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

Dual Core PowerMac G5 Updates?

BWhaler said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would you like to make a friendly wager on that? :) Powerbooks are all but certain to be introduced at MWSF. Intel has pushed up the availability of it's Napa platform to January , which means theoretically, powerbooks could be introed with shipping available near immediately. Whether this happens or not is entirely up to Apple, as im positive there will be PC companies using this chip before the month of Febuary.

Furthermore; the current Pentium M crushes todays powerbook G4. What do you think one with improved (shared)Cache size, branch prediction, bus speed, and oh yeah....DUAL CORE spell for the future. Non-native apps would probably run things faster than todays Powerbooks anyway so who cares? As for altivec-enabled apps that haven't yet made the transition, most are able to still run, they just fall back to non-altivec code optimizations. A great deal of "Pro" apps that require altivec (Photoshop notwithstanding), are Apple apps to begin with, so I'm sure they'll be updated in time.

This is the most exciting time to be an Apple user in my opinion. We finally have parity with the PC-world in terms of raw power, yet still maintain the overwhelming lead in terms of softwared design and implementation. We can finally compare Apple's to Apple's (sorry....had to say it)

P.S- come january, and this post doesnt come to fruition I disavow all knowledge of said post.. :D
 
toneloco2881 said:
Furthermore; the current Pentium M crushes todays powerbook G4.
Click to expand...

I think this is highly exagerated. The Pentium-M is a great chip and excels in low power operation as well as fast integer performance. It also has a much better FSB speed than the G4.

However floating point performance for the RISC PPC G4 is much faster. In addition Alti-Vec is necessary for video and audio applications that perform multiple encoding and decoding operations.

Adobe has stated that native x86-Mac apps are going to take much longer and will be much harder to produce than SJ let on at the WWDC.

Adobe is Apple's premier elite 3rd party software vendor and their Creative suite probably won't be x86 native until early 2007.

Rosetta performance is targeted to be equivalent to a 800 Mhz G3 machine. How many professionals who need mobility are going to buy Mactel PB in January with no native software.

Even OS X for x86 is still being developed.

Good luck on that Intel PB in January wager. :rolleyes:
 
toneloco2881 said:
Would you like to make a friendly wager on that? :) Powerbooks are all but certain to be introduced at MWSF. Intel has pushed up the availability of it's Napa platform to January , which means theoretically, powerbooks could be introed with shipping available near immediately. Whether this happens or not is entirely up to Apple, as im positive there will be PC companies using this chip before the month of Febuary.

Furthermore; the current Pentium M crushes todays powerbook G4. What do you think one with improved (shared)Cache size, branch prediction, bus speed, and oh yeah....DUAL CORE spell for the future. Non-native apps would probably run things faster than todays Powerbooks anyway so who cares? As for altivec-enabled apps that haven't yet made the transition, most are able to still run, they just fall back to non-altivec code optimizations. A great deal of "Pro" apps that require altivec (Photoshop notwithstanding), are Apple apps to begin with, so I'm sure they'll be updated in time.

This is the most exciting time to be an Apple user in my opinion. We finally have parity with the PC-world in terms of raw power, yet still maintain the overwhelming lead in terms of softwared design and implementation. We can finally compare Apple's to Apple's (sorry....had to say it)

P.S- come january, and this post doesnt come to fruition I disavow all knowledge of said post.. :D
Click to expand...

My sister has one of those middle of the line Pentium M notebooks and I wouldn't call it a Powerbook crusher especially in Photoshop and video editing...

Considering that the current G4 architecture has gone 3-4 years without a substancial update only shows Apple/Motorolas engineering skills... I just don't buy that whole performance per watt jibberish, Apple and Intel went to each others bed for some other yet to be know reason...

In 06-07 I would love to pit Powerbooks based on Yonah and the new Motorolas and somehow I have a feeling that Yonahs wouldn't be so great...

What really intrigued or maybe pissed me off was that after Apple announced the Intel switch, all of a sudden Motorola and IBM announced all those cool processors, I just don't know what the deal with that is... Maybe it was Apple that played games, who really knows, not me...

Considering that most software houses always have limited development budgets, most software written for both a PC and Mac usually is fully optimized for Windows (as PCs get the priority because they have most of the computer market) and with the remaining money left as expenses allow it then it is minimally optimized for PowerPC (usually its just a ported PC version)...

