90nm Growing Pains

[Sun Baked]

I know it's not as easy to put it into a laptop. However, your 600 Watt comparison of the G5 tower is not completley fair. We're talking about the 970fx, which is different than what's currently in the tower. From what I've read, the 970fx, when clocked down to 1.6-1.8 actually uses less power than than the 1.5 G4 currently utilized in the PB's.

With a 20" LCD monitor the estimated load the dual 2.0 G5 draws through the built-in supply at around 235W at idle and 370-400W running full blast.

Makosuke tested his out as: "just idling quietly, it draws 170W and running all-out it's up around 325W."

The 970FX probably wouldn't be much different at the top end, since Apple is going to probably be pushing the new chips to between 2.5GHz - 3.0GHz.

But at the same speed, they are down quite a bit. But there is also the System Controller sucking down some Watts and creating heat.

A big way around this for the Portables would be to get rid of the 2nd processor port, a channel of DDR memory, and run the darn thing at 1/4 to 1/3 the CPU speed.

Basically the portable won't get the G5 until Apple makes a chipset that runs cooler than the one in the PowerMac.

 

[gskiser]

if Apple's portables are so horrible, why are they selling so well?

They're really not selling that well. Where are you seeing that the PBG4 sales are so phenomenal? Plus its all relative. I concede that they're decent machines, but decent won't cut in 6 months from now. However, sales are relative. Would you argue that Apple's Powerbook sales would not dratically increase if they introduced a PBG5? Just because PBG4's are selling moderately, doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Because we only have a PBG4, you cannot quantify how many sales are going unrealized and being lost out on due to people waiting/wanting a PBG5. They're selling now because thats the only option, and we know the only alternative is to switch to PC, which many of us will not do.

 

[thatwendigo]

With a 20" LCD monitor the estimated load the dual 2.0 G5 draws through the built-in supply at around 235W at idle and 370-400W running full blast.

Which makes me wonder what they have planned. I've been combining rumors in my head lately, and that 600w PSU seems to be offering quite a bit of extra wattage that isn't being used. As someone else pointed out on the boards, Apple isn't in the habit of providing more power than they plan on using, and so it seems kind of stranges on the surface.

What if the next revisions are going to be playing host to some seriously hot/power intensive cards? That would account for the temperature sensor issue, the delay until a little later on, and the higher power supply, all at once. One of the things I noticed about the graph that's been chucked around here is that most of the PC systems that beat the G5 were running Wildcats, FireGLs, and 9800XTs. What if Apple is about to start getting professional support for the professional cards once more, and also issuing the NV6800 as an option at the high end? It's not that farfetched, when one considers that ATI's top of the line mobile GPU is what's in the new powerbooks.

The 970FX probably wouldn't be much different at the top end, since Apple is going to probably be pushing the new chips to between 2.5GHz - 3.0GHz.

I'd expect the 3.0ghz 970fx to be around 45-60w per chip, or roughly on par with the original 2.0ghz 970. The process shrink halved the heat and power draw, but I'm not entirely certain if it will remain a one-to-one tradeoff.

A big way around this for the Portables would be to get rid of the 2nd processor port, a channel of DDR memory, and run the darn thing at 1/4 to 1/3 the CPU speed.

One G5 is already ridiculously hot for a laptop of the kind of form factor the PowerBook uses, when factoring in the components. I think it goes without saying that there isn't going to be a second processor. Also, making a laptop isn't as simple as just modifying the desktop board. Cutting down in the ways that you mention (other than the processor) would basically kill all advantage the G5 has over the G4. It's memory control system and higher clock are what really make it shine, and removing one of the channels and running it at a paltry 1.0ghz would not only make it an advertising disaster, it would also mean having a system that would have circles run around it by the existing powerbooks.

 

[thatwendigo]

They're really not selling that well. Where are you seeing that the PBG4 sales are so phenomenal?

You know, the last time I checked, the PowerBooks were the best-selling computer at the Apple Store. They were at #6 overall, but don't even appear in the list a the moment. Oddly, the G5s are back in the list at #11. Huh.

Plus its all relative. I concede that they're decent machines, but decent won't cut in 6 months from now.

PCs are still selling, aren't they?

Would you argue that Apple's Powerbook sales would not dratically increase if they introduced a PBG5?

