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

I don't know, this article seems to be repackaging a lot of rumors that have been floating around recently, like the MacEdition report where we first saw the mention of the GPUL and ApplePI. Some of it is almost a direct quote of the MacEdition report.

And I'm skeptical of some of the time frame these reports claim. Example:
However, they caution that the chip probably won't reach Apple's consumer systems for more than a year at the earliest.
That's a fairly vague statement. A year at the earliest could mean 12 months, 18 months, or 2 years. It's hard to get excited when things are so shifty. Great, this thing sort of exists, but how long do we have to wait for them? And by "consumer systems" I don't think they mean iMacs; rather, it's consumer as opposed to server/enterprise systems.
 
chubakka:

In case you didn't know, you're a foaming at the mouth, out of control, "Macs are perfect" freako.

The article you linked with those "performance tests" was bullcrap. Yeah, at a high res where the iMacs better video card matters the iMac barely looses, and yeah in Photo-****ing-Shop (AKA a Photoshop Bakeoff) the iMac barely looses, but those tests are both hand-picked to favor the iMac. They brush aside Quake3 at resolutions where the Gateway's better CPU help it as irrelevant. They discuss no other tests. They do not state why Gateway's tests are irrelevant, they simply talk around it like a slimy used-car dealer would.

The iMac's 800-megahertz G4 sprinted through the tests in 49.6 seconds. The Gateway's 2.8-gigahertz Pentium 4 completed the same tasks in 44.7 seconds.
Holy crap batman, talk about a pro-iMac slant! Apparently the iMacs "sprints" slower than the Gateway "completes."

People need to get over the megahertz envy. It's pointless... a PPC chip in not a slower x86 chip. AND stop begging for the Mac OS on x86... that too is pointless.
Holy crap batman, what planet does this being named "chubakka" come from? It's not earth...

And apple's hardware market share is only a few percentage points behind
HP/Compaq (16%) and Dell (15%)... People are always confusing Apple's OS market share (5%) versus the actual number of computers it sells (11%).
Holy crap batman, you need to start thinking. Market share is the number of "personal" computers that are sold by Apple divided by the number that are sold total. That number is around 3%-4%.

Sheesh. Anyway you are off your rocker.
 
settle down and take your ritalin.

azcentral is not a mac centric site... that article was even and it favored the mac. You want to believe Gateways interpretation of its benchmarks. Go right ahead. Go ahead and believe the Gateway looks better too.

oh and neither is cnet and they gave the iMac the nod in thier review too.

And I'm not making up the percentage of computers sold that are Apple.
Apple is the 3rd largest manufacturer behind Compaq/HP and Dell...
and it sold 11% of the computers purchased last year. They sell more than IBM and more than Gateway.

and by the way ddtl... you a freak.
 
Originally posted by AmigaMac
I think some people keep forgetting that Apple is not the only computer maker to build PPC desktop computers! Amiga is going to unleash a new Amiga with 'PPC Inside'....

Sorry, I just don't see it happening.

I bought one of the original Amiga 1000s, then a 2000 (right before they announced the 3000:mad: ), upgraded it, and in general spent about 12 years waiting w/ increasing frustration for something to actually happen to move the platform forward.

In early '99, after enduring endless spirals of Amigoid hysteria (platform advocacy so thick you could choke), I realised that the Amiga would never be frankensteined out of its grave for one last lurch around the yard. I bought a brand-new G3 PowerBook, and never looked back.

Now, 3.5 years later, rumours of Apple's demise still circulate, as do rumors of Amiga's recrudescence.

Only difference is that I'm a confirmed Macophile now, about to replace my wheezing-yet-still-able laptop w/ a Dual-Gig DDR + 17" Apple display!

As for the Amiga, I wish 'em well...but at this point, I'm vastly uninterested in how that turns out.
 
I think that we should see some killer imacs in Jan 2004 or maybe a little before. Once their Powermacs are acceptably fast compared to the rest of the industry, the iMacs will be next on the upgrade block just so they will be able to run OS X at a fast speed.

The cool thing about having a Mac that can run OS X fast is that most of the programs that will run on it will go even faster.

With all the hype that is being talked about this new processor, if it can not resize a full iPhoto window in realtime, I will be pissed. The same goes for browser windows. Apple wouldnt need to be in such a hurry to speed up the processors if all finder and window features were as fast as OS 9. I don't here too many people complaining about not being able to do work stuff fast, just finder and browser functions. So if this chip makes the finder as fast as OS 9, this will be a chip that will do for the Powermacs what the Original iMac did for them. That is unless they pull a Cube and raise prices on this model or just have it on the top one or two configs, which you know they will do anyway in its first rev.
 