I would say that PowerPC has held its own against an opponent that outnumbers it 50 to 1 (as I count Apple has a 2% markethare and is basically the only major PowerPC general public oriented computer manufacturer)... Even without major optimizations, G5s still are one of the best in todays computer world performance wise... But whenever something is fully Altivec optimized, nothing in the PC world can touch it...
 
digitalbiker said:
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. :mad:
Click to expand...

I totally see your point, Biker, but I must disagree in the following points:

1 - Apple chose IBM and Freescale to deliver performance...what did they do? They screwed up, period.

So the first and foremost "innovation" aspect = performance, was gone for Apple. You may say that PCI-E and redesigned MOBOs could make the PBs better, but this is true to a very limited extent only...Apple was waiting for the low-power G5s, as well as the 844x Freescale series or similar chips...did they come? Nope.

2 - As far as PMs go, it's also a very relative game...until recent times I saw many tests that still put the Dual G5 in front of Dual Xeons and even Dual Opterons...the only areas where the Macs clearly lost were the same areas where they've always lost...gaming/DirectX and certain 3D apps optimized for Wintel/WinAMD.

3 - You may say, "PBs suck right now"...well, that's not what most people say when they see one...they still retain a very good "wow" factor, exactly for being so slim, light and beautiful...the G4 1.6 still packs a good portable punch; and forgive me for saying this, but a glare filter (aka XBrite or whatever) is not really too big of a deal for most people...

As an example, I am right now checking out a catalog with an ASUS top-line notebook (the fairly nice W2 V) at 4000 swiss francs (a lot of money)...what does it have?

- 17" WSXGA Glare Type screen;
- 1Gb RAM;
- 100 Gb HD;
- Mobile Radeon X700;
- TV Tuner;
- DVD Dual Layer burner;
- 4-1 card reader;
- Bluetooth, USB, FW, Wireless;
- Centrino 2 GHz.

What is lacking in current PBs? Perhaps a better GPU, slightly better screen, DL burners and a bit more speed...the rest is just a bunch of crappy additions (who uses TV Tuner or card reader in a lifetime??). So you can see that even the "stalled" PBs are not that far off...

And even speed is a very relative measure, since Winmachines deal all the time with the ubiquitous AV/spyware/malware overhead...and XP, of course...
 
blitzkrieg79 said:
My sister has one of those middle of the line Pentium M notebooks and I wouldn't call it a Powerbook crusher especially in Photoshop and video editing...

Considering that the current G4 architecture has gone 3-4 years without a substancial update only shows Apple/Motorolas engineering skills... I just don't buy that whole performance per watt jibberish, Apple and Intel went to each others bed for some other yet to be know reason...

In 06-07 I would love to pit Powerbooks based on Yonah and the new Motorolas and somehow I have a feeling that Yonahs wouldn't be so great...

What really intrigued or maybe pissed me off was that after Apple announced the Intel switch, all of a sudden Motorola and IBM announced all those cool processors, I just don't know what the deal with that is... Maybe it was Apple that played games, who really knows, not me...

Considering that most software houses always have limited development budgets, most software written for both a PC and Mac usually is fully optimized for Windows (as PCs get the priority because they have most of the computer market) and with the remaining money left as expenses allow it then it is minimally optimized for PowerPC (usually its just a ported PC version)...

I would say that PowerPC has held its own against an opponent that outnumbers it 50 to 1 (as I count Apple has a 2% markethare and is basically the only major PowerPC general public oriented computer manufacturer)... Even without major optimizations, G5s still are one of the best in todays computer world performance wise... But whenever something is fully Altivec optimized, nothing in the PC world can touch it...
Click to expand...

My father has a Pentium M Sony notebook(2.13ghz I believe), and i'm sorry to say but it "crushes" my powerbook in cpu-intensive task. Where the g4 and OS X shine for that matter are it's ability to handle multiple tasks at once. OS X makes me feel more productive because I can have 10 programs open at once, and not lose a step. If i try that on a pc, it slows to a crawl. Where i get frustrated is say, encoding some movies. or playing back HD content where the g4 really shows it's age. With that being said, i'll take OS X any day for it's sheer superiority over window's, but I can't deny the hardware difference.

As for IBM, and Motorola "announcing" all these cool processors, until they ship it's all vapor-ware. IBM in my opinion was just trying to save face. Where's the ship dates, or expected timeframes? Plus, do you honestly expect a "low-power" crippled g5 running at 1.6ghz, or a Motorola 7448 at 1.7ghz to compete with a "dual-core" Pentium M, at 2.2ghz!? Motorola's dual core implementation is meant for embedded systems anyhow.
 
