G5 Specs for WWDC!

[uv23]

I still love this Headless GS concept Design

Agreed. That design is brilliant.

 

[neonart]

...You take that same case and now that seems so empty, add one more optical drive bay, 2 more HD bays, possibly more ram slots, a possible additional graphics card slot, and 2 spankin new processors that will need large fans and you begin to fill up all that emptiness...and it begins to make sense.

If the case stays the same I don't think we'll get more optical bays since that may require some retooling of the main part of the case.
But, I do see 4 drives going into the same space that's now only filled with two. Here's how with only a smaller, higher CFM fan and a different cage to hold the drive. Probably made of thin metal, like the MDD had. I kept all the drive sizes exact, only the fan size was changed, as thinner fans are readily available.

Please excuse my bad Photoshop Skills.

 

[aswitcher]

But as for my original reason for posting...I still love this Headless GS concept Design... In my opinion that would completely solve Apples huge gap between the eMac, iMac, then G5, because you could sell a base unit very cheap without a monitor. People who want to use a crt from home, they can do that. People who want to buy the 15/17/20/23...." monitor, they can do that. And people wanting a small formed / non-professional G5...well there you have it.

I agree, switching would be easier/cheaper with a headless machine for many users who have a 2-4 year old machine with a perfectly good 17" lcd etc

It also gives the machine more life to the monitor that you might get with it which should outlast the machine by a far few years

It would also be a machine that could be a headless server

 

[DaveClarkOne]

Two flames from a G5 are always better than a single pilot light (I have a G4 933)

 

[thatwendigo]

http://us.shuttle.com/specs2.asp?pro_id=486
Shuttle Athlon64 SFF

http://us.shuttle.com/specs2.asp?pro_id=467
Shuttle Pentium 4 / 800MHz bus, supported CPUs include 3.4GHz P4 and 3.0EE

both have 8x AGP and the P4 has GigE, both have firewire... You can get the barebones case, motherboard, power supply, and sometimes a flash reader for under $300.

You can't even find the previous generation of their top of the line cases for less than $300 at a major online shop, so I find it hard to believe that you're going to find either of those there. Incidentally, I appreciate the correction on their existence, since I always want to be speaking from a position of knowledge and I obviously missed those. That being said... So what if they have FireWire or AGP 8X? That doesn't mean anything.

They aren't loud. They use a heat pipe to an aluminum fin heat radiator that has 1- 80mm fan on it. The PSU is usually under 250 watts so the PSU fan isn't loud either. (guess that also rules out arguments of power requirements.. since there are easily tens of thousands of P4 and Athlon SMFF machines out there)

No, it actually doesn't rule out a single thing, since multiple people have hideous power issues with trying to run Athlon XPs and even mid-level graphics cards off of beefier power supplies. AMD isn't asying explicitly what you need for your machine, but these guys have the right idea with their 500w PSU.

And of course... Though it isn't available yet, here is a link to iWill's upcomming Dual Opteron Small Form Factor PC.
http://www.iwill.net/zmax/zmaxdp_1.asp

Good luck fitting a real, professional graphics card in here.

 

[thatwendigo]

That is what i have been saying all along thankyou for agreeing with me

No, I'm not agreeing with you. I'm conditionally stipulating a single point that's not at all in tune with what you're saying and your failure to address my points does not equate to our having achieved consensus.

and by the way the g5 clock for clock is cooler than the g4 so a 1.5GHz

MPC7447A 1.5ghz ~11-12 watts (22 watts max)
970FX 1.6ghz ~15 watts (30 watts max)
970FX 2.0ghz ~24.5 watts (49 watts max)

A little simple math...
1500/11 = 136.36mhz/watt
1600/15 =106.67mhz/watt
2000/24.5 = 81.63mhz/watt

Which one is more efficient?

g5 would not need more than a quiet 80mm fan and a better power brick for the 9600, 7200rpm HD and superdrive also there are acctualls mounting holes for a fan on the cube's logic bard so a cube with a 750MHz bus could be cooled sufficiantly. (there is no rule that says apple cannot use the non pro version of the 9600)

Once again, the Shuttle shows that you could[/i] cram a hot system into a small area, but as we can see from the iWill system, you need a huge heatsink and a fan right against it to even get close to an acceptable heat. A review I was reading of the Athlon 64 systems showed a 2,950+RPM fan speed to keep the low-end Athlon 64 3200XP+ at 58 degrees Celsius with a Radeon 9700 card in the AGP slot. The problem is in doing it quietly, cheaply, and without sacrificing all kinds of performance factors, and I've already shown some time ago that the use of PowerPC makes the computer more expensive to begin with, even if everything else is equal.

