G4's and G5's

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
46,844
8,982
ChrisHam1 submitted this Maccentral article reporting on the upcoming G5's:

A Motorola spokesperson told MacCentral that the company's next generation G4 processor, codenamed Apollo, announced at last year's Microprocessor Forum, "is on schedule to ship in early 2002."


No clear indication when the G5's will be shipping in Macs...
 
B

Brent Turbo

Guest
This is further proof that the guy pretending to be a Motorola mole is a total faker. I think people need to stop listening to him. Even the Register suggested that several of the different sources they had on the G5 sounded like they were written by the same person.

Expect a not-so-monumental release in January. A slightly souped up G4, hitting 1gHz in the ultra-expensive models, and maybe with DDR RAM.

The G5 probably won't be around until late next year, if not early 2003. By then, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6gHz will be a year late and a dollar short. And probably guaranteed to be rediculously expensive. Apple is losing ground, and losing more as each month passes by and PCs keep getting faster, while Macs are still way slower, and way more expensive. mHz myth isn't accurate... a 2.0gHz P4 will absolutely crush a dual 800mHz G4, and at half the cost. Well at least the Mac is faster at Gaussian Blur!
 

ThorPrime

macrumors member
Jun 6, 2001
41
0
I'd have to agree

Apple has been loosing ground ever since they smacked the 500 MHz barrier. By the time they broke it, the game was over. To make things worse it looks like their going to hit a 1 ghz barrier with the G4. As much as it pangs me to say it. Apple may have to pull a Sega. Make OSX for PC. Give up on hardware. Just focus on software technologies like QuickTime and system software.

PS. I hope I am totally wrong.
 

ThlayliTheFierce

macrumors regular
Jul 31, 2001
248
0
San Luis Obispo, CA
You know this has all been discussed before...Macs are faster at some things, PCs are faster at some things. I don't think a 2 GHZ P4 will "absolutely crush" a dual 800, but it certainly wouldn't be slower.
 

Mike Gagne

macrumors member
Aug 14, 2001
31
0
Maui, Hawaii
You are right, this has all been discussed before and if it bores you are bothers you then just switch platforms...... I doubt you will. Some people just like to threaten with no intention of actually doing what they claim.....
 

Pants

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2001
194
3
it may have been discusssed before, but what really bothers me is the marketing hype that apple fans allow apple to get away with.... Apollo G4s seem the most likely option for Jan, but apples marketing distortion field will no doubt name them as G5. We'll all then shout "hooray!! g5s!! at last" only to find that these are merely a 100 mhz improvement on what we already have. And then we'll all defend such action!

Come on folks , Im finding it harder and harder to believe this mhz myth when improvements come in 50 to 100 mhz dribbles every 6 months. Its hardly stunning is it? Now what is really crazy is that I can now by a Sun for around the same cost as a mid priced mac tower, and hey, they are almost the same clock speed!
please please let *real* G5s exist! :)
 

sparkleytone

macrumors 68020
Oct 28, 2001
2,307
0
Greensboro, NC
the MHz myth IS true and the disbelief that you show is the reason companies such as intel can continue to hold its market share. MHz is a good rating, but it does not reflect performance anymore. just look at what AMD has done and look at hard benchmark evidence. my 600MHz g3 iBook is faster than any pc ive had, and i build my own pcs. you could say your p4 is running at 2GHz and i will tell you my pc runs at 345632345 MPH because it means the same to me. anyways my point is that if you dont know what you are talking about, then dont talk.


 

erosner32

macrumors newbie
Oct 18, 2001
15
0
whatever

it really doesnt matter what you mac haters say, you are always wrong anyway....Apple, if they do it right, is ready for their biggest growth ever... Throngs of people are peeved with xp and are so ready to chuck it......FCP 3 looks like it rocks the house....OSX is not even a year out yet and it's gettings rave reviews.......yippie I can type a letter and play some games on a PC....but to make cash give me a mac to go thank you very much....
 

kaneda

macrumors 6502
Oct 27, 2001
431
184
G5!

