iLife is not worth $400. And Joe Average is not confused when one company sells two different products.
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.
G5 PowerBook 'a challenge'
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iLife is not worth $400. And Joe Average is not confused when one company sells two different products.
Re: Re: Re: moto out of options?
You might be interested to know that the magazine Fast company has a big article on the worst, most overpaid CEO's in the U.S. Near the top is Motorola's CEO. During his tenure, the stock has plummeted like 70% and they cite that he has ruined their semiconductor unit. It made me chuckle how sad and pathetic they have become. I guess I only could chuckle because Apple is moving on to IBM, thank goodness.
You might be interested to know that the magazine Fast company has a big article on the worst, most overpaid CEO's in the U.S. Near the top is Motorola's CEO. During his tenure, the stock has plummeted like 70% and they cite that he has ruined their semiconductor unit. It made me chuckle how sad and pathetic they have become. I guess I only could chuckle because Apple is moving on to IBM, thank goodness.
Clueless? Idiots? Given the information that was available, it was not unreasonable to think that there was a strong possibility that the G5 could be placed into the PowerBook line very quickly, perhaps even immediately, as the G3 was. Did this mean that it was a given? No, and no one I saw posting said it was.
Indeed, from what I've read, the reason that the G5 can't be put into a PowerBook (at, say, 1.2 GHz or so) has nothing to do with the chip, but rather has to do with the System Controller. Was there any information about the System Controller available before the G5 towers were released?
The simple fact is that we don't know how Apple is distributing their resources. If they had wanted to (though it would have been a foolish mistake) they could have invested all of their R&D in making the PowerBook their first G5 product. All we are all doing is guessing about what Apple's priorities might be. Guessing wrong does not make someone clueless or an idiot. So, please refrain from such insulting comments.
You're making a number of assumptions here that could be wrong (could be right too). First, you're assuming that this type of G3 research is not already underway. Second, you're assuming that the performance of a G3 w/Altivec is inferior. Third, you're assuming that the G5 was always intended to be mobile processor.
In my opinion, I think all of these assumptions are wrong. I think research on a velocity engine for the G3 is and has been going on. Second, I think the G3 can be a very fast (faster than current G5 2.0 Ghz), cool, portable chip. Third, I think the G5, as a derivative of a Power 4 server chip was originally deisgned for a desktop. That said, the cost of research for a mobile G5 could be far more than for a G3 from this date onwards.
Either way, neither one of us has a clue that can provide enough certainty for you to make such a sweeping statement as it "will never exist". As a matter of fact, many rumors and documentation contradict that entirely.
I was so happy to hear this!
I translate this to mean that the Apple hardware team doesn't give a damn about people in forums saying "the Powerbook is finished if they don't put a G5 in"-- they're keeping their focus on designing good products.
Frankly that's all I can ask for.
People in these forums talk like the very talented folks in Apple R&D don't think about these things before they make decisions.
If IBM is willing to source two chip families, and the talk of Altivec'd G3's implies they might be, then it may just turn out that we see the portables based on one family and the desktops based on another for quite some time.
That would be a Good Thing, folks. It means no compromises. Let us not forget so quickly the compromises of the G4 desktops. We'd have a rocket of a desktop and slick portables.
...rather than reasonably slick portables and reasonably slick portables in a desktop case.
There's also a (albiet slim) chance that Mot comes out of it's coma and releases that dual-core G4.
The G5 doesn't have to obsolete earlier generations. I've been running a G3 iMac for 4 years and Altivec didn't kill it like my Wintel experience led me to fear. Apple has done a great job keeping these viable with OS X.
In the Wintel world, MS doesn't care if people are unhappy with their recently bought Intel boxes as long as they can say their OS has such-n-such. In the Apple world, Apple doesn't want to alienate their hardware buyers by needlessly limiting the lifespan of their purchases.
It looks like the primary benefit of the 64bit architecture right now is deeper memory and Panther looks to address that by allowing more memory on G5s while staying G3/G4 compatible.
While there are niche buyers who might want 8GB in a laptop, I don't think that's going to render a 2-4GB laptop obsolete.
Even Intel maintains that 32 bits is enough. I think some of that is defensive, but it does indicate that the highest volume processors will stay 32bit for a while.