I wouldn't argue that sales won't increase, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they would, either. We don't know what's going to happen between now and, well, whenever the PowerBooks get bumped to the next processor. I actually hope they never go to the G5, using the 750vx until the G6 comes along and is a much better-suited processor for the task.

Just because PBG4's are selling moderately, doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

There's always room for improvement, or else there would be no reason to ever buy more than one computer, of one type, to accomplish all tasks.

Because we only have a PBG4, you cannot quantify how many sales are going unrealized and being lost out on due to people waiting/wanting a PBG5. They're selling now because thats the only option, and we know the only alternative is to switch to PC, which many of us will not do.

Just out of curiosity... When has it not been the case that the option is to go PC or not? How is that at all relevant?

 

[Sun Baked]

One G5 is already ridiculously hot for a laptop of the kind of form factor the PowerBook uses, when factoring in the components. I think it goes without saying that there isn't going to be a second processor. Also, making a laptop isn't as simple as just modifying the desktop board. Cutting down in the ways that you mention (other than the processor) would basically kill all advantage the G5 has over the G4. It's memory control system and higher clock are what really make it shine, and removing one of the channels and running it at a paltry 1.0ghz would not only make it an advertising disaster, it would also mean having a system that would have circles run around it by the existing powerbooks.

Not really the advantage of the G5 over the G4 is bandwidth (aka GB/s).

The System Controller is running quite hot, and the G5 elastic-Bus is designed to run at a 2, 3, and 4x multiplier. A 1.8GHz G5 in a PowerBook running a 450MHz or 600MHz FSB has better bandwidth than the G4 at 167 MHz -- but the biggest benefit is reduced power/heat at the lower clock cycles.

The single channel DDR memory would mean the current 2 DIMM slots stay and you wouldn't need to toss 2 DDR DIMMs every time you upgrade memory. 4 DIMMs is asking a lot of a portable, and if it comes with DDR2...

And it's not modifying the motherboard, but design of a new chipset for single CPU machines and portables.

 

[Azmordean]

Don't over exhaggerate. I don't know about you, but no one I know has a Wintel laptop that's noticably faster than an Apple laptop. It's hard to compare the two, anyway, but I'll say this for sure... I know a lot of people in the high-tech sector that have Compaq and IBM laptops that are S-L-O-W. Brand new, and slow. But that's still comparing apples to oranges.

On an application to application comparison, I have no doubt that some "luggable" PC laptop with desktop processors and a 45 minute battery life could squeeze out 25% more performance. But who cares? Anyone that needs that much more speed should be using a desktop for their tasks. I'm not going to be doing 3D rendering of film quality graphics on my laptop-- maybe preliminary work or test work, but not the final deal. That's for the dual 2 GHz G5's...

I don't think Apple is losing the performance war. They beat the hell out of PC laptops on features, and the speeds are comparable, if not MUCH faster on the Apple side for Video. The price/performance of Apple is a lot better than a PC.

I assume you know nothing about PC laptops. First off, this "luggable" nonsense has been false since the Centrino was released. My Centrino machine is the same weight and nearly as thin (like 1.25") as an Apple Powerbook - in short, it is every bit as portable. Second, the screen on my laptop absolutely wipes the floor with the junk Apple puts on its laptops - mine is a 14" screen that does 1400x1050 resolution. You'd have to get a lunch tray 17" powerbook to get that kind of screen space from Apple (and for me, screen space was really the deciding factor). As for speed, the Pentium M (the processor part of Centrino) is clearly faster than a G4 -- I do take your point however that for standard laptop tasks, this may not be noticeable. Price wise, PCs win. As for physical build quality, Apple gets the nod - contrary to popular belief, my DELL is quite solid (and its a lattitude "business model", so its silver and black, not that fisher price blue nonsense they put on inspirons), but it isnt brushed aluminum either.

So, in conclusion, both the Centrinos and Powerbooks have advantages and disadvantages. Either is a solid choice in my opinion. I just had to respond though, because I get the feeling people haven't touched a PC laptop since the centrinos were released - so they love to talk about what junk they are.

PS: I am not a "PC Troll" -- I am writing this on my first mac, a PM G5 1.8 single.

 

[patriotn11]

15" or 17"

OK, this is it.

15" loaded

or

17" loaded

I don't travel but like to loaf on couch and work.

Advice, I'm buying tomm.


I've stated in past post, I am going to write kids books, so I'll be using 3d drawing and of course mac office.

I love games, dvd watching, music, photo's and I want to make my own website.

