Dual Core PowerMac G5 Updates?

[djkny]

MacRumors should edit their buying guide for PowerBooks to "Buy Now." The "Don't buy" bit based on their current timetable is misleading, esp. if TS is right about their predictions.

4 months until the next possible update is a LONG time in tech terms.

In fact, MR should come up with a new category altogether: "Buy Now at Apple's premium price suckers." Here's to SJ the freak capitalist.

 

[Ino]

OK, glad we got that out of the way. Back to dual dual speculation

Even though the performance wouldn't be 10GHz, dual dual 2.5GHz processors still add up to 10GHz (strictly speaking arithmetically) - which does wonders for marketing...which I fear is also pretty good (for Apple's bottom line, not wallet) grounds for increasing the price. A dual dual 2.5 at current dual 2.7 prices seems too good to be true...to even do a dual dual 2.0 at current dual 2.7 prices...what do you guys think? Maybe we'll see dual duals at only the highest end PM...

 

[AidenShaw]

"portability" means many things

Quite frankly, people buy laptops for portability. Period.

Yes, but "portability" means:

• Carrying a sub 3 lb super portable from meeting to meeting, trip to trip, day after day
• A mid-sized desktop on the go, 6 lbs OK
• A home system where "portable" means that the system is put on a shelf or in a drawer when not in use (rather than taking up deskspace all the time)
• A professional workstation that's packed in shipping crates along with hundreds of pounds of other audio and video gear.

Yes, "portability" is a common theme, but it means different things. It doesn't fit in a 2x2 matrix.

 

[~loserman~]

OK, glad we got that out of the way. Back to dual dual speculation

Even though the performance wouldn't be 10GHz, dual dual 2.5GHz processors still add up to 10GHz (strictly speaking arithmetically) - which does wonders for marketing...which I fear is also pretty good (for Apple's bottom line, not wallet) grounds for increasing the price. A dual dual 2.5 at current dual 2.7 prices seems too good to be true...to even do a dual dual 2.0 at current dual 2.7 prices...what do you guys think? Maybe we'll see dual duals at only the highest end PM...

I would doubt that a dual-dual PM at 2.5 Ghz would sell for much higher than $1000 to $1500 more than the current 2.7 lineup.

 

[Hattig]

They are referring to single core chips...dual cores don't work as fast as dual chips, especially since app optimizations rarely share the threads in a clean manner...so the improvement is over single chips...don't expect something amazing, unless Apple releases DUAL dual cores...then we're gonna have THA real bomb once more...

?

You're thinking of something like HyperThreading or SMT. Not dual cores. That, or the fact that dual processors aren't twice as fast as one processor, normally only 50% to 80% faster.

Dual cores put two processor cores on the same piece of silicon. Depending on who you are, you connect them together at different places:

IBM: Shared L2 IIRC, 2MB, so cores are connected together at the L2.
AMD: 1MB L2 per core, cores connect together within the processor.
Intel: Cores connect to each other via the FSB, i.e., they're basically dual-processors on the same processor package.

As you can see, dual-core is pretty much the same as dual processor. The differences are:

1) Shared bus as opposed to dedicated bus per processor (applies to AMD and IBM only, Intel is always shared)
2) Faster core->core communications (AMD, IBM again).

Intel will fix their dual core issues one day, but until then they are still going to generally be dual-processors on the same package. I think that Yonah or Merom is the processor to fix this, and use a shared L2 cache like the 970MP.

 

[bodeh6]

2 Comments

1. WiFi and Bluetooth should just remain options like they currently are. Some people have no use for one or the other and if they need it, they can add it as an option. Desktops do not need these options standard.

2. The Powerbook should be updated now 7 months after the last revision and also it will probably be updated again in February. Computers are ever evolving and updating Desktops/Laptops once a year is not good for the industry. 6 month intervals are ideal especially for laptops.

 

[neutrino23]

... I'd buy a last gen PB w/ a 7448 or 8641D over a first gen Intel anyday.

Amen to that. I'm looking forward to a nice PB upgrade before the intel product comes. I want something to run all my apps safely at full speed. In two or three years it will be safe to switch to an intel based Mac.

Besides a processor update I'd like to see a quieter keyboard, brighter screen, longer battery life, faster DVD burner, better WiFi reception, more FW ports. In other words, there is lots that could be updated in the PB besides the processor.

