I mean, that would be a great and wonderfull thing to get one, but is it really necessary? High end G4s are already better than Pentium, so whats the big deal? Im sure we will get one soon, but Apple will probably only realease it when competition gets better chips going.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?
- Thread starter mystixman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. I couldn't care less if the they don't switch to a 64bit chip for another 2 years. As long as we have a 32bit chip that can scale to insane speeds, I'll be happy--well, until i need more than 4gbs of ram anyway.
The competition allready does have 'faster' chips (in most cases, AMD more so than Intel), so YES we DO NEED a G5 sooner rather than later to come out and kick some x86 a$$!!!
Re: Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?
What planet are you on? Apples (with the Motorola G4) cannot go head to head, processor to processor and win against the top of the line Intel or AMD chips. Apple has to put 2 - two CPU in their top of the line machines to even stay somewhat competetive!!!! And they still loose in rendering, after effects and some photoshop filters.
I do 3D animation and I won't be happy until I can do realtime radiosity at dv resolution - that will most likely require 3 or more generations of processors from now, min. Or a new way to stick 32 CPUs in one machine.
D
What planet are you on? Apples (with the Motorola G4) cannot go head to head, processor to processor and win against the top of the line Intel or AMD chips. Apple has to put 2 - two CPU in their top of the line machines to even stay somewhat competetive!!!! And they still loose in rendering, after effects and some photoshop filters.
I do 3D animation and I won't be happy until I can do realtime radiosity at dv resolution - that will most likely require 3 or more generations of processors from now, min. Or a new way to stick 32 CPUs in one machine.
D
no, we don't need G5 chips, as long as windows is still crashing all the time PCs will still be inferior (with few exceptions). so i'd say we'll need the G5 chips after hell freezes over and elvis shows himself.
I say just faster clock speeds. Which is why apple should switch to IBM for their chip needs.
IBM after all is the one researching all sorts of new designs, not motorola.
IBM after all is the one researching all sorts of new designs, not motorola.
Just to defend Motorola here, where's IBM's 1ghz PPC chip??? To my knowledge, the 1ghz Sahara isn't even out yet.
Motorola was the 1st company to ship a 1ghz chip based on the PPC architecture. That's a fact.
Just wait a couple of weeks to see what the updated PowerMacs will be sporting. I'm thinking dual-1.25Ghz G4 (7470) with 2x166mhz bus and DDR. Would that satisfy the "pro" community?
Edited for breaking news from Mac-Minute.
I say we need the G5, if even only in a pure marketing sense. Eventually the consumer is going to say "they've been using the same processor in that thing for [insert high number] years!" Sure, there's improvements made to the same generation chip itself, but the average joe schmoe doesn't know that. All they see is "G3" and "G4", because that's where Apple puts the most emphasis on the processor. Keep in mind, these are the type of people who are wooed by GHz and Pentium 2, 3, 4, etc. and don't know jack about pipeline or cache.
Most PowerMac Applications don't need a G5, but those high-end video applications do I believe. Apple wants to replace SGI workstations with Macs. There may be a new high-end Mac for the G5, or the whole PowerMac line could get it. No software needs to change, since a G5 will run 32 or 64 bit applications normally. Over time, some applications will take advantage of 64 bits when run on a G5. Like altivec, the application uses it only when the processor has it. This is a huge advantage of the PPC family.
funny i never know developers made applications for the Powermac i always thought the made it for the Mac OS. And 'those high-end video applications' like Final Cut Pro you mean...what you saying i cannot install it in an imac???? i think not
Re: Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?
Better than the i586, but the g3 was that generations competition. The i686 the G4 gets killed in with compile, rendering, and encoding times. With Apple is buying up Video editing companies and forcing the users to switch to Mac, they will need a much better chip.
Better than the i586, but the g3 was that generations competition. The i686 the G4 gets killed in with compile, rendering, and encoding times. With Apple is buying up Video editing companies and forcing the users to switch to Mac, they will need a much better chip.
cracker
Are you smoking CR@ck? High End G4 is faster than Pentium 4...maybe Pentium at 1.8 ghz...but not 2.5 ghz...PC already have a dual 2.4 ghz w/ DDR...We are falling further behind every 6 month...By the end of this year PC could reach to 2.8ghz and even closer to 3 ghz...and we are all sitting in our comfortable ergnomic working chair using our dual 1.25 ghz...oh, wait.. 1.24ghz... WOOOHOOOOO SPEED DEMON!!