Google fishing trip photos and ...

a little rootin around found some of the following...

http://ssadler.phy.bnl.gov/adler/sc2k/sc2kpg0.html
(scroll 1/2 way down.)
intersting quote from 2000:
"IBM is show off their power4 architecture.
They are developing either a dual or quad PPC system
on a single chip. The IBM'er here is hold up a model
of the CPU chip. He told me that a group of engineers
worked on the system for a week to get Linux up
and running"

and a whole website for
http://linuxppc64.org/

A little Power4 light reading, note title of page 2.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT101600000000


Now for a little apparent-fact that Motorola ISN'T dropping out
of the high-performance computing market. They aren't focusing
*entirely* on the small embedded processor market.

(no direct url)
http://www.motorolacareers.com/
>> semiconductor
>> search jobs
>> Location: USA-Southwest , City: Austin TX
>> search jobs button

_PowerPC Microprocessor Designer_
_______Austin, TX, USA -Southwest_

Scope of Responsibilities/Expectations:
Design and development of **high-performance microprocessors**.
Will be responsible for circuit design portions of microprocessors.
Specific Knowledge: Should have good knowlede & experience in
circuit design skills. Logic design skills and knowlege of
microprocessor skills is a plus.
Motorola is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
We welcome and encourage diversity in our workforce.

and immediately above it...

_Logic Designer_
_______Austin, TX, USA -Southwest_

Scope of Responsibilities/Expectations:
Logic Designer - Responsibilities will include logic design
of **high-performance microprocessors**. Specific Knowledge:
Knowledge in microprocessor architecture. VHDL experience.
Understanding of system-level operations is desirable.
Experience in PowerPC architecture is desirable.
Motorola is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
We welcome and encourage diversity in our workforce.

(my **'s)

Does that **high-performance microprocessors** mean what
I think it means? I'm not thinking faster cell phones.

Now for a little rumor swirl. A buddy who works there told
me a few months ago that ~"Moto was going to step back for a
little while, Let IBM take the Apple reigns for a little while,
then Moto is coming back with the G7,"~ which they apparently are
starting on now with the above job positions.. .?. (This was
before the current IBM-Power4Lite-GPUL-PPC rumors started.)

In that same conversation he talked of their last chip for
a while. He called it the "Apollo7" and said it was just
taped out. Now I doubt this is the "fabled" MotoG5, and is rather
either the currently shipping 1.25's, or the next round of
7470's to hold us over til we can get our hands on the
wipe-drool-from-face IBM PPC-64's.
 
Re: settle down and take your ritalin.

Originally posted by chubakka
And I'm not making up the percentage of computers sold that are Apple.
Apple is the 3rd largest manufacturer behind Compaq/HP and Dell...
and it sold 11% of the computers purchased last year. They sell more than IBM and more than Gateway.

Not sure where your figures are coming from but they are just plain wrong. Apple had a market share in the last financial year of 3.4%, where market share is defined as number of Macs sold divided by total units sold overall. They came in 5th or 6th due to the HP/Compaq merger.

The only positive in their figures is they were on the increase.
 
Re: Caution

Originally posted by dongmin
I don't know, this article seems to be repackaging a lot of rumors that have been floating around recently, like the MacEdition report where we first saw the mention of the GPUL and ApplePI. Some of it is almost a direct quote of the MacEdition report.
Well, it's kind of an open secret that NMR / TGB are (is?) Matthew Rothenberg; given that, the similarity between the two pieces is hardly a surprise.

Hell, it's not even the first time this has happened (ie, MR repeating the NMR in eWeek).

Originally posted by dongmin
And I'm skeptical of some of the time frame these reports claim. A year at the earliest could mean 12 months, 18 months, or 2 years. It's hard to get excited when things are so shifty. Great, this thing sort of exists, but how long do we have to wait for them?

On the contray, I find the whole thing reassuring. I find that the current crop of PowerMacs suit my needs just fine right now - and right now, I need to get the machine & make the money. I'm reassured, because it reinforces my confidence in buying a Mac now, because I can be reasonably assured that my next will be as big an improvement over the DDR Duals as the DDRs are over my current Mac (G3, 266/66mHz).

Originally posted by dongmin
And by "consumer systems" I don't think they mean iMacs; rather, it's consumer as opposed to server/enterprise systems.

Agreed - this points to "retail", IMO, not "low-end". However, don't forget that Apple managed to migrate the top-end Quicksilver tech to the iMac in just one year (astonishing!). Even so, I'd expect to see the new mobo/syscon designs make into the iMacs long before the next-gen chip do!
 
my bad...