And going to 90nm doesn't necessarily mean lower power... The 90nm Intel Prescott is rumored at 103W!
So tying this all together, based on that little comment in the article, I'd say that Apple hasn't lost their heads-- they're worried about making good products. Maybe that's a G5, maybe it's something else. Either way I wouldn't be dissapointed...
I think the problem with this is that they would more than double their development cost if they were trying to maintain OS X on both platforms. That wouldn't be a desirable situation for them.
Not only that, but there would be very little software available for OS X on x86. Think about how hard it's been to get developers to update their software to run on OS X rather than OS 9. Now you want them to make the changes and recompile to support another platform? It just wouldn't happen.
So, Apple's only real choice would be for Apple to move completely to x86, and abandon the PPC architecture. Again, this would be an extremely painful transition, far more difficult than the transition to OS X has been. It could easily be a fatal mistake for Apple.
No, I think that leaving Marklar behind closed doors is the only smart move at the moment.
But, on the other hand, the performance gap wasn't that big between the G3 and G4. So, there wasn't anywhere near as much incentive for Apple to get the G4 out. Even now, the performance of the iBooks rival that of the PowerBooks except in Altivec intensive tasks.
The difference between the G4 and the G5, by contrast, is far more dramatic. And Apple's laptops are falling behind in overall performance, when compared to the rest of the market. So Apple has an increasing impetous to get the G5 into their PowerBooks, just to keep the performance up. (Indeed, the G3 kept scaling and scaling, whereas the G4 has shown itself to have ongoing trouble scaling.)
The Whole Package
I know I am not popular with my statements that G5's in powerbooks won't happen soon, but le tme reiterate my logic.
Its not just the G5 chip, running cool enough, using less watts. Comparisons about watts, speeds, and power and heat is meaningless when looking at JUST the CPU chip. The G5 desktop line includes the G5 CPU but is also a combination of other controller chips, ram chips, etc. It is this entire PACKAGE that provides siginificant boosts to the overall performance.
Its unrealistic to think that merely placing a cool running low power G5 into a slightly modified laptop would produce results any better or siginificantly better than exisiting models. All of the other accessory technologies need to be scaled and converted to a laptop modality.
Even today, the g4 line up of powerbooks can hold their own. But they are still very weak when compared with any desktop. That is the price you pay (at this time) for portability. As technology progresses, battery life enhanced, chip size reduced, heat reduced, we will have G5 powerbooks. But in all realistic looks at the technology, we are looking at January 2005 for such a move. At that time look for 2 gig G5 in laptps while the desktop line crusies about 3+. HOPEFULLY there willbe chip speed parity for a laptop. As the chip itself is not the total bottleneck, but the whole MOBO design.
Take a look at the benchmarks with the G5 vs others. The G5 is not a linear performance increase based on MHZ over dual G4 systems. So, that means either the OS needs more help with optimization, etc. Probably true. But all that fast RAM FSB, etc. is contributing to the performance increase. According to the technical discussions I have read, the G5 per clock cycle is WORSE than the G4 is some cases. All new chip evolutions have quirks like this. But the whole package of memory controllers and I/O controllers makes theG5 have the BIG performance boost we see.
Merely cramming the G5 into exisiting architectures would not be a huge performance increase.
I think this will be illustrated if any upgrade manufactures do invest in getting G5 for older machines. Just having a faster chip should help, but with the supporting architecture being the bottleneck, there is only so much that can be done.
I would love to see faster, better Macintosh computers as much as anyone. But we set ourselves up for major dissappointment as well as look bad with rumors and industry relations by stating thatt G5 laptops are around the corner, etc. Look how many (lousy reporting) major sources picked up on rumors like this. This COULD influence purchasing for all sorts of schools, business, and individuals. The bottom line is this: The day you buy a computer its obsolete. Period. Apple USED to be 2 generations ahead when they released a new computer. With Moore's law they cannot be uite that well planned to the future, but you can bet that the day those AlBooks hit the expo floor, test models with faster,(?) G4, dual proc(?) or some such are in production. Look at the capabilities of the machine and your needs.
If you have needs that can only be done by a dual G5, then buy that or get the fastest Powerbook and know it will take longer. But you can always paly the what next waiting game. Something WILL ALWAYS be better around the corner.