Anybody is interest in Powermac will desire more faster computer! becoz, we are all professionals designer, filmmaker, etc... We use our MAC 24 hours a day...We want faster computer so we can get things done quicker, so we can have a freaking life then sitting there waiting for our MAC to slowly processing or rendering our works.....MORE POWER!!
If G4 is faster than Pentium why is there rumor about Apple switching to Intel??
Apple should consider using Intel or AMD chip now! all they will kiss their 5% market goodbye!
By they way, Jaguar is freaking awesome! and again we need hardware to run it...
C ya guys tomorrow...
Are you smoking CR@ck? High End G4 is faster than Pentium 4...maybe Pentium at 1.8 ghz...but not 2.5 ghz...PC already have a dual 2.4 ghz w/ DDR...We are falling further behind every 6 month...By the end of this year PC could reach to 2.8ghz and even closer to 3 ghz...and we are all sitting in our comfortable ergnomic working chair using our dual 1.25 ghz...oh, wait.. 1.24ghz... WOOOHOOOOO SPEED DEMON!!
Anybody is interest in Powermac will desire more faster computer! becoz, we are all professionals designer, filmmaker, etc... We use our MAC 24 hours a day...We want faster computer so we can get things done quicker, so we can have a freaking life then sitting there waiting for our MAC to slowly processing or rendering our works.....MORE POWER!!
If G4 is faster than Pentium why is there rumor about Apple switching to Intel??
Apple should consider using Intel or AMD chip now! all they will kiss their 5% market goodbye!
By they way, Jaguar is freaking awesome! and again we need hardware to run it...
C ya guys tomorrow...
It's been out for at least six months. It's not in any Apple systems, but it's available, according to IBM's website.
Alex,
I've seen that you've posted that the 1ghz G3 has been out, but you've never said who's using it. Don't you find it strange that IBM never mentions who the users are?
Besides, that doesn't change the fact that Motorola was the 1st to ship a 1ghz PPC chip. And they'll be the first to ship a 1ghz+ chip as well.
Not really, that would be like Hershey mentioning who eats its candy bars, or Levi's releasing the names of certain customers of its 501s.
I think this is true, unless you count the IBM Power4, which is a superset of a PowerPC. The Power4 was available and running at 1.3GHz last fall.
I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make here - just posting meaningless and inconsequential comments I guess.
We do not need G5, some people do, depending of your work. If you are in to gamimng, word procesing, audio or photoshop stuff with the actual speed you are just fine, just need some ram.
Now, if you are in to video and 3D animation, we are about there, I would asume we are 60% there just because of the rendering needs. My computer (dual 500 with 320ram) takes some 24 hours to do a 2D render 30fps, 720x480, 5 minutes animation. And 3D may take longer.
Yes, some people and there is a lot of room in the industry for G5, the thing is that most of the design areas are furfill, at list until some developer require more from your computer.
Now, if you are in to video and 3D animation, we are about there, I would asume we are 60% there just because of the rendering needs. My computer (dual 500 with 320ram) takes some 24 hours to do a 2D render 30fps, 720x480, 5 minutes animation. And 3D may take longer.
Yes, some people and there is a lot of room in the industry for G5, the thing is that most of the design areas are furfill, at list until some developer require more from your computer.
I don't know about you weak *ss video, music, etc. editors with your fancy final cut pro and your music editors and mixers, but I'm a lawyer and damnit, I need more processing power. There's nothing more frustrating than when you're pecking away with two fingers on the keyboard and you decide to save your pleading, and open quicken or something else, and it takes more than a few seconds. That just annoys the heck out of me, so damnit, I don't just want, I need more processing power for my power computing.
