Future of PowerMacG5

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jul 3, 2003.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001
    MacBidouille reports on some rumors of upcoming technologies coming in the PowerMac G5 line.

    According to the site, PCI-X is only the beginning, and to expect technologies such as PCI-X 2.0, a 1.7GHz Bus "in the beginning of 2004", 3GIO/PCI-Express in 2004/2005. Macbidouille also claims that plans for 2GHz and 2.5GHz speeds are for the end of the year.

    Few details of these rumors are given -- for example, the actual PowerMac G5's bus runs at 1/2 of the 970's Processor Speed. A 1.7GHz bus would imply a 3.4GHz 970 Processor - based on current PPC970 designs. But this is NOT what's implied in the article.
  2. MetallicPenguin macrumors 6502

    Mar 4, 2003
    NC, USA
  3. MacManDan macrumors 6502

    Apr 11, 2003
    Upgrading the bus and keeping up with current technologies would only be a wise thing on Apple's part. I'm sure they don't want the same thing to happen with the G5 as the G4 .. they got behind and really didn't really seem to be able to keep up.
  4. arn macrumors god


    Staff Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    I don't think that's what they are saying.

    The article just doesn't make much sense.

  5. crenz macrumors 6502a


    Jul 3, 2003
    Shanghai, China
    Weird. Why do they separate bus development from processor development? It is quite unlikely that IBM will change the bus speed = 0.5 x processor speed rule for the PPC 970. Assuming 1.7 GHz for the bus (= 3.4 GHz for the processor!) for as early as the beginning of next year, yet talking about IBM needing to move to .9 microns first to get over 3 GHz seems contradictive to me. Let IBM get .9 microns CPUs as prototypes first... I'm sure Apple will be fast to adopt them when they're ready.

    Oh yes, and SJ mentioned 3 GHz "in 12 months"... that seems realistic. Even 3.5 GHz might be realistic in 14-16 months' time, but not in six months. And I just don't see any way to ramp up bus speed w/o ramping up CPU speed as well.
  6. macrumors12345 macrumors 6502

    Mar 1, 2003
    While some will disagree, I think that MacBd's credibility was badly hurt when the true G5's were announced. Their specifications were wrong (1.6, 1.8, Dual 2.0 vs. 1.4, Dual 1.6, Dual 1.8), their benchmarks were false, the claim of immediate availability was wrong, and so on. Pretty much the only thing they got right was that PPC 970 Macs did exist (which is a no brainer - most people on this forum could guess that w/o any inside info), and that they would appear at WWDC (slightly more impressive, but still a pretty easy guess given that it was Apple's only major event between MWSF 2003 and MWSF 2004).

    So I would take anything that they say with a large grain of salt. Nevertheless, even if their particular info is not correct, I think that based on the Apple/IBM comments in the WWDC Keynote and the Power5 roadmap, it is pretty clear that the PPC 970 family has a pretty bright future in front of it.
  7. nuckinfutz macrumors 603


    Jul 3, 2002
    Middle Earth
    What I see is

    The 970 quickly moving to .90nm. The current race now is who gets there first. Intel will probably edge IBM by a few months. I belive Prescott is due late 2003-early 2004. I think we see 90nm 970s shortly after that.

    Apple needs to make the entire Powermac Line Dual Processor as quickly as possible. The current 970s at 130nm are fine but fabbing 300mm Wafers at 90nm increases yields and lowers CPU dissipation. I couod see something like

    PM 1.8 at $1899
    PM 2.2 Dual at $2399
    PM 2.6 Dual at $2999

    within 6 months.

    Once Apple gets the whole PM lineup as Dual Procs. They can migrate the G5 single into an iMac. And use 130nm G4s for the eMac and iBook.
  8. nickmcghie macrumors regular

    Jul 16, 2002
    Re: What I see is

    word brother! :D
  9. arn macrumors god


    Staff Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    I think the biggest thing is you don't know what to believe from them.

  10. Panther 970 macrumors newbie

    Apr 9, 2003
    Re: What I see is

    No way! That would make future PowerMacs too expensive and make Apple look like they're trying too hard to stay ahead.

    I think a better idea is to make all PowerMacs DP capable, but sell them standard with a single processor so that users can add another processor later if they want to.
  11. hvfsl macrumors 68000


    Jul 9, 2001
    London, UK
    This is all good, but I want PCI-extreme (not the PCI-X in the PM G5). Also Apple needs to do something about the price. Apple needs to be ready for the release of Windows 2005 with paladin so that people will be have another platform to switch to when they find out the restrictions of that version of windows.

    So Apple needs a cheap fast Mac in a cheap white plastic box. China is the new market and Apple won't make a dent with the current prices. China wants sub $400 machines that can be plugged into a TV.
  12. fred macrumors member

    Dec 24, 2002
    It doesn't make much sense because the only thing MacBidou is good at is blowing smoke out of their collective asses.... MacBS is more like it...the less credence is given these jokers the better

    Dozens of strategically placed , computer controlled fans wouldn't suffice to clear the smoke they regularly emit from their posteriors :D
  13. Chef Ramen macrumors member

    Dec 21, 2002

    thats a wonderful idea...im sure there are many people there that would buy them. then again, many millions that could care less.
  14. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    Hm... a newer and better 970 is always good news! :)
  15. MacFan25 macrumors 68000


    Jan 5, 2003
    wow...2.5ghz. :eek: this is great. I think we could see a G5 iMac by the end of the year, or early next year.
  16. WM. macrumors 6502

    Apr 18, 2003
    WTF is PCI-extreme? Did you mean PCI Express, which would be a horrible idea because it's not at all backward compatible and (AFAICT) is basically an alternative to HyperTransport, which is perfectly fine as it is? And what's wrong with PCI-X, anyway?

