HERE HERE. All you people bitching about heat, take note. The 7447 is a *new* chip (in Motorola terms). The PB's used to be really hot, but they're not anymore, catch up to the new paradign already. I'm not a Motorola fan at all but to say they're scorching hot simply isn't accurate anymore.
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.
Dual G4 PowerBooks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HERE HERE. All you people bitching about heat, take note. The 7447 is a *new* chip (in Motorola terms). The PB's used to be really hot, but they're not anymore, catch up to the new paradign already. I'm not a Motorola fan at all but to say they're scorching hot simply isn't accurate anymore.
Then you of all people should know that laptops are not for doing intensive work. Never have been, probably never will. The laptop is a niche market... people wanting or "needing" desktop replacement power should not be looking at Apple's laptops to begin with. If you need outright crankin' power in your laptop (all other considerations set aside), you need something with a P4 at 3.2 GHz that has 7200rpm hdd and the Radeon 9600 (128MB DDR)....Originally posted by swissmann
Yes I understand that. That is why I am working on a Dual G5 machine right now and have two Dual 1 GHz G4s to either side of me. All tech notes and benchmarks aside. If I can have one processor rendering my video and borrow the other processor to work in photoshop I find my work day more productive than having one faster processor render video more quickly and waiting for it to finish before working in photoshop, or dedicating the fast processor to switching over to photoshop and work with the foreground app and have the video rendering slow way down in the background. The way I work benefits more from two processors than one faster one. Of course two super fast processors is the most productive.
I Don't Buy It.
I'm sorry ,but with 1.25GHz and 1.0GHz we get 2- 4 hours of usuable life on the battery.
To get the same amt of time with two processors your battery is gonna have to be huge.
I'm sorry ,but with 1.25GHz and 1.0GHz we get 2- 4 hours of usuable life on the battery.
To get the same amt of time with two processors your battery is gonna have to be huge.
The reason that Apple is reluctant to go x86 is simple. They are a systems company meaning that they rely on the sale of harware and software for their income. Since margins on their software are quite low and research and development expenses super high, there is relatively little, if any profit on operating systems and other software. However, margins on Apple hardware are among the highest in the industry and here is where their bread is buttered.
IF Apple was to convert to x86 a number of things would happen, including:
* they would have to rewrite all of their software at great expense.
* legacy support would be a nightmare.
* Tech support costs would essentially double due to the fact that you would have two unique system architectures which would require double the intellectual capital.
* And here's the kicker, quick and easy ports of OS X and other software would be possible on all x86 hardware, including you daddy's Dell.
Where does that leave Apple, with a messy, expensive transition, frought with ongoing legacy support issues and eroding hardware margins.
Staying with PPC was a no-brainer but the fact that they even considered it is a reflection on Motorola more than anything.
swissmann -- No your wrong.
The G5 Compared to a G4 with the same clock speed the G5 easily wins.
You say 'Dual 1 GHZ G4 > 2 GHZ G5 you would be wrong in most cases.'
The G5 would for sure be faster.
Sure, execpt that IBM only makes Apple's G3 and G5 Chips.
IBM does not Make the G4 Chip.
Motorola Does.
To Summarize.
Dual Processor Means:
Dual Battery (unless you want 2 hours or less to run the laptop)
Thicker (unless you want the CPU to burn out... or unless they get some new cooling device... Like Water Cooling)
A Lot more Money (unless you take out those nice DVD drives)
Oh yes and it weighs more.
Again Dual Processor is not the way to go.
More weight or less battery life. And it costs more.
Sorry guys, I'd say this is a fast way to have a heavy powerbook paperweight.
The G5 Compared to a G4 with the same clock speed the G5 easily wins.
You say 'Dual 1 GHZ G4 > 2 GHZ G5 you would be wrong in most cases.'
The G5 would for sure be faster.