PS All this and I'll be a full blown switcher, I will use my XP Pro 3gig fro latest gamig, doom3, halflife 2, farcry, and my FAV Battle Field Vietnam....

 

[blackfox]

They're really not selling that well. Where are you seeing that the PBG4 sales are so phenomenal? Plus its all relative. I concede that they're decent machines, but decent won't cut in 6 months from now. However, sales are relative.

PB sales are quite respectable. Decent not cutting it in 6 months? Does anything not G5 not qualify? May I remind you that a G5 PB does not exist...how do you or anyone else know that they would be vastly superior than the current G4s? Yes, you can look at the PM, but a portable has completely different design limitations...hold your horses...also, the centrino line of notebooks are not much faster than current PBs, so it is not like we are in risk of being left in the dust...

Would you argue that Apple's Powerbook sales would not dratically increase if they introduced a PBG5? Just because PBG4's are selling moderately, doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

Of course and of course...but that argument is so obvious as to be meaningless...

Because we only have a PBG4, you cannot quantify how many sales are going unrealized and being lost out on due to people waiting/wanting a PBG5. They're selling now because thats the only option, and we know the only alternative is to switch to PC, which many of us will not do.

No we can't, but you could take out PBG5 and insert PBG6 Dual-processor...it is the same difference...neither exist...take a look at what we have...an excellent notebook in the latest rev. People do not buy portables for speed primarily, but for portability, design, feature-set and decent speed. Calm down on the G5...it will come, personally I'd keep a G4 for a while if they can keep scaling it...

 

[tex210]

I actually hope they never go to the G5, using the 750vx until the G6 comes along and is a much better-suited processor for the task.
There's always room for improvement, or else there would be no reason to ever buy more than one computer, of one type, to accomplish all tasks.

I like how you think! It's settled then, G4's in PB until G6. Plenty of time for everyone to work out those kinks. Now that we're divided into two camps... must have a v8 in every model versus the hybrid buyers... I'm wondering, is there still anyone in the g3 corner(such as myself)? Have there been any advancements? Miniaturization?

 

[JFreak]

the screen on my laptop absolutely wipes the floor with the junk Apple puts on its laptops - mine is a 14" screen that does 1400x1050 resolution. You'd have to get a lunch tray 17" powerbook to get that kind of screen space from Apple (and for me, screen space was really the deciding factor).

you actually said nothing reasonable. you tried to argue about screen quality and screen size, but only succeeded in saying you need more pixels.

there are two factors concerning display quality and they are 1) color accuracy and 2) brightness. you tried to argue that your laptop's screen is better than powerbook's, but failed to mention anything about quality.

then, the screen size... i mean, come on! the screen size is measured in inches [not in pixels], and how much bigger your laptop's 14" is compared to 15" or 17" powerbook screen? (i guess you are not comparing to 12" powerbook, because we're talking about widescreens now, right?) for example i need a widescreen display that is about 15" in size, but i also need to see what's in it when i actually use it. and i mean without straining my eyes too much, because when i begin using it, i will continue using it for 8 hours and cannot afford headaches during that time. were the things any smaller in the screen (than the 15" powerbook's 1280x854) i'd have hard time using the computer - i tried to use a 14" screen that had 1600x1200 pixels, but had headaches in five minutes (the reason could have also been the windows xp, but i think it was the tiny text in the screen).

but you're right - if you need to fit more stuff in the screen simultaneously, then you need more pixels. i'd say you also need bigger screen size, but that's up to you if you for example dream about a 14" screen that has 1920x1200 pixels. imho that makes menu texts practically invisible and i'd take those 2.3 megapixels in 20" screen any day.

(by the way, you mentioned screen resolution and did it incorrectly, too. resolution is measured in dots per inch, not in pixels. saying that screen has 1400x1050 resolution is just as wrong as saying your car has 5.7 litre high speed.)

 

[thatwendigo]

Not really the advantage of the G5 over the G4 is bandwidth (aka GB/s).

I must not have clearly stated that I knew that, then.

The System Controller is running quite hot, and the G5 elastic-Bus is designed to run at a 2, 3, and 4x multiplier. A 1.8GHz G5 in a PowerBook running a 450MHz or 600MHz FSB has better bandwidth than the G4 at 167 MHz -- but the biggest benefit is reduced power/heat at the lower clock cycles.

