What are the specs on the G5?

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by MacManiac1224, Nov 28, 2001.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Location:
    NY
    #1
    Ok, I just saw the Register article about the G5 and it's proposed production dates, but my question is: What are the other components that will go into the machine?
    ---------
    What is the price of the Power Mac G5's?
    How many processors can fit into one machine for server usage?
    Will Apple try to expand their server line and try to become a "real" competitor in the server market?
    Does this mean that iMac's will start shipping with G4's?
    ----------
    What do you guys think?
     
  2. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Location:
    NY
    #2
    Also one more thing:

    Also one more thing:
    Will they have a new enclosure? If so, what it look like?
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    Falleron

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    I think that the imac will stay with the G3 because IBM has announced the 1Ghz G3. Apple needs to stick with IBM because they are developing more than Motorola as far as I can see!

    The G5 should run from 1 - 1.6 Ghz with 1/2 meg of cache. There is no sign of dual processor yet because of the price I think (but we may get a dual 1Ghz G5 machine). ORR.. Possibly a 4 processor G4 running at 1Ghz for example.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #4
    What about the whole multi-core thing? I remember reading that the G5 was supposed to be multi-cored, but then I stopped seeing things about it. Oh well, that probably means it was nothing more than a rumor.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    Falleron

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I read the same thing, i am not sure though. Could be?
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    #6
    Im not sure if apple will stick with the G3 but i think they should.

    The multi-core thing is quite an old rumor. I think it was just a spin-off from the multi-core G4 rumor.
    By the way, what would happen to a multi-core chip heatwise?
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #7
    Yeah you're probably right. And it probably would put out a lot more heat.
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    macnn, and gigawire

    Anybody see the article on Architosh that macnn had a link to? Some pretty interesting stuff, especially about gigawire and the raycer graphics buyout two years ago.
     
  9. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    #9
    Re: macnn, and gigawire

    Falleron> I think that the imac will stay with the G3 because IBM has announced the 1Ghz G3.

    There's no guarantee that Apple will use the 750FX. They might, in
    laptops, but I can't see Apple having G3 and G5 in their desktop line to
    the exclusion of the G4, particularly when the G4 is faster at the same
    clockspeed, with Altivec,


    > Apple needs to stick with IBM because they are developing more than Motorola as far as I can see!

    Apple would probably not be able to continue PPC development on their own
    (should Moto want out), so a design partnership would be necessary. Less
    partners is probably better and IBM strikes me as a better partner due to
    its commitment to the POWER line and advanced technologies which can seep
    down into PPC development, meaning less speculation and a more solid
    foundation for future plans; if Apple knows what IBM's already done, then
    Apple should be able to count on IBM being able to incorporate those
    finished technologies into the PPCs; this is not possible with motorola
    (conflicts with their embedded focus in any case; relatively low-tech). So
    roll on IBM, at least for a design partnership, foundry partnerships are
    another game altogether.

    OTOH:

    1) Motorola has still done an admirable job of designing the G4 in spite
    Apple's insane turnovers (~18-24 months? the P6 is still around and that's
    ~95, for example).

    2) IBM is in the hole further than Motorola is, although I'm not sure as
    to the financial health of their processor design unit specifically. IBM
    seems to be coping well enough with their insane debt load by the looks of
    things (add salt to opinion).




    ThlayliTheFierce> What about the whole multi-core thing? I remember
    reading that the G5 was supposed to be multi-cored, but then I stopped
    seeing things about it.

    The latest MOSR has a few lines on it.


    > Oh well, that probably means it was nothing more than a rumor.

    ... as if the increase in the number of execution units (7410 -> 7450) and
    the multicored power4 wasn't a less-than-subtle reminder of the PPC's
    shift towards increased thread-level parallelism.

    http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/1999/microprocessor99.pdf




    spikey> Im not sure if apple will stick with the G3 but i think they
    should.

    ... not that you ever provided any convincing reason that they shouldn't
    switch to the 7460 (apart from the 400 Mhz frontside bus that wasn't).


    > The multi-core thing is quite an old rumor. I think it was just a spin-off from the multi-core G4 rumor.

    Altivec was intended toward the G3 and multicoring toward the G4, as
    rumour had it; I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's strict timetabling
    forced certain things to be dropped.