BRLawyer said:
I totally see your point, Biker, but I must disagree in the following points:

As an example, I am right now checking out a catalog with an ASUS top-line notebook (the fairly nice W2 V) at 4000 swiss francs (a lot of money)...what does it have?

- 17" WSXGA Glare Type screen;
- 1Gb RAM;
- 100 Gb HD;
- Mobile Radeon X700;
- TV Tuner;
- DVD Dual Layer burner;
- 4-1 card reader;
- Bluetooth, USB, FW, Wireless;
- Centrino 2 GHz.

What is lacking in current PBs? Perhaps a better GPU, slightly better screen, DL burners and a bit more speed...the rest is just a bunch of crappy additions (who uses TV Tuner or card reader in a lifetime??). So you can see that even the "stalled" PBs are not that far off...

And even speed is a very relative measure, since Winmachines deal all the time with the ubiquitous AV/spyware/malware overhead...and XP, of course...
Click to expand...

Now that I have had time to fall back to reality, I can see that you are correct. A lot of the competition to the PB lacks the features that I have come to take for granted. Also the Pentium-M hype is overrated.

I would be first in line to replace my failing PB unit with a new model as soon as Apple announces a modest update at Paris. GPU update, better battery life, modest speed bump.
 
A Dual Dual Core Powermac G5 sounds really good!! ...although a Dual 3GHz Powermac would sound more realistic.
Eitherway a new powermac is on the top of my wishlist for christmas, along with an ipod video, a 20" HD Cinema Display and a bluetooth Mighty Mouse. :rolleyes:
 
iGuy said:
I too require a Tower for work similar to that which you describe. I also require a Laptop for other, less processor-demanding creative work that I need to be able to do in a variety of different places.

The more portable power I have, the more processor-intensive types of work I can do mobily. You may like being confined to a studio, but I don't.
Click to expand...

Well said. About more than a year ago, Apple was oferring a good portable that was good enough for mobile pro users. It was very competitive with 1 Beyond and other mobile editting workstations at that time. Now with HD editting and the intense requirements for Apple's own Studio apps, the PowerBook has clearly fallen behind in terms of performance. Of course I can run (and do run) FCS in my PowerBook, but it is less than fast. My two (or three) year-old PowerMac G4 is still faster than this PB I bought this January. However if you compare today these two laptops today (PB and a 1 Beyond), there are plenty of reason why you'd still get a PowerBook including... price. Might seem incredible, but it's true. Of course there are many things you don't get in a PB, but make the comparison and realize why Apple hasn't put all these things into a PowerBook, the first one obviously being the portability part.
Ok, now to make a thread in the forums section and leave this one for PowerMac-only comments. :p
 
What really intrigued or maybe pissed me off was that after Apple announced the Intel switch, all of a sudden Motorola and IBM announced all those cool processors, I just don't know what the deal with that is... Maybe it was Apple that played games, who really knows, not me...
Click to expand...

Freescale and IBM did that because Apple tried to paint the picture that Freescale and IBM fell behind in chip development. They didn't. Apple just choose to not use the processors that were available. Dual Core G4's have been around for a while as have faster 970's. How do you think it's possible that IBM can develop millions of 3.2ghz triple core procs for the Xbox 360 to be sold in November but can't make dual core or low power G5's.

There's an (arstechnica) article talking about a lot of the tactics Apple uses to get cheaper processors. Supposedly they commission Freescale or IBM to make chips then let them sit in the chipmakers warehouse until they get a big price break. Combine that with the fact that Apple will not commit to selling 3 million processors (of one type i.e G5) because they perfer the big margin low sales route. Freescale and IBM can't make any money that way.
If Apple wouldn't price themselves out of the market and choose to sell higher volumes as opposed to higher margins then they would get more development. Look at what IBM is developing for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.
 
visualanté said:
im not av consumer a black is greyer on apples lcd...dell doesnt have gloss...others do i know....i luv apple but im not biased
Click to expand...