Originally posted by backdraft
Apple could easily have IBM produce faster G4's (2.0ghz+) add a faster bus and faster RAM. No need for dual chips yet.
Though it could be fun
-backdraft
Sure, execpt that IBM only makes Apple's G3 and G5 Chips.
IBM does not Make the G4 Chip.
Motorola Does.
To Summarize.
Dual Processor Means:
Dual Battery (unless you want 2 hours or less to run the laptop)
Thicker (unless you want the CPU to burn out... or unless they get some new cooling device... Like Water Cooling)
A Lot more Money (unless you take out those nice DVD drives)
Oh yes and it weighs more.
Again Dual Processor is not the way to go.
More weight or less battery life. And it costs more.
Sorry guys, I'd say this is a fast way to have a heavy powerbook paperweight.
Re: Time for G4 to get into a laptop
I was a TiG4 early adopter and it is pretty much the sweetist Mac I have ever owned in a variety of ways. And it runs 2 OS's!
When I went from a Mac+ to a P405 my productivity didn't go up much. Then the used IIVx was pretty much a backstep. I got alot done on the 8100av and that prepped me perfectly for the TiG4. That was a HUGE step up.
My next computer (for this particular jobsite) will be a G5 Powerbook.
But other jobsites have been iBooks mainly and lately PB 17's for the guys. Everybody loves the 17's. ESPECIALLY the PC geeks (former). Some of them are prospects for dual PBG4's. No software upgrade issues is a feature not a bug.
Rocketman
Originally posted by dbenesch
The PowerMac G4 was introduced in Fall of 1999, and the Powerbook G4 wasn't introduced until January of 2001. It took a good 15 months to get the G4 into a 1" laptop.
Maybe people shouldn't have such high expectations of getting the G5 in so soon. A dual G4 will do nicely
I was a TiG4 early adopter and it is pretty much the sweetist Mac I have ever owned in a variety of ways. And it runs 2 OS's!
When I went from a Mac+ to a P405 my productivity didn't go up much. Then the used IIVx was pretty much a backstep. I got alot done on the 8100av and that prepped me perfectly for the TiG4. That was a HUGE step up.
My next computer (for this particular jobsite) will be a G5 Powerbook.
But other jobsites have been iBooks mainly and lately PB 17's for the guys. Everybody loves the 17's. ESPECIALLY the PC geeks (former). Some of them are prospects for dual PBG4's. No software upgrade issues is a feature not a bug.
Rocketman
Swissman and a couple of others know the truth about dual processors, while some of you are going only by 3rd parties and benchmarks. A single app won't see much improvement from dual processors however if you normally run with several apps open, a duallie is a godsend.
The P/S blew out in my dual G4 550(OC'd 500) and I had to fall back on my iBook800 for a couple of weeks. It was so much slower than my duallie it was maddening, I was constantly watching the spinning beach ball. Both running the same system, 1GB RAM in the DP, 640 MB in the 'Book. I firmly believe in multi-processor architecture now, although I'd rather see a G5DP "Top O' the Line" PB than a G4DP.
Doesn't really matter to me tho, my iBook is fast enough for my portable needs.
The P/S blew out in my dual G4 550(OC'd 500) and I had to fall back on my iBook800 for a couple of weeks. It was so much slower than my duallie it was maddening, I was constantly watching the spinning beach ball. Both running the same system, 1GB RAM in the DP, 640 MB in the 'Book. I firmly believe in multi-processor architecture now, although I'd rather see a G5DP "Top O' the Line" PB than a G4DP.
Doesn't really matter to me tho, my iBook is fast enough for my portable needs.
