Dual Core PowerMac G5 Updates?

[blitzkrieg79]

Okay, I see what you're saying but those IBM/Toshiba/Sony Cell processors aren't for personal computers so it's kinda hard to compare it to X86.

CELL is a concept (multiple core specialized at particular tasks; MS Word runs perfectly fine on a 1 GHZ machine anyway, its the multimedia apps that need the extra horsepower anyway), its not just one processor, I am more than sure that IBM/Apple could have come up with a general purpose computing CELL-like processor within 12-18 months (and considering that STI has been working on the CELL for the past 4 years, maybe Apple could have been on it too)

 

[gangst]

I've read a lot of the posts on this topic and I know that ThinkSecret are pretty reliable, but what do you think the chances of this rumour happening before the end of the month are?

 

[DrNeroCF]

Jeez guys, every time I start thinking that my Powerbook is obsolete speed wise, someone posts a link that makes me feel all better. That Thinkpad... .1 ghz lower, 40 gig hdd less, 512 less ram, non widescreen, smaller, and nearly 2000 bucks more.... plus my graphire 3 kicks that thing's tablet-pen screen deal up and down... okay... so 'select models' get nearly twice the batter life, with all those lower specs though, I can't say I'm surprised.

Someone want to clue me in on exactly what's wrong with the Powerbook line at the moment?

 

[oskar]

I agree - the iMacs are actually very solid machines right now, so I think Apple is going to concentrate on other areas for now before they look at updating the iMacs again.

Someone had previously stated this: Recently, there have been no major updates to any Mac. I think the last new things we've seen were the iMac and then the Mac mini. So if a new processor (dual core) was put into a current PowerMac or iMac, wouldn't it be just a "normal" update? In other words, wouldn't those be revision C or D and not revision A macs?

I think the next iMac (rev A) we'll see will be x86-based. In fact I think the iMac will be the first computer to have an Intel processor in it. I believe it was the iMac that helped Apple open up to the consumer market in the late 90's. I would imagine that they could use that for marketing new ones.

 

[oskar]

Someone want to clue me in on exactly what's wrong with the Powerbook line at the moment?

I don't think you want to talk about that on this thread. There are many people who'd tell you what they think is wrong with the PowerBook line. At least I'm not one of them. I'm more than happy with my PB right now.

 

[~Shard~]

In fact I think the iMac will be the first computer to have an Intel processor in it.

I highly doubt it, but I guess we'll see. I think there are many other machines that deserve or are in need of an Intel upgrade before the iMac. As I said, it's a solid machine, with a lot of room to grow on the PPC side. The portables are what could use Intel chips, so that's where I see the first Intel chips going. If it ain't broke, don't fix it - the iMac is arguably the strongest computer right now in terms of power, features and price, so why mess with it?

 

[powerbook911]

I think the next iMac (rev A) we'll see will be x86-based. In fact I think the iMac will be the first computer to have an Intel processor in it. I believe it was the iMac that helped Apple open up to the consumer market in the late 90's. I would imagine that they could use that for marketing new ones.

You're right that the next rev A iMac will be an Intel, but it will not be the first to go to Intel. The iMac G5 is a brilliant machine that combines features, speed, and a good value. The portables need intel way before the iMac.

 

[blitzkrieg79]

Who says that Apple will replace the current lineup with Intel processors and not for example offer at the same time iMac with same form factor with either an Intel or PPC for a limited period? Or maybe Apple will introduce totally new product lines (with new naming schemes) to go along with the current PPCs and slowly phase PPC lines out?

I think that Apple will concurrently sell Intels and PPC for a while, Jobs said that the transition is supposedly to be ready by 2007 but we know how Jobs likes to exagurrate and overblow everything out of proportion...

 

[oskar]

I don't think they'd do that. Selling a computer with it's obvious replacement next to it wouldn't be a very good way to sell either of them, IMO. You can see the way they think with the iPod nano replacing the iPod mini. If Apple wants the transition to be faster they'd better stop selling the predecessor as soon as the x86 version of any Mac is available.

I guess Apple Expo Paris will give us a hint as to what Apple will do for the coming months. That's what makes this rumor all more believable. Apple wants to keep selling good Macs, but not hold a keynote about something that doesn't have much of a future in their major plan which is the transition to Intel.

 

[~Shard~]

You're right that the next rev A iMac will be an Intel, but it will not be the first to go to Intel. The iMac G5 is a brilliant machine that combines features, speed, and a good value. The portables need intel way before the iMac.

You could save yourself some time next time by just cutting and pasting my reply right above yours instead of typing out the exact same thing.

Seriously, thanks for reinforcing my points.

 

[ktlx]

CELL is a concept (multiple core specialized at particular tasks; MS Word runs perfectly fine on a 1 GHZ machine anyway, its the multimedia apps that need the extra horsepower anyway), its not just one processor, I am more than sure that IBM/Apple could have come up with a general purpose computing CELL-like processor within 12-18 months (and considering that STI has been working on the CELL for the past 4 years, maybe Apple could have been on it too)

I wish you would stop repeating this. You haven't described CELL correctly in any of your posts. Please read http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars and http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-2.ars. CELL has a single general purpose core with multiple attached DSP cores.

What Intel is moving toward is a multiple general purpose core design. Please read http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/multi-core/. This is similar to Sun's Niagara plan. Please read http://www.sun.com/processors/throughput/.

There are lots and lots and lots of potential workstation applications that would benefit from CPUs with multiple general purpose cores. There are lots and lots and lots of existing server applications that would benefit from CPUs with multiple general purpose cores. There is more to life that Microsoft Word and H.264 encoding.