I don't expect the PB to use an intel processor till about a year from now, maybe MWSF 2007.

 

[riversky]

What do you think?

As much as I would like to see a change, I doubt it will be black powerbooks. The nano is an iPod. Do they still make chrome Macs? No, even though they make chrome iPods. Why didn't they release a special edition U2 Powerbook? There is little correlation between iPod style and Powerbook style. And now that the iPod mini is no more, it was replaced with a chromed back nano, there is no hope that the regular iPod will become anodized aluminum. Many people thought (including me) that the iPods where following the macs style for a while. The chrome iMac G4, PowerMac G4 were followed by chrome iPods (iPods were chrome from the start is what I mean). The anodized aluminum Powerbook and powermac followed by the iPod mini. But the nano just screwed that whole link up. Black powerbooks wont be coming anytime soon, go to colorware.com for that.

So after I made the black PowerBook comment some people said, not happening. Well who would have thought MacTel....Now I don't know but what do people think. The line WAS all black at one time.

You know that is will be a COMPLETELY new design and probably color, which Apple has always done. One thing is for sure it will NOT be the current machine in factor or color. Even the PowerMacs will look totally different. What do you think?


You've noticed that black is replacing silver as the IN color. Nano, black Motot RaZR, fashion and car sales are dropping for silver.

 

[Hattig]

(comments on thread starting https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/1740048/)

Maybe you've noticed that the PowerMac is already sucking up so much power that it has a water cooling system? What's a few more watts among friends?

This is the kind of emotional reaction that I implied with the "eating crow" comment.

The issue isn't power consumption, it is power density. The 970FX is < 70mm^2 in size. You need a good system to remove something that could be generating around 1W/mm^2 of heat, even though the overall power consumption is less than your average Intel Pentium 4 processor.

Dual dual Xeon systems would make a lot of sense as a transition system...

• Apple could continue to sell PPC970 and PPC970MP PowerMac G5's alongside the quad Xeons
• The quad Xeons would be very useful for developer systems - how's anyone going to port and code 3D apps and games against the embedded graphics on the DTK? Give them real PCI Express x16 graphics and PCI Express I/O slots! (And Apple could *sell* these to any developer...)
• Quad Xeons would give the companies who have ported their high end apps a high end market to sell to, instead of having the x86 ports sitting on a shelf (or not being ported).
• The development costs would be tiny - like the DTK systems, Apple could put a standard Intel workstation motherboard into the PMG5 case - there's plenty of room.
• The quad Xeons would be good for developers who are working on the 64-bit port to x64 - Apple can't wait for 64-bit Pentium M systems to *start* the x64 porting process. They can *sell* the systems to developers now.

Just like Apple had a transition period where some Macs could boot both OS9 and OSX, Apple will need a transition period where it sells PowerMacs that can run both CPU architectures.

Please no. Xeons suck. Seriously. Intel will have dual-core Xeons out by the end of this year, but they'll still suck. Nasty, power-hungry beasts.

PowerMacs will be the last to be upgraded, when the server versions of Merom are produced in 2007. These 970MPs will be plenty good enough until then, if Apple put two in a PowerMac anyway.

I believe that the IBM system controller that works with the 970MP has on-board PCI-Express, but I guess we'll find out in the next week or so.

The only thing I agree with you is that Apple will have a transition period with both architectures available.

 

[~Shard~]

Please no. Xeons suck. Seriously. Intel will have dual-core Xeons out by the end of this year, but they'll still suck. Nasty, power-hungry beasts.

PowerMacs will be the last to be upgraded, when the server versions of Merom are produced in 2007. These 970MPs will be plenty good enough until then, if Apple put two in a PowerMac anyway.

I'm not a big fan of the Xeons myself, and I don't know if Apple would indeed do this. The whole point, in my mind, of Apple's switch to Intel, was to capitalize on the new, exciting chips coming out, not incorporate existing chips. This is why I believe the PowerMacs, as you stated, will be the last Apple product to be upgraded to Intel, as this fits with Intel's roadmap for the Conroe and Woodcrest chips - the chips that in my mind, Apple should have its eyes on for the PowerMac. With these not being released until later in 2006 though, I don't see an Intel-based PowerMac quite possibly until 2007. That is why I think we will see a dual-core 970 system in the very near future, with significant updates, followed by another speed boost sometime in 2006, to tide us over until the Intel machines came out. Jobs said there were still some exciting PPC products in the pipeline, so my guess is that he's referring to these dual-core 970s.