 

[Mord]

MPC7447A 1.5ghz ~11-12 watts (22 watts max)
970FX 1.6ghz ~15 watts (30 watts max)
970FX 2.0ghz ~24.5 watts (49 watts max)

A little simple math...
1500/11 = 136.36mhz/watt
1600/15 =106.67mhz/watt
2000/24.5 = 81.63mhz/watt

your figures are biased I wasent talking about the 7447 nor any 74xxA or B chip they are low power g4 That is not even pin compatible with the cube or any powermac. I am talking about the 7455 the hotest most power hungry chip that fits in the cube that according to motoroloa consumes 30w typicly and up to 50w at peak at 1GHz look at the figures

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03C1TR04670871

even the more efficiant 7457 consumes more power than the 970fx at Exactly EQUAL clock speeds it consumes 18w typically and 25w at peak and this is at 1.3Ghz


dont compare laptop chipsz like the 7447A to sever and workstation chips like the 7457 and the 970xx

 

[thatwendigo]

your figures are biased I wasent talking about the 7447 nor any 74xxA or B chip they are low power g4 That is not even pin compatible with the cube or any powermac. I am talking about the 7455 the hotest most power hungry chip that fits in the cube that according to motoroloa consumes 30w typicly and up to 50w at peak at 1GHz look at the figures/

How nice. I was talking about the current crop of G4s and their lower power consumption, because it doesn't matter what was in the cube if Apple's looking at low power systems. All that matters is that there is a G4 that is much lower heat and power draw than the G5, and that it could be put into the current designs with much more minor alterations than the complete reworking necessary for a 970.

Also, as I pointed out to someone else, the 35 watt typical and 50 watt maximum consumption for the 7455 doesn't show what clockrate, voltage, or anything else causes that heat. As such, you can't really say anything meaningful about it.

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03C1TR04670871

Ah, that'll possibly be useful in the future. Thanks.

even the more efficiant 7457 consumes more power than the 970fx at Exactly EQUAL clock speeds it consumes 18w typically and 25w at peak and this is at 1.3Ghz

In case you hadn't noticed, the chart doesn't cross at a 1:1 level of information, and so you don't really know which part Apple is using. It's very much possible that they're using a lower-power chip, but neither of us can prove it either way with the 7455 or 7457.

dont compare laptop chipsz like the 7447A to sever and workstation chips like the 7457 and the 970xx

The 7457 is only a "workstation chip" because it has L3 cache, and if you go back and compare the performance of the 7455 and the 7457, there's not all that much of an improvement from using it. I'm afriad you're about to be in for some culture shock if you think that the traditional division of parts is going to hold much water, since Intel's got a nice, low-power chip that outperforms single G5s. It's called the Centrino, and it's much faster than the 970FX.

 

[maverick13]

How nice. I was talking about the current crop of G4s and their lower power consumption, because it doesn't matter what was in the cube if Apple's looking at low power systems. All that matters is that there is a G4 that is much lower heat and power draw than the G5, and that it could be put into the current designs with much more minor alterations than the complete reworking necessary for a 970.

Also, as I pointed out to someone else, the 35 watt typical and 50 watt maximum consumption for the 7455 doesn't show what clockrate, voltage, or anything else causes that heat. As such, you can't really say anything meaningful about it.



Ah, that'll possibly be useful in the future. Thanks.



In case you hadn't noticed, the chart doesn't cross at a 1:1 level of information, and so you don't really know which part Apple is using. It's very much possible that they're using a lower-power chip, but neither of us can prove it either way with the 7455 or 7457.



The 7457 is only a "workstation chip" because it has L3 cache, and if you go back and compare the performance of the 7455 and the 7457, there's not all that much of an improvement from using it. I'm afriad you're about to be in for some culture shock if you think that the traditional division of parts is going to hold much water, since Intel's got a nice, low-power chip that outperforms single G5s. It's called the Centrino, and it's much faster than the 970FX.