I am a MAC user. But I have to agree to some of the MAC haters. If Apple want to stay in business. They have to take hardware seriously.

MAC is so much more expensive than PC. By marketing MHZ myths, It is not working. This is just an idea. What if Apple uses Pentium chip for the G5 model..:O) and still doing G4 models using Motorolla chip...and give us more choices. If that is possible. I am not a computer engineer.

SO get those MHZ up to at least 1.4-1.8ghz..
 

Imagine

macrumors newbie
Dec 5, 2001
4
0
I'm a Mac user, but I am also getting tired of the little Mhz increments. What will it be next, 897Mhz or perhaps a 900, 933,966,987. What about a 9871/2 Mhz? Aren't we forgetting those....

Imagine
 

MacAztec

macrumors 68040
Oct 28, 2001
3,023
1
San Luis Obispo, CA
Imagine...

Do you not know what apple is about? Apple is not like a PC. Apple focuses on the chip, while PCs focus on making their MHz. Did you know a G3 500 is faster than a P3 1.2 GHz? The chip makes all the difference in the world...
 

Imagine

macrumors newbie
Dec 5, 2001
4
0
Mando,

I'm also fully aware that Apple has to make a profit, like any great American business, and if their computer's are a little more expensive than a PC, I don't care, I'd rather pay extra for quality, who wouldn't!

But like a lot of people, If you're going to upgrade, for crying out loud, upgrade. A friend of mine bought a 733 when they were first released for nearly $3500. A year later, they're selling for $1699.

I'd be happy with a 1Ghz processor or a 1.2, but if they're going to bumb it up another 50mhz, what's the point, so they can charge people another $1000.00

I've always been a Mac fan, always will be. But in my line of work (music), I need all the Mhz I can get.

So Apple, pour it on, I'm ready baby!!!!!
 

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,123
12
Lancashire
I'd love to see a mac that can handle the number of RTAS plug-ins a PC can!!

I don't care about dual CPUs or altivec (well I don't care much about altivec) I just want a mac that can match a PC costing about a 3rd the price at running loads of RTAS plug-ins in Protools LE, I know my software synths get a huge boost on a G4 just from the velocity engine.

The fact remains, from benchmarks i've seen on the digidesign forums, that even the fastest single processor mac, without it's velocity engine to help it along, is about 1 3rd the speed of an althon that's barely twice the clock speed!!!

I don't care about non realtime software like photoshop etc... I want a G5, at least 1.2Ghz and I want one now, well later next year sometime maybe anyhow.

running a few photoshop filters quicker and being able to burn DVDs might appeal to some people, me at work actually, but for stuff like audio, the mac's got all the best software, the best interface, the most stability and yet the least speed without resorting to using altivec to speed up SOME things. Not that that's bad, it's just that I need RAW processing power AND altivec, seems like I'll be waiting a while to me.
 
B

Brent Elliott

Guest
Re: Imagine...

Originally posted by Mac_User
Do you not know what apple is about? Apple is not like a PC. Apple focuses on the chip, while PCs focus on making their MHz. Did you know a G3 500 is faster than a P3 1.2 GHz? The chip makes all the difference in the world...
A G3 500 is faster than a P3 1.2GHz? At what, unsharp mask? I'm a Mac user through and through, but I use both Macs and PCs at work, and the 750mHz P3s trample all over my G3 400 in everything but a couple of photoshop filters. Everything from web browsing to scrolling in documents. No hang ups with Win2000. I'm always waiting for my G3 with 512MB of ram to catch up with me.

I use a Mac at home in a recording environment, and while like barkmonster said, it's the best platform around for audio, it's also the slowest. I can't help but think that Apple should have considered a BeOS core instead of UNIX for OSX. Apple has always been about making computers that know how people work, not making people learn how computers work. Using UNIX seems like a quantum leap backwards in ease of use. I used DOS is 1991, and I never want to see white text on a black screen for the rest of my life. It's the year 2001, and we're still doing word processing, we just need 775 more Mhz to do it? I don't understand why programs and OSs have gotten this bloated. Whatever happened to assembly code?
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
522
1
the assembly code is still in there... :)

In fact, that's one of my favorite quotes when I'm managing a team that starts arguing about what language is better.