Of course, I always could be wrong - just my thoughts.

 

[BWhaler]

PBs not till MWSF!!!! What??? at least they'll be intel... hopefully

Not a chance, and trust me you don't want it.

Native software won't be available until summertime. So expect the _first_ of the Intel Macs in June.

This actually makes sense to me not to update the PB line until January. Sales will slow down as June draws near, so giving by giving their most important segment a sweet update will be essential to driving sales.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yikes!

Re: last two Xeon comments....

My arguments aren't that a quad MacIntel Xeon is a mainstream system, but that:

• Apple will need a 64-bit developer machine, and it will be better to *sell* them than to update the DTK to dual dual-core.
• High end pro software houses are going to drag their feet on OSX86 ports if their customers cannot buy higher end MacIntel systems.

Look at it as a "MacIntel Yikes!" (especially if PowerMac sales drop drastically because of the upcoming transition).

It isn't the flagship PowerMac (that'll be the dual 970MP), but an *option* that's available to customers who need/want it.

No matter how much your emotions say that Xeons suck, Intel sells millions of them. Shouldn't Apple try for a piece of that pie?

 

[morespce54]

My question is, will the G5's currently available from third-party stores (such as CompUSA) be marked down in price to make room for the newly updated models?

...mmmmm.... no.... sorry!

 

[jiv3turkey748]

nice to see some rumors on hardware updates its seems like its been a while since apple did any updates

 

[Object-X]

Intel already sells dual-core CPUS.

32 or 64 bit.

Plus a dual-core with HT.

That's 2 X 2 on one chip folks.

I'm not asking about dual core I'm asking about whether Intel chips can handle dual dual core; that is two dual core chips on one motherboard. AMD has this but I have not seen an Intel version.

 

[50548]

?

You're thinking of something like HyperThreading or SMT. Not dual cores. That, or the fact that dual processors aren't twice as fast as one processor, normally only 50% to 80% faster.

Dual cores put two processor cores on the same piece of silicon. Depending on who you are, you connect them together at different places:

IBM: Shared L2 IIRC, 2MB, so cores are connected together at the L2.
AMD: 1MB L2 per core, cores connect together within the processor.
Intel: Cores connect to each other via the FSB, i.e., they're basically dual-processors on the same processor package.

As you can see, dual-core is pretty much the same as dual processor. The differences are:

1) Shared bus as opposed to dedicated bus per processor (applies to AMD and IBM only, Intel is always shared)
2) Faster core->core communications (AMD, IBM again).

Intel will fix their dual core issues one day, but until then they are still going to generally be dual-processors on the same package. I think that Yonah or Merom is the processor to fix this, and use a shared L2 cache like the 970MP.

But that's what I said...unless something new comes out, dual cores SHARE the FSB, instead of having independent pathways for each processor in case of dual chips...

Dual cores have as presumed advantages just little less heat dissipation and lower space requirements (so form factor can be further adjusted for them)...but performance-wise, they are AT MOST in the same level as dual chips...and that's what the 50-80% speed increase shows...almost the same increase as dual processors (since they are never equal to a 100% increase over single processors as well).

 

[DavidCar]

I think that the comment was a little harsh. Most on the forum recommend not purchasing the Rev A model of a Mac. There could be compatibility issues.

I would think there is enough similarity between a 970 and 970MP that they would get it right the first time, particularly since it shouldn't have the same power density issues. (I'm looking for a reason not to wait for a Rev. B. But I will wait for the first reviews.)

 

[anastasis]

I have not read any of the posts in this thread so far, but here is my two cents on the blurb about the Powerbook. I personally would rather Apple not release anything until they are ready to release them with the new Intel Chips. I think that there is a pretty good chance that they will be first on the conversion block since they are struggling the most.

 

[dizastor]

G5 is based on POWER5

I thought that the G5 was based on the POWER4? Have they upgraded the architecture?

 

[shawnce]

I thought that the G5 was based on the POWER4? Have they upgraded the architecture?

The PPC 970 and PPC 970/fx ("G5") is derived from the Power4, so no they haven't upgraded the architecture for those.