Huh? Go to System Preferences > Displays > Color and calibrate your monitors please. You can set the Gamma to 1.8 (the traditional mac standard) or to 2.2 (the one used in TV and PC's which is what gives you darker blacks).
 
toneloco2881 said:
My father has a Pentium M Sony notebook(2.13ghz I believe), and i'm sorry to say but it "crushes" my powerbook in cpu-intensive task. Where the g4 and OS X shine for that matter are it's ability to handle multiple tasks at once. OS X makes me feel more productive because I can have 10 programs open at once, and not lose a step. If i try that on a pc, it slows to a crawl. Where i get frustrated is say, encoding some movies. or playing back HD content where the g4 really shows it's age. With that being said, i'll take OS X any day for it's sheer superiority over window's, but I can't deny the hardware difference.

As for IBM, and Motorola "announcing" all these cool processors, until they ship it's all vapor-ware. IBM in my opinion was just trying to save face. Where's the ship dates, or expected timeframes? Plus, do you honestly expect a "low-power" crippled g5 running at 1.6ghz, or a Motorola 7448 at 1.7ghz to compete with a "dual-core" Pentium M, at 2.2ghz!? Motorola's dual core implementation is meant for embedded systems anyhow.
Click to expand...

Motorola and IBM announced those processors so that means they are ready for production, anyone that will order them will received them in a matter of few months in mass quantities... Motorolas dual core implementation is definately not meant for embedded system, at least not in the current state/size...

The G4 processor itself is not a bad processor even by todays standards, what cripples it is the surrounding architecture...

What BGil said in post #212 makes sense as IBM just proved with Microsoft and Sony/Toshiba that it can design and deliver top of the line processors for top players (if it couldn't deliver then I don't think such big names as Microsoft or Sony/Toshiba would fall for it in the first place)...

I know gaming processors are not computer processors but they are also not totally different... Anyway, I still think that Apple should have went the CELL way as thats the route Intel will go with 5-7 years from now...

Intel/Microsoft always crippled/slowed down technologies, its all about marketing, going back to Atari ST/Amiga days, those technologies were so ahead of its time but Wintel monopoly had the entire business world in grasp and they dictated what is trendy at a given time at what is not...

i believe that the entire wintel monopoly actually slowed down the entire computer development, made it all boring, generic, and cluttered...
 
I doubt dual core will be introduced this year.

www.anandtech.com reports serious issues with MySQL performance on a G5 due to the way OSX handles threads. The more processors, the worse the result.

Once OSX issues are resolved however, I'd expect an introduction.
 
uaaerospace said:
That's what folks said about the Rev A PM. I'm one of those happy nutcases. :D
Click to expand...

There always has to be a Rev A of a machine, there will always be some problems to iron out, and there will always be early adopters who have no regrets or issues whatsoever. That's just the way it is. :cool:
 
jjhny said:
If you are on any laptop it is not for speed, it is for portability, so you will never be cutting edge. And how fast do you need to run your web browser anyway?

Sheesh!
Click to expand...

I was in Livingstone, Zambia, a couple of years ago and there was a Swedish TV crew doing a travel documentary. They were doing their editing on a powebook and I know they wanted something faster. Don't assume all broadcast work is done behind a desk!
 
After G said:
Me too.

I like my iBook G4 and all, but I NEED MORE POWER :)
Click to expand...

Ummm... There are quite a few choices in Apple's line-up today if you want more power. An iMac G5 or a current PowerMac would both be MUCH more powerful then your iBook.
 
digitalbiker said:
However floating point performance for the RISC PPC G4 is much faster. In addition Alti-Vec is necessary for video and audio applications that perform multiple encoding and decoding operations.

Adobe has stated that native x86-Mac apps are going to take much longer and will be much harder to produce than SJ let on at the WWDC.

Adobe is Apple's premier elite 3rd party software vendor and their Creative suite probably won't be x86 native until early 2007.

Rosetta performance is targeted to be equivalent to a 800 Mhz G3 machine. How many professionals who need mobility are going to buy Mactel PB in January with no native software.

Even OS X for x86 is still being developed.

Good luck on that Intel PB in January wager. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think the reason for Rosetta performance - currently - running on par to a 800 Mhz G3 is because its still a new inception with issues to iron-out. In Leopard we'll see much better emulation; due in part to much faster hardware/cpu & to refined code. Interesting to note is how it'll all come together.

toneloco2881 said:
Furthermore; the current Pentium M crushes todays powerbook G4. What do you think one with improved (shared)Cache size, branch prediction, bus speed, and oh yeah....DUAL CORE spell for the future. Non-native apps would probably run things faster than todays Powerbooks anyway so who cares? As for altivec-enabled apps that haven't yet made the transition, most are able to still run, they just fall back to non-altivec code optimizations. A great deal of "Pro" apps that require altivec (Photoshop notwithstanding), are Apple apps to begin with, so I'm sure they'll be updated in time.