I tell them that they can argue about this guys Java and that guys pascal code and whose is better, but when it comes down to it, they're both just creating a heap of assembly code.

But seriously, while I agree that we've let things get a bit bloated, it really comes down to costs. The expensive part of software is writing it, and if you're paying one guy to write in Java and another to write in assembler, who do you think you'll keep paying? The Java guy is going to turn out 10 times the amount of useful stuff (and that's a big under-estimation) in the same amount of time.

Will the Java or VB be as lean and fast as hand-tuned assembler? No. But that doesn't matter if your company is out of business.
 

ThlayliTheFierce

macrumors regular
Jul 31, 2001
248
0
San Luis Obispo, CA
Um...that's the whole point of OS X's gui, to pull the user away from the command line. You never have to see it if you don't want to. Unix was chosen because it's the most stable OS around, and a lot of developers like it because it's not MS, and you can do just about anything with it you want, like really get to the nuts and bolts of the computer.
 
B

Brent Elliott

Guest
ASSembly

Yeah, I hear ya. I'm not trying to get all over OSX's case. I'm excited about it, and I like playing around in it, though I have to use 9.2 to get any work done because Classic mode on a G3, well, you know.... A dude's gotta earn his money.

Anyway, I was just commenting that software bloating is kinda funny if you think about it. Microsoft Word on my Mac is slow and choppy. I remember doing the exact same tasks (typing, printing, spell checking, inserting images) on a 486 25mHz and it working just great. Somehow the same tasks are a few hundred megs larger. I say we get the guys who wrote Combat for the Atari 2600 to optimize OS X. Daaaamn, that's some amazing code.
 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
God damn it who cares.
This is all besides the point. G3 Vs P3 Vs blah.

Within the next ten years consumers will start to change in what they look for. They will stop looking for individual specs and performance figures and start looking at the best PC package for their "digital hub".
Now, OSX and a G5 as a good,fast,stable,easy to use package.
Or
XP and an athlon/sledgehammer as a terrible, not stable,ugly fischer price style, annoying,noisy, overheating package.

It wont be about performance, it will be about the complete package of a PC.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
re:pulling a sega

i hope apple will always make hardware since it is among the best in the industry

but i will never forget that steve jobs mentioned that apple is a software company first and a hardware company second

apple brought "gui" to the masses and os x is a huge step in computing for the whole world and certainly beats windows xp by a longshot

there seems to be the possibility that apple's market share might be going up becuase of os x and from now on, os x will be the leading star of apple and the true ambassador to the pc world and will lead more and more pc users to the mac

windows xp is so confusing that some wintel users would rather take on os x than relearn windows with xp

i admit that i have only used os x at the mac store a few times but from what i have seen, os x, 10.1, is a step in the right directon for apple inc

 

kaneda

macrumors 6502
Oct 27, 2001
431
184
SPEEDDDDDD SPEEDDDD!!!

Intel has been talking about going beyond 2 ghz since the first stage of Pentium 4, and Apple hasn't confirm if they can go beyond 1 ghz. That is bad! what is the fastest chip right now? 867 mhz? then I guess the next G4 will be 867+134(I got 134 from taking 867 minus 733 processor)= 1.01ghz??

I guess at least we reach 1 ghz. Then we will talk about 1.1ghz next summer or dual 1Ghz. Then hopfully 2003 we can talk about G5 ranging from 3ghz-10ghz 100GigRAM. , 500 GB HD. and costs only from $1000-$3500.

But I think we got the coolest OS for personal computer. And Celebrating 10th awesome years for Quicktime (totally better than Windows Media Player). Plus many more other excellent programs for MAC. But no horse power to run it.