It is likely (and rumored) the PPC 980(/MP) is more of a Power5 derived core then a Power4 one.

 

[BakedBeans]

if these come out in the next month i will be getting one, im looking forward to '' the next step forward'' in terms of powermacs, i would love the dual dual asap

 

[jiggie2g]

If as you say they're going to design a new motherboard anyway, why not replace AGP with PCI-E while they're at it? The marginal cost is likely trivial.

I never said they were going to design a new motherboard , i said they will no longer have to keep making dual sock MB which cost almost 2-3 times as much as a standard Mobo.

Why would apple desing a new Mobo from scrach when they already have single socket G5 boards from Rev. A and B powermacs. Apple should go PCIe but they are cheap skates when it comes to this kind of stuff so i doubt it.

In the Meantime I'll keep playing Doom 3 at HQ 1280x1024 4xAA+8xAF at 60+ FPS on my PCIe Geforce 7800GT + Athlon X2 system.

 

[50548]

I think you hit the nail on the head (Apple's Corporate EGO).

This has always bothered me about Apple. They consistantly tell the user what they need, rather than listening to the needs of the user.

They never allow the user to custom configure anything because according to Apple it would destroy the "Apple Experience" or it wouldn't be proper "GUI design etiquette" etc. etc.

Look at the two-button mouse arguement, the lack of OS interface customization, the lack of component selection on new hardware, and the lack of product selection.

Apple claims it is part of the keep it simple, elegant, and "just works" beauty of Apple. It sounds like BS to me. I think Apple believes they know better what you want than you do. A typical, top down, "EGO driven", control freak, corporate attitude.

Then you guys must have forgotten the last dark years of Sculley and Spindler, when Apple was screaming exactly the mantra that you defend now..."let the consumer decide", "let us build custom solutions for everyone", "let us have a different product for each and every Joe out there"...

The biggest reason for the Apple blunders in the mid-90s was the insane plethora of industrial lines, designs and market segments, that ended up driving its revenue downwards like a monstrous anchor in the ocean (what was the difference between the Quadra 605, Performa 400 and Performa 427 again??).

Apple's success nowadays is not necessarily related to telling "what the user needs"...it's about streamlining production and doing EXACTLY what the rest doesn't do...

The "1 inch thickness" is just one of those rules, as the purported GUI stability and the indispensable hardware-software combination that only Macs have. This decreases the need for multiple technical support, lowers costs and keeps the "difference" in favor of the brand...

I truly hope Apple doesn't follow anything that you say right now, because it's wrong as hell, and Jobs has seen it before back in 1996...simple as that.

p.s.: and yes, the mouse is still ONE-BUTTON...only Apple's been able to deliver functionality without sacrificing design and UI coherence.

 

[visualanté]

i know to many biased views....u need to b blind not to see it

You can't win this arguement here but I agree with you completely.

Apple hasn't updated their PB displays in 3 - 4 years. They also insist on keeping a 'lower than industry normal' dpi resolution.

Even though people here will tell you not to trust your own eyes and own comparisons. They also complain about not being able to read text on higher resolution screens even though they have fully scalable fonts and they eventually end up printing at higher resolutions anyway.

The facts are that Apple's current PB displays are about 2 generations behind state-of-the-art and 'ARE' in need of an upgrade.

 

[digitalbiker]

Not necessarily better now!

Then you guys must have forgotten the last dark years of Sculley and Spindler, when Apple was screaming exactly the mantra that you defend now..."let the consumer decide", "let us build custom solutions for everyone", "let us have a different product for each and every Joe out there"...

I like Apple products and I count on them to be innovative about developing new products and improving on old products.

From 1999 to 2001, Jobs and company did a great job. They released great products. Their hardware was second to none, performance-wise and design-wise. When the first TI 500mhz machine was released it was stunning.

But since 2002 the Apple computer line has gone stale. The hardware is old, the performance has fallen behind competitors and the price has not come down.

I will put up with the Apple corporate EGO dictating limited product lines, non-user customizable OS and limited hardware choices as long as Apple is innovating and delivering. But lately the computer line hasn't. We now have limited choice in the portable line and bad choices at that!

Sorry for the rant. I really do like Apple computers, I am just frustrated that Apple hasn't released anything decent in quite awhile.