    I do hope that Apple soon brings all three slots to 133 MHz across the line.

  17. tazo macrumors 68040


    Apr 6, 2003
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    Re: What I see is

    I like your style bud :)
  18. nuckinfutz macrumors 603


    Jul 3, 2002
    Middle Earth
    Re: Re: What I see is

    Explain your logic here Panther. I'll start with mine.

    1. The East Fishkill IBM fab is set to support both 130nm and 90nm production. Intel AMD and IBM are all racing to get to 90nm. I believer IBM will be there end of this year.

    2. 300mm Wafers. Motorola has been getting poor yields on 200mm Wafers. IBM is able to minimize processor costs by using the larger Wafers and having a better Yield. This equal lower CPU cost

    3. Apple might be able to barter a better CPU deal the more they purchase. So moving other computers to the 970 platform can further lessen costs.

    4. It's most likely not the CPU that is expensive. I'd venture to say that it's the Motherboard that is costing Apple a pretty penny as Dual Opteron boards with specs like Apple tend to cost $500 and up

    So there you have it. The 970 at 90nm will have higher yields and dissipate lower heat. This makes them cheaper. Expect to see at least two Dual Configs with the next refresh. I know I'm not wrong on this because Duals are the Future and Powermacs need that other processor to be competitive with PCs. While the Single Proc systems are nice..they're not going to beat PCs.

    You mean PCI Express. Apple may decide to move to PCI-X 2.0 Don't expect miracles. PCI Express will start out at the same speed that PCI-X 266 will offer It supports 2-4Gbytes per second throughput .

    Apple has a new problem surfacing. People are not going to pay over $1000 for a G4 based machine a year from now. Apple needs to put the G5 in all machines over $1299. Leave the 130nm G4 is anything below that.

    Apple is creating more revenue streams with .mac and now iTMS. They key to that is shipping computers. Apple is making new inroads to IT. Xserve was a very good initial step and Panther Server is looking good featurewise. Apple will have plenty of High Margin product on the top end with Shake and Final Cut Pro stations. There is no need to withhold the G5 from consumers. The benefits of having the scaleable G5 are that it lets Apple more clearly delineate between Consumer and Pro. Single versus Dual Processors are the easiest way to do this.
  19. macrumors12345 macrumors 6502

    Mar 1, 2003
    Re: Re: Re: What I see is

    I believe there is another thread addressing that problem over here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=31269.
  20. crees! macrumors 68000


    Jun 14, 2003
    What type of restrictions are you talking about here? I'm interested.
  21. chanoc macrumors 6502


    May 20, 2003
    Anchorage, Alaska USA
    The PowerMac G5 Only Getting Better!!

    I will have enought saved by 2004 for a killer PowerMac!
  22. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    Re: The PowerMac G5 Only Getting Better!!

    Lucky you. :eek:
  23. Flynnstone macrumors 65816


    Feb 25, 2003
    Cold beer land
    I would like to see IBM/Apple move the memory controller onto the processor like the Opteron. Throughput up, and latency down.
  24. Brother Mugga macrumors member

    Merry Christmas, every two (point four?) of us...

    This is somewhat speculative, but...

    It seems likely to me that Apple will move to the following line up around or just after Xmas (maybe MWSF?):

    single 1.8
    dual 2.0
    dual 2.0+ (possibly around 2.4, still fabbed at 130nm?).

    My reasoning is founded on the existence of the 1.6 and Jobs' chip roadmap.

    The 1.6 is just a big old anomaly. I don't get it. It's like a leftover from the development cycle that - having developed a motherboard with (then) acceptable but not bleeding edge technology - they then decided to sell with a load of 1.6 chips they now had knocking around the place (having been pleasantly surprised by the 2.0 for their top end, if you see what I mean). Having a product with different memory/PCI etc. just doesn't make sense if you're trying to migrate to a new form-structure and achieve economies of scale in production and support. So perhaps the 1.6 (machine, not chip...I would have thought the rumoured 1.4 is the chip that died before it got out of East Fishkill) is, in fact, effectively a vestigial structure in the evolution of the G4 to the G5?

    With regards to a 2.0+ around Xmas - well, this is a no-brainer if Jobs' roadmap is to be achieved. I would have also thought that something around 2.4 would be the top end of the 130nm process, after which heat/power issues become prohibitive. This would mean that the '3.0 within 12 months' relies upon migration to the 90nm process. That this is on the cards would appear evident from the G5 promotional video on Apple's website, in which Mr. IBM commented that they have already started development on 'the next generation of chips' (if memory serves, he might have actually said they've already begun sampling, but I'm not sure about that).

    Anyway, just a thought.

    Of course if I'm right, waiting till around Xmas (ish) to get a G5 means you not only miss out on any 'teething' troubles with the new machines (I'm intrigued as to how the 'dust' issue will work out) but also cash in on the 2.0 dropping to 'mid-range' prices etc.

    Which means waiting to switch ISN'T so dumb, Mr. Moltz (you cheeky monkey), and is *in fact* a sign of great fortitude, patience, and, no doubt, rampant virility.


    Well okay, maybe not the virility part...

    Brother Mugga
  25. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    Do a search for palladium and/or DRM and you'll see. It's Intel and M$' answer to security. :rolleyes: Scary thing, even if you aren't a pirate and just value your privacy. Here's an article on it.


    Anyone remember Circuit City's Divx DVDs?

Share This Page