Re: Re: Missing an important point
Not True!!! iBooks (both G4 and G3) use 4200 RPM drives. When configuring an iBook, click the link to get more information about the hard drives. It explicitely states all drives run at 4200 RPM
Not True!!! iBooks (both G4 and G3) use 4200 RPM drives. When configuring an iBook, click the link to get more information about the hard drives. It explicitely states all drives run at 4200 RPM
A dual PB G4 is not very appealing to me. I have grown to hate the G4 - it's so 20th century. A dual G5 17" PB that would disable one when on battery might me okay. A better idea is to have a dual G5 cube for use as a portable render box. Since the DP G5 PB would be most useful when running at full speed with both CPUs a DP G5 cube could be a useful alternative. A cube would at least be less cramped and have better cooling than a PB.
Apple's laptops are underpowered as it stands.
A dual processor G4 will not change this.
With Intel releasing the follow up to the P-M (codenamed Dothan)in 1Q 2004 Apple, and indeed AMD, are going to have to go some to produce a laptop with a better performance:battery life ratio.
Even if we see a G5 at the end of the 1Q 2004 its questionable if this will be as powerful as either Intel's or AMD's Mobile offerings at this time. AMD is tweaking its Fx-51 64 bit processor for mobile use and Intel is at the moment working on getting its next generation desktop chip into a mobile format. I'll be interested to see how this all works out and what each company will have on offer come Summer 2004.
Regardless of what Intel and AMD do I would still be willing to put money on Apple producing the better looking machine, ok it will also probably be the most expensive as well.
A dual processor G4 will not change this.
With Intel releasing the follow up to the P-M (codenamed Dothan)in 1Q 2004 Apple, and indeed AMD, are going to have to go some to produce a laptop with a better performance:battery life ratio.
Even if we see a G5 at the end of the 1Q 2004 its questionable if this will be as powerful as either Intel's or AMD's Mobile offerings at this time. AMD is tweaking its Fx-51 64 bit processor for mobile use and Intel is at the moment working on getting its next generation desktop chip into a mobile format. I'll be interested to see how this all works out and what each company will have on offer come Summer 2004.
Regardless of what Intel and AMD do I would still be willing to put money on Apple producing the better looking machine, ok it will also probably be the most expensive as well.
Re: I Don't Buy It.
Either thta or your going to need some really unstable chemicals to hold the charge. Nuclear batteries would solve the problem but I don't ever see that happening.
Either thta or your going to need some really unstable chemicals to hold the charge. Nuclear batteries would solve the problem but I don't ever see that happening.
i defy you to find me a laptop that performs more than marginally better than a 15 inch PB that costs less.
*Looks into crystal ball and sees that
Yes! tomorrow will herald a new dual 2.0 Ghz G5 12 inch PowerBook, and a Cubesque 20 inch iMac along will speed bumped G5's and a free parfait with any new Mac purchase!
Now that's the true meaning of the Apple slogan from the original colorific iMacs, "Yum!"
Yes! tomorrow will herald a new dual 2.0 Ghz G5 12 inch PowerBook, and a Cubesque 20 inch iMac along will speed bumped G5's and a free parfait with any new Mac purchase!
Now that's the true meaning of the Apple slogan from the original colorific iMacs, "Yum!"
Agreed, VoodooPC has the Athlon 64 from the Dark horse AMD looking very powerful,
Intel are always up to something spookey.
And apple have their marketing, and uderperforming G4's.
Apple need to do something soon and a dual core G4 is not the answer, a 1.5-8GHz G5 is however.
Amazing
I'm still amazed that it could be easier to cram two G4's into a laptop than to cram one G5. I'm assuming, as is probably everyone on these boards, that the .09m process would be used for the G5, which would preclude any immediate release of an updated PowerBook.
Personally, if the timeframes going around the grapevine of next May for a G5 PowerBook are correct, I will wait to purchase until then. If I needed one immediately, I would get one of the nice refurb'd 1.25GHz 15" units for $2,099.
As far as G5 PowerMacs, I think the summer 2004 update is the earliest I will purchase on that end-- my dual 1GHz Quicksilver isn't sluggish until I do high-impact 3D modelling. For daily tasks it's more than fast enough.