I was confusing a spymac article with the IDC numbers...
Apple is like 4.1% domestically and 2.9% internationally.





foaming at the mouth mac lover
 
Regarding the imac vs Profile benchmarks.... it wasn't the $1000 profile 4 they tested against the $1300 iMac, it was the $1999 version with the 2.8 ghz P4. The $1000 Profile or even the $1300 Profile would have been seriously whipped by the iMac.
 
why 2 different "G5" chips? that doesn't seem to make sense.

Think Pentium and Celeron.

The Power4Lite will likely consume too much power and run too hot for notebooks and the small footprint iMacs. Apple will need a low power/high performance/low cost CPU for these purposes and Moto is just the company to make it for them.
 
Going off the benchmarks on their site I've concluded that the Gateway PC is worthless.

I've worked the Mhz into the results and it really shows how fast the P4 has to spin to even scrape together little over 10% more speed than the G4

PSB = (Seconds / Mhz) x 1000

800Mhz G4 : 49.6 sec (62 PSB)
2.4Ghz P4 : 44.7 sec (18.6 PSB)

This is very impressive from the mac's point of view but then again, photoshop tests are the only "realworld" tests where the mac really shows it's true colours unlike those meaningless RC5 number crunching tests.
 
Oh my dear lord

Sources said that benchmarks and applications tests demonstrate that a 1GHz GPUL processor doubles the performance of the 1GHz Motorola PowerPC G4 processor in current Macs. Even so, they said, the first run on GPUL processors should range from 1.4 to 2GHz, depending on yield.

That is very fast. If a 1GHz current mac is 2x slower then a 1 GHz GPUL then the 2GHz one will be 4x the speed of the current 1 GHZ. That is really fast. If this comes out by this time next year then I think apple will be on top. But nobody knows what the processors will look like in the PC world a year from now.
 
Originally posted by Billy_ca


Think Pentium and Celeron.

The Power4Lite will likely consume too much power and run too hot for notebooks and the small footprint iMacs. Apple will need a low power/high performance/low cost CPU for these purposes and Moto is just the company to make it for them.


Thats what I think will hapen:

IBM = High end
Moto = low end + laptops

Sorry for double posting... :confused:

:D
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
chubakka:

In case you didn't know, you're a foaming at the mouth, out of control, "Macs are perfect" freako.
...
Sheesh. Anyway you are off your rocker.

Am I missing something? When did using "holy crap batman" as a discussion point become a mark of intelligence and dignity?

Azcentral.com is the online version of The Arizona Republic, the paper of record for Phoenix, and in my opinion, is as close to an impartial (albeit technically limited) judge as there is for the average user. That they failed to mention the overwhelming stability of OS X (reboot? what's that?), the sheer ease of use of iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD and only mentioned briefly mentioned the DVD-R capabilities of the iMac as advantages and STILL judged the iMac equal or better to the Profile 4 says a lot. All computers are equal. It's just that some are more equal than others. ;) :D :p

Now, bring on the Power4 Lite so we can end this discussion once and for all! ;)
 
Oh Please!

I'll believe it when I see it.

3 things to keep in mind:
1-Trimedia-the alleged Phillips chip which was supposed to be the hardware solution to PCs MMX instruction set, and would blow MMX away by a factor of 10. Never materialized (and honestly never did altivec with it's supposed 16X acceleration of a multitude of functions-you'll get 2X, 5 years later if you're lucky).

2-The Bi-CMOS chip, what was the name of that short lived company that was supposed to bring us to 600 Mhz back in 1997? All the rumor sites told us anyday now. Sure it ran hotter than an easy bake oven. But wow! 5-600 Mhz in the day when that seemed impossible! Even Macworld was reporting on this nonsense. The G3 was out and was faster and this company disappeared as did the need for a generator and a fuel line to run your mac.

3-the original PowerPC promise. I remember reading in MacWorld in 1994 how the 604 would be 3X faster than the 601 at the same clock speed. It ended up being 20% faster, and no faster unless programs were "triple fat", meaning 68K, 601, and 604 code optimized. The 620 was also around the corner being yet again 3X faster than the 604. I don't even think the G4 is anywhere near 3X faster at the same clock speed than the 601. Maybe 2X at best on non-altivec functions.

Ok, here's your bonus one, ok, bonus 2.
The Apollo chip. Promised 2 years ago as "any day now" and supposed to bring 30% more speed at the same clock speed. In January, with the DP 1Ghz, Motorola said, yes this is the Apollo. Turns out it's really slower than even the original G4 at the same clock speed because of the small L2, and greater number of pipeline stages. And the 2nd bonus, the infamous G5. It's been 3 years since the G4 came out. Last year we all heard the G5 was coming out in early 2002. Now we hear 2003 if we're lucky. Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

Take all of these rumors with and ocean full of salt. It has been a long, long, long time since Apple pulled a trick out of it's hat.

