1.25 Ghz G4 in a Mac.
    Or some kind of consumer tower? A (not-so-powerful) PowerMac running a single PPC 970, or dual G4 or maybe even a single 1.5 GHz G4, but with the ability to be upgraded (i.e. Radeon 9700, or GeForce FX, Serial ATA)
     
  13. macrumors member

    josepht

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Location:
    Southeastern United States
    #13
    A bit much

    For the most part, I think you're right. I think quad processors is pretty far-fetched, though.
     
  14. macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #14
    IF (huge huge if) all of, or even most of that was true, Apple will be slaughtering PCs by the end of the year.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
  16. macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    #16
    The chip speeds seem a bit high - see:


    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,809064,00.asp

    "Motorola's road map includes a G5 built on 0.13-micron technology, using the relatively new RapidIO bus architecture for connecting CPUs or other I/O components on the motherboard. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions will operate at 1.2 to 2 GHz. The estimated release date is June or July.

    Interestingly, it is rumored that Apple may use the recently disclosed IBM PowerPC 970 architecture, a scaled-down version of IBM's 64-bit Power4 architecture. The 970 will be built on a 0.13-micron process, use SOI technology, run both 32-bit and 64-bit code, and start at around 1.4 GHz with a 512K L2 cache. The chip will ship in quantity in the second half of 2003. Apple is not saying whether it will use IBM's or Motorola's technologies."
     
  17. macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #17
    What you don't understand is that the 12" PowerBook is *not* an iBook. The reason why some people get the iBook is the WHITENESS of the laptop. btw, the 12" pb gets *MUCH HOTTER* than the 12" iBook. Maybe one reason why people wouldn't get the PB. Oh, and it's a tad more expensive.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    UnixMac

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #18
    I based chip speeds on IBM's 970, which is now at 1.8 if I'm not wrong? So I figure in 6-8 months 2.2 should be achieved... maybe not, eitherway a Quad top end machine is a must for the serious workstation DV/Graphics customers... the people debating between a $240,000 discreet editing system using a SGI MIPS12000 based Unix, or a Mac? The Mac should be achievable for under $5000 for a basic system, with sky's the limit pricing for large storage versions and additional monitors etc....

    I also, think an eMac with 1.25 G4 is doable, but a Tower (PowerMac) with anything less than dual 1.8 970's is just going to add fuel to the debate about AMD and Intel being a better value... for example a P4 3.06 is gonna be the bottom end by the time the release the new PowerMac's.... so imagine what Wintels top offerings will be...


    I'm personally sick of being second best!
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #19
    Lets take a look at the innards for a second. Both have 128MB sodered in. The Powerbook has the same port arrangement as the iBook in addition to some extras. The case is identical excepting some shrinkage from the thinner metal.

    Um... maybe that because the PB sports a G4!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
    Why do you think apple has put it off the iBook?
    thats right Battery, Heat, and price! and the case has no difference. My G3 Pismo still gets wicked hot.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    UnixMac

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #20
    I'll bet with in a year the only place you'll find a G3 being installed today is in embeded systems and avionics suites.

    G4 will be the ibooks brains by 04. I'll bet in it!
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #21
    The 970 incarnation of the powermac will not have a modem.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    UnixMac

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #22
    yeah, I just had to throw that in...... :D
     
  23. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    the heat isn't so bad on my GHz G4 15".... i think his point is that people who want performance out of a 12" form factor are getting it now.

    anyone who wants a cool-running but fast G4-based iBook is being idealistic--heat and performance, with apple's chips at least, and moreso with intels, is DIRECTLY related to heat production. I think that was this guy's point: apple has given you a VERY well designed, smaller-than-the-little-iBook powerbook, made out of unpainted aluminum, that is everything you could ask for in a little high performance box. if you have color issues, i'm really sorry. apple miffed a lot of people by ending the colored iBooks and iMacs. we get over it, perhaps with professional help, and realize that while the 12 inch powerbook isn't white, we don't have to be white supremacists-aluminum is pretty and a good material in its own way. it is easily the equal of plastic. i pity da fool who disses powerbooks.
     
  24. thread starter macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #24
    Only hardware-wise, but always THE best OS-wise... :)

    But good point about the consumer tower.
    A single 970 should do the trick, along with a Radeon 9700
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    UnixMac

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #25
    I totally agree with that, OS X is why I'm not usning Windows XP today... MacOS for me was a non-starter for power users.

    But the OS X that PPC970 will run HAS TO BE 64 bit and backwards compatible, or it's a total waste of time..
     

Share This Page