I'm still amazed that it could be easier to cram two G4's into a laptop than to cram one G5. I'm assuming, as is probably everyone on these boards, that the .09m process would be used for the G5, which would preclude any immediate release of an updated PowerBook.
Personally, if the timeframes going around the grapevine of next May for a G5 PowerBook are correct, I will wait to purchase until then. If I needed one immediately, I would get one of the nice refurb'd 1.25GHz 15" units for $2,099.
As far as G5 PowerMacs, I think the summer 2004 update is the earliest I will purchase on that end-- my dual 1GHz Quicksilver isn't sluggish until I do high-impact 3D modelling. For daily tasks it's more than fast enough.
Re: *Looks into crystal ball and sees that
Damn, sign me up.
In the immortal words of Eddie Murphy: "Who doesn't like a parfait? I don't know ANYBODY that don't (sp) like a parfait."
Originally posted by stoid
and a free parfait with any new Mac purchase!
Damn, sign me up.
In the immortal words of Eddie Murphy: "Who doesn't like a parfait? I don't know ANYBODY that don't (sp) like a parfait."
</begin rant>
dude. sometimes i think everone needs to sit down and have a computer arictechure class.
1. power pc is RISC, and RISC has a future. CISC is dead and has been dead since the Pentium Pro. All intel is doing now is emulating a x86 front end, and breaking things down to RISC instruction.
2. intel is kicking the g4's butt becuase of moto, not powerpc.
3. its not just a simple recompile in xcode. you need to rewrite alot of drivers and what not for x86 devices. Now i will go with the idea that there are freeBSD drivers for alot of x86 things, but they still will need to be tweaked.
4. yes the mach kernal does support fat binaries (which means that you can have the app compiled for multipal platforms in the same binary), but it makes the progams file size much larger, and you have to get all the mac vendors on board. OR offer an emulation layer.
Overall big pain in the butt to supports x86 in just one model. If the switch was ever made it would a) be to all the models b) make ever apple developer angry c) be the death of apple as we know it.
</end rant>
I agree with all the people who would rather have two processors at half the speed. I have a dual processor desktop, and it is true that is not really as fast as the single processor. But it does look faster. Computers do a lot more today than crunch numbers. Everybody seems to know that when it comes to memory, hard drives, etc. Nobody ever seems to think about it when comparing dual to single processors though. Having dual processors means one can be locked up in a CPU intensive process, and the other can still respond to the user. You get much lower visible latency, which makes the experience for the user immensely better. So what if a task takes a few more seconds. The user still spends less time watching a beachball, so they're less aware of the delay, so it looks faster.
Not to mention for the apps that can use multiple processors, it really is faster.
I'm surprised computer makers haven't caught onto this yet. With the average consumer not even needing as much as 1GHz, make that dual 1 GHz and suddenly the system looks faster than a 2.4 GHz.
If Apple offered something like a dual 700 MHz laptop, I would take that over a 1.25 GHz Powerbook in a second.
Not to mention for the apps that can use multiple processors, it really is faster.
I'm surprised computer makers haven't caught onto this yet. With the average consumer not even needing as much as 1GHz, make that dual 1 GHz and suddenly the system looks faster than a 2.4 GHz.
If Apple offered something like a dual 700 MHz laptop, I would take that over a 1.25 GHz Powerbook in a second.
problem with dual G4
The problem with the dual G4 as implemented by apple is that it is uses UMA. Both processors are on the same front side bus. What does this mean? non-linear scaling. If one process is acessing an i/o device the other one has to wait to acess memory. While this performance hit can be lessened with more cache, it is still there. i would say if they offered a dual 1 Ghz G4 then i would bye it instead of a 1.6 Ghz anything.
I know steve said that they were haveing a hard time shoving a G5 into a powerbook, and for a powerbook to be an upgrade to the current powerbooks you would need a 1.4-1.6 Ghz G5. Way too much power. But what about a Dual 1.0 Ghz G5? I am sure that would be low power, and you could do some creative power managment while on battery power.