This is the most exciting time to be an Apple user in my opinion. We finally have parity with the PC-world in terms of raw power, yet still maintain the overwhelming lead in terms of softwared design and implementation. We can finally compare Apple's to Apple's (sorry....had to say it)

P.S- come january, and this post doesnt come to fruition I disavow all knowledge of said post..
Click to expand...

Lol. your last sentence is the first I've seen regarding the announcement of the switch -> it saves you from humiliation from the hordes of us that will if one creates a thread with various quotes.

I agree, performance of Yonah single/dual-core P-M chips will trounce a G4 1.42Ghz machine; I dont think these has L2/3 1MB Cache - G4 I mean. Aside is "cache" pronounced caché as its French derived or just catch; with a silent "t"??

I would LOVE to see a surprise announcement & shipment of PowerBooks (Yonah Dualcore's) IF the following where incl; 128/256MB memory chip - upgradeable and PCI-Express based, DualLayer + Lightscribe SuperDrive, new screen technology that trounces what is offered on the PC side, as hopefully 802.11n - ? 802.11b/g/a (or a that other refined highspeed transmission, not WiMax though) all in 1 chip + serious sensitive antenna. And finally a sweet black/limited color case (Black with all; but with colours like Red - think U2 iPod, Black with Navy Blue, Black with Deep purple, Black with Gun Metal Grey or Silver) Black is Back in Full Effect, and you all loved the P3 PowerBooks (wallstreet+) and you know it! ;)
 
ScubaDuc said:
I was in Livingstone, Zambia, a couple of years ago and there was a Swedish TV crew doing a travel documentary. They were doing their editing on a powebook and I know they wanted something faster. Don't assume all broadcast work is done behind a desk!
Click to expand...

I concur what you have said. Pros also need portability, it is not like it is only limited two a Starbucks coffee drinkers :D , if you know what I mean.
A lot of the work of professionals depends on the work that they do on the road. Either it is music, video or image editing; time is ticking and work has to be done and computer should be the least of the slowdown in a workflow.
 
uaaerospace said:
That's what folks said about the Rev A PM. I'm one of those happy nutcases. :D
Click to expand...

Is it just me or is it possible that iGary's first-page scepticism towards the so called Rev A PM w/dual cores has something to do with his fairly recent adoption of a dual 2.7...? :rolleyes:


After reading some of all of these post about these 50-80%, I figure a single dual core 2.3 wouldn't be significantly faster than a dual proc 2.0, and the same with 2.5 dc and 2.3 dp. And as far as i know (or think i know...) a single dual core proc that is about as fast or faster than two single core 2.7s does not exist. Of course there's more
to a computer than the proc, but from a marketing point of view, what would be the easier lineup to sell?

Single 2.5 MP
Dual 2.0 MP
Dual 2.5MP

or maybe

Dual 2.0MP
Dual 2.3MP
Dual 2.5MP

Anyway... I hope they'll put dual dual proc in the low end as I really REALLY am in desperate need of a new PM :eek:
 
HL-Audio said:
Single 2.5 MP
Dual 2.0 MP
Dual 2.5MP

or maybe

Dual 2.0MP
Dual 2.3MP
Dual 2.5MP

Anyway... I hope they'll put dual dual proc in the low end as I really REALLY am in desperate need of a new PM :eek:
Click to expand...

Perhaps they will introduce a forth model, like it was before with a low end single CPU PowerMacs.
 
Prom1 said:
Aside is "cache" pronounced caché as its French derived or just catch; with a silent "t"??
Click to expand...
"cash"

It's the feminine noun "cache" - hiding place.

"caché" is the ptp of the verb "cacher" ("to hide"), which is also used as an adjective.

Interestingly enough - the masculine noun "cache" means something different - "la cache" and "le cache" are both correct, but refer to two different things!
 
You all have NO ****king idea how angry I am at no PBook updates till next year, that ****king chaps my ***. I guess it was wishful thinking for a 1.7Ghz upgrade, even more wishful thinking that it'd be a dual G4, even more if they put higher resolution screens.

Well not a bad loss I guess I get to blow my $6K on a new EOS-5D setup or a fairly nice HD video camera, maybe the FCS package and some training DVD’s for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back