Maybe you can provide some references to your claims? Centrino is no much for a single G5 in fp performance. An last I remember the 970FX was voted best processor NOT centrino.

 

[NNO-Stephen]

Maybe you can provide some references to your claims? Centrino is no much for a single G5 in fp performance. An last I remember the 970FX was voted best processor NOT centrino.

centrino couldn't be voted best processor. the processor is the Pentium M

Centrino refers to the low power, 802.11 Pentium M based laptops with usually fantastic battery life.

 

[maverick13]

centrino couldn't be voted best processor. the processor is the Pentium M

Centrino refers to the low power, 802.11 Pentium M based laptops with usually fantastic battery life.

Yeah i know but everyone seems to refer to the newst Pentium M CPUs as Centrinos anyway.

 

[dongmin]

MPC7447A 1.5ghz ~11-12 watts (22 watts max)
970FX 1.6ghz ~15 watts (30 watts max)
970FX 2.0ghz ~24.5 watts (49 watts max)

Where do you get your figures for the 7447A??? I'm just curious. Is it from a rumor or from extrapolation you did?

Based on this Motorola pdf, the G4 does:

21w typical, 30w max at 1.42 mhz.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by The Professor:

Originally posted by benfu:
So, seeking some cheap entertainment, I went and read the AppleInsider forums, and came across an interesting post. Here's the original link:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?threadid=42288&perpage=40&pagenumber=8

The gist is that in 10.3.4, there's a mysterious new machine key in /System/Library/Extensions/AppleMacRISC4PE/Contents/Info.plist (and, after checking, there actually is): PowerMac8,1, with a value of "SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin". The people at AI reckon it's probably for a new iMac, since consumer machines apparently have even-numbered keys. There's also PowerMac7,1, which was the G5, and PowerMac7,3 which apparently is some sort of update to the G5... interesting.

Glad I'm not the only one slumming over there.

The overall point of that thread is the arrival of new Power Macs at WWDC code named "Trinity". At least originally it was thought that code name was for the machines themselves, but now speculation is that it means the successor chip to the 970. Neo = 970, Neo2 = 970fx and Trinity = 975. The 8,1 machine would be a 970fx based iMac with a presumed and future 9,1 machine being the fabled 3GHz 975 Power Macs.

Edit/Addendum: The 7,3 model Power Macs are thought to be the now abandoned 970fx based Rev Bs, for which a legacy code reference remains.

Trinity could be the processor designation, would make sense.

But I'd really hate to think that MacOSRumors was posting the proper IBM PPC Roadmap all along.

Of course even blind mice can occasionally stumble over the cheese.

 

[Mord]

How nice. I was talking about the current crop of G4s and their lower power consumption, because it doesn't matter what was in the cube if Apple's looking at low power systems. All that matters is that there is a G4 that is much lower heat and power draw than the G5, and that it could be put into the current designs with much more minor alterations than the complete reworking necessary for a 970.

Also, as I pointed out to someone else, the 35 watt typical and 50 watt maximum consumption for the 7455 doesn't show what clockrate, voltage, or anything else causes that heat. As such, you can't really say anything meaningful about it.



Ah, that'll possibly be useful in the future. Thanks.



In case you hadn't noticed, the chart doesn't cross at a 1:1 level of information, and so you don't really know which part Apple is using. It's very much possible that they're using a lower-power chip, but neither of us can prove it either way with the 7455 or 7457.



The 7457 is only a "workstation chip" because it has L3 cache, and if you go back and compare the performance of the 7455 and the 7457, there's not all that much of an improvement from using it. I'm afriad you're about to be in for some culture shock if you think that the traditional division of parts is going to hold much water, since Intel's got a nice, low-power chip that outperforms single G5s. It's called the Centrino, and it's much faster than the 970FX.

stop changing the subject the fact of the matter is that:

the 744x chips have nothing to do with the subject they are not pin compatible and have never been used in cubes, even if they were your figures are incorrect as correctly pointed out by dongmin

the point is that the most power hungery g4 upgrade for the cube described below consumes more power than the 970fx at even 2.0Ghz.

awnser me this dose the 7455 1.2Ghz powerlogix upgrade (now discontinued) work in the cube at around 25-40 watts?

now you do some unbiased reserch and find out for me

I dont want this to turn into (maby it already has?) a who has a bigger willy competion grow up and stop pulling figures out off your @ss.