I know that processor heat dissapation does not scale lineraly but i think that a 1Ghz G5 is not out of the scope of a powerbook. what is out of scope is a redesign of the powerbooks motherboard. those kinda of things take time.
i think that a dual 1Ghz G5 powerbook(with power managment) would sell well, and would give apple to more claims. First dual processor notebook, and first 64 bit laptop(excluding that SPARC monster, that thing was like 5 grand or more)
?? who know what job's has up his sleves. all i know is it is a good time to be an apple fan
The problem with the dual G4 as implemented by apple is that it is uses UMA. Both processors are on the same front side bus. What does this mean? non-linear scaling. If one process is acessing an i/o device the other one has to wait to acess memory. While this performance hit can be lessened with more cache, it is still there. i would say if they offered a dual 1 Ghz G4 then i would bye it instead of a 1.6 Ghz anything.
I know steve said that they were haveing a hard time shoving a G5 into a powerbook, and for a powerbook to be an upgrade to the current powerbooks you would need a 1.4-1.6 Ghz G5. Way too much power. But what about a Dual 1.0 Ghz G5? I am sure that would be low power, and you could do some creative power managment while on battery power.
I know that processor heat dissapation does not scale lineraly but i think that a 1Ghz G5 is not out of the scope of a powerbook. what is out of scope is a redesign of the powerbooks motherboard. those kinda of things take time.
i think that a dual 1Ghz G5 powerbook(with power managment) would sell well, and would give apple to more claims. First dual processor notebook, and first 64 bit laptop(excluding that SPARC monster, that thing was like 5 grand or more)
?? who know what job's has up his sleves. all i know is it is a good time to be an apple fan
So how many people here are like me and feel like staying the hell away from buying a RevA of the next PowerBooks - whether it's a DP G4 or a G5?
Sure I like Power but...
Apple has given me a much faster machine with Panther 10.3.
I don't give a d*** what speed Intel processors run at. This machine, a G4 550, is plenty fast now! Shows what the G4 and better OS can do. Compiler optimizations and graphics opts make a big difference.
I'd like to see a Dual G4orG5 at a low? ghz rate, if it can be done.
64 bit processors are real nice, but today, there's nothing that takes advantage of them. Again, a 64 Java VM would be interesting. But, as a programmer, I need a dual machine. Just hate to buy a desktop, because it's stuck at home in a corner, can't take it on the road.
What about the rumor's that IBM was adding Altivec to the G3. They are cross licenced with Moto on this anyway.
Apple has given me a much faster machine with Panther 10.3.
I don't give a d*** what speed Intel processors run at. This machine, a G4 550, is plenty fast now! Shows what the G4 and better OS can do. Compiler optimizations and graphics opts make a big difference.
I'd like to see a Dual G4orG5 at a low? ghz rate, if it can be done.
64 bit processors are real nice, but today, there's nothing that takes advantage of them. Again, a 64 Java VM would be interesting. But, as a programmer, I need a dual machine. Just hate to buy a desktop, because it's stuck at home in a corner, can't take it on the road.
What about the rumor's that IBM was adding Altivec to the G3. They are cross licenced with Moto on this anyway.
Re: Great for Java Dev
Uhm...are you sure? Threading in Java is like simulating light weight processes in a Virtual Machine. These are then mapped to the multitasking system of the underlying OS. The JVM itself uses quite a few threads for main(), garbage collection, EventQueue etc as any debugger will be happy to show you. Maybe you meant 'parallization'?
Uhm...are you sure? Threading in Java is like simulating light weight processes in a Virtual Machine. These are then mapped to the multitasking system of the underlying OS. The JVM itself uses quite a few threads for main(), garbage collection, EventQueue etc as any debugger will be happy to show you. Maybe you meant 'parallization'?