You are half right. Developers write for Mac OS and compiled for the PPC. Even if a Mac OS were ported to an Intel processor, it could not run applications made for the Mac computer. Another version would need to be made for Intel. You're point about my use of PowerMac is well taken; I should have said Mac.
Also, my fault for being too vague about high-end video. I was not speaking of things like Final Cut Pro, which runs fine on present day Macs. I was referring to those high-end companies Apple has been buying. These applications are used by the film industry to make special effects in movies like Lord of the Rings. Right now they use heavy duty workstations. The Mac cannot run this stuff yet, at least not well enough for professional use. I think that may apply to Maya too.
Re: Re: Do we REALLY need a G5 Processor?
Dukestreet and Mymemory each raise a point very near and dear to me: REAL WORLD BENCHMARK OBJECTIVES!!! While I too would like a Mac that indisputably kicks the ass of any x86 machine, I fancy myself a practical person.
So, what does one need the speed for????? Well, our two colleagues, and others too, have just raised two examples. If you guys would be interested in differentiating macrumors from ALL OF THE OTHER WEBSITES on the web, we should open a thread whereby we post our real world benchmark objectives. For example, MYmemory may state realistically that he wants to complete his 2D render specified above in six hours while also running email, web browsing, and other light applications. When we've collected and perhaps voted on these objectives (with target dates), Arn can publish them on a separate page somewhere.
On a similar line, we could also quantify the opportunity cost of "slow" computers to certain professional folk as Dukestreet and Mymemory.
I'm a product manager in a different industry. My decisions, and the decisions of my superiors, are heavily influenced and ideally driven by such quantified figures: objectives and opportunity costs for customers. If you really want Apple to FEEL YOUR PAIN, doing this would yield positive results!!!
Some have noted in many threads here that we tend to whine quite a bit. With macrumors posting objectives and opportunity cost figures, it and we would stand head and shoulders above all other mac sites/forums as a group of folk that are damned serious about their computing and don't just whine about being slower than x86 computers. We've got some pretty smart and knowledgeable folk here that can contribute.
Now, I don't do 2D graphics or anything of the sort. When I return to the Mac, soon I hope, I will take up these things as a hobby (Tivo-like stuff big time). So, I have no objectives or figures to contribute to help get the ball rolling. But I would hope that Arn and others would take up the challenge and grip Apple by the short-hairs with facts and figures!
Dukestreet and Mymemory each raise a point very near and dear to me: REAL WORLD BENCHMARK OBJECTIVES!!! While I too would like a Mac that indisputably kicks the ass of any x86 machine, I fancy myself a practical person.
So, what does one need the speed for????? Well, our two colleagues, and others too, have just raised two examples. If you guys would be interested in differentiating macrumors from ALL OF THE OTHER WEBSITES on the web, we should open a thread whereby we post our real world benchmark objectives. For example, MYmemory may state realistically that he wants to complete his 2D render specified above in six hours while also running email, web browsing, and other light applications. When we've collected and perhaps voted on these objectives (with target dates), Arn can publish them on a separate page somewhere.
On a similar line, we could also quantify the opportunity cost of "slow" computers to certain professional folk as Dukestreet and Mymemory.
I'm a product manager in a different industry. My decisions, and the decisions of my superiors, are heavily influenced and ideally driven by such quantified figures: objectives and opportunity costs for customers. If you really want Apple to FEEL YOUR PAIN, doing this would yield positive results!!!
Some have noted in many threads here that we tend to whine quite a bit. With macrumors posting objectives and opportunity cost figures, it and we would stand head and shoulders above all other mac sites/forums as a group of folk that are damned serious about their computing and don't just whine about being slower than x86 computers. We've got some pretty smart and knowledgeable folk here that can contribute.
Now, I don't do 2D graphics or anything of the sort. When I return to the Mac, soon I hope, I will take up these things as a hobby (Tivo-like stuff big time). So, I have no objectives or figures to contribute to help get the ball rolling. But I would hope that Arn and others would take up the challenge and grip Apple by the short-hairs with facts and figures!
well, it looks like you're right, since the new powermac releases show that Mot's crappy G4s obviously can't be scaled high enough for our demands. Hopefully IBM can do better with their G3s and G5s.