Again, knowing Apple, enginnering issues, and markets its very likely that we will see at least 2 more AlBook G4 issues. Possibly with 2 processors, especially if the iBook goes G4, which is by no means a certainty.
I think a more important question is when the consumer line will go G5. A whole other thread, but again I will say no SOONER than July 2004 but more likley Jan 2005. Why? Parity for one with pro line. Cost. And life. The iMac can still have some nice performance boosts. Eek some more from the moto chip, add the new L2 cache, add a L3 (if needed) cache and faster speeds, and you have at least one more iteration.
I am guessing, but i think Apple purchases options on large quantities of chips from IBM or MOTO. That means that Apple may be under obligation for a certain quantity of G4. It does not make sense to eat the losess, and for many a 800 mhzG3 iBook is all the machine they need just as the celerons and crap work for PC users. Remember, users of forums liek these are in the 'elite' of computing. They seek out new ideas, knowledge and rumors. The 'masses' Mac users included need a computer for simple tasks and even the meager iBooks (a great machine BTW) do just fine.
But I ramble. Flame away.
I know I am not popular with my statements that G5's in powerbooks won't happen soon, but le tme reiterate my logic.
Its not just the G5 chip, running cool enough, using less watts. Comparisons about watts, speeds, and power and heat is meaningless when looking at JUST the CPU chip. The G5 desktop line includes the G5 CPU but is also a combination of other controller chips, ram chips, etc. It is this entire PACKAGE that provides siginificant boosts to the overall performance.
Its unrealistic to think that merely placing a cool running low power G5 into a slightly modified laptop would produce results any better or siginificantly better than exisiting models. All of the other accessory technologies need to be scaled and converted to a laptop modality.
Even today, the g4 line up of powerbooks can hold their own. But they are still very weak when compared with any desktop. That is the price you pay (at this time) for portability. As technology progresses, battery life enhanced, chip size reduced, heat reduced, we will have G5 powerbooks. But in all realistic looks at the technology, we are looking at January 2005 for such a move. At that time look for 2 gig G5 in laptps while the desktop line crusies about 3+. HOPEFULLY there willbe chip speed parity for a laptop. As the chip itself is not the total bottleneck, but the whole MOBO design.
Take a look at the benchmarks with the G5 vs others. The G5 is not a linear performance increase based on MHZ over dual G4 systems. So, that means either the OS needs more help with optimization, etc. Probably true. But all that fast RAM FSB, etc. is contributing to the performance increase. According to the technical discussions I have read, the G5 per clock cycle is WORSE than the G4 is some cases. All new chip evolutions have quirks like this. But the whole package of memory controllers and I/O controllers makes theG5 have the BIG performance boost we see.
Merely cramming the G5 into exisiting architectures would not be a huge performance increase.
I think this will be illustrated if any upgrade manufactures do invest in getting G5 for older machines. Just having a faster chip should help, but with the supporting architecture being the bottleneck, there is only so much that can be done.
I would love to see faster, better Macintosh computers as much as anyone. But we set ourselves up for major dissappointment as well as look bad with rumors and industry relations by stating thatt G5 laptops are around the corner, etc. Look how many (lousy reporting) major sources picked up on rumors like this. This COULD influence purchasing for all sorts of schools, business, and individuals. The bottom line is this: The day you buy a computer its obsolete. Period. Apple USED to be 2 generations ahead when they released a new computer. With Moore's law they cannot be uite that well planned to the future, but you can bet that the day those AlBooks hit the expo floor, test models with faster,(?) G4, dual proc(?) or some such are in production. Look at the capabilities of the machine and your needs.
If you have needs that can only be done by a dual G5, then buy that or get the fastest Powerbook and know it will take longer. But you can always paly the what next waiting game. Something WILL ALWAYS be better around the corner.
Again, knowing Apple, enginnering issues, and markets its very likely that we will see at least 2 more AlBook G4 issues. Possibly with 2 processors, especially if the iBook goes G4, which is by no means a certainty.
I think a more important question is when the consumer line will go G5. A whole other thread, but again I will say no SOONER than July 2004 but more likley Jan 2005. Why? Parity for one with pro line. Cost. And life. The iMac can still have some nice performance boosts. Eek some more from the moto chip, add the new L2 cache, add a L3 (if needed) cache and faster speeds, and you have at least one more iteration.