 

[snooziums]

What version of the G4?

Okay, now I am really confused. What version of the G4 does the current selling Apple PowerMac MDD G4 @ 1.25 GHz with a 167 MHz bus have? It is the 7455, 7457, 7447, or something else?

And if anyone knows, will they please post a link to the specifications of the processor used in the current G4 DMM, please?

Thank you.

 

[Mord]

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03C1TR04670871

they use the 7455 hence the giant aluminium heatsink and 120mm fan noise tunnle

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
But then why would it be called a "PowerMac8,1"? Would 7 --> 8 mean anything significant? What are the current iMacs called?

Forget it. Previous Macs listed http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=products&subpage=newworld.

PowerMac1,1 Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White)
PowerMac1,2 Power Macintosh G4 (PCI-Graphics)
PowerMac2,1 iMac (Slot-Loading CD-ROM)
PowerMac2,2 iMac (Summer 2000)
PowerMac3,1 Power Macintosh G4 (AGP-Graphics)
PowerMac3,2 Power Macintosh G4 (AGP-Graphics)
PowerMac3,3 Power Macintosh G4 (Gigabit Ethernet)
PowerMac3,4 Power Macintosh G4 (Digital Audio)
PowerMac3,5 Power Macintosh G4 (Quick Silver)
            Power Macintosh G4 (Quick Silver 2002)
PowerMac3,6 Power Macintosh G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors)
            Power Macintosh G4 (FW 800)
            Power Macintosh G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors 2003)
PowerMac4,1 iMac (Early 2001)
            iMac (Summer 2001)
PowerMac4,2 iMac (Flat-Panel)
PowerMac4,4 eMac
            eMac (ATI Graphics)
            eMac (1 GHz G4)
PowerMac4,5 iMac (17-inch Flat-Panel)
            iMac (17-inch 1 GHz)
PowerMac5,1 Power Macintosh G4 Cube
            Power Macintosh G4 Cube (Early 2001)
PowerMac6,1 iMac (USB 2.0)
PowerMac6,3 iMac (20-inch Flat-Panel)
PowerMac6,4 eMac (USB 2.0)
PowerMac7,2 Power Macintosh G5

eMacs and iMacs are also called "PowerMac". And judging by that list, it does sound like 7,3 would be the new Power Mac, and 8,1 would be a whole new machine - iMac G5.

The OS update does look like more promissing info on new machines than the PPC975 Spec speculation that was posted at the start of this thread.

 

[thatwendigo]

Where do you get your figures for the 7447A??? I'm just curious. Is it from a rumor or from extrapolation you did?

I recall reading it in a review of the chip, actually, though it could have been that it was a prerelease version of the chip and things changed afterwards. I'm slogging through the power consumption figures for the 7447A in that PDF, and I'm seeing if I can pull a workable number from the formula for dynamic frequency switching.

If I'm doing my math right, the wattage with DFS enabled is 12.5 watts, and that's a lot closer to the 11 watts that I've been tossing around. Just so any interested parties can check, the formula needs these variable:

f = 1.42
fDFS = 0.71
P = 21
PDFS = 4

If you feed that through, you come up with 12.5 typical and 25 maximum, which is pretty much what I was claiming before. The 970FX 2.0ghz is 24.5 typical, and 49 maximum, meaning that its usual load is the same as the 7447A's maximum, and that lower-clocked 970FX chips might or might not even remotely parallel the heat.

stop changing the subject the fact of the matter is that:

I'm not the one changing the subject, and the end of your post makes it clear where this discussion is going. My only point is that there is a G4 available that far outstrips the past G4 incarnations, and that even it would suffer some adverse conditions from being put into a fanless enclosure. If you add on other components, it starts to get noiser as you add fans. Also, my figures are not clearly wrong, because the PDF does not take into account the features of the chip in the table, instead leaving the math to be done if a manufacturer enables them. Also, there is no indication what chip is the one that consumes more power, and so you can't say anything meaningful about it.

That's it.

Goodnight.