    > By the way, what would happen to a multi-core chip heatwise?

    It probably would put out close to 2x the heat, all other aspects being
    equal (figuring that there's 2x the transistors and the two cores
    themselves are ~identical...).
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Falleron

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Re: Re: macnn, and gigawire

    You could be right! However, on http://www.maccentral.com there is a story that suggests that we could be waiting for the G5 a little longer!!! Motorola have announced their Appolo chip that will ship starting at 1Ghz +++.

    That would mean that Apple is mostly likely to stick with the G3 in the iMac so there is a larger speed difference in consumer + professional!
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Location:
    California
    #11
    Joe J - Your assumption of the G4 being slower at lower clock speeds is wrong. Yes, Alvitec does make the chip zippy on some tasks but is your daily browser, sherlock & Quicktime player optimized for Alvitec? In my opinion Alvitec is a doomed technology... No one really used it. Imagine if simple things like Omniweb where alvitec optimized how everything would be much zipper (on G4's oubiously).

    The reason Apple hasn't launched faster G3's (1ghz 750MX) on their iMacs is because they know very well that it will outperform the lower end G4 (get very close on not Alvitec tasks, besides there aren't very many alvitec accelerated tasks in the average user!). Neverunderestimate the power of a G3, there is not such a huge gap between the two except for Alvitec (and megahertz, but that was before, long long ago in the past...).

    In my opinion the PowerPc architecture will not be moving very quickly without the help of IBM. We could do actually quite well without Motorola.

    All this means, that a really fast G3 before the arrival of Appolo G4's (I thought the G4's used in Quicksilvers where appolo!?!) is unlikely for the simple reason that they both compete too closely.
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    #12
    dantec> Joe J - Your assumption of the G4 being slower at lower clock
    speeds is wrong.

    Slower?


    > Yes, Alvitec does make the chip zippy on some tasks but
    is your daily browser, sherlock & Quicktime player optimized for Alvitec?

    (does your browser, or sherlock, tax your processor? ... )

    ... OTOH media convergence apps do indeed tax one's system and should be
    made altivec-aware.

    As for the "Quicktime player", decompression could be speeded up
    with altivectorisation of the codec (freeing up the non-vector units to do
    other stuff).


    >In my opinion Alvitec is a doomed technol ogy... No one really used it.
    Imagine if simple things like Omniweb where alvitec optimized how
    everything would be much zipper (on G4's oubiously).

    Omniweb probably would be x times faster too, if Apple had altivec
    optimisations in Quartz to speed redraw (assuming that's what's slow).


    >The reason Apple hasn't launched faster G3's (1ghz 750MX) on their iMacs
    is because they know very well that it will outperform the lower end G4
    (get very close on not Alvitec tasks, besides there aren't very many
    alvitec accelerated tasks in the average user!). Neverunderestimate the
    power of a G3, there is not such a huge gap between the two except for
    Alvitec (and megahertz, but that was before, long long ago in the
    past...).

    The G4's FPU performance is another factor separating it from the G3;
    Apple probably don't want iMacs with higher clockspeeds than their Pro
    line either.


    >In my opinion the PowerPc architecture will not be moving very quickly
    without the help of IBM. We could do actually quite well without Motorola.

    Having three players is too much so I would have to agree. However handing
    the whole enchilada to IBM might result in IBM neglecting it. So a joint
    venture is necessary (i elaborated on this elsewhere.)


    >(I thought the G4's used in Quicksilvers where appolo!?!)

    The 7450 was codenamed V'Ger IIRC.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Location:
    California
    #13
    Read an article on MOSR... That explains it all (I think it was there... Tell me if its not!)
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    #14
    dantec> Read an article on MOSR...

    I customarily refrain from doing that.



    > That explains it all (I think it was there... Tell me if its not!)

    Which article was this? Their archives have the past ~3 months iirc.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Location:
    California
    #15
    Oh well, it was quite a while ago... I'm sure it was that site...

     
  16. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Location:
    Yokohama Japan
    #16
    400MHz bus with HyperTransport elements
    DDR RAM
    USB 2.0
    IEEE 1394b
    ATA 133

    the chip prices are said to be $575 for 1.2GHz and $695 for 1.6GHz version
     

Share This Page