I am guessing, but i think Apple purchases options on large quantities of chips from IBM or MOTO. That means that Apple may be under obligation for a certain quantity of G4. It does not make sense to eat the losess, and for many a 800 mhzG3 iBook is all the machine they need just as the celerons and crap work for PC users. Remember, users of forums liek these are in the 'elite' of computing. They seek out new ideas, knowledge and rumors. The 'masses' Mac users included need a computer for simple tasks and even the meager iBooks (a great machine BTW) do just fine.
But I ramble. Flame away.
The question of if G3+Altivec is being researched is academic until we see one. I don't think that IBM would make it a priority, when they already have an Altivec product in the G5. And given the G5 is 64-bit and the G3 isn't, I would think that if anything Apple would use a G3+Altivec for iMac/eMacs/iBooks rather than the PowerMac/PowerBook line. And no, I don't think that IBM would re-engineer the G3 to be 64-bit - they already have a 64-bit chip in the G5. I don't think that he implied that a G3+Altivec could be a lesser performer than the G5 - but they are very different chips any way you look at it, so it'd be very hard to figure out which would do better. And finally, the current implementation of the G5 may or may not have been meant to be a mobile processor, but I think that Apple will eventually use it anyway. One of Apple's major selling points is that they don't have to use a different chip for desktop/laptop because the PowerPC is so efficient (which even the G5 is coming in around 50w @ 2Ghz vs the 3.2 P4 at around 90). I think a centrino-like seperation would be bad PR for Apple.
The cost for a mobile G5 could be more than a G3, but the G5 will head in that direction anyway. IBM is planning on moving to 90nm by the end of the year, and to 65 after that. These chips will be cool enough for a laptop at the speeds Apple is currently using them in a desktop. And again, the G3 is a very different chip from the G5. The G5 is a data machine, you can't argue that the G3 will suddenly get a 2:1 bus ratio without some serious engineering going into it. And finally, the G5 is decended from the Power4, but it is not a Power4. It uses far less power than the Power4 and is far smaller too. It's also single core and with less cache. Both of these allow it's power usage to approach portable levels. No, they aren't as cheap as the G3, but neither is the G4 and the G5 is currently within 50% of the G4's power usage (at similar clock speeds). Finally, notice that the new PowerBooks have the same clock slewing technology as the PowerMac G5s do.This alone would make the G5 use similar amounts of power as a G4 going all out.[/b][/quote]
Yes, we have rumors of a G3+Altivec. I don't know of any documentation (be happy to be proven wrong) that would point to this however. I'm certain there is another G3 update in the works, but even if it is 'VX' or whatever that won't mean it has Altivec. I think you just have to think Occam's Razor. Would it make more sense for IBM to create a G3+Altivec and split their Altivec holdings between two competing processors, or devote all Altivec resources to one chip (the G5) that probably has higher margins and make it best in class?
I don't know what I'm talking about...
The truth is, I don't know what I'm talking about, BUT if a G3 "Altivec"-compatible processor, made by IBM, were available at faster speeds than a G4, wouldn't that be another choice?
I've been using Macs since 1986 (512enhanced) and wouldn't mind dumping Motorola altogether.
Obviously Apple wouldn't mind either...
Who would have guessed in 1984 that the rider on the white horse that might save Apple would be wearing a Big Blue Suit (with a Microsoft Office X t-shirt underneath)?
The truth is, I don't know what I'm talking about, BUT if a G3 "Altivec"-compatible processor, made by IBM, were available at faster speeds than a G4, wouldn't that be another choice?
I've been using Macs since 1986 (512enhanced) and wouldn't mind dumping Motorola altogether.
Obviously Apple wouldn't mind either...
Who would have guessed in 1984 that the rider on the white horse that might save Apple would be wearing a Big Blue Suit (with a Microsoft Office X t-shirt underneath)?