 

[GrimStranger]

You could save yourself some time next time by just cutting and pasting my reply right above yours instead of typing out the exact same thing.

Seriously, thanks for reinforcing my points.

pb911 thinks that iMac will NOT be the first to go Intel and portables should instead be the first to do so

 

[~Shard~]

pb911 thinks that iMac will NOT be the first to go Intel and portables should instead be the first to do so

Exactly - which is the exact same thing I said - hence my fun little comment. Thanks for pointing this out yet again though, we can never have enough clarification on this point evidently.

 

[DavidCar]

I've read a lot of the posts on this topic and I know that ThinkSecret are pretty reliable, but what do you think the chances of this rumour happening before the end of the month are?

Someone in another thread indicated their company should receive an IBM product that uses a 970MP by the end of October, so the processor seems to be available soon. And it seems clear Apple has had samples for a long time, and that the OS is ready for four cores, according to indications this past spring. So probably the availability of the processor has been why it has not come out sooner, and I would think they would want to talk about it at the Paris Q&A session, rather than avoid the question. It doesn't seem sensible to avoid discussing it at Paris, then announce it by the end of the month, so I expect we'll hear something Tuesday.

 

[Roller]

Jeez guys, every time I start thinking that my Powerbook is obsolete speed wise, someone posts a link that makes me feel all better. That Thinkpad... .1 ghz lower, 40 gig hdd less, 512 less ram, non widescreen, smaller, and nearly 2000 bucks more.... plus my graphire 3 kicks that thing's tablet-pen screen deal up and down... okay... so 'select models' get nearly twice the batter life, with all those lower specs though, I can't say I'm surprised.

Someone want to clue me in on exactly what's wrong with the Powerbook line at the moment?

I'm generally happy with my 1.25 GHz AlBook, except for:

1. Poor battery life.

2. Runs hot.

3. The case scratches easily. My Lombard looked better after years of rough handling.

 

[powerbook911]

Exactly - which is the exact same thing I said - hence my fun little comment. Thanks for pointing this out yet again though, we can never have enough clarification on this point evidently.

I never thought my post would lead to so many posts. Sorry, I didn't read yours, when I hit reply.

I agree with you though!! Good call.

 

[~Shard~]

I never thought my post would lead to so many posts. Sorry, I didn't read yours, when I hit reply.

I agree with you though!! Good call.

It's all good my friend.

 

[sum1]

NEW G5s?

I just noticed the "NEW" blue burst that accompanied each PowerMac G5 model on the Apple Store Website has been removed very recently. Would that indicate Apple is on the verge of updating the newer systems? I have been pushing back the purchase of a new PoweMac for the past month hoping for a soon to be released Dual Dual.

 

[~Shard~]

I just noticed the "NEW" blue burst that accompanied each PowerMac G5 model on the Apple Store Website has been removed very recently. Would that indicate Apple is on the verge of updating the newer systems? I have been pushing back the purchase of a new PoweMac for the past month hoping for a soon to be released Dual Dual.

That could definitely be a good sign. As I've said many times before, I see the next PowerMac revision happening fairly soon, and it will be a revision to dual-core PPC 970s. These will last throughout 2006 (probably with a minor speed bump/upgrade mid-way through) until the Intel-based PowerMacs come out late 2006/early 2007 utilizing the Conroe/Woodcrest chipsets.

 

[barneygumble]

Judgeing from the ship times, i expect only a new high end model only at prob $3500, we'll see i guess, and shard shouldn't you be on your honeymoon, please tell me your not posting here while you should be doing other things

 

[powerbook911]

When you change any BTO item on the Powermacs, it changes to 2-4 days. I suspect they will be updated this week and ship immediately.

 

[Evangelion]

• Does the O/S understand the difference between logical and physical CPUs, and do a good job of scheduling threads? (Win2K/Linux2.4 - bad, XP/Linux2.6 - OK, Win2k3 - good)

• 
  
  AFAIK, Linux 2.6 has very good support for physical and logical CPU's. Even better than XP IIRC. 2.4 treats them as regular multiprocessor-machines.

 

[Evangelion]

yeh Im one of them and if this is really the case legal action will be sought as Ive only had this machine for about 6 weeks.If a machine is released with almost double the power but for the same price,trust me I will get a refund or a replacement whether it be from apple or my Amex credit card company

Do you want some cheese with that whine?

 

[minimax]

A lot of people are repeating themselves in this thread (powerbooks first!).
What I'm interested in is the future line-up of the powermac. A dual dual 2 Ghz would have no purpose in the line-up as it is about as fast as the dual 2.7 GHz.
So that leaves the discussion: will Apple replace some dual models for a single dualcore or will there be only dualcore at the high-end? And in that case, will there be one or two new models added?

 

[Hattig]

A lot of people are repeating themselves in this thread (powerbooks first!).

I just think that if there aren't any new PowerBooks until January, it means that Freescale are dragging their heels again and aren't yet ready to sell the 7448 in mass quantities.

I don't think that Apple will:

a) Release any Intel based Macs until April or May of 2006
b) Migrate a professional line before the corresponding consumer line.

I think the Mac Mini and iBook will be the first systems to feature Intel processors. Probably Yonah in both cases. I just hope that Apple doesn't mess up and use the single core Yonah product, I want the dual-core Yonah in at least the Mac Mini. At the same time I think the PowerBook will get a dual-core G4 so that Apple aren't stuck in a situation of selling a dual-core iBook against a single core Powerbook.