Oh, wait, yet another bonus! The G4, even in non-altivec functions was also supposed to be about 30% faster than the G3! It of course was never true and some benchmarks showed it was actually slower. And we have proof with the 700 Mhz G3 iBook on a 100 Mhz bus with no L3 beating a Ti 800 G4, on a 133 Mhz bus with a 1MB L3 on non-altivec benchmarks.

Basically, none of these "the great new processor that will save us" rumors ever come true. Instead we get something named what we were promised 3 years late with minimal speed gains. Thanks a lot Apple/Motorola/IBM. You jerks are turning into the 3 stooges of processory design.
 
And we have proof with the 700 Mhz G3 iBook on a 100 Mhz bus with no L3 beating a Ti 800 G4, on a 133 Mhz bus with a 1MB L3 on non-altivec benchmarks.

Can you provide a link to that? I'd like to read it. Thanks.
 
1. Trimedia- Too expensive. Killed

2. That company was Exponential with the X704. Intel bought up their rotting carcass of assets two years ago.

3. There probably was alot of hype about the 604. But amazingly so it's STILL used in IBM's lowest end Server.

I figured Apollo would be slower clock for clock. 3 more pipes and Soi will allow them the be clocked higher but I never thought that would add up to a %30 advantage.

Remove Altivec from a G4 and it should be roughly identical to a G3 in Integer performance. The FPU is better but only on Double Precision math. No Altivec puts the G4 in trouble.
 
Hmmm -- what to wait and hope for...

A 19" iMac or a non-integrated g5 w/o display?

Wonder if there'll be a quad-processor g5 (or a dual-processor iMac)??
 
I'm sure glad I just bought my new Dual Ghz/DDR I'll have at least 2 years to enjoy this before they come out with the new chip by which time maybe I'll be ready to buy a new computer. You can wait and wait and wait and wait....... Or you can enjoy and enjoy and enjoy and enjoy......
 
Re: Re: settle down and take your ritalin.

Originally posted by Telomar


Not sure where your figures are coming from but they are just plain wrong. Apple had a market share in the last financial year of 3.4%, where market share is defined as number of Macs sold divided by total units sold overall. They came in 5th or 6th due to the HP/Compaq merger.

The only positive in their figures is they were on the increase.

I will have to disagree here. In quarter one or two of this year Apple sold more computers then Gateway. Won't argue anything else as I don't know any numbers.
 
Re: Oh Please!

Originally posted by robguz
3-the original PowerPC promise. I remember reading in MacWorld in 1994 how the 604 would be 3X faster than the 601 at the same clock speed. It ended up being 20% faster, and no faster unless programs were "triple fat", meaning 68K, 601, and 604 code optimized. The 620 was also around the corner being yet again 3X faster than the 604. I don't even think the G4 is anywhere near 3X faster at the same clock speed than the 601. Maybe 2X at best on non-altivec functions.


How much of any of what you said can you back up with personal experience. I personally had an 8500/120 that I upgraded the 601 to a 604e at 200Mhz. The difference was a lot more then the 80Mhz difference. In most cases it was 3 times faster but when it came to FPU operations which the 601 did poorly it was more like 10 times faster. In fact my 604e at 200Mhz was in some cases as fast at FPU operations as my friends G3 266/Beige that he had at the time.
 
ddtim and robguz...

....Thankyouthankyouthankyou for being the voices of reason. These continued rumors of amazing new breakthroughs coming the Mac's way are like Saddam Hussein's promises of allowing unconditional weapons inspections. I love the Mac, folks, but am weary of the nonsense. You should be, too.
 
A Little Research Goes a Long Way

First, before anyone gets too excited, has anyone bothered to look at what IBM charges for a RS/6000 based system (PowerPC based)?

Check out this link: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/

The price starts out at nearly $9,000 (not including monitor) for a 250 mhz PowerPC 604E processor, 128 mb of RAM, 9.1 GB of hard drive space (SCSI) and a 10/100 ethernet card.
The 450 mhz Power3-II (64-bit, copper, one processor) starts at $13,000 (monitor not included). That includes 512mb of RAM and up to 4mb of L2 cache.

Now, who actually believes this new Power4 chip will be inexpensive enough for even the highend Power Macs? My GUESS (and I make no claim to have any insider information) is that if Apple uses these chips, they will be for a new tier of workstations aimed a video animation/production and priced accordingly. The current G4 Power Mac line will probably be retained to serve as the consumer desktop line and will have incremental updates, possibly even the G5.

For more information on the Power4 chip, here's the IBM link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html#chip
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.