Re: The Whole Package
No flames, just a little counter logic. There are really only two things holding the G5 back from a PowerBook. CPU power usage, and System controller power usage. What will it take to reduce both? They can do it with process shrinks (90 nm due by end of the year, prolly see both chips hitting machines by march) or speed drops. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple implemented both to get a G5 in the PowerBooks by summer 2004. A 1.6Ghz G5 running on a 533Mhz system controller would accept DDR 333 ram without the need to dual channel (the G5 running on a 533 Mhz FSB would only be able to shuffle about 2100 MB/s in either direction, 600 MB/s less than DDR 333 can do). Similarly a 2Ghz G5 running on a 667 controller would push 2700 MB/s in either direction. We already have DDR 333, so that's not new to PowerBooks. I would further expect them to implement an 8-bit hyper transport bus to link the rest of the systems to the controller. Unlike the PowerMac, the PowerBook doesn't have PCI slots to feed, so the 16-bit hyper transport+slots go away. I don't know the power usage statistics on Hypertransport, but I doubt that they are a deal breaker. And it wouldn't surprising that the PowerBook would use a slower FSB than the PowerMac - they traditionally have had a 1 generation behind FSB anyway. Finally, with the PowerBooks not using dual cpus and having fewer system resources to use bandwidth on the motherboard, they can do away with a lot of the power consumers and bandwidth requirements that the PowerMac has. No, they won't be as fast as the desktops, but they will be faster than what we have today.
No flames, just a little counter logic. There are really only two things holding the G5 back from a PowerBook. CPU power usage, and System controller power usage. What will it take to reduce both? They can do it with process shrinks (90 nm due by end of the year, prolly see both chips hitting machines by march) or speed drops. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple implemented both to get a G5 in the PowerBooks by summer 2004. A 1.6Ghz G5 running on a 533Mhz system controller would accept DDR 333 ram without the need to dual channel (the G5 running on a 533 Mhz FSB would only be able to shuffle about 2100 MB/s in either direction, 600 MB/s less than DDR 333 can do). Similarly a 2Ghz G5 running on a 667 controller would push 2700 MB/s in either direction. We already have DDR 333, so that's not new to PowerBooks. I would further expect them to implement an 8-bit hyper transport bus to link the rest of the systems to the controller. Unlike the PowerMac, the PowerBook doesn't have PCI slots to feed, so the 16-bit hyper transport+slots go away. I don't know the power usage statistics on Hypertransport, but I doubt that they are a deal breaker. And it wouldn't surprising that the PowerBook would use a slower FSB than the PowerMac - they traditionally have had a 1 generation behind FSB anyway. Finally, with the PowerBooks not using dual cpus and having fewer system resources to use bandwidth on the motherboard, they can do away with a lot of the power consumers and bandwidth requirements that the PowerMac has. No, they won't be as fast as the desktops, but they will be faster than what we have today.
there are definitely power and cooling issues that seriously need to be addressed. give it a year. my bet is apple's engineers will figure it out by then.
Re: 7200 RPM IBM/Hitachi
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Code101
I ordered the 17"
My only problem with it is the HDD. I can't believe Apple didn't put the IBM/Hitachi 7K60 as an option. After I get my 17" Powerbook, I'm going to have to put the 7K60 drive in it. This drive is the only Laptop drive that's 7200 RPM and 8MB cache. Twice as fast as any of the 5400RPM drives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Interesting.
My problem exactly...
1) If you can put this Hitachi HD in the 17" (it's 60 GB) can you then put the original 17"PB HD in and enclosure and use it with a firewire? Something like this:
http://store.yahoo.com/insidecomput...enclosure1.html
2) Second, Honestly, on these machines is the extra RAM going to make a huge difference or is it more a panacea? If I load up on 1.5 or 2 G's of RAM, is the machine really built to be able to take advantage of this? Will I really be able to feel it?
I know that the G5's will be coming soon, and perhaps it's foolish to purchase PB's now,
Yet, these are Fine Machines at a fine price.
Plus my powerbook G3 (Lombard) While it has been with me for 5 years is being held together now by a rubberband. So I Want.
(I may add that 5 years ago I went through mental anguish about dishing out the cash for this G3PB but it has been one of the best investments)
Finally, my Compliments to this site and tremendous information.
After reading steadily for months, I have become compleatly addicted to the enless cycle of craving and grasping.