 

[SyndicateX]

stop changing the subject the fact of the matter is that:

the 744x chips have nothing to do with the subject they are not pin compatible and have never been used in cubes, even if they were your figures are incorrect as correctly pointed out by dongmin

Uhm, looking at the subject, I see "G5 Specs for WWDC!" not frikkin "The Cubes are Coming, The Cubes are Coming!!!"

This isnt directed at you, Im just tired of d*mn cube talk from everybody about something that isnt even expected to be released.

I dont care what chips were in a cube, I dont care what their wattage is or how much heat they theoretically *COULD* handle. The simple fact is there is no evidence whatsoever, no rumors, nothing that suggests a G5 cube is around the corner. So lets all whip out our johnsons and find out whos the bigger man, because arguing about a purely theoretical box based on previous hardware/specs and trying to prove HA-I-grabbed-more-numbers-off-of-websites-so-im-right-and-your-wrong seems stupid because no 1 side is ever going to win.

You can throw countless facts and numbers out there, but until it is actually released the counter-side will always have a point. Sorry, but this is never going to end and it already seems to be escalating to the point of feirce arguments. There shouldnt be so much anger about a dead, cute little cube that worked with a 500mhz processor, but probably wont work for a 64bit flame thrower.

 

[DaveClarkOne]

Uhm, looking at the subject, I see "G5 Specs for WWDC!" not frikkin "The Cubes are Coming, The Cubes are Coming!!!"



Do you think the cubes will be shiny white or aluminum?

 

[Sun Baked]

Do you think the cubes will be shiny white or aluminum?

What's wrong with a powdercoated aluminum cube?

The PowerMac 7.3 is probably an upgraded machine on the current chipset.

With the PowerMac 8.1 could be a new chipset... iMac, or PowerMac with the DDR2, PCI-e, next PPC9xx, etc.

 

[SyndicateX]

Do you think the cubes will be shiny white or aluminum?

Hehe......thats it...its on like donkey kong!!!!!

 

[Mord]

I'm not the one changing the subject, and the end of your post makes it clear where this discussion is going. My only point is that there is a G4 available that far outstrips the past G4 incarnations, and that even it would suffer some adverse conditions from being put into a fanless enclosure. If you add on other components, it starts to get noiser as you add fans. Also, my figures are not clearly wrong, because the PDF does not take into account the features of the chip in the table, instead leaving the math to be done if a manufacturer enables them. Also, there is no indication what chip is the one that consumes more power, and so you can't say anything meaningful about it.

That's it.

Goodnight.

you did not awnser my question

I dont care about the 7447 you broght it up for no reason but in a vein attempt to prove your invalid points

and i am in no way saying you could make a fanless g5 cube with current chips unless you underclock it to 1GHz I never have claimed for a fannless system.

we are looking at the 7455 the hotest chip that ran in the cube with an 80mm quiet fan and that ran at 1.2GHz there is still one in production by sonnet.

now if you take yourself the link i gave you to motorolas site and look at the 7455 power consumption you will see what i mean

you have obviosly never seen the innerds of the cube in detail apple desighned the desighn to last and accomadate faster new prosessors there is even a fan bracket at the base and a connector on the dc-dc board the only reason you cant currently put a dual in it is because of the weak dc dc board which can now be inproved apon

theres probably not any point in me posting this because you seemingly just ignore everything i post and say how cool the 7447 is comared to the 970fx

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Just kill off the G4 in the desk top line before G4 kills Apple computer. G4 is slow garbage that cant compete with anything. we all know this so why the endless argument over the worst performing cpu being made? G4 may be ok for a lap or tablet device but for a real machine that sits on your desk it simply sucks. Apple is dragging their arses getting rid of this junk and are paying the price with dismal sales with a dismal chip. Apple is getting what it deserves taking so long to oust the dog.

 

[blue&whiteman]

Just kill off the G4 in the desk top line before G4 kills Apple computer. G4 is slow garbage that cant compete with anything. we all know this so why the endless argument over the worst performing cpu being made? G4 may be ok for a lap or tablet device but for a real machine that sits on your desk it simply sucks. Apple is dragging their arses getting rid of this junk and are paying the price with dismal sales with a dismal chip. Apple is getting what it deserves taking so long to oust the dog.

go bash apple at the many anti-mac pc forums. and thanks for insulting the cpu so many of us use and are quite happy with.