You must not have ever read one of my posts where I argue with people who say that the G5 should be out now, now, now. One of my main points in those arguments is that a full-speed G5 ASIC is going to be quite a bit hotter than the G4, and that cutting the FSB down is going to kill a lot of the performance advantage. However, I'm curious where you're getting your numbers on the lower heat at lower clock cycles claim.

The single channel DDR memory would mean the current 2 DIMM slots stay and you wouldn't need to toss 2 DDR DIMMs every time you upgrade memory. 4 DIMMs is asking a lot of a portable, and if it comes with DDR2...

Single-channel DDR would elminate the ability to read and write on the same clock cycle, though, wouldn't it? I've always understood that the reason the processor could do that is that it taps one back going up and the other going down.

And it's not modifying the motherboard, but design of a new chipset for single CPU machines and portables.

I also understand that. It sounded like you were saying Apple only had to modify the dual-processor board.

I assume you know nothing about PC laptops.

Strike One.

First off, this "luggable" nonsense has been false since the Centrino was released.

Strike Two.

My Centrino machine is the same weight and nearly as thin (like 1.25") as an Apple Powerbook - in short, it is every bit as portable. Second, the screen on my laptop absolutely wipes the floor with the junk Apple puts on its laptops - mine is a 14" screen that does 1400x1050 resolution. You'd have to get a lunch tray 17" powerbook to get that kind of screen space from Apple (and for me, screen space was really the deciding factor).

You know, I've got a nearly three year old iBook that's got a screen that's just as sharp as the day it was manufactured, and while I'd like a slightly larger resolution, it works just fine. Often, PC laptops come with cheaper displays that can technically go larger, but which look awful when they do so. My coworker's Dell Inspiron is a wonderful example of a brick of a computer that cost about the same as my iBook, only it runs worse.

Price wise, PCs win.

Dell Inspiron 8600
Pentium-M 1.5ghz
XP Pro with Plus! and Digital Media
512MB RAM 1-DIMM
ATI Radeon 9600 Mobile 128MB
4x CD/DVD-R with RecordNow! and MyDVD Deluxe
80GB HD
Dell Wireless 1450 Internal 802.11
Dell TrueMobile Blutooth
McAffee Security Center with 1yr Enrollment
Dell Jukebox Plus
Dell Picture Stuiod with Photo Album Premium
Cost: $2,686

Apple PowerBook 15"
Motorola G4 1.5ghz
MacOS X 10.3.3
512MB RAM 1-DIMM
ATI Radeon 9700 128MB
SuperDrive
80GB HD
Airport Extreme
Blutooth
iLife
Cost: $2,599

So, in conclusion, both the Centrinos and Powerbooks have advantages and disadvantages. Either is a solid choice in my opinion. I just had to respond though, because I get the feeling people haven't touched a PC laptop since the centrinos were released - so they love to talk about what junk they are.

I have. So what?

 

[thatwendigo]

I like how you think! It's settled then, G4's in PB until G6. Plenty of time for everyone to work out those kinks. Now that we're divided into two camps... must have a v8 in every model versus the hybrid buyers... I'm wondering, is there still anyone in the g3 corner(such as myself)? Have there been any advancements? Miniaturization?

Uh, hey... The 750vx is a G3. It's a super-optimized design that beats the G4 clock-for-clock, is higher frequency to begin with, has a lower heat profile, a higher system bus, and generally beats the crap out of the current chip. A 2.0ghz 750vx is supposed to run at 11 watts, which is a significant drop over the G4 while also making the G5 look a bit ridiculous as a laptop chip.

So, yes, the G3 has had an amzing advancement sice IBM completely took it over. I wish they'd use it in the PowerBook, perhaps as a dual-chip design.

 

[Sun Baked]

Single-channel DDR would elminate the ability to read and write on the same clock cycle, though, wouldn't it? I've always understood that the reason the processor could do that is that it taps one back going up and the other going down.

The System Controller sees a pair of 64-bit DIMMs as a single 128-bit DIMM, not as two different 64-bit banks of memory.

Going from the current dual channel to the single channel would just cut the bandwidth in half, but this also kills the need to add memory in pairs. And in the limited space of a notebook, pairs of DIMMs are a bigger problem than having memory operate at half the bandwith. Then there is DDR2 coming soon...

The rest of it, think what you will since you know more than I.

Which makes it obvious that you already know all about how the memory works, and there really was no point in explaining it.