What will I do now? (I hear there is a 12 step group for MRA's like myself)
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Code101
I ordered the 17"
My only problem with it is the HDD. I can't believe Apple didn't put the IBM/Hitachi 7K60 as an option. After I get my 17" Powerbook, I'm going to have to put the 7K60 drive in it. This drive is the only Laptop drive that's 7200 RPM and 8MB cache. Twice as fast as any of the 5400RPM drives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Interesting.
My problem exactly...
1) If you can put this Hitachi HD in the 17" (it's 60 GB) can you then put the original 17"PB HD in and enclosure and use it with a firewire? Something like this:
http://store.yahoo.com/insidecomput...enclosure1.html
2) Second, Honestly, on these machines is the extra RAM going to make a huge difference or is it more a panacea? If I load up on 1.5 or 2 G's of RAM, is the machine really built to be able to take advantage of this? Will I really be able to feel it?
I know that the G5's will be coming soon, and perhaps it's foolish to purchase PB's now,
Yet, these are Fine Machines at a fine price.
Plus my powerbook G3 (Lombard) While it has been with me for 5 years is being held together now by a rubberband. So I Want.
(I may add that 5 years ago I went through mental anguish about dishing out the cash for this G3PB but it has been one of the best investments)
Finally, my Compliments to this site and tremendous information.
After reading steadily for months, I have become compleatly addicted to the enless cycle of craving and grasping.
What will I do now? (I hear there is a 12 step group for MRA's like myself)
If Apple wants a chip that is essentially a G4 but not produced by Moto for the 'i' line, and if IBM could (without too much expense) develop the 750VX with Altivec, wouldn't this be a desirable thing?
As you said, it's academic until we see one, but I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss it out of hand. There are some reasonable arguments in favor of it.
Only if it would be incredibly easy. I think as soon as you can get G5's into PowerBooks any justification for a G4 evaporates, however. I highly doubt it, unless it can be shown to be extremely easy.
Let's face it. The 750 is a 6 year old design.
I don't rule it out entirely, but I'm highly skeptical. Has a G3-Altivec ever been mentioned anywhere except speculation?
On the contrary, I would argue that the change to G3 was a much more drastic chip change than g3->g4, and even g4->g5. The performance increase over the previous models of processors was enormous, much more than the other two transitions. Granted, G4 added a new AltiVec unit, and the G5 is 64bit, which are both great improvements, but in terms of pure performance increase, I would say the G3 takes the gold here, as it literally crushed all the previous chips in terms of speed.
The G5 has a complete change in system architecture though. That can't be easy to implement.
I agree that the G3 was truly revolutionary, moreso than the G4. Perhaps it was more than the G5. The G5 seems as revolutionary to us as the G3, but only because Motorola hasn't been keeping up.
Also remember that the G3 came about along with the Jobs Revolution. What glorious days those were.
Re: Re: The Whole Package
But your logic is valid. Hopefully by summer 04 as you say we could see this machine.
True. But is the system controller getting a die change? I know these chips do evolve, but IBM can use the 970 in more than one application. The Apple system controller may not be as widely profitable for them to expend research dollars on.
But your logic is valid. Hopefully by summer 04 as you say we could see this machine.
Re: Re: Re: The Whole Package
IBM doesn't spend research dollars on the Apple system controller, Apple does. It's an Apple design. All IBM does is manufacture it.
IBM doesn't spend research dollars on the Apple system controller, Apple does. It's an Apple design. All IBM does is manufacture it.
Certainly - any bare enclosure for a 2.5" by 9.5mm drive should work.
We've done this with a number of drives from upgraded systems - although we use a case that's 1394+USB2.0 so that it's truly universal.
I don't even think the iMac/eMac will be using a G3+ Altivec for some time. My guess is the next revs. will use the 7457 from Motorola. Right now the 7457 is going up to 1.33Ghz in a Powerbook. There are less heat and power concerns in a desktop and since the 7455 was able to scale as high as 1.42Ghz, I think with the better fab in a desktop situation the 7457 will easily see 1.8 to 2Ghz before it is "scaled out." I would not count Moto out just yet, even if you hate them, as far as the iMac and eMac are concerned.
Next rev. of iMac should be 6 months from now. By then, it should be reasonable to put a low-GHz G5 in there. eMac might stay G4, though.