 

[aswitcher]

The G4 is maxed out as of now! So is the G5! So whats your point? Motorola will increase the speed of the G4 just like IBM will increase the speed of the G5. It all takes time. More than likely Motorola is already working in a faster G4 processor. Apple themselves already said that they aren't getting rid of Motorola's G4 anytime soon. In that same article they also stated that the PowerBook will NOT see a G5 processor anytime soon. People just don't understand that its 100x easier to put a G5 in a desktop/server than it is a laptop. There is no room for a heat sink, no room for hardly any air movement, etc. So its extremely hard to cool it. It also consumes a ton of power so IBM would have to make a low powered version. I believe the PowerMac G5 uses a 600 Watt powersupply. Does that tell you something?

Well if this is all true, and it sounds reasonable, then the new G4PB17 looks more tempting...

 

[klaus]

OK, this is it.

15" loaded

or

17" loaded

I don't travel but like to loaf on couch and work.

Advice, I'm buying tomm.


I've stated in past post, I am going to write kids books, so I'll be using 3d drawing and of course mac office.

I love games, dvd watching, music, photo's and I want to make my own website.

PS All this and I'll be a full blown switcher, I will use my XP Pro 3gig fro latest gamig, doom3, halflife 2, farcry, and my FAV Battle Field Vietnam....

This isn't a buying advice threat, you'll get more replies if you post a new thread in the appropriate section, don't want to be a nag, but don't think you'll be getting a good answer if you post it here..

 

[billyboy]

for example i need a widescreen display that is about 15" in size, but i also need to see what's in it when i actually use it. and i mean without straining my eyes too much, because when i begin using it, i will continue using it for 8 hours and cannot afford headaches during that time. were the things any smaller in the screen (than the 15" powerbook's 1280x854) i'd have hard time using the computer - i tried to use a 14" screen that had 1600x1200 pixels, but had headaches in five minutes (the reason could have also been the windows xp, but i think it was the tiny text in the screen).

That is an interesting point actually. Maybe there is a growing pixel myth that has little bearing on reality for most people. I do translation work, and have 4 panes open at once so I can copy drag and paste between documents and dictionaries etc as I need. I have no squinting or trouble deciphering anything on a heap of junk PB screen. On the other hand, my housemate has a 2 year old Dell something or other laptop and he says it still has one of the highest resolution screens. Fair enough, but I dont know if it is "better" than the screen on my PB, because if I look over his shoulder as he is writing his private MSN messages using about half the screen, I cant read a bloody thing because everything is so small.

Maybe I have bad eyes, though. I have recalibrated the PB screen to be a shade or two dimmer than default and it takes a lot of 12 hour days before my eyes feel remotely tired.

 

[thatwendigo]

Going from the current dual channel to the single channel would just cut the bandwidth in half, but this also kills the need to add memory in pairs. And in the limited space of a notebook, pairs of DIMMs are a bigger problem than having memory operate at half the bandwith. Then there is DDR2 coming soon...

Alright, I get what you're saying, although I disagree on a pair of DIMMS being a bad idea. Yes, it would cut into the commodity approach to just slapping whatever you want into the machine, but every edge we can keep on the G5 while keeping it portable needs to be taken.

I don't know if you're right, though.

Apple says:
The new Power Mac G5’s memory controller supports fast 400MHz, 128-bit DDR SDRAM, and enables main memory to address two banks of SDRAM at a time, reading and writing on both the rising and falling edge of each clock cycle. This effectively doubles the bandwidth, enabling the Power Mac G5 to reach a maximum memory throughput of up to 6.4GB per second — an advance that’s especially welcome when you’re working with enormous files. In addition, direct memory access (DMA) works with the point-to-point system controller to give each subsystem — such as PCI cards and graphics processing units — its own 6.4GBps interface to main memory, without siphoning power from your processors.

While I could be reading this wrong, I'd be curious to see what sources you have that say the G5 treats two 64-bit RAM slots as one 128-bit. The implication of the above passage is that it accesses the two slots separately, reading and writing at both edges of the clok cycle.

Which makes it obvious that you already know all about how the memory works, and there really was no point in explaining it.

I'm always open to the idea I could be wrong, and I'm not an electrical engineer. I just know a few of them and tend to read things for myself.

 

[aswitcher]

That is an interesting point actually. Maybe there is a growing pixel myth that has little bearing on reality for most people. .

From what I recall from a recent article on Apple's screen resolution, Apple have focused on something like 100dpi visible, whilst other manufacturers have bumped up to 125 and higher. What this means is that as long as the icons and fonts are properly scaled to recognise the visible dpi you can view everything in the true visible scale as you can now but because the dpi are higher the icon, text and images are crisper! Thus less eye strain because they are clearer.

But, said this article I can't find, Apple OSX doesn't work as well as XP for this simple scaling, and so Apple may need to wait until they address this in a rewrite (10.4?) before they can really release higher resolution screens without asking everyone to squint or put up with odd scaling problems for somethings.

So, maybe the PBG5 and maybe the new screens have been held back for the same reason???

 

[thatwendigo]

But, said this article I can't find, Apple OSX doesn't work as well as XP for this simple scaling, and so Apple may need to wait until they address this in a rewrite (10.4?) before they can really release higher resolution screens without asking everyone to squint or put up with odd scaling problems for somethings.

I find that extremely unlikely. In System Preferences, you can adjust the font smoothing by degrees (with recommendations for monitor type). On top of that, all you need for an active demonstration of how silly a claim this happens to be is to go to the Dock preferences. See the Dock Size slider? Play with it. For extra fun, turn magnification on and watch icons smoothly shifting in size.

Sure looks like a "simple scaling" problem to me.

 

[aswitcher]

I find that extremely unlikely. In System Preferences, you can adjust the font smoothing by degrees (with recommendations for monitor type). On top of that, all you need for an active demonstration of how silly a claim this happens to be is to go to the Dock preferences. See the Dock Size slider? Play with it. For extra fun, turn magnification on and watch icons smoothly shifting in size.

Sure looks like a "simple scaling" problem to me.

Ok, I dont have a Mac (YET!) so I cannot verify this claim (nor find the article ) but whilst I recall it admitted you could modify some things fairly easily, it said soemthing to the effect that with XP you could move one scale to change everything (without changing the actual screen resolution) whilst (claims the article) in OSX its not that easy and not everything can be managed...

 

[aswitcher]

Off topics (but interesting)

Here's the article

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2004/20030330.shtml

 

[thatwendigo]

Ok, I dont have a Mac (YET!) so I cannot verify this claim

Go to any store that they let you handle macs (like the Apple Store! ) and see if they'll let you try out what I just told you. It will show you how ridiculous a claim that is, and how it's likely FUD.

but whilst I recall it admitted you could modify some things fairly easily, it said soemthing to the effect that with XP you could move one scale to change everything (without changing the actual screen resolution) whilst (claims the article) in OSX its not that easy and not everything can be managed...

Well, I could believe that there would be a few things that you could alter in Windows that you can't on OS X. Windows is rather famous for its vaunted alterability, after all. However, I don't really buy the whole "easier" thing, without more information on just what they're talking about.

 

[chasingapple]

All of a sudden I am more interested in these new G3's then I am the G5's, please is there a place I can read up on these beauty CPU's?

P.S. I am a huge fan of my 2 G4's, they are fast

 

[rdowns]

Uh, hey... The 750vx is a G3. It's a super-optimized design that beats the G4 clock-for-clock, is higher frequency to begin with, has a lower heat profile, a higher system bus, and generally beats the crap out of the current chip. A 2.0ghz 750vx is supposed to run at 11 watts, which is a significant drop over the G4 while also making the G5 look a bit ridiculous as a laptop chip.

So, yes, the G3 has had an amzing advancement sice IBM completely took it over. I wish they'd use it in the PowerBook, perhaps as a dual-chip design.

Does anyone have any real information on the mythical 750vx? All I've ever seen has been posted in this forum. Links????????

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

I have to echo the last few posters regarding suped-up G3s.

From what I remember posted here @ MR, supposedly IBM was working on a "G3+AltiVec" chip, one which might not be as FSB-hampered as the G4s seem to be. Cooler running as well.

Seems to me that IBM should be able to put a G4-killer like that together for mobile computing. Apple's marketing geniuses would have to rename it, of course. The reality distortion field is not strong enough to sell the average Joe on the idea that he should pay top dollar for a G3-based laptop, no matter how much better than the Moto G4 it might be.

Dual G3+Altivec portables with solid performance and which sip the battery's juice slowly--could be promising. Let's call it the "GM1" or "G1M" chip, denoting a design specifically for mobile applications rather than a G3.

